The Plausibility of Atheism

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:39 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
dizerner wrote:This is why it's important to see God as wholly other: outside of space, time and logic.
Could you please explain what you mean by God being outside of logic? It seems to me a bizarre and dangerous idea, but maybe I simply don't understand what you mean by it.
I mean truth comes to us by revelation and not a mental systematic of logic. Perhaps you are equating insanity or chaos with a lack of logic. God is not the opposite of logic, and God relates to us inside certain frameworks of logic, but God's essential nature is not bound by any framework.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:32 pm

dizerner wrote:
backwoodsman wrote:
dizerner wrote:This is why it's important to see God as wholly other: outside of space, time and logic.
Could you please explain what you mean by God being outside of logic? It seems to me a bizarre and dangerous idea, but maybe I simply don't understand what you mean by it.
I mean truth comes to us by revelation and not a mental systematic of logic. Perhaps you are equating insanity or chaos with a lack of logic. God is not the opposite of logic, and God relates to us inside certain frameworks of logic, but God's essential nature is not bound by any framework.
It may be worth noting that in John 1:1, Jesus is called the "logos," from which we get the word "logic." So, biblically speaking, the God we serve is the embodiment of logic. Wrap your head around that one. :-)

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:37 pm

Yea, I don't subscribe to the view that John borrowed the Greek philosophical definition of logos, but rather the Greek Septuagint's definition, equivalent to the Hebrew davar.

And Jehovah said unto Moses, Is Jehovah’s hand waxed short? now shalt thou see whether my word (logos) shall come to pass unto thee or not. (Numbers 11:23)
23 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν μὴ χεὶρ κυρίου οὐκ ἐξαρκέσει ἤδη γνώσει εἰ ἐπικαταλήμψεταί σε ὁ λόγος μου ἢ οὔ (Num 11:23 LXT)

God was not saying "thou shalt see my logic come to pass."

A word is something you express through an utterance, a manifestation of something in your heart and embodied in a physical form. This is why Christ was said to be the light (not logic) of the world.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:00 pm

Yes, Dizerner, "logos" usually refers to an expression of someone or something. It is translated "word" in the sense that it may be a speech in which one expresses himself, as in, "Brother Joe is now going to give us a word."

Jesus is the logos of God, because He is the expression of God. He expresses the Father exactly. Indeed, Heb 1:3 states that He is "the express image" of the Father's essence.

However, I don't think we can relegate the meaning "logic" or "reason" to the Greeks. It is used in this sense three times in the New Testament. Indeed the very first occurence of the word in Matt 5:32 is so used:

but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (NASB)

Also:
"Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?" (Acts 10:29)
This might also be translated: "I ask, then, by what logic have you sent for me?"

Finally:
but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15)

Or:
always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for the logic of the hope that is in you.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:29 pm

Seems like a stretch. There's no way that context had the modern day meaning of logic.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:19 am

Hi Jason,

I see the discussion has wandered off topic a bit. I'm not sure who the other atheist here is, but I'm happy to give my responses to your points.

In summary they seem to be,

1. Design
2. A search for the prime mover
3. Morality

1. Design. There is a subtle flaw in all of your examples. You show one item of natural, or not designed, origin and contrast it with an item of designed origin. To use the watch example, if you were walking along a beach of stones, and one stone was actually a pocket watch, you see the difference between it and the stones. However if the universe is designed, then all the stones are just as designed as the watch. The reason you pick a watch and stones, or a lens and sand, is that we know how rocks and sand form naturally, and we know that watches and lenses are the product of human invention. Evolution and Natural Selection, along with other methods of selection, are not at all controversial within the scientific community. Evolution forms the basis of our biological sciences. The theory has been tested, and tested, and tested, and has passed every one. Looking back in time we see a succession of simpler and simpler descendants until we get to single celled organisms, which is all we can get to because DNA and RNA strands don't fossilize. We can look at the universe, and determine that our bodies are made of matter formed in the hearts of stars. You, me and everyone else are made of stars.

I digress, if you want to posit design, you need to demonstrate design. Looking at modern cells, or modern plants and animals and comparing them to computers or mechanical devices is apples and oranges. Computers and lenses can not reproduce. They are artifacts, not biological systems.

2. Prime mover. My best understanding is that this universe has an origin point with the big bang event (Not big or a bang but *shrug*) about 13.5 billion years ago. Prior to that event, there was no space or time. Which is to say, the phrase "before the big bang" is almost incoherent. The Starbucks example is silly, not because something came from nothing, but because something came from thin air. When we have time and space, we don't see matter transmute, I don't know of anyone who claims they do. However, a lack of space and time does not exist anywhere we can observe it. My understanding of the physicists who address that time is that they don't have consensus either, but are working on it. So while we can say there seems to be an origin to the universe, our concepts of space and time defy our easy understanding of what lacking those things would mean. It has been posited that such a condition may be highly unstable, and that a universe forming in such conditions should be expected. Ultimately we don't know. Saying "God did it" is just another God of the gaps. If we agree it was "something" and call that something "god" that doesn't link the something in any way to the concepts already tied to the word. It might be that a god caused the universe, it might be no such thing was needed. Until I have some really solid argument or evidence I'm sticking with "I don't know how the universe came into being."

3. Ethics. Note in the example, that the child has to be killed for no reason other than personal pleasure. Its not always wrong to kill a child, it's only always wrong when the only benefit is the pleasure of the killer. Lots of Harm, little well being. That's the basis for the objective moral code I've been talking about since I got here. No god, or law giver is necessary to derive that. Only the axiomatic principle that well being is preferable to harm, backed up by the observable fact that societies that maximize well being for their members do better than those that don't in terms of life expectancy, and success of future progeny. We are social animals, and we see similar behavior in other social animals, though not all.

I would counter that if ethics were derived from a purely external source they would be objective in the same sense that gravity is. Your perception and my perception of gravity does not change the fact that baring wind resistance we accelerate at 9.8meters per second squared when we fall. However ethics isn't like that, we can be objective about it, but that objectivity is a subset of the subjective world because without a mind involved in the process there is no right and wrong, only is and is not.

Anyway I need to jet, hopefully that was coherent, if not please ask questions and I'll try to be clear.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Homer » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:27 am

Apos,

You wrote:
Looking back in time we see a succession of simpler and simpler descendants until we get to single celled organisms,
That seems a rather odd proof of anything. Without looking back in time don't we see the same thing now?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by steve » Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:40 pm

Looking at modern cells, or modern plants and animals and comparing them to computers or mechanical devices is apples and oranges. Computers and lenses can not reproduce. They are artifacts, not biological systems.
This may be a true distinction between "modern plants and animals" and computers—because modern creatures are descended biologically from ancestors, and inherit traits from them—some unchanged and some mutated. This does not currently occur in the manufacture of machines.

However, if we consider the original "ancestor" of the postulated chain of evolution, at some point we must have the first self-replicating thing—possibly RNA—which had no biological ancestor. This was an artifact of some designer just as truly as is a computer. And the comparison to a computer is apt in that both the RNA and the computer have the function of processing information.

A chimpanzee, given the proper components, might accidentally assemble them into a configuration externally resembling a computer. However, the thing that makes a functioning computer what it is—namely, the ability to process encoded information—cannot be supplied by the primate. In all of human experience, we have never known any source of "information" other than a rational, communicating mind.

The belief that the information content of life needed a rational mind to encode it in RNA and DNA is not the invocation of a "God of the gaps." It is not an argument from our ignorance, but from what we know.

To use a shopworn example, if you were wandering on the beach and found, in the wet sand, an arrangement of stones that formed the words, "John loves Mary," you would know instantly that this was the product of a rational intelligence. Your knowledge would not be simply due to the fact that we have not yet found a sufficient natural cause for rocks being so arranged in the sand. In fact, we know very well the natural causes of stones being randomly distributed on the beach. It is the information content of the arrangement that proves beyond question that a designer's hand is behind the arrangement.

The proof of a designer of that arrangement of stones is not merely in the existence of a complex arrangement (nature can produce equally complex arrangements). The proof is in the specified complexity that is obviously designed to transmit information. Our conviction that a person (presumably John) laid out the stones that way does not reflect, on our part, a sophomoric resort to a "John of the gaps" explanation. There are no "gaps" in our knowledge of the phenomenon of whence information arises. The author's existence is a conclusion from what is known, not from what is unknown.

Scientists on the SETI project have been scanning the skies for any radio signals of extraterrestrial origin which might provide confirmation that there is intelligent life elsewhere than in our solar system. So far, they have not found anything definitive. But suppose they were to receive a clear radio transmission containing the words, "Surrender, Earthlings! Resistance is futile." If the origin of such a message could be positively determined to be from no human or earthly source, then in a mere 44 characters and spaces (and it would not require half so many) scientists would have obtained absolute certainty of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. To entertain doubt concerning the intelligent design of the communication would be considered irrational—not because of some invalid "Extraterrestrials of the gaps" form of reasoning, but because all such messages (other than those coming from God) are immediately recognizable to rational researchers.

As you probably know, the information content of biological systems is one of the two facts that caused the lifelong atheist, Anthony Flew, to change his opinions. While we cannot argue logically by an appeal to authority, it remains a fact formidable that he was, in his atheist days, regarded as a brilliant philosopher. He was not a private atheist, but was heavily invested in the position. It might be thought to require a strong argument to move a brilliant philosopher from a position for which he has become famous. I believe the argument for design, based upon information, is just such a strong argument. To be aware of this information phenomenon, and to deny intelligent origins, would seem to betray a prejudice against all intuition and human knowledge.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:28 pm

Edit:

Steve, I didn't read your response before posting so there is some overlap here. My apologies.

ApostateltsopA,

I appreciate you engaging with these ideas, which I’m sure you’ve heard enough times to induce nausea. My goal was not to present novelty but to explain why I feel atheists don't give adequate weight to these arguments. They are passed over much too easily, and without sufficient warrant, in my opinion. Your reply is fairly standard (though well-articulated) but I could have predicted such objections. I guess a small part of me was hoping to hear an objection I had not formerly known, which may be unreasonable given that my own arguments are so well-worn. But I’d like to discuss your points and perhaps shed some light on why I don’t find them as compelling as you do.

Design

You suggested that contrasting designed objects with natural objects make for a poor comparison, but that depends entirely upon the comparison we’re trying to make. I’m making the point that we all recognize an intelligent mind behind arranged complexity. That anyone would argue this point seems utterly strange to me. It’s only when discussing this particular topic that people decide to object to it. We can all recognize, with a great deal of certainty, if we’re looking at a product of intelligence. Science is based on making these kinds of observations.

Your counter to the design argument was to point out that natural selection and evolution are not controversial topics among scientists. As I’m sure you’re aware, evolution is not a monolith but an aggregate of data. The strength of evidence for natural selection (which is well established) is not the same as the evidence for common descent (which is not very impressive to free thinkers). Nor does genetic similarity tell us whether we’re the product of common descent or common design. It’s benign data. You brought up the progression of life forms in the geologic column, and I understand why this seems persuasive because those visual charts look pretty clear. However, I later found out those pretty charts don’t line up with what we actually see in the various strata. Stephen Meyer has written extensively on this in his book on the trilobite and the Cambrian era.

I’d like to avoid turning this into a discussion about evolution because I don’t have a dog in that race. Some of my heroes in the faith (like C.S. Lewis and Gregory Boyd) argue that evolution and design are compatible. And we also have non-believers, such as Michael Denton and David Berlinski, who argue that the case for evolution is greatly overstated, if not entirely mistaken. So there’s not much practical value in either of us making an issue over evolution. If you think I’m wrong, let me know.

You mentioned that if I’m going to posit design then I need to demonstrate design, because computers and camera lenses don’t reproduce. But you and I both know that arranged complexity is evidence of design in any other area of inquiry and only gets discounted when it comes to the God discussions. SETI is based entirely on this methodology. You might argue that evolutionary biology sufficiently explains how we get from a single-celled organism to every form of life we observe today, but one can only do so by ignoring every strand of data which contradicts this neatly packaged idea.

Within academic circles, it’s considered taboo or heresy to question common interpretations of the data, but free thinkers like you and me are not beholden to these social pressures. Peer review is not peer review. It’s selective review, with a mega dose of ego on all sides. If you want a good example of this, read the work of science reporter Gary Taubes (a skeptical non-believer, for what it’s worth) on the politics of nutrition science. Those with stronger data were silenced in favor of packaging a neat idea to an unknowing public. And now, much of what we think of as scientifically proven with regard to nutrition is demonstrably false. The data is shockingly clear. Some of this is slowly becoming mainstream, but only after a century of bad science. There are simply too many conflicting interests within the political realm of science to always side with the accepted opinion. Free thinkers should know better, but are often naïve in this area. But enough on that.

Prime Mover

I find your points here to be reasonable enough, so I won’t belabor the point. But this is also a good example of why Einstein said men of science make poor philosophers. Let me put it this way -- if we are the product of intelligent design, then any interpretation of the data (from the big bang down to human origins) that only posits a natural explanation will necessarily be false. In other words, if you only accept naturalistic explanations for these things, then you’ve already handcuffed yourself to a bias. Saying the data at hand points to some kind of non-contingent intelligence is not a god of the gaps argument. It’s simply deductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. Should we accuse those who don’t consider intelligent design possible to be using a “nature of the gaps” argument? We don't know how all of this arose, so we'll insert nature as the only option.

Ethics

I’m actually not sure what your objection is on this one. You seem to be saying that ethics can be objective but only within a subjective framework. Perhaps you could clarify your position here because I’m a little lost in the weeds. My argument is that if Atheism were true, then human opinion (whether collective or individual) is the highest authority on ethics. So whether we should be kind or cruel is a matter of taste and societal agreement. Your argument that morality is based on what’s best for society is a really nice opinion, but the universe is indifferent to us and our silly opinions. It doesn’t care if we procreate or live or die. We’re born and then we’re gone in a blink. It has no regard for us. I understand that an atheist can choose to live as if there really is objective meaning and value, but doing so requires a bit of fakery and self-deception. We pretend there’s meaning and value and ethics when there really are none. As an atheist, I would flatly reject that notion. Reality might become a cruel mistress at that point, but so be it.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:45 am

Ok,

I'll respond to all three of you and try not to hit too much overlap. My mind can't hold all three arguments simultaniously so if I repeat myself you have my apologies. If I contradict myself though feel free to pounce ;)
Homer wrote:Apos,

You wrote:
Looking back in time we see a succession of simpler and simpler descendants until we get to single celled organisms,
That seems a rather odd proof of anything. Without looking back in time don't we see the same thing now?
There isn't much for me to work with here. Your question looks like an appeal to the "why are there still apes" meme. If it isn't then I'm sorry to have assumed incorrectly, but please put a paragraph together to spell out specifically what objection you are raising. This looks like is signifies a lot more to you and probably is a place holder for many previous conversations I wasn't part of.

If it is the why are there still apes meme, I'd point out that we are apes. However evolution is not a ladder, and things don't get "more evolved" or "less evolved". There are degrees of specialization, but changes are largely dependent on the ecological niche that the creatures inhabit. So there are still bacteria, because that niche was not lost when some of them advanced into colonial organisms. Modern cells do show significantly more development than their ancient ancestors though. The addition of mitochondria are one example. You can get a nice summary from Dr. Paul Willis here with a link showing our connection to rhesus monkeys.

@Steve

You wrote a lot, and I'm going to try and answer you without quotes. If I miss something please let me know. You make comparisons of the original self replicating protein strings and computer code. You also compare it to words and sentences. However this is still not an apples to apples comparison. The proteins are Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), Cytosine(C) and Uracil with Uracil. These aren't really letters, and they aren't the on and off repetition of computer code. They are physical substances with inherent properties that include the ability to combine and replicate.

Now, we do not currently know how the first molecule replicated, or how many tried it took to get one that survived. However science has demonstrated that these molecules do form naturally in the correct conditions and we have even succeed in creating ones that replicate. Evidence here.

The self replicating RNA is no more in need of a designer than crystals. Both form complex structures, even replicating structures, naturally.

To further underscore the difference between DNA and RNA and letters and code, if I rearrange the letters and spaces in your sentence, "Surrender Earthlings" to "hlinGsndes urRereart" We don't have information anymore, just a jumble of letters. However proteins cross in replication and still come out with functional replicating cells. The order isn't critical to anything like the same degree. Instead of your stones spelling words it would be like pointing to three stones that happen to fall within a line and insisting they mean something about a star constellation they may point to. (Notice I changed the order, capitalization and spacing. language also has punctuation which further differentiates it from the proteins that are also colloquially called "information". Comparing genetic "information" with language is the same kind of category error we get when theory (an idea you may have about something) is offered as a synonym to a scientific theory such as gravity.

You used the phrase specified complexity a lot. From my reading this leads to William Dempsky's book "No Free Lunch."
The material in that book is addressed by people far more competent than I here, and if you really want to go digging through rebuttals, additional links here where talk origins has a whole FAQ dedicated to his work.

@Jason I'm just now reading your post. So if it's too similar I may refer you to the above. In any case feel free to respond to stuff I didn't address specifically to you. (Everyone should).
Jason wrote:I appreciate you engaging with these ideas, which I’m sure you’ve heard enough times to induce nausea. My goal was not to present novelty but to explain why I feel atheists don't give adequate weight to these arguments. They are passed over much too easily, and without sufficient warrant, in my opinion. Your reply is fairly standard (though well-articulated) but I could have predicted such objections. I guess a small part of me was hoping to hear an objection I had not formerly known, which may be unreasonable given that my own arguments are so well-worn. But I’d like to discuss your points and perhaps shed some light on why I don’t find them as compelling as you do.
This may be the crux of our problem. It is not just the arguments that sway me but the evidence supporting them, just as the god hypothesis has to fight my bias from all the other baggage that comes with it. We might have more luck looking at why we find our various arguments more compelling. I'd personally like to see responses to my points that go beyond the opinion of finding them unconvincing.

Design,

You said,
Jason wrote:But you and I both know that arranged complexity is evidence of design in any other area of inquiry and only gets discounted when it comes to the God discussions.
This is not a true statement. I do not infer design from arranged complexity. If I did I would have to attribute crystal formation to design, rather than to the physical properties of crystal forming elements. I would have to attribute design to snowflakes. Trillions and trillions of snowflakes. When I am evaluating an artifact for design I look at the environment, and history, and similar artifacts. In the case of your lens I can find people producing lenses. In the case of RNA I can find a biological process replicating RNA haphazardly through systems with no external manipulator. Or with a manipulator as in the case of breeding selection, where we get all our different kinds of dogs. However even in the case of dog breeders, or genetic engineers, I can show the difference between manipulating biological systems and the pure artifice of lens creation. Psychologists have demonstrated the human tendency to pattern seeking, and I distrust my own pattern identification, until is is supported by additional evidence.

Is there a concise link you can offer for your claims about the fossil record? Are there any mammals in the Cambrian for instance? That would be a death blow to evolutionary theory. I agree that science is practiced by humans, and that they often defend bad ideas until the death, you can see this in the opposition to germ theory. However in the long run good science wins. As the old guard die off and new scientists come at the data with less bias. I know of many ID proponents who have lost jobs and faced persecution, what I don't know of is any specific data point offered which has not been refuted. If you have one I'd really like to see it.

Prime Mover,

Your point makes sense, but dies to practicality. I can not entertain the possibility of a hypothesis until it is supported by evidence or argument, sufficient to rule out other possibilities. Science looks at natural explanations not because they are natural, but because they are verifiable. There is no verifiable data for a god. That is why an appeal to god is called a god of the gaps, it's not an expansion of our explanatory power, it's just a different way to say, "I don't know." Try substituting "I don't know" with "God did it" in any sentence. They are interchangeable. However if we are talking about how cells get nutrient and you say "I don't know" and I offer "Protein folding" I can back up protein folding. Once something offers explanatory power "I don't know" ceases to be an analog.

As an example, you tell me that a god created the universe, and I ask you what is a god, and you then have to come up with multiple properties that this god has to have. However, while you can show those properties are necessary for the god you are describing to do what you say it can, that is no better than when Stephen Hawking described the properties Dilithium would need to have to make warp drive work. It didn't demonstrate that warp drive or dilithium are real or should be considered possible things to find. It is no better a theory than my stating it wasn't a god, but universe creating pixies.

The universe might be created, might be a really complex design made to look like a series of natural processes, might even have been the work of a being called Loki. However until someone can offer a very strong reason for me to add magical ideas to my list of things that are possible I dismiss them because, as Hitchens said, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Though I would expand it to a really good argument can also count. If you can provide an argument that rules out natural processes and requires a god then I'll likely convert back to deism.

Ethics,

There are two things going on here (I think). 1, How can we derive an ought from opinion. 2, The universe doesn't care.

1, Would you agree there is such a thing as health? That the opinion of a doctor, on how to maintain health, backed by research and evidence is more credible than the opinion offered by a homeopath who argues for undemonstrated properties of water? If you can see that not all opinions are equal, then I ask only that you divorce yourself of the toxic associations you have for the word opinion. Opinion is a synonym for belief and kin to the word knowledge, where knowledge is belief with certainty or belief supported by evidence.

I've tried repeatedly to explain how an objective moral code can be established, with understanding that implementation can not be flawless. I think my description is a pretty accurate appraisal of how we deal with questions of morality in the real world and why absolutist statements like "Lying is wrong" fail when situations are described where lying is right. It's not that I wouldn't like to have a true objective morality, it's just that I see no evidence for one. So this is the best we can currently do. (Unless someone can offer better)

2, I agree. The universe doesn't care. I'm not sure it would even if it could. I don't need it to. In fact I would find it kind of weird if something as vast as the universe were paying attention to me. On that scale I am less than inconsequential. It would be more absurd than if I worried about how the dust mites in the seat cushion I'm sitting on were getting along with each other. I have more important things to do. However I don't see that as an indictment on the morality or value I can access. I don't like mint chocolate chip ice cream because someone told me I have to. I like it because I do, and I eat it when I can. That pleasure is a small part of the enjoyment I get from living my life. I don't understand why you want the universe, or a god, to care. To me that seems like hubris. I think it should be enough to be important to ourselves, our friends and families and those whose lives we impact. Is that not enough for you? If not, why? Does it lead into a fear of death?

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”