Man created God? [edited]

[Touchstone]

Bertrand Russell, though, was an atheist’s atheist. He was a Dawkins-class atheist. See Leela’s quote from Russell on this.

I’ve already answered this. Russell clearly announced himself an agnostic in formal debate with Copleston and in the passage cited by Leela. He certainly was not an atheist’s atheist. I’d grant you that, like Dawkins, he used frivolous and insulting arguments against Christianity, but that is largely because of his psychological make-up rather than his intelligence. Russell lost both of his parents when a child. He also lost all of his nannies, many of them the only loving contacts he knew while growing up. He also lost four of his five wives through divorce. Not a stable personality, it’s not surprising that he would lash out at Christ and Christianity. Even his daughter Katherine admitted that she found him cold and aloof to her needs as his child. Looking for love, Katherine turned to Christ, as many people do who find cold intellect to be nothing without a warm heart. Her father took the opposite route by vilifying Christ. To that extent Russell agreed with the stance of Dawkins in vilifying Christians; but he never said silly things like the theory of evolution being a way to make atheism respectable.

By comparison to Dawkins, I mean that he was very high profile, positively prolific in his output, and quite fearless in analysis and dismantling of religious arguments. And as for “making atheism intellectually respectable” quotes, anyone who knows Russell knows this famous question from him: *“Who made God?”. *This wasn’t a new idea with Russell, but neither was evolution as a boon for atheism in Dawkins’ case: they were articulators of these ideas that pushed back the perimeters of theistic philosophy.

Any atheist who tells you he has epistemic certainty that no God or gods exist is a fool, a fool who’s folly can be shown in just a couple easy steps.

Are you saying you are an agnostic **and **an atheist?

Yes. It’s not a new idea with me – read Russell! Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, name your atheist, they are unable to present a certain argument for the non-existence of God. For all of them, and myself included, there necessarily must remain some amount of doubt attached to the possibility that God or gods exist. Atheism is a type of strong agnosticism about God and gods. Show me an atheist who is not fundamentally agnostic at some level, and I will show you a fool.

This is common, non-controversial understanding in philosophy and skeptical circles. Richard Dawkins, for example, in The God Delusion, estimates that the odds of God’s existence are extremely low, in his view, but for him, the probability IS NOT ZERO. To some degree, his is not certain about God’s non-existence because a reasoning mind cannot be certain about such propositions. Dawkins, like other thinking atheists, understands and acknowledges this.

-TS

(to be continued)

 

[Touchstone]

When we discussed this matter in another forum you made a more interesting statement: that one decides to be an atheist or a theist on the basis of the preponderance of evidence for or against God. Since atheism offers no

 

[grannymh]

As for the “self”, death signals to all men the end of consciousness, the end of anything and everything that represents self, faith commitments that tilt against it notwithstanding. What we know is that a man dies, and that is the end of him; we shall never interact with him as an individual again, so far as our experience can tell.

-TS

And what does our consciousness tell us when we are alive? Do we ever experience intangibles? beauty? sadness? music? and so on?

It seems to me that some modern philosophers, psychologists, and those who live by the various forms of relativism, have turned inward to find something concrete that can be experienced. We attach wires to our heads to find thoughts and love. We look to monitors to explain experience. We have lost the world with its intangibles. No wonder there is the false idea that “self” is like a stepped on ant.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Touchstone]

And what does our consciousness tell us when we are alive? Do we ever experience intangibles? beauty? sadness? music? and so on?

What do you mean by “intangibles”? If you mean “supernatural” things, I say that’s a confused question. If, instead, you mean “things I can’t touch”, then sure, emotions in general would qualify as “intangibles” we experience. It’s a brain-state, an activiity of the brain interacting through the body with the extramental world.

It seems to me that some modern philosophers, psychologists, and those who live by the various forms of relativism, have turned inward to find something concrete that can be experienced. We attach wires to our heads to find thoughts and love. We look to monitors to explain experience. We have lost the world with its intangibles. No wonder there is the false idea that “self” is like a stepped on ant.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

It’s quite the opposite, I think. By understanding the “self” as a many-layered “strange loop”, to use Douglas Hofstadter’s term, a complex emergent phenomenon that supervenes on the brain, we provide case for the self as real, substantial, rather than just magical or supernatural.

We have lost the world of gods pushing the heavenly bodies around the sky, too. Those whimsical days are long gone. And yet, the stars remain, and they remain real. So, too, with superstitious ideas of the “self”. The magical thinking is losing its grip as scientific progress unravels more and more of the mystery of consciousness and cognition. But the brain and mind and self aren’t thus dismissed any more than the planets and stars, or the physical forces that govern their motion are dismissed by our knowledge of physics. Rather they are reified, conceptual, given a grounding in reality they’d not hand previously.

-Touchstone

 

[RobbyS]

What do you mean by “intangibles”? If you mean “supernatural” things, I say that’s a confused question. If, instead, you mean “things I can’t touch”, then sure, emotions in general would qualify as “intangibles” we experience. It’s a brain-state, an activiity of the brain interacting through the body with the extramental world.

It’s quite the opposite, I think. By understanding the “self” as a many-layered “strange loop”, to use Douglas Hofstadter’s term, a complex emergent phenomenon that supervenes on the brain, we provide case for the self as real, substantial, rather than just magical or supernatural.

We have lost the world of gods pushing the heavenly bodies around the sky, too. Those whimsical days are long gone. And yet, the stars remain, and they remain real. So, too, with superstitious ideas of the “self”. The magical thinking is losing its grip as scientific progress unravels more and more of the mystery of consciousness and cognition. But the brain and mind and self aren’t thus dismissed any more than the planets and stars, or the physical forces that govern their motion are dismissed by our knowledge of physics. Rather they are reified, conceptual, given a grounding in reality they’d not hand previously.

-Touchstone

How can one reduce everything to the natural when one does not know what the natural is?

 

[Touchstone]

How can one reduce everything to the natural when one does not know what the natural is?

It isn’t reduced. “Natural” is just the word we use for “describable in principle”. When we consider the brain and mind, for example, we don’t pretend to know what the atoms that make up the brain are “made of”. That’s beyond our level of description. No matter what level of description you choose, there’s always on more level to pursue if you’d like. Even (especially!) in the theistic model, one asks: Oh, and what is God, then?

Natural descriptions happen at proximal, non-ultimate levels of description, which is just fine for practical purposes. The brain has neurons and ganglia, and exhibits electrical activity that is correlated with the sensation of emotions, the process of language parsing and comprehension, or any of the other cognitive functions of the mind. We don’t “reduce” it, because a supernaturalist or immaterialist description isnt’ a coherent description at all – it is a non-description waiting for a description. Saying it is “intangible” or “supernatural” or “immaterial” is saying "we have no description for this whatsoever.

Natural explanations thus build our understanding of reality outward from a state of ignorance and non-description. It adds and reifies conceptually, rather than reduces. “Reduction” is a term that buys supernatural or immaterial terms as impostors for real descriptions.

-TS

 

[RobbyS]

It isn’t reduced. “Natural” is just the word we use for “describable in principle”. When we consider the brain and mind, for example, we don’t pretend to know what the atoms that make up the brain are “made of”. That’s beyond our level of description. No matter what level of description you choose, there’s always on more level to pursue if you’d like. Even (especially!) in the theistic model, one asks: Oh, and what is God, then?

Natural descriptions happen at proximal, non-ultimate levels of description, which is just fine for practical purposes. The brain has neurons and ganglia, and exhibits electrical activity that is correlated with the sensation of emotions, the process of language parsing and comprehension, or any of the other cognitive functions of the mind. We don’t “reduce” it, because a supernaturalist or immaterialist description isnt’ a coherent description at all – it is a non-description waiting for a description. Saying it is “intangible” or “supernatural” or “immaterial” is saying "we have no description for this whatsoever.

Natural explanations thus build our understanding of reality outward from a state of ignorance and non-description. It adds and reifies conceptually, rather than reduces. “Reduction” is a term that buys supernatural or immaterial terms as impostors for real descriptions.

-TS

I mean how do you answer the objection of Hume to your supposition that you are describing “reality?” You want to be sceptical about certain categories of the unseen but to believe in others. Hume was an equal opportinity skeptic. He was skeptical about
the claims of religion AND those of positive science.

 

[tonyrey]

It isn’t reduced. “Natural” is just the word we use for “describable in principle”. When we consider the brain and mind, for example, we don’t pretend to know what the atoms that make up the brain are “made of”. That’s beyond our level of description. No matter what level of description you choose, there’s always on more level to pursue if you’d like. Even (especially!) in the theistic model, one asks: Oh, and what is God, then?

Natural descriptions happen at proximal, non-ultimate levels of description, which is just fine for practical purposes. The brain has neurons and ganglia, and exhibits electrical activity that is correlated with the sensation of emotions, the process of language parsing and comprehension, or any of the other cognitive functions of the mind. We don’t “reduce” it, because a supernaturalist or immaterialist description isnt’ a coherent description at all – it is a non-description waiting for a description. Saying it is “intangible” or “supernatural” or “immaterial” is saying "we have no description for this whatsoever.

Natural explanations thus build our understanding of reality outward from a state of ignorance and non-description. It adds and reifies conceptually, rather than reduces. “Reduction” is a term that buys supernatural or immaterial terms as impostors for real descriptions.

-TS

How would you describe truth naturally, tangibly or materially? Truth is the correspondence of a belief or proposition to a fact.
“Correspondence”, "belief, “proposition” and “fact” are all intangible.
How would you describe justice naturally, tangibly or materially? Justice entails respect for a person’s rights. “Respect”, “entails” and “rights” are all intangible.
How would you describe love naturally, tangibly or materially? Love entails concern for a person’s well-being and happiness.
“Concern”, “person”, “well-being” and “happiness” are all intangible.

You contradict yourself by saying “natural explanations build our understanding of reality outward from a state of ignorance and non-description”. In other words you believe our starting point is the mind and its activity, not atoms or neurons or any other tangible or material phenomenon. By using the phrase “our understanding of reality” you presuppose that we are intangible, rational entities.

 

[Leela]

I beg your pardon but i do not believe because i fear, but i believe out of LOVE for the Whole family of God, and the Trinity.I respect the Word of God and the church,and all those who are the children of the body of Christ. But if you needed me for help i would be there for you i would not mark you because you were not a Catholic or any religion, and i do love you because i,know that i know, that God did make you and this whole universe. Science believe’s in facts and anything that is tangible We believe in thing’s that are not seen things that are hoped for, blessed are those who believe and have not seen. I never seen my Mom having me at birth, but i was there. I cannot prove it but was there! Do you believe Your mom had you? Why? You certaintly did not witness it. But you were there! You believe don’t you? And by the way all the martyers who died must have some fear but their Love for the Lord God was more than their fear ( the human part) and they went Like soldiers of the Cross every one fear or no fear that is not the point, they truly had the faith that carried them through to the last day on earth, why because they knew where they were going, to be with the Master. I fear life more then death for i have seen to much suffering and have been through enough to make anyone not believe, But i will one day know that all i have suffered in this life was NOT IN VAIN! You are Loved Nancy

That was Russell’s analysis of the situation, not mine. I think that the situation is more complicated than that.

 

[benedictus2]

You are setting up a false choice. The question is not just, was Jesus who he said he was? The question is also, did Jesus really say he was who some people claimed that he said he was?
v
v
holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm
v

At any rate, it should be clear that “are you calling Jesus a liar?” is not at all the issue.

I will try to find the time to read the debate and get back to you on that.

You are right that we have no way of knowing whether Jesus really said that (there were not tape recorders then ) and even had he written them himself I am sure 2000 years later we will doubt whether the writings can really be ascribed to Him.

That is why discussions with atheists about the truth of Christianity is difficult because they demand empirical proof. As if science has all the answers.

There is a kind of knowing that defies the tangible. The ability to see with the eyes of faith is a gift which is why I do not believe one can or should convince atheists by attempting to provide data.

At some point humility plays a great part on whether we believe or not. When it comes to matters of faith, sometimes it is only when we lay down our demand for empirical evidence that we actually begin to see. The demand for such evidence is what hinders the vision.

 

[Leela]

I mean how do you answer the objection of Hume to your supposition that you are describing “reality?” You want to be sceptical about certain categories of the unseen but to believe in others. Hume was an equal opportinity skeptic. He was skeptical about
the claims of religion AND those of positive science.

I’m sure Touchstone can speak for himself, but my answer to Hume is through antiessentialism. There is no essence to How Things Really Are, there are just inexhaustible descriptions that are more or less useful for different human purposes. Antiessentialsts would like you to try to think of everything in the way we think of numbers. What is the essence of 12? We can say twelve is 7+5 or 20-8 or 4*3, on and on, etc. And none of these reations between twelve and other numbers has any more twelveness to it than any other. No particular relation is the true essence of twelve.

When we stop thinking in terms of essences, the goal of inquiry is not to describe reality as it really is. This is a lousy goal, since as Hume would tell you, you can never know when you get there. Instead the goal of inquiry is better justification for our beliefs and getting rid of bad beliefs where beliefs are understood pragmatically as habits of action.

Pragmatists like myself follow Bacon in saying “knowledge is power,” by which we mean to know X is to be able to do something with X or put X in relation to something else. What we don’t want to say is that we are in touch in some way the essence of X-ness. We don’t think that there is a way to be more or less in touch with reality. We can just have beliefs that are more or less useful as habits of action.

 

[thevickinator16]

Do I get this right?! Touchstone, you just think we are one big computer that came from nowhere and will just go nowhere? All the “babble” aside. You do not think that the there is a God, who created everything? I have read throught the postings in this site. I am amazed at how you want to be held unaccountable for your life.

I mean this by reason of: If you don’t believe in God, then you don’t have to follow any rules except your own. The 10 commandments have no meaning to you, unless they further your life in some fashion?

The Golden rule-Love thy neighbor as thy self. Do you follow this? Would you give up your life to save another? Why?

If you don’t believe in God, what is your purpose for existing?

If you chose to answer thes questions-please put them in simple plain English. It makes more sense that way.

Thank you for your time.

God Bless!

 

[Leela]

I will try to find the time to read the debate and get back to you on that.

You are right that we have no way of knowing whether Jesus really said that (there were not tape recorders then ) and even had he written them himself I am sure 2000 years later we will doubt whether the writings can really be ascribed to Him.

I’m glad that you agree that there is an important question that we have to answer before we would need to coinsider whether or not Jesus told the truth about himself.

That is why discussions with atheists about the truth of Christianity is difficult because they demand empirical proof. As if science has all the answers.

What sort of evidence do you think I should be considering that you think I’m not considering?

There is a kind of knowing that defies the tangible. The ability to see with the eyes of faith is a gift which is why I do not believe one can or should convince atheists by attempting to provide data.

At some point humility plays a great part on whether we believe or not. When it comes to matters of faith, sometimes it is only when we lay down our demand for empirical evidence that we actually begin to see. The demand for such evidence is what hinders the vision.

I don’t know what you could mean by other ways of knowing. There are lots of ways to inquire. What means of inquiry do you think I’m not using?

I don’t see how humility is the issue. It seems to me that people who don’t claim to know things that they don’t actually know demonstrate more humility than those who claim to know things about the universe and our history with absolute certainty that no scientist or historian could claim to know within her own field of inquiry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

New scientific discoveries add layer on layer of knowledge about the natural world that accounts for natural phenomena in natural, materialistic terms.

New scientific discoveries? Whose discoveries? Ah, but you don’t want me to name the originators of those discoveries on the grounds that they might be too popular or too well known for their genius?

The more we know about nature, the more superfluous God and supernatural explanations are.

Well, that’s just your opinion. Why should we believe that this is so. You make a declaration without proof. The general trend of science today is away from atheism, not toward it. The idea of an infinite and eternal universe, which made atheism reputable in the 19th century has been blown to smithereens by modern science and you know it. Since you hate to hear me cite the authorities on the subject, I guess I shouldn’t note that even Einstein, with some help from other scientists, had to correct himself on that one by the time the Big Bang theorists got through with him.

So I think that if every time I cite any scientist’s work you yell “Foul!” because that scientist has an eminent reputation as a thinker, there isn’t any point in continuing a dialogue with you. Until you stop doing that, I have nothing more to say to you. You’re not the only or the best thinker in the world, and you need to let other minds better than your own into the discussion.

Right?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

In a 1948 debate on the BBC between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, the following exchange took place:

*Copleston: Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

Russell: No, I should not say that; my position is agnostic.*

Clearly Russell did not view himself as an atheist and knew the logical trap that all atheists fall into when they call themselves atheists. Touchstone has admitted as much a few posts ago, yet he persists in calling himself an atheist.

 

[Leela]

Leela

In a 1948 debate on the BBC between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, the following exchange took place:

*Copleston: Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

Russell: No, I should not say that; my position is agnostic.*

Clearly Russell did not view himself as an atheist and knew the logical trap that all atheists fall into when they call themselves atheists. Touchstone has admitted as much a few posts ago, yet he persists in calling himself an atheist.

I alerady addressedthis in post #89: "Yes, in that sense he was an agnostic, and so am I and so is Touchstone and probably every other atheist you know. But it also correct to say that someone is an atheist if they do not believe in God. Russell did not believe in God.

On the other hand, if you want to use the definition of atheist as one who claims to know for certain that God does not exist, then there pretty much are no atheists so the distinction is completely unhelpful in categorizing people by their beliefs."

The question from Copelston you quoted above was about whether he thought the nonexistence of God could be proven. He doesn’t think so. In that sense, probably every atheist you know is also an agnostic. But Russell did not believe in God, so in that sense he was an atheist.

If you feel like referring to me as an agnostic instead of an atheist, then fine. They are both true. What you shoudln’t think is that for an agnostic, the existence of God is a 50/50 proposition. Some people are agnostic but tend toward belief. Some people are agnostic and tend toward disbelief.

Maybe the following 7-point scale will help make it clear.

1 Strong theist. 100% possibility of God.
2 Very high probability 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God."
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God"

You seem to think the only possibilities are 1, 4, or 7, where only 4 is an agnostic. (Russell is not a 4.) Everything from 2 through 6 could be considered agnostic since all the people who would choose these ratings do not know with 100% certainty whether or not God exists.

I would call myself a 6 on this scale. Touchstone (I’m guessing), Russell, and Darwkins are also 6’s. Someone who thinks that God is extremely unlikely and lives as though God does not exist is an atheist in my book. If you’d rather call me and Russell an agnostic, go right ahead, I don’t like the idea of labelling myself based on what I don’t believe anyway, but don’t think that either of us is impartial on the matter.

Where are you on this scale?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
Russell thought that religion was a human invention in response to fear:

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it. "*

There you go citing authority again!

Actually, in his later years Russell became very fearful of science and regarded the invention of nuclear weapons (by science, I might add) as the greatest threat to the human race. Religion, by comparison, cannot hold any threat comparable to the possible annihilation of the human race thanks to the “liberating” power of science.

Keep in mind too that Russell lived such a long life that he was born and educated in the 19th century when the West was at the height of its enthusiasm for the wonders produced by science. Science in effect became the new religion, and was seen as a benificent “God” in human affairs. It wasn’t until After Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Russell himself advocated a nuclear showdown with Russia before Russia could call for a nuclear showdown with us. So much for Russell’s posturing that we should look to science and "to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it. "

If anything will save us all from blowing each other to smithereens, it will be God, not science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

But it also correct to say that someone is an atheist if they do not believe in God. Russell did not believe in God.

Leela, you are stuck in the same rut as Touchstone. You cannot be an atheist and then back out by calling yourself an agnostic at the same time. Choose one or the other.

By the way, in the infamous passage of Russell that you cited, he was talking about the inventiuon of the Homeric and and Christian gods. Nowhere in that passage does he deny the existence of the God of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. Nowhere in any of his writings does he do that. The burden of proof is on you to say that he did. Please cite any passage from any of his writings where he calls himself an absolute atheist.

The man was not a fool.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalms

 

[Leela]

Leela

But it also correct to say that someone is an atheist if they do not believe in God. Russell did not believe in God.

Leela, you are stuck in the same rut as Touchstone. You cannot be an atheist and then back out by calling yourself an agnostic at the same time. Choose one or the other.

By the way, in the infamous passage of russell that you cited, he was talking about the inventiuon of the Homeric and and Christian gods. Nowhere in that passage does he deny the existence of the God of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. Nowhere in any of his writings does he do that. The burden of proof is on you to say that he did. Please cite any passage from any of his writings where he calls himself an absolute atheist.

The man was not a fool.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalms

What you keep missing is that there are two different questions going on here:

1. Do you believe that it is possible to know with 100% certainty that God either does or does not exist?
2. Do you believe that God exists?
3. a question about epistemology. 2 is a question of ontology.

Your answer to question 1 will determine whether or not your are an agnostic.

Your answer to question 2 will determine whether or not you are an atheist.

There is no contradiction for saying no to 1 and no to 2, or any other combination of answers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
1 Strong theist. 100% possibility of God.
2 Very high probability 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God."
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God"*

Is this an arbitrary scale of your own invention? You put yourself at 6? Well then, you are going to call yourself a “soft” atheist? Isn’t that rather self-serving? You leave yourself an escape hatch without obviously any intent ever to use it. I would call you a 7. But even if you call yourself a 6, why is there a “very low probability, but short of zero,” that God exists? What persuades you that even the God of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein has a near zero probability of existing when they regarded the Deity as real?

Because he has not manifested Himself to you in His full Personhood?