The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[Areopagite]

Sorry for the delay …

My strong impulse here is to say that that’s not reasonable, and I will stick with that as my answer.

I’m a tad unclear what the antecedent of “that” in your sentence. I’m not even sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Sometimes, you have nothing to go on but your “gut”. I get that. But I don’t call that reasoning. I call that intution, or maybe just a hunch. I that’s all you have to rely on, that’s all you have to rely on. You work with what you have, right?

Intuition is most definitely not reasoning, I would agree. And the truths of the faith are most definitely given to a person not by reasoning but by intuition (unless I’m wrong here). Intuition, as defined by Aristotle, is merely “immediate knowledge” whereas reasoning is a non-immediate step-by-step process of knowledge. Reasoning depends on intuition, however, since first principles can only be known by intuition.

Now, “hunches” suggest mere opinion or belief, whereas Catholic faith is not only belief but some level of knowledge as well (the Catholics sees part of the supernatural truth but not all of it … and hence merely believes the rest).

I may be missing your question here.

That said, I think such a “seems” brings with it a commensurate tentativity: It’s just a hunch, and that’s all. I’m going with it because it’s all I got, but I know how unreliable my subjective intuitions can be…

This does not characterize the Christian faith, nor does it characterize all intuitions. Most of our knowledge, I would say, is gained by intuition (that is, immediate knowledge … as opposed to reasoned out knowledge). Perhaps intuition can be used in different ways, but in the Aristotelian sense, it pertains to knowledge, and most definitely not to belief.

You could, of course, say that sometimes your intuition is wrong … but for that matter, you could say your reasoning could be wrong as well. Hmm. No matter.

Fair enough. But the invidious aspect of this is that these putative contradictions are often delivered as intractable propositions. That is, if we suppose there’s some conflict between God’s foreknowledge and free will, we are COMPLETELY at a loss as to how to do just what you recommend.

I would agree. But this is not a problem with the faith. This is a problem with the accusations against the faith. If accusations of contradiction cannot be proven/demonstrated, then why are the accusations being made?

So, your instincts are fair and noble in response, but as a pragmatic matter, moot. These putative contradictions only persist this long to the present day because they are outside the limits of objective adjudication.

Not entirely sure what you mean here. But maybe … I do …

Putative contradictions persist, I would say, not because people actually see the contradictions but because they are either in error or are willfully rejecting the truth of the faith (and perhaps a bit of both). If people say that a “divine truth” is contradictory but also admit that “this cannot be proven,” I question why does they think it’s contradictory. It must be either that he has been persuaded by others to object to the divine truth (either because of some allegiance to somebody else … or something), or else he is just plain sinning.

This is much different from a person simply not having faith and not seeing the divine truths … and yet, if he were truly reasonable, he wouldn’t accuse the claims of divine truth as contradictory … but rather, he would say “I don’t see it … it might be true … but I don’t know … I don’t care.” If he starts objecting to them and yet says that it’s impossible to prove the objection, then there’s something unreasonable going on.

 

[Areopagite]

Hah. I had to make a chart in my head to grok that one. Well, how about this: for someone making the claim, we just ask, as a matter of course: *OK, fine. So how would you establish the falsehood of this proposition, if it is, indeed, false? *Same as a scientific hypothesis, where liability falsification is a requirement.

That is, if you make the claim that this mystery is soluble, who would you know if it wasn’t?

If I’m understanding you correctly, I would say that the way to establish the falsehood of any proposition is to see if it ultimately goes against the principle of non-contradiction (or the principle of identity). That is, if a proposition claims that something can be and not be in the same way at the same case, then it contradicts itself. If for example, there was an alleged divine truth that said, “God exists and yet doesn’t exist,” and you interrogate the religious person’s doctrine on this and discover that he thinks God exists and doesn’t exist in the same way at the same case, then that would be a contradiction, and hence the alleged divine claim could be rejected.

But, really, I’m not quite sure how to demonstrate contradictions in the Catholic faith. A lot of people who claim that it has contradictions don’t seem to know either. And so I’m just curious … why do they think there are contradictions in the faith then? Why can’t they simply be indifferent to it and say, “Maybe Catholics do have the true faith. I can’t prove that they don’t. So, I should just chill out and not bad-mouth their religion if I can’t demonstrate anything unreasonable about it. I can’t see what they supposedly see. But unless I discover that one of their claims is not logically possible, I suppose I have no right to point out something wrong about their religion if … I don’t know what’s wrong about their religion. The fact that I don’t know what they supposedly know is absolutely no proof that their religion is wrong.”

I hope that made some kind of sense.

My objection is that this is just a tautology. It’s only trivially true, as stated. As you know, tautologies are immune to falsification. Given that, you are completely insulated, I grant.

You might be right. I’m not sure though why it’s a tautology.

Once again, all I’m saying is that the claims of the Catholic faith are not contradictory. The faith cannot be proved from natural reason. But natural reason cannot find contradictions in its claims. That’s all I’m saying.

When I make a claim to knowledge, or a ‘truth’, I want to offer a path, available at least in principle, whereby claim could be objectively falsified. To the extent I can’t show or allow for that liability to falsification, my claims to that being ‘true’ or ‘knowledge’ are weak at best, euphemistic. How, in principle, would any Christian mystery (pick one, any one) be shown to be a devastating contradiction? What would the world have to look like for that to be concluded?

Once again, the faith cannot be proven. God is the one to give faith. Apologists can only tear down arguments that try to disprove the faith.

So, I don’t know how any Christian mystery could be shown to be a contradiction. That’s the thing. I don’t see why anyone could say this, unless there is some misunderstanding or some sin involved.

But … let me … try to think of something … I guess one doctrine is that the Church will never be destroyed … and so if the Church did get destroyed (specifically, all the Catholic clergy), then it would disprove Christianity.

Also, how would you disprove the Trinity? I can’t see how the world could exist in any way where it could disprove the Trinity. Maybe I’m not creative enough.

Could you prove that Christ never existed or never rose from the grave? There you get into some pretty hazy methods, as is the nature with history. So could you ever prove anything there? I don’t know. Obviously, you can show what seems likely based on the archeological and historical records available to us at the present time … but this is perhaps not a proof of anything.

I don’t know. Perhaps I misunderstand your question.

I would repeat though, that if one cannot figure out how to contradict the faith, then one should not accuse it of contradiction. Either one has the faith or one does not. If one does not, this does not mean that one should object to the faith … but merely be indifferent. I think that’s reasonable enough.

I would say, judging by what revelation says, that if one is truly “indifferent” in this sense (that is, not objecting/rejecting the claims of the faith), then grace will start working in him, and the faith shall be given to him. So, (according to revelation, it seems) there can be no indifference. (but once again, I’m not accusing unbelievers of sin, for they might be rejecting it out of intellectual error and not necessarily sinful choice)

 

[Satonamat]

Hi Summa and the rest of you who think there is a God,

You totally fail to understand the difference between yourselves and atheists. Atheists KNOW there is no God, you are still HOPING there is one. So atheists have no point to prove as you and thousands of years of idols, praying and the rest of it have failed to produce one shred of evidence. Everything you refer to is created by man, to fool other fmen, and women.

There is no debate until you find proof, that’s why atheists appear rather disinterested in this stuff. To us you are still in the Dark Ages on this topic, unable to think for yourselves, and we have found our answer.

As to Dawkins. He does not represent atheists everywhere. He is relevant on Darwin’s theory etc. Every atheist of true knowledge has no need to prove anything to anyine but of course there are many who feign atheism simply because it’s tredny or “cool”. I hold such people in absolute contempt. At least you people believe what you preach, albeit a deluded belief but you don’t try to fool people with false claims deliberately.

Don’t worry, the sun will still keep rising every day regardless of what we all believe. It matters not in the end as the planet and universe have no knowledge of, or interest in Deities of any kind.

 

[Areopagite]

What I intended by that was premises that don’t obtain from any identifiable warrant (there’s that word again).

For those who do not have the faith, theological premises are indeed unwarranted. However, they are warranted for those who have been given the faith by God. Once again, one cannot prove the truths of the faith to an unbeliever. All that can be done is disprove arguments that try to disprove the faith.

“Natural reason” is a squirrelly term, especially in conversations with Catholics, as I understand that term to grounded in the way that Aquinas grounded the term: as the outworking of natural theology, “preambles to the articles of faith”.

Insofar as you mean “natural theology” – something that comports with Rom 1:20 (“The unseen things of God are visible through his manifest works.”) – I would say “natural reason” is an exercise in shaky, unwarranted premises.

If you meant something else by “natural reason”, I apologize for the misread, and ask you to clarify.

“Natural reason” (correct me if I’m wrong, those who know better) is the relating of judgments using concepts that have been gained through normal natural processes. Hence, natural reason only uses truths that are received by first principles, simple apprehension (abstracting essences of physically seen objects), and … I might be missing one.

All these things could also be considered “preambles to the articles of faith.”

I suppose “natural reason” could be a term you are using as one I might use – empirical and rationalist heuristics deployed by man because he is naturally equipped with a brain that can use those heuristics.

Not sure what “heuristics” mean (I’m embarrassingly ignorant sometimes). Also, I would ask you to define “empirical” and “rationalist.” Depending on what they mean, we might actually agree on the nature of “natural reason.”

How so? Well, to read Aquinas, because he could not think of a way, or even come up with a number for infinity.

Well, yikes, that may have been compelling then, but it sure looks facile in the light of skeptical analysis. Georg Cantor comes along in the 19th century and shows how infinities and transfinites can be processed numerically, mathematically.

Are you saying Aquinas claimed a universe that had no temporal beginning couldn’t exist (that is, a universe that an infinite amount of time events in its past)? This is a common misunderstanding in the Cosmological argument. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding it (unless, I am the one misunderstanding you). Aquinas admitted many times that God could have created a universe without a temporal beginning. What he was talking about was that there was no such thing as an infinite regress of essentially ordered causes. The explication of this has been discussed many times throughout the forum, but … I don’t think this thread should be involved with that.

 

[Areopagite]

Aquinas … compounds the error by supposing, without any warrant at all, that such notions are probitive on reality itself. Reality can’t be this way because I can’t imagine how it could be this way!

I believe he’s saying here that anything that can’t be conceived of* on account of it having a contradictory essence* cannot become part of reality. For example, a square circle. I believe that you are referring to this. But I may be wrong.

Modernist inquiry has been a procession of insights that overthrow that kind of intuitive thinking. Intuition is borne out in all sorts of local contexts for humans, at familar scales and on common, mundane subjects. But human intuition as a probe for nuances of fundamental reality… that’s just nuts to think that’s knowledge. Sorry, not “nuts”, it’s just wholly uncritical to think that way.

If intuition is to be rejected as knowledge, then first principles are rejected as well (as well as … most knowledge, I think). Unless of course, you mean something else by intuition.

That’s an example of what I meant by the extremes. Why is Catholicism only liable to falsification at the extremes – beyond the shadow of a doubt? Why, as a matter of reasoning, reject any conclusions that disagree with Catholic doctrine if those conclusions are the more compelling, even if just a bit more? This is the unreasoning deployment of reasoning, is it not?

If one has faith … one has knowledge of divine things … and so, nothing that denies Catholicism is more compelling than the faith. However, for an honest unbeliever this is not true. But for those who are aware of God’s truth, they would have to lie to themselves in order to try and think there’s something more compelling than divine revelation.

For example, if I was bored one day a started flipping a coin, and I got tails ten times in a row, and told someone about it … and that guy said, “No! No way! There’s no proof of it.” To me, I saw it. There is no compelling evidence that I see that contradicts that. But the person could say, “Listen, the probability of that is very unlikely!” But I reply, “Are you saying it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt?” to which he replies, “No, but idea of that not happening is more compelling than that it did happen.” To which I reply, “But I saw it! I know this is true!”

Perhaps, but why go for such acrobatics? If we say “this is the fair understanding of Catholic doctrine, and given that interpretation, it’s likely false”, why would the response be “But wait! We can shift things all around and contort that conventional understanding to now stretch, twist and accommodate the objection!” That may be possible to do, but what is the reasoning behind choosing that path?

Not sure what you’re saying here.

Could you give me an example of what you’re saying? There seems to me that you assume there is necessarily “shifting and contorting of conventional understandings (of the faith) to accommodate objections.” I’m curious why you think this. What proof is there of this. It’s true that some Christians do this in one way or another … a lot. But I would say that those are Christians who have claimed things about the faith that aren’t really part of the faith. I suppose the only way to prove this is to show that Church dogma has changed … but I’m not sure how you’re going to do that. There have been different ways to express the truths of the faith … but this does not imply a contortion or modification of the faith. You are free to deny this … just offer proof.

 

[Areopagite]

I believe that I can use reason to believe it reasonable for God to exist, but it seems irrational to believe any given religion to accurately represent that God.

I’m not sure what you mean by “accurately represent God.” Does “represent” here mean “symbolize” or “know” or … what?

Primitive man’s notions are just that. And if God did really come to the Israelites then as Christ it seems that he would continue to update it as humans advanced in understanding of creation so as to eliminate the “chaff” in the teachings so to speak.

What do you mean by “update it” here? What does “update” mean, and what is “it” referring to?

That is doctrinally speaking. Of those I am generally aware, and I think you said them accurately, However, my query is not to how do we know (as in awareness) but how do we recognize? From the natural sphere I can physically recognize a dog from his shape, features, bark, etc.; but from the supernatural sphere how do I identify the presence of grace?

If I’m not mistaken, we can’t recognize grace using natural means because of its invisible and supernatural quality. I might be wrong. The only way to truly recognize it as grace is to be given the gift to do so. And when given the gift, we can see grace in holy people and in holy actions. Maybe I’m missing your question.

 

[Areopagite]

Hi Summa and the rest of you who think there is a God,

You totally fail to understand the difference between yourselves and atheists. Atheists KNOW there is no God, you are still HOPING there is one. So atheists have no point to prove as you and thousands of years of idols, praying and the rest of it have failed to produce one shred of evidence. Everything you refer to is created by man, to fool other fmen, and women.

You’re right, Satonamat … man, what was I thinking?

There is no debate until you find proof, that’s why atheists appear rather disinterested in this stuff. To us you are still in the Dark Ages on this topic, unable to think for yourselves, and we have found our answer.

You’re so right. We are ignorant peasants. And you are indeed disinterested, for why else would you be here?

Don’t worry, the sun will still keep rising every day regardless of what we all believe. It matters not in the end as the planet and universe have no knowledge of, or interest in Deities of any kind.

That’s true. No one cares about God. Clearly. That much is obvious.

Thank you Satonamat for opening my eyes. I can’t believe how ignorant I was. I feel ashamed … but liberated now. Thanks to you.

 

[Touchstone]

I’m a tad unclear what the antecedent of “that” in your sentence. I’m not even sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I was agreeing, sorry it wasn’t more clear.

Intuition is most definitely not reasoning, I would agree. And the truths of the faith are most definitely given to a person not by reasoning but by intuition (unless I’m wrong here). Intuition, as defined by Aristotle, is merely “immediate knowledge” whereas reasoning is a non-immediate step-by-step process of knowledge. Reasoning depends on intuition, however, since first principles can only be known by intuition.

The point was that I don’t banish intuition outright – it’s a natural feature of cognition, and an important one; sometimes intuition is all we have to go on. But confusing that for knowledge by calling it “immediate knowledge” or “supernatural knowledge” strikes me as a strategic mistake, and invitation to errors of the most profound kind. Think of what can get “knowledgized” through that loophoole, by other religions if that makes it more starkly clear.

This really amounts to “I just know”, in the end.

Now, “hunches” suggest mere opinion or belief, whereas Catholic faith is not only belief but some level of knowledge as well (the Catholics sees part of the supernatural truth but not all of it … and hence merely believes the rest).

Yes, but there’s a transcendental problem there – your statement here itself is a hunch, a mere conjecture. Can you see a problem with the statement: *“I have a hunch this is knowledge.” *?

This does not characterize the Christian faith, nor does it characterize all intuitions. Most of our knowledge, I would say, is gained by intuition (that is, immediate knowledge … as opposed to reasoned out knowledge). Perhaps intuition can be used in different ways, but in the Aristotelian sense, it pertains to knowledge, and most definitely not to belief.

Intuition is hypothesis, as opposed to theory. Quite often, the intuitional hypothesis bears out, and can become knowledge with validation and testing. But often the hypothesis fairs badly, and fails the test of knowledge. And we don’t know until we test them how they will fare.

You could, of course, say that sometimes your intuition is wrong … but for that matter, you could say your reasoning could be wrong as well. Hmm. No matter.

Yes, certainly. How do we know if our reasoning is wrong? We test it? We put it into a context where it can fail and we can see it fail, if the reasoning is faulty.

I would agree. But this is not a problem with the faith. This is a problem with the accusations against the faith. If accusations of contradiction cannot be proven/demonstrated, then why are the accusations being made?

Ah, I see. Well it’s a matter of different reference frames. From my standpoint, given my reasoning heuristics and epistemology, it looks a clear contradiction, and I say so. But in hearing such a statement, you have to respond according to your reasoning rules and epistemology. And that process often leads to a shrug from you – by your epistemology, you can’t cast the matter in a way that yields a disposition. For example, obstensible contradictions in your view “get a pass”, because there’s a premium put on denying all contradictions that are not overwhelming contradictions, in efforts to preserve the theology. If you want, it’s not hard to say that no contradictions are overwhelming, because… “mystery”! Not putting words in your mouth, there, but that is a response I encounter regularly.

But translating the critique from my worldview to yours makes it intractable, which, having been a Christian and fellow “intuitionist” for a long while, I realize is one of the benefits of the Christian worldvew – insulation from such dissonances.

Putative contradictions persist, I would say, not because people actually see the contradictions but because they are either in error or are willfully rejecting the truth of the faith (and perhaps a bit of both). If people say that a “divine truth” is contradictory but also admit that “this cannot be proven,” I question why does they think it’s contradictory. It must be either that he has been persuaded by others to object to the divine truth (either because of some allegiance to somebody else … or something), or else he is just plain sinning.

It’s hard to go further on this in the abstract. We would have to take a specific example up, I think. But so long as complaints of contradictions can be dismissed as allegiance problems or sinfulness, you are dangerously insulated, incorrigible in your views.

This is much different from a person simply not having faith and not seeing the divine truths … and yet, if he were truly reasonable, he wouldn’t accuse the claims of divine truth as contradictory … but rather, he would say “I don’t see it … it might be true … but I don’t know … I don’t care.” If he starts objecting to them and yet says that it’s impossible to prove the objection, then there’s something unreasonable going on.

There is a unity in these complaints. *How can this be true? *is often matched with the much more damning objection: How can this be false? The objection in these cases is that the positive claim is incoherent, or apparently contradictory, and that attempts to investigate are further frustrated by the inchoate nature of the belief. That is, the complaint’s metanarrative goes like this: it’s difficult to see how this can be true, OR false!

-TS

 

[M0nkey]

The scientific method is taking a hypothesis *until *you can prove it wrong; unless you can prove that there is no God, the hypothesis for God remains. Therefore, “knowledge” of disproving God stands in dubious conjecture.

 

[Areopagite]

The point was that I don’t banish intuition outright – it’s a natural feature of cognition, and an important one; sometimes intuition is all we have to go on. But confusing that for knowledge by calling it “immediate knowledge” or “supernatural knowledge” strikes me as a strategic mistake, and invitation to errors of the most profound kind. Think of what can get “knowledgized” through that loophoole, by other religions if that makes it more starkly clear.

I understand your fear. And indeed many people can “get away” with saying they know all sorts of things because “it’s been revealed to them.” But, of course, there is no reason to believe them if the truth of their claims are not at all apparent to you. No obligation whatsoever to believe them. However, if you begin to receive the same revelation they received … then … the acceptance of their claims starts to gain more warrant. But until you receive such knowledge, you can ignore their claims … just don’t try and disprove them if you realize there’s no way to do so.

This really amounts to “I just know”, in the end.

Yes, it kinda does. But this can analogously be related to the person who flips a coin and gets tails 10 times in a row. He can’t prove it to anyone. In some sense, “he just knows.”

But once again, I acknowledge that this idea can be used to infinite abuse. Unfortunately, this does not prove the idea is false.

Yes, but there’s a transcendental problem there – your statement here itself is a hunch, a mere conjecture. Can you see a problem with the statement: *“I have a hunch this is knowledge.” *?

Not … sure … what you’re saying here. I denied that the faith was a hunch but rather composed of knowledge and belief.

Intuition is hypothesis, as opposed to theory. Quite often, the intuitional hypothesis bears out, and can become knowledge with validation and testing. But often the hypothesis fairs badly, and fails the test of knowledge. And we don’t know until we test them how they will fare.

I don’t think that “intuition is hypothesis” should be a universal affirmative … nor even a particular one (but perhaps I shall be proven wrong on this). We know the first principles by intuition. I would not say that “the first principles are hypotheses” for that would make all knowledge (even theories) take on the character of hypotheses as well.

Yes, certainly. How do we know if our reasoning is wrong? We test it? We put it into a context where it can fail and we can see it fail, if the reasoning is faulty.

This is not true for all reasoning. This is only true for inductive sciences. For advanced mathematics, for example, the only way we know a formula is true is by re-checking the deductive process from its principles.

Ah, I see. Well it’s a matter of different reference frames. From my standpoint, given my reasoning heuristics and epistemology, it looks a clear contradiction, and I say so. But in hearing such a statement, you have to respond according to your reasoning rules and epistemology. And that process often leads to a shrug from you – by your epistemology, you can’t cast the matter in a way that yields a disposition.

I’m not sure where our reasoning processes differ. And once again, if you see a clear contradiction … what is it?

 

[Areopagite]

For example, obstensible contradictions in your view “get a pass”, because there’s a premium put on denying all contradictions that are not overwhelming contradictions, in efforts to preserve the theology. If you want, it’s not hard to say that no contradictions are overwhelming, because… “mystery”! Not putting words in your mouth, there, but that is a response I encounter regularly.

I can see what you’re saying.

This is what I say: if no logical contradictions are seen in the doctrines of the Church, one must not judge them to be false with some supposed certitude. One should be open to the possibility that they might be true. If you judge them to be false because you receive evidence that suggests that they are “likely” false, it must also be acknowledged that this isn’t much of a judgment. It certainly shouldn’t motivate one to go on a crusade to destroy the doctrines (not that this characterize you … but it does characterize some). Of course, if logical contradictions are seen in the doctrines, crusades against the faith are entirely called for. Simply judging the truths of Catholic doctrine as “unlikely” should perhaps only cause one to not care about them rather than try and refute them. I may be wrong. But is this unreasonable?

But translating the critique from my worldview to yours makes it intractable, which, having been a Christian and fellow “intuitionist” for a long while, I realize is one of the benefits of the Christian worldvew – insulation from such dissonances.

I won’t judge what happened to your faith. I can say, though, that I went through a period of realizing that many of my “profound intuitions into theology” were mere presumptive contrivances that I just made up to feel better, though much of the foundation for doing that was caused by doctrinal errors given to me by Protestants. Deep inside, I felt I was lying to myself about certain things, and more and more I found my beliefs didn’t match those of common sense (or natural reason) … nor did they match up with Catholic doctrine, much to my frustration. So, it took a very painful, humbling process to actually reject my false theological constructs. I would have lost all my faith perhaps, if it hadn’t been around reasonable and devout Catholics who knew their faith, taught it well, and answered my potential doubts (which I had previously covered by my false doctrines). I had realized that my faith had been incredibly small and that I had pretended it had been very large. I also was extremely bitter at the Protestants who had fed me many inaccurate doctrines … in fact, I still very much am.

But yes, I suppose you could say that the Christian worldview is insulated in some way. I can’t argue with that. It’s neither a proof nor of disproof of it.

It’s hard to go further on this in the abstract. We would have to take a specific example up, I think. But so long as complaints of contradictions can be dismissed as allegiance problems or sinfulness, you are dangerously insulated, incorrigible in your views.

Perhaps. What example do you have in mind?

There is a unity in these complaints. *How can this be true? *is often matched with the much more damning objection: How can this be false? The objection in these cases is that the positive claim is incoherent, or apparently contradictory, and that attempts to investigate are further frustrated by the inchoate nature of the belief. That is, the complaint’s metanarrative goes like this: it’s difficult to see how this can be true, OR false!

Yes, but I’m not sure why this is a that serious of a complaint. Once again, faith cannot be proved or disproved (from natural reason). So, obviously it’s insulated in that way. Thus, it would be wrong to try and prove it wrong, and it would be wrong to try and prove it right. The only thing a believer can do is show that it has no contradiction, and the only thing an unbeliever can do is to accept that.

With that said, if an unbeliever, who acknowledges that the faith could be correct (i.e. is open to the faith) starts to receive the intuitions of divine truth … not merely as hunches … but as supernatural knowledge and sees no logical contradiction in them … it becomes obligatory for him to accept it.

 

[Touchstone]

I understand your fear. And indeed many people can “get away” with saying they know all sorts of things because “it’s been revealed to them.” But, of course, there is no reason to believe them if the truth of their claims are not at all apparent to you. No obligation whatsoever to believe them. However, if you begin to receive the same revelation they received … then … the acceptance of their claims starts to gain more warrant. But until you receive such knowledge, you can ignore their claims … just don’t try and disprove them if you realize there’s no way to do so.

OK, that’s a response I get consistently, and understand. It’s straightforward, and fair as far as it goes. But in my case, I would say I had the experience of revelation, not just the background intuition of God, but some distinct sorts of “flares of intuition”.

But that’s where I ran into the brick wall some time later: why do I call that knowledge? I had confused the two – intuition and knowledge – as many seem to, for all that time, but when confronting myself, and asking others (knowledge is a team sport!), what made that “knowledge”, I was persistently unable to come up with anything that would stand up to even small amounts of scrutiny.

In reasoning about it, it was just far simpler to understand that these intuitional flares were just that.

Yes, it kinda does. But this can analogously be related to the person who flips a coin and gets tails 10 times in a row. He can’t prove it to anyone. In some sense, “he just knows.”

But once again, I acknowledge that this idea can be used to infinite abuse. Unfortunately, this does not prove the idea is false.

Right, and if you press me hard, you can reliably force me to reduce my epistemology to its bedrock intuitions: Why is reality real? Because I have the (insuperably) strong intuition that it is! But the distinguishing factor for me, and I think this is available to all is: *what of these intuitions is not just compelling, but unassailable? *The reality of reality cannot be overcome. Everything I do proves I embrace the intuition, and I cannot do otherwise. The intuition that basic logical rules obtain – the law of non-contradiction – are simply too overpowering to let go of.

But the God intuition, waxing an waning though it might from one point in life to another, was never that way. It was never necessary, lest I die, or be reduced to a babbling fool in the corner of the bedroom closet, like denying the reality is real intuition, or the intuition that the law of non-contradiction obtains.

Perhaps for some people it is. That beggars my imagination, but I can’t see into other people’s heads.

Not … sure … what you’re saying here. I denied that the faith was a hunch but rather composed of knowledge and belief.

Yes, but that assertion itself is nothing more than a hunch. How would you distinguish that claim from a hunch, an intuition about your intuitions, when you’ve just said this “knowledge” came by way of intuition (or maybe you want to call it ‘revelation’… in any case, not from rational processing)?

I don’t think that “intuition is hypothesis” should be a universal affirmative … nor even a particular one (but perhaps I shall be proven wrong on this). We know the first principles by intuition. I would not say that “the first principles are hypotheses” for that would make all knowledge (even theories) take on the character of hypotheses as well.

Not if they truly are first principles. If they are transcendentals, then they are not hypotheses, but axioms, “truths by necessity”. And I again say this is where theism breaks down in rational terms, because the God hypothesis is NOT an axiom, not a necessary truth we cannot help accepting up front, and since that is the case, it does stand as hypothesis, subject to the jury of experience and reasoning. Same algorithm applies to any putative “first principle”: what is necessary is accepted of necessity, what is not is provisional hypothesis, subject to validation or falsification.

This is not true for all reasoning. This is only true for inductive sciences. For advanced mathematics, for example, the only way we know a formula is true is by re-checking the deductive process from its principles.

Yes, what Kant (and many others) would call “analytical reasoning” toward “analytical truth”. That’s good and valuable stuff – I’m a software guy that works on math-intensive stuff – but it’s not connected to the real world, until I make those attachments. One of the cool things I’ve gotten to work on software wise is various novel “logic systems” – think “fuzzy logic”, but multi-valued in more aggressive ways – and it’s amazing what kinds of calculi can be created “from the ether”, so to speak. Interesting, coherent, robust.

But unattached to the real world. It is reasoning, but apart from a real world context.

That’s fine, but it’s crucial to point out that “local truths” in those systems say perfectly nothing about the real world, untill they are connected to the real world.

I’m not sure where our reasoning processes differ. And once again, if you see a clear contradiction … what is it?

Well, what comes to mind immediately is our subject here: on one hand, God is derivable by reason, as knowledge produced by objective evidence and reasoning from it. On the other hand, Christians “know” God exists – the knowledge is given by revelation, the gift of faith. But “revelation as knowledge” is contradictory – an equivocation on that totally undermines the very concept of knowledge, and renders it meaningless. In the Christian model, believers “know without knowing”, having knowledge which obtains neither by necessity or via reasoning on the evidence of experience and observation.

-TS

 

[teachccd]

Hi Summa and the rest of you who think there is a God,

You totally fail to understand the difference between yourselves and atheists. Atheists KNOW there is no God, you are still HOPING there is one. So atheists have no point to prove as you and thousands of years of idols, praying and the rest of it have failed to produce one shred of evidence. Everything you refer to is created by man, to fool other fmen, and women.

There is no debate until you find proof, that’s why atheists appear rather disinterested in this stuff. To us you are still in the Dark Ages on this topic, unable to think for yourselves, and we have found our answer.

As to Dawkins. He does not represent atheists everywhere. He is relevant on Darwin’s theory etc. Every atheist of true knowledge has no need to prove anything to anyine but of course there are many who feign atheism simply because it’s tredny or “cool”. I hold such people in absolute contempt. At least you people believe what you preach, albeit a deluded belief but you don’t try to fool people with false claims deliberately.

Don’t worry, the sun will still keep rising every day regardless of what we all believe. It matters not in the end as the planet and universe have no knowledge of, or interest in Deities of any kind.

The mere fact that you posted here on CAF refutes your entire post…and for a person who “KNOWS” that there is no God, it was surely nice of you to capitalize the name of God.

One last thing, I am not hoping that there is a God. How brazen can you be? You can “KNOW” something and I can only “HOPE”? Keep on going out of your way “NOT PROVING” that there is no God…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Well, what comes to mind immediately is our subject here: on one hand, God is derivable by reason, as knowledge produced by objective evidence and reasoning from it. On the other hand, Christians “know” God exists – the knowledge is given by revelation, the gift of faith. But “revelation as knowledge” is contradictory – an equivocation on that totally undermines the very concept of knowledge, and renders it meaningless. In the Christian model, believers “know without knowing”, having knowledge which obtains neither by necessity or via reasoning on the evidence of experience and observation.

-TS

So do the undiscovered planets only come into existence after their discovery? Since there is no evidence to prove that there are other planets in other galaxies can we close the door to the notion that such planets probably exist? Isn’t it exactly the kind of faith that you reject that allows the astronomers to pick up their instruments for further study? If everything that has not been empiracally defined is deemed not to exist, then why the faith of science to keep looking??

 

[teachccd]

You’re right, Satonamat … man, what was I thinking?

You’re so right. We are ignorant peasants. And you are indeed disinterested, for why else would you be here?

That’s true. No one cares about God. Clearly. That much is obvious.

Thank you Satonamat for opening my eyes. I can’t believe how ignorant I was. I feel ashamed … but liberated now. Thanks to you.

:whacky:

 

[Touchstone]

So do the undiscovered planets only come into existence after their discovery?

No. How could they be discovered if the didn’t already exist??? Discovery implies existence.

Perhaps you meant “does knowledge of undiscovered planets come into existence after their discovery?” That sounds reasonable.

Since there is no evidence to prove that there are other planets in other galaxies can we close the door to the notion that such planets probably exist?

There is evidence for other planets in other galaxies, even before we capture(d) gravitational wobbles from their suns, or other direct effects: our galaxy has planets! Given that, it’s reasonable to suppose other galaxies have planets. Just the existence alone of our planet is reason to expect other planets exists. If our planet happened, why not others?

Isn’t it exactly the kind of faith that you reject that allows the astronomers to pick up their instruments for further study?

No, not at all. God has no analogs or precedents for us to use as a “reasoning bridge” to his existence. We do not observe God or things like God through our experience.

If everything that has not been empiracally defined is deemed not to exist, then why the faith of science to keep looking??

Because we have good reason to suspect those things do! And even if we don’t find planets, it’s worth checking matters out, as best we can, anyway!

-TS

 

[teachccd]

No. How could they be discovered if the didn’t already exist??? Discovery implies existence.

Perhaps you meant “does knowledge of undiscovered planets come into existence after their discovery?” That sounds reasonable.

Discovery proves existence. Searching implies existence. And no that’s not what I meant. I meant what I asked. Does something not exist prior to being discovered and your answer was no. Therefore you can remove this claim as a reason for your disbelief in God.

There is evidence for other planets in other galaxies, even before we capture(d) gravitational wobbles from their suns, or other direct effects: our galaxy has planets! Given that, it’s reasonable to suppose other galaxies have planets. Just the existence alone of our planet is reason to expect other planets exists. If our planet happened, why not others?

That is purely circumstantial. Something does not have to exist merely because something else does. I could use the same argument and say that just the existence of a watchmaker gives reason that there is a Creator. If a watch was designed and created then why not our planet?

No, not at all. God has no analogs or precedents for us to use as a “reasoning bridge” to his existence. We do not observe God or things like God through our experience.

That is pure conjecture. You do not observe God because the instruments that you utilize are not suitable for the observation. I could argue for days that amebas do not exist if I fail to use a microscope. You put the term “reasoning bridge” in quotes and rightly so. I would never feel the need to find a microscope if I had no “reasoning bridge” to seek the existence of the amebae.

Because we have good reason to suspect those things do! And even if we don’t find planets, it’s worth checking matters out, as best we can, anyway!

-TS

And finally, my friend, we agree!!! If we suspect that creation must have a Creator then it is best to keep on checking. (as best we can, anyway!)

teachccd

 

[Touchstone]

Discovery proves existence. Searching implies existence. And no that’s not what I meant. I meant what I asked. Does something not exist prior to being discovered and your answer was no. Therefore you can remove this claim as a reason for your disbelief in God.

Well, hold on, there. Are you suggesting that if we have not discovered something, it must exist? That can’t be the case – everything we have not discovered would exist! We have not discovered unicorns, so they exist?

That can’t be what you mean.

You are asking about how one goes about dealing with unknowns. A planet in a far away galaxy may exist, it may not. It is unknown. We can list our reasons to suspect it exists, and based on the strength of those reasons, we assign confidence to the idea, provisionally, until further evidence, or discovery obtains.

Importantly, for planets, we have a good idea what “existence” means, and what we can expect to find that would positively identify a planet (and what would signal the absence of a planet). This cannot be said for God, at least on the Christian rendering.

That is purely circumstantial. Something does not have to exist merely because something else does. I could use the same argument and say that just the existence of a watchmaker gives reason that there is a Creator. If a watch was designed and created then why not our planet?

First, “circumstantial” is a good thing. It’s a form of evidence that reasonably supports belief.

With a watch, we infer design because we have knowledge of the presence and capabilities of watchmakers. Even if we didn’t know specifically of watchmakers, we are aware that people make all sorts of small objects and devices out of metal, plastic, glass.

But with biological life, we have no evidence of a “life maker”, nothing that even remotely suggests that capability present back when life got going. So, the matching we do between ‘thing’ and ‘maker’ that works so well with watch and watchmaker fails with biological life and biological life maker. Same goes for the planets and the galaxies.

That is pure conjecture. You do not observe God because the instruments that you utilize are not suitable for the observation.

I agree. But that seems a problem for God, not the instruments I’m using. Our senses, reasoning and technology are far from infallible, but they are what we’ve got, and we are manifestly able to provide meaning for “exists” or “doesn’t exist, probably”, from them. I think, for example, if unicorns do exist, our senses and instrumentation should be able to substantiate that idea. We can’t say this for God.

This leaves God not just in “undiscovered” status, but “don’t know how it would/could be discovered” status.

I do think if a Zeus came down from the mountain, thunderbolts blazing, or Jesus returns and turns the moon red and makes the stars “fall” on command and such that would be evidence that works toward belief in God. That kind of thing just has been conspicuously not forthcoming.

I could argue for days that amebas do not exist if I fail to use a microscope. You put the term “reasoning bridge” in quotes and rightly so. I would never feel the need to find a microscope if I had no “reasoning bridge” to seek the existence of the amebae.

Well, I was a Christian for 30 years and more. My whole family was and still is a devoted group of Christians. Most of my friends outside of work are Christians, because my social life has been all about church community for 20 years now. I am a homeschooling Dad with six kids, and have formerly part of “leadership” of that large group (heh. Can’t quite sign the statement of faith for that group anymore, which puts me in the same boat as Catholics who otherwise would like to join the group). I went the whole way, the full ticket. And abandoning Christianity is pure insanity, social suicide for me, save for my conscience, and the developing courage (better late than never) to stand up and say the Emperor Has No Clothes.

But it is not a matter of me not looking, or being willing to give it a try. I left it all out there, trying. And in the end, when I looked in the mirror, I knew there was nothing but intuition, desire and social inertia pressing me to “see” God, to affirm that the Emperor’s Clothes were indeed fine and beautiful to keep a happy, cozy, successful life humming along faithfully.

I’ve looked in the microscope, and every metaphor you might imagine for “meditating on/finding/surrendering to God”. And indeed it would not be hard to fool myself and say “yeah, I think I see it!” the way I would agree with my daughter that that cloud does look like an elephant. But it wold be fooling myself – I don’t really see anything. I see a perfectly godless universe, and the more I check with other sources and instruments that help me be more objective, the more godless this universe appears.

And finally, my friend, we agree!!! If we suspect that creation must have a Creator then it is best to keep on checking. (as best we can, anyway!)

teachccd

Well, space exploration is no picnic, but I’m not sure other than “consulting my intution” what you’d recommend. Listening to William Lane Craig makes Christianity look more like a used car sales lot than a pursuit of reasoning toward the transcendant. Some recommend Aquinas and the Five Ways (those can only work if you already agree with the conclusion). Peter Kreeft tells me if I have a longing for God, there then must be a God (!). Others say it’s just because I really just need to bone up on “first philosophy”. Heh. Others say I should return to just “searching my feelings and deepest thoughts”, and pray to God for faith, the very thing that sparked the terrifying idea that this was all a foolish game I’d been playing on myself.

What do you recommend?

-TS

 

[teachccd]

Well, hold on, there. Are you suggesting that if we have not discovered something, it must exist? That can’t be the case – everything we have not discovered would exist! We have not discovered unicorns, so they exist?

That can’t be what you mean.

You are asking about how one goes about dealing with unknowns. A planet in a far away galaxy may exist, it may not. It is unknown. We can list our reasons to suspect it exists, and based on the strength of those reasons, we assign confidence to the idea, provisionally, until further evidence, or discovery obtains.

Importantly, for planets, we have a good idea what “existence” means, and what we can expect to find that would positively identify a planet (and what would signal the absence of a planet). This cannot be said for God, at least on the Christian rendering.

First, “circumstantial” is a good thing. It’s a form of evidence that reasonably supports belief.

With a watch, we infer design because we have knowledge of the presence and capabilities of watchmakers. Even if we didn’t know specifically of watchmakers, we are aware that people make all sorts of small objects and devices out of metal, plastic, glass.

But with biological life, we have no evidence of a “life maker”, nothing that even remotely suggests that capability present back when life got going. So, the matching we do between ‘thing’ and ‘maker’ that works so well with watch and watchmaker fails with biological life and biological life maker. Same goes for the planets and the galaxies.

I agree. But that seems a problem for God, not the instruments I’m using. Our senses, reasoning and technology are far from infallible, but they are what we’ve got, and we are manifestly able to provide meaning for “exists” or “doesn’t exist, probably”, from them. I think, for example, if unicorns do exist, our senses and instrumentation should be able to substantiate that idea. We can’t say this for God.

This leaves God not just in “undiscovered” status, but “don’t know how it would/could be discovered” status.

I do think if a Zeus came down from the mountain, thunderbolts blazing, or Jesus returns and turns the moon red and makes the stars “fall” on command and such that would be evidence that works toward belief in God. That kind of thing just has been conspicuously not forthcoming.
Well, I was a Christian for 30 years and more. My whole family was and still is a devoted group of Christians. Most of my friends outside of work are Christians, because my social life has been all about church community for 20 years now. I am a homeschooling Dad with six kids, and have formerly part of “leadership” of that large group (heh. Can’t quite sign the statement of faith for that group anymore, which puts me in the same boat as Catholics who otherwise would like to join the group). I went the whole way, the full ticket. And abandoning Christianity is pure insanity, social suicide for me, save for my conscience, and the developing courage (better late than never) to stand up and say the Emperor Has No Clothes.

But it is not a matter of me not looking, or being willing to give it a try. I left it all out there, trying. And in the end, when I looked in the mirror, I knew there was nothing but intuition, desire and social inertia pressing me to “see” God, to affirm that the Emperor’s Clothes were indeed fine and beautiful to keep a happy, cozy, successful life humming along faithfully.

I’ve looked in the microscope, and every metaphor you might imagine for “meditating on/finding/surrendering to God”. And indeed it would not be hard to fool myself and say “yeah, I think I see it!” the way I would agree with my daughter that that cloud does look like an elephant. But it wold be fooling myself – I don’t really see anything. I see a perfectly godless universe, and the more I check with other sources and instruments that help me be more objective, the more godless this universe appears.

Well, space exploration is no picnic, but I’m not sure other than “consulting my intution” what you’d recommend. Listening to William Lane Craig makes Christianity look more like a used car sales lot than a pursuit of reasoning toward the transcendant. Some recommend Aquinas and the Five Ways (those can only work if you already agree with the conclusion). Peter Kreeft tells me if I have a longing for God, there then must be a God (!). Others say it’s just because I really just need to bone up on “first philosophy”. Heh. Others say I should return to just “searching my feelings and deepest thoughts”, and pray to God for faith, the very thing that sparked the terrifying idea that this was all a foolish game I’d been playing on myself.

What do you recommend?

-TS

You gave me a full plate. Give me some time to digest and I shall return…thanks…teachccd

 

[Matthias123]

Listening to William Lane Craig makes Christianity look more like a used car sales lot than a pursuit of reasoning toward the transcendant.

What do I have to do to set you up with a really nice God right now? All joking aside, you have not told me why you dislike craig.

Some recommend Aquinas and the Five Ways (those can only work if you already agree with the conclusion).

uh huh… are you saying Aquanis is begging the question?

Tell me, what is the difference between an accidental series of efficient causes and an essential series of subordinated efficient causes? I want to make sure you actually understand the argument first, and this is where most people screw up.

Peter Kreeft tells me if I have a longing for God, there then must be a God (!).

I have never heard Kreeft, but I this is a bit of mystical theology. You do understand that most people don’t form a belief in God from philosophical argument. right?

Others say I should return to just “searching my feelings and deepest thoughts”, and pray to God for faith, the very thing that sparked the terrifying idea that this was all a foolish game I’d been playing on myself.

My experience tells me there is a story behind this. I know two people, who reject God primarily because they prayed for God to save their childhood friend from cancer, and he didn’t, and now they don’t believe He exists.