Several questions

[Think_About_It]

Physicalists would certainly dispute the principle of finality because they reduce “why?” to “how?”.They attribute purposeful activity to that which is purposeless - without explaining how it has come about!

What they fail to realise is that their explanation of reality overlooks the fact that their reasoning and explanation are purposeful. To regard reasoning as a mechanistic process is to undermine the validity of reasoning. If reasoning has no goal in view it is going precisely nowhere… To reject finality is to endow the past with supreme significance, to dismiss the future as irrelevant and be forced to live in the meaningless present…

Your request (You assume you can ask the question why. Explain that.) makes it clear that purpose is ultimately no more than an illusion - **according to the physicalist. **Everything occurs according to physical necessity - with consequences which are as inevitable as objects falling to the ground. A purpose has no reference to the future but is simply a physical function. So we only **imagine ** we have control over ourselves. We are just cogs in an immense machine moving along in space and time **for no reason or purpose whatsoever ** - and achieving precisely nothing…

Woops. Looks like you misunderstood. I didn’t ask you to give me a synopsis of my viewpoint; I asked how you thought you could ask the question “why?” That is, why do you suppose there’s an answer to your question “why?”

Let me give you an example of how you can’t always ask “why?” even if you’d like to.

“Why is up not down?”
“Do you mean why do we not call up down?”
“No no, quite literally, why is up not down?”
“Are you asking about gravity?”
“No. Why is up not down”

Because it isn’t. There is the simple matter of fact, but there is no “why” to be asked…

 

[tonyrey]

Woops. Looks like you misunderstood. I didn’t ask you to give me a synopsis of my viewpoint; I asked how you thought you could ask the question “why?” That is, why do you suppose there’s an answer to your question “why?”

Let me give you an example of how you can’t always ask “why?” even if you’d like to.

“Why is up not down?”
“Do you mean why do we not call up down?”
“No no, quite literally, why is up not down?”
“Are you asking about gravity?”
“No. Why is up not down”

Because it isn’t. There is the simple matter of fact, but there is no “why” to be asked…

To state that "you can’t always ask “why?” implies that there are some occasions on which you are entitled to ask “why?”. How do you determine which are those occasions? And why?

 

[twinc]

The perennial and long standing misunderstanding continues and will continue until it is clearly understood and accepted as proved that there is nothing that is physical or material ,not even the brains that think so but do not really think - twinc

 

[Think_About_It]

To state that "you can’t always ask “why?” implies that there are some occasions on which you are entitled to ask “why?”. How do you determine which are those occasions? And why?

Yes, that’s what I’m asking you. Why do suppose you can ask “why is everything the way it is?” Quit beating around the bush. Why do you suppose the things being the way that things are is a worthy occasion for asking why?

 

[twinc]

Gravity is pulling us down and keeping us there whether we are up or down or sideways,hence nowhere in the world is anyone walking upside down or sideways - so up and down are relative in space etc - twinc

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, that’s what I’m asking you. Why do suppose you can ask “why is everything the way it is?” Quit beating around the bush. Why do you suppose the things being the way that things are is a worthy occasion for asking why?

Which do you think is the more important question? “How?” or “Why?” Surely that is reason enough for any reasonable person…

It is noteworthy that you put things before persons. It reveals your sense of values… You could have asked “Why do you suppose persons being the way persons are is a worthy occasion for asking why?” but in your scheme of things persons are insignificant. You believe physical causes have precedence over reasons even though you cannot give reasons why physical causes have precedence…

Why do you bother about “why?” questions at all?

 

[Think_About_It]

Which do you think is the more important question? “How?” or “Why?” Surely that is reason enough for any reasonable person…

It’s doesn’t matter which question I feel is more important. Sometimes we’re not in a position to ask why. I’m asking you why you think you can ask why things are the way that they are. I can’t understand the reason you won’t answer this.

It is noteworthy that you put things before persons. It reveals your sense of values… You could have asked “Why do you suppose persons being the way persons are is a worthy occasion for asking why?” but in your scheme of things persons are insignificant.

I’m including people in “why are things the way they are [ultimately]?”. It doesn’t reflect anything about my values. Look, my question is very simple, why won’t you answer it?

You believe physical causes have precedence over reasons

No I don’t. I’ve already explained this. I’m saying that sometimes there isn’t a reason behind something. Sometimes something just is. If there is an answer to why, if the question can be asked, it’s not accessible to us.

even though you cannot give reasons why physical causes have precedence…

That’s right. I can’t give reasons because I don’t have the answer to that question. My question is why do you suppose there is an answer to your question 'why?'

My question is so straight forward. I would appreciate it if, like a mature person, you would stop dodging it. (Also, try and respond by defending your position and not attacking mine for a change; perhaps I want to hear what you believe and why you do.)

 

[tonyrey]

It’s doesn’t matter which question I feel is more important.

That means you are existing in a vacuum!

Sometimes we’re not in a position to ask why.

How do you know that? How do you determine when we’re not in a position to ask why?

I’m asking you why you think you can ask why things are the way that they are. I can’t understand the reason you won’t answer this.

I have already given you the reason.

I’m including people in “why are things the way they are [ultimately]?”. It doesn’t reflect anything about my values.

The fact that you include people with things confirms that you regard persons as just another type of thing! And consequently it tells us a great deal about your values…

Look, my question is very simple, why won’t you answer it?

I have done and shall do again.

No I don’t. I’ve already explained this. I’m saying that sometimes there isn’t a reason behind something. Sometimes something just is. If there is an answer to why, if the question can be asked, it’s not accessible to us.

You have not explained how you determine when this is the case. If you cannot do so
you are not entitled to affirm that sometimes there isn’t a reason behind something. There could never be an answer to the question *why - which is a logical conclusion if you believe how? has precedence over why?. *All answers to *why? *are in effect based on answers to how?

That’s right. I can’t give reasons because I don’t have the answer to that question.

Then let us rephrase it:
Can you give a cause for believing that causes have precedence?! Can you justify your assumption that causes have precedence? Do you in fact regard causes as the primary form of explanation?

My question is why do you suppose there is an answer to your question ’why?'

I believe there is an answer to the question why? because reasons are more fundamental than physical causes. If you are a rational being it is reasonable to believe we live in a** rational **universe.

My question is so straight forward. I would appreciate it if, like a mature person, you would stop dodging it. (Also, try and respond by defending your position and not attacking mine for a change; perhaps I want to hear what you believe and why you do.)

You imagine that I am dodging it even though I have stated quite clearly that the physicalists’ explanation of reality overlooks the fact that their reasoning and explanation are** purposeful**. To regard reasoning as a** mechanistic** process is to undermine the validity of reasoning. If reasoning has no goal in view it is going precisely nowhere… To reject finality is to endow the past with supreme significance, to dismiss the future as irrelevant and be forced to live in the meaningless present. In other words rationality and purpose are more fundamental than physical causality.

 

[Think_About_It]

Let this serve as an analogy for our conversation

Me: “Why do you think there is a definition for this otherwise undefined unit in math?”
you: “Because definitions are more fundamental than everything else you observe in math!”

You clearly don’t understand what I’m asking you, and probably won’t with clarification, just like when we were arguing about chance and probability. Instead of theorizing about how awful it is to believe the kinds of things I, and people like myself, believe, you might try and understand it.

 

[tonyrey]

Let this serve as an analogy for our conversation

Me: “Why do you think there is a definition for this otherwise undefined unit in math?”
you: “Because definitions are more fundamental than everything else you observe in math!”

Your analogy is flawed. We are not discussing definitions but types of explanation. You opt for mechanistic rather than teleological explanation, i.e. how? rather than why? This is equivalent to putting physical causes first as opposed to rational beings and deriving the power of reason from unreasoning processes…

You clearly don’t understand what I’m asking you, and probably won’t with clarification, just like when we were arguing about chance and probability. Instead of theorizing about how awful it is to believe the kinds of things I, and people like myself, believe, you might try and understand it.

The fact remains that you have not answered one of my questions nor refuted any of the points I have made. You prefer to make assertions about what I don’t understand and how awful it is to believe what you believe (which is nonsense because you are entitled to believe what you like. If you believe everything is ultimately meaningless, valueless and purposeless good luck to you! You are far from being alone in your views).
I understand your position perfectly but you refuse to accept its implications…

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Yeah, so, I’ve been undertaken a thorough reading of atheist rebuts and refutations of common theist apologetics, including the anthropic principle, argument from morality, argument from scriptural consistency, among other things. It seems as though for every theist argument, there are 2 from eminent scientists and philosophers that blow it to smithereens. I’m getting scared.

 

[bolsheviks]

Yeah, so, I’ve been undertaken a thorough reading of atheist rebuts and refutations of common theist apologetics, including the anthropic principle, argument from morality, argument from scriptural consistency, among other things. It seems as though for every theist argument, there are 2 from eminent scientists and philosophers that blow it to smithereens. I’m getting scared.

I went through the same dilemma a few years ago. It was all about arguments. Who had the best arguments, who had the best science and so on. I’m convinced that line of reasoning is flawed. As a theist, you’re naturally sensitive to non-theist criticism. During my brief period as an agnostic, perhaps surprisingly, I felt sensitive to theist criticism.

Consider these ideas:

Mystery is not inherently wrong. A long tradition in Catholicism is the idea of - get this - not knowing. Certain things are mysterious, not because we can’t mount an argument for them, but because they are supposed to be mysterious. (Which of course is no surprise to a churchgoer - “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” and so on).) Throughout it’s history, the church has rationally been at peace with this idea.

(Your first question is actually a question I’ve struggled with. If you want a modern, reasoned, intelligent argument for dualism I’d recommend Richard Swinburne’s The Evolution of the Soul.)

It’s OK to believe in God based on faith alone. It’s a mature stance to take. Of the internet discussions you’ll find, this is likely the most unvoiced opinion. It feels like everyone, of every persuasion, feels that God has to be proven, devined, or calculated somehow. It’s a futile effort. At best, you can maybe get a feel for whether God exists, but it depends on the assumption that you know what God is or does (i.e. creationists know God is adverse to evolution).

It’s freeing to move past all of that guessing. Go by what feels intuitive to you. It’s more rewarding, and your faith will be built on a much more solid foundation. Trying to build faith on the hottest argument around doesn’t work when you read a convincing counterargument. Just try letting it all go. It may put you at ease.

I’d recommend you check out Fr. Robert Barron’s youtube channel and articles. Start with this article - it addresses a lot of the common criticisms of faith that you find online. Fr. Barron is very sharp, it’s definitely worth the look.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah, so, I’ve been undertaken a thorough reading of atheist rebuts and refutations of common theist apologetics, including the anthropic principle, argument from morality, argument from scriptural consistency, among other things. It seems as though for every theist argument, there are 2 from eminent scientists and philosophers that blow it to smithereens. I’m getting scared.

im not sure why you dont simply trust the Scriptures. even were every other argument wrong. there are dozens of different books compiled into the Bible that provide eyewitness testimony of G-d and mans relationship for thousands of years. whats wrong with that?

i was an atheist and eventually found their arguments too weak and biased to sustain disbelief in the face of common sense and all those witnesses.

if there is some argument that bothers you, or you need an answer too, im happy to help, just let me know what it is.

 

[tonyrey]

Yeah, so, I’ve been undertaken a thorough reading of atheist rebuts and refutations of common theist apologetics, including the anthropic principle, argument from morality, argument from scriptural consistency, among other things. It seems as though for every theist argument, there are 2 from eminent scientists and philosophers that blow it to smithereens. I’m getting scared.

Let’s have arguments by some eminent scientists and philosopher so that we can blow them to smithereens! How do **they **dispose of goodness, freedom, purpose and love?

BTW Intellectual eminence is no guarantee of insight into the nature of spiritual reality. In fact it often leads to hubris and moral decadence…

Why are you scared of finding the truth? The very existence of truth demonstrates the absurdity of materialism…

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

I went through the same dilemma a few years ago. It was all about arguments. Who had the best arguments, who had the best science and so on. I’m convinced that line of reasoning is flawed. As a theist, you’re naturally sensitive to non-theist criticism. During my brief period as an agnostic, perhaps surprisingly, I felt sensitive to theist criticism.

Consider these ideas:

Mystery is not inherently wrong. A long tradition in Catholicism is the idea of - get this - not knowing. Certain things are mysterious, not because we can’t mount an argument for them, but because they are supposed to be mysterious. (Which of course is no surprise to a churchgoer - “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” and so on).) Throughout it’s history, the church has rationally been at peace with this idea.

One thing I’ve always disliked about Eastern Christianity was its obsession with mystery. Not that I disdain the concept of mystery in any way. If Christianity is true, then mystery is a neccessary component. However, far too often it seems as though theists like to classify outright contradictions, logical inconsistencies as “mysteries”. This satisfies no one, and while it may bring comfort to someone who is unwilling to thoroughly assess what they believe and why they believe it, I could not live with myself knowing that I let emptional weakness triumph over my passion for truth. We only live life once, and I’d like to do it right. I want to become a monk, I really, really do. I want to fall in love with Christ and spend the rest of my fleshy existence contemplating the divine mysteries. However, I don’t want to waste my life on a lie. Not if I can help it, anyway.

(Your first question is actually a question I’ve struggled with. If you want a modern, reasoned, intelligent argument for dualism I’d recommend Richard Swinburne’s The Evolution of the Soul.)

I’ve read Swineburne, and I found it thoroughly unconvincing. On the online secular library, they have quite a few comprehensive, convincing essays that seemingly demolish mind-body dualism. Again, I would still categorically define myself as a Catholic, but, these things, if true, and they sppear to be so, call for a radical redefinition, if not total abandonment of the mind’s existence in relation to the brain.

It’s OK to believe in God based on faith alone. It’s a mature stance to take. Of the internet discussions you’ll find, this is likely the most unvoiced opinion. It feels like everyone, of every persuasion, feels that God has to be proven, devined, or calculated somehow. It’s a futile effort. At best, you can maybe get a feel for whether God exists, but it depends on the assumption that you know what God is or does (i.e. creationists know God is adverse to evolution).

Vatican I affirmed, as dogma, I believe, that theism can be arrived at by purely rational, emirical means. If God cannot be approached rationally, as seems to be the case, then the 1st Vatican Council was in error. Undermining the Catholic religion. Far too often, “faith” is code for suppression of the intellect.

It’s freeing to move past all of that guessing. Go by what feels intuitive to you. It’s more rewarding, and your faith will be built on a much more solid foundation. Trying to build faith on the hottest argument around doesn’t work when you read a convincing counterargument. Just try letting it all go. It may put you at ease.

Intuition? I don’t think any of the Church Fathers would have advocated approaching the things of faith with intuition! If so, what of the homosexuals and the modernists! Their intuitions place them in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church. As for being at peace, I’m not looking for it. I want the truth.

I’d recommend you check out Fr. Robert Barron’s youtube channel and articles. Start with this article - it addresses a lot of the common criticisms of faith that you find online. Fr. Barron is very sharp, it’s definitely worth the look.

**I’m familiar with Fr. Barron’s youtube videos, but, I’m afraid that the only convincing argument he’s put forth is the Cosmological one.

Trust me, I want desperately to believe. So bad I can’t put it into words. But I can’t delude myself.**

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Let’s have arguments by some eminent scientists and philosopher so that we can blow them to smithereens! How do **they **dispose of goodness, freedom, purpose and love?

Goodness, freedom purpose and love can all be explained naturally. Goodness? It could be said there is no goodness, that its a relative concept that’s resulted from our species discovering what was conducive to self preservation. Freedom? Apparently, there’s very good evidence that indicates that “freedom” is illusion. Purpose? How can we prove there is purpose? Love? Love is a chemical reaction, a socially and evolutionarily expeditious behavior that can be defined in purely natural terms.

BTW Intellectual eminence is no guarantee of insight into the nature of spiritual reality. In fact it often leads to hubris and moral decadence…

Agreed.

Why are you scared of finding the truth? The very existence of truth demonstrates the absurdity of materialism…

I’m not so sure.

 

[bolsheviks]

**I’m familiar with Fr. Barron’s youtube videos, but, I’m afraid that the only convincing argument he’s put forth is the Cosmological one.

Trust me, I want desperately to believe. So bad I can’t put it into words. But I can’t delude myself.**

That was a very intriguing post, I can definitely relate to it. I really shouldn’t be on the internet at all today, I’ve got a ton of things to study for - but I hope to return to this discussion later in the week.

Good luck with everything.

 

[tonyrey]

Goodness, freedom purpose and love can all be explained naturally.

A very dogmatic statement! Do you **know **that? Or do you believe it? What is your authority? Eminent intellectuals?

. Goodness? It could be said there is no goodness, that it’s a relative concept that’s resulted from our species discovering what was conducive to self preservation.

What’s relative about a child being tortured, raped and murdered? If it is just a concept we shouldn’t complain. After all you think evil - like goodness - doesn’t exist, except in our imagination. A pedophile killer is no better or worse than anyone else…

Freedom? Apparently, there’s very good evidence that indicates that “freedom” is illusion.

If you lost your freedom you would soon realise it’s no illusion… It’s easy to deny something exists until you no longer have it. Then you appreciate it… And you might as well say everything is an illusion. The more absurd a statement is the more difficult it is to disprove. What are you absolutely certain of? Anything? Or nothing?

Purpose? How can we prove there is purpose?

Why are you thinking? For no reason? Just because there is electrical activity in your brain? If everything is purposeless everything is meaningless - including the assertion that everything is meaningless!

Love? Love is a chemical reaction, a socially and evolutionarily expeditious behavior that can be defined in purely natural terms.

So love is worthless? A reaction over which we have no control and which is no more significant than gravity… In that case life is worthless as well. Why bother to go on living?

BTW Intellectual eminence is no guarantee of insight into the nature of spiritual reality. In fact it often leads to hubris and moral decadence…

Agreed.

So the fact that individuals are eminent intellectuals has no bearing on whether their conclusions are true.

The very existence of truth demonstrates the absurdity of materialism…

I’m not so sure.

1. If truth doesn’t exist how can we know anything?
2. If truth does exist where is it? Can you see, taste, hear, touch or smell it?
3. What is truth? (as Pilate asked Jesus… unaware that he was in the presence of the author of the noblest moral teaching known to mankind.)

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

A very dogmatic statement! Do you **know **that? Or do you believe it? What is your authority? Eminent intellectuals?
What’s relative about a child being tortured, raped and murdered? If it is just a concept we shouldn’t complain. After all you think evil - like goodness - doesn’t exist, except in our imagination. A pedophile killer is no better or worse than anyone else…

I have no authority, only the simple conclusions I have gathered from critical thinking. Well, ultimately, no. Just because we harbor biologically-based sentimentalities against undue cruelty, especially towards the innocent, does not mean that therein exists an objective, transcendent standard of goodness. For example, in the Congo, cannabalism is seen as just another routine component of existence, as complete amoral. How can anyone argue for an universally innate sense of morality in light of this?

If you lost your freedom you would soon realise it’s no illusion… It’s easy to deny something exists until you no longer have it. Then you appreciate it… And you might as well say everything is an illusion. The more absurd a statement is the more difficult it is to disprove. What are you absolutely certain of? Anything? Or nothing?

Granted, this question is not one of my more competent areas, and personally, from personal experience, I find it highly unlikely that there is no free will. However, there are, as I said, psychologists and biologists who know a great deal more than I about the workings of the brain and how it translates into consciousness, that deny the existence of free will. They should be taken seriously and honestly engaged, not simply dismissed by wishful pseudoscience and willful ignorance of the facts.

Why are you thinking? For no reason? Just because there is electrical activity in your brain? If everything is purposeless everything is meaningless - including the assertion that everything is meaningless!

That very well could be. I see no explicit reason to believe that human existence and cognition are in any way meaningful. Nor do many scientists.

So love is worthless? A reaction over which we have no control and which is no more significant than gravity… In that case life is worthless as well. Why bother to go on living?

Again, I ask, why should we consider it to be meaningful, beyond the fact that we want it to be?

So the fact that individuals are eminent intellectuals has no bearing on whether their conclusions are true.

Spiritually. I would not trust a atheist’s opinions on mysticism. But their scientific conclusions are worth hearing and engaging.

1. If truth doesn’t exist how can we know anything?
2. If truth does exist where is it? Can you see, taste, hear, touch or smell it?
3. What is truth? (as Pilate asked Jesus… unaware that he was in the presence of the author of the noblest moral teaching known to mankind.)

Truth does exist. Empirically, testably, verifiably. That is truth. If by truth you mean something that transcends the physical realm and gives an objective purpose to life, I have yet to see convincing evidence to support it.

Again, I want to emphasize that I am a Catholic, and I want nothing more than to have a solid argument to rub the atheists face in, and confirm all that we believe. However, wherever I look, it seems that our philosophy, our worldview and our religion are crumbling under the relentless assault of modern empiricism and philsophy, and our current apologetics are certainly not convincing the experts. I know CAF hasn’t done anything to convince me of the irrationality of materialism, the existence of free will, or mind-body dualism. If I may say so, its time to step it up and engage modern thought, both scientific and philosophical, on its own terms and give the faithful a viable philosophy in the modern world, not a pathetic rehash of long-refuted arguments and sentimentalities.

 

[davidv]

Again, I want to emphasize that I am a Catholic, and I want nothing more than to have a solid argument to rub the atheists face in, and confirm all that we believe. However, wherever I look, it seems that our philosophy, our worldview and our religion are crumbling under the relentless assault of modern empiricism and philsophy, and our current apologetics are certainly not convincing the experts. I know CAF hasn’t done anything to convince me of the irrationality of materialism, the existence of free will, or mind-body dualism. If I may say so, its time to step it up and engage modern thought, both scientific and philosophical, on its own terms and give the faithful a viable philosophy in the modern world, not a pathetic rehash of long-refuted arguments and sentimentalities.

Note the bold part of your reply. This attitude is directly opposing the command of Jesus to love your enemy.

Could it be that you have the wrong objective?