Naturalism Questions

[tonyrey]

Touchstone
*
Religion may not poison everything (I don’t think it does), but presuppositional apologetics is as pure a poison as religion can produce, intellectually. And, yes, I’m aware this is precisely the reaction a presuppositionalist expects and desires, for his cynicism and animus overwhelms any good will or basis for common ground or even honest discussion between Christianity and hostile worldviews. All is war, all is jihad for the presuppositionalist, and there can be no neutral ground, no comity with infidels and kufr. *

Go to any atheist website and find out how much good will there is toward Christians. Atheism spoils everything, including the atheist who is with Islam in waging jihad against Christ.

According to Anne Gardiner:

“First published in German in the mid-1950s, Christ in Dachau is a deeply moving account by Fr. John Lenz of the five years he spent in a concentration camp in Bavaria from 1940 to 1945. Perhaps the most striking aspect of his account is that it reveals how atheists of all stripes – criminals, socialists, communists, and SS agents – joined forces in Dachau to persecute Catholic priests.”

How’s that for atheist jihad?

It is grim evidence that atheists are far from being excluded from the ranks of presuppositionalists - as it to be expected if morality is simply a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Tuno]

This page gives a helpful overview of some of the various motives you can find:

Motives For Atheism – David Carlin

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.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone
*
Religion may not poison everything (I don’t think it does), but presuppositional apologetics is as pure a poison as religion can produce, intellectually. And, yes, I’m aware this is precisely the reaction a presuppositionalist expects and desires, for his cynicism and animus overwhelms any good will or basis for common ground or even honest discussion between Christianity and hostile worldviews. All is war, all is jihad for the presuppositionalist, and there can be no neutral ground, no comity with infidels and kufr. *

Go to any atheist website and find out how much good will there is toward Christians. Atheism spoils everything, including the atheist who is with Islam in waging jihad against Christ.

Well, as a Christian, you can go to freeratio and get a faceful of venom if you try (and often enough, even if you don’t), but even if so, you have a standing in terms of being able to own your ideas and be credited for believing what you believe and thinking what you think that a presuppositionalist will deny you.

The nature of presuppositionalism is pre-emptive, and canceling. It removes the legitimacy of the ground the other part is standing on. Opponents aren’t just wrong or mistaken, but incapable of reasoning in their “fallen noetic state”, and deny what they know to be the truth, which is what believe (how convenient).

I don’t care what the disagreement may be, or even how personal or insulting the exchange may be, all is lost if all common ground is denied and annihilated. There is no more fundamental animus than that. That’s what so terrifying about something like the Holocaust, or a “Terminator” in a sci-fi flick. It can’t be reasoned with, or even engaged, there is no common ground to work from, only unreasoning, unbending programming, dogma, certainty,

Where there is common ground, there is at least hope. Presuppositionalism is the maximal fail, the shortest route to enmity. That’s why it’s cherished and valued, as well as despised.

So, if an atheist is going all presuppositionalist on you, a pox on him or her, and you can take me up on an invite to help go rip him/her to shreds, where it is. But at freeratio.org of AtBC or whatever, you may have your argument assaulted six ways from Sunday, but they will provide you with at least the basic decency of owning your own ideas, believing what you say, and some capacity to reason and process inbound concepts and arguments at some level. A van Til/Bahnsen style presuppositionalist will deny you that, the slime.

According to Anne Gardiner:

“First published in German in the mid-1950s, Christ in Dachau is a deeply moving account by Fr. John Lenz of the five years he spent in a concentration camp in Bavaria from 1940 to 1945. Perhaps the most striking aspect of his account is that it reveals how atheists of all stripes – criminals, socialists, communists, and SS agents – joined forces in Dachau to persecute Catholic priests.”

How’s that for atheist jihad?

There are, to be sure, atheist criminals and haters of any stripe you’d like to name. But it’s a basic error in reasoning to suppose that set represents the whole; many atheists are kind and considerate, fair, just and charitable. It’s really important to keep that in mind, for myself as well, as it is tempting, looking back – the most despicable people in my life, the most abusive, dishonest, selfish and malevolent people were Christians. Not just devout Christians. It’s all too easy to make the mistake of thinking those bad apples are what the whole barrel consists of.

Some of the finest people I know are Christians, of course. Also kind and considerate, fair, just and charitable. Neither atheism, Catholicism, or any other ‘ism’ I am thinking of is capable of ensuring the good apples and preventing bad apples in the mix.

But the worst of the worst, intellectually, hands down, are the presuppositionalists. Young Earth Creationism isn’t too far behind and is really a powerful engine for forcing otherwise decent people into all manners of deceit, denialism, animus and dishonesty they otherwise wouldn’t begin to embrace – and surprisingly, there’s a strong faction ot that noxiousness right here in this forum. But many, many Catholics I know, including some here, are wonderful examples of benevolence, thoughtfulness, and intellectual good will, affirming the common ground men of good will can have and share, even in light of severe and deep disagreements about very basic features of one’s world view.

That’s a source of hope, and one that the presup foregoes, a kind of blackening of the human soul for a cheap bit of rhetorical leverage where he cannot engage his fellow man on the level.

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

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?

 

[reggieM]

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.

Yes, it’s a list of reasons for what theisists observe in atheists. It’s very helpful to recognize the motives that people have for their belief.

I’ve confirmed several of those reasons among atheists I’ve had discussions with also – they’ve admitted them to me.

As MOM says above, they’re just observations. Several of them would not be considered “negative criticisms” either.

I’d be interested in hearing your point of view which you think reflects “the reality” in a better way.

 

[reggieM]

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?

It does help to read what the author said.

 

[Windfish]

Presuppositional apologetics is to reasoned discourse what masturbating in public is to social etiquette. It denies the very basis of discourse itself; there is only declaration and preaching, to more or less effect. No other approach is so self-indulgent, intellectually perverse or hostile to one’s fellow man.

Religion may not poison everything (I don’t think it does), but presuppositional apologetics is as pure a poison as religion can produce, intellectually. And, yes, I’m aware this is precisely the reaction a presuppositionalist expects and desires, for his cynicism and animus overwhelms any good will or basis for common ground or even honest discussion between Christianity and hostile worldviews. All is war, all is jihad for the presuppositionalist, and there can be no neutral ground, no comity with infidels and *kufr.

*It’s an excellent way to foster hatred and contempt for Christians, and that’s useful for the proponents of presuppositionalism. No need or use in making your case, but only war. Presuppositionalism is anti-dialectical.

But by all means check it out, and let me know how that works out for ya!

-TS

When the consequences are as far-reaching as those of atheism, I think presuppositional arguments are pretty good.

 

[Touchstone]

When the consequences are as far-reaching as those of atheism, I think presuppositional arguments are pretty good.

So, a kind of ends-justifies-the-means groove, eh? Theological will to power?

Here’s a question: if no god exists, and that fact has devastating consequences, would it still be a truth, in its devastating-ness?

Maybe, as others have suggested, Catholicism is something we should believe because it’s false?

-TS

 

[Windfish]

So, a kind of ends-justifies-the-means groove, eh? Theological will to power?

Here’s a question: if no god exists, and that fact has devastating consequences, would it still be a truth, in its devastating-ness?

Maybe, as others have suggested, Catholicism is something we should believe because it’s false?

-TS

I am not sure what you’re asking. In fact, I am bit confused.

What I am trying to say is that the vast majority of atheists that I know believe things that they shouldn’t as, well, atheists. I see no wrong in pointing this out to them via the presuppositional approach, and if it leads them to see the weakness of atheism and the rationality of belief in God, coolio.

 

[Touchstone]

I am not sure what you’re asking. In fact, I am bit confused.

What I am trying to say is that the vast majority of atheists that I know believe things that they shouldn’t as, well, atheists.

Hmmm. One of the worthwhile reasons for hanging out on a forum like this is that pervasive misconceptions about atheism in its various forms can be corrected, or at least pointed out; those with misconceptions may refuse the information, but it’s at least there for those who want to know.

As it turns out, atheism is, uh, “devilishly” narrow, as it is a negative proposition about the existence of God or gods. It’s not a worldview, although many worldviews are compatible with it; it’s not an ethical framework, although many ethical frameworks are compatible with it; it’s not a political ideology, although many different political ideologies are compatible with it.

Atheists are identified as such by what they do not believe, not what they believe in a positive sense. That makes it very difficult to say what an atheist must or should believe, outside, of course, of the denial of belief in God or gods. A useful quip it might help to keep in mind is “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”. May have to read that one a couple times, but there’s an important point in there.

All of which to say, nearly always, when a Catholic or other theist says “this is what an atheist should believe”, it is not entailed by atheism at all. I don’t know which beliefs atheists you know have that you suppose are at odds with their atheism, but I run into nonsense like this all the time:

*Atheists have no basis for the meaning of their lives.

Atheists cannot believe in right and wrong.

Atheists cannot rely on reason because they can’t define where reasoning comes from.

*Etc. If you want to throw out an example, I’d be interested to see the contradiction. After many many many of these, the battering average for theists simply indulging goofy ideas about what atheists should believe is really, really high.

I do run into atheists who suppose that God can’t exist because they hate him so much, though. That is something they shouldn’t believe, logically, and that does happen, so who knows, tell me your complaint, and we’ll see.

I see no wrong in pointing this out to them via the presuppositional approach, and if it leads them to see the weakness of atheism and the rationality of belief in God, coolio.

It would only lead them anywhere if they were a complete fool. Like, seriously stupid, not as just an epithet, the real kind of stupid. To the extent it worked it would have to be miraculous, or the Holy Spirit, or something, because it’s as irrational an appeal as is to be made, not mention insulting and hostile.

But, if it works for ya…

-TS

 

[Windfish]

It’s not so much that it works for me but that it works for others. People get kinda disturbed when they know that their atheism is inconsistent with moral realism, objective truth, the possibility of the supernatural, etc.

As for atheism being defined as a world view, eh. It has profound effects on our self-understanding and on a lot of concepts that we can no longer hold to be real/transcendent.

 

[Touchstone]

It’s not so much that it works for me but that it works for others. People get kinda disturbed when they know that their atheism is inconsistent with moral realism, objective truth, the possibility of the supernatural, etc.

Atheism isn’t opposed to any of those things. I know, and have debated with atheists who are moral realists, for example. There’s no logical contradiction at all, and while I don’t happen to subscribe to that view, I’m quite open to the idea that there may be brute moral facts that obtain objectively in the universe.

As for objective truth, this is a concept that atheists can lay claim to as an organic part of their epistemology, many of them anyway (atheism is diverse, remember, and just identifies as negation of theism). A theistic unvierse is by definition a subjective universe, and the Catholic believes necessarily that reality – all of it – is utterly subjective: created, maintained, and manipulated at will by the mind of God.

An objective reality obtains independent of mind or will. And so, as it happens, a Catholic cannot hold to a reality that obtains independently, as it would put reality out of God’s control. Whoops. That’s a case where one is unknowingly failing in the area where the opponent succeeds.

And lastly, you will have no trouble finding atheists of many stripes who believe in the supernatural, but do not believe in any God or gods. Animists, for example, or many flavors of eastern spiritualism embrace the idea of the supernatural but no deities.

See, this is good. We’re shining a light into the darkness, here. Some people do get disturbed to find out that atheism is compatible with those things, though.

As for atheism being defined as a world view, eh. It has profound effects on our self-understanding and on a lot of concepts that we can no longer hold to be real/transcendent.

Yes, and so much the better that it does! There’s lots of other beliefs that atheism doesn’t cover that we can mess up, but that’s one are where some clarity is available.

-TS

 

[Windfish]

An atheist can believe those things, but how are they consistent with their atheism? How can the supernatural occur in the closed, natural system of an atheistic universe? How can moral/real truths exist in an amoral atheistic universe? etc. etc. etc.

 

[Touchstone]

An atheist can believe those things, but how are they consistent with their atheism? How can the supernatural occur in the closed, natural system of an atheistic universe? How can moral/real truths exist in an amoral atheistic universe? etc. etc. etc.

These ideas are completely consistent with atheism. Consider for a moment that you have not thought through what you have been told to believe about atheists?

For an atheist who believes in the supernatural, the universe is not purely naturalistic, but has a supernatural dimension. That in no way is inconsistent with disbelief in any God or gods.

For an atheist who subscribes to moral realism, there exist brute moral facts about the universe, that obtain objectively, independently of any mind or will. This is in no way inconsistent with atheism, with the denial of the existence of God or gods. For a atheist who’s a moral realist, the universe has moral content, but no God.

There is no inconsistency here, only misconceptions on your part about what atheism entails.

-TS

 

[Windfish]

These ideas are completely consistent with atheism. Consider for a moment that you have not thought through what you have been told to believe about atheists?

I don’t think I have been mislead. I could be wrong, but I have not seen a way in which these ideas are consistent with atheism.

For an atheist who believes in the supernatural, the universe is not purely naturalistic, but has a supernatural dimension. That in no way is inconsistent with disbelief in any God or gods.

I really disagree. I don’t want to enter into a back and forth with you, but it’s precisely the point that I’m making that I don’t see how this “supernatural dimension” can emerge within a closed, natural universe - that is, a universe that has no need of a supernatural Creator. Setting aside that I think our universe is not such a universe, I don’t see how it’s metaphysically possible for this hypothetical universe.

For an atheist who subscribes to moral realism, there exist brute moral facts about the universe, that obtain objectively, independently of any mind or will. This is in no way inconsistent with atheism, with the denial of the existence of God or gods. For a atheist who’s a moral realist, the universe has moral content, but no God.

But again, I don’t understand how brute moral facts can emerge from an amoral universe. They would, oddly, be free-floating, having no real basis since, again, the universe is amoral.

There is no inconsistency here, only misconceptions on your part about what atheism entails.

I don’t think so.

 

[WimpyPete]

I think it’s a great idea to research some of the topics Patrick Madrid brings up (Scott Hahn co-wrote a similiarly good book) and become equipped with the facts.

It’s a lot like other apologetic efforts – it’s important to know the material.

After that, it’s a matter of discovering the weakness in the materialist position, and this will vary with each individual that you engage in discussion. Eventually, you can discover the various obstacles and traps that the materialist-mind has fallen into. At that point, it is our task to help them find the way out of those traps.

 

[Moonstruck888]

presuppositionalists

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

 

[Windfish]

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

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.

 

[Touchstone]

I don’t think I have been mislead. I could be wrong, but I have not seen a way in which these ideas are consistent with atheism.

They are consistent because they are free of inconsistency. It seems you are reading “consistency” to mean something like “implies” or “entails”? By consistent, I mean “free of conflicts”.

I really disagree. I don’t want to enter into a back and forth with you, but it’s precisely the point that I’m making that I don’t see how this “supernatural dimension” can emerge within a closed, natural universe - that is, a universe that has no need of a supernatural Creator. Setting aside that I think our universe is not such a universe, I don’t see how it’s metaphysically possible for this hypothetical universe.

Fine, but that has nothing to do with consistency. To say you just aren’t aware is not to say you find conflicts. If you do know conflicts and can point to them, then that would be a problem for an atheist to address, but “gee, I don’t see how” isn’t really any kind of issue at all, for anyone.

But again, I don’t understand how brute moral facts can emerge from an amoral universe. They would, oddly, be free-floating, having no real basis since, again, the universe is amoral.

That you don’t see how doesn’t present a problem for the atheist, at all. Consider a case where you don’t see how matter could be converted into energy. That’s the fact, you don’t see how that works, or could work. But there’s no consistency issue with our observations and theories that energy and matter are convertible in certain contexts. Your “not seeing how” is just not an issue at all. A physicist would just shrug at that as a challenge, just as an atheist would shrug at your “I don’t see how” above. It’s not an issue that needs addressing.

If you can say X is inconsistent with Y because of Z, then you have a starting point we can work from, but just not being aware is not even a starting point.

-TS

 

[Windfish]

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.