Proof #2 against Atheism

[Maranatha]

This is our second look at how reason and logic prove Theism and disprove Atheism.

We are able to intelligibly experience the universe. Most of the universe, including particles, energy and even most living things are intellectually unaware. The universe itself is not intellectually aware.

1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and our finite minds that are so well suited to grasp it are products of intelligence or both intelligibly and intelligence are products of blind change
3. Blind chance is unreasonable
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and our finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

 

[David_Brown]

Maranatha:

This is our second look at how reason and logic prove Theism and disprove Atheism.

We are able to intelligibly experience the universe. Most of the universe, including particles, energy and even most living things are intellectually unaware. The universe itself is not intellectually aware.

1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and our finite minds that are so well suited to grasp it are products of intelligence or both intelligibly and intelligence are products of blind change
3. Blind chance is unreasonable
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and our finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

A question about premise 2: Are these the only possibilities? What about the variety of arguments from an evolutionary perspective? For example: Organisms (capable of thought) which survive would likely have mental states that adequately map on to the world as a condition of their survival; so, for surviving organisms, we would expect to find some relation between the order of their thoughts and the order of the world (or our experience of the world).

Wouldn’t you then have to say that it really doesn’t matter because atheistic evolution, though guided by natural laws, is somehow ultimately governed by chance and not intelligence?

I have read somewhere (I can’t at this time remember exactly) that the theist argues the mind world relation by giving priority to mind while the atheist gives priority to the world. So that both beg the question in their initial assumptions. I think Russell said something like it in rejecting a version of the cosmological argument.

Just a question about dealing with the evolution thing. I know of atheistic cognitive scientists who would try to work that angle (Kitcher, Dennett, and the like).

David

 

[Lazerlike42]

David Brown:

A question about premise 2: Are these the only possibilities? What about the variety of arguments from an evolutionary perspective? For example: Organisms (capable of thought) which survive would likely have mental states that adequately map on to the world as a condition of their survival; so, for surviving organisms, we would expect to find some relation between the order of their thoughts and the order of the world (or our experience of the world).

Wouldn’t you then have to say that it really doesn’t matter because atheistic evolution, though guided by natural laws, is somehow ultimately governed by chance and not intelligence?

I have read somewhere (I can’t at this time remember exactly) that the theist argues the mind world relation by giving priority to mind while the atheist gives priority to the world. So that both beg the question in their initial assumptions. I think Russell said something like it in rejecting a version of the cosmological argument.

Just a question about dealing with the evolution thing. I know of atheistic cognitive scientists who would try to work that angle (Kitcher, Dennett, and the like).

David

I’m don’t think that matters. From an evolutionary perspective, no doubt the creatures best suited to productive thought will survive over those less suited. However, this isn’t what is being talked about here. The idea in question is whether or not the random motions and behaviors of subatmoic particles, and things of that sort, can produce intelligence and conciousness. Evolution assumes this is true, but it doesn’t prove it is true. In fact there is quite a jump in reasoning to get from these various behaviors to reason.

This premise actually has scientific foundation. Scientists have spent a long time and a lot of money trying to figure out how conciousness can exist. Forgetting things like intelligence, which is really the next step, scientists’ research has always showed that conciousness itself should be impossible. In fact, to go further with this, scientists have also made a very interesting discovery, which is that conciousness seems to last beyond death long after all of the electrical impulses and chemical reactions of the brain stop. I am no neurologist so I don’t know how to explain it, but this is research that is really giving a lot of people headaches trying to understand and explain with pure reason.

 

[David_Brown]

Lazerlike42:

I’m don’t think that matters. From an evolutionary perspective, no doubt the creatures best suited to productive thought will survive over those less suited. However, this isn’t what is being talked about here. The idea in question is whether or not the random motions and behaviors of subatmoic particles, and things of that sort, can produce intelligence and conciousness. Evolution assumes this is true, but it doesn’t prove it is true. In fact there is quite a jump in reasoning to get from these various behaviors to reason.

This premise actually has scientific foundation. Scientists have spent a long time and a lot of money trying to figure out how conciousness can exist. Forgetting things like intelligence, which is really the next step, scientists’ research has always showed that conciousness itself should be impossible. In fact, to go further with this, scientists have also made a very interesting discovery, which is that conciousness seems to last beyond death long after all of the electrical impulses and chemical reactions of the brain stop. I am no neurologist so I don’t know how to explain it, but this is research that is really giving a lot of people headaches trying to understand and explain with pure reason.

It may not ultimately matter, but that would have to be argued in defense of the premise (which is in part what I asked for). But I have read enough accounts raising that kind of question in popular stuff like Free Inquiry and The New York Review of Books and in in cognitive science and philosophy journals and know those objections would be made. So I asked.

The “scientific foundation” you spoke of seems far from a consensus view (if you judge by articles in cognitive science and philosophy journals). Judging by the literature and by the books that have come out over the past several years (Dennett, Chalmers, McGinn, etc.) and by talking to the people in the Wash. U. Philosophy Neuroscience and Psychology (PNP) program, there don’t seem to be many things scientists agree about concerning consciousness, etc. Were you speaking of some new discovery? Where was it written up? I haven’t kept up as much as I would like.

Thanks,

David

 

[Maranatha]

David Brown:

A question about premise 2: Are these the only possibilities? What about the variety of arguments from an evolutionary perspective? For example: Organisms (capable of thought) which survive would likely have mental states that adequately map on to the world as a condition of their survival; so, for surviving organisms, we would expect to find some relation between the order of their thoughts and the order of the world (or our experience of the world).

Wouldn’t you then have to say that it really doesn’t matter because atheistic evolution, though guided by natural laws, is somehow ultimately governed by chance and not intelligence?

It seems to me that you answered your own question. By extrapolating evolution from the physical to the philosophical they claim intelligence may have come from evolution and therefore change. This is an argument against proof #2 but it can’t be raised to the level of a proof in favor of Atheism. There are only two logical options to premise #2.

 

[David_Brown]

Maranatha:

It seems to me that you answered your own question. By extrapolating evolution from the physical to the philosophical they claim intelligence may have come from evolution and therefore change. This is an argument against proof #2 but it can’t be raised to the level of a proof in favor of Atheism. There are only two logical options to premise #2.

I don’t know if I understand what you said here. Please help.

(A) If it is possible to have an evolutionary (or naturalistic) account that “is an argument against proof #2” (I assume you mean your premise #2), then why doesn’t that mean the original argument needs to re-work #2 to defend against it? If the atheist has reason to reject a premise they have no logical reason to accept the conclusion.

(B) I have no idea about what you mean by “may have come from evolution and therefore change.” Is it a problem? A way to defend premise #2? Certainly, I would agree that an evolutinary account would have trouble with an idealized form of reason, but their account would only require reason good enough to survive and reporduce (and the argument doesn’t seem to explicitly assume or require an idealized form of reason as it stands).

(C) When you say “it can’t be raised to the level of proof in favor of Atheism,” you are quite right. But since my question was not about a possible atheist argument, only about a possible weakness in premise #2, I don’t know what to say except “Ok.”

(D) How are we back to premise #2 if you thought it possible to have an evolutinary argument against it? Doesn’t it need some work?

I hope you can see my confusion and help me out of it. I am sorry I took so much space.

Thanks,

David

 

[atheos_sum]

The third premise is most problematic.

The argument does not use reason and logic alone to suggest its truth. id est, the argument is not *a priori, *as the initial post says, but rather, *a posteriori. *This means that the argument derives its knowledge from experience and observed phenomena to reach conclusions as the causes, rather than reason and logic alone. So, to understand whether the 3rd premise is true requires an extensive understanding of things like physics and biology. This argument would most likely dwindle ino a debate over the mechanisms of evolution and so on–and usually those debates are very sloppy.

That said, i’m an atheist, but i’m not excluding either of these possibilities. Perhaps it’s a combination of intelligence and chance. Perhaps it’s all chance. But remember that atheism, at least my atheism in particular, is not a philosophy against an “intelligent cause” of some sort, but rather, one against any God that religionists declare as “worthy of praise” or “personal”. In the sense that you are arguing that there is some sort of “cause” for the universe, this is not the same as arguing that “God” is the cause. When deists claim that they believe in “God” i believe they are very mistaken, usually they believe in a “cause” which actually is not worthy of the name “God.”

So i’m dismissing your argument on grounds that it is not an argument against what i believe as an atheist.

 

[cheddarsox]

I think you are forgetting that you cannot and do not know the limits of your ability to know. You assume, because you “grasp” a certain part of the universe, that the universe is intelligible, but that may not be the case. Humans may very well not be able to “grasp” the vast truths of the universe.

for example. Millions of ants live in my yard, there are things they grasp about their surroundings, but I have no reason to believe that ants know about the existence of sharks, or Australia, or the grocery store. And I suspect that the ants dont’ realize that there are things they don’t grasp. They know what they know, and are not cognizant of their unknowing.

There may be countless aspects of the universe that we don’t know about, can’t even suspect because we have no way of knowing the limits of our ability to know.

There may be energy forms our bodies have no way of registering, our instruments no way of measuring, etc. We simply cannot know.

To assume the universe is “graspable” by our minds is a big leap of faith.

cheddar

 

[Drew98]

Maranatha:

This is our second look at how reason and logic prove Theism and disprove Atheism.

Just like in your previous “proof” you claim to “prove theism” but then God is missing from the proof. You need a step like this:

1. Because of _________ this intelligence can only be God.

Could you fill in the blank?

 

[David_Brown]

Drew98:

Just like in your previous “proof” you claim to “prove theism” but then God is missing from the proof. You need a step like this:

1. Because of _________ this intelligence can only be God.

Could you fill in the blank?

The argument could also end as Aquinas ended his proofs: “We call this intelligence God.” Like Aquinas’ proofs you would only get the “philosopher’s God” and not the full-blown God of Christianity.

David

 

[AnAtheist]

*We are able to intelligibly experience the universe. *
Yup.

Most of the universe, including particles, energy and even most living things are intellectually unaware.
Yup. Would you include other beings than humans into the “are intellectually aware” category?

The universe itself is not intellectually aware.
How do you know that? A Pantheist would perhaps disagree.

1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
OK

2. Either this intelligible universe and our finite minds that are so well suited to grasp it are products of intelligence or both intelligibly and intelligence are products of blind change
That is an unvalid bifurcation. As it was said before, evolutionary processes are a third option.

3. Blind chance is unreasonable
Meaning what?

1. 
   *]Processes governed by blind chance do not reasonably exist.
   *]Processes governed by blind chance never lead to reasonable results.
   *]Processes governed by blind chance never lead to intelligible results.
   *]Processes governed by blind chance never lead to intelligent results.
   *]
   
   #1 to #3 are obviously wrong, leaving #4 and something I haven’t thought of. Please elaborate.

 

[AnAtheist]

David Brown:

The argument could also end as Aquinas ended his proofs: “We call this intelligence God.” Like Aquinas’ proofs you would only get the “philosopher’s God” and not the full-blown God of Christianity.

David

But you would get an intelligent god implying god having conciousness or being a person. That is a bit more than a philosophical and perhaps unpersonal prima causa.

 

[David_Brown]

AnAtheist:

But you would get an intelligent god implying god having conciousness or being a person. That is a bit more than a philosophical and perhaps unpersonal prima causa.

Good point. But I still think it would be easier to deal with than:

Drew98:

…
5. Because of _________ this intelligence can only be God.

Could you fill in the blank?

I think your post # 11 has it about right, by the way. The original argument needs work to deal with those points.

David

 

[st.jerome]

AnAtheist:

But you would get an intelligent god implying god having conciousness or being a person. That is a bit more than a philosophical and perhaps unpersonal prima causa.

If I could interject, a Jewish notion of God (w/o Christ) is that we only know God through His works. From that line of thought, consciousness and intellect can only help humans better understand humanity and the universe–that which has been created. Having no direct access, we can’t make any claims about God’s “psyche.”

 

[Maranatha]

atheos_sum:

The third premise is most problematic.

The argument does not use reason and logic alone to suggest its truth. id est, the argument is not *a priori, *as the initial post says, but rather, *a posteriori. *This means that the argument derives its knowledge from experience and observed phenomena to reach conclusions as the causes, rather than reason and logic alone. So, to understand whether the 3rd premise is true requires an extensive understanding of things like physics and biology. This argument would most likely dwindle ino a debate over the mechanisms of evolution and so on–and usually those debates are very sloppy.

That said, i’m an atheist, but i’m not excluding either of these possibilities. Perhaps it’s a combination of intelligence and chance. Perhaps it’s all chance. But remember that atheism, at least my atheism in particular, is not a philosophy against an “intelligent cause” of some sort, but rather, one against any God that religionists declare as “worthy of praise” or “personal”. In the sense that you are arguing that there is some sort of “cause” for the universe, this is not the same as arguing that “God” is the cause. When deists claim that they believe in “God” i believe they are very mistaken, usually they believe in a “cause” which actually is not worthy of the name “God.”

So i’m dismissing your argument on grounds that it is not an argument against what i believe as an atheist.

At first blush, item #3 does seem problematic and perhaps not even rational. C. S. Lewis dedicated the entire third chapter of his book Miracles to explaining why step three of this proof is rational.

I’ll do my best to summarize his argument. He defined naturalism as the view that the entire universe is solely based on physical causes. This is what we called blind chance. If blind chance is true then it leaves us with not real reason for believing it is true for all thinking would be the result of non-rational forces. So if the universe operates void of any rational plan or guiding purpose then blind chance can not be the source of our intelligence.

 

[rossum]

1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

We can only grasp that part of the universe which is graspable. There may, or may not, be a non-graspable part.

1. Either this intelligible universe and our finite minds that are so well suited to grasp it are products of intelligence or both intelligibly and intelligence are products of blind change.

False dilemma. There are other possibilities, such as:
2.3 The universe and ourselves are both illusiory - neither really exists.
2.4 We ourselves have constructed the universe so that it is comprehensible to us.
2.5 We cannot understand any of the universe directly, the best we can do is to understand the mental model of the universe that we each construct in our heads.
2.6 Our minds have evolved (not a blind chance process) so as to be able to understand sufficient of the universe to enable us to survive in it.
2.7 etc.

1. Blind chance is unreasonable

Agreed.

1. Therefore this intelligible universe and our finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

Conclusion fails as there are problems with premises 1 and 2.

rossum

 

[Maranatha]

rossum:

We can only grasp that part of the universe which is graspable. There may, or may not, be a non-graspable part.

I don’t think you understand this premis. It is establishing that we are conscious and intelligent and have uncovered a small percent of the working interaction of the universe. The fact that we have only uncovered a small percent of the working operation of the universe and may never full uncover it all is not what this premise is acerting.

rossum:

False dilemma. There are other possibilities, such as:
2.3 The universe and ourselves are both illusiory - neither really exists.
2.4 We ourselves have constructed the universe so that it is comprehensible to us.
2.5 We cannot understand any of the universe directly, the best we can do is to understand the mental model of the universe that we each construct in our heads.
2.6 Our minds have evolved (not a blind chance process) so as to be able to understand sufficient of the universe to enable us to survive in it.
2.7 etc.

All you premises fall in to blind chance, even the evolutionary one. Evolution is based on the premis that chance mutations in a very small percent of the times results in an improved chance at surviving natural selection.

rossum:

Agreed.

I’m glad we agree on #3.

rossum:

Conclusion fails as there are problems with premises 1 and 2.

Proof stands as refutation of 1 and 2 fails.

 

[rossum]

Maranatha:

I don’t think you understand this premis[e]. It is establishing that we are conscious and intelligent and have uncovered a small percent of the working interaction of the universe.

This assumes that the universe really exists. In other words you are assuming a realist position rather than an idealist position. There is a great deal of philosophical discussion already done on this, and the argument has not been resolved yet. You certainly cannot just make this assumption.

Your original premise said “1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.” Are you now saying that this should have read “1. We grasp a small percentage of the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that a small percentage of the universe is graspable by intelligence”?

Taking this change through you initial argumant gives the conclusion “4. Therefore this intelligible small percentage of the universe and our finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.” All you have now shown is that a small percentage of the universe is the product of intelligence. That is trivially true. The computer on which I am typing this is a product of intelligence, and is a small percentage of the universe. Congratulations, you have shown that humans are intelligent because we can make computers.

Maranatha:

All you[r] premises fall in to blind chance,

I fail to see how either the Idealist premise (2.3) or the Mental Model premise are due to “blind chance”. Mere assertion does not make a thing so. You are going to have to prove this statement for each of the premises I stated.

Maranatha:

even the evolutionary one.

There is a common misconception of evolution that it is a blind chance process. Just taking Random Mutation and Natural Selection (RM&NS), obviously the RM part is blind chance. However the NS part is certainly not a blind chance process. The overall RM&NS process does not react as a blind chance process, it can be a reasonably efficient way of searching a large range of possible solutions to find an optimal, or close to optimal, solution. There are a number of commercial enterprises which make their living using evolutionary techniques to solve solutions. I myself have written some evolutionary programs and it can be instructive to do so yourself. For a lot more on computing and evolution, see this page. Evolution is not a purely random process, and cannot be described as “blind chance”.

Maranatha:

Proof stands as refutation of 1 and 2 fails.

No. At most you have shown that humans are intelligent.

rossum

 

[Drew98]

David Brown:

The argument could also end as Aquinas ended his proofs: “We call this intelligence God.” Like Aquinas’ proofs you would only get the “philosopher’s God” and not the full-blown God of Christianity.

I never liked that move by Aquinas. You prove some anonymous entity has a single attribute normally associated with God then invoke the magic words: “this everyone understands to be God” and suddenly all the attributes normally associated with God are considered proven.

If Maranatha really wants to take this route in “proving theism” then it seems to me he has to prove that a single entity possesses all the attributes of God at the same time. Instead of multiple proofs of these minor gods he doesn’t believe in how about combining them into a single proof of the God he does believe in?

Is it too much to ask that a theist be consistent and stick with a single definition of God? Maranatha claims to be a Catholic but the stripped-down version of God implied in his proofs are very uncatholic.

 

[David_Brown]

Drew98:

I never liked that move by Aquinas. You prove some anonymous entity has a single attribute normally associated with God then invoke the magic words: “this everyone understands to be God” and suddenly all the attributes normally associated with God are considered proven…

To be fair, Aquinas never did that. Many others, sadly, do.

Drew98:

If Maranatha really wants to take this route in “proving theism” then it seems to me he has to prove that a single entity possesses all the attributes of God at the same time. Instead of multiple proofs of these minor gods he doesn’t believe in how about combining them into a single proof of the God he does believe in?.

Yes. And, not exactly. Aquinas took little “proofs” and then tried combing them and so on. “Instead” implies you can’t or shouldn’t do the little proofs. One benefit of the little proofs, a little benefit, if you will, is that a little proof there is something argues against a particular kind of atheist who says there is nothing. It doesn’t really do much as a positive proof but can be a disproof.

Drew98:

IIs it too much to ask that a theist be consistent and stick with a single definition of God? Maranatha claims to be a Catholic but the stripped-down version of God implied in his proofs are very uncatholic.

If these are porperties of a single God, what is the problem? If God is supposed to be x, y, z , why can’t you show that God is x and that God is y and God is z ? There is no inconsistency unless the definitions are inconsistent; if the definitions could be united, there is no problem. Also, to say that “stripped-down” proofs are un-Catholic ignores the fact that Aquinas used them. It also ignores the fact, in Aquinas and repeated in the Cateshism (esp. #31-43) that there is a limit to what reason, evidence, and proof can tell us about God (those things that are prologomena)–which is why we need revelation. It seems most Catholic (which doesn’t necessarily mean “true”).

David