Naturalism Questions

[Moonstruck888]

You inhabit a world view/philosophy/assumption and take it to its logical conclusions, refuting it by reductio ad absurdum. In atheism’s case, you would show it is incompatible with moral realism, trust in our knowledge, free will, rationality, etc. etc. etc.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand. I’ll look it up on wiki.

 

[Touchstone]

I’ve never heard this term. What does it mean?

It’s engagement beginning with presupposing the truth of one’s convictions – kind of “presuming the consequent” as a large scale apologetic.

For example, a Calvinist presup will simply assume upfront, as axiomatic, the literal inerrancy and ultimate authority of the Bible, or more precisely her interpretation of the Bible. That’s it, it’s presumed it’s non-negotatiable, and all communication from that side proceeds only from a firm commitment to that presumption.

That means that, for example, an atheist, despite their claims to the contrary, really does no God exists, for the Bible says in Romans 1 that God’s qualities are clearly seen, and that all men are without excuse in affirming this, and further that suppress the truth by the wickedness… an unbeliever is, on their view, deductively, a liar when he says he sees no evidence for God.

Further, it is presumed that since God created the earth, and man, that God provisioned reason, and logic and morality and knowledge as features of his special creation, meaning, since the presup has taken it as axiomatic that the Bible is authoritative, perspicacious and infallible, that no further explanation for those realities is needed. They are given by God and that’s that.

Now, the atheist is buried under the workload of a stream of demands to justifiy where biological life comes from, reasoning, consciousness, morality, all that, and all with an acute hyper-skepticism that demands exhaustive evidence for all parts and all their constituent parts, but is free to reject or dismiss any or all of that because, again, the presuppositional stance enables them to classify anything that conflicts with their understanding of scripture as false, axiomatically.

Lastly, it is puposely lopsided that way, due to the profound conviction that there is no neutral ground for a believer and an unbeliever to start on and work from, and that it is sinful for the believer to suppose there is, or to proceed as if that was the case. The truth of the Bible as axiomatic simply prevails, and it is just a one way street, a kind of preaching, with the only question being whether the atheist, fool enough to engage in a reasonable way, where points and challenges and evidence can push things one way or another, capitulates to the presuppositionalist’s axioms. The presup declares she has nothing to defend or establish, and that the truth of her positions are all stipulated up front, and the unbeliever is tasked with trying to prove the unprovable, to jump impossible hurdles, for the amusement of the presup, and his own punishment for being wicked enough to be a liar suppressing God’s truth in the first place.

See the enchanting works of Cornelius van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gary Frame,and Gordon Clark (Clark’s approach is a bit different than classic van Tilian presuppositionalism).

These folks are really wonderful to engage, and a delight at cocktail parties!

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I am sorry, I am just not buying/understanding it. It might be helpful how you can explain to me how it is possible for a “supernatural dimension” to exist in a closed, natural system. I would think the words “closed” and “natural” would pretty much rule it out.

For an atheist who believes in supernatural things (not God or god, but other supernatural things), the universe is not completely natural, but has a supernatural dimension as well.

I don’t know what you mean by “closed” universe. That’s a natural term, and is meaningless in terms of metaphysics or the supernatural, so far as I’m aware. What is a “closed, supernatural unvierse”? I have no idea.

-TS

 

[Moonstruck888]

It’s engagement beginning with presupposing the truth of one’s convictions – kind of “presuming the consequent” as a large scale apologetic.

That means that, for example, an atheist, despite their claims to the contrary, really does no God exists, for the Bible says in Romans 1 that God’s qualities are clearly seen, and that all men are without excuse in affirming this, and further that suppress the truth by the wickedness… an unbeliever is, on their view, deductively, a liar when he says he sees no evidence for God.

Further, it is presumed that since God created the earth, and man, that God provisioned reason, and logic and morality and knowledge as features of his special creation, meaning, since the presup has taken it as axiomatic that the Bible is authoritative, perspicacious and infallible, that no further explanation for those realities is needed. They are given by God and that’s that.

Now, the atheist is buried under the workload of a stream of demands to justifiy where biological life comes from, reasoning, consciousness, morality, all that, and all with an acute hyper-skepticism that demands exhaustive evidence for all parts and all their constituent parts, but is free to reject or dismiss any or all of that because, again, the presuppositional stance enables them to classify anything that conflicts with their understanding of scripture as false, axiomatically.

Lastly, it is puposely lopsided that way, due to the profound conviction that there is no neutral ground for a believer and an unbeliever to start on and work from, and that it is sinful for the believer to suppose there is, or to proceed as if that was the case. The truth of the Bible as axiomatic simply prevails, and it is just a one way street, a kind of preaching, with the only question being whether the atheist, fool enough to engage in a reasonable way, where points and challenges and evidence can push things one way or another, capitulates to the presuppositionalist’s axioms. The presup declares she has nothing to defend or establish, and that the truth of her positions are all stipulated up front, and the unbeliever is tasked with trying to prove the unprovable, to jump impossible hurdles, for the amusement of the presup, and his own punishment for being wicked enough to be a liar suppressing God’s truth in the first place.

See the enchanting works of Cornelius van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gary Frame,and Gordon Clark (Clark’s approach is a bit different than classic van Tilian presuppositionalism).

These folks are really wonderful to engage, and a delight at cocktail parties!

-TS

Yes, I’ve met a few of them. And of course we can’t have people questioning God, because once a question is asked it has to be answered.

 

[Windfish]

For an atheist who believes in supernatural things (not God or god, but other supernatural things), the universe is not completely natural, but has a supernatural dimension as well.

Right, but then I can swoop in and show that belief to be inconsistent with their atheism since a “supernatural dimension” cannot emerge from the closed, natural system of an atheistic universe. EDIT: It’s not your job, but I don’t see how your demonstrating how this belief is consistent with atheism. Maybe I’ll do some research tonight in between moving the furniture around and see if an atheist can delineate precisely how it is possible.

 

[Leela]

Hello,

I was just looking for a little help or perhaps just some of your comments. I recently read the book The Godless Delusion by Pat Madrid. I’m not sure if many of you have read it but the main principle seems to be showing how naturalism fails to account for things like free will, consciousness, morality and a whole other string of things that are common to our human experience. It’s really a pretty good book.

I guess what I was hoping someone could explain a bit to me is how to talk to naturalists about these sorts of things. I just don’t understand how they defend against them, I’ve heard before the arguments like “how much does your idea weigh and what color is it,” and just the thought of having millions and millions of ideas in our head clearly shows that they cannot be material.

The materialist argumentis not that thoughts are material in natire. It is that the relationship between thoughts and the brain is well-established by science. We know that certain types of thinking are associated with activity in particular parts of the brain. We know that people who have particular sorts of brain damage lose particular sorts of mental abilities. People with damage to certain parts of the brain become incapable of certain thoughts. If that is the case, what of free will as something independent of brain functionality?

 

[tonyrey]

The materialist argumentis not that thoughts are material in nature. It is that the relationship between thoughts and the brain is well-established by science.

Relationship does not imply dependence.

We know that certain types of thinking are associated with activity in particular parts of the brain. We know that people who have particular sorts of brain damage lose particular sorts of mental abilities. People with damage to certain parts of the brain become incapable of certain thoughts.

They are incapable of **expressing **their thoughts and lack contact with physical reality according to the location and extent of the damage to their brain. A musician still exists even if he cannot play normally with a damaged instrument…

If that is the case, what of free will as something independent of brain functionality?

Free will cannot be attributed to the brain because it overrides physical causes…

 

[Tuno]

You seem to assume that the arguments are merely thought up in a closed space far from the world. They are not accusations but instead observations. I was an atheist once and for a while i was a sympathetic member of a socialist organization that saw religion as a poisonous damaging anti-intellectual influence in the world that must be in some way removed from society or at least kept quite far away from any political influence. I have been around and spoken to many atheists about how they feel about religion. In fact i don’t have any friends that are christian except for the people i talk to on this forum. The friends that i do have are either atheist or at least not interested in religion. And i can assure you that most of the points made in that link was true of my atheism and of many of the atheists that i do know. The auther may have been in error about a few historical facts (i am not sure), but he was generally correct about “some peoples motives”. The author even said that there are almost certainly other reasons or more than one reason why an atheist might choose to disbelieve in God; but he didn’t have time to list all of them; thus they where very general arguments, but nevertheless valid representations of some atheists. Why doesn’t any body “read” things properly?

Unfortunately, reading things “properly” is more often in the eyes of the beholder than from critical analysis. And I do not think that such reasons are thought up far from anywhere where ordinary thought occurs. Re-reading what I said,

You are kidding, right? That is certainly a list of reasons why theists might think that atheists are what they are, and certainly they are half truths. But even I who do not credit atheists with useful reasons, as I do not credit theists with useful reasons, see that that particular list has any practical merit except to assuage the reasonings of theists. But that is OK. It is a learning experience. But such a list can only make “sense” from theistic premises, not the Reality that allows both theism and atheism to sponsor each other as paradigms.

I don’t even see where I said they were inaccurate in context. I was inconsiderate in voicing a thought to myself as a lead in to what I said. My bad. I owe an apology for dashing off an answer where I could have been more circumspect and pointed. I oughtn’t write when I’m headed out the door.

I did say they are half truths, and I meant that in the context of the theo/atheo juxtaposition as a self sustaining dynamic in thought paradigms restricted to the usual subject/object mind set that we sustain as our way of engaging life. That mind set is not useful in addressing the contraries of such an argument. And that argument doesn’t exist, can’t exist, in the mind set that is competent of saying anything useful about God, which is mostly that nothing useful can be said except as a pointer and about what God is not. But that is another matter. I thought at the time I was heading in the direction of saying something about the nature of the argument itself, and unfairly didn’t get there.

You certainly have been for a walk on the midway of this carnival, and have taken in parts of a couple of shows on the level of the debate here. But I submit that either as a theist or atheist, you still may be a “mark” on that midway. That is all. That says nothing about your obvious sincerity or other fine qualities. I’m just suggesting that there may be more, if you pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[reggieM]

What do you suggest for more research material that would help me to find more of these weaknesses and be able to work through them?

Sorry I didn’t see your question until now …

I still have to read The Godless Delusion (I’m looking forward to it - next up on my reading list ) so I don’t know what arguments the authors used, but there are some common themes that are important and which naturalism always conflicts with:

1. The question of morality. How could unintelligent matter create the idea that we “ought” to do anything? Matter just “is”. There’s no moral consequence there. That is a good topic to research.
2. Like the above, the question of ultimate purpose, meaning and value.
3. The human person has free-will, rationality, consciousness, imagination – elements which are not reducible to matter.
4. Human desires – for meaning and goodness.
5. Life after death.
6. Catholic mysticism, and the origin and meaning of Christianity in general. There’s no category for the Christian message of sin and redemption and eternal life in a materialist model. How does naturalism deal with those things?

Those are some big areas that you can work through.

I would recommend three books to follow-up on The Godless Delusion, all very readable and very well-informed:

God Is No Delusion - Thomas Crean, O.P. : Ignatius Press
– I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Fr. Crean goes through Mr. Dawkins’ arguments with great logic and insight. He will open your mind up to many arguments that you might not have considered.

And two books by Dinesh D’Souza:
Life after Death
What’s So Great about Christianity

Both of those are very much oriented against naturalism, offering very strong arguments throughout. He’s an entertaining and engaging writer also and can make difficult concepts very clear and easy to understand.

 

[reggieM]

I was inconsiderate in voicing a thought to myself as a lead in to what I said. My bad. I owe an apology for dashing off an answer where I could have been more circumspect and pointed. I oughtn’t write when I’m headed out the door.

Apology accepted.