List of common fallacies of Atheists

[tonyrey]

A more rational approach would be to attempt to explain dispassionately why scientism and physicalism are false…
Indeed, and as you are the one claiming their falsehood, please proceed!

Scientism is the hypothesis that science can in principle explain everything.
This is clearly false because how can science explain itself?

Physicalism is the hypothesis that everything is produced by atomic particles which cannot think. Since a hypothesis implies the existence of thought physicalism is false because thought cannot be produced by that which cannot think.

 

[wanstronian]

Scientism is the hypothesis that science can in principle explain everything.
This is clearly false because how can science explain itself?

Physicalism is the hypothesis that everything is produced by atomic particles which cannot think. Since a hypothesis implies the existence of thought physicalism is false because thought cannot be produced by that which cannot think.

Do you believe your proofs are complete and rationally thought out?

Regarding scientism (and yours is only one valid interpretation of the word, but we’ll stick with it), I’m not sure I understand your contention that science can’t explain itself. Surely we can use scientific methodologies and language to describe science? Or are you implying that science cannot provide its own baseline for description? If the latter, I suggest that this is flawed logic - it’s like saying a dictionary cannot have an entry for ‘Dictionary.’

On the subject of physicalism, your argument is the same as you have presented several times before, in other threads - that rationality cannot come from particles and processes that are not rational. My analogy is that particles can’t drive a car, but human beings, which consist entirely of particles, can. The human body is more than just the sum of its parts. There’s no reason to suppose that the physical and electro-chemical composition of the brain, vastly complex as it is, cannot produce consciousness and all its related attributes, just because we can’t imagine how it happens. The fact is that there is no evidence either way, but a lack of evidence is not, nor has it ever been, a reason to just stick a flag in the ground and say, “it can’t happen without God.”

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You do not regard them as knowledge because your definition of knowledge is based on your physicalism. Do you know scientifically that you - as a **person **not as a body - exist?
The finest experiences in life - like love - are totally beyond the scope of scientific analysis… It’s ironic that you quote Plato’s definition of knowledge as if he were a materialist!

What does what he believes have to do with it, i did say to you lets agree on what we mean by knowledge. If you don’t agree with my definition then please by all means present me with one of your own.

 

[tonyrey]

Regarding scientism (and yours is only one valid interpretation of the word, but we’ll stick with it), I’m not sure I understand your contention that science can’t explain itself. Surely we can use scientific methodologies and language to describe science?

A description is not an explanation. Nor can scientific methodologies and language justify themselves. The issue is whether science can explain everything - including itself. It certainly cannot explain why the physical universe is orderly and intelligible nor how it originated. To believe that science can explain itself is to worship science because it implies that it is the sole explanation of reality. It amounts to saying that particles ultimately explain themselves and are self-sufficent…

My analogy is that particles can’t drive a car, but human beings, which consist entirely of particles, can.

That in itself is a physicalist assumption! It is begging the question to regard human beings as composed entirely (i.e. solely) of particles.

The human body is more than just the sum of its parts.

There you have another problem. How has the body become more than the sum of its parts? How have inanimate, purposeless molecules become living, purposeful organisms? The physicalist assumes that the transition itself was entirely physical and purposeless - again without a jot of evidence. The only “reason” he can give is that there was no other **observable **cause - which is based on yet another physicalist assumption: that **all **causes are in principle observable and physical!

There’s no reason to suppose that the physical and electro-chemical composition of the brain, vastly complex as it is, cannot produce consciousness and all its related attributes, just because we can’t imagine how it happens.

We are not concerned with **imagination **but with facts. There is not one jot of evidence that particles can produce consciousness and rationality. So there is no reason to suppose they can.

The fact is that there is no evidence either way, but a lack of evidence is not, nor has it ever been, a reason to just stick a flag in the ground and say, “it can’t happen without God.”

You argue that there is no evidence that God exists but at least we have **direct evidence **that consciousness and rationality exist. It is far more intelligible that they originate in a conscious, rational Being than in non-conscious, irrational particles - even without considering free will.

 

[tonyrey]

What does what he believes have to do with it, i did say to you lets agree on what we mean by knowledge. If you don’t agree with my definition then please by all means present me with one of your own.

I accept Plato’s definition without hesitation. What about my other points?

1. Do you know scientifically that you - as a **person **not as a body - exist?
2. The finest experiences in life - like love - are totally beyond the scope of scientific analysis…

 

[liquidpele]

I accept Plato’s definition without hesitation. What about my other points?

1. Do you know scientifically that you - as a **person **not as a body - exist?
2. The finest experiences in life - like love - are totally beyond the scope of scientific analysis…

On point number 2… I wouldn’t be so quick to claim that. A quick google search would show you many many studies on attraction, nurturing, and other aspects of what we call love. Not that it proves love is one thing or another, but it’s certainly not out of the realm of science altogether.

 

[tonyrey]

On point number 2… I wouldn’t be so quick to claim that. A quick google search would show you many many studies on attraction, nurturing, and other aspects of what we call love. Not that it proves love is one thing or another, but it’s certainly not out of the realm of science altogether.

I agree that some aspects of love, e.g. sexual, maternal and paternal, have scientific explanations but the highest form of love is non-scientific because it entails free will and self-sacrifice. This is where a person cannot be written off as just a biological organism. We exist at a higher level than apes and monkeys although even they cannot be explained mechanistically. Great neuroscientists like Sir Charles Sherrington have recognized the gulf between mind and matter in less advanced creatures than ourselves.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I accept Plato’s definition without hesitation. What about my other points?

1. Do you know scientifically that you - as a **person **not as a body - exist?
2. The finest experiences in life - like love - are totally beyond the scope of scientific analysis…

I think therefore i am

Love is not knowledge, and like i said to the human race whether you love someone is pretty irrelevant. You have yet to show ma and knowledge to match up to minuscule amount of scientific knowledge i posted.

I would like to see what all these other great knowledge giving pursuits have done for mankind. Lets say i grant you that love music etc are knowledge, would we not have them if is wasn’t for philosophy, religion etc? Of course we would. However we would not have any of the things i posted without science.

 

[wanstronian]

A description is not an explanation. Nor can scientific methodologies and language justify themselves. The issue is whether science can explain everything - including itself. It certainly cannot explain why the physical universe is orderly and intelligible nor how it originated. To believe that science can explain itself is to worship science because it implies that it is the sole explanation of reality. It amounts to saying that particles ultimately explain themselves and are self-sufficent.

I think your logic here is garbled, or you’re not explaining yourself clearly (or I plain just don’t understand what you’re getting at). What do you mean by, “Science can’t explain itself?” Explain in what context?

That in itself is a physicalist assumption! It is begging the question to regard human beings as composed entirely (i.e. solely) of particles.

Yes, and as far as we can show, that’s exactly right.

There you have another problem. How has the body become more than the sum of its parts?

Natural selection is the current, and evidentially justified, theory.

How have inanimate, purposeless molecules become living, purposeful organisms? The physicalist assumes that the transition itself was entirely physical and purposeless - again without a jot of evidence.

There are literally tons of evidence for evolution via natural selection. Regarding consciousness, there is no literal evidence in any direction, but there is circumstantial evidence that consciousness resides entirely in the brain. For example, states of consciousness, both temporary and permanent, can be altered by chemical and physical influence on the brain. That suggests (but doesn’t prove) that it’s self-contained.There is certainly no reason to make any alternative assumption.

The only “reason” he can give is that there was no other **observable **cause - which is based on yet another physicalist assumption: that **all **causes are in principle observable and physical!

Yes, it’s an assumption, but it’s a reasonable one in the absence of evidence for any other cause.

We are not concerned with **imagination **but with facts. There is not one jot of evidence that particles can produce consciousness and rationality. So there is no reason to suppose they can.

Maybe not, but there is bags of evidence that particles exist, and bags of evidence that we exist, and not a shred of evidence that the latter is not made up entirely of the former. So although I take your point that there might be something else, there’s no reason to believe in anything else, just because there’s something we don’t currently understand (and admittedly, may never understand).

You argue that there is no evidence that God exists but at least we have **direct evidence **that consciousness and rationality exist. It is far more intelligible that they originate in a conscious, rational Being than in non-conscious, irrational particles - even without considering free will.

Yes, we have evidence that consciousness and rationality exist, but this provides no link to the existence of God other than as a result of, “I don’t understand how x, y and z happen, therefore God.” This is not a rational approach.

If I assert that consciousness was actually granted to us by pixies, how is that assertion any different from yours? In fact, how are the following assertions any different in principle to what you’re saying?:

1. Consciousness was granted to us by pixies.
2. Free will was a special concession added by unicorns a few years later.
3. Our moral ethics was added by fairies after a protracted discussion with the elves.

The above must be true because those attributes can’t have come from unconscious, deterministic, unethical particles.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think your logic here is garbled, or you’re not explaining yourself clearly (or I plain just don’t understand what you’re getting at). What do you mean by, “Science can’t explain itself?” Explain in what context?

I think he means that science can’t justify the assumption of its own axioms. He doesn’t seem to realize that mathematics, philosophy, and any other method of discovery/inquiry suffer from the same difficulty. Just ask him if math can explain why it assumes that A=A.

Oh, and by the way, I’m glad you could come up with a signature to use that isn’t considered “inflammatory” around here.

 

[tonyrey]

I think he means that science can’t justify the assumption of its own axioms.

Science cannot justify its metaphysical and epistemological assumptions - which can be found in any textbook on the Philosophy of Science…

He doesn’t seem to realize that mathematics, philosophy, and any other method of discovery/inquiry suffer from the same difficulty.

“He doesn’t seem to realize…” There is no excuse for bad manners even if you disagree with a person… In point of fact your presumption is false.
Knowledge cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a foundation - except in one case: our direct knowledge of our stream of consciousness.

Just ask him if math can explain why it assumes that A=A.

“Just ask him”? There is no excuse for bad manners even if you disagree with a person…
Mathematics is based on logical principles, the most fundamental of which is the Principle of Identity.

Oh, and by the way, I’m glad you could come up with a signature to use that isn’t considered “inflammatory” around here.

You seem to be looking for trouble with your disparaging remarks which have precisely nothing to do with the topic… If you dislike this forum why do you bother to visit it?

 

[Oreoracle]

Science cannot justify its metaphysical and epistemological assumptions - which can be found in any textbook on the Philosophy of Science…

What metaphysical or epistemological assumptions might those be? The philosophy of science might make these assumptions, but I see none made by science itself. Science is not to be equated with philosophy. Philosophy revolves around deductive and inductive reasoning while science revolves around observing (which may be a similarity between science and philosophy if we are referring to induction), hypothesizing, experimenting, and adjusting the hypothesis after recording the results of many experiments. Weren’t you taught this in your third grade class?

Mathematics cannot justify its assumption of the identity property. Go ahead and prove that A=A. In order to do that, you would have to assume it, thus making any “proof” of the property circular.

This might all sound very unfair, since “A=A” seems to be self-evident. Similarly, the fundamentals of science are derived from self-evident axioms. Asking for science to prove it is a logical method (to prove its axioms) would be just as unfair as asking math to prove it is a logical method (which would require it to prove the identity property and others). Do you see the analogy here? You can’t expect any system to prove its own axioms, since the axioms are, by definition, assumptions made for the sake of constructing systems.

“He doesn’t seem to realize…” There is no excuse for bad manners even if you disagree with a person… In point of fact your presumption is false.

You continue to ignore explanations and avoid entire discussions so that you can pretend that the assumptions of science are worse than the assumptions of math or philosophy. You’re special pleading by demanding science to test itself but not doing the same to other systems, which you’ve used to come to your conclusions in the first place.

You seem to be looking for trouble with your disparaging remarks which have precisely nothing to do with the topic…

I made the comment because I am unable to contact wanstronian any other way (he/she has apparently disabled their message board and private messaging feature). Why not mind your own business?

If you dislike this forum why do you bother to visit it?

Because I don’t dislike helping people, and many here desperately need help. Why else would evasive behaviors such as your own take place, for example?

 

[tonyrey]

What do you mean by “Science can’t explain itself?”

1. Science explains physical phenomena.
2. Science is not a physical phenomenon.
3. Therefore science does not explain itself.

That in itself is a physicalist assumption! It is begging the question to regard human beings as composed entirely (i.e. solely) of particles.
Yes, and as far as we can show, that’s exactly right.

How do you show that human beings are composed entirely (i.e. solely) of particles?

There you have another problem. How has the body become more than the sum of its parts?
Natural selection is the current, and evidentially justified, theory.

How does natural selection show:

1. The origin of living cells (of which the body is composed) from inanimate particles?
2. The increase in complexity of living organisms from unicellular organisms?
3. The origin of rationality, consciousness and free will?

How have inanimate, purposeless molecules become living, purposeful organisms? The physicalist assumes that the transition itself was entirely physical and purposeless - again without a jot of evidence.
There are literally tons of evidence for evolution via natural selection.

There are literally tons of evidence for evolution by Design. Natural selection is far less powerful than intelligent selection…

Regarding consciousness, there is no literal evidence in any direction, but there is circumstantial evidence that consciousness resides entirely in the brain. For example, states of consciousness, both temporary and permanent, can be altered by chemical and physical influence on the brain. That suggests (but doesn’t prove) that it’s self-contained.There is certainly no reason to make any alternative assumption.

Conjunction in space and time alone does not indicate causality. There is evidence that the mind controls the body in non-physical ways. Since the brain is the instrument used by the mind interference with the brain can prevent the mind from controlling the brain.

The only “reason” he can give is that there was no other observable cause - which is based on yet another physicalist assumption: that all causes are in principle observable and physical!
Yes, it’s an assumption, but it’s a reasonable one in the absence of evidence for any other cause.

There is plenty of evidence for teleological causality. “How?” has to be supplemented by “Why?” in any comprehensive explanation of reality.

We are not concerned with imagination but with facts. There is not one jot of evidence that particles can produce consciousness and rationality. So there is no reason to suppose they can.
Maybe not, but there is bags of evidence that particles exist, and bags of evidence that we exist, and not a shred of evidence that the latter is not made up entirely of the former.

You are begging the question by using “we” instead of “our bodies”. You are equating “we” with our bodies" but that is the very issue at stake.

So although I take your point that there might be something else, there’s no reason to believe in anything else, just because there’s something we don’t currently understand (and admittedly, may never understand).

The fact that we cannot observe our inner experiences with our physical senses is reason enough to doubt physicalism - quite apart from the reality of intangibles like truth, freedom, equality and love.

You argue that there is no evidence that God exists but at least we have direct evidence that consciousness and rationality exist. It is far more intelligible that they originate in a conscious, rational Being than in non-conscious, irrational particles - even without considering free will.
Yes, we have evidence that consciousness and rationality exist, but this provides no link to the existence of God other than as a result of, “I don’t understand how x, y and z happen, therefore God.” This is not a rational approach.

It is supremely rational because it explains the source of rationality! We know that rationality, consciousness, free will and purposeful activity are associated only with persons, i.e. intangible entities. To derive such entities from a multitude of particles is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. How can a responsible, creative being develop gradually from many atoms? How have we become integrated wholes? If we are, in Hume’s phrase, merely a “bundle of perceptions” what is the basis of our identity from one day to the next? Why are we still held responsible for what we have done when every cell in our body has changed?

If I assert that consciousness was actually granted to us by pixies, how is that assertion any different from yours? In fact, how are the following assertions any different in principle to what you’re saying?:

1. Consciousness was granted to us by pixies.
2. Free will was a special concession added by unicorns a few years later.
3. Our moral ethics was added by fairies after a protracted discussion with the elves.

This scenario collapses immediately it is understood that consciousness, free will and morality co-exist in a person and are interdependent:

1. We are persons created in the image and likeness of a personal God.

The above must be true because those attributes can’t have come from unconscious, deterministic, unethical particles.

Your conclusion is impeccable!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This might all sound very unfair, since “A=A” seems to be self-evident. Similarly, the fundamentals of science are derived from self-evident axioms.

This may be true, but in this case science cannot claim to *know *anything about the world. Let me explain.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable, no? Gravity, for example, is falsifiable. If there were one absolutely empirically verifiable case of the law of gravity being false, it would not be a law. Therefore, scientists do not *know *that gravity is always the case.

In other words, inductive proof can never amount to certainty. According to Hume, in fact, we are not being rational (properly speaking) when we say that gravity is a law of nature. We believe this because it is a universally observed custom, not because it follows from reason.

This is not a slam on science. Every true belief we have of the physical world’s behavior comes from science – but we cannot verify any of these true beliefs, because the scientific method goes on in time, and its results are falsifiable.

Consciousness is not falsifiable. As Charles Darwin said, “I think therefore I am.” But this proof only works for the individual who *says *it. I cannot prove that my wife exists; my only knowledge of her is inductive. Hence Plantinga’s claim that it is just as difficult to prove the existence of other minds as it is to prove the existence of God. But many things cannot be proven, and are still true.

 

[tonyrey]

You continue to ignore explanations and avoid entire discussions so that you can pretend that…

 

[Oreoracle]

This may be true, but in this case science cannot claim to *know *anything about the world. Let me explain.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable, no? Gravity, for example, is falsifiable. If there were one absolutely empirically verifiable case of the law of gravity being false, it would not be a law. Therefore, scientists do not *know *that gravity is always the case.

I agree. In fact, I believe it was Einstein who said that no amount of experiments could prove him right, but one experiment could prove him wrong.

In other words, inductive proof can never amount to certainty. According to Hume, in fact, we are not being rational (properly speaking) when we say that gravity is a law of nature. We believe this because it is a universally observed custom, not because it follows from reason.

This is not a slam on science. Every true belief we have of the physical world’s behavior comes from science – but we cannot verify any of these true beliefs, because the scientific method goes on in time, and its results are falsifiable.

Again, I agree. Science doesn’t attempt to prove anything, it merely provides the scientific method, which tells us how to gather evidence to support hypotheses.

Consciousness is not falsifiable. As Charles Darwin said, “I think therefore I am.”

You mean Rene Descartes, right?

But many things cannot be proven, and are still true.

I feel the same way.

 

[tonyrey]

What metaphysical or epistemological assumptions might those be? The philosophy of science might make these assumptions, but I see none made by science itself.

1. Science is based on the metaphysical assumption that physical reality exists.
2. Science is based on the epistemological assumption that physical reality is intelligible.

Mathematics cannot justify its assumption of the identity property. Go ahead and prove that A=A. In order to do that, you would have to assume it, thus making any “proof” of the property circular.

 

[Oreoracle]

Another abusive remark which merely throws light on your character…

Actually, I was serious when I asked about third grade. Didn’t they teach you what science is; that it is a method, not a doctrine? You’re letting your opinion of scientists cloud your view of what science is. Sometimes I do the same with Christians. Attack the doctrine, not its adherents (in the case of science, there are only axioms, not a doctrine).

 

[Oreoracle]

1. Science is based on the metaphysical assumption that physical reality exists.

Do you think this is an unreasonable assumption?

1. Science is based on the epistemological assumption that physical reality is intelligible.

Do you think this is an unreasonable assumption?

Mathematics is based on logical principles, the most fundamental of which is the Principle of Identity - which is regarded as self-evident because it cannot be disproved.

This makes no sense. Just because something can’t be disproven doesn’t mean it’s self-evident. Is the existence of unicorns self-evident?

But that’s just me being picky. My point is that it can’t be proven, either.

What are the self-evident axioms of science?

It seems you’ve more or less provided the first two yourself (these are not in order):

-The universe exists.

-Our senses can convey information pertaining to the universe accurately enough for observations and experiments to be useful. (In your words, “physical reality is intelligible.”)

-The universe consists of objects (not to be confused with “only of objects”), or entities whose natures are unaffected by our perceptions of them. Therefore, presenting physical data is the most reliable way of reinforcing propositions, since the perceptions of objects don’t tend to differ very much from person to person. In other words, someone can’t just make something up when presenting physical evidence.

etc., etc. The list goes on. This is how I see it, anyway.

I have not asked for science to prove it is a logical method (to prove its axioms).

I have not demanded that science test itself.

You’ve asked for science to explain itself. What else could you have meant?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

-Our senses can convey information pertaining to the universe accurately enough for observations and experiments to be useful. (In your words, “physical reality is intelligible.”)

I think this is the key assumption. If it is true (which I believe), it points to the limits of our knowledge and the probability of much more reality which we cannot perceive.

The scientist would say that the human ability to intelligently understand the world came to be through evolution, right? It was a survival mechanism. But this is phenomenal, isn’t it?!? The universe became aware of itself, through the human being (and first other animals).

The human capacity to know certain things about the universe through our senses helps us survive, but it is not adapted to full knowledge of the workings of the universe. Its being so adapted would be infinitesimally improbable, for it does not further the human race for man to fathom all knowledge.

In other words, the universe is *somewhat *intelligible. But when faced with the possibility, for example, that there are 4-dimensional objects – or that *we *are 4-dimensional objects – we just can’t say whether it is true. Such knowledge does not profit our survival, and so we have no access to it.

Taking science at its word, we have no choice but to infer that there are many truths beyond science. It is quite possible that we have some access to these truths, but we do not have access to them through the scientific method – in other words, our “observations and experiments” on them will not yield intelligible results. Much truth is discovered through science, but not all truth is circumscribed by science.