The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[AntiTheist]

I’ll make one last honest attempt.

I’m sorry, but it flies in the face of common sense to say one can reject both of these statements as false:

There is a God.

There is no God.

You’re missing the point. I’m not assigning truth values and saying that they’re both simultaneously false – I’m saying that I do not accept either claim, even though I recognize that the reality is that only one can be true.

The reality of the situation – discounting for a moment the possibilities of other gods – is that one or the other is true. There are only two, mutually exclusive options here.

But we are not talking about assigning truth values. We are talking about beliefs. Beliefs are not limited to one of two options.

I’ll repeat the coin example. Let’s say I flip a coin and conceal it in my palm. The truth of the matter is that it is either heads up or tails up. There are only two options.

My beliefs about the coin, however, are not limited to those two options.

If you asked, “Do you believe that the coin is heads up?” I would honestly answer “no.” I would not accept that claim. But the mere act of not accepting that claim most definitely does not mean that I automatically think that the coin is tails up.

And in fact, if you then asked me, “Do you believe that the coin is tails up?” I would honestly answer “no.”

I’m not assigning truth values. I’m not saying that they’re both “false.” I’m saying that I don’t accept that either claim is true.

Now let’s say that someone comes along and fervently believes that the coin is tails up. This fellow and I would both be Aheadsists (people who lack belief in the coin being heads up) – even though this guy, unlike me, goes the extra step of accepting the claim that the tail is heads up.

I really don’t think that I can explain it any more clearly than that. Someone else help out here – am I seriously not making sense?

 

[ThomasToo]

I’ve been reading about the Millennium Problems and would like to amend my possible statements to ones that allow for less ambiguity in argument if that is alright.

(1) The class P–the class of decision problems solvable by some algorithm within a number of steps bounded by some fixed polynomial in the length of the (name removed by moderator)ut–is the only set of possible decision problems.
(2) There exists some other class of decision making problems, called NP, that is not determinable in polynomial time.

• P vs. NP on Wikipedia
• Official problem statement of the P vs. NP problem from the Clay Mathematics Institute

I really don’t think that I can explain it any more clearly than that. Someone else help out here – am I seriously not making sense?

I think you’re good, and may have done better than I did.

 

[Slowlearner]

Naturally, as a moral skeptic, . . . .

For the THIRD TIME, I am not arguing with you.

Almost makes me wonder if you are tag-teaming with Thomastoo so he doesn’t have to explain his faith in his morality.

Seriously, thank you. I think there is a wonderful definition of morality over on another thread. I haven’t read much into that thread, so you may be contributing over there. Here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6582383&postcount=5

 

[DanteAlighieri]

No, to refuse to pick is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we have insufficient data to choose between these two options. We CAN reject that the die will come up 1 and that it will not come up one while not rejecting that it will either come up 1 or not. If you’re demanding we pick one of these two options I ask you to answer the question. I have a fair die here, when I roll it will it come up 1?

Which is why I said early on that “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. I also pointed out that this answer does not amount to a rejection of either principle.

Certainly you don’t have a firm statement of belief on every possible set of two complementary (insofar as the pair complete the maxim of the excluded middle) axioms. In lieu of extensive possible examples, please see my set of two possible statements at the bottom of this post.

Of course I don’t – as I said, “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer. Rejecting both possibilities is absurd; not knowing what to believe true is not.

Of course but which one. One horse is sure to run faster than the others but we have no way before the race is over to know which one.

Agreed – so the question is, since one does not know, one ought to inform oneself as best one can before placing one’s bet.

Neither am I but I think while I am willing to acknowledge the principle of non-contradiction/law of the excluded middle surely you must be willing to say that sometimes we lack the data to say which.

Agreed – see above.

I present you with two possible statements–which if you maintain your position then you are bound to simply answer (1) or (2).

(1) the Riemann hypothesis is true
(2) the Riemann hypothesis is false.

You misunderstood my point. I am saying that if only A or not-A is true, it is absurd to reject both positions. It is reasonable to decline to choose until one is better equipped to do so, but rejecting both is tantamount to saying both are false.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Which is why I said early on that “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. I also pointed out that this answer does not amount to a rejection of either principle…

Rejecting both possibilities is absurd; not knowing what to believe true is not.

…

You misunderstood my point. I am saying that if only A or not-A is true, it is absurd to reject both positions. It is reasonable to decline to choose until one is better equipped to do so, but rejecting both is tantamount to saying both are false.

How are you meaning ‘reject’? Certainly it is different than ‘not accept.’ Were any of us supporing rejection of both principles in the strict sense of saying (1) and (2) [for any (1) and (2) such that (1) = negation((2))] are both false (i.e. not true)?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’ll make one last honest attempt.

You’re missing the point. I’m not assigning truth values and saying that they’re both simultaneously false – I’m saying that I do not accept either claim, even though I recognize that the reality is that only one can be true.

The reality of the situation – discounting for a moment the possibilities of other gods – is that one or the other is true. There are only two, mutually exclusive options here.

But we are not talking about assigning truth values. We are talking about beliefs. Beliefs are not limited to one of two options.

I’ll repeat the coin example. Let’s say I flip a coin and conceal it in my palm. The truth of the matter is that it is either heads up or tails up. There are only two options.

My beliefs about the coin, however, are not limited to those two options.

If you asked, “Do you believe that the coin is heads up?” I would honestly answer “no.” I would not accept that claim. But the mere act of not accepting that claim most definitely does not mean that I automatically think that the coin is tails up.

And in fact, if you then asked me, “Do you believe that the coin is tails up?” I would honestly answer “no.”

I’m not assigning truth values. I’m not saying that they’re both “false.” I’m saying that I don’t accept that either claim is true.

Now let’s say that someone comes along and fervently believes that the coin is tails up. This fellow and I would both be Aheadsists (people who lack belief in the coin being heads up) – even though this guy, unlike me, goes the extra step of accepting the claim that the tail is heads up.

I really don’t think that I can explain it any more clearly than that. Someone else help out here – am I seriously not making sense?

And I will make one last attempt, too.

To believe something is to accept its truth. One does not believe something one knows to be false. Thus, if one believes that the coin is heads-up, one is embracing “The Coin Is Heads-Up” as a true statement. If one believes the coin is NOT heads-up, one is by definition accepting that it is heads down, since that is the only other possible alternative.

Choosing to believe something is choosing to accept it as true while accepting that Not-It is false. That is the nature of belief. When we accept a belief, it is because we agree with it for whatever reason. When we reject a belief, it is because we think it is false. Thus, rejecting both mutually exclusive premises amounts to assigning a truth value of zero to them both - which is absurd.

I’m afraid I can’t think of how better to clarify this…

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

How are you meaning ‘reject’? Certainly it is different than ‘not accept.’ Were any of us supporing rejection of both principles in the strict sense of saying (1) and (2) [for any (1) and (2) such that (1) = negation((2))] are both false (i.e. not true)?

Yes - Unless I’ve misunderstood him, AntiTheist says that he rejects both “There are gods” and “There are not gods”.

As I just pointed out, one rejects a position out of a belief in its falsehood; to reject both is to make an absurd claim.

EDIT: And, by “reject”, I mean the standard definitions of “deny” or “not accept”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes - Unless I’ve misunderstood him, AntiTheist says that he rejects both “There are gods” and “There are not gods”.

As I just pointed out, one rejects a position out of a belief in its falsehood; to reject both is to make an absurd claim.

Peace,
Dante

Interesting… Thoughts AntiTheist?

 

[AntiTheist]

To believe something is to accept its truth. One does not believe something one knows to be false. Thus, if one believes that the coin is heads-up, one is embracing “The Coin Is Heads-Up” as a true statement. If one believes the coin is NOT heads-up, one is by definition accepting that it is heads down, since that is the only other possible alternative.

Right. But I’m not saying that I believe the coin is NOT heads-up.

I’m saying I don’t believe the coin is heads-up. I also don’t believe the coin is tails-up. I do not hold either of those as a belief, even though the truth of the matter is that the coin is either one or the other.

Do you assert that my position of not accepting either claim about the coin is impossible? If you do, then indeed further communication between us is a complete waste of time.

EDIT: And yes, we’ve been using terminology too loosely on this thread. I think “not accepting” is arguably different from “rejecting,” and “not accepting” is now my preferred usage, for the sake of clarity.

 

[Slowlearner]

And I will make one last attempt, too.

To believe something is to accept its truth. One does not believe something one knows to be false. Thus, if one believes that the coin is heads-up, one is embracing “The Coin Is Heads-Up” as a true statement. If one believes the coin is NOT heads-up, one is by definition accepting that it is heads down, since that is the only other possible alternative.

Choosing to believe something is choosing to accept it as true while accepting that Not-It is false. That is the nature of belief. When we accept a belief, it is because we agree with it for whatever reason. When we reject a belief, it is because we think it is false. Thus, rejecting both mutually exclusive premises amounts to assigning a truth value of zero to them both - which is absurd.

I’m afraid I can’t think of how better to clarify this…

Peace,
Dante

I think the teapot analogy applies strictly speaking.

If someone flips a coin in front of you and you can see it on the ground, and if it is not standing on edge, you must admit it is either heads or tails.

If a stranger walks up and says he is holding a coin behind his back and asks you whether you believe it is heads or tails, do you have a belief? Do you believe he even has a coin?

I think some atheists views existence of God like the latter and we Christians as nearly the former.

Of course, while God is not standing before us, he is also not completely concealed behind a stranger’s back. We have much evidence of God.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Right. But I’m not saying that I believe the coin is NOT heads-up.

I’m saying I don’t believe the coin is heads-up. I also don’t believe the coin is tails-up. I do not hold either of those as a belief, even though the truth of the matter is that the coin is either one or the other.

Do you assert that my position of not accepting either claim about the coin is impossible? If you do, then indeed further communication between us is a complete waste of time.

EDIT: And yes, we’ve been using terminology too loosely on this thread. I think “not accepting” is arguably different from “rejecting,” and “not accepting” is now my preferred usage, for the sake of clarity.

To a degree, I do assert this – insofar as your “not accepting” either claim amounts to not accepting a reality that you admit exists.

In other words, you know that the coin MUST be heads up or down, but you are “not accepting” either possibility. This is an abdication of reason and a refusal to seek truth. The proper response is to determine to the best of one’s ability whether it is heads or tails.

Thus, since we know there either is or is not a God, it is an abdication of reason to reject/refuse to accept either position; one ought to exert one’s reason in an honest, open-minded search for the truth instead of on justifying the refusal to choose.

But, perhaps we are at an impasse here. I encourage you to keep an open mind, however. Ask yourself: what is the value in a position that denies reality by refusing to accept it?

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

In other words, you know that the coin MUST be heads up or down, but you are “not accepting” either possibility. This is an abdication of reason and a refusal to seek truth. The proper response is to determine to the best of one’s ability whether it is heads or tails.

I think that’s not quite fair. What if our flipper slips the coin into his or her pocket without looking? We all know it was either heads or tails but I’m not going to accept either the proposition ‘the coin was heads’ or the proposition ‘the coin was tails’ because short of inventing a past-viewing device (cf. Arthur C. Clarke’s The Light of Other Days) there is no way to know. Which proposition would you accept in that situation?

 

[Slowlearner]

To a degree, I do assert this – insofar as your “not accepting” either claim amounts to not accepting a reality that you admit exists.

In other words, you know that the coin MUST be heads up or down, but you are “not accepting” either possibility. This is an abdication of reason and a refusal to seek truth. The proper response is to determine to the best of one’s ability whether it is heads or tails.

Thus, since we know there either is or is not a God, it is an abdication of reason to reject/refuse to accept either position; one ought to exert one’s reason in an honest, open-minded search for the truth instead of on justifying the refusal to choose.

But, perhaps we are at an impasse here. I encourage you to keep an open mind, however. Ask yourself: what is the value in a position that denies reality by refusing to accept it?

Peace,
Dante

That’s good, nevermind what I said earlier. I think your post says it all. But if atheists start referring to God as flying spaghetti monsters or teapots in space, and say “I can live just fine without searching for that truth regarding God,” then we can take God out of the question (at least initially).

Every day every person will make a decisions that are governed by a coin, so to speak. The coin toss is not random for the side of the coin is picked by the person each day. You must pick one. The coin I am referring to is each person’s guiding moral principle. The two choices in this regard are:

Tails: I will be guided in my decisions today by My Personal Happiness

or

Heads: I will be guided today by a Truth Principle that exists independent of me.

Every person faces this question because every person has a conscience that drives us to ponder this question. Moral skeptic atheists say there is no Truth Principle, and are governed by Tails. Many atheists who are not moral skeptics have moral systems, but they are fuzzy (as we’ve seen on this thread with references to resorting to values). These folks may think they are picking Heads. However, lacking an external directive and objective starting point, those fuzzy moral systems are really self-selected and very flexible, meaning that the person is actually picking Tails.

Every person who sincerely seeks to pick Heads, and engages in a search for a Truth Principle, will find Love and God.

Why is this thread so long? Because atheists loath to admit that their guiding principle is My Personal Happiness.

 

[ThomasToo]

… Why is this thread so long? Because atheists loath to admit that their guiding principle is My Personal Happiness.

Or because it’s not and we’re trying to convince theists that we’re not full of **** when we say that…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think that’s not quite fair. What if our flipper slips the coin into his or her pocket without looking? We all know it was either heads or tails but I’m not going to accept either the proposition ‘the coin was heads’ or the proposition ‘the coin was tails’ because short of inventing a past-viewing device (cf. Arthur C. Clarke’s The Light of Other Days) there is no way to know. Which proposition would you accept in that situation?

I would accept the true one, or at least the one I was reasonably sure was true. In any case, this demonstrates the pointlessness of the coin analogy due to the fact that it doesn’t deal with the eternal, while our main proposition does. Nonetheless, we can still discuss that the coin WAS heads or WAS tails, and the truth is still the truth.

That the flipper is unable to offer irrefutable evidence of whether the coin WAS heads or tails is irrelevant – because the coin WAS heads OR tails, and that fact does not change regardless of whether someone saw it.

Thus, if you insist on “not accepting” either proposition, you are still absurdly rejecting reality.

Peace,
Dante

 

[AntiTheist]

In other words, you know that the coin MUST be heads up or down, but you are “not accepting” either possibility.

I don’t accept either possibility as the thing I believe, but I accept that one possibility is true. That’s where you’re having a problem grasping me.

I just heard an atheist podcast today where they were talking about exactly this. I’ll use the example one of the hosts did: “If I claim I have exactly ten dollars in my pocket, do you believe me?” The truth of the matter is either that he does or that he doesn’t. My position on the matter is not limited to believing that he does or believing that he doesn’t. I can choose to not accept either of those options as my current personal belief about it.

This is an abdication of reason and a refusal to seek truth.

There’s not always a “refusal to seek truth.” Might someone not legitimately conclude that there is insufficient evidence to affirm either belief? (Even though one is true, there is not enough evidence to support either claim)

The proper response is to determine to the best of one’s ability whether it is heads or tails.

And if one determines that there is insufficient evidence – as there is in the “10 dollars” example – I would say that the proper response is to withold judgment.

But, perhaps we are at an impasse here. I encourage you to keep an open mind, however. Ask yourself: what is the value in a position that denies reality by refusing to accept it?

I’m not “denying reality” here. I acknowledge the fact that either gods exist or they don’t. I’m saying that it is possible to say that there is not enough information to affirm either belief.

Now, if you’d just agree on that point, perhaps we could move on to me attempting to justify the claim “There are no gods,” which I think might be possible in some contexts. But I’m never going to attempt it until you agree that accepting “There are no gods” is not the defining characteristic of atheism under my definition – I consider not accepting the claim “There are gods” to be the defining characteristic of atheism, and I consider accepting the claim “There are no gods” to be something extra that some atheists believe. [And I’ll explain why some atheists might believe that if you’d just grasp this simple point]

Thus, if you insist on “not accepting” either proposition, you are still absurdly rejecting reality.

NO. I am not rejecting reality. I am witholding judgment in the face of insufficient evidence.

I don’t see how you can’t grasp this. The truth of the matter is either A or B, but if there is insufficient evidence, I can very legitimately say that I do not have enough evidence to accept either one as the truth.

And incidentally, I won’t be back to these forums until the weekend is over. So I hope you’re able to figure it out before then – I look forward to continuing this conversation then.

Slow Learner:

The coin I am referring to is each person’s guiding moral principle. The two choices in this regard are:

Tails: I will be guided in my decisions today by My Personal Happiness

or

Heads: I will be guided today by a Truth Principle that exists independent of me.

A “Truth Principle” is different than a god claim.

I’m in a similar position with “truth principle,” though. I don’t have enough evidence to say that one exists, but I don’t have enough evidence to claim that no truth principle exists at all. This is an issue on which I would withold judgment.

In my day to day life, since I do not accept the claim that there is a Truth Principle, I would not live my life based no one.

Similarly, I do not have enough evidence to say that leprechauns exist, nor do I have enough evidence to say that nowhere in the universe are there leprechauns hiding out. I reserve judgment on this issue as well. And in my day to day life, since I do not accept the claim that leprechauns exist, I would not do the magic leprechaun dance every morning.

Why is this thread so long? Because atheists loath to admit that their guiding principle is My Personal Happiness.

I certainly have no problem with that as a guiding principle – though I would argue it’s also everyone else’s guiding principle, ultimately.

 

[ThomasToo]

I would accept the true one, or at least the one I was reasonably sure was true. In any case, this demonstrates the pointlessness of the coin analogy due to the fact that it doesn’t deal with the eternal, while our main proposition does. Nonetheless, we can still discuss that the coin WAS heads or WAS tails, and the truth is still the truth.

That the flipper is unable to offer irrefutable evidence of whether the coin WAS heads or tails is irrelevant – because the coin WAS heads OR tails, and that fact does not change regardless of whether someone saw it.

Thus, if you insist on “not accepting” either proposition, you are still absurdly rejecting reality.

You realize that ‘I would accept the true one’ doesn’t actually answer my question…

My point is that while was can say that one of the two propositions is more likely than not to be true (e.g. the P and NP are probably distinct classes of problem solving algorithms) but we simply don’t have enough data to have a justified belief in either of the two of them.

Frankly, to say that we simply ought to accept one or the other for the sake of believing one over the other instead of saying ‘I don’t know’ seems to be intellectual suicide (to paraphrase Camus).

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I don’t accept either possibility as the thing I believe, but I accept that one possibility is true. That’s where you’re having a problem grasping me.

I just heard an atheist podcast today where they were talking about exactly this. I’ll use the example one of the hosts did: “If I claim I have exactly ten dollars in my pocket, do you believe me?” The truth of the matter is either that he does or that he doesn’t. My position on the matter is not limited to believing that he does or believing that he doesn’t. I can choose to not accept either of those options as my current personal belief about it.

There’s not always a “refusal to seek truth.” Might someone not legitimately conclude that there is insufficient evidence to affirm either belief? (Even though one is true, there is not enough evidence to support either claim)

And if one determines that there is insufficient evidence – as there is in the “10 dollars” example – I would say that the proper response is to withold judgment.

I’m not “denying reality” here. I acknowledge the fact that either gods exist or they don’t. I’m saying that it is possible to say that there is not enough information to affirm either belief.

Now, if you’d just agree on that point, perhaps we could move on to me attempting to justify the claim “There are no gods,” which I think might be possible in some contexts. But I’m never going to attempt it until you agree that accepting “There are no gods” is not the defining characteristic of atheism under my definition – I consider not accepting the claim “There are gods” to be the defining characteristic of atheism, and I consider accepting the claim “There are no gods” to be something extra that some atheists believe. [And I’ll explain why some atheists might believe that if you’d just grasp this simple point]

NO. I am not rejecting reality. I am witholding judgment in the face of insufficient evidence.

I don’t see how you can’t grasp this. The truth of the matter is either A or B, but if there is insufficient evidence, I can very legitimately say that I do not have enough evidence to accept either one as the truth.

And incidentally, I won’t be back to these forums until the weekend is over. So I hope you’re able to figure it out before then – I look forward to continuing this conversation then.

I’m sorry, but I cannot let go of the reality that rejecting “There are gods” is the same as embracing “There are no gods.” However, I think we may have something akin to common ground here – correct me if I’m wrong.

It seems to me that you, personally, would answer The Question with an “I don’t know”. Yes?

Does not this imply a responsibility of sorts to find an answer? This is the point I’ve been trying to make: given two mutually exclusive positions, and given that one does not know the answer, should not one then seek to discover the answer and thus come to a personal belief?

That is what I meant by “abdication of reason”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

You realize that ‘I would accept the true one’ doesn’t actually answer my question…

My point is that while was can say that one of the two propositions is more likely than not to be true (e.g. the P and NP are probably distinct classes of problem solving algorithms) but we simply don’t have enough data to have a justified belief in either of the two of them.

**Frankly, to say that we simply ought to accept one or the other for the sake of believing one over the other instead of saying ‘I don’t know’ **seems to be intellectual suicide (to paraphrase Camus).

I’m not saying that, however. I’ve said repeatedly that “I don’t know” is a legitimate answer, but also that it is completely distinct from rejecting both positions. As I just said to AntiTheist, I also believe that saying “I don’t know” carries with it a certain degree of responsibility to alleviate that deficiency.

Peace,
Dante

 

[davidv]

I’m sorry, but I cannot let go of the reality that rejecting “There are gods” is the same as embracing “There are no gods.” However, I think we may have something akin to common ground here – correct me if I’m wrong.

It seems to me that you, personally, would answer The Question with an “I don’t know”. Yes?

Does not this imply a responsibility of sorts to find an answer?

Not necessarily. If one has already concluded that the answer to question is of no consequence then there would be no impetus to pursue the answer. I believe this is the position of most atheists.

This is the point I’ve been trying to make: given two mutually exclusive positions, and given that one does not know the answer, should not one then seek to discover the answer and thus come to a personal belief?

That is what I meant by “abdication of reason”.

Peace,
Dante