How do I turn the table on atheists?

[tonyrey]

You mean, if the universe were truly irrational? Then we could say that the universe is irrational, truly.

If it exists for no reason or purpose how can the universe be rational?

Truth is also not conditional, as might accidentally be inferred from your comment!

Truth is intangible - which is an anomaly in an entirely material universe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It seems like a lot of people take their anecdotal experiences as have some type of universal application.

I’ve not stated or implied that my comments have universal applicability. I though that the first couple of words in my comment, “To me”, were sufficient to show that I’m expressing my view. My experiences do have an influence on my view.

You associate with people who think somewhat like you do - so, this is taken for a type of endorsement of these thoughts.

I’m not really sure what inspired that statement. When I was talking about my friends I mentioned things about their thoughts that are different than mine; the phrase “objective morality” to one was meaningless as to an esoteric phrase. To the other the phrase invoked thoughts of goal driven behaviour. Neither of which is descriptive of the meaning the phrase has to me. I enjoy more when I have a discussion with those in which I can find some level of disagreement. I find the conversations more interesting.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When the implementation of their rulers’ philosophy hits them where it hurts they soon make it their first priority. They either protest, proceed to depart (if they can) or produce weapons - which are not solely for self-defence!

Changes to ones environment (or anticipated changes to ones environment) can impact behavior and priorities.

Though unknown forthcoming changes are not relevant to the behaviours that I’m observing now. Some part of this has overlap on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In times past prior to life changes such as marriage, divorces, layoffs and the arrival of offspring allocating idle thoughts to some what philosophical matters was something that a few of them found entertaining. In present times though I can only get a few expressions on a topic. Understandably they are more concerned with matters of providing for themselves and family than with discussion matters or morality and ethics.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90

Not quite.

You just can not leave it there - so, let’s look beneath the surface. There is a fundamental reason why we do not like having our things taken - and that is because ownership of private property is a component of the Natural Law. None of us woke up one day and said, “Wouldn’t it be nice if I owned something?” Infants and toddlers world-wide demonstrate such a desire very early on in their lives.

Protecting our desire for private property comes in with objective morality. It really is wrong - world-wide to steal and to murder and to deprive others of what we know belongs to them (after all, they had it and we took it!)

While society can establish norms that violate various parts of objective morality - ancient Sparta is a good example in their training of soldiers - most societies try to build upon what many would consider stable values.

As I appreciate the arguments, atheists basically say, “There is no God, Have a nice day.” I can understand the argument that if behaviors in this life has consequences - I will deny the consequences by denying the existence of the Creator. And, those stories of little men in red tights with a tail and horns are just meant to scare people… and the proof there is no one has come back, a bit singed and with puncture marks from a pitchfork and announced that there is a Hell. Now, I realize I may have glossed over some of the finer parts of the philosophical arts of denial - but, that is basically it.

So, while the average person (and that would be someone without an agenda) can come to a knowledge of the existence of God - we can not know Him as a Loving God Who sent His Son to die for our sins. This takes the revelation of God upon the individual soul.

God bless

Hello!

This is not an argument for the real existence of objective morality, we have simply found out that neither of us likes having our things taken. It falls under the ‘wouldn’t it be good if there was objective morality, and further, if this meant that bad things would never happen’ category

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Sure, in the words of J.L. Mackie:

“Unfortunately this argument is unsound. Although in a finite ordered series of causes the intermediate (or the earliest intermediate) is caused by the first item, this would not be so if there were an infinite series. In an infinite series, every item is caused by an earlier item. The way in which the first item is ‘removed’ if we go from a finite to an infinite series does not entail the removal of the later items. In fact, Aquinas (both here and in the first way) has simply begged the question against an infinite regress of causes.” Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. p., 90

The first way says:

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover

This caricature of Aquinas’ First Way is based upon deficient modern philosophy that takes as its starting point the rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics. It is the same deficiency in all of Mackie’s (and many others) arguments on Aquinas’ Five Ways but I will point out only the First Way. It is not a series of mechanistic causes to one first cause but a principle cause from which potentiality moves to actuality by a principle (unmoved mover who has no potentiality but pure actuality) that upholds * here and now* that which is moved from potentiality to act.

A mover moves A to B to C is the mechanistic view of the first way. Another view is Aaron begetting Bill who begets Carl, while Aaron can die and have no principle effect on Bill begetting Carl, Aaron is the first in a series of causes. This is accidental causation and is not the essential causation that Aquinas speaks of. The more appropriate example, essential causation, is based on Aquinas’ use of Aristotle’s “act and potentiality”, a log being moved by a stick with a rock as a fulcrum with a hand moving the stick. In this, the log moves here and now at the same time as the movement of the stick being moved by the hand. Even to infinity, something must give the first principle causing power.

This principle must reduce potentiality to act, not by an infinite series of causes, but by not being reducible to potentiality, being pure act, or we fail to find the principle that is not moved to act by anything else. The hand moving the stick is moving here and now by tendons moving muscles, moved here and now by cells, moved here and now by neurons, and so forth to something which here and now actualizes potentialities. Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover.

One cannot take Aquinas’ thought without taking his metaphysics along with it, one just makes an incoherent argument belying ones ignorance of Aristotle and his metaphysics, which hold up better than modern views based on materialistic and mechanistic deficiencies inherent in modern philosophical notions. Possible to Aquinas is not what is meant in the modern context of what can be thought of as “possible” thus relying on possibility in epistemology as to the potentiality of running at the speed of light would be nonsensical to him. This unfortunately shows a lack of understanding of what Aquinas and Aristotle offered and is the reason for the deficient view of the First Way in the work of Mackie, and any possible worlds argument must begin at what we know here and now inherently even if taken for a wild ride by the imagination, notions involving such things as running at the speed of light.

“Possible worlds” is another philosophical thread, but for this post the application of modern philosophy that rejects out of hand and without perspicacity Aquinas and Aristotelian metaphysics is but the root of how one can turn the table on atheists, knowing the arguments and inherent contradictions better than they do.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

“Denying the denial”, eh? I learned it a little differently - and the spelling was different, too:
“DEKIAL” seems to capture the flavor of what is going on, I think.
**
D on’t**
E ven
K now
I
A m
L ying

In reality, “…if no one believed in God…” we would have people simply denying what they see before their very eyes - everywhere there are patterns. If one is considering the lily flower - according to Wiki, there are “…110 species in the lily family (Liliaceae)” and that means that 110 distinct groupings can be made based upon identifiable characteristics of a particular flower - and this is a patten. And, while one species in not the same as another, we can distinguish the Lilaceae from any other flower out there - again, a function of the flower demonstrating an objective pattern and we basing a classification decision on this knowledge. This is just one example of the existence of patterns that most of mankind acknowledges - and such continuation in predictable ways - eliminates the argument supporting chaos and disorder.

God bless

True enough. Mostly, we do it because it’s fun. However, the fact remains. If nobody believed in God, we wouldn’t be sitting around talking about our unbelief. Indeed, “atheism” would cease to exist, since it only can exist as a proper category in relation to something other than an unbelief in God.

Mostly, I only meant to slap down this canard that atheists are somehow “searching,” or somehow in denial about their denial. I would call it arrogant and presumptuous to say such a thing, if I didn’t suspect that was the whole point in the first place.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Earnest Bunbury,

It was a pleasure reading your post!

God bless

This caricature of Aquinas’ First Way is based upon deficient modern philosophy that takes as its starting point the rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics. It is the same deficiency in all of Mackie’s (and many others) arguments on Aquinas’ Five Ways but I will point out only the First Way. It is not a series of mechanistic causes to one first cause but a principle cause from which potentiality moves to actuality by a principle (unmoved mover who has no potentiality but pure actuality) that upholds * here and now* that which is moved from potentiality to act.

A mover moves A to B to C is the mechanistic view of the first way. Another view is Aaron begetting Bill who begets Carl, while Aaron can die and have no principle effect on Bill begetting Carl, Aaron is the first in a series of causes. This is accidental causation and is not the essential causation that Aquinas speaks of. The more appropriate example, essential causation, is based on Aquinas’ use of Aristotle’s “act and potentiality”, a log being moved by a stick with a rock as a fulcrum with a hand moving the stick. In this, the log moves here and now at the same time as the movement of the stick being moved by the hand. Even to infinity, something must give the first principle causing power.

This principle must reduce potentiality to act, not by an infinite series of causes, but by not being reducible to potentiality, being pure act, or we fail to find the principle that is not moved to act by anything else. The hand moving the stick is moving here and now by tendons moving muscles, moved here and now by cells, moved here and now by neurons, and so forth to something which here and now actualizes potentialities. Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover.

One cannot take Aquinas’ thought without taking his metaphysics along with it, one just makes an incoherent argument belying ones ignorance of Aristotle and his metaphysics, which hold up better than modern views based on materialistic and mechanistic deficiencies inherent in modern philosophical notions. Possible to Aquinas is not what is meant in the modern context of what can be thought of as “possible” thus relying on possibility in epistemology as to the potentiality of running at the speed of light would be nonsensical to him. This unfortunately shows a lack of understanding of what Aquinas and Aristotle offered and is the reason for the deficient view of the First Way in the work of Mackie, and any possible worlds argument must begin at what we know here and now inherently even if taken for a wild ride by the imagination, notions involving such things as running at the speed of light.

“Possible worlds” is another philosophical thread, but for this post the application of modern philosophy that rejects out of hand and without perspicacity Aquinas and Aristotelian metaphysics is but the root of how one can turn the table on atheists, knowing the arguments and inherent contradictions better than they do.

 

[Defender1]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

That is true my cousin (by marriage ) was an atheist up till a year ago , and my uncle did not go to church until the death of my Grandfather a year ago . he goes every Sunday and to bible study . The Atheist (who is now a Christian ) and my uncle happen to go to the same church now (of course they are not Catholic but will get there some day )

 

[cerad2]

Hi, Bohm Bawerk,

Maybe not here - but, rest assured, they will be turned.

Keep whistling, it’s getting dark out there.

God bless

64 posts before the first threat emerges. Might be a new record! Sure glad the ban on atheism oriented threads has been lifted.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

Very true. At the end of the day, the compilation of arguments Dawkins sells are a heap of third rate regurgitated classics, long disproved, and easily disprovable. But the advertising is fantastic… for many, it’s not love that wins their souls - it’s marketing. And new atheism has enough cash behind it to put Billy Graham to shame

 

[Mystic_Banana]

64 posts before the first threat emerges. Might be a new record! Sure glad the ban on atheism oriented threads has been lifted.

I can’t help but think it’s a bit silly having a ban on atheism on a site dedicated to religious apologism. It’s almost as silly as having a ban on atheist sites on talking about religion!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I can’t help but think it’s a bit silly having a ban on atheism on a site dedicated to religious apologism.

I thought it was silly, but there have been a few threads that have degenerated into “yelling matches.” I don’t see them often, but when I do I think I can sympathize for what brought the ban about to begin with. I guess if/when it happens again there is already a precedent in place for how it can be dealt with. Though from the few times I’ve seen the moderators have to step in I have to say they’ve been merciful with not exercising their ability to ban users.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I thought it was silly, but there have been a few threads that have degenerated into “yelling matches.” I don’t see them often, but when I do I think I can sympathize for what brought the ban about to begin with. I guess if/when it happens again there is already a precedent in place for how it can be dealt with. Though from the few times I’ve seen the moderators have to step in I have to say they’ve been merciful with not exercising their ability to ban users.

I think it’s of the upmost importance that communication channels are maintained! With opposing parties, there will inevitably be conflict, and not always conducted in a civilized fashion. Nonetheless, these are key issues - that they generate such passion should indicate how important it is that they are to be discussed, rather than that they should be avoided as troublesome

 

[Sair]

Questions I usually ask Atheist tend to be in the realm of morality. Atheist main objection to God is the problem of evil and why God did certain things in the Bible. Questions you can ask them is how do they know what is evil when evil is none existent yet they affirm it exist but attempt to heed moral relavitism to get out of the topic so to do that they have to appeal to Christian ethics of objective morality. The main thing is much of Atheism lies within moral relavitism if you can show they can not live it out that they must appeal to objective morals you have them trapped and they will be forced to admit objective morality exist do to a moral law giver. Hope that helps.

Actually, what I think you’ll find is that many atheists will attack the inherent contradiction in the attempt to identify any supposedly objective morality with religious morality - religions have been known to demand things that most humans would, by virtue of being human and therefore empathetic, subjective beings, find abhorrent, like sacrificing offspring to gods and wholesale slaughter of those who, for some reason, offend one’s particular god. If religious believers want to push an objective morality, they must do it in opposition to the vast majority of human subjective inclination.

 

[tonyrey]

Changes to ones environment (or anticipated changes to ones environment) can impact behavior and priorities.

Though unknown forthcoming changes are not relevant to the behaviours that I’m observing now. Some part of this has overlap on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In times past prior to life changes such as marriage, divorces, layoffs and the arrival of offspring allocating idle thoughts to some what philosophical matters was something that a few of them found entertaining. In present times though I can only get a few expressions on a topic. Understandably they are more concerned with matters of providing for themselves and family than with discussion matters or morality and ethics.

That is the result of living in a secular society. The existence of churches at least provided a basis for discussion about the truth or falsity of religious belief. Now that many have been converted into flats there is little to remind people of metaphysical or moral issues.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That is the result of living in a secular society. The existence of churches at least provided a basis for discussion about the truth or falsity of religious belief. Now that many have been converted into flats there is little to remind people of metaphysical or moral issues.

I’d say the USA is selectively secular and selectively religious. There’s no shortage of churches and mega-churches here. That’s not to say the churches are united though. Some believe they just serve their God differently than other religions, some believe they worship their God correctly and the others are incorrect. Also there are buildings of worship for non-Christian religions present too.

This gives me an idea for a simple phone app. I think I’ll make an augmented reality app for finding holy buildings (churches, synagogs, temples… ).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, DefendingFaith,

I agree with most of what you have said - the key is moral relativism. If one just continues in a consistent manner to identify objective morality then there is a chance. Ultimately, it all depends on God’s Grace not the strength (or weakness) of any one person’s argument.

Where I do not agree is with the conclusion, “…you have them trapped and they will be forced to admit…” This really is not true… when one is confronting a hardened heart it is the same as expecting movement from a brick wall. They simply responding by redoubling their efforts at denying the Grace of God. And, the truly tragic part is that it is very likely that they will succeed. Ah, but for all eternity they will be sharing their ‘success’ with the Devil… and, by then it will be too late to change their minds.

I read one post where actually identifying consequences was seen as a threat. From early days, most of us have heard parents, authority figures and others speak about consequences. “Don’t play with matches”, “Study hard to pass this exam”, “Come to a full stop at Stop Signs”. Fortunately for most, only few respond with, “Hey, you’re threatening me!” Of course, real consequences like severe burns, house fires, academic failures, and fatal car accidents are worth considering. Some are able to heed warnings and others can serve as the bad example on what happens with disasters.

So, while the genuine perils of moral relativism should be stressed… and Blessed John Paul II ( vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html ) and Pope Benedict XVI has been very concerned about this problem. (catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=53968. Hopefully, these links will be helpful.

My assessment is not to lose heart, do what you can and when neccessary just shake the dust from your shoes (Matt 10:14) and move on. There really is a day of reckoning that we all must address.

God bless

Questions I usually ask Atheist tend to be in the realm of morality. Atheist main objection to God is the problem of evil and why God did certain things in the Bible. Questions you can ask them is how do they know what is evil when evil is none existent yet they affirm it exist but attempt to heed moral relavitism to get out of the topic so to do that they have to appeal to Christian ethics of objective morality. The main thing is much of Atheism lies within moral relavitism if you can show they can not live it out that they must appeal to objective morals you have them trapped and they will be forced to admit objective morality exist do to a moral law giver. Hope that helps.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

Totally off topic … … but, in yesterday’s news there was an item about malware hidden in apps, primarily in Andriod devices. Shades of MS’s vulnerability to hacking now expanding. Apparently this malware can be hidden by others on legitimate sites - and the money is stolen by calls to premimum sites (?) being made without the user’s knowledge until the monthly statement comes in!

So, if you make a app - please protect it.

God bless

I’d say the USA is selectively secular and selectively religious. There’s no shortage of churches and mega-churches here. That’s not to say the churches are united though. Some believe they just serve their God differently than other religions, some believe they worship their God correctly and the others are incorrect. Also there are buildings of worship for non-Christian religions present too.

This gives me an idea for a simple phone app. I think I’ll make an augmented reality app for finding holy buildings (churches, synagogs, temples… ).

 

[NonServiam]

Questions I usually ask Atheist tend to be in the realm of morality. Atheist main objection to God is the problem of evil and why God did certain things in the Bible.

This is the “main objection to God” for people who are atheists for stupid reasons, yes.

You see, it’s very possible to be an atheist for stupid reasons, like, “There’s so much evil in the world!!” or “God is a meanie in the BIble! Waaah!!” but it’s completely obvious that none of these reasons – even if true – can’t tell us anything about whether or not a god exists. They speak to the character of God, perhaps, but they tell us nothing about whether or not this god exists.

For example, it could be that God exists but acts in ways that we would find abhorent or permits terrible things to happen for some “higher reason” inscrutible to mortals. In short, the “god’s a meanie” argument is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

Your side has this going for it: there are plenty of people who are atheists for stupid reasons, and, as such, they can be won back to your side by equally stupid arguments like, “Oh, there has to be a lawgiver in order for you to feel that an action is abhorent.”

The problem that your side runs into is that there are also plenty of atheists out there who understand logical argumentation and who understand that the real “main objection” to the existence of gods – all gods, not just the god you worship – is that there’s no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any gods and that the default position on a claim of a being’s existence in the face of no evidence for it, is to not accept it.

Questions you can ask them is how do they know what is evil when evil is none existent yet they affirm it exist but attempt to heed moral relavitism to get out of the topic so to do that they have to appeal to Christian ethics of objective morality.

Here’s an example of a really silly argument that even a child should be able to pick holes in.

First, someone can use “evil” not to mean “objectively evil” but merely “something I find abhorent,” which is a statement of individual reaction that doesn’t require a “lawgiver,” any more than I require a “lawgiver” to find the idea of eating garbage to be an unpleasant thought.

Second, even if the person accepts the idea of an “objective morality,” that in no way implies that it must be “Christian ethics.” One can hold to objective morality that is grounded in a different religion entirely or in no religion – one can believe that certain actions are “inherently” and “objectively” virtuous without thinking that a “lawgiver” had to make it so.

 

[Perplexity]

Earnest Bunbury:

The objection I proposed to Aquinas’ first way was that it begged the question: it assumes that the series in question needs a first cause in order to demonstrate that it has one. That is, it assumes the series is finite in order to show that it isn’t infinite.

In response to this objection, I can only discern two replies in your post.

You claim that I and others have misunderstood Aquinas’ argument, making a caricature of it.

You say we misunderstand it because (i) we’re relying on “modern philosophy” and (ii) we think Aquinas is speaking about mechanistic causation when really, he’s talking about essential causation.

So, it’s to these points that I’ll reply to.

To (i), I must say that I’m not at all confident in your familiarity with contemporary philosophy. The reason I say this is because contemporary philosophers (of the relevant fields at least) take Thomism and Aristotelianism into account.

Cf. John Haldane’s section A Thomist Metaphysics, in Gale, Richard M. The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2002.

Loux, Michael J. Metaphysics: a Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2006. (which has been accused of being way too favoritive of Aristotelianism)

Or even Pruss, Alexander R. The Principle of Sufficient Reason: a Reassessment. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. Who is a Roman Catholic philosopher, and who frequently defends points from Thomas and Aristotle’s metaphysics. etc. etc.

So, it’s certainly not the case that contemporary philosophers (of the relevant fields) are ignorant of Thomism and Aristotelianism. Therefore, if they are misrepresenting these philosophies, it’d be shocking, to me at least.

Unless you just mean that if you disagree with Thomism (etc.) then you’re wrong, in which case your argument wouldn’t be interesting until further supported.

To (ii):

As Fergus Kerr notes in After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism, the five ways have many different powerful and persuasive interpretations. He notes, frequently, that the neo-thomist’s have introduced new readings of the arguments utilizing metaphysical principles. This is contrasted by the French interpretation heralded by theologians like the Jesuits Marcel Chossat (1862–1926) and Henri de Lubac (1896-1991). The prestigious Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique describes this position clearly:

“As for the argument of the prime mover such as Saint Thomas understood it, it is a long time since it has been taught, even in the Thomist camp. . . If the argument is taken in the sense in which Saint Thomas borrowed it historically from the Arabs, it is not conclusive, and the criticism offered by Scotus is decisive . . . The Neo-Thomists, by adverting to metaphysical considerations . . . actually abandon the physical argument of the prime mover, just as do all the other members of the Thomistic school . . . [The argument has only] survived in the ranks of Protestant scholasticism, among certain philosophers and well-intentioned apologists’.” - Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. 4 (Paris: Letouzet et Ané, 1939): col. 932–5. As cited by Fergus Kerr, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism. Malden (Ma.): Blackwell, 2008. p. 53.

So, I don’t think it’s at all clear that Aquinas was talking about essential causation. But, no matter. You can just make a new argument specifying the causation as essential. Does this rebut my objection? No.

Why? Because you’re still begging the question: assuming the series is such that it requires a first cause in order to demonstrate that it has a first cause.

You make the claim that the series requires a first cause (or unmoved mover) several times:

Even to infinity, something must give the first principle causing power.

This principle must reduce potentiality to act, not by an infinite series of causes, but by not being reducible to potentiality, being pure act

Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover.

And why does this series require an unmoved mover?

Because. If it didn’t, then

we fail to find the principle that is not moved to act by anything else.

That’s it. That’s the only reason you provided for thinking the series requires an unmoved mover. But this is precisely what I’m objecting to. So you’ve merely repeated the argument I’m objecting to, in response to my objection. Why can’t the series regress infinitely? Because, then, it wouldn’t have an unmoved mover! Of course it wouldn’t.

As Sobel says:

“[T]he First Way is vulnerable to the apparent possibility of self-moving things that have always been in motion, for Aquinas’s premise that “whatever is moved is moved by another” (ST I q2,a3 p. 22), is presumably meant to be a statement of strict metaphysical necessity. But it seems that at least things in perpetual motion could be self-movers. It seems, in Aquinas’s Aristotelian terms, that they could be at every moment things actually in motion and potentially in motion in the immediate future, their changing potentialities being continuously actualized by the action of their immediately antecedent actualities. This conception of a self-moving perpetual mover does not involve its being “in the same respect and in the same way…both mover and moved” (ST I q2,a3, p. 22).” - Sobel, Jordan Howard. Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge Univ., 2009. p. 196.

Picture the series as whole, perpetually moving. No contradiction. (This isn’t to mention that I think the concept of Pure Actuality efficiently causing anything is a contradiction in terms, and yes I’m aware of the distinction between passive and active potentiality).