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

[ThomasToo]

Since you believe everything is ultimately physical everything should ultimately have a physical explanation. Many physicalists reject metaphysics.

A Supreme Mind is a more adequate explanation than the universe because it is not restricted in time and space or subject to physical laws. Minds are also associated with rationality, creativity, consciousness, free will, responsibility and purposeful activity, all of which are lacking in atomic particles.

How can anyone reject metaphysics? Physicalism is a metaphysical system.

It’s hardly more adequate; it’s less parsimonious to create–ontologically–an over-mind to explain the genesis of the universe?

‘All of which are lacking in atomic particles;’ this goes back to looking at things on the right level. Think of a Lego sculpture–a house for instance–it’s still made of individual Legos but it’s also a (model of a) house. Think of mind in that sense; where does the house go when the Legos go back in the box?

 

[tonyrey]

Since you believe everything is ultimately physical everything should ultimately have a physical explanation. Many physicalists reject metaphysics.

I agree with you but there are atheists on this forum who regard metaphysics as unnecessary.

It’s hardly more adequate; it’s less parsimonious to create–ontologically–an over-mind to explain the genesis of the universe?

Theism is undoubtedly more adequate because it explains the ultimacy of personal explanation. We regard persons as the causes of their behaviour. We don’t regard all their behaviour as having physical causes unless we also believe they are never responsible for what they do.

Theism is also more coherent in relating apparently disparate aspects of reality such as mind and matter. And more fertile because it inspires us to search for purpose and meaning in life.

‘All of which are lacking in atomic particles;’ this goes back to looking at things on the right level. Think of a Lego sculpture–a house for instance–it’s still made of individual Legos but it’s also a (model of a) house. Think of mind in that sense; where does the house go when the Legos go back in the box?

What assembled the Legos? What gives the mind unity and continuity? Why are you still responsible for what you did twenty years ago?

 

[ThomasToo]

I agree with you but there are atheists on this forum who regard metaphysics as unnecessary.

That’s silly. This is why philosophy (in addition to calculus and Latin) should be required parts of university curricula.

Theism is undoubtedly more adequate because it explains the ultimacy of personal explanation. We regard persons as the causes of their behaviour. We don’t regard all their behaviour as having physical causes unless we also believe they are never responsible for what they do.

Theism is also more coherent in relating apparently disparate aspects of reality such as mind and matter. And more fertile because it inspires us to search for purpose and meaning in life.

What do you mean by ‘the ultimacy of personal explanation’? Fertility isn’t really the question; consequences are secondary to truth–regardless of what that truth turns out to be.

What assembled the Legos? What gives the mind unity and continuity? Why are you still responsible for what you did twenty years ago?

To be frank, you didn’t answer my question. For these purposes we can say I assembled the Legos. Continuity comes from physical continuity of body in my opinion. I’m responsible for my past actions because it’s the same I that did those actions in the same way a candle can be said to have the same flame after several hours. Please don’t get Heraclitus on me…

 

[tonyrey]

Theism is undoubtedly more adequate because it explains the ultimacy of personal explanation. We regard persons as the causes of their behaviour. We don’t regard all their behaviour as having physical causes unless we also believe they are never responsible for what they do.

In real life and in courts of law - as opposed to philosophical discussions - a person is regarded as the cause of his or her choices, decisions and actions in normal circumstances. It is a case of self-determinism rather than physical determinism in which there is a chain of causes leading to every event.

Fertility isn’t really the question; consequences are secondary to truth–regardless of what that truth turns out to be.

Fertility is not the primary consideration but it is the deciding factor if there are competing scientific or philosophical explanations.

To be frank, you didn’t answer my question:
Think of mind in that sense; where does the house go when the Legos go back in the box?

Nowhere! Like truth, freedom and justice the mind has no physical location…

For these purposes we can say I assembled the Legos.

Here you are faced with the problem of the self - an intangible entity.

What assembled the Legos? What gives the mind unity and continuity? Why are you still responsible for what you did twenty years ago?

Continuity comes from physical continuity of body in my opinion. I’m responsible for my past actions because it’s the same I that did those actions in the same way a candle can be said to have the same flame after several hours. Please don’t get Heraclitus on me…

According to that hypothesis continuity ends when all the cells in the body have been replaced and you are no longer the same person! (Regardless of Heraclitus. In which part of the brain is responsibility located?

 

[frantony]

So it’s not about going to church but about doing charity as a result of one’s beliefs?

How many scientific and technological advances have been the result of atheists? Is it possible the reason we have heart transplants, dialysis machines or high-yield dwarf wheat (responsible for saving over a billion people from starvation)–to give just three examples–is because atheists ‘do science’? There are plenty of atheist charities but there are also lots of all the organizations you described–and many without any religious affiliation (which is basically as atheist as charities get, by the way)–so atheists may simply donate time and money to areligious charities.

If you insist that you will believe only in things that can be proved scientifically, you will not be able to belive in a God, or a life after death. For such persons, their existence ends with death or burial. Why should such people practice charity? Everything in this world or Universe will die eventually. Even our sun will die some time in the future. If so, why should we bother about doing charity, or do heart transplants, or save people from dying of starvation? It is best for such people to commit suicide, and let heart patients die. Practicing charity, or doing heart transplants only extends the duration of life on earth It will not prevent dying. Why un-necessarily increase misery and pain living in this woorld, if everything is going to end anyway. The earlier people die (of starvation or heart attacks, or suicide), less will be their misery. Atheists and anti-theists should seriously consider committing suicide, to reduce their pain and misery in this world

 

[ManOnFire]

This is the argument from the first cause (based on the notion that there cannot be an infinitely predicated chain of efficient causality) but it stands wanting. You are in effect saying “(1) everything needs a cause, hence (2) the universe needs a cause so let’s (3) call that cause God.” Other issues–such as the conflation of a deist first cause and the Judeo-Christian God–aside there’s still the issue that the argument is being applied unequally and the question ‘what caused God?’ is never asked and when it is the answer is some form of ‘nothing, God has always existed.’ If such a supposition is licit then it is unparsimonious to invoke God to explain the genesis of the universe and not simply use that explanation for the universe itself.

There are only 2 choices for the atheist scientist regarding the beginning of Time, both of which are flawed. Some claim to believe in a beginning of time, others claim Time always miraculously existed. SO which is it?

1. The atheist who believes in a godless beginning of time: An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, so, if “everything in the universe” was standing still, waiting for time to begin, then a non-time something that existed Infinitesimally must have acted upon time to start it. If this non-time something exists infinitesimally, then there is either no chance of a beginning of time, or this non-time something negates EJ’s belief that the mass of the universe is finite. Either way science is impotent to know “all.” “We just haven’t discovered it yet” is invalid.
2. The atheist who believes there was no beginning of time, that time has always miraculously existed:
   Those who believe science can explain “all” have a faulty belief system, and are therefore believing on faith. ALL= ALL. “ALL” does not equal “ALL minus one” (the beginning of time). Again, Science is impotent to know “all.” God was first (Who created God?) answers the question.

Every atheist scientist must subscribe to one of the two choices above regarding an explanation for the beginning of time. It’s too easy for those who feel uncomfortable in deciding between the two to become child-like and ego-protective. Few people ask for the atheist scientists to examine their consciences and simply not make excusus like “We haven’t learned that yet” when learning the infinity of time and space is simply not possible. A real scientist and philosopher does not free willingly become egoprotective and bigotted to admit that the INFINITY of time and space is unknowable by definition.

It’s peculiar how atheist scientists believe in miracles.

 

[AntiTheist]

You obviously have faith in “evidence”. How do you determine what is evidence?

I don’t have faith in evidence – that much should be obvious from the way I’ve defined the terms.

We have a lot of good evidence that evidence-based inquiry is accurate. Witness, for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on – the computer is the product of evidence-based inquiry, and it demonstrates that we have an accurate (or at least accurate enough) understanding of a whole host of subjects.

The products of evidence-based inquiry are themselves evidence of the ability of evidence-based inquiry to give us a good understanding of the world around us.

“Evidence” is just a word we’ve come up with for data points from the real world (outside of our heads) that strongly points to a particular conclusion. Personal testimony of visions is necessarily not evidence for anything outside of your own head. Similarly, stories of miracles from long ago are no more evidence for miracles than ancient accounts of the magical powers of Roman generals are evidence for magic.

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

Wow

326 replies so far on my thread. Thanks guys, I’m humbled . . . even though the thread discussion seems to have moved away from the points raised in the Opening Post a long time ago. Still, it’s nice to have a thread active so long

 

[ThomasToo]

Fertility is not the primary consideration but it is the deciding factor if there are competing scientific or philosophical explanations.

I respectfully disagree. Regardless of whether or not the various explanations are more or less fruitful (insofar as making people happy and the like) the real question is which one is a better fit for the data. If two fit equally that doesn’t mean pick (at random) but to gather more data.

Nowhere! Like truth, freedom and justice the mind has no physical location…

But you’d agree that the house exists and later goes away. So too with what you would want to call the self.

Here you are faced with the problem of the self - an intangible entity. According to that hypothesis continuity ends when all the cells in the body have been replaced and you are no longer the same person! (Regardless of Heraclitus. In which part of the brain is responsibility located?

That’s silly. This is Odysseus’s ship and I’m of the mind that if my cells are being replaced one at a time I’m still me even if they all rotate through–which they don’t.

Why does there need to be a part of the brain responsible for it?

 

[ThomasToo]

If you insist that you will believe only in things that can be proved scientifically, you will not be able to belive in a God, or a life after death. For such persons, their existence ends with death or burial. Why should such people practice charity? Everything in this world or Universe will die eventually. Even our sun will die some time in the future. If so, why should we bother about doing charity, or do heart transplants, or save people from dying of starvation? It is best for such people to commit suicide, and let heart patients die. Practicing charity, or doing heart transplants only extends the duration of life on earth It will not prevent dying. Why un-necessarily increase misery and pain living in this woorld, if everything is going to end anyway. The earlier people die (of starvation or heart attacks, or suicide), less will be their misery. Atheists and anti-theists should seriously consider committing suicide, to reduce their pain and misery in this world

I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion and would go so far as to flip it around. Atheists have more reason to prevent suffering and prolong others’ lives than theists because we believe this life is all a person has. If I were to commit suicide that’s game over; there’s no continue and there’s no second go. So too with someone who dies at the age of five. The fact that the universe, the Earth and every human life are fleeting doesn’t mean we cannot find value in our time here.

In the Christian worldview, however, every person who doesn’t get a heart transplant has an opportunity for an eternity of bliss. Every person who is sure of his or her salvation should–it seems only logical–speed his or her turn on this earthly coil and head on to Heaven.

 

[ThomasToo]

There are only 2 choices for the atheist scientist regarding the beginning of Time, both of which are flawed. Some claim to believe in a beginning of time, others claim Time always miraculously existed. SO which is it?

1. The atheist who believes in a godless beginning of time: An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, so, if “everything in the universe” was standing still, waiting for time to begin, then a non-time something that existed Infinitesimally must have acted upon time to start it. If this non-time something exists infinitesimally, then there is either no chance of a beginning of time, or this non-time something negates EJ’s belief that the mass of the universe is finite. Either way science is impotent to know “all.” “We just haven’t discovered it yet” is invalid.
2. The atheist who believes there was no beginning of time, that time has always miraculously existed:
   Those who believe science can explain “all” have a faulty belief system, and are therefore believing on faith. ALL= ALL. “ALL” does not equal “ALL minus one” (the beginning of time). Again, Science is impotent to know “all.” God was first (Who created God?) answers the question.

Every atheist scientist must subscribe to one of the two choices above regarding an explanation for the beginning of time. It’s too easy for those who feel uncomfortable in deciding between the two to become child-like and ego-protective. Few people ask for the atheist scientists to examine their consciences and simply not make excusus like “We haven’t learned that yet” when learning the infinity of time and space is simply not possible. A real scientist and philosopher does not free willingly become egoprotective and bigotted to admit that the INFINITY of time and space is unknowable by definition.

It’s peculiar how atheist scientists believe in miracles.

To posit that the universe has always has existed simply defies the very definition of ‘miracle’ though while saying such an eternal explanation of time is ‘miraculous’ certainly sounds nice it–to be frank–makes you sound like you don’t know the nomenclature.

Further, your assertion that ‘every atheist scientist must subscribe to one of the two choices above regarding an explanation for the beginning of time’ is simply false. Disregarding the issue that your suppositions are framed in terms of belief there’s still the fundamental reality that we simply don’t know. Any scientist worth his salt, atheist or otherwise, would say something along the lines of ‘while we can’t have any certainty of the state of the universe before one Planck time after the Big Bang it seems that X might be true’ for some position about the earlier state of the universe, X.

‘God was first (Who created God?)’ does not ‘answer… the question.’ It, in fact, begs the question–in the formal sense of the term.

Finally, I’m hard pressed to believe that scientists become ‘egoprotective and bigotted [sic]’ in admitting the universe is far grander than we could ever come to know fully in our lifetimes. It’s simply part and parcel to the business but I can see becoming protective about science as a tool to explain the universe when that very methodology is questioned and supernatural explanations attempt to enter in to replace scientific ones.

 

[AntiTheist]

There are only 2 choices for the atheist scientist regarding the beginning of Time, both of which are flawed. Some claim to believe in a beginning of time, others claim Time always miraculously existed. SO which is it?

No one knows.

But just because no one knows, that doesn’t mean that gods are any more likely to exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Fertility is not the primary consideration but it is the deciding factor if there are competing scientific or philosophical explanations.

If an explanation is sterile and offers no opportunity for further research it is clearly inferior to an explanation which does…

Like truth, freedom and justice the mind has no physical location…

But you’d agree that the house exists and later goes away. So too with what you would want to call the self.

The analogy of the mind with a house is unsound because a house is a material object.
The mind cannot “go away” because it is intangible. Do you believe truth, freedom and justice have a physical location?

Here you are faced with the problem of the self - an intangible entity. According to that hypothesis continuity ends when all the cells in the body have been replaced and you are no longer the same person! (Regardless of Heraclitus. In which part of the brain is responsibility located?

That’s silly. This is Odysseus’s ship and I’m of the mind that if my cells are being replaced one at a time I’m still me even if they all rotate through–which they don’t.

I believe you equate the mind with the brain. On that view the ship has no captain!

Since the overwhelming majority of your cells are replaced continuity must rest in those cells which remain - which is clearly an unsatisfactory basis for identity and responsibility.

Why does there need to be a part of the brain responsible for it?

Because according to the physicalist responsibility requires a physical location. Where else?

 

[ThomasToo]

If an explanation is sterile and offers no opportunity for further research it is clearly inferior to an explanation which does.

I’ll be honest, I’ve forgotten what explanations we’re discussing. Please refresh my memory.

The analogy of the mind with a house is unsound because a house is a material object. The mind cannot “go away” because it is intangible. Do you believe truth, freedom and justice have a physical location?

The house analogy is the closest I can come by way of analogy. The house, while a physical thing, is also over and above the individual quality of each individual block or the heap of them. So too we can say the self is the assemblage of everything we are in the form we take. I believe we’ve covered elsewhere that freedom and justice are only meaningful in a moral community comprised of physical entities and emerges from such a community. In that sense they can be said to have the physical location consummate with society. If you’re looking for an individual point, however, it’s obvious you are looking for something that can’t possibly exist. The relevant principle here is supervenience.

Since the overwhelming majority of your cells are replaced continuity must rest in those cells which remain - which is clearly an unsatisfactory basis for identity and responsibility.

No it doesn’t (cf. Ship of Theseus–which I incorrectly named Ship of Odysseus above, sorry).

Because according to the physicalist responsibility requires a physical location. Where else?

I meant why does it need to be a part of the brain? Why cannot it fall out of the assemblage of the whole. As above, supervenience applies.

 

[tdgesq]

‘God was first (Who created God?)’ does not ‘answer… the question.’ It, in fact, begs the question–in the formal sense of the term.

Only within an ontological framework of naturalism. It makes perfect sense in the metaphysics of St. Thomas. To be a first cause such a cause must be immaterial, immutable, and pure Act. Of course naturalism a priori rejects immaterial categories, so it seems to me the question is: who has the better ontological explanation?

It’s simply part and parcel to the business but I can see becoming protective about science as a tool to explain the universe when that very methodology is questioned and supernatural explanations attempt to enter in to replace scientific ones.

Strictly speaking, explanations requiring immaterial categories are not necessarily “supernatural” in Thomistic philosophy. And metaphysics is science. It just isn’t one that presupposes naturalism as the only way to explain the world. What exactly is the naturalist’s explanation for the beginning of the universe other than “we don’t know”? Unfortunately that is the explanation for a great many things, including how we can know commonsense everyday things - like whether other minds exist, for example.

This is why many of us reject it as a useful ontological framework. It is also, in my opinion, the source of the confusion and contradictions that are found in the arguments of the new atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens.

 

[ThomasToo]

Strictly speaking, explanations requiring immaterial categories are not necessarily “supernatural” in Thomistic philosophy. And metaphysics is science. It just isn’t one that presupposes naturalism as the only way to explain the world. What exactly is the naturalist’s explanation for the beginning of the universe other than “we don’t know”? Unfortunately that is the explanation for a great many things, including how we can know commonsense everyday things - like whether other minds exist, for example.

This is why many of us reject it as a useful ontological framework. It is also, in my opinion, the source of the confusion and contradictions that are found in the arguments of the new atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy; it is not a science. It does not employ the scientific method which, in the modern usage of the term, defines ‘science.’

What’s wrong with admitting we don’t know something?

 

[tdgesq]

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy; it is not a science. It does not employ the scientific method which, in the modern usage of the term, defines ‘science.’

Yes it is, and as such it’s function is knowledge of first principles. Scientia literally means knowledge or understanding. I think many philosophers would be quite surprised to learn that their field of study does not constitute science. You are correct that the term today is most commonly used to refer to those specialized sciences that utilize the scientific method, but that is not the only way in which it can be used. In any case, this just goes to show that nothing other than a naturalistic (material) view of the world would ever constitute “science” for the new atheist.

What’s wrong with admitting we don’t know something?

There is nothing wrong with it, unless it is actually something that we can know. Then it is simply an untrue statement that we don’t know it. The primary problem is that a naturalistic ontology leads to the conclusion (in my opinion) that we can’t know things that are necessary to do science in the first place. Then it becomes very wrong to admit you don’t know it.

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes it is, and as such it’s function is knowledge of first principles. Scientia literally means knowledge or understanding. I think many philosophers would be quite surprised to learn that their field of study does not constitute science. You are correct that the term today is most commonly used to refer to those specialized sciences that utilize the scientific method, but that is not the only way in which it can be used. In any case, this just goes to show that nothing other than a naturalistic (material) view of the world would ever constitute “science” for the new atheist.

I know the entomology of the word ‘science’ but frankly that’s not relevant to the fact that strictly speaking science encompasses biology, chemistry, physics and the like and not metaphysics. It’s a distortion of the vernacular intention of the term to say otherwise. Equivocation while useful linguistically is a hindrance to accurate discussion.

There is nothing wrong with it, unless it is actually something that we can know. Then it is simply an untrue statement that we don’t know it. The primary problem is that a naturalistic ontology leads to the conclusion (in my opinion) that we can’t know things that are necessary to do science in the first place. Then it becomes very wrong to admit you don’t know it.

But how can we know about the state of the universe before a Planck time after the Big Bang? It’s licit I suppose to say one can believe about it but any statement of belief without evidence is not knowledge–properly speaking.

 

[tdgesq]

I know the entomology of the word ‘science’ but frankly that’s not relevant to the fact that strictly speaking science encompasses biology, chemistry, physics and the like and not metaphysics. It’s a distortion of the vernacular intention of the term to say otherwise. Equivocation while useful linguistically is a hindrance to accurate discussion.

If I had wanted to equivocate or confuse terms, I wouldn’t have explained the differences between the two uses. And it is entirely relevant to this discussion, because the precise point I am trying to make is that the new atheist doesn’t seem to understand that there are other ontological systems (Thomism) besides his own. While a naturalist might claim that he only believes in “scientific” explanations and not “supernatural” ones, the Thomist claims that metaphysics constitutes the highest level of scientia which finds its proper place in the immaterial. That is why when we see critiques by Dawkins and the like, we just scratch our heads because they are analyzing our arguments for God’s existence within a naturalistic framework - not from our own. That is why I said that the real controversy should be: whose ontological system gives the better explanation?

But how can we know about the state of the universe before a Planck time after the Big Bang? It’s licit I suppose to say one can believe about it but any statement of belief without evidence is not knowledge–properly speaking.

This statement illustrates what I am talking about. We can’t know anything about the Big Bang prior to Planck time through the empiriometric sciences, but we can know something about it through metaphysics. Everything that exists in the physical world changes as a result of external efficient causes. It cannot change itself. Unless you want to confess the possibility of an actually existing infinite regress, there must have been a first cause. The origin of this first cause must itself be unchangeable, which means it cannot be material. This first immutable and immaterial mover is what we call “God.” Thus, while questions like: “who created God?” seem to make eminent sense to the atheist, they are nonsense to a Thomist.

 

[ThomasToo]

If I had wanted to equivocate or confuse terms, I wouldn’t have explained the differences between the two uses. And it is entirely relevant to this discussion, because the precise point I am trying to make is that the new atheist doesn’t seem to understand that there are other ontological systems (Thomism) besides his own. While a naturalist might claim that he only believes in “scientific” explanations and not “supernatural” ones, the Thomist claims that metaphysics constitutes the highest level of scientia which finds its proper place in the immaterial. That is why when we see critiques by Dawkins and the like, we just scratch our heads because they are analyzing our arguments for God’s existence within a naturalistic framework - not from our own. That is why I said that the real controversy should be: whose ontological system gives the better explanation?

I did not mean to give the impression that I thought you were intentionally trying to be confusing; it is more than clear that you were not. I would disagree that metaphysics’s proper place is the immaterial but simply the existent, a minor distinction I suppose, but an important one. I suppose the ontological question is important but I think the epistemological one is more important still: is faith, as such, an epistemological virtue and a useful tool?

This statement illustrates what I am talking about. We can’t know anything about the Big Bang prior to Planck time through the empiriometric sciences, but we can know something about it through metaphysics. Everything that exists in the physical world changes as a result of external efficient causes. It cannot change itself. Unless you want to confess the possibility of an actually existing infinite regress, there must have been a first cause. The origin of this first cause must itself be unchangeable, which means it cannot be material. This first immutable and immaterial mover is what we call “God.” Thus, while questions like: “who created God?” seem to make eminent sense to the atheist, they are nonsense to a Thomist.

I don’t know that it would be considered nonsense to a Thomist but that’s a different issue. I would indeed say that it at least seems possible that the universe has–in some form–always existed. My major issue is that this notion of the unmoved mover seems to, in the Thomist metaphysical system, is then conflated to the all-loving, all-powerful, self-sacrificing Judeo-Chrisitian God.

Just as I acknowledge the possibility of an infinitely regressive universe, I must acknowledge the possibility of a deistic clock-maker who gave the universe its first bump. I cannot, however, acknowledge the possibility of the Thomists’ God, I think–as I believe has been explored above–such a being is demonstrably nonexistent.