Derek wrote:
An atheistic worldview does not provide the foundation for reason to take place. By that I don't mean a explanation for the ability to reason, but rather a foundation by which to reason in the first place. Like the laws of logic.
Why not?
If the God of the bible exists, it could be no other way.
Why's that?
Generally, when these guys say "atheist", they mean "all possible non-theistic theories". Of course in this example, he is only speaking of empiricism, though I am not sure how the argument wouldn't apply to rationalism as well.
I don't see how the argument is valid, let alone applicable.
And actually, appealling to God does answer the questions. It may not be the answer that you want, but they are answers.
How does it answer any question?
Because to not account for it is to be arbitrary. The Christian worldview does account for logic. Logic reflects the thinking of God and the way He has created the universe. For you to continue to use them, is to borrow from my worldview, in order to argue against it.
No it isn't. If logic is necessary, it requires no accountability. I just asked you to account for God, and you said "It could be no other way". Yet if I say that about logic, you accuse me of being arbitrary.
Special pleading, you're being inconsistent.
Your idea of logic is that it is a reflection of the God's thought processes (which are dependent upon what?), and then you say I have to use your concept of what logic is in order to argue against it? Why would that be true?
In (any) atheistic worldview, where does the law of non-contradiction come from? How is it that the laws of logic even exist in a materialistic universe (assuming you are a materialist)?
We conceived of the LNC. It's a law that is dependent upon language. Why can abstracts not exist in a materialistic universe?
Because they exist apart from nature. They exist whether or not the physical world exists. It doesn't preclude the existence of concepts, it just can't make sense of their existence.
Minds are a part of nature, so no they don't exist apart from nature, they are inclusive of nature. They help us to understand our world using language.
Here you have rationality springing forth from it's direct opposite?
What opposite?
How is that? While it may not be logically contradictory, (at least not in a way obvious to me), it seems unlikely that the exact opposite of a quality would arise from the quality itself. When does this happen in nature?
That's like asking where in nature snowflakes arise from non-snowflakes. Or babies arise from non-babies. Zygotes arise from non-zygotes.
I would also ask how could the existence of reason become advantageous when reason didn't exist in the first place?
Again, that's like asking how flying could become advantageous if it didn't exist in the first place. Or how the ability to digest nylon became advantageous when the ability to digest nylon didn't exist in the first place.
The ability to problem solve (that is, see a dilemma and use ones environment to create new solutions outside of ones instinctual behaviours), arose from the need to problem solve and the opportunities presenting itself. We see this occurring in other mammals with rudimentary (from our standards) problem solving skills. Garbage cans didn't exist prior to their creation, yet Raccoons seemed to have developed the ability to open them and spill garbage all over my lawn without much trouble.
How did...nature... (?) figure out that some non-existent thing would be advantageous for the survival of our species? Also, I am not sure that problem solving and rationality are synonymous. Dogs can solve problems, and so can a computer, but I don't think they are generally considered to be rational. Perhaps they are on their way?
Yes, you're right. Our abilities have become specialized for our existence. It's what separates us from other animals. Just like flying has become a specialty of many birds, other beings can do so on a basic level but not as well as most birds.
Nature didn't figure it out, it happened because it was advantageous to the survival of proto-humans to be able to problem solve better and better. We are generally not the strongest or fastest beings on earth, but we can use our reasoning to beat stronger and faster beings.
The question that is logically prior to "how do you account for reason", is "how do you account for logic" (which makes "non-contradictory identification" possible). Or to put it the way I did at the top of the post, What is the foundation for the principles by which we reason? (As opposed to an explanation for our ability to reason).
No. Those are not necessary questions. They are completely redundant, like asking "how do you account for yellowness". The foundation of reason is not logic. The foundation of reason is reality, the tool of reason is logic, which we created to identify with reality.
Logic is not absolute, my friend. Thinking that knowledge is static, that logic itself cannot be reshaped or made better, is to be sticking oneself right in the dark ages. Language is a dynamic process, as is knowledge.
It's an infinite regress. You can't ever know that the "only known method of obtaining knowledge is through our senses". Each time you give the answer the problem just pops back up (i.e. how do you know that? by my senses...Well how do you know that?...by my senses, etc.) It may not be contradictory, but it doesn't answer anything.
It's not an infinite regress. Regress pushes the question back further and further without reaching a foundation. Yes, it's circular, but it's the best explanation.
Saying "God", doesn't answer any more questions than my answer.
It also brings up the problem of induction. You have to presuppose, without grounds, the uniformity of nature, which makes gaining knowledge by observation possible. In any atheistic worldview, the uniformity of nature cannot make sense.
Yea...and where did I say that knowledge was static or not probabilistic? You're the one who's conforming an absolutist view of things. You may be "certain" of your knowledge, but reality begs to differ. The uniformity of nature cannot be depended upon, only inferred, until there is reason to think otherwise.
In the Christian worldview, we believe that God upholds all things by the word of His power, keeping nature uniform.
Assuming that God is static, and that he does not arbitrarily change nature. Your argument is that God wouldn't change things because you trust he wouldn't. Big deal. You suffer from the same problem as everyone else. Not to mention that you might actually be wrong and believe in the wrong God; that Loki is actually the true God and he is completely arbitrary.
Your argument boils down to an emotional appeal.
The athiest has to beg the question by saying, "it will be that way in the future because it's always been that way in the past". Therefore to know anything, they have to borrow Christian capital to justifiy knowing anything! They have to assume our worldview.
Strawman, I have no obligation to say anything about that. Why would I have to appeal to God to know anything? I don't have to appeal to God to know that 2+2=4.
Thanks for the dialogue, man. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
Later,
Likewise.
