The absurdity of atheism

[PRmerger]

I think it might be impossible to have a productive philosophical discussion if we start with “Don’t think…”

Fair enough.

I should have said, “Don’t think about it now, PC. We can get to that later.”

I am familiar with all the apologetics games PR. I’ve read dozens of CS Lewis’ works. I just finished Till We Have Faces last week (a mildly entertaining story by the way). I used to “trap” people in the “trilemma” when trying to evangelize them, lol . I read The Pilgrim’s Regress when I was 12 years old (he makes the “argument from desire” there too).

Excellent.

It’s irrelevant to this discussion, but

Lewis is careful to argue more formally in his other works that it is “innate” human desires which have concrete objects. Well, I’d argue that the desire for “eternal” life is not innate but either acquired or the result of mistaken understanding. I would argue that we don’t desire eternal life per se, but that we desire continuous life and we can’t think of a particularly good time to die LOL! However, surely you have met people who have come to terms with death. Surely there are people who are ready to die and recognize that their time has come. May all of us go peacefully like this!

Could you please answer the question?

Are you aware of any desires the human person has for something that doesn’t actually exist?

 

[Rohzek]

I tried to give up arrogance for Lent one year; no one noticed any change.

The sort of stuff I’m talking about has to do with one’s relationship with God.
As I inferred, all of us have a relationship with our Father.
It is grown through charitable works, contemplation of scripture, meditation and participation in the mass, sacraments and the Eucharist.

And I don’t have any problem with any of this. But when you break God and individuals down to nothing more than their relations, then you are not talking about their ontology. And since we are discussing whether or not God exists, this point here is irrelevant.

If the truth of fraternity, liberty and equality lies in the fact that they are proclaimed by mankind, the converse ideals would also be true. Wherein lies their truth?

No, the converse would not necessarily be true because those opposites impede the creativity of individuals and incline them to continue in a vicious cycle.

 

[Aloysium]

And I don’t have any problem with any of this. But when you break God and individuals down to nothing more than their relations, then you are not talking about their ontology. And since we are discussing whether or not God exists, this point here is irrelevant. . . .

What is happening now as you sit there reading but a self-other relational event.
Unfathomable self meets what is other and through that bond of relationality they are joined in one unitary event that is consciousness, in itself unknown but making all else knowable.
It is from this reality that we know about the ontological nature of anything.
It is because we are known by God that we know.
It’s something like that, anyway.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not understanding you here, TS.

Sure. I know of people that according to their own declarations do believe that there exists gods. Your earlier quote referenced people that believe in such gods as atheists. Assuming their declarations are genuine these people could not be considered atheist unless you are invoking a usage of “atheist” or “believe in” that’s not familiar to me when you introduced the quote speaking of atheist that “believe in” such gods.

if you are talking about the existence of super-heroes, and denying their existence, then we are wasting our time.

But if you are talking about God, as classically defined and understood by philosophers and thinkers, then we can continue to dialogue.

Well, I myself am not here to argue against the existence of god or Gods. In #435 I presented a modification of a statement to make it match those to which it applied. So I’m assuming you are using a generic “you.” Also I speculate that those that believe gods are real might not agree with the characterization as a “super hero.” That’s not my fight, but I’ll refrain from adopting the characterization.

I’d expect someone that is arguing against a god-concept to concentrate on arguments that might be relevant to the person with which s/he is interacting. If no one in the discussion is arguing for a Deva or Devi then you probably won’t hear arguments against them. If you encounter someone trying to argue with the person may restrict their arguments based on their understanding (or misunderstanding, if it is the case) of what is thought to be your God-concept. I think it’s far more likely that any time wasting in arguments that you encounter will be from someone assuming a God-concept different than the one that you reference when you speak.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Could you please answer the question?

Are you aware of any desires the human person has for something that doesn’t actually exist?

By asking me what “the human person desires” you’re asking me to perform psychoanalysis on humanity in general. I don’t think I can do this. I can only tell you what some people say about themselves.

Most people desire not to die, and yet all of them do.
Some people desire a celestial garden filled with virgins but we have no reason to suppose such a place exists. Some people want to change sexes or become children again or chat with animals or journey to “middle earth” but all of these things are intrinsically impossible.

“We desire it, therefore it must exist.” This seems like it could be a derivative of the is-ought fallacy.

 

[PRmerger]

By asking me what “the human person desires” you’re asking me to perform psychoanalysis on humanity in general. I don’t think I can do this. I can only tell you what some people say about themselves.

Most people desire not to die, and yet all of them do.
Some people desire a celestial garden filled with virgins but we have no reason to suppose such a place exists. Some people want to change sexes or become children again or chat with animals or journey to “middle earth” but all of these things are intrinsically impossible.

“We desire it, therefore it must exist.” This seems like it could be a derivative of the is-ought fallacy.

So what I hear you saying* is this: NO, there is NO SUCH THING, that I have EVER encountered, experienced or considered, as a desire for something which doesn’t exist.

So it seems a bit COUNTER-FACTUAL to see anyone here say, “There is a desire for life after death, but it doesn’t actually exist.”

QED

*If I am mistaken, and you actually are saying there IS such a thing as a desire for something which doesn’t exist, please fill us in on what this is.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So what I hear you saying* is this: NO, there is NO SUCH THING, that I have EVER encountered, experienced or considered, as a desire for something which doesn’t exist.

So it seems a bit COUNTER-FACTUAL to see anyone here say, “There is a desire for life after death, but it doesn’t actually exist.”

QED

*If I am mistaken, and you actually are saying there IS such a thing as a desire for something which doesn’t exist, please fill us in on what this is.

I find it hard to understand how you could take what I said to mean what you think it does. I gave six examples of things some people claim to desire that we have no reason to suppose actually exist. Then, I suggested the “argument from desire” is a potential derivative of the is-ought fallacy.

Have you spent any time engaging with Hume PR? I think you might find it worthwhile.

 

[PRmerger]

I find it hard to understand how you could take what I said to mean what you think it does. I gave six examples of things some people claim to desire that we have no reason to suppose actually exist.

You DID?

I apologize for missing that!

Could you please simply give those 6 things again for me?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You DID?

I apologize for missing that!

Could you please simply give those 6 things again for me?

Lol. Paragraph 2 of the post I wrote at 8:17 pm today #466 top of this page. You don’t even have to click the ‘back’ button.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well I didn’t intend to give personhood or otherness to my senses, although I understand as to why you might read it that way when I said, “my senses might deceive me.” I just merely pointed out that one knows what they sense, but the sense does not necessitate an outside object.

The fact that there may not be an “outside” object does not make the sense perception any less real or any more deceptive. It just isn’t clear what the source of the perception is. So what?

That is precisely what is at stake when we attempt to discern in what respect it is real or what reality itself truly is.

That is not “deceptive.” Rather, it is part and parcel of figuring out what the meaning or significance of the perception really is.

The fact that we have the perception, itself, is undeniable, however, and an indisputable “given” – at least for sane individuals.

The existence of God isn’t anything like that – at least not to most people.

 

[PRmerger]

Lol. Paragraph 2 of the post I wrote at 8:17 pm today #466 top of this page. You don’t even have to click the ‘back’ button.

Ah.

So let’s dissect.

“Most people desire not to die, and yet all of them do”–this is simply another formulation of “most people desire eternal life”.

And so you’re begging the question here.

You don’t actually know if eternal life doesn’t exist, do you?

So you can’t use it to prove that eternal life doesn’t exist, right?

“Some people desire a celestial garden filled with virgins but we have no reason to suppose such a place exists.”

See above.

#beggingthequestion

Some people want to change sexes or become children again or chat with animals or journey to “middle earth” but all of these things are intrinsically impossible.

Sorry. I should have clarified.

Is there some desire that mentally healthy people have that doesn’t actually exist?

The fact that these people have these desires, and we know that they can’t be fulfilled…(because they don’t exist)…and this indicates a dissonance with reality, proves my point.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Some people want to…chat with animals…but… these things are intrinsically impossible.

Thanks, PR

I told my cat I can’t talk to her any more 'cause you said it “indicates a dissonance with reality” and now she’s mad and giving me the silent treatment! :takethat:

 

[Bradski]

If people sometimes desire things that they believe exist, it doesn’t logically follow that these things actually exist. I find it odd that I have to point that out.

The few dozen virgins are an excellent example. Anyone want to suggest why people believe that?

 

[tonyrey]

The latter is a very cynical view of atheism. Many atheists have moral principles that they consider objective. Here is a survey sample of philosophers and their percentages as moral realists: commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371

The question remains as to the **rational **basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Expediency?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If people sometimes desire things that they believe exist, it doesn’t logically follow that these things actually exist. I find it odd that I have to point that out.

I’ve thought of that too. But it’s a line of argument that I’ve not found to assert much information especially without a clear delineation between what “exists” and what does not. Chances are if you communicate a desire you are going to communicate it using some shared vocabulary between you and the people to which you speak. One could decompose what ever description that you are able to give to things that can be demonstrated and say “See, you do desire something that exists.” If you desired a purple water melon I could decompose that to “you desire something sweet and you like the colour purple.”

On the other hand if you were to desire something that was completely unfamiliar to yourself then you might not be able to give a description of it. Those things that you can’t express can’t be offered for consideration on whether or not such a thing exists that might satisfy that desire.

The few dozen virgins are an excellent example.

I could decompose that desire to a desire for sex and say “sex exists”, so you still desire something that exists. I could even provide evidence that a few dozen virgins exists, 'nuf said.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’ve thought of that too. But it’s a line of argument that I’ve not found to assert much information especially without a clear delineation between what “exists” and what does not. Chances are if you communicate a desire you are going to communicate it using some shared vocabulary between you and the people to which you speak. One could decompose what ever description that you are able to give to things that can be demonstrated and say “See, you do desire something that exists.” If you desired a purple water melon I could decompose that to “you desire something sweet and you like the colour purple.”

On the other hand if you were to desire something that was completely unfamiliar to yourself then you might not be able to give a description of it. Those things that you can’t express can’t be offered for consideration on whether or not such a thing exists that might satisfy that desire.

I could decompose that desire to a desire for sex and say “sex exists”, so you still desire something that exists. I could even provide evidence that a few dozen virgins exists, 'nuf said.

This is an excellent point! I am “decomposing” the desire for “eternal life” into a desire for “continuous life” and an “aversion to death.”

What you’ve done is demonstrate that the “argument from desire” can be undermined by the assertion that any given desire for an allegedly “unreal” object can be broken into desires for real objects.

So, we cannot use this argument to prove the existence of objects, and we cannot use this argument to deny the existence of objects. It’s pretty much useless.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If people sometimes desire things that they believe exist, it doesn’t logically follow that these things actually exist. I find it odd that I have to point that out.

The few dozen virgins are an excellent example. Anyone want to suggest why people believe that?

Let me get this straight…

1. Are you are claiming there are not even a few dozen virgins in existence and that it is illogical to believe that that many might exist?
2. Or are you claiming that it is illogical to believe that a God who has the power to create the universe from nothing does not have the power to create a few dozen virgins?
3. Or are you claiming that no sane and moral person would think that committing positively heinous acts such as beheading innocent human beings should ever believe that such acts could be rewarded by a few dozen virgins?
4. Or are you claiming that anyone who proposes using the sexual favours of a few dozen virgins as a moral reward is an absolute nutter because human beings, be they male or female, should not be “used” in that way and anyone who proposes that they be is a moral cretin?

Surely, you are not arguing 1) or 2)?

It seems to me that 3) or 4) merely demonstrate the moral perversity of human beings to concoct such nonsense, but surely they aren’t logical objections to the moral argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is an excellent point! I am “decomposing” the desire for “eternal life” into a desire for “continuous life” and an “aversion to death.”

What you’ve done is demonstrate that the “argument from desire” can be undermined by the assertion that any given desire for an allegedly “unreal” object can be broken into desires for real objects.

So, we cannot use this argument to prove the existence of objects, and we cannot use this argument to deny the existence of objects. It’s pretty much useless.

What can meaning, truth or significance be “decomposed” into?

It seems to me a desire to know finally the significance and meaning or truth of all that is cannot be so “decomposed.”

An “aversion” to death may, in fact, be an aversion to the pointlessness of life if death, in the end, is pointless. Ergo, the desire for ultimate meaning cannot be merely “decomposed” in the way that you mean. Precisely the opposite, actually.

Now merely because you happen not to be concerned about matters of ultimate meaning does not mean that humans do not exist who do desire (and legimately so) that kind of meaning. Merely because you have lost the appetite for food does not mean food does not exist. Nor does it mean that NOT having the appetite for food disproves the existence of food or that humans generally require it.

Are you claiming that food is a meaningful concept apart from the appetite for food? Explain the appetite for food, please, without reference to the existence of food. I have an appetite for ultimate meaning. Explain that, please, without reference to the existence of ultimate meaning.
No “decomposing,” please. When that happens to food, it turns my stomach.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Put another way, the existence of eyes, blindness or sightedness proves the existence of light.

If there was no light, eyes wouldn’t and couldn’t exist. If there was no light we wouldn’t know or even possibly conceive of the idea of darkness. If there was, in reality, only dark we couldn’t imagine light? Or does dark necessarily imply light as a corollary and the fact that we KNOW darkness means light is logically necessary?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What can meaning, truth or significance be “decomposed” into?

I’m not sure they can be “decomposed.” What can be pulled apart is the notions of cosmic meaning, holistic, all-encompassing truth, or limitless significance. We have meaning, truth, and significance, so our desires are satisfied. Having the desire for meaning, truth, and significance does not prove, however, that the “ultimate” or perfect (in a Platonic forms kind of way) ideas actually exist.

Also, bear in mind, I’m a believer in God. I also believe in absolute objective truth, morality, meaning, and significance. Though I am skeptical and often sympathize with agnostics and atheists, I am not an atheist, far from it.

It seems to me a desire to know finally the significance and meaning or truth of all that is cannot be so “decomposed.”

An “aversion” to death may, in fact, be an aversion to the pointlessness of life if death, in the end, is pointless. Ergo, the desire for ultimate meaning cannot be merely “decomposed” in the way that you mean. Precisely the opposite, actually.

I would call what you’re describing here as “inflating” our desires. I’m not so sure most of us really do desire ultimate meaning. In fact, people scorn and laugh at philosophical types of people who get hot and bothered about the “big questions.” “Get your head out of the clouds, get a job, etc…” Aristophanes mocked even Socrates for the same thing!

Now merely because you happen not to be concerned about matters of ultimate meaning does not mean that humans do not exist who do desire (and legimately so) that kind of meaning. Merely because you have lost the appetite for food does not mean food does not exist. Nor does it mean that NOT having the appetite for food disproves the existence of food or that humans generally require it.

Yes, I agree. That’s why the “argument from desire” has very limited utility, as ThinkingSapien pointed out. I think he or she is right. We just can’t produce much with this line of thinking.

Are you claiming that food is a meaningful concept apart from the appetite for food? Explain the appetite for food, please, without reference to the existence of food. I have an appetite for ultimate meaning. Explain that, please, without reference to the existence of ultimate meaning.
No “decomposing,” please. When that happens to food, it turns my stomach.

I hesitate, but it seems to me that “food” is not a meaningful concept without reference to the desire for “food.” We might call it “chunks of dead animals/plants heated but not burned” LOL! If we didn’t eat, would we even kill animals and chop up plants? I doubt it.

Maybe your desire for ultimate meaning is a religiously conditioned “inflation” of your desire for limited meaning. Bear with me…

Imagine a world where no one had to eat. Impossible, I know, but I’m trying to illustrate something. In this world, no one has ever heard of food, but people chew on various things for the fun of it, and because they like the taste. Imagine if one day some shaman started teaching people that they should actually swallow the things they like to chew on. He whips up his tribe into a frenzy, he tells them the gods desire them to gulp down the things they chew on very much. The shaman inflates their desire for the taste and texture of objects into the desire to consume the objects. He is inventing “eating” and the concept of “food.” Thousands of years go by, and people just assume they desire to “eat food” even though they have no idea of the utility of what they’re doing and can’t explain it. When some whipper-snapper pipes up and says to the shaman “hey…why are we consuming all of these things? For all we know…it does not good. Why don’t we just chew on things then spit them out?” the shaman replies “everyone’s desire to gulp down these objects proves that we ought to.” Can you see how that isn’t a particularly convincing reason?