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

[DanteAlighieri]

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.

If the answer to the question “Is there a God” is yes, how could anyone conclude that it is of no consequence?

Especially if the Christian understanding of God is correct, it would seem to me that such a truth would be of enormous consequence to everyone.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

If the answer to the question “Is there a God” is yes, how could anyone conclude that it is of no consequence?

Especially if the Christian understanding of God is correct, it would seem to me that such a truth would be of enormous consequence to everyone.

Peace,
Dante

I think a possible answer–though I would side with you as to its importance–is that the question is not framed regarding the Christian God but all possible gods and people who were not raised Christian may not have the same thoughts on the link between ontology and ethics (Hume kind of poisoned the well on that one though).

 

[AntiTheist]

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

Yes, let me put it this way.

Before a person accepts a claim, that person must establish for himself or herself that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence that constitutes “sufficient” changes depending on the context. Ordinary claims might require very little evidence or no evidence at all; wild and extraordinary claims might require a great deal more.

I do not think that there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim “gods exist.” In addition, I also do not think that there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim “no gods exist.”

I’m not saying, “I refuse to search for an answer!” I have examined the question for a long time now, and I talk to believers a lot. It’s not like I’m trying to avoid the question, nor do I consider the question unimportant. I’m saying the position that I have determined is that there is – currently – insufficient evidence to establish either claim and that I do not accept either claim. The moment that evidence arises, I will consider it. In other words, my position is open to change in the future.

Now, I use the word “belief” to mean “the acceptance of a claim.” If you asked me, “Do you believe in god?” I would honestly answer “no.” And furthermore, if you asked me, “Do you believe that no gods exist anywhere in the universe or outside the universe or anywhere else?” I would honestly answer “no.” There is insufficient evidence to establish that claim.

All of the above is in the context of the kind of discussion we’re having; if we switch the context, I personally think it might be possible to “support” the second claim, but I don’t claim that to an absolute degree of certainty, nor do I claim it with the intention of getting others to believe it, and it’s also outside the scope of this particular point, which is: “Atheism is simply not believing in gods.”

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?

I think that a fair answer to a question that has insufficient evidence is “There is currently insufficient evidence.”

Similarly, in the realm of science, there are many questions where a fair answer would be “There is currently insufficient evidence.” For example, the dinosaurs were either killed by a the effects of a meteor or some other calamity. Which calamity was it? There are some people who have beliefs about that point, and there are others who maintain that the evidence is currently insufficient.

It’s a perfectly fine position to have in the face of a lack of evidence.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Yes, let me put it this way.

Before a person accepts a claim, that person must establish for himself or herself that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence that constitutes “sufficient” changes depending on the context. Ordinary claims might require very little evidence or no evidence at all; wild and extraordinary claims might require a great deal more.

I do not think that there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim “gods exist.” In addition, I also do not think that there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim “no gods exist.”

I’m not saying, “I refuse to search for an answer!” I have examined the question for a long time now, and I talk to believers a lot. It’s not like I’m trying to avoid the question, nor do I consider the question unimportant. I’m saying the position that I have determined is that there is – currently – insufficient evidence to establish either claim and that I do not accept either claim. The moment that evidence arises, I will consider it. In other words, my position is open to change in the future.

Now, I use the word “belief” to mean “the acceptance of a claim.” If you asked me, “Do you believe in god?” I would honestly answer “no.” And furthermore, if you asked me, “Do you believe that no gods exist anywhere in the universe or outside the universe or anywhere else?” I would honestly answer “no.” There is insufficient evidence to establish that claim.

All of the above is in the context of the kind of discussion we’re having; if we switch the context, I personally think it might be possible to “support” the second claim, but I don’t claim that to an absolute degree of certainty, nor do I claim it with the intention of getting others to believe it, and it’s also outside the scope of this particular point, which is: “Atheism is simply not believing in gods.”

I think that a fair answer to a question that has insufficient evidence is “There is currently insufficient evidence.”

Similarly, in the realm of science, there are many questions where a fair answer would be “There is currently insufficient evidence.” For example, the dinosaurs were either killed by a the effects of a meteor or some other calamity. Which calamity was it? There are some people who have beliefs about that point, and there are others who maintain that the evidence is currently insufficient.

It’s a perfectly fine position to have in the face of a lack of evidence.

For the sake of argument, I will grant your position – but only so that I can ask what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to arrive at a conclusion.

Peace,
Dante

 

[rvilbig]

The problem is, under the worldview of atheism, man’s mind is merely an end product of natural selection, different merely in degree, not kind, from all the other little critters natural selection has produced. This little critter we call man builds a better dam than a beaver does, and he’s much more clever than a beaver, but that’s all, he has no more right to make pronouncements on the ultimate nature of reality than the beaver does. Because in the atheist view of man this little guy’s mind was constructed through the blind machinations of natural selection, a process which selected for attributes that would help him catch his next meal, avoid the next predator, and then live to mate and pass on his “selfish genes”. Thus, under this assumption there’s no reason to believe these minds that unguided natural selection cobbled together piecemeal are capable of constructing reliable abstract inferences or a true understanding of the ultimate structure of reality, they weren’t “designed” for that. This critter known as man is good at recognizing patterns in his day to day world, through fallible inductive reasoning, which allows him to construct useful gadgets like campfires, dams, lasers, and MRI machines. But once he steps beyond this into the realm of unfalsifiable and untestable abstract inferences on the ultimate nature of Reality he’s overstepped what his brain was constructed for.

Actually, some scientists have concluded from their studies that the human mind must be different in kind from the rest of nature. For example, in artificial intelligence discussions, John Searle proposed a thought experiment known as the Chinese Room: Suppose you’re in a room with two slots and have a code book with two columns of Chinese characters. Someone passes in the message in Chinese which says “Do you speak Chinese?”, and you pass out a message from the corresponding column which says “Yes” in Chinese characters. You achieved this based on your character recognition in the code book; however, you never had a conscious experience of understanding the question because you simply recognized characters. This is essentially how computers act: they recognize characters as (name removed by moderator)ut information and then unconsciously send output information. This argument has been extended to the Chinese brain, and the lesson is that things that react to stimuli, such as neurons and computers, won’t necessarily be conscious; hence, souls must be hypothesized as those entities which are conscious by their very nature.

Also, Aquinas suggested that the human soul was in a sense only different in degree from those of plants and animals. From Summa Contra Gentiles: "“[P]rime matter is in potency, first of all, to the form of an element. When it is existing under the form of an element it is in potency to the form of a mixed body; that is why the elements are matter for the mixed body. Considered under the form of a mixed body, it is in potency to a vegetative soul, for this sort of soul is the act of a body. In turn, the vegetative soul is in potency to a sensitive soul, and a sensitive one to an intellectual one.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 22)

But not so fast, say other physicists and philosophers of a more atheistic view of the world. They say that the reason the Laws of the Universe follow mathematical rules is simply because humans first invented mathematics and then started looking at the universe through their “mathematical colored glasses”. They’ve merely “projected” their man-made invention of mathematics onto the universe, the universe doesn’t really follow laws based on mathematics. In other words, Wigner’s “mystery” that mathematics actually describes the Laws that the Universe follows is about as significant as the “mystery” that English is the language that plays are written in. The philosopher Thomas Kuhn has even gone so far as to say that if we ever met a race of aliens from another planet, they would likely have completely different “Laws” for describing the workings of the universe that have nothing in common with our “Laws”. Remember that the next time a Dawkins tells you that once we “discover” the Theory of Everything we’ll have no room left for God.

Actually, many modern physicists note that their equations can’t explain their own existence, so Aquinas’ argument from efficient cause is still relevant to their theories. Two quotes will suffice:

Stephen Hawking has noted: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?.. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?” (Brief History of Time, page 190).

Brian Greene also willingly admits that God is one explanation for the parameters of unified theory (loop tension, brane dimensions, etc): “Maybe we will have to accept that certain features of the universe are the way they are because of happenstance, accident or divine choice” (Elegant Universe, page 385, emphasis added).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[ContegoFides]

… 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.

I agree that this a true statement, in the context of a positivistic question. Indeed, this concept is at the essence of quantum mechanics, such as in the example of Schrodinger’s cat.

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]

Despite my agreement that it is possible to have no position regarding a positivistic matter, *practically speaking *you can’t take the same position on matters of faith. We are not robots; we form opinions regarding unproven things based on our evaluation of the evidence or lack thereof. A robot would be truly agnostic; taking no position with regards to faith.

However, any atheist actually believes there is no God. This position is justified by the underlying, unprovable principle of “lack of belief without evidence” in conjunction with “no evidence for God,” possibly on other arguments.

On a deeper level, I believe that the vast majority of atheists accept atheism for one of four main reasons (though there could be others) 1) in order to justify attachment to objectively immoral things (whatever they are), 2) because of the darkness in their own hearts, 3) because they are angry at the idea that a good God would allow the horrible suffering we see in the world today and throughout history, or 4) (and this is very rare IMO) he or she actually believes that atheism is Truth.

In any case, for all practical purposes, any atheist really is professing the unproven belief that there is no God. To say otherwise is either sophistry or disingenuousness. The question of “lack of belief” is merely an underlying and unprovable rationale to support the belief of “no God.”

As I showed several days ago, belief in no God is an extremely bad philosophy for humans, even if it were the Truth (which it is not). Atheism predisposes people, as individuals and as a society, towards amorality and, worse, atheism is open to objectively grave evils. Atheism predisposes people, as individuals and as a society, towards hoplessness, nihilism, depression, and a negative outlook on life that leads to misery and suffering, and possibly reduced long-term production. All we have to do is look at societies such as China, Russia, and North Korea where atheism held for a long time. Maybe you very few atheists debating us here would assert otherwise, but for the vast majority of people, atheism is just bad. Atheism is also bad if only atheistic leaders are in power, because of the resulting policies that come about, citing Russia and China and North Korea again as examples.

Because atheism is a bad philosophy for humans, and because atheism cannot be shown to be the truth, atheism should be rejected as a philosophy altogether.

The question then becomes, which philosophy to accept? As argued earlier, the Catholic faith is by far the most rational and most likely to be true. Due to lack of space, I’ll have to defend this assertion in another post, if needed.

On Pascal’s Wager

I’ve given more thought to this issue, and particularly to the objection that Pascal’s Wager relies on the unproven assumption that there is a Christian God, complete with Heaven and Hell - but that a-priori you cannot know whether there are any gods at all. For example, Hinduism does not believe in Heaven or Hell, but rather continuous reincarnation, if Hinduism is true, then Pasclal’s Wager would not apply - and because we cannot know a-priori whether Hinduism or Christianity is true, Pascal’s Wager must be rejected as a false choice.

Upon further thought, I think Pascal’s Wager still is a valid wager due to the ontology of its assumption (the existence of a Christian God). Because one cannot prove the non-existence of the Christian God, one may rationally make the unproven assumption that He does exist. Naturally, if you assumed evidence is required for belief, then you would reject the rationality of this assumption. However, because you cannot prove God’s non-existence, you cannot prove that the assumption is irrational (especially in the light of reasonable arguments for God’s existence, such as first cause).

In any case, I think the more proper assumption of Pascal’s Wager is that there exists the possibility of a Christian God. If there is that possibility, then it is irrational not to believe in God because of the risk analysis imposed by Pascal’s Wager.

In other words, Pascal’s Wager works because it does not rely on the assumption that God truly exists, but rather on the possibility that He exists.

Given that no one can disprove either the Truth or the possibility of the Christian God’s existence, and given that belief in the Christian God cannot be proven to be irrational in the face of ontological and telelogical arguments of His existence, the risk analysis of Pascal’s Wager is both rational and fully effective.

Indeed, when looked at from this way, Pascal’s Wager becomes yet another ontological “proof” (non-positivistic) of God’s existence. The Truth will always support itself and lead back to itself, and Pascal’s Wager ontologically helps us to exclude all religions, except a Monotheism that accepts Hevean and Hell as possibilities, as not holding the fullness of Truth. Which such monotheistic religion to choose is then derived from other principles, such as analyzing the claims of the religions themselves.

 

[AntiTheist]

For the sake of argument, I will grant your position – but only so that I can ask what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to arrive at a conclusion.

The kind of evidence that is sufficient depends on the claim. For example, in a number of scientific questions, a number of repeatable, physical demonstrations, usually coupled with predictive power, is quite sufficient for acceptance.

For the god question, the evidence that would be sufficient would depend on the god and the nature of the particular god claim under discussion. I’m not totally sure what evidence would be sufficient to get me to accept the existence of, let’s say, the Catholic god. But an all-knowing being obviously would know what kind of evidence would convince me, so I imagine that if such a being really wanted to convince me, he would have offered such evidence long ago.

I have sometimes used this as an example: if a god really wanted to demonstrate his existence, I would want him to do something like send an audible message to everyone on earth at once – to each in their primary language – informing them of his existence and providing a window of a few minutes in which each person could ask a few questions and receive answers that could be confirmed through later investigation of the world.

I think that such an event would make it impossible to be an atheist because it would be overwhelming evidence that a god is real. Now, whether that god is worthy of worship is an entirely different question, so I would not necessarily immediately become a Christian or whatnot.

Now, for a more interesting question. What kind of evidence would be sufficient for accepting “no gods exist”?

I like to use another example here: leprechauns. [NOTE: I am not comparing your god to leprechauns. I’m aware that the claims are very, very different. I am comparing standards of evidence in each case]

There is, in my view, insufficient evidence to accept the claim that leprechauns exist. Certainly, people claim to have seen them, and there are stories, and there may even be a bit of gold here and there that is claimed to have been leprechaun gold, but none of that, in my estimation, is anywhere near sufficient. There is also, in my view, insufficient evidence to accept the claim that nowhere in the universe, anywhere ever at any time, has there ever been a leprechaun.

Strictly speaking, it’s almost always impossible to “prove” a negative. Can you prove that I didn’t open a particular book on my bookshelf last week? Similarly, I can’t demonstrate that no leprechauns exist, particularly if we consider other planets or other potential universes or anything else.

That’s all well and good in terms of the context of very strict philosophical conversation. However, in my day to day life, I’m hardly neutral on the question of leprechauns. When someone in real life professes belief in leprechauns, I’m the first one to laugh at him, and in fact, if you asked me, in casual conversation – in which the context implies that “knowledge” means “practical knowledge, knowledge that is useful in this environment” – if I thought that leprechauns were real, I would tell you not only that I believe there are no leprechauns, but that I know that there’s no such thing as a leprechaun.

Now, I don’t claim this as absolute knowledge, and I acknowledge that it’s something that’s open to debate and evidence. Essentially, though, in a practical sense – and remember, we have switched contexts to discussing practical knowledge, not strictly philosophical ideas of demonstrating claims – I consider “existence” to mean “manifesting in some way that is potentially measurable.”

And while “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in many cases, it actually is evidence of absence in cases where we would expect evidence. If someone claims that something exists, we would expect there to be evidence of the thing in question manifesting. The longer we go without such evidence, the greater the likelihood that the thing doesn’t exist at all (in the practical sense).

If leprechauns “exist” but do not manifest in any way whatsoever, then they are indistinguishable from something that does not exist. Thousands of years have not produced a shred of evidence for the existence of leprechauns – and all the stories, eye-witness accounts, rainbows, and supposed pieces of gold in the world do not count as convincing evidence here, at least not for me.

In such circumstances, and in the context of practical knowledge, I would accept the claim that there are no leprechauns…provisionally, always with an eye on the fact that future evidence could reverse my position.

With gods, my position is very similar. I cannot prove that there are no gods, but I can point out that no evidence exists for any individual god-claim, particularly those where we would expect to see evidence. For some god-claims – like, for example, the Deist Watchmaker – I can only appeal to the fact that I don’t accept the claim that it exists. For more specific god-claims…interventionary gods, for example…I can actually point to the fact that there is no good evidence for them.

Hopefully, you grasp the point that for the purposes of supporting this claim, I’m changing the context, as I think that this change in context is the only way to support it. My view, generally, is that of a “weak atheist” (not believing in gods) because I usually discuss this question from the perspective of strictly demonstrating claims. In the context of practical knowledge, I can argue for the position of “strong atheist” (believing that there are no gods), though still acknowledge that this is a personal and practical position that is open for debate.

And again, it is the not accepting of god claims that constitutes atheism. Anything else is extra.

 

[ThomasToo]

I’ve given more thought to this issue, and particularly to the objection that Pascal’s Wager relies on the unproven assumption that there is a Christian God, complete with Heaven and Hell - but that a-priori you cannot know whether there are any gods at all. For example, Hinduism does not believe in Heaven or Hell, but rather continuous reincarnation, if Hinduism is true, then Pasclal’s Wager would not apply - and because we cannot know a-priori whether Hinduism or Christianity is true, Pascal’s Wager must be rejected as a false choice.

Upon further thought, I think Pascal’s Wager still is a valid wager due to the ontology of its assumption (the existence of a Christian God). Because one cannot prove the non-existence of the Christian God, one may rationally make the unproven assumption that He does exist. Naturally, if you assumed evidence is required for belief, then you would reject the rationality of this assumption. However, because you cannot prove God’s non-existence, you cannot prove that the assumption is irrational (especially in the light of reasonable arguments for God’s existence, such as first cause).

In any case, I think the more proper assumption of Pascal’s Wager is that there exists the possibility of a Christian God. If there is that possibility, then it is irrational not to believe in God because of the risk analysis imposed by Pascal’s Wager.

In other words, Pascal’s Wager works because it does not rely on the assumption that God truly exists, but rather on the possibility that He exists.

Given that no one can disprove either the Truth or the possibility of the Christian God’s existence, and given that belief in the Christian God cannot be proven to be irrational in the face of ontological and telelogical arguments of His existence, the risk analysis of Pascal’s Wager is both rational and fully effective.

Indeed, when looked at from this way, Pascal’s Wager becomes yet another ontological “proof” (non-positivistic) of God’s existence. The Truth will always support itself and lead back to itself, and Pascal’s Wager ontologically helps us to exclude all religions, except a Monotheism that accepts Hevean and Hell as possibilities, as not holding the fullness of Truth. Which such monotheistic religion to choose is then derived from other principles, such as analyzing the claims of the religions themselves.

Doesn’t Pascal’s wager also rest on the notion that one can believe by force of will and that the Judeo-Christian God would prefer someone who attempted to believe because of possible consequences and rewards rather than earnestly seeking out his or her own answers? Further doesn’t it ignore the possibility that some other theology may in fact be correct and in attempting to feign belief in your God one may exacerbate punishment from another deity and the reality that one does in fact lose much in being a believer?

Frankly, I think Pascal’s wager is arguably the worst possible argument for belief to have been imagined. That fact that it persists today is a testament to the fact that people don’t like to throw away ideas, however bad they may be.

Given that no one can disprove either the Truth [sic] or the possibility of the Christian God’s existence

I would disagree with that supposition. It seems that the universe looks fundamentally different than it would if there were an all-powerful, all-loving being that actually cared about the lives, pains and sufferings of life on this planet. While as an agnostic atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there may be gods out in the universe of one sort of another I think the Christian God is demonstrably non-existent.

 

[AntiTheist]

I would disagree with that supposition. It seems that the universe looks fundamentally different than it would if there were an all-powerful, all-loving being that actually cared about the lives, pains and sufferings of life on this planet. While as an agnostic atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there may be gods out in the universe of one sort of another I think the Christian God is demonstrably non-existent.

You have to be really careful about using “pains and sufferings” as any kind of argument against any kind of god.

It may be that the Christian god exists, but that he defines “love” in a way radically different than we do, and/or that he is actually the kind of being that you or I would consider wicked.

Another argument just popped into my head in favor of “There are no gods,” so I might as well give it. Essentially, over the last hundred years or so, humans have discovered a ton of evidence – and “a ton” is really not a good way to give an idea of the vast scope of this evidence – that intelligence is the product of a slow process of gradual changes from “lower” life forms.

In other words, evidence tells us that complexity and intelligence are the results of a process. On the basis of this evidence, claims that rely on the assumption that intelligence could exist without such a process immediately become suspect. So if it is true that gods exist – assuming that a god is an intelligence that preceded the universe – then it flies directly in the face of all the evidence we have ever collected about life. That, right there, is grounds for being skeptical of god-claims.

Now, this isn’t airtight evidence that “There are no gods,” but it suggests that there is something very wrong with god-claims.

 

[rvilbig]

Another argument just popped into my head in favor of “There are no gods,” so I might as well give it. Essentially, over the last hundred years or so, humans have discovered a ton of evidence – and “a ton” is really not a good way to give an idea of the vast scope of this evidence – that intelligence is the product of a slow process of gradual changes from “lower” life forms.

I’m re-posting a few things here, but I think this may help you with your questions.

First of all, Aquinas believed that higher forms of life may have been generated by alterations to lower forms of life. Straight from the Summa Theologica: “Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced [on the sixth day] otherwise than potentially.” (Summa, I q.72, a.1).

Secondly, modern science still has no explanation for consciousness/intelligence. This was quickly realized in artificial intelligence research. At UC Berkeley, John Searle proposed a thought experiment known as the Chinese Room: Suppose you’re in a room with two slots and have a code book with two columns of Chinese characters. Someone passes in the message in Chinese which says “Do you speak Chinese?”, and you pass out a message from the corresponding column which says “Yes” in Chinese characters. You achieved this based on your character recognition in the code book; however, you never had a conscious experience of understanding the question because you simply recognized characters. This is essentially how computers act: they recognize characters as (name removed by moderator)ut information and then unconsciously send output information. This argument has been extended to the Chinese brain, and the lesson is that things that react to stimuli, such as neurons and computers, won’t necessarily be conscious; hence, souls must be hypothesized as those entities which are conscious by their very nature.

Thirdly, gradualism does not preclude God’s immanence in evolutionary creation. Mutations occur by wobble pairing and tautomeric shifts during genetic replication; these processes are quantum mechanical; and many have concluded that the collapse of the quantum wavefunction, whereby one outcome is selected over other potential outcomes, is the result of a Divine choice. Consider what physicist-theologian Robert John Russell says:

“My central thesis is that God acts objectively and directly in and through quantum events to actualize one of several potential outcomes; in short, the collapse of the wave function occurs because of divine and natural causality working together even while God’s action remains ontologically different from natural agency" (The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, page 586).

Catholic physicist Wolfgang Smith argues:

“For the collapse of the state vector associated with a determination of X presents itself as a discontinuity, and thus as an instantaneous event. And unlike the discontinuities one encounters in the classical domain, this quantum mechanical discontinuity does not arise from an underlying continuity by way of approximation, but proves to be irreducible in principle to any continuous temporal process. …] Continuity, one can say, is indicative of the material substrate, whereas discontinuity is indeed the hallmark of the creative act” (Quantum Enigma, page 106-7).

In other words, God choose genetic mutations gradually by actualizing quantum events like wobble pairing and tautomeric shifts.

Hope this helps.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[ThomasToo]

You have to be really careful about using “pains and sufferings” as any kind of argument against any kind of god.

It may be that the Christian god exists, but that he defines “love” in a way radically different than we do, and/or that he is actually the kind of being that you or I would consider wicked.

Another argument just popped into my head in favor of “There are no gods,” so I might as well give it. Essentially, over the last hundred years or so, humans have discovered a ton of evidence – and “a ton” is really not a good way to give an idea of the vast scope of this evidence – that intelligence is the product of a slow process of gradual changes from “lower” life forms.

In other words, evidence tells us that complexity and intelligence are the results of a process. On the basis of this evidence, claims that rely on the assumption that intelligence could exist without such a process immediately become suspect. So if it is true that gods exist – assuming that a god is an intelligence that preceded the universe – then it flies directly in the face of all the evidence we have ever collected about life. That, right there, is grounds for being skeptical of god-claims.

Now, this isn’t airtight evidence that “There are no gods,” but it suggests that there is something very wrong with god-claims.

Is a notion of ‘love’ that allows for this amount of suffering a meaningful one? I could say I love my daughter and regularly beat her within an inch of loss of consciousness but you would–rightfully–question my verisimilitude. Similarly if I knew someone else was beating her and I had the ability to stop it easily and didn’t. That’s what the Christian God does, especially if we ignore the free will point and confine ourselves to the suffering of non-humans (e.g. ichneumonidae and caterpillars).

Your argument is almost exactly the same as Dawkins lays out in The God Delusion
Page 31:

Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

 

[AntiTheist]

Secondly, modern science still has no explanation for consciousness/intelligence. …] hence, souls must be hypothesized as those entities which are conscious by their very nature.

We may not know everything about consciousness, but it’s a straight up logical error to move from “we don’t know” to “therefore, there must be non-physical souls that are responsible for this.” That’s an argument from ignorance.

Thirdly, gradualism does not preclude God’s immanence in evolutionary creation.

It doesn’t preclude it – it calls into question the idea that there could be an intelligence that is not the result of this process.

In other words, we have a ton of evidence that intelligence is the product of a process. If you’re going to claim the existence of an intelligence that is not the product of such a process, then you’ve really got your work cut out for you, as you need to demonstrate something that runs counter to all of the available evidence.

And yes, Dawkins was the first one to propose a version of this argument if memory serves me correctly.

 

[rvilbig]

We may not know everything about consciousness, but it’s a straight up logical error to move from “we don’t know” to “therefore, there must be non-physical souls that are responsible for this.” That’s an argument from ignorance.

It doesn’t preclude it – it calls into question the idea that there could be an intelligence that is not the result of this process.

In other words, we have a ton of evidence that intelligence is the product of a process. If you’re going to claim the existence of an intelligence that is not the product of such a process, then you’ve really got your work cut out for you, as you need to demonstrate something that runs counter to all of the available evidence.

And yes, Dawkins was the first one to propose a version of this argument if memory serves me correctly.

Searle’s thought experiment actually precludes the scientific method from ever discovering the “matter” of consciousness. You see, science deals with cause and effect. Two examples will suffice: 1) cause: adding acetic acid to baking soda; effect: bubbling decomposition into water and CO2. 2) cause: sending electric current through water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen; effect: synthesis amino acids (this is the Miller-Urey experiment). But when we replicate the cause and effect of neuronal activity, with a human reactor, he is not necessarily conscious (the man in the Chinese Room). In other words, matter simply reacting to stimuli cannot produce consciousness. Something additional is necessary. This substance is known to all Christian as the soul. This is because the soul is an ontological different reality than matter. As Richard of St. Victor wrote in the 12th century : the person answers, not to the question “What?”, but rather to the question “Who?”. Nothing material has the ability to be the answer to the question “Who?”.

Furthermore, the soul can in turn effect the matter it permeates, by actualizing one quantum potential instead of another. As Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has argued. “uppose hypothetically that a person’s brain is in a state where quantum theory says that there are only two things that he can do, A and B, and that they have an equal probability of occurring. Obviously, since the laws of physics say that he must do A or B, and give no preference to A or B, it cannot be a violation of those laws for him to make either choice. His freedom of choice in such a case would be unconstrained by the requirement of satisfying the laws of physics” (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 181). I propose that these alternative quantum states, A and B, are the open and closed conformation of channel proteins, and when an individual chooses one, he effects an action potential corresponding to his will. Similar ideas have been put forth by Oxford Professor Roger Penrose in his book, Shadows of the Mind.

I will pray for your conversion to the Roman Catholic Church.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[ThomasToo]

Searle’s thought experiment actually precludes the scientific method from ever discovering the “matter” of consciousness. You see, science deals with cause and effect. Two examples will suffice: 1) cause: adding sulfuric acid to baking soda; effect: bubbling decomposition into water and CO2. 2) cause: sending electric current through water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen; effect: synthesis amino acids (this is the Miller-Urey experiment). But when we replicate the cause and effect of neuronal activity, with a human reactor, he is not necessarily conscious (the man in the Chinese Room). In other words, matter simply reacting to stimuli cannot produce consciousness. Something additional is necessary. This substance is known to all Christian as the soul.

That’s not what the thought experiment is meant to show at all. Searle was talking about artificial intelligence and whether or not a computer can be shown to be intelligent just by passing the Turing test. If you want to judiciously apply this principle to human minds you end up with the solipsist mindset.

Furthermore, the soul can in turn effect the matter it permeates, by actualizing one quantum potential instead of another. As Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has argued. “uppose hypothetically that a person’s brain is in a state where quantum theory says that there are only two things that he can do, A and B, and that they have an equal probability of occurring. Obviously, since the laws of physics say that he must do A or B, and give no preference to A or B, it cannot be a violation of those laws for him to make either choice. His freedom of choice in such a case would be unconstrained by the requirement of satisfying the laws of physics” (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 181). I propose that these alternative quantum states, A and B, are the open and closed conformation of channel proteins, and when an individual chooses one, he effects an action potential corresponding to his will. Similar ideas have been put forth by Oxford Professor Roger Penrose in his book, Shadows of the Mind.

You are still left with the problem that something that is inherently and necessarily nonphysical interacting with and affecting a physical entity without a true mechanism to do so even just on the quantum level.

I will pray for your conversion to the Roman Catholic Church.

I say this as respectuflly as possible but you know this is offensive to some people, right? I doubt you’d appreciate it if, for example, a Muslim prayed for your conversion to Islam and submission to Allah though if you would I’d be interested to hear why.

 

[AntiTheist]

But when we replicate the cause and effect of neuronal activity, with a human reactor, he is not necessarily conscious (the man in the Chinese Room).

We cannot thus far produce this effect. But again, the fact that we don’t currently know something or can’t currently do something is not justification for you to say that “Oh, it must be this particular supernatural thing!” That is, again, an argument from ignorance. [Note: See also Thomas’ response above, demonstrating that you’ve actually missed the entire point of the original thought experiment]

In other words, matter simply reacting to stimuli cannot produce consciousness. Something additional is necessary.

Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know enough. And even if there is something additional necessary, there is nothing that demonstrates that it must be something supernatural. It might very well be something natural that we don’t understand. In fact, since we’ve only ever demonstrated that natural things exist, that’s the option that my money is on.

And even if it did demonstrate that there must be something supernatural involved, it wouldn’t get you any closer to demonstrating that a god exists, let alone the Christian god.

I will pray for your conversion to the Roman Catholic Church.

How insulting. Tell you what, buddy: you pray for me, and I’ll think for you.

 

[davidv]

If the answer to the question “Is there a God” is yes, how could anyone conclude that it is of no consequence?

In the same way that you might say that is of no consequence to answer the question, " Are there pink unicorns?"

Especially if the Christian understanding of God is correct, it would seem to me that such a truth would be of enormous consequence to everyone.

Peace,
Dante

As is clearly been demonstrated in this thread, not all share this understanding of God.

By the way, I agree with the enormity of the consequence.

 

[rvilbig]

Your argument is almost exactly the same as Dawkins lays out in The God Delusion

By the way, if you’re looking to Dawkins’ writings to justify your atheism, you may want to find another source. I’m personally not convinced he’s really an atheist for at least four reasons.

1. He prays.
2. He supports the teachings of our Lord Jesus, who was recorded as stating that “The Father and I are one” (Jn 10:30), and “Before Abraham came to be, I AM” (Jn 8:58)
3. He argues that belief in God is a fit meme. From The Selfish Gene: “The survival value of the [G]od meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. …] [T]he idea of God is copied readily by successive generations of brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene, page 193). How does it contradict Christianity to say we have an enduring tradition? As Saint Peter wrote: "You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God, for: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of the field; the grass withers, and the flower wilts; but the word of the Lord remains forever.” (1 Pt 1:23-25a).
4. He only opposes the clockmaker argument, which is not even a Catholic understanding of design. As Cardinal Schönborn has written: “A clockmaker assembles a clock, and once it has been constructed it then runs until it has to be wound up again. That Richard Dawkins does not want to use that kind of “clockmaker” for our world does not in itself make him an atheist in our opinion” (Schönborn, Chance or Puprose, page 43). The Catholic argument from design is expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas and is entirely compatible with evolution. From the Summa Theologica: “We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.” (Summa I q.2,a.3). Note that Aquinas believes that nature varies (“nearly always” implies occasional variation) and that nature selects (“so as to obtain the best result” implies bad results are weeded out by natural selection).

Personally, I think Richard Dawkins got into some demonic influences when he was younger and therefore can’t reason properly. I pray for him, and all atheists, regularly, heeding the command of the Lord “This kind [of demon] can only come out by prayer” (Mk 9:29).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The kind of evidence that is sufficient depends on the claim. For example, in a number of scientific questions, a number of repeatable, physical demonstrations, usually coupled with predictive power, is quite sufficient for acceptance.

For the god question, the evidence that would be sufficient would depend on the god and the nature of the particular god claim under discussion. I’m not totally sure what evidence would be sufficient to get me to accept the existence of, let’s say, the Catholic god. But an all-knowing being obviously would know what kind of evidence would convince me, so I imagine that if such a being really wanted to convince me, he would have offered such evidence long ago.

An all-knowing being might also have other plans for you. See below.

Strictly speaking, it’s almost always impossible to “prove” a negative. Can you prove that I didn’t open a particular book on my bookshelf last week? Similarly, I can’t demonstrate that no leprechauns exist, particularly if we consider other planets or other potential universes or anything else.

(snip)

And while “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in many cases, it actually is evidence of absence in cases where we would expect evidence. If someone claims that something exists, we would expect there to be evidence of the thing in question manifesting. The longer we go without such evidence, the greater the likelihood that the thing doesn’t exist at all (in the practical sense).

You make two flawed assumptions here: first, that there is no evidence, and second, that it is reasonable to expect God to manifest His existence according to your preferences. In other words, from my perspective there is no absence of evidence; it is part-and-parcel with the Christian faith that God already has manifest Himself to us in a way we could conceivably understand and that would not sacrifice our free will to choose to love Him.

If leprechauns “exist” but do not manifest in any way whatsoever, then they are indistinguishable from something that does not exist.

(snip)

With gods, my position is very similar. I cannot prove that there are no gods, but I can point out that no evidence exists for any individual god-claim, particularly those where we would expect to see evidence. For some god-claims – like, for example, the Deist Watchmaker – I can only appeal to the fact that I don’t accept the claim that it exists. For more specific god-claims…interventionary gods, for example…I can actually point to the fact that there is no good evidence for them.

But if you saw a leprechaun walking down the street, you would have little choice but to believe in leprechauns. In the same way, God cannot merely reveal His existence in an indisputable way without compromising – in fact, revoking – our free will. This would NOT be an act of love (caritas) on His part, as we would effectively be forced to believe.

Faith is what is necessary; no amount of evidence can do what faith can do – and I speak from experience.

Now, I know we’re venturing out of the philosophical realm there, but I had to sum up.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

But if you saw a leprechaun walking down the street, you would have little choice but to believe in leprechauns. In the same way, God cannot merely reveal His existence in an indisputable way without compromising – in fact, revoking – our free will. This would NOT be an act of love (caritas) on His part, as we would effectively be forced to believe.

People can deny evidence of very apparent principles and statements of fact–evolution is an easy example of this fact. Giving someone evidence, even very clear evidence, does not undermine free will if one still has a choice to explain the evidence away however much hand waiving would be required.

Faith is what is necessary; no amount of evidence can do what faith can do – and I speak from experience.

Having stood at ground zero (formerly 1 World Trade Center) a few months ago, I couldn’t agree more; faith can do some pretty powerful things.

 

[Slowlearner]

I say this as respectuflly as possible but you know this is offensive to some people, right? I doubt you’d appreciate it if, for example, a Muslim prayed for your conversion to Islam and submission to Allah though if you would I’d be interested to hear why.

Though you didn’t ask me, I wouldn’t care if a Muslim or a Hindu, or whatever, prayed for my conversion. If anything, I’d be touched by it. My faith is solid, so I know their prayers cannot have any ill effect upon me. Though their prayer might be misguided in my opinion, their effort would be one, in their opinion, designed to better my life and circumstances. I was visited recently by Jehovah’s Witnesses. I thanked them for their earnest efforts and work, but told them I was firmly rooted in my Catholic faith.

If a fool were to make an ineffective, but non-harmful, effort to help you, would you not be grateful for the effort?

I don’t understand the offense or the insult. (Same Q. for you AntiTheist).