Why are you an Atheist? - Catholic Answers Live - 12Nov2018

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Damian

Guest
On 12Nov2018, during the second hour of the show, I called in to talk to Trent Horn about why I am an Atheist. I opened up the conversation that theistic claims for why they believe in the supernatural are all internally logically consistent, but there is no evidence of it in reality so far that anyone can point to that demonstrates its existence. That’s where I pointed out the similarity of religious claims to comic books and fantasy stories. These are all internally logically consistent, but that doesn’t make Thanos and the Infinity stones actually exist in reality. You can have an internal logically consistent argument that can lead you to a belief about something. But if that position is a claim in reference to reality, then, until you can demonstrate that it is found in reality, you are NOT justified in believing that claim is actually true. Religious claims are referencing reality and are internally logically consistent but since you can not demonstrate these claims to be there at all, you are not justified in believing that claim is actually true. I can have a claim that the Luke’s ability to use the “force” in Starwars is stronger than the telepathy abilities of Jane in XMen. I can justify that by the internal logic of both series and what was demonstrated by their abilities in each series. However, neither claim is in reference to our actual reality. So I can have justified belief that the “Force” is stronger than “telekinesis”, but I am not justified in believing that either one of those ideas actually exists in our reality since those ideas were not in reference to our reality. They are in reference to a fictional comic book series. Religion is directly referencing reality for their arguments that the supernatural is part of our reality. So would claims of the “force” vs “telekinesis” be justified when referencing our reality? No. For the same reasons the religious claim there is the supernatural. There is currently no demonstrable evidence of any of these claims in our reality to justify these claims. All the claims are, are internally logically consistent arguments that are NOT demonstrable yet.
Trent went on to obfuscate the issue by asking about, what is “evidence”? He argued that evidence is something that makes a statement true. That is correct, in its most basic terms. But what he deliberately avoids is the point I made, about the idea that religious arguments are in reference to our reality. So you have to have evidence in our reality that supports your claim about reality. Otherwise, you can not distinguish a fantasy world from our reality since both are internally logically consistent, and the “evidence” presented came from the reference point of the argument. The “force” is stronger than “telekinesis” since I can provide evidence presented in the comics and movie series for comparison. But that “evidence” was not found in our reality that religion is directly referencing for it’s justified belief in it.
 
Last edited:
Metaphysical claims are not scientific claims. Correct, when you are not referencing our reality for your argument. Just like how you can argue in mathematics about the internal logic of an equation is not a scientific claim about reality. But once you start applying that mathematical model to reality, such as a religious claim that there is a realm called the supernatural with powerful beings in it, that is a claim about reality and becomes a scientific question. Science is just the application of our logic to create a model of reality that we all experience. Ex: 2+2=4 is a metaphysical claim. 2 apples plus 2 more apples is 4 apples is a scientific claim about reality. However, our logic came about by first experiencing our reality and then coming up with language that describes the predictiveness of our experienced reality. Such as adding 2 apples to 2 more apples and experiencing having 4 apples. So we then create metaphysical statements, like mathematics, to remove the apples and leave the process to explore. Now because the process seems logically correct, we begin to infer that these processes never break and then begins religious arguments based on the assumption that our logic is always correct because of the predictive nature of our experienced reality. Sorry, but what reality demonstrates to be the case will always supersede our logical conclusions. For example: how many hypothesis about reality were found to not be correct? They were all internally logically consistent correct? But did that mean we were able to define our conclusions into reality or did reality come back and show us that our logical conclusions were broken due to our ignorance about reality? Okay, so religions of the world, what has reality actually demonstrated to be the case every single time you run your religious experiments to demonstrate that the supernatural is there? Its a big fat zero.
 
Last edited:
You can be logically correct and still not justified to believe something is true about reality. For example: Einstein mathematically, logically, and internally consistently concluded that gravity waves should exist at the beginning of the 20th century. However, no one was justified in holding that conclusion as a true belief about the model of reality until we detected them in 2015. His logical model told us to look for them, but not that we were justified to conclude they actually exist. Once you can demonstrate that your logical conclusions, in reference to our reality, are correct, that is when you are justified to hold that conclusion as a true belief about the model of reality. Not a moment sooner.
This is why religious claims do not work on people who use this process for coming to justified true beliefs/conclusions about the model of reality. What we can demonstrate to be in reality is the justification for holding true beliefs about our logical argument models of reality. NOT people’s logical arguments alone. You have to DEMONSTRATE your claims that your logical assertions of reality actually match what reality demonstrates to be there. If we can not investigate your claim due to lack of ability to investigate it, then no one is justified in holding that claim as a true belief about their logical model of reality. Reality is the bar for justified belief, not your cultural stories and myths. Otherwise, again, like Trent tried to obfuscate, you couldn’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality claims since both are also internally logically consistent.
 
I remember your call. I believe the point they were trying to make is that you hold a limited definition for the term evidence. To you, evidence is only that which can be physically quantified. This, by necessity, excludes even the potential for evidence of God, because He cannot be measured or quantified.

You seem to exclude philosophy and metaphysics as valid fields of evidence, in which case you can never find God; unless you accept miracles.

Miracles are physical manifestations of God’s sovereignty, and there are many which have left physical evidence you can read about. My personal favorites are Eucharistic miracles, in which the Host takes on the characteristics and physical composition of muscle. There are also the plethora of miracles associate with Lourdes, many of which have well documented evidence to support them. There are thousands of miracles attributed to the waters at Lourdes, though I believe only 60-ish of them have actually been ratified as having no conceivable natural explanation.
 
Damian said:
[…] theistic claims for why they believe in the supernatural are all internally logically consistent, but there is no evidence of it in reality so far that anyone can point to that demonstrates its existence. […]
Click to expand...
And so on and so forth. The trouble is this: like all reasonable atheists you are stuck in a reflective cognitive mode. You do not realize this, because you do not know that cognitive mode in which it Faith is natural and spontaneous, and therefore your only sane choice. You do not know the contrast. In fact, you cannot even understand what I mean by a cognitive mode, because you only consciously know the reflective mode you are in. This is comparable to a fish not knowing what water is: the fish only ever experiences water, and therefore does not recognize water as its environment. Only if the fish were to grow wings, break through the surface, and take flight, would it be able to know something other than water, and thus be able to know water as different from air.

You assume – and understandably so – that if a definitive proof of God were to ever present itself, it will present itself in the cognitive mode that you are in. In other words: even if something were wrong with your reasoning, your findings, your research, etc. etc., at least the one thing that you’re getting right is that you are in the appropriate cognitive mode to investigate religion. But you aren’t. I know this answer won’t satisfy you, but this is just the way it is.

The question for you is: How do you get out of this reflective cognitive mode, and into that cognitive mode in which Faith is natural?
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
40.png
Damian:
[…] theistic claims for why they believe in the supernatural are all internally logically consistent, but there is no evidence of it in reality so far that anyone can point to that demonstrates its existence. […]
Click to expand...
And so on and so forth. The trouble is this: like all reasonable atheists you are stuck in a reflective cognitive mode. You do not realize this, because you do not know that cognitive mode in which it Faith is natural and spontaneous, and therefore your only sane choice. You do not know the contrast. In fact, you cannot even understand what I mean by a cognitive mode, because you only consciously know the reflective mode you are in. This is comparable to a fish not knowing what water is: the fish only ever experiences water, and therefore does not recognize water as its environment. Only if the fish were to grow wings, break through the surface, and take flight, would it be able to know something other than water, and thus be able to know water as different from air.

You assume – and understandably so – that if a definitive proof of God were to ever present itself, it will present itself in the cognitive mode that you are in. In other words: even if something were wrong with your reasoning, your findings, your research, etc. etc., at least the one thing that you’re getting right is that you are in the appropriate cognitive mode to investigate religion. But you aren’t. I know this answer won’t satisfy you, but this is just the way it is.

The question for you is: How do you get out of this reflective cognitive mode, and into that cognitive mode in which Faith is natural?
Click to expand...
tl;dr: To one who has faith, no evidence is necessary, to one who does noT, no evidence is possible.

😛
Op, perhaps, even if you don’t believe in Him right now, you should engage with us in an experiment. Start asking God to give you faith. Every morning when you wake up, and every night before you go to bed, simply say “God, if you exist, please give me faith to know so.”

Now, this can’t be an empty request, you have to be willing to acknowledge faith if it presents itself.

Try this for three months and see what comes of it. We’ll gladly discuss what you experience, if anything. No pressure, we’re not demanding that you change your life drastically or anything, just start by asking and see what happens. I know three months seems like a long time, but really, it’s a single sentence every morning and night.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
What we can demonstrate to be in reality is the justification for holding true beliefs about our logical argument models of reality. NOT people’s logical arguments alone. You have to DEMONSTRATE your claims that your logical assertions of reality actually match what reality demonstrates to be there.
Click to expand...
This assertion is illogical since even if God did exist, he wouldn’t be detectable in “reality” in the same way that you or I can be detected. Why? Because if he was, he would be a finite, limited entity and thus not God. So that’s just the same bogus argument that is used over and over again (also known as the “Big Foot argument” - treats God like Big Foot,. Where is he? We haven’t seen him! You cant see him - he’s God)

So the only way to demonstrate God’s existence is through logical deduction, hence Aquinas’ 5 ways.
  1. Things are caused by previous things (you and I are caused by our parents, our parents are caused by our grandparents, etc)
  2. Either there had to be a first cause to everything or there is an infinite time chain of causation going backwards. The latter isn’t logical , plus Big Bang evidence tends to indicate the former
  3. The first cause cannot be a physical or finite entity, since the mere fact that it is physical or finite requires it to have certain characteristics (X) and hence requires a prior cause that caused it to have characteristics X, as opposed to characteristics Y. Hence the first cause cannot be a physical or finite entity, and we call that “God”
 
Physically quantified is where he got me stuck because I was talking about what can be demonstrated to be part of reality. There are aspects of our reality that do not have physical, as in matter based, properties such as magnetic fields and gravity wells… This is still demonstrable in reality.
 
Damian said:
These are all internally logically consistent, but that doesn’t make Thanos and the Infinity stones actually exist in reality.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The reason they don’t exist in reality, however, is because there are clear demonstrable differences in the internal mechanics of the MCU and reality. However, operating on the foundational logic of our world, the Aquinas proofs show clearly that something has to be the first cause. Not only is it logically consistent, it matches with observations that show that during has a beginning.
 
I’m fine for “miracles”, but we need to be able to demonstrate a causal link from the event to the deity’s involvement. Such as: finding a burnt piece of wood. I can torch a piece of wood myself or the wood can be naturally burnt due to a brush fire. I can demonstrate that I was the cause of that piece of wood being burnt. How do you tell the difference between a miracle and an unknown natural cause if the deity comes across as not being there at all to vouch that it was the cause?
 
The problem with your position is that, while yes, those things do not have matter per-say, they are still based in physical reality. God is not a force which manipulates physical matter, He is entirely external to it.

A gravity well cannot exist without gravity, which is a component of physical existence. Similarly, magnetism is cause by some property of physical matter.

God is not cause by matter, he is not a force like either of these things. You are talking about fundamentally different categories of existence here.
 
Metaphysics and philosophy are arguments, not evidence. If you can demonstrate your logical process, like arguing 1+1=2 by demonstrating 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, the demonstration is the evidence. The argument is a logical assertion. That is how I see the difference.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
The problem with your position is that, while yes, those things do not have matter per-say, they are still based in physical reality. God is not a force which manipulates physical matter, He is entirely external to it.
Click to expand...
Right , in same way that the painter is not in the painting; his brushstrokes are.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
This, by necessity, excludes even the potential for evidence of God, because He cannot be measured or quantified.
Click to expand...
False, the evidence that the religious can offer is this. The deity can offer the other, but either can not do this or is choosing to not do this. Either way, not my problem. It is the religious’ problem until they develop the technology to investigate the supernatural realm.
 
I don’t think you can for any single miracle. However, when you look at them collectively, as with Eucharistic miracles or the miracles at Lourdes, you can derive a root cause from commonalities. The spring at Lourdes exists in direct connection to a miraculous (Christian) spiritual event. Similarly, the Eucharist exists specifically as a miraculous act derived from the power of Jesus Christ. Both sets of data come from Catholic sources, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are related to the Catholic God.
 
Last edited:
Then what do you make of Aquinas’ five arguments, which operate under the same limitations? Namely, they start from observable natural phenomenon and work out to the existence of God.
 
Damian said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
This, by necessity, excludes even the potential for evidence of God, because He cannot be measured or quantified.
Click to expand...
False, the evidence that the religious can offer is this. The deity can offer the other, but either can not do this or is choosing to not do this. Either way, not my problem. It is the religious’ problem until they develop the technology to investigate the supernatural realm.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not false. I’m sorry that you think it is, but it’s not.

You are still operating under a flawed understanding of God’s existence. He does not exist in such a way that it is rationally or logically possible to use technology to investigate Him.

Much like we can only theorize about 4 dimensional space, not interact with or experience it, we cannot interact with God’s existence no matter how hard we try or how much we learn. It is beyond what we are capable of, which is why we turn to philosophy and metaphysics to provide arguments.His existence is completely outside of what we understand as “physical reality.” All technology is limited in scope to physical reality. Hence, it is not capable of reaching Him. Don’t believe what you see in movies, it is not possible to create technology which interferes with the spiritual realm. I love Ghostbusters as much as a the next guy (actually, way…way… more, it’s my favorite movie by a wide margin XD), but its depictions are not realistic 😛

Incidentally, I’d like to point out that logically coherent arguments are evidence. I know you don’t accept them as such, but that position is brand new in the annals of human history, We are the first generation to have people fundamentally reject philosophy as a means for determining truth, and it has lead to this real lack in people’s understanding of reality.

I have to be going.

Please, I encourage you to send me a PM. I would love to discuss this with you more in depth. I’m generally slow to respond, but we can get into much greater detail that way.
 
Last edited:
Well, religion vs theism are slightly different matters, but theists do argue from the sensible effects of reality to their cause.

The “invisible unicorn” comparison (which this is a variant of) also just completely misunderstands those arguments. It makes a complete categorical error, a non-sequitur, that has nothing to do with what we’re referring to.

One would be better off getting more detailed into something like Kant’s transcendental analytic and transcendental illusion or some such as objections to the approaches of the cosmological arguments (though Kant goes wrong in a few assumptions about the approach of all theists).

But simply going with the “invisible unicorn” objection… that’s just bad.
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
because you do not know that cognitive mode in which it Faith is natural and spontaneous, and therefore your only sane choice.
Click to expand...
No idea what you mean here. What do you mean by Faith?
Here’s how I understand the difference between Belief, Hope, and Faith.
Belief is the understanding of all possible outcomes of a problem. Such as, “I believe a 1-6 will result from a 1d6 dice roll.”
Hope is the understanding that out of all possible outcomes, the one you want to be will be the result, regardless of how rare the possible result would be. Such as, “I hope a 5 will result from the 1d6 dice roll since I placed a bet on the number 5 to appear.”
Faith is the excuse people use for wanting a result that has not been demonstrated to be even possible. Such as, “I have faith that a 7 will result from a 1d6 dice roll.”
You can literally hold any claim you want based on that use of the word “faith”, even if it is contradictory to what reality demonstrates and even to other claims you hold to be true as well. “Faith” in this instance is not a way to have justified belief/model of reality or in fantasy worlds as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top