Conversations with atheists
page 8From RD to AM:
>>>>>>> That is because the underlying presuppositions
of atheism are self-contradictory.
that's just YOUR underlying presupposition, based on your
presupposition that there is a god.....
R
From AM to RD:
R,
That's a result of the analysis of atheism based on logic. (at this
point I referred him to check out a lengthy message I had just written,
which you will find on page 10) Then read Clark's Thales to Dewey
if you want to see the total deconstruction of atheism.
(1)
Alan
From AM to AZ:
> Just as a method check, I assume that you wouldn't mind running the theistic case through the same dialectic in parallel with the atheistic case. Right? <
First I would like to find an atheist here who is really willing to seriously face up to the implications of his world view.
You may not like the implications of Hume and Kant for your position, but that does not constitute a refutation. And a refutation is what is required if atheism is going to be shown to be rational.
Alan (still looking for a rational account of knowledge from an atheist)
From B2 to AM:
> Alan (still looking for a rational account of knowledge from an atheist)<
You will never find one, nor will you hear from them the answer to how
existence exists or for that matter, big bang theory, well, what gave birth
to the space?
With love and peace in Christ,
B2
From LA to Alan M:
> First I would like to find an atheist here who is really willing to seriously face up to the implications of his world view. <
Wait, aren't you the guy that ducked everything I said?
LA (or did you just not sense me?)
From B to AM:
>>>>First I would like to find an atheist here who is really
willing to seriously face up to the implications of his world view.<<<<
As if these "implications" are tremendously horrific. Is that the implication here? Let's see:
All the atheists I know don't come knocking on my door trying to "convert" me to atheism.
All the atheists I know have a sharp sense of human worth.
All the atheists I know have a concern for humanity.
All the atheists I know face the same problems as anyone else.
All the atheists I know can laugh, cry, be hurt, be joyful, be angry, be sad, hope, dream, and enjoy life...just like anyone else. (2)
All the atheists I know have no problem with a church on the corner of the block, or a synagogue across from it, or a temple down the street. It's only when the church and the synagogue and the temple get together and decide their "world view" (whatever the *** it may be) is superior to that of an atheist (because the atheist cannot possibly be anywhere near as moral and virtuous and compassionate toward the lot of mankind) and therefore must become legislatively significant. (3)
>>>> (still looking for a rational account of knowledge from an atheist)<<<<
What is your criteria for a "rational account"? (4)
>>>> And a refutation is what is required if atheism is going to be shown to be rational.<<<<<
Here's what I understand from the atheists I know. They are free to refine or modify this as is appropriate:
A) There is no demonstrable "proof" of a deity. It is not possible to "prove"
a negative.
(5)
B) Lacking "proof", this is often coupled with a lack of motivation (not
a negative implication) to gravitate toward asserting belief in what is not
demonstrable. It may be due to a reluctance to build speculation upon what
is by default a speculative assertion.
C) For some atheists, the notion of any deity resembling in any form
a likeness to human beings is at best specious. This alone is usually not
the sole basis for atheism, however.
To me, atheism is a rational position from the standpoint it bases itself largely in a lack of evidence for a deity. Given the lack of evidence, it would not be logical, from a purely thinking perspective, to build supposition upon essentially nothing. One might look around him and build supposition from what does exist, such as the trees and the stars and so forth, but is that not as empirical as the assent of an atheist who declares there is not sufficient evidence to "prove" God?
Also, one must remember a literal definition of the term "atheist"....a*theist...."a" meaning "non" or "neutral" and "theist" as one holding a system of belief regarding a deity or gods. So, an atheist is essentially one who holds to no theism, no firm assertion as to the nature of a deity. That would satisfy me, personally, if I could successfully quell the notion that there just "might be" something out there. However, even so I am not motivated at this time to adopt any form of theism to explain such a possibility.
B
From LA to AM:
> I prefer to challenge the atheist's rules at the outset.
Stacking the deck in favor of this "god" thing.
> This seems to indicate that your system includes (or depends on) the belief that there is such a thing as scientific knowledge. <
Oh cute. I love this game. Deny the existence of the very thing enabling you to type the denial on.
> What I am referring to is one who believes that no knowledge is possible because he recognizes that on the basis of pure empiricism no knowledge can be justified. <
Yeah. If you want to sit around and pontificate like the religious have for millennia and debate how many angels can dance on a pin maybe. In the world of pontificating patriarchs the choice of axioms is arbitrary. But in the real world selectionism is the rule. Knowledge is acquired by a selectionist process.
> But not all starting points are of equal value.
Right. And naturalism has produced. The evidence is under your fingers as you type your posts and in front of your face as you read mine. The more we take the naturalist view, the more results we see. Religion has never produced anything comparable. (6)
LA
From LA to Alan M:
> But my problem is, if you are right and I am wrong, then when we both
die we will simply slip into oblivion with our last breath. However,
if I am correct and you are not, then you face a most unpleasant future
as you will stand before God and give an account for your sins without the
benefit of Christ's sacrifice to atone for them. Personally, I do
not want to see that happen to you and as I am convinced that Jesus is your
only hope, you will understand why I at least have to press the issue to
some degree. <
Pascal's dead, give the poor man a rest.
You seem to like logic. Try this. The wager is seriously flawed. It posits only a single alternative to the atheist viewpoint. And does so for purely cultural reasons. Why is the Judeo-Christian belief the only alternative to atheism? If we admit the possibility of "god," on what basis (other than cultural prejudice) are all the other human beliefs excluded? (7)
I see no reason, for example, to accept a deity that has only a five century tenure on this continent and was established as the dominant deity here by conquest and genocide. Given the historical context, I'd hazard that if we grant for purpose of argument that the Judeo-Christian god of Euro-Americans exists, we'd likely conclude he's a deceitful being who will promise anything to get what he wants (well, look what his followers did to get the land). So the wager gets complicated.
How do we know this Yahweh isn't some usurper who's just temporarily gotten the upper hand? Maybe one of the deities that's been here a long time is the right one and this is just some dark age while evil runs rampant but will lose in the end. So one "hedges" their "bet" and, on dying, finds that they picked the wrong deity!
Oops.
Or what about all the gods the human species has discarded along the way? What if one of them (or several even) are the Real Gods and humanity is apostate for abandoning them? What if you die, believing in Jesus, only to be face to face with Zeus? Or Mithra? Or somebody so forgotten we don't even have records anymore? Or what if the Wiccans are right? Or the Aztecs? Or even just the Jews? I mean, according to the faith that Christianity originated from, Jesus was not the messiah and, well, that makes his promises to "save" people rather hollow eh?
So how do you deal with the plethora of gods that may or may not be awaiting us on "the other side?" You present a choice between atheism and Yahweh/Yeshua. But it's not that simple. If you're going to reduce "faith" to opportunistic bet hedging, there are a lot of bases to cover. Even bases you can never cover because there are religions in human history that are now just flat gone and cannot be reconstructed. Maybe one of them was right and we're all doomed regardless.
Further, what kind of god would honor such opportunism? And would you want a deity that would honor such a belief of convenience? Doesn't sound like much of a god to me.
LA
From IL to AM:
Message text written by Alan Myatt
>This seems to indicate that your system includes (or depends on) the belief that there is such a thing as scientific knowledge. We will come back to this point later.<
Why?
Is there something that is wrong with testable theories?
I must wonder if there is no such thing as scientific knowledge how we are managing this conversation. As much as I try, I have to use electricity to power my machine, it never activates when I pray.
>> It is difficult for me to imagine then, under what circumstances even the staunchest empiricist/atheist could allow the fundamental assumption that the universe is all there is to be challenged by the evidence. He would always find a naturalistic explanation (no mater how implausible) because he has set up the rules of the discussion in such a way that that is the only type of explanation possible. <<
Golly, I've got to admit that I don't see any scientists declaring the unprovable as fact. Can you provide an example of such which is accepted by the scientific community? (8)
>> However, if I am correct and you are not, then you face a most unpleasant future as you will stand before God and give an account for your sins without the benefit of Christ's sacrifice to atone for them. Personally, I do not want to see that happen to you and as I am convinced that Jesus is your only hope, you will understand why I at least have to press the issue to some degree.<<
Oh. Is that all?
Well, not to worry Alan, God and I talked all about it and She tells me that the whole concept that any person has discovered the only right answer is too laughable to consider. So, the thought is appreciated but just ain't needed.
Don't take my word for it, I wouldn't presume to claim such knowledge, but I know you'll honor God's word.
>> The Christian God is not just a warm fuzzy, a teddy bear that you clutch in the night when you are afraid of the dark. He is, in fact, very awesome and threatening.<<
No, not true. God tells me that She really ain't so bad. so, given the choice, I'm sure you'll understand why I must trust God in this.
>> He will have to admit that he is a sinner and that he deserves God's judgment and punishment. He can no longer be a freethinker if that is taken to mean free to believe anything you want. <<
Wow, you could only be more wrong if you continued to post more.
>> R. C. Sproul wrote an interesting book . . .<<
Well, what do you know. You managed.
>>Certainly there are many benefits to being a Christian. In particular I would assert that being a critical thinker is an essential aspect of developing a Christian mind. I just wanted to point out that the God the Christian serves is not one who exists for the comfort of the believer.<<
After applying critical thinking to you post I have concluded that it is
not accurate.
--IL (glad that's settled)
From AM to J: (note - this post was given earlier but I repeated it here to provide a convenient context for the following responses)
Hi J,
>>Why a rational alternative? A leprechaun believers demand to produce a rational alternative to "leprechaun belief" by no means upholds the rationality of arguments supportive of that belief. <<
No, not about leprechauns anyway, although if a non-leprechaun believer could not construct a coherent theory of a leprechanless world I would be inclined to at least consider the possibility that they might exist. But seriously, one can hardly put the Triune Creator God of the Bible on the same level as leprechauns. The existence of leprechauns might be an interesting curiosity if it turned out to be true, but I think the modifications it would require in your world view could probably be accomodated without radically altering it. On the other hand, if there is a God, then the structure of ultimate reality as you understand it is fundamentally in error. It would call for a reconstruction of your world view of the most radical kind imaginable. The stakes are much, much higher. Atheists are constantly accusing Christians of buying into an irrational belief. Well, I think if they reject belief in God because they are committed to rationality, then they should be able to show how the notion of a universe where there is no God can be rationally defended. Otherwise they need not imagine that they are somehow holding to a more intellectually defensible position than the Christian.
Back to the issue of presuppositions, I agree and disagree with you. I agree that atheists are a varied lot and I have spent some time taking to atheists of various types. Atheists have different world views in some respects, however, I think that the postulation of atheism necessarily involves certain common presuppositions. So one may be an existentialist, a pragmatist, a logical positivist, etc, each with a different world view, yet operating on common assumptions that follow necessarily from atheism. I would like to see the atheist examine the implications of those presuppositions. That's all.
Alan
From LA to AM:
> But seriously, one can hardly put the Triune Creator God of the Bible on the same level as leprechauns. <
Why? Because you happen to believe in one but not the other? (9)
> Well, I think if they reject belief in God because they are committed to rationality, then they should be able to show how the notion of a universe where there is no God can be rationally defended. <
So we're about to go into the prove the negative game eh? No dice. You have the extraordinary claim about your imaginary friend of unusual size, you prove he exists. (10)
LA
From IL to AM:
Message text written by Alan Myatt
>No, not about leprechauns anyway, although if a non-leprechaun believer could not construct a coherent theory of a leprechanless world I would be inclined to at least consider the possibility that they might exist. But seriously, one can hardly put the Triune Creator God of the Bible on the same level as leprechauns.<
True, leprechauns have better press.
--IL (and they're magically delicious)
From LA to IL:
> True, leprechauns have better press.
They're much cuter too!
LA (almost as much as the bunnies... almost)
From IL to AM:
Message text written by Alan Myatt
> Atheists are constantly accusing Christians of buying into an irrational belief. Well, I think if they reject belief in God because they are committed to rationality, then they should be able to show how the notion of a universe where there is no God can be rationally defended.<
Everyone knows the Great Bird created all.
Please detail a rational universe where the Great Bird did not create all.
--IL (kids today)
From AM to IL:
That's easy. It's the universe that the Triune God of the Bible created.
God's grace be with you,
Alan
From IL to AM:
Message text written by Alan Myatt
>That's easy. It's the universe that the Triune God of the Bible
created.<<
BZZZZZZZT!
Wrong answer. how do I know - easy - God told me so.
>God's grace be with you,<
Always is. how do I know? God tells me so.
--IL (though it does get amusing when we eat out)
From CSE to QB:
"What if God were one of us....
Just a stranger on a bus...."
From QB to CSE:
"What if God were one of us....
Just a stranger on a bus...."
Would he give up his seat for someone more needy? Or would he be standing to start with?
Cheers,
QB
From CD to CSE:
>"What if God were one of us.... Just a stranger on a bus...."<
If God is on the bus, you have an imposter on your hands.
God is the driver, or it's no game. <g>
CD
From CSE to CD:
CSE >"What if God were one of us.... Just a stranger on a bus...."<
CD: >>>"If God is on the bus, you have an imposter on
your hands. God is the driver, or it's no game. <g>"<<<
Why? <s>
CSE
From CD to CSE:
>CSE >"What if God were one of us.... Just a stranger on a bus...."<
CD: >>>"If God is on the bus, you have an imposter on your hands. God is the driver, or it's no game. <g>"<<<
CSE > Why? <s>>
CD: If God is; then we are taking a creator, a creator of the universe.
This my dear CSE is no mean player. We are not talking about a super Secretary
General for mankind, but the CREATOR of all things. If you like, God is the
bus, the highway, the destination and the driver.
So if the lady sitting behind you and me gets up and proclaims her Godhead,
we had better hang on to our wallets, because it's a scam for certain. LOL
by the way computer keyboards, don't wear out that easily, two words or the second flood, next time? <S>
Yours CD
From Alan M to CD:
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to that the atheists in this forum don't even understand what the concept of the Christian God is, much less have a valid argument against his existence.
Alan
From LA to AM:
> I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to that the atheists in this forum don't even understand what the concept of the Christian God is, much less have a valid argument against his existence. <
Talk about presumptions. Some of the atheists of this forum--this atheist of this forum is one--were christian. I understand the concepts (note the plural) of the christian god. I was raised with one such.
Also, I think you're missing the point that the atheist position isn't really "god does not exist" but more "I don't accept that god exists." Some atheists (of what is sometimes called the "strong" atheist position) do say the former. But even then, getting into splitting hairs, they're asserting that they find it highly improbable that god idea X has any validity.
Personally, I find the christian god concept (in general) to be too self-contradictory to be a valid theory. And the issue tends to turn on the very slippery idea of "free will" and whether the universe is deterministic (which I suspect it is though I don't care for the idea and have some reason to doubt but realize this could be an issue of perception and, IAC, the experience is that it is not... muddled issue that one).
But the burden is on the one who makes the claim. My position is I'm just not persuaded.
LA
From CD to AM:
Alan,
>>I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to that the atheists in this forum don't even understand what the concept of the Christian God is, much less have a valid argument against his existence.<<
Always smile at atheists, they are only believers, who don't know where they are, yet.
CD
From IL to AM:
Message text written by Alan Myatt
>It appears to that the atheists in this forum don't even understand what the concept of the Christian God is, much less have a valid argument against his existence. <
Actually it would appear that you have not realized the concept or reality of God.
How do I know? Easy - god told me.
--LA (therefore, god must be right)
From RD to AM:
>>>>> I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to that the atheists in this forum don't even understand what the concept of the Christian God is,
how can we when so many of the alleged christians here keep
telling us THEIR god is the only one (and yet they cant agree among themselves!)
>>>>>> much less have a valid argument against his existence.
who needs an argument against it? all we're asking for is some evidence that SUPPORTS the notion of a god -- ain't seen none so far...
R
From AM to RD:
>all we're asking for is some evidence that SUPPORTS the notion of a god -- aint seen none so far...<
Empiricism AGAIN?, oh no, I'm to tired to rewrite my refutations of empiricism which I previously posted, maybe you can still find them there. Meanwhile, I'm going to bed.
Later,
Alan
From FB to AM:
Message text written by Alan Myatt
>I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to that
the atheists in this forum don't even understand what the concept of the Christian
God is, much less have a valid argument against his existence.
<
Alan,
I think you are mistaken. I believe that the particular atheists on this forum are very familiar with the concept of the Christian god. They simply do not believe in its existence and are waiting for you to provide evidence of your god's existence. At least that's the case with me. However, such evidence cannot be tautological, which is why no such evidence can be presented.
I honor your belief in the existence of a particular supernatural entity, and respect your belief. However, I cannot see the logic of it, despite years of studying Christianity and other religions. As near as I can tell, all gods are creations of mankind...I've seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. Have you some?
FB
From AM to FB:
It is quite clear that many in this forum do not understand what the Christian God is as their arguments reveal so clearly. I just made a lengthy post that states my position, in addition to my earlier posts. 11 I'm to tired to continue right now. I'll check back in here in a week or so.
Alan
***************************
FOOTNOTES
(1)
The reader will please forgive me for referring new discussants to previous
messages, but eventually I began getting so many responses to my posts that
it became physically impossible to respond to them all individually.
And it does grow tiresome, having to repeat my arguments over again to those
who entered the debate late. Several of my previous posts address
the question raised here.
(2) Besides representing a rather limited experience of atheists, (obviously not all atheists are this virtuous), this kind of statement is simply irrelevant to the discussion. The implications that B still refuses to face are the philosophical implications of the fact that atheistic presuppositions are self contradictory. And to this point in the discussion, while several have objected to this argument, none have actually shown how atheistic assumptions are not self contradictory.
(3) I think the history of atheist anti-Christian activity in the 20th century shows that atheists can be among the most intolerant people imaginable (chill out atheist reader, I did not say all of you are like that, but certainly bigotry is as prevelant among unbelievers as it is among believers). The systematic slaughter and oppression of millions Christians and people of other faiths by the atheists who have held power in the Soviet Union and China during the 20th century is a case in point. In the United States atheists have at various times used the judicial system and every legal means to supress the first amendment rights of free speech and free exersize of religion of Christians. And this is so to the point that the defacto legal situation in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century is the unconstitutional government enforcement of an official religion of naturalistic humanism. Theistic belief is only tolerated as a "hobby" that people have in their private lives. Those of us on the other side of this battle simply are not impressed with this kind of nonsense. We've seen all too often the "virtue" and "tolerance" of the activist atheist.
(4) I was surprised and frustrated at this statement, since a reading of my posted messages makes this quite clear. For the record, however, a rational account would be a theory of knowledge whose axioms do not lead to self-contradictory conclusions, and which would justify the metaphysical assumptions necessary to support the validity of empirical knowledge and the scientific method. So far, no atheist in this discussion even made the attempt.
(5) Actually, this is quite wrong. I can prove a negative, for example, John is not at home, simply by proving a contradictory proposition; i.e., by proving that John is at the park. There are logical forms for arguments of this nature. B's assertion would mean that the logical form P or not-P could not be solved. But clearly this is in error. I can prove not-P simply by showing that P cannot be the case. B's assertion that a negative cannot be proven is a strategy designed to get the atheist off the hook by shifting the burden of proof to the theist. This is just a cop-out. Since a negative can be proven by proving the impossibility of the positive, it is incumbent upon the atheist to establish the rationality of his position by disproving the existence of God. Despite their protests to the contrary, they know in their hearts that they must do so, otherwise, why do they spill so much ink in books and articles attacking the Christian concept of God? The appropriate theistic response is to attack atheism, exposing its irrationality, and thus prove Christian theism by showing the impossibility of the contradictory.
(6) Here again is the assumption that naturalism is the same thing as the scientific method. They are not identical, however. It is true that the scientific method has produced very much, and what the atheist has to come to grips with is that at no time did philosophical naturalism, as a world view, produce the scientific method. It is a well documented historical fact that modern science and the methods it uses are a product of the Christian world view prevelant in Western Europe from the middle ages through the Reformation. Naturalism did not prevail as the assumption behind most science until well into the 19th century. Numerous books have documented this, but probably the best one is Stanley Jaki, Science & Creation: from eternal cycles to an oscillating universe.
(7) That is a good question, and it is answered (in a nutshell) by noting that there are only two real possibilities about the ultimate origin and nature of the universe. Either the origin of the universe is due to a personal Being who is distinct from and prior to it, with a rational purpose, hence making ultimate reality personal, or the origin of the universe is impersonal and non purposive (i.e. random chance), meaning that ultimate reality is impersonal. All forms of atheism, agnosticism, pantheism and most polytheisms (including Mormonism and other "theisms" like the ancient Greek, Norse, etc. that posit merely finite gods) reduce to the view that ultimate reality is impersonal, meaning that the various world view differences between them or between various types of atheism are really mere in-house disagreements among those whose most basic assumptions are the same. Hence, a refutation of these basic assumptions is sufficient to refute them all. This leaves us with those who hold to a personal beginning for the universe; namely the religious heirs to the judeo-Christian tradition. As to why none of the other gods that humans believe in are candidates, the Christian will argue that in order to preserve a truly personal ultimate, there must by a diversity of persons in the unity of the Being of the One God. In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to sustain a truly personal ultimate. This eliminates the monisms of other religions (the monism behind African derived religions such as Candomblé, the monism of Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) because they necessitate that God be reduced to an element, along with the rest of the universe, existing against the backdrop of a larger and impersonal Being in general. Hence, in the end the argument leads us to either the Christian God of the Bible or else complete irrationalism and chaos.
(8) If anyone wants to see examples of atheists declaring the unprovable as fact then one need only read the works of Carl Sagan, and various others who write popular literature purporting to be scientific while making all kinds of philosophical and metaphysical pronouncements that are beyond the pale of scientific proof. Sagan's assertion in Cosmos that the "cosmos is all there is, all there ever has been, and all there ever will be" is just one of the many examples of this kind of statement. One has to wonder if these guys have actually ever done any reading of the works of their own best known defenders.
(9) No, because the two concepts are so radically different that this kind of comparison is simply invalid. The difference is at the most fundamental level of the nature of being, as explained in my post.
(10) No, I did not ask them to prove that there is no God. I asked them to show that the assumptions necessarily involved in the notion that there is no God can form the basis of a rational world view. Does it seem too much to ask that they who claim to disbelieve because they think religion is irrational show that their own position is itself rational? I find it amusing that this is the same atheist who accused me of ducking everything he said!
(11)
The post refered to is reproduced on page 10.
Alan Myatt, Ph.D.
www.pobox.com/~myatt
