M
MerryAtheist
Guest
At least you read it. For that I am grateful.Hey, don’t run off with my story!
- Status
T
Touchstone
Guest
Millions of years of evolution, of course. We are here by virtue of our successful adaptation in a challenging and changing environment. We survived as a species because we have evolved both the drive to survive and the resourcefulness to make it happen.
This predisposes us, naturally, to clinging desperately to our consciousness, or lives. That is what our genes use to manipulate us into propagating our genes. So we optimize our survival by being mortified and traumatized by our mortality and the prospect of our death.
So this desire is both one of our most profound, most natural, and most compelling towards a search for some satisfaction, even and especially where none obtain. Evolution predisposes us to want to live forever, regardless of that being a fantasy. It is useful for our genes to have human psychology operate thus.
Sure. But on one hand, I think what you are proferring as “ice cream” is available elsewhere on better and more honest and more moral terms than your “ice cream truck”, and on the other, the “key flavors” of your “ice cream” are “promise-only”, and cannot be fulfilled in the here and now, but are just promises of satisfaction in a proposed “afterlife”.
Well one of us has at least not squandered the precious little we actually had. It’s valuable BECAUSE it’s finite. That’s what makes a commodity precious, it’s limited scope and availability (if gold were as widely available as dirt and sand, it wouldn’t be a “precious” metal, right?).
Eternity completely devalues our lives now. It makes our mortal lives literally infinitesimal on the long view of things. Disappearing into oblivion after our deaths doesn’t diminish the value of enjoying and pursuing life and its rewards and creative opportunities while we actually live. The ice cream that is real and actual you’ve let slip away for imaginary ice cream from trucks that never come.
Yes, that’s right. That’s a highly motivating carrot toward an illusion, don’t you think. It seems quite high-stakes to me.
-TS
T
The_Exodus
Guest
No, it speaks precisely to epistemology. For the way in which we value knowing itself – what we consider as giving us “truth” – only holds such a valued or authoritative position because our will has given it that authority.
If materialism is true, then the believer as well as the overman are really doing the same thing, as well as the scientist, monk, and savage. There is no “objectively meaningful or true” epistemology that exists somehow detached from the will which gives it authority.
If any of these people are in “different places,” they are only relatively different, but not in terms of some absolute “this place is more true, right, better, than the other place.” So your criticism, while it may indeed be “what you happen to be thinking” is not really valid outside your own mind. It has no authority – nor can it – on me, for authority, even (particularly, actually) in the case of epistemology is all a matter of the will, subconscious, etc.
Facts, theories, “isms” all come into the mind as neutral, and only then are they colored by the meaning of “relevance” or “truth.” I think it will take a dislodging or sort of gestalt-shift in your thinking, which is so entrenched in scientism, for you to realize my point: namely, that scientism only has the truth value it does to you because your subconscious and will have given it that authority.
Well all right then. My point stands. You can’t give me any reason for not believing God exists. But it should be noted that even the word “myth” is only your subjective spin on the idea, since, epistemologically speaking, the word “myth” only has the authority it does in relation to Christianity based on your will coloring it with that meaning.
T
Touchstone
Guest
I don’t think it was ever challenged. Values are subjective, and you are predicating all of this on values. So it’s not a controverisal point at all. If you don’t value “knowledge as ‘rational true belief’”, or see value in differentiating between 'true" and “false” as a function of empirical testing, you’ll have no interest in what I have to say. For the epistemology I operate on and commend is rooted in those values, and isn’t coherent without them.
That isn’t new, and hasn’t changed. I say what I say because I assume that “rational true belief” is a value you share to some degree, and is thus a basis for arguing about objective methods and critical thinking based on that. If you want to withdraw from that ground, be my guest.
Well, let’s be clear. I can’t – and don’t wish to – give you reasons that are devoid of value. Reasons, and all knowledge is predicated on values, and some metaphysical underpinning. That isn’t a new or novel insight, and it’s such a ubiquitous background requirement we reasonably just take it for granted; it’s always there.
My reasons for no believing in God are subjective, and those subjective values esteem objective analysis and critical thinking. If you don’t value those values, and don’t value knowledge on that value-laden basis, then I got nothing for you. All I can and wish to appeal to you or anyone on is a shared valuation of knowledge as the product of warranted true belief accountability to skeptical criticism.
If that set of values doesn’t interest you, my reasons to disbelieve won’t garner any attention from you.
This is curious. I’m frequently defending (and at length) the idea that values (and thus morals) are subjective, and that you don’t get an “ought” from an “is”, (objectively) human natural impulses notwithstanding. Round and round I’ve gone, many times now, in pressing just this point, and IIRC, with you personally.
We begin with goals. If your goals are incompatible with my goals (not identical, but not even compatible) in terms of epistemology and knowledge, it makes the conversation either very short, or excruciatingly frustrating.
The “myth” label applied to Christianity only holds (I say) if you value “rational true belief” as principles accountable to empirical and performance-based models. If you share those values to begin with, then I say you and I have a common basis for agreeing that Christianity is most reasonably considered a myth with respect to its fantastic and fabulous claims (Jesus being a historical person itself is not a fabulous claim, for example, that’s quite a plausible thing to accept).
But if you go all overman in your particular way as you have attempted to here, and renounce those values, because you value contradictory and mutually exclusive values to the ones I commend, then we are at loggerheads. You have created your own values and myths upon then that are your creation, and alien to me. And vice versa.
This isn’t a new point, or a point I’ve resisted at all, and is one I’m regularly inclined to point out myself.
-TS
T
The_Exodus
Guest
I would contest the defintion “rational true belief,” because it is particularly vague and misleading. How much of what you hold “rationally” can you say you also “believe?” I believe in God, but you obviously do not think that is rational, so you seem to be smuggling in some grounds for belief which are “rational” and yet those grounds themselves cannot be merely what is “known” scientifically, else belief would not be part of your definition.
But, be that as it may, I too value the pursuit of truth, and only because, like you, I put some value in it. I think pursuing truth is good. But, if materialism is true, then this really is no grand meaning at all. It just depends on whatever goal or outcome we are trying to reach, and none of these goals are, all things considered, any better than another.
On my view, truth is necessarily connected to goodness in a transcendental way. Hence, even the most brutal and hard truths – say that the will of God is for some to perish in Hell – would be good to embrace.
But on materialism, there is no essential connection between the true and the good. They are strangers, as it were, who join whatever relationship you just so happen to choose.
So, while you can accuse of me or any theist of being “illogical” or “unreasonable” in believing in God, there really is no necessary connection between the subjectively “bad value” of not following “truth” (assuming here you can show it is true that no God exists), and the subjectively “good value” of following it.
From your point of view, there is no real reason for you posting on these forums, conversing with me, etc. other than a certain itch you happen to want to scratch. But your itch is no better than anyone else’s.
There is no backstop which allows you to say “I pursue truth because it is Good.” It is not and cannot be “transcendental” for a materialist to pursue truth.
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Touchstone, you should read again and explore what I wrote on page 2. I’m surprised by your most recent comments. Obviously, you have never heard about Francis Collins. I have great admiration for him.
I’ll use a few quotes from Wikipedia though I encourage you to review everything online from the url (link below):- American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time”.[1][2] He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Collins has written a book about his Christian faith. He founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation before accepting the nomination to lead the NIH. On October 14, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Francis Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.[3]"
- On July 8, 2009 President Barack Obama nominated him to the position of Director of the National Institutes of Health.[13] The US Senate unanimously confirmed him for this post, announced by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 7, 2009.[14]
- *Dr. Collins has been nominated by the National Institutes of Health to be one of the USA Science and Engineering Festival’s Nifty Fifty Speakers who will speak about his work and career to middle and high school students in October 2010.[19]
Harold Varmus said Collins "is a terrific scientist, and very well organized and a great spokesperson for the N.I.H., has terrific connections in Congress, and is a delightful person to work with.”*
- *Religious views: Collins has described his parents as “only nominally Christian” and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[23] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and finally became an **evangelical Christian *during a hike on a fall afternoon. . . .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
T
Touchstone
Guest
OK, and that can be, has been, and may be grounds we argue about, and that’s not a bad thing. It is “differences that stem from common values on other levels”.
Right. I don’t recall disputing that. On materialism, the idea of “grand meaning” in the sense you use it is simply confused.
Ok, and I won’t try to run down that rabbit hole just here if you don’t want, but this is where I see a stark non-sequitur. I can find no warrant for that connection, and worse, it equivocates on categories, confusing “ought” with “is”. But I’ll stop there – here’s a place where I think you’ve clearly departed from ‘rational’.
Understand, but would say this kind of voluntarism is the poster child for why a rational (IMO) view pays big dividends over irrational intuitions. Now, on your view “good” is simply a proxy for power, and might makes right. A demon-god that is cruel and vicious in every way you can conceive is just as “good” as the most compassionate, just, and loving god you could conceive of.
These are the wages of indulging irrational connections like that.
Yes, but even on theism, there’s no rational connection either. It simply doesn’t follow that because X is, that X is good. X may be true, and undesirable, objectionable, unworthy.
Yes, but this is equally true for theists, who, like you apparently have here, join them arbitrarily… “just because”. Materialism or no, a rational view identifies this disjunct and acknowledges that if they are to be joined, they are joined by values and choices, and that nothing transcendental here can be identified.
I’ll put it even more strongly than you have. It would be illogical to acquiesce to my values and recommendations if your values indicate other wise. So, if you don’t value my values that ground ‘truth’ or ‘rationality’ or ‘logic’, there’s no basis for worrying about what say is ‘irrational’ on your part.
And vice versa, of course.
Yes, you have it now! It begins, and ends with goals for each individual. I can identify no “cosmic imperative” for this, that or any other thing. As a biological human, I do have many strong “biological imperatives” (what we might cal “instincts”) that exist objectively – I can’t not have them, they are part of my physical wiring. But aside from that, my values and goals drive my actions and beliefs.
Yes, that’s a confused proposition. If it were “good for God”, even if we stipulate some god, that’s God’s goals, not your goals. You may decide to adopt them, but that still is YOUR CHOICE. Any "transcendental good’ doesn’t get beyond superstition and naked assertion, in my (now substantial) experience.
So not only does that not compute, it’s not needed. You are your own backstop, as you have your own body your own mind and your own choices to make. Own what is yours, and be responsible and resourceful with it.
You won’t have it for very long, nor will I.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
Francis Collins, along with Kenneth Miller, were my favorite “theistic evolutionists”, when I was a theistic evolutionist. I have followed Collins since before he was named to the genome gig, and read his (OK, have read Language of God and Language of life, have not read his one from last spring, whose name escapes me at the moment).Touchstone, you should read again and explore what I wrote on page 2. I’m surprised by your most recent comments. Obviously, you have never heard about Francis Collins. I have great admiration for him.
Dr. Collins was the keynote speaker at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Postdoctoral Association where he showed his support for young scientists.
- American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time”.[1][2] He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Collins has written a book about his Christian faith. He founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation before accepting the nomination to lead the NIH. On October 14, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Francis Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.[3]"
- On July 8, 2009 President Barack Obama nominated him to the position of Director of the National Institutes of Health.[13] The US Senate unanimously confirmed him for this post, announced by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 7, 2009.[14]
- *Dr. Collins has been nominated by the National Institutes of Health to be one of the USA Science and Engineering Festival’s Nifty Fifty Speakers who will speak about his work and career to middle and high school students in October 2010.[19]
Harold Varmus said Collins "is a terrific scientist, and very well organized and a great spokesperson for the N.I.H., has terrific connections in Congress, and is a delightful person to work with.”*
Have a nice day. Best wishes to you.
- Religious views: Collins has described his parents as “only nominally Christian” and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[23] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and finally became an **evangelical Christian **during a hike on a fall afternoon. . . .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
If you read Collins’ book, you’ll see I’ve echoed the very point he makes in his book regarding quantum events. In his view (and mine at the time), God can “hide behind the quantum veil” and manipulate nature in a subtle, small scale fashion to produce, among other things, humans who are designed just as God intended, even though the processes from our human perspective look and work exactly like impersonal physical processes.
Collin doesn’t invoke God as a scientific resource, a part of the model he advances. That is, he doesn’t have “God” as a variable in any of the articles he publishes in the scientific journals (on genomics, biiology, or whatever). God is an overlay, something he adds on top of the science, his take on the questions doesn’t and can’t answer. This he explains in his book – he’s no creationist in the “science shows…” sense of Ken Ham, et al.
I still think he is a very talented and gifted scientist. The wonder of science is that provides a common ground, a common heuristic for people with all kinds of diverse “overlays” and metaphysical notions to set those aside and focus on what models perform objectively, and what models can be built that drive real knowledge of the natural world, irrespective of one’s intuitions about gods, no gods, demons, angels, designs, etc.
-TS
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Touchstone - you comment, on multiple occasions, that a god, or at least YHWH, are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. While the concept of God is the latter, though not YHWH specifically, a god’s existence is capable of being proven, merely not through science. Even if speculative and ungrounded in laws and such, metaphysics and ontology are both valid, thoughtful, and helpful fields and can be used to prove a necessary being.
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
My point was that Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and has read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, which is not an intuition. So I’ve falsified your claim in my first response to you. Yes, peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science don’t make claims about God (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). However, Francis Collins does acknowledge the fact that God exists. Also, Science is science and I do support science as noted here:LogisticsBranch;7543020:
Touchstone, you should read again and explore what I wrote on page 2. I’m surprised by your most recent comments. Obviously, you have never heard about Francis Collins. I have great admiration for him.
Dr. Collins was the keynote speaker at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Postdoctoral Association where he showed his support for young scientists.
- American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time”.[1][2] He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Collins has written a book about his Christian faith. He founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation before accepting the nomination to lead the NIH. On October 14, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Francis Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.[3]"
- On July 8, 2009 President Barack Obama nominated him to the position of Director of the National Institutes of Health.[13] The US Senate unanimously confirmed him for this post, announced by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 7, 2009.[14]
- *Dr. Collins has been nominated by the National Institutes of Health to be one of the USA Science and Engineering Festival’s Nifty Fifty Speakers who will speak about his work and career to middle and high school students in October 2010.[19]
Harold Varmus said Collins "is a terrific scientist, and very well organized and a great spokesperson for the N.I.H., has terrific connections in Congress, and is a delightful person to work with.”*
Have a nice day. Best wishes to you.
- Religious views: Collins has described his parents as “only nominally Christian” and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[23] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and finally became an **evangelical Christian **during a hike on a fall afternoon. . . .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
Francis Collins, along with Kenneth Miller, were my favorite “theistic evolutionists”, when I was a theistic evolutionist. I have followed Collins since before he was named to the genome gig, and read his (OK, have read Language of God and Language of life, have not read his one from last spring, whose name escapes me at the moment).
If you read Collins’ book, you’ll see I’ve echoed the very point he makes in his book regarding quantum events. In his view (and mine at the time), God can “hide behind the quantum veil” and manipulate nature in a subtle, small scale fashion to produce, among other things, humans who are designed just as God intended, even though the processes from our human perspective look and work exactly like impersonal physical processes.
Collin doesn’t invoke God as a scientific resource, a part of the model he advances. That is, he doesn’t have “God” as a variable in any of the articles he publishes in the scientific journals (on genomics, biiology, or whatever). God is an overlay, something he adds on top of the science, his take on the questions doesn’t and can’t answer. This he explains in his book – he’s no creationist in the “science shows…” sense of Ken Ham, et al.
I still think he is a very talented and gifted scientist. The wonder of science is that provides a common ground, a common heuristic for people with all kinds of diverse “overlays” and metaphysical notions to set those aside and focus on what models perform objectively, and what models can be built that drive real knowledge of the natural world, irrespective of one’s intuitions about gods, no gods, demons, angels, designs, etc.
-TS
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=527636&page=2
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
I’ll leave you with this tidbit of information without revealing too much about me. My backgrand is in science. I’ve worked with some of the greatest scientists from around the world. Take care. I do a lot of scientific research these days. 
E
exoflare
Guest
They were obviously lying. That is of course the only possible explanation, isn’t it?
B
Betterave
Guest
Otherwise put: It’s not even wrong. (Oh the irony!)
B
Betterave
Guest
T
The_Exodus
Guest
It’s a case of “writes much, says little.”
T
The_Exodus
Guest
This is false. On classical theism, the true and the good are necessarily related terms, because they are modes of being. God’s essence is the ground for all “ises” and “oughts:” it is where facts get their facthood and where values get their value. Thus the good and the true are transcendentally connected. They come to a point in the Godhead.
That’s all well and good. But my point still stands: you can’t give me any categorical or objective reason for not believing that God exists.
Does it really bother you that bad to simply admit this, without adding some stipulation or I-got-the-last-word remark? There is no appeal to anything – my “irrationality” or poor arguments – since value is entirely self-wrought and self-projected and truth has no necessary connection to value.
L
LongJohnSilver
Guest
Of course.
If you are a naturalist and you have to explain something that is hard to explain from a naturalist/materialist standpoint, just say ‘evolution did it!’ and you’re done. No evidence or further explanations needed.
You seem to think that Christians have no ground to hope for icecream, that we only have that hope out of some therapeutic need. But being Christian on earth means that you get glimpses of how eternal joy and the Presence of God will be. We get tastes of the icecream in the here and now, and I can assure you that it is good icecream. It’s these tastes that drive people to do good in this world, to love others and care for them.
That analogy is false. Gold is not precious because there is little of it, it is precious because we humans can use it for bigger purposes. That there is little only makes it more precious than other materials. In the case of our lifes, if there is no more than this, if our lifes serve no bigger purpose, than our lifes and actions become absolutely meaningless and the fact that there is little of it doesn’t change that at all.
Yes it does. If there is no objective reason why we should value, enjoy and pursue life, and if there will be absolutely no consequence of or memory from our lifes once we’ve disappeared into oblivion, then there is no need to value, enjoy or pursue life. We might as well bet on the possibility of eternal life.
Your icecream melts away once you’re dead. My icecream endures forever.
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
What absolute rubbish, Touchstone. I’m surprised that such an obviously-intelligent person could make such a foolish assertion!
How many people can say two of a thing and another two of a thing make four of that thing? You can literally think it out in your head, a priori. You need no evidence whatever that twice two is equal to four, because it literally always is. Do any people ask for evidence of the notion that two by two is four? I suppose your most rigorous atheist skeptic might ask you to produce two pebbles, then two more pebbles, and put them together… but it would be sophistry.
Why should St. Thomas be utterly discredited just because he came up with arguments that make atheism impossible? That seems to be the reason you ought to applaud and join him. By asking for a philosophical mode of inquiry that relies on questions that are meant only to be refuted, never answered, you are asking for endless mental masturbation of the most ridiculous sort. Aquinas’ arguments are absolutely closed to refutation, so perhaps you ought to accept that they point to the truth.
Really, now, how many doubters of the Earth’s round shape refuse to accept photographs taken from space as “diminishing” of the photographer? Bah!
T
Touchstone
Guest
Necessary based on what. What breaks if “true” and “good” are not synonymous – and even as you have it, it’s equivocating on ‘good’, but one problem at a time.
Or, you have no warrant for: “Good is a mode of being”. That’s an “ought”, a value judgment posing a circumstance, matter of fact. They are only bound together with hand-waving to avoid the problem of “is” vs “ought”.
You might as well say “redness is necessarily related to goodness and truth”. Why? Well because you’ve “necessarily” decided it must be thus. There’s no rational basis for the connection, necessary or otherwise, any more than there is between “true-as-actual” and “good”.
We have no warrant for this claim. It’s just pulled out of your hat. And this is the “break” with rational true belief you and I were aligned on prior. You might as well tell me “redness” is the grounding of all goodness. You’ve got precisely the same warrant.
I say redness is the source of all fundamental goodness. I’m not exactly at parity with you in terms of our grounds for our hand waving. You’re invoking axioms like they’re just mints to pull out of the tin an pop in your mouth on a whim. There’s neither any transcendental imperative (that is, it’s not necessary) nor any empirical/model-based grounds for this. The best grounds I can find for your claims here are naked superstition.
You’re having a hard time even accepting agreement now! I agree, and have never disputed this point.
-TS
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
I think a better analogy would be if the kids who liked that ice-cream opened an Internet Forum to discuss what great ice-cream the ice-cream truck had. And then a whole bunch of other kids logged onto the ice-cream truck Forum to tell the ice-cream fans they were crazy, there is no ice-cream truck. You’d wonder, what’s up with these guys, why do they even care if someone else is a fan of ice-cream?
B
Betterave
Guest
Hey TS,
If you get a chance could you post a rewrite of this? It’s pretty unintelligible.
- Status