@Tassman
It doesn’t matter if they had knowledge of a counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics doesn’t refute anything that they say. As Alexander pruss points out the PSR that I modern Theists defend concerns explanation, which is the giving of reasons sufficient to explain the explanandum, not the giving of reasons logically sufficient for entailing the explanandum. So your objection fails.
I hate to break it to ya, as I see this canard repeated so many times by the atheist community, but modern scientific methodology doesn’t do squat to Aristotle or Aquinas’ arguments, nor does it damage any of the newer arguments that we see today. The philosophical arguments are actually better now, because we have more and more bright minds to work with. I see Theists getting closer to making an argument that leads to being virtually certain that a God exists.
That’s not a good argument at all, because God is not subject to the laws of nature. I have absolutely no idea why you would think that the universe would exist first, and then poof out comes a God. Though you do have a very strange concept of God so if you want to stick to arguing against your concept of God, go right ahead, but you’re ultimately attacking a strawman.
God is why the laws of nature are here, so when we understand the laws of nature we are in a way understanding God, just like you think that when we understand the laws of nature you’re understanding the godless universe. There really is no difference, besides the fact that I think the universe contains initial agency and consciousness.
The second problem with this is that when a naturalist states one cannot define God their claim is ultimately self-refuting, since by defining God as undefinable, one has engaged in an act of definition. It would be like uttering in English the sentence "I cannot speak a word of English."
There is no wishing, it’s just me looking at how the world is , and then providing the best explanation for why it is like this. In fact I don’t even have to be a Theist in order to realize how obvious it is to notice the purpose in this reality. (though I can’t see how he can consistently be what he is if Theism is false, I just think he makes a good case for what he argues) Evan Fales argues that the universe looks like a teleologically organized system, this is an entity organized so as to have some (or possibly more than one) end, goal or purpose.
We can distinguish TOSs whose teloi are imputed from those whose teloi are intrinsic or original (ITOSs).
For example, a can opener has the purpose it does because it was designed for that purpose or is, at least ordinarily , used for that purpose.
An acorn’s telos is to grow into an oak, the natural ends of an oak are connected, obviously enough, with the things that are good for and bad for it. Flourishing, for example, just is an oak-tree good. Other things – adequate water and sunlight – are good for oak trees because they are means to (causally necessary for) intrinsic oak-tree goods. So, roughly we may say that the intrinsic goods for an ITOS are the states of affairs that constitute achievement of its ultimate ends, and the instrumental goods are those that serve or promote those ends.
Makes more sense than saying there is no purpose whatsoever.
Ok, so then helping this old lady means nothing then, simply because I was forced to do it from the blind watchmaker evolutionary process. These instincts are nothing but a delusion. That is to say, if determinism is true because of the blind nonrational magical evolutionary process and materialism, then we aren't morally responsible for our actions.
I agree that the godless natural selection is moreso concerned with kin selection, but when it comes to 'value' this is still all just an illusion put forth by the blind watchmaker evolutionary process, so ‘religion’ can’t be blamed for anything, because this is how evolutiondidit. Religious people couldn’t help it, because they weren’t in control.
Your argument just ends up biting you in the rear, because as micheal ruse points out being ‘selfish’ isn’t bad, or wrong, and this is because ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ are pointless illusions that give us a psychological disadvantage towards a purposeless universe.
“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.”
- Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge,
natural selection is impersonal because it doesn't care about whether or not our species goes extinct.
So you can you sit in your bed until you wither away and die or go out and be a huminatarian. No matter what you do, the natural selective process doesn't care, and when you die it gets even better as there are no rewards for good deeds and no punishment for evil actions.
Well I use sound reasoning and I don’t shoot myself in the foot.
I don’t have to appeal to some purposeless, meaningless, valueless, unconscious, nonrational substance that somehow magically gave matter rationality.
There are no rights if Theism is false, ‘rights’ are just an illusory human construction made up by the blind watchmaking evolutionary process, only because it gives us a psychological advantage.
So since the evolutionary process is nonprogressive in any meaningfully moral, then we could as easily have evolved a different moral system from that which we have. Instead of thinking that humans all rights, we could have hated certain humans and come to the conclusion that only male humans over 6 feet tall should have rights, while everyone else has lesser rights. Michael Ruse refers to this as the “John Foster Dulles system of morality” named after the secretary of state under president Eisenhowever. Dulles hated the Russians, and he realized that the Russians hated him, but he also recognized that he needed to get on with them. This he did with success, but without in any sense invoking what we would call traditional morality. He took their hate into account just as he took on his own hate into account. Therefore humans could as easily have evolved a completely different set of substantive moral norms, and this includes your claim about ‘recognizing human rights for ALL’ therefore your claim is unpersuasive.
It doesn’t matter if religion through history has been man-made attempts to explain the human condition, because the truth of our condition doesn’t dependent on what religious people throughout history think, nor does it matter what people in modern times think. The truth is independent of human minds so your point is irrelevant. You need to stop worrying about what religious people said in the past, and start dealing with the arguments in the present, because they’ll only get better.
Second scientific knowledge goes nowhere without philosophy holding its hand, this quote will be posted again.
" Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
—Daniel Dennett, ‘Darwins Dangerous Idea’
Science goes nowhere without the philosophy that underpins it, so unless you have something to show me otherwise I will continue to argue what I’m arguing now.
I don’t know what this has to do with anything I said.
Appeal to time, who cares if it was 70 years ago, 700 years ago or 7,000 years ago, what matters it he actual argument itself, so when you’re able to slip away from the ad-hominem and take on C.S Lewis’ actual argument, I’ll be right here to defend it. Your hand-waving doesn’t ultimately refute what he says.
We have good reasons to think it is, this is why I’m arguing my case.
And the point just flew over your head, but I thank you for agreeing with me on the fact that primitive people did have access to truths about reality. Drinking water quenches thirst was one of them.
So if this is the case, then are you conceding the fact that your arguments right now are primitive? Or do we need to invoke special pleading and just say ‘well only religious people will be looked at as primitive, because special pleading’???
ok so, let’s put that reasoning to the test, I want you to please demonstrate this statement of yours as being true via the use of empirically tested science.
Wait, so can philosophy lead us to knowledge or did you change things up?
I don’t see a distinction, please demonstrate your claim rather than assert it and hope I just believe it. I mean, your blind watchmaking magical naturedidit evolutionary process gave us large brains certain genetically determined, strategic rules or directives, which we being into play when dealing with new awkward situations. IN other words, we are genetically determined to believe that we ‘ought’ to help each other, so I don’t see why we aren’t forced to believe things by this same process. Therefore, I see no distinction at all.
OK I guess he just argues things about himself that don’t represent his thinking, makes sense.
Your enjoyment of the ride is nothing but a mass delusion given to you by a purposeless process. All you’re doing is deluding yourself into a psychological state, only because it leads to comfort. This ride is absurd, and pointless. IF it has no end goal, then it was never important to begin with.
//Extraordinary how you can totally miss the most salient feature of Camus:
HE doesn’t support my worldview however I always wonder why not all atheists follow his lead when it makes so much sense. (IF Theism is false) I mean why is that you choose to tell me how you think reality really is, when none of this matters anyways? I find it hard to believe that you don’t think there is any intrinsic purpose to our existence.
And as I argued before, there is no norm, just arbitrary blind watchmaking at work!
How could survival be an evolved instinct if it wasn’t present in the very first organism, that…well….had to survive to propagate its DNA right? Sorry not buying it, survival is an essential trait and if it wasn’t then we would have never have gotten past the first organism.
Do you believe that?
The opposition of scientific realism
“Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” - Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
Are you absolutely sure about this?
So it’s absolutely true of the fact that the nearest we can get to absolute truths are the established theories of science which have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt?
Possibly but unlikely, how do you know this? Are you omniscient to the point where you know the future?
Theism is supported by great evidence, you just have to ditch that verificationist nonsense.
Well delusions do happen a lot on your naturedidit magical substance that supposedly is the reason for why existence exists, I mean this mechanism caused pointless conglomerations of matter that identify themselves as 'humans' to believe in religions for thousands of years, but now....supposedly we can everything right, and have every reason to trust this blind, nonrational, purposeless process.....right
Anyways you need to defeat the arguments against Theism before handwaving it away. So far you haven’t done so, and this is why I’m optimisitic about Theism, it’s because the alternatives have garbage explanations that hardly anyone ever wants to defend, and because Theism has much more simplicity, coherency, explanatory scope and power than everything else.
Any conclusion to a philosophical deductive argument is only as good as its premise. And the premises of ALL philosophical arguments can only be based upon the knowledge of the day. The knowledge in the Classical/Medieval period of Aristotle and Aquinas has been superseded by the facts acquired by modern scientific methodology. E.g. the former had no knowledge of counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanism. Nor did they have any concept of the possible eternal nature of the universe, whereby all things are contingent upon what went before and what went before had no beginning.
I hate to break it to ya, as I see this canard repeated so many times by the atheist community, but modern scientific methodology doesn’t do squat to Aristotle or Aquinas’ arguments, nor does it damage any of the newer arguments that we see today. The philosophical arguments are actually better now, because we have more and more bright minds to work with. I see Theists getting closer to making an argument that leads to being virtually certain that a God exists.
Certainly alien creators are possible, much more likely than a creator deity, because the former can be understood in terms of the known laws of nature whereas the latter cannot. But until such time as we have some evidence the notion remain an un-testable hypothesis.
God is why the laws of nature are here, so when we understand the laws of nature we are in a way understanding God, just like you think that when we understand the laws of nature you’re understanding the godless universe. There really is no difference, besides the fact that I think the universe contains initial agency and consciousness.
The second problem with this is that when a naturalist states one cannot define God their claim is ultimately self-refuting, since by defining God as undefinable, one has engaged in an act of definition. It would be like uttering in English the sentence "I cannot speak a word of English."
Merely wishing for an ultimate goal, when there is no credible evidence of one is delusional thinking.
We can distinguish TOSs whose teloi are imputed from those whose teloi are intrinsic or original (ITOSs).
For example, a can opener has the purpose it does because it was designed for that purpose or is, at least ordinarily , used for that purpose.
An acorn’s telos is to grow into an oak, the natural ends of an oak are connected, obviously enough, with the things that are good for and bad for it. Flourishing, for example, just is an oak-tree good. Other things – adequate water and sunlight – are good for oak trees because they are means to (causally necessary for) intrinsic oak-tree goods. So, roughly we may say that the intrinsic goods for an ITOS are the states of affairs that constitute achievement of its ultimate ends, and the instrumental goods are those that serve or promote those ends.
Makes more sense than saying there is no purpose whatsoever.
When you "help a little old lady" it's because, as evolved social creatures we instinctively help others within the social group.
Natural selection is NOT impersonal and it is NOT mainly concerned with self-preservation. The self-preservation you refer to is contingent upon the preservation of the group to which we belong. These are evolved qualities and include the naturally selected instincts of altruism, reciprocity and adherence to the rules of the group. It is religion that is the more selfish; it focuses upon personal salvation.
Your argument just ends up biting you in the rear, because as micheal ruse points out being ‘selfish’ isn’t bad, or wrong, and this is because ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ are pointless illusions that give us a psychological disadvantage towards a purposeless universe.
“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.”
- Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge,
natural selection is impersonal because it doesn't care about whether or not our species goes extinct.
So you can you sit in your bed until you wither away and die or go out and be a huminatarian. No matter what you do, the natural selective process doesn't care, and when you die it gets even better as there are no rewards for good deeds and no punishment for evil actions.
Quite the reverse; it is YOU attempting to define our world though your own absolutist filter;
I don’t have to appeal to some purposeless, meaningless, valueless, unconscious, nonrational substance that somehow magically gave matter rationality.
How we view our fellow humans has demonstrably changed over the millennia – from a purely tribal mentality to one whereby we recognize the human rights of ALL individuals.
So since the evolutionary process is nonprogressive in any meaningfully moral, then we could as easily have evolved a different moral system from that which we have. Instead of thinking that humans all rights, we could have hated certain humans and come to the conclusion that only male humans over 6 feet tall should have rights, while everyone else has lesser rights. Michael Ruse refers to this as the “John Foster Dulles system of morality” named after the secretary of state under president Eisenhowever. Dulles hated the Russians, and he realized that the Russians hated him, but he also recognized that he needed to get on with them. This he did with success, but without in any sense invoking what we would call traditional morality. He took their hate into account just as he took on his own hate into account. Therefore humans could as easily have evolved a completely different set of substantive moral norms, and this includes your claim about ‘recognizing human rights for ALL’ therefore your claim is unpersuasive.
ALL religions throughout human history, from animism thorough to polytheism then monotheism have been man-made attempts to explain the human condition. And ALL, without exception, have invented a deity or deities who demand sacrifices in order for their anger to be appeased. These were and are the deities both primitive people and present day people believe in. As for God’s existence "not being dependent upon a contingent being", IF, as is hypothesised, the universe is itself eternal the concept of a Necessary Being of any sort is irrelevant. And, for all your talk about the lack of absolute knowledge in science, it is philosophy which is dependent upon the evolving understandings of science for its world-view. And if the scientific knowledge does not support the philosophical argument based upon it the latter fails - as did Aristotle's concept of a geocentric universe when science proved the heliocentric universe.
Second scientific knowledge goes nowhere without philosophy holding its hand, this quote will be posted again.
" Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
—Daniel Dennett, ‘Darwins Dangerous Idea’
Science goes nowhere without the philosophy that underpins it, so unless you have something to show me otherwise I will continue to argue what I’m arguing now.
And how is one supposed to alter ones genetically encoded instincts?
I’m constantly bemused at the importance given by certain theists to a novelist who reached his peak 70 years ago.
But we don’t know theism is true.
Drinking water is demonstrably necessary for survival; the existence of magical spirits is NOT demonstrably true.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be the case; and the most primitive thing of all, I surmise, is that we still cling to the superseded mythical notion of gods and spirits.
Empirically tested science doesn’t claim it can lead to all knowledge. But knowledge-claims about the natural world cannot be shown to be true without it.
So you and your word-games didn't do so good there, more to the point.
Evolved, genetically encoded “instinct” is not the same as saying we are “forced to believe things”.
Your carefully selected quote is misleading. It is not representative of his typical thinking whereas you seemed to be suggesting it was.
Theism most probably IS false and regarding lack of ultimate purpose, there’s no reason why we can’t enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts. I do. I feel sorry for those who need the fantasy of life eternal to give the present meaning.
//Extraordinary how you can totally miss the most salient feature of Camus:
Then why are you using Camus at all? In no way does he support your world-view, quite the reverse. He considers it absurd.
Of course there are. But, again, one does not base an assessment of the human condition upon the pathological exceptions to the norm.
The point you've missed in your continual attempt to filter everything your absolutist mindset, is that survival is an evolved instinct of all living creatures from earthworms to babies. It has nothing to do with intrinsic worth per se.
Nor is the prime imperative of survival dependent upon what humans believe.
Whatever that means…
“Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” - Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
There are NO absolute truths, except ones we define to be true such as 1+1=2.
The nearest we can get to absolute truths are the established theories of science which have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt; the laws and constants of the universe have been verified to date and appear to exist throughout the entire universe.
Possibly but unlikely! And, more to the point there’s no viable alternative. Theism is entirely unsupported by any substantiated evidence.
Theism is supported by great evidence, you just have to ditch that verificationist nonsense.
If you think, without substantiated evidence, that “theism is true”, then your “metaphysical optimism” is merely metaphysical delusion - or at best, metaphysical wishful thinking.
Anyways you need to defeat the arguments against Theism before handwaving it away. So far you haven’t done so, and this is why I’m optimisitic about Theism, it’s because the alternatives have garbage explanations that hardly anyone ever wants to defend, and because Theism has much more simplicity, coherency, explanatory scope and power than everything else.
Comment