Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[JimL]

You're agnostic? Kant was troubled by the argument for a soul - since he realised that there could not be an emperical representation that fits the object we think ourselves to be in inner experience. He said some things:

Do you think that animals also feel themselves to be other than their material bodies. The idea, the meme of souls, has been impressed upon human minds from time immemorial and so we feel it to be the case. But if you stop and think about it, there is actually no reason to believe in such a thing. It's like the idea, the meme of gods, which has also been impressed upon the minds of human beings from time immemorial and we feel it because we believe it, but again, when you stop to think about it, other than this hard wired meme, there is no actual underlying evidence of its existence, no actual reason to believe what we might feel.

However, for experience we must think of ourselves as such an object. If it is an illusion, it is, according to him, a necessary one.

Necessary for what reason?

However, that necessity also does not disprove the possibility of its existence. An empirical representation would be sufficient to show that we have one, the lack of an empirical representation, isn't sufficient to show that we do not have one. Agnosticism is the safest bet.

Lack of an empirical representation may not be sufficient to show that we don't have souls, but, it's good reason to believe that we don't.

[carpedm9587]

That goes back to my reply to Chrawnus, i.e. that what it feels like is not evidence of what it is. I think that perhaps part of the reason one may feel that way, i.e that they are something other than their material body, is because it's what their brain was taught to feel.

So, out of curiosity, what evidence about "mind" do you accept? I cannot see any avenue other than to have people tell you what they are feeling/experiencing.

[carpedm9587]

without any connotations. You are very good at helping people.

--

Btw, I am sorry if my language has become too offensive - this extends to other too. I want to knock people out of their ivory tower of assumptions and certainties, not actually offend a group of people about which my comments are not even in the slightest. Brash is maybe not the best approach - but it's so incredibly frustrating to have 'not objectively verifiable evidence' leveled at everything, or 'science says' by authority arguments. Especially when half of these positions are by no means settled.

Anyway, I really should leave after the most recent outburst.

All the best with your situation - thank you for the brief discussion (and 15 years ago).

I have not taken offense at your posts, Zara. Hopefully I have not become so fossilized in my philosophy that I am not open to exploring new avenues and ideas. But I have to admit that there are some roads I took such pains to explore, going back and re-exploring doesn't hold any attraction for me. For example, I cannot imagine any argument anyone might make about the existence of "god" or "gods" that would lead me back to being theistic in my views. I have explored the most common ones and did so beginning from the perspective of being theistic. I found them wanting. If there are new ideas, I'll examine them - but most of them usually boil down to being linguistic games, or boil down to shoving god into any space where science or philosophy has not provided alternate answers.

[little_monkey]

...the laws of logic reflect the immutable rational mind of God...

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[carpedm9587]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Nicely said...

[seer]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well then we end up with you - who doesn't believe that the laws of logic are absolute. Which makes your above claim specious at best since the law of non-contradiction is not immutable.

[seer]

Nicely said...

No, no it wasn't. As we have discussed Carp we all believe a lot of things based on assertion.

[carpedm9587]

No, no it wasn't. As we have discussed Carp we all believe a lot of things based on assertion.

Yes, it was. When there is no choice, we must accept things based on assertion (basic laws of reason, foundational principals of mathematics). Even these, however, are not "without evidence." The evidence for them is all around us every day. What we cannot do is construct a rigorous, logical proof for them without getting caught in circularity.

That reality does not thereby create an open door to simply accept any proposition we wish without evidence. If you go down that path, you have no argument against the person who says "Unicorns exist" or "the FSM exists" or "Harry Potter is a historical narrative." Accepting something as self-evident must be constrained to the necessary - not the wishful thinking. When it is not a necessary proposition, adequate evidence or a logical proof should be provided.

[little_monkey]

Well then we end up with you - who doesn't believe that the laws of logic are absolute. Which makes your above claim specious at best since the law of non-contradiction is not immutable.

When people use double or triple negatives I have a feeling they don't know what they're talking about.

There's nothing absolute about the rules of logic - they are a creation of the human mind, and as such they have limited applicability. Why you would want to hang those rules on a fictional entity like deity seems to be sheer desperation. BTW, the word "law" in science is descriptive, not prescriptive - why I use the rules of logic rather than the laws of logic.

[seer]

Yes, it was. When there is no choice, we must accept things based on assertion (basic laws of reason, foundational principals of mathematics). Even these, however, are not "without evidence." The evidence for them is all around us every day. What we cannot do is construct a rigorous, logical proof for them without getting caught in circularity.

Well you could not demonstrate that the laws of logic were absolute with your discussion with Little Monkey butt could you.

That reality does not thereby create an open door to simply accept any proposition we wish without evidence. If you go down that path, you have no argument against the person who says "Unicorns exist" or "the FSM exists" or "Harry Potter is a historical narrative." Accepting something as self-evident must be constrained to the necessary - not the wishful thinking. When it is not a necessary proposition, adequate evidence or a logical proof should be provided.

[seer]

When people use double or triple negatives I have a feeling they don't know what they're talking about.

There's nothing absolute about the rules of logic - they are a creation of the human mind, and as such they have limited applicability. Why you would want to hang those rules on a fictional entity like deity seems to be sheer desperation. BTW, the word "law" in science is descriptive, not prescriptive - why I use the rules of logic rather than the laws of logic.

Are the laws of logic absolute or not? If not then the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily hold universally, which makes your musing or conclusions meaningless...

[carpedm9587]

Well you could not demonstrate that the laws of logic were absolute with your discussion with Little Monkey butt could you.

We can provide evidence - but any rigorous proof gets us caught up in a circular argument. Indeed, even the evidence, pushed with the inevitable "but why" will get caught in a circular argument. However, if we do not make the assumption that they are, then we are done. We cannot say anything about anything. So we accept them as universally and absolutely true prima facie - until someone shows that there is an exception.

Except a creator God is not on that level.

Ummm...yes, it is. It is not a requirement to accept this as true. It requires evidence and/or a proof.

None of the arguments for god work or conclusively prove the existence of this god. And the statement was not that there are good proofs for the FSM - it was that opening the door to accepting anything on the basis of an assertion would leave you with no grounds to complain about the assertion that the FSM exists.

No one takes that seriously, many people, perhaps the majority of human kind take the idea of a Creator seriously.

So now you are arguing that truth is based on popular vote? There are many things that the majority of humanity "took seriously" over the course of our history that turned out to be wrong. There is no basis for accepting the claim "many people take it seriously" as an indicator of its correctness.

And as we have discussed in the past Carp what men see as evidence or accept as good evidence or evidence at all is rather arbitrary. And how do you know that such a creator God is not necessary? Where is your evidence for this belief?

How do you know that the FSM is not neccesary, Seer? Can you provide evidence for this belief?

The point is, we only accept prima facie that which we must in order to proceed. If the laws of logic are not absolute/universal, I am dead in the water and cannot say anything about anything. There is no such result from not accepting "this creator god exists." It does not impede my ability to frame arguments or examine evidence one iota.

[seer]

We can provide evidence - but not a rigorous proof. without getting caught in a circular argument. However, if we do not make the assumption that they are, then we are done. We annot say anything about anything. So we accept them as universally and absolutely true prima facie - until someone shows that there is an exception.

Who accepts that they are universal and absolute? Little Monkey certainly doesn't, so obviously your arguments were not convincing.

Ummm...yes, it is. It is not a requirement to accept this as true. It requires evidence and/or a proof.

There are many good arguments for the existence of God Carp, there are 20 in the link. You may not find them convincing, but what does that mean? Does the fact that Monkey Butt doesn't find your arguments for logical absolutes convincing mean that these absolutes don't exist?

https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-m...-existence.htm

None of the arguments for god work or conclusively prove the existence of this god. And the statement was not that there are good proofs for the FSM - it was that opening the door to accepting anything on the basis of an assertion would leave you with no grounds to complain about the assertion that the FSM exists.

Except we all know that no one really believes in the FSM, no one offers rational arguments for the FSM. If they did, those arguments would end up looking much like the classical arguments for God.

So now you are arguing that truth is based on popular vote? There are many things that the majority of humanity "took seriously" over the course of our history that turned out to be wrong. There is no basis for accepting the claim "many people take it seriously" as an indicator of its correctness.

No, I'm saying that we KNOW that the FSM is completely made up. You may believe that the Christian God for instance is completely made up, but you don't know that as we know with the FSM.

How do you know that the FSM is not neccesary, Seer? Can you provide evidence for this belief?

Because we KNOW that the FSM was made up by Bobby Henderson.

The point is, we only accept prima facie that which we must in order to proceed. If the laws of logic are not absolute/universal, I am dead in the water and cannot say anything about anything. There is no such result from not accepting "this creator god exists." It does not impede my ability to frame arguments or examine evidence one iota.

Obviously Little Monkey doesn't think we are dead in the water...

[shunyadragon]

Are the laws of logic absolute or not? If not then the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily hold universally, which makes your musing or conclusions meaningless...

Ultimately the the laws of logic and law of non-contradiction are absolute. IF God exists they reside with God, I believe God exists, but IF God does not exist the ultimate law of non-contradiction is absolute with the Laws of Nature, and both are possible. The problem with the laws of logic, and the law of non-contradiction, from the human perspective it is not absolute, because it will always be subject to human assumptions and the limits of our knowledge,

Logic is useful as is science, but it will never be absolute from the fallible human perspective.

The logical arguments for the existence of God require subjective assumptions that may not true nor universally accepted. If all the assumptions are true then of course God exists, but from the human perspective it cannot be proven. Non-believers will not accept the arguments, because they do not accept the theist assumptions, and consider the arguments circular, and thus consider them flawed.

[carpedm9587]

Who accepts that they are universal and absolute?

I do. Most of the people I know and would describe as "rational" do. But, of course, that too is "circular" because the definition of rational is "based on or in conformance with reason or logic."0

Little Monkey certainly doesn't, so obviously your arguments were not convincing.

LM has an odd notion of what these concepts represent. Assuming they are "universal" and "absolute" doesn't mean I assume everyone else accepts it - and what LM does or does not accept is neither here nor there to the arguments being made. If LM does not accept these concepts as universal/absolute, then the rational course for those of us who do is not to engage in logical arguments with him.

There are many good arguments for the existence of God Carp, there are 20 in the link. You may not find them convincing, but what does that mean?

It means I find them logically flawed.

Does the fact that Monkey Butt doesn't find your arguments for logical absolutes convincing mean that these absolutes don't exist?

Nope.

https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-m...-existence.htm

I've seen them.

Except we all know that no one really believes in the FSM, no one offers rational arguments for the FSM. If they did, those arguments would end up looking much like the classical arguments for God.

Again, you missed the point. I'll let you go back and read it. You are arguing against a position I did not take.

No, I'm saying that we KNOW that the FSM is completely made up. You may believe that the Christian God for instance is completely made up, but you don't know that as we know with the FSM.

Seer, you may believe it - but you can no more "show" it than I could prove the FSM actually exists. That's the basic point of the FSM argument.

Because we KNOW that the FSM was made up by Bobby Henderson.

And that proves what? Perhaps BH had a revelation you are not privy to.

Obviously Little Monkey doesn't think we are dead in the water...

What LM does or does not think is largely irrelevant to my points.