Comments on: Does God exist? http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238 A shared exploration of the relationship between science and faith Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:57:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Ion Zone http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-34390 Ion Zone Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:20:03 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-34390 I think I have mentioned this before, but we need to escape quickly from the word-trickery employed by our opponents in these debates, particularly straw doll arguments, a long-time favourite of our opponents. A straw doll argument is one where a ludicrous, but seemingly plausible, portrait of our faith is erected for use as an easy target. These need only resemble our beliefs in name and shadow, but are major tripping points. This is because, though that which they argue against bears no relation to the actual thing, they sound plausible to an audience of the like-minded and the non-practising. One often used is a comparison to Santa-clause (or faeries or orbital teapots). This is as good as arguing that because elves do not exist, neither do longbows. Fortunately, these are easy to dismiss if you are ready for them, they are ridiculous non-arguments. They are not, though, to be ignored or underestimated, straw doll arguments must be recognised for what they are by the audience and culled with vigour. Though most are very stale, they often come packaged as flashy and memorable quips that become 'true' through repetition. They resemble logic, but they are not it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man The hardest nut is to get atheists to acknowledge that their system lacks firm ethics (often leading to nihilism), as well as their own past wrongdoings. Shattering their illusion of moral high-ground is paramount. The crux of this is to cement the idea that phrases like “For reason\progress\Natural Selection (See the Jokela school shooting)” are valid indicators, not to mention religious purges, etc, and to rubbish the idea that 'religious thinking' was to blame for massacres committed by atheists in the explicit, but, again, disputed, name of atheism. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_4_59/ai_n27165613/ http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/01/dispatches-from-clueless-atheist.html (Quote from above, sorry if I have linked to this before) 1. People were slaughtered. 2. Those people were ruled by atheists. 3. But those people were not slaughtered in the explicit name of atheism. 4. Therefore, atheism does not cause slaughter. And now for the Marlboro analogy utilizing the same Dawkinsian logic: 1. People died of cancer. 2. Those people smoked Marlboros. 3. But those people did not smoke cigarettes in the explicit name of Marlboro. 4. Therefore, Marlboros do not cause cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies I think I have mentioned this before, but we need to escape quickly from the word-trickery employed by our opponents in these debates, particularly straw doll arguments, a long-time favourite of our opponents.

A straw doll argument is one where a ludicrous, but seemingly plausible, portrait of our faith is erected for use as an easy target. These need only resemble our beliefs in name and shadow, but are major tripping points. This is because, though that which they argue against bears no relation to the actual thing, they sound plausible to an audience of the like-minded and the non-practising.

One often used is a comparison to Santa-clause (or faeries or orbital teapots). This is as good as arguing that because elves do not exist, neither do longbows. Fortunately, these are easy to dismiss if you are ready for them, they are ridiculous non-arguments. They are not, though, to be ignored or underestimated, straw doll arguments must be recognised for what they are by the audience and culled with vigour. Though most are very stale, they often come packaged as flashy and memorable quips that become ‘true’ through repetition. They resemble logic, but they are not it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The hardest nut is to get atheists to acknowledge that their system lacks firm ethics (often leading to nihilism), as well as their own past wrongdoings. Shattering their illusion of moral high-ground is paramount. The crux of this is to cement the idea that phrases like “For reason\progress\Natural Selection (See the Jokela school shooting)” are valid indicators, not to mention religious purges, etc, and to rubbish the idea that ‘religious thinking’ was to blame for massacres committed by atheists in the explicit, but, again, disputed, name of atheism.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_4_59/ai_n27165613/

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/01/dispatches-from-clueless-atheist.html

(Quote from above, sorry if I have linked to this before)

1. People were slaughtered.
2. Those people were ruled by atheists.
3. But those people were not slaughtered in the explicit name of atheism.
4. Therefore, atheism does not cause slaughter.

And now for the Marlboro analogy utilizing the same Dawkinsian logic:

1. People died of cancer.
2. Those people smoked Marlboros.
3. But those people did not smoke cigarettes in the explicit name of Marlboro.
4. Therefore, Marlboros do not cause cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

]]> By: Quentin de la Bedoyere http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-34041 Quentin de la Bedoyere Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:27:59 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-34041 I have no intention of acting as umpire between Advocatus Diaboli and contributors, but I thought it might be useful to note a few points which made an impression on me. So this is a personal reaction and you are, as usual, free to take me to task. Horace opened up by asking for a definition of God. This was a wise move because, more often than not, a definition of terms will solve a dispute on its own. Remember Professor Joad and the Brain’s Trust? John Bunting came in with a theme which was to reappear in different forms later on. He summed it up for me with the phrase “Ah, objective truth. Freddie Ayer and good old logical positivism.” Logical positivism largely dominated philosophy in the middle of the 20th century. It took precisely the view which AD put forward: that facts are either analytic or empirical or empty of meaning. It had many champions but Freddy Ayer was the one most of us probably knew best. He wrote beautifully and was clearly a likeable man. The logical positivist tradition (which certainly made a big contribution to clarity in philosophy) was refuted by pointing out that to claim that the only truths were the analytical or the empirical was itself neither analytical nor empirical. Professor Ayer did eventual have the courage and integrity to admit that he was unable to prove his position on this issue. I am struck by the irony that our very modern secular humanists repeat, almost parrot fashion, a philosophical position which lost any respectability about 50 years ago. They really need to get up to date. James H put in a point which is obvious once you see it written down: “God, if He exists, created space and time. He must therefore be outside it.” I think most of us scratched our head a little over Cunctator tardissimus’s first contribution, but AD clearly thought, in the light of James H’s view, that Cunctator’s reference was to Kant. (Kant of course used the extensions of space and time as the necessary spectacles through which we can view the world. They are not provable but a necessary condition for knowledge.) I thought that AD had handed a hostage to fortune here, but Cunctator preferred a different tack. But further comments began to focus in, effectively I thought, on the difficulty of claiming any knowledge with out a number of “givens”, that is, assumptions which cannot of their nature be proved. I could continue. For instance Trident’s description of everyday faith had an impact on me, and defined more closely what we mean by the word “faith”. A neat Tu quoque here. And I enjoyed Pearce’s loss of patience with the Wicked Witch of the West. I think it was Russell who first used the idea of the teapot, but your modern Daw-kin (kin to Dawkins) favours fairies. In truth, though, I think AD did not intend to be trivial but merely to ask that if we do not produce empirical evidence than we can make any claim we wish. Interestingly, Superview ends up with a challenge which brings us back to Horace's first question, and James H's remark about God being outside the universe he made. I would also want to note Ion Zone’s reminder that we are thinking here about refutation, and so we need to consider how these considerations can be forcefully, and in short compass, communicated. Did we convince Advocatus Diaboli? I don’t know. I can only tell you that he is a little quieter on the subject than heretofore. But that may be because he is scribbling away, and so I expect we shall hear from him again before long. I have no intention of acting as umpire between Advocatus Diaboli and contributors, but I thought it might be useful to note a few points which made an impression on me. So this is a personal reaction and you are, as usual, free to take me to task.
Horace opened up by asking for a definition of God. This was a wise move because, more often than not, a definition of terms will solve a dispute on its own. Remember Professor Joad and the Brain’s Trust?
John Bunting came in with a theme which was to reappear in different forms later on. He summed it up for me with the phrase “Ah, objective truth. Freddie Ayer and good old logical positivism.” Logical positivism largely dominated philosophy in the middle of the 20th century. It took precisely the view which AD put forward: that facts are either analytic or empirical or empty of meaning. It had many champions but Freddy Ayer was the one most of us probably knew best. He wrote beautifully and was clearly a likeable man. The logical positivist tradition (which certainly made a big contribution to clarity in philosophy) was refuted by pointing out that to claim that the only truths were the analytical or the empirical was itself neither analytical nor empirical. Professor Ayer did eventual have the courage and integrity to admit that he was unable to prove his position on this issue.
I am struck by the irony that our very modern secular humanists repeat, almost parrot fashion, a philosophical position which lost any respectability about 50 years ago. They really need to get up to date.
James H put in a point which is obvious once you see it written down: “God, if He exists, created space and time. He must therefore be outside it.”
I think most of us scratched our head a little over Cunctator tardissimus’s first contribution, but AD clearly thought, in the light of James H’s view, that Cunctator’s reference was to Kant. (Kant of course used the extensions of space and time as the necessary spectacles through which we can view the world. They are not provable but a necessary condition for knowledge.) I thought that AD had handed a hostage to fortune here, but Cunctator preferred a different tack.
But further comments began to focus in, effectively I thought, on the difficulty of claiming any knowledge with out a number of “givens”, that is, assumptions which cannot of their nature be proved.
I could continue. For instance Trident’s description of everyday faith had an impact on me, and defined more closely what we mean by the word “faith”. A neat Tu quoque here. And I enjoyed Pearce’s loss of patience with the Wicked Witch of the West. I think it was Russell who first used the idea of the teapot, but your modern Daw-kin (kin to Dawkins) favours fairies. In truth, though, I think AD did not intend to be trivial but merely to ask that if we do not produce empirical evidence than we can make any claim we wish.
Interestingly, Superview ends up with a challenge which brings us back to Horace’s first question, and James H’s remark about God being outside the universe he made.
I would also want to note Ion Zone’s reminder that we are thinking here about refutation, and so we need to consider how these considerations can be forcefully, and in short compass, communicated.
Did we convince Advocatus Diaboli? I don’t know. I can only tell you that he is a little quieter on the subject than heretofore. But that may be because he is scribbling away, and so I expect we shall hear from him again before long.

]]> By: Superview http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-34034 Superview Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:15:51 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-34034 I'm grateful to C.T. for referring me to John Rist, Alasdair Macintyre and Tracey Rowland for their work on tradition, not least because it has provided me with more information on the 'counter-reformation' within the Church, otherwise known as the reform of the reforms. I have merely scratched the surface of each, but this review of one of Tracey Rowland's works is particularly revealing: http://www.catholic-church.org/ejtyler/catholic_life/RatzingerTheologyTraceyRowland.html Amazon should also be delivering Jaroslav Pelikan's 'The Vindication of Tradition' any day now, which should be interesting given this quote from him: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition." The more central 'Does God exist' discussion is illuminating and frustrating at the same time. If God is God (a saying of our local bishop) he doesn't need us to defend him or prove his existence. Yet whether God exists is an utterly compelling and noble quest for humanity. It is also a quest undertaken in various ways, from the ordinary person in the street (not only in the pew) to the great minds of the past. Picking up threads here and there within the blog has led me to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (and a host of other ancient Greeks), Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomist Aristotelianism, epistemological anthropology, Neo-Platonists and so on, as well as some modern philosophers, including a post-structuralist hermeneutic philosopher who I quite liked, and resulting in a fog of information and little progress. A wise and good man advised that one could really only talk about God with a friend, with whom there was no winning the arguments or defeating the other. So with great cordiality, and in plain language, I ask A.D., if I say 'There must be a Creator' do you say 'There cannot be a Creator'? Let me say I was troubled by the notion that the statement 'God made everything' begged the question 'Who/what made God?' John Polkinghorn's response on this is to say that from a philosophical point of view God might or might not exist, but unless you can show that God is logically impossible you cannot meaningfuly ask for an explanation of his existence. Do you agree? I’m grateful to C.T. for referring me to John Rist, Alasdair Macintyre and Tracey Rowland for their work on tradition, not least because it has provided me with more information on the ‘counter-reformation’ within the Church, otherwise known as the reform of the reforms. I have merely scratched the surface of each, but this review of one of Tracey Rowland’s works is particularly revealing:

http://www.catholic-church.org/ejtyler/catholic_life/RatzingerTheologyTraceyRowland.html

Amazon should also be delivering Jaroslav Pelikan’s ‘The Vindication of Tradition’ any day now, which should be interesting given this quote from him:

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.”

The more central ‘Does God exist’ discussion is illuminating and frustrating at the same time. If God is God (a saying of our local bishop) he doesn’t need us to defend him or prove his existence. Yet whether God exists is an utterly compelling and noble quest for humanity. It is also a quest undertaken in various ways, from the ordinary person in the street (not only in the pew) to the great minds of the past. Picking up threads here and there within the blog has led me to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (and a host of other ancient Greeks), Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomist Aristotelianism, epistemological anthropology, Neo-Platonists and so on, as well as some modern philosophers, including a post-structuralist hermeneutic philosopher who I quite liked, and resulting in a fog of information and little progress.
A wise and good man advised that one could really only talk about God with a friend, with whom there was no winning the arguments or defeating the other. So with great cordiality, and in plain language, I ask A.D., if I say ‘There must be a Creator’ do you say ‘There cannot be a Creator’? Let me say I was troubled by the notion that the statement ‘God made everything’ begged the question ‘Who/what made God?’ John Polkinghorn’s response on this is to say that from a philosophical point of view God might or might not exist, but unless you can show that God is logically impossible you cannot meaningfuly ask for an explanation of his existence. Do you agree?

]]> By: Ion Zone http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33938 Ion Zone Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:33:55 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33938 (Ironic apologies for sounding a little cold, I was in an irritable mood :P ) (Ironic apologies for sounding a little cold, I was in an irritable mood :P )

]]> By: Ion Zone http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33759 Ion Zone Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:04:44 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33759 We must also stop calling ourselves 'apologists'. What precisely have we to apologies for? We must also stop calling ourselves ‘apologists’. What precisely have we to apologies for?

]]> By: Ion Zone http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33752 Ion Zone Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:58:20 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33752 One thing often said is that not believing in God is scientific, in fact this is a fallacy, for a start it is the polar opposite, and therefor will still affect your judgment, more so, possibly, as people who believe in god cautiously look for evidence, while those who do not, tend to bend or disregard evidence to fit their conclusions, and often don't even look or check, and have been known to write whole books about the beliefs other faiths on the basis of no research whatsoever. There are also hundreds of thousands of things that might influence someones decisions that are not related to religion at all, but these don't matter, apparently, because, in their eyes it isn't opinion, but fact, that the world is the way they see it, that religion is always behind every evil (There's some psychology of hate there). You get the same thing with creationists, which is what they think we are. Of course atheist opinion is fact, so we have to provide contrary evidence constantly and in pedantic detail. It is not enough that we state that creationism is the fault of Protestant archbishop Ussher who 'worked out' the age of the Earth in 1650, something that should have stopped at being a theory, they would try to wiggle round that, no, you have to give sources from the beginnings of history, when they cite nothing. They will laugh it down, but we must ask them for proof of their misleading false histories. We must demand it. We must demand to know why *they* get to define what 'religious thinking' is and means, and what a religion is. We must demand to know why they perpetuate myths about us. We must probe their reasoning and psychology. After all, they encourage each-other to hate religion in a way that is irrational to the point of phobia, they then have the bowls to claim *we* are brainwashed, deluded, conned, pick your insult. We may have our own polarizations, but at least we know it. One thing often said is that not believing in God is scientific, in fact this is a fallacy, for a start it is the polar opposite, and therefor will still affect your judgment, more so, possibly, as people who believe in god cautiously look for evidence, while those who do not, tend to bend or disregard evidence to fit their conclusions, and often don’t even look or check, and have been known to write whole books about the beliefs other faiths on the basis of no research whatsoever.

There are also hundreds of thousands of things that might influence someones decisions that are not related to religion at all, but these don’t matter, apparently, because, in their eyes it isn’t opinion, but fact, that the world is the way they see it, that religion is always behind every evil (There’s some psychology of hate there). You get the same thing with creationists, which is what they think we are. Of course atheist opinion is fact, so we have to provide contrary evidence constantly and in pedantic detail. It is not enough that we state that creationism is the fault of Protestant archbishop Ussher who ‘worked out’ the age of the Earth in 1650, something that should have stopped at being a theory, they would try to wiggle round that, no, you have to give sources from the beginnings of history, when they cite nothing.

They will laugh it down, but we must ask them for proof of their misleading false histories. We must demand it. We must demand to know why *they* get to define what ‘religious thinking’ is and means, and what a religion is. We must demand to know why they perpetuate myths about us. We must probe their reasoning and psychology. After all, they encourage each-other to hate religion in a way that is irrational to the point of phobia, they then have the bowls to claim *we* are brainwashed, deluded, conned, pick your insult.

We may have our own polarizations, but at least we know it.

]]> By: Cunctator tardissimus http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33714 Cunctator tardissimus Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:12:49 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33714 Horace, your points are really well made - at least as long as you're preaching to the converted, as it were. But aren't we skipping important stages of the debate here, if the purpose of this exercise is that we're to stand our ground against committed atheists? What what reasonable belief is, what God is, and how, if at all, we can talk about Him, are moot as long as A.D. rejects belief tout court. Shouldn't we first establish that some form of belief is necessary for any epistemological account, and then move on to discuss to what extent Christian belief is reasonable? If we skip directly to outlining our belief without arguing the case for the inclusion of belief in the first place, we are not engaging in debate with A.D.'s central claim: that any form of belief is arbitrary unless backed up by hard evidence (at which point, of course, it ceases to be belief). Horace,

your points are really well made - at least as long as you’re preaching to the converted, as it were. But aren’t we skipping important stages of the debate here, if the purpose of this exercise is that we’re to stand our ground against committed atheists? What what reasonable belief is, what God is, and how, if at all, we can talk about Him, are moot as long as A.D. rejects belief tout court. Shouldn’t we first establish that some form of belief is necessary for any epistemological account, and then move on to discuss to what extent Christian belief is reasonable? If we skip directly to outlining our belief without arguing the case for the inclusion of belief in the first place, we are not engaging in debate with A.D.’s central claim: that any form of belief is arbitrary unless backed up by hard evidence (at which point, of course, it ceases to be belief).

]]> By: Horace http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33660 Horace Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:19:53 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33660 At the beginning of this discussion I asked "What do you mean by ‘God’?". RMBlaber states "something which can only be stated analogously or negatively". James H. is a little more positive "God, if He exists, created space and time". The only trouble with this last is that it is not really different from the atheist position that this is just the way things are, except that we acknowledge - perhaps - the existence of a Creator. JohnBunting's comment is a lot more interesting "I would say that belief in God is a belief that the natural universe, and all that it contains, is the result of a conscious act of creation, not of blind and unconscious natural forces." Now; "a conscious act of creation" implies that there is a MEANING to space and time and life, which is a good deal more believable than the atheist position which, even if it is more 'simple', is rather depressing! But this word 'conscious' is very difficult. The atheist position is that consciousness simply evolved [but even Dawkins is not quite happy; "why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology."] Consciousness is intimately related to memory - at least in the short term - and to 'free-will' both of which are dependent on 'time' (as also is the idea of an 'act'). But to make any sense the creator of 'time' must be outside of time. Consciousness outside of time? "It hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive"? At the beginning of this discussion I asked “What do you mean by ‘God’?”.

RMBlaber states “something which can only be stated analogously or negatively”.
James H. is a little more positive “God, if He exists, created space and time”.

The only trouble with this last is that it is not really different from the atheist position that this is just the way things are, except that we acknowledge - perhaps - the existence of a Creator.

JohnBunting’s comment is a lot more interesting “I would say that belief in God is a belief that the natural universe, and all that it contains, is the result of a conscious act of creation, not of blind and unconscious natural forces.”

Now; “a conscious act of creation” implies that there is a MEANING to space and time and life, which is a good deal more believable than the atheist position which, even if it is more ’simple’, is rather depressing!

But this word ‘conscious’ is very difficult. The atheist position is that consciousness simply evolved [but even Dawkins is not quite happy; "why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology."]

Consciousness is intimately related to memory - at least in the short term - and to ‘free-will’ both of which are dependent on ‘time’ (as also is the idea of an ‘act’). But to make any sense the creator of ‘time’ must be outside of time.

Consciousness outside of time? “It hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive”?

]]> By: Ion Zone http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33643 Ion Zone Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:47:35 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33643 That's what I often think, Trident, though I have never found such a good way of putting it! That’s what I often think, Trident, though I have never found such a good way of putting it!

]]> By: Trident http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238&cpage=1#comment-33358 Trident Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:44:49 +0000 http://www.secondsightblog.com/?p=238#comment-33358 A thought occurs to me. I met a new neighbour of mine today. Or, to be precise, I received certain light waves and certain sound waves. And yet I was conscious of actually encountering a human being. I find that I cannot account for this by a deductive process in which I inferred that this must be a human being. No, it was a perception of another personality in direct relationship to me. What I met was not sound and light waves, although they were necessary elements of mediation. Advocatus Diaboli asks what we mean by belief. My best answer is that just as I had to believe, without hard evidence, that I was in relationship with another person so I believe, without hard evidence, that I am in relationship with God. If AD shares my experience of personal encounter then he shares my experience of faith. Of course God mediates himself through other, and higher, ways. But essentially it is the same thing. A thought occurs to me. I met a new neighbour of mine today. Or, to be precise, I received certain light waves and certain sound waves. And yet I was conscious of actually encountering a human being.
I find that I cannot account for this by a deductive process in which I inferred that this must be a human being.
No, it was a perception of another personality in direct relationship to me. What I met was not sound and light waves, although they were necessary elements of mediation.
Advocatus Diaboli asks what we mean by belief. My best answer is that just as I had to believe, without hard evidence, that I was in relationship with another person so I believe, without hard evidence, that I am in relationship with God.
If AD shares my experience of personal encounter then he shares my experience of faith. Of course God mediates himself through other, and higher, ways. But essentially it is the same thing.

]]>