Who am I? Why am I here?

[PLP]

RyanL:

BTW, I noticed that your tone seems condescending.

I have only seen shallow reasoning and childish arguments.

With all due respect, I would direct your attention to the dissonance between these two statements.

I personally am presuming that we’re all intelligent adults with good will. One can disagree with an argument or find it unsound without calling it shallow or childish, even indirectly.

 

[PLP]

RyanL:

I think what’s being asked here is if you understand that if you are given logically undeniable proof beyond any rational questioning, free will has been removed. For example: do you believe in the Sun? Why? Because there is logically undeniable proof of its existance. Questioning the existance of the Sun is unreasonable, and therefore you don’t have a proper “choice”. Free will has effectively been removed.

There’s only a certain sense in which the evidence for the existence of the Sun contradicts free will. It seems to be the case that one can choose to be unreasonable (there are, sadly, too many examples of people actually doing so).

Even if one is committed to reason, one can still make moral or preferential choices with regard to the facts. I can, for instance, still choose whether or not to apply sunscreen or how much to apply; there are no facts about the sun that I can know that can take away that choice; the facts only determine the differential consequences of the various choices.

I’ll address the Free Will Defense in greater detail when I get to the Problem of Evil, which will come around on the guitar soon enough.

 

[PLP]

Anonymous_1:

because humans have an inherent need to believe they are generally good, and worth something…

to discount the existence of life or existence here after, or a Creator who created me and loves me is to say that life and my life is merley a flash of light seperating the eternity before my first breath and that proceding my last. It is to say everything I do is essentially meaningless, and that I as a human being have no inherrent worth. Good for the self esteem.(sarcasm intended)

My self-esteem is, in fact, inherent: It is a property of my own consciousness. Since it’s inheret, I don’t need an external purpose to support it. It is simply a fact that I value my own life and experience.

 

[PLP]

tdandh26:

What is truth, how do you define it? Is it not an immaterial thing, PLP has stated that he does not hold to any set standard of truth and basically truth is what we make it.

That’s not precisely the case. I do hold to a set standard of truth, but according to that standard, no statement can ever have the property of being certainly true. I’ll go into more depth in a thread about the metaphysics of Scientific Materialism. Please be patient.

 

[RyanL]

PLP:

With all due respect, I would direct your attention to the dissonance between these two statements.

PLP,

Both statements were mere observations, not maxims. The only arguments I have been approached with actually have been childish and shallow, and demonstrably so. I am not saying that the only arguments which could be made are childish and shallow, or that one who would hold such a viewpoint are the of like mind / capability, only that my debates so far have been with folks who…well…aren’t well reasoned. Additionally, I stated that I could be (and hoped i was) wrong about my first statement. I am open to a good dialog, and will try to conduct myself accordingly - I would ask no less of my opponent. As I said, I look forward to what is going to be brought to the table.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[PLP]

RyanL:

Side question: Does anyone self-identify as a “Weak Atheist”?!?

Yes. Many people do. Typically, a self-identified “weak atheist” refuses to assert the truth of the existence of God, as opposed to the strong atheist who asserts the falsity.

There are several logical reasons for doing so. For instance a person might believe that all conceptions of God are fundamentally noncognitive (i.e. not truth-functional). In this case, it is not possible to have any true or false belief.

A person might also believe that there is some good reason to doubt atheism, that the evidence or arguments are equivocal, and thus they suspend judgement; even though the proposition of the existence of God is truth-functional, they simply cannot come to a true/false belief.

There is, of course, considerable overlap between the intuitive definitions of “agnostic” and “weak atheist”. Because of the connotation of indecision, people who believe all conceptions of god are noncognitive will usually self-identify as weak atheist.

Those who believe that there is good reason to doubt atheism but that the evidence is, on the whole, equivocal will choose between “agnostic” or “weak atheist” on more political or social grounds.

 

[RyanL]

PLP:

I’ll address the Free Will Defense in greater detail when I get to the Problem of Evil, which will come around on the guitar soon enough.

This sounds interesting! I look forward to it. I would ask, though, if belief in God is a strictly moral choice of the same ontological sort as choosing what quantity of sun screen to apply or if it is more analogous to choosing to believe in the existance of the Sun.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

PLP:

Yes. Many people do. Typically, a self-identified “weak atheist” refuses to assert the truth of the existence of God, as opposed to the strong atheist who asserts the falsity.

Good post - I haven’t dealt much with atheists (I stick mainly to Protestants), so this was a very informative post for me. Thank you.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.
Another side question: Is there a site / download where I can hear a strong atheists and weak atheists debate?

 

[Mijoy2]

PLP:

To the extent that psychologically health is separate from having faith, and to the extent that psychological health is objectively and naturalistically determinable, I consider myself to be psychologically healthy: I am free from neurosis, I am well-connected to consensus reality, I have appropriate affect, and I am generally happy.

Hello again PLP. I pose the following because your above quote regarding your psychological well-being, as it contrasted to mine, brought it to mind.

One of the issues that deeply troubled me when I was more agnostic was the issue, not so much of my eternal life but that of my dearest loved ones. Primarily my daughters. If you are a parent then chances are you feel as I do when I say my love for them is virtually indescribable. The prospect of what becomes of them after thier life here on earth was one that I contimplated deeply. I would say this was God’s manner of working within me to guide me to the light of Him. You, of course, would disagree.

What troubled me were two things. The first being what I felt to be a horrifying prospect, the second infinately more horrifying…

When I thought about my girls and, like most parents, thought about the awfull prospect of the possibility that I may out live one or both of them, the idea that they would go into nothingness is an unbearable thought for me. I can’t put into words the gut wrentching feeling I have when this thought is contimplated. My faith alone would be what would prevent me from ending my life immediatley thereafter.

However, infinatley more gut-wrentching (and I mean literally infinately more) was the prospect of the fact that I ignored thier spiritual side of thier life, throughtout thier life (and they were late teens at the time) and thier eternal destiny may be my responsibility.

I realize from the previous thread (and to a certain extent agree) that the proposal of Pascals’ Wager is not a strong argument for many athiests and Christians alike (PW is not really the intent of this post, just related). At the time I knew nothing of Pascals’ Wager, I learned about it later and thought “so I am not the first to have thought this way”. I began to think, “what if i am wrong about my ideas of a God”? What if what the Christians say is true? I began to think of this in a purely mathematical, weighing the odds, sort of way. Here was I, who because of my disbelief, have potentially jeopardized to some degree, the spiritual welfare of my daughters. If, there is a hell and I go there, so be it. But if there is a hell, and because of my disbelief, my daughters go there …well this was too much for me to bare.

Possibly the engineer in me prompted me to think of this in terms of odds. Understanding the concept (fictional or otherwise) of the Christian understanding of Heaven and hell forced me to more deeply consider the likelyhood I was incorrect and the potential ramifications. Just how much was I willing to wager? 50/50, 10/1, 100/1, 1000/1? 1e10^100 to 1?

The answer was, none-of-the-above. I realize many atheists may see this line of thought as a weakness possibly. A potential cop-out; a turning my back on my more fundemental belief system. Yet because of what was stake I felt a burning desire to more fully understand and thus began my journey. This journey has been a joy, with many pprayers answered and my Daughters and wife now a Catholic.

I apologize for boring anyone with this story. I was wondering PLP, if you have ever experineced similiar thoughts. Even from the “mathematical” perpective I purposed?

 

[PLP]

Maranatha:

Pascal’s Wager is not an argument but a reason to accept belief. That’s why is called a Wager and not an argument.

Generally speaking, any “reason” to believe a proposition true or false is an argument. A “wager” is just a probabilistic argument.

Most of the arguments for the existence of God do raise to the level of a proof from a logistical point of view.

Naturally, I disagree with you. We’ll have to consider each argument on its own merits, of course.

Of the arguments against, only one raises to the level of proof. With the preponderance of the evidence in favor of God’s existence, one can reasonably conclude God exists.

It’s definitely a “bad” thing to have proofs of contradictory propositions. Numbers of proofs are not evidence; a single proof is sufficient evidence, the existence of two proofs with contradictory conclusions means that your axioms are contradictory. Preponderance of evidence is essentially an argument from probability.

What is the standard for this reason? On the spectrum of reasonableness we have superstition on one end of the spectrum and hyper-rationalism on the other end of the spectrum. In the center is balanced moderate reasonableness.

There are two separate senses of “reasonable”: logical and moderate. Just because some position is more moderate does not mean it is more logical.

Hyper-rationalism, on the other end of the spectrum, demands incontrovertible proof. This may even extend to proof for the existence of reality. This, IMHO, is also irrational.

This position is also called Philosophical Skepticism (note the capital letters; PS is different from small-ess skepticism) or Epistemological Nihilism. Regardless of what you call it, I certainly agree that it’s useless, if not absurd.

Orthodox Judaism was the first to reconcile the two extremes and come to a balanced conclusion. Orthodox Christianity continued that tradition.

It could be argued that the ancient Greek philosophers first explored the issue of epistemology and skepticism in any depth.

 

[PLP]

tdandh26:

That has to be one of the funniest things ive heard in a long time. You base your belief on what is most reasonable to you. Thats it. Thats how I become an athiest. .

I’m not sure why this is funny. I can’t speak for EtB, but I myself base all my beliefs on that which is most reasonable to me.

Not to mention it seem very unreasonable to assume that thousands and thousands and thousands, of people throughout history have been duped by the same mental ailment.

Everyone once believed that the Earth was flat. People can be mistaken without being “duped”. We are in the realm of objective truth here, where it is indeed possible, by definition, for most people or even *everyone *to be mistaken.

According to your reasoning life is the end all be all, so it would be no problem for me to assume that if someone held a knife to your throat and told you to say you believe in God. You would have no problem saying it to save your life.

I myself wouldn’t have a problem with that. Of course, I don’t think it’s at all unethical to lie under duress.

Therefore would it not be reasonable to assume that if those men had conceived this hoax, then when their lives were at stake they would not have retracted their lie.

This is a false dichotomy. Very few people deny that theists are sincere in their beliefs. There’s no accusation of lying or hoaxing. Atheists merely believe theists to be mistaken.

And, if someone dies for what he says either it is absolutely true or they were all of them mad men.

Dying for one’s beliefs is, as has been noted, not probitive. Many many people have died or risked death for their beliefs, and the beliefs that they have died for are contradictory. Jonestown, Muslim suicide bombers, German soldiers (indeed soldiers of every nationality and ideology), have died directly or indirectly because of the confidence of their beliefs. We can conclude that they were sincere and committed; we cannot conclude their beliefs were all objectively true.

 

[PLP]

Philthy:

That does not inspire confidence! In other words, there is not one thing that you know? Not even that statement?

You are assuming that knowledge entails certainty. I do not subscribe to that view.

So do you believe Truth is knowable or not? That would be square one. If not, threads over.

Sure, I believe it’s knowable. I just don’t believe that I can be certain about it.

Thats kinda funny… why? That is quite a burden you have placed on yourself: Truth is not knowable with certainty yet you have a moral obligation to seek it knowing you will not recognized it when confronted by it?

Being uncertain does not mean having no idea whatsoever. Furthermore, if I am certain, I can no longer seek.

Where did that idea come from and what does an ethical duty mean for you as a strong atheist?

It is, I suppose, a property of my mind.

 

[PLP]

Maranatha:

It not just my position. The proofs of Gods existence conform to he standards of logic. By those standards they rise to the level of proofs.

Well, a “proof” in one sense is merely the demonstration of validity: That a particular conclusion is logically deducible from particular premises. To “prove” something in the epistemological sense (i.e. to know that the conclusion is true of the universe), you have to derive the conclusion from premises which are themselves known to be true.

The logic of most arguments for the existence of a god is uncontroversial. It is the premises which are in doubt.

 

[PLP]

tdandh26:

I know one thing though, that my hope in God and eternity is much more unshakable than your belief…

You should understand that unshakability of belief is not considered a virtue by most atheists, myself included. All of my beliefs are, in principle, “shakable” in one way or another.

 

[PLP]

RyanL:

Your life would be lacking if every choice had this kind of undeniably obvious answer - it would be effectively lacking free will.

Indeed. But it appears that the only kind of questions which have undeniably obvious answers are questions about what is, not what is good, or what is better.

Assuming that I do have a free will choice about whether to believe in God, and assuming that having the ability to make a free will choice about belief is the highest good, then why would a God punish me for exercising this free will? The whole free will thing works ok (at least on this axis; the assumption that the free exercise of will is in fact the highest good has other problems) until we get to divine punishment after death.

You need to have faith to answer in either direction, though good arguments could be made in both directions. (If the analogy fails, pick a similar one - you get the point.) That’s free will. What you have asked for is for us to remove the choice through incontrovertable evidence.

So all you need to do is declare the subject a matter of faith without objective proof and you’re done. If you feel that satisfying the request for argument or evidence is unethical, then you’re under no compulsion to do so.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

RyanL:

The form of Pascal’s Wager is unsound when applied to everything possible, and the form of Pascal’s Wager is unsound when applied to the various gods of your imagining. However, when Pascal’s Wager is applied to God as we can know Him through Natural Law and right reason, it is a very sound wager. Only if you completely ignore what empirical evidence we have to support God could you make Pascal’s Wager unsound - which, of course, you do, so you have.

God Bless,
RyanL

I think that if there is, in fact, other evidence for the existence of the Christian God, then Pascal’s Wager is not important. More importantly, the Wager is so constructed that the “probability” of God’s existence is not actually important. So long as it is some positive number the argument works - since we’ve got infinites in the rewards table.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

PLP:

…

The logic of most arguments for the existence of a god is uncontroversial. It is the premises which are in doubt.

Actually, I would argue that in some case, even if we accept the premises of such arguments, the conclusion that there exists some thing which can reasonably be called “God” does not necessarily follow. For example, I am not sure why the first cause argument compels us to think that the first cause is omniscient.

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi PLP,

My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t theism based since theism is conceived as a belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena). The reasoning behind this break from theism is the belief of a triune God (three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Do you consider ‘intuition’ to be a sense or part of a person’s ‘senses’? Please elaborate further on sense (mental) vs ‘senses’ that interplay with intuition, instinct, rationality and the lack there of? And last but not least, love and emotional wellness? How do you logically rationalize the complexity of love?

Thanks

 

[PLP]

Anonymous_1:

if there were a God would you want to know?

Yes. Definitely.

ok…so you got us…THERE IS NO GOD…

If you were to tell us that with confidence, I would be forced to call you a liar.

I suppose you must call me a liar then, since I do in fact assert with confidence that there is no god. This would be unfortunate, because calling someone a liar is not particularly conducive to maintaining the good will necessary for civil discussion.

While I’m not offended per se by anything, there is little value to me in conversing with someone who does not take my sincerity for granted. With all good luck, you’re simply using a hastily chosen turn of phrase and we will be able to continue the discussion as adults.

How could you tell me there is no God without perfect knowledge?

You are conflating confidence with certainty. These words have two different meanings.

If you are not completley indifferent to this question, then you must take up agnosticism, any other choice would be absurd. Either you really do not care if there is a God, or you simply do not know. And this must be the foundation: we do not know but we want to. From here we can examine the evidence around us.

Here you are conflating skepticism with indecision. Even though I believe certain things, even though I know certain things, I could still be wrong. The idea that one cannot “know” a false belief is, in my opinion, a giant philosophical red-herring. One might equate “knowledge” with “certainty” and conclude therefore that no knowledge was possible, but there still needs to be a word for a reliable but sometimes fallible or incomplete methodology and to choose on the basis of that methodology to believe things to be true.

Another way of looking at it is that we can know things (i.e. have true beliefs justified for the “right” reasons), but we can’t know that we know any particular thing. It’s pretty easy in philosophy to get wound up in self-referential paradoxes, so you have to watch out.

It’s also noteworthy that, according to your methodology, it is absolutely impossible to know with certainty that God does exist as well; the only rational position for everyone is apatheism (not caring) or agnosticism. This conclusion argues against your own position.

If it is possible in principle to know that God does exist, it is possible in principle to know that God does not exist. Contrawise, neither position is possible in principle. If you assert unknowablility, you are in my definition (1) of the OP, towards which I am a weak atheist from in-principle agnostism and consider meaningless.

Oh wait there is another alternative: you refuse to awknowledge or even consider the existence of a Higher Power because of the implications it may lead to.

This is not the case for me. The truth is the truth, and I want to know it regardless of the consequences.

The Bible tells us that the Heavens, in fact, All Creation bears witness to Him. I don’t think obtaining evidence is very hard.

The Bible has a different definition of “evidence” than I do.

Here is a really cool argument i heard today actually. SETI is constantly scanning the cosmos for signs of intelligent life. They have developed complex formulas and methodologies for discerning between random noise and various other forms of “meaningless” noise comming from the cosmos in the forms of radio, gamma, etc. If SETI were to pick up a stream of data comming from space that looked like the DNA or RNA seuqence of even the simplest organism, they would have no questions: they have found intelligent life.

In a very technical sense, DNA (or, rather, gene pools) are themselves “intelligent” to some degree. DNA certainly encodes “information” in the Shannon sense as well as “meaning” in the physical sense. But, just as human intelligence is accepted as an obvious fact by natural science, the intelligence, information and meaning of DNA has a natural explanation. This is probably a good topic for its own thread.

 

[PLP]

Well, I’ve covered most of the direct questions to me. My top two priorities are a thread for First Cause arguments and a thread for Pascal’s wager.

I do need to leave in an hour to pick up my son from the airport, and he’ll be staying with me for a week. So please be patient! I’ll not be able to post as much during the week.

I’m having a terrific time! I hope most of you, both readers and participants, are enjoying these discussions as much as I am.