Some Hot Tea for Russell's Pot
Among the many amateur philosophical stunts pulled by Richard Dawkins in his rage against God is the use of a quip made by 1920's atheist Bertrand Russell, known as his “parable of the celestial tea pot.”[i] This story, as we shall see, is meant to prove that even though the existence of God cannot be disproved, it is still far from likely. This warms Dawkins’s heart, because while he admits that one cannot completely disprove the existence of God, there is still no good reason to take Him seriously, any more than there is reason to believe in a “flying spaghetti monster” or an “invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn.”[ii] He relies on Russell to demonstrate this. I will show you why Russell’s “tea pot” is cracked and leaking.
Here is the story as Russell told it, and as Dawkins affirms it:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."[iii]
Why Russell chose a tea pot from among all of the possible silly images he could have produced, I don’t know, but considering some of the ‘angels’ he hung out with, it was probably part of his daily repertoire — and he probably held out his pinky finger when he sipped.[iv] Keeping in fashion, Russell’s argument is as fragile as its dainty subject.
One of the silliest fallacies that is circulating among the atheists — in fact, one of their staple arguments these days — is found in this attempt to shift the “burden of proof” in the debate over God’s existence. It is becoming more and more popular — and one can understand why — for the atheists to assume from the start that their atheistic worldview is the norm, and that any theistic claim is a deviation that must be “proven” (of course, what constitutes proof will be a factor, which we will deal with below). “Atheism” it is claimed, is not a worldview in itself, but merely the common-sense denial of the alleged “additional” and “extraordinary” belief in a god, over and above the natural world that we experience. It is time to dismantle this pure word game, and expose the shivering worldview that cowers behind it.
The Matter of the Matter
Russell’s intellectual ingenuity was almost certainly a product of the stalwart educational foundations he laid for himself during his university years. Part of an elite secret intellectual society at Cambridge — the “Apostles” — Russell would meet for late night discussions with the most brilliant minds of the era. Among intellectual giants the likes of John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Alfred North Whitehead, Russell expanded his mind debating such head-scratchers as, “Does Youth Approve of Age?,” “Ought the Father to Grow a Beard?,” and “Is this an Awkward Age?”[v] An historian of the era recounts with candor, “It was that early Edwardian failing of the Apostles trying to be clever for the sake of being clever and often when there was nothing to be clever about.”[vi] It’s no wonder that Russell produced such forceful blows at God as his “celestial teapot.” One lump, Lord Keynes? Or two?
But there was a real philosophical shortcoming among Russell’s group. One of their influential peers, G. E. Moore, delivered a paper boasting their ultimate belief: “In the beginning was matter, and matter begat the devil, and the devil begat God.”[vii] Here is the underlying force of Russell’s atheism: the classic belief of “materialism,” that nothing exists except matter. Since God is by definition immaterial, therefore He can’t exist. Very simple, isn’t it? Just define your universe so that it can hold no God, and voila, God cannot exist. Words are so powerful!
With this as his background, Moore went on to argue that “then there was the death, first of God, then of the devil, and matter was left as it was in the beginning.”[viii] Even if Moore was talking tongue-in-cheek, it shows the utter circularity of the materialistic worldview. If all you have in the beginning is matter, then that’s all you will ever have — and you can bet that’s the way the atheist wants it.
Well, perhaps this view fits the atheist’s wishes, but it says very little about his philosophical rigor. With the phrase, “In the beginning . . .” taken right from the Bible, Moore reveals to us that the materialistic worldview, which is almost universally assumed by atheists today, is no less a claim of faith than the opening sentence of Holy Writ. And while the atheists pretend that their alleged “scientific” worldview is the norm, and thus superior to the Christian’s, they cannot even consistently answer the most fundamental questions that arise for their own system: where do laws come from? Is there ultimate justice? Why even care about justice? Why is murder, theft, rape, etc., wrong? What exactly is reason? Is it material? It’s no wonder that the historian to wrote this account of Moore and Russell, et al, concluded saying, “They thought they were the equal of the German philosophers, yet none of them were in the same class.”[ix]
Once the atheist’s ultimate assumption of materialism is exposed, then the claim that atheism is not a worldview in itself becomes a tea-time chuckle. It only removes the philosophical argument one step. The theist may simply reply, “Ok, supposing I grant your definition of atheism, please tell me why you adhere to this definition.” If pushed to reveal the standard by which he judges that atheism is the norm, the atheist will ultimately have to reveal his materialism at its root. If he does not, then he proves he either has little philosophical training, or is not really interested in serious debate. Of course he (or she) will try desperately hard not to admit their materialism, for it signals the philosophical funeral for atheism. You will more likely hear diversions like Dawkins’s: “I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.”[x]
“Like any other”? What does that mean? Push the atheist further, and get him to answer this question. If he is honest and consistent with his materialism, he will admit that he will only accept as “proof” finite, measurable, material evidences, and, of course, anything that is only finite and material is automatically disqualified for consideration as God.
This is the evasive failure of the materialistic worldview to honestly grapple the existence of God — and yet, this is the standard by which modern atheists are trying to set themselves up as the court which is to decide the matter. Once materialism is assumed up front, there is no sense in debating. In order to accept this as grounds for argument, the theist must methodologically surrender at the outset. Instead, he should point out the underlying assumption, and then combat that assumption, not just the mere word-cloak of the name “atheism,” at least not until that atheism is fully understood.
The God of Tea
It is time for a little more than a sip: here’s a hot dose of reality. Russell’s tea pot argument holds no water at all. It misses the point as widely as it is silly. It may sound at first like it proves a point, but it is intellectual Earl Grey: bland and unexciting.
Russell’s argument was meant to address an issue called the “burden of proof.” If the terms of proof are set as materialistic categories, then the best God you could ever “prove” the existence of would be a materialistic one. As I have written elsewhere, this kind of limitation imposed by unbelief is proof that if you set your bar low enough, you can achieve any philosophical goal.[xi] This procedure simply will not do. It may comfort some atheists while they huddle beneath its perceived philosophical shelter, and it may free us from the fierce cosmic tyranny of orbital teapots, but it says absolutely nothing about the Triune God of Christianity.
This refutation applies equally to a related argument that the modern atheists like to use. They claim that no one believes in the gods of ancient mythology: all (or most) people are, therefore, “atheists” with regard to these gods. The atheists, including Dawkins, boast that they just go “one God further.”[xii] This rhetorical saccharin vaporizes in the boil of real philosophy, and it doesn’t sweeten a thing. It is mere steam from the spout of Russell’s tea pot. It simply places the Christian God in the same category as “Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster,”[xiii] and is thus a categorical and definitional mistake. The object in question requires proof that is commensurate with the nature of the thing in question.
Thus the existence of the God of Christianity cannot be determined by gratuitous parallels to material objects like dizzy tea pots or frightening pasta, and, while we do not have time here to line them all up, the Christian God is also qualitatively and categorically different than any of the pagan gods one can list. We may rightly be “atheists” with regard to ninety-nine fables, and yet completely unjustified in simply going one step further, because that step is qualitatively different than all the others. If you are ninety-nine and a half paces from the edge of a cliff, and stride off the first nine-nine with confidence, would you, therefore, based on mere prior experience, simply take that next step? Or would you take a long hard look at the abyss before you, and consider how different one “leap” of faith can be from another?
It will take more than an attempt to straw-man the definition of God into something farcical and material, and then pretend you’ve ousted God from the universe. We can call this the “straw-god” fallacy. The real philosophical challenge is to disprove an all-powerful God Who created the material universe, upholds it, and thus transcends the material universe. Such a God defies any attempt to measure Him by finite standards,[xiv] or call Him to any finite bar of judgment. For Him to stoop to meet such a standard would be for Him to deny both His Sovereignty and His own existence. The very act of submitting Himself for verification implies that someone else is the ultimate Judge and the ultimate standard.
So, I will hear no more about tea pots. I will consider only arguments that tackle the existence of the kind of God who created tea, and the rest of the world for that matter. Once atheists start to become honest about this issue, then the “burden of proof” will be re-established a bit more squarely, and the debate over God will move from the atheist’s comfortable tea-room of materialism, to the transcendental question that it is.
What does “Probable” Mean?
Dawkins, following Russell, argues that since God is allegedly like this teapot, then even though you can’t disprove His existence, it is still much less likely than it is probable. Dawkins says, “[A]vailable evidence and reason may yield a probability far from 50 per cent.”[xv] We have already seen the fallacy behind Russell’s teapot, which Dawkins is starting with here, so how does the critique of that teapot apply to Dawkins’s conclusion about probability?
Simple. Dawkins’s view of probability is limited and ruled, just like his definition and classification of God, by his materialistic assumptions. It only stands to reason that if you presume a materialistic world at the outset, then the most probable occurrence in that world can only be a materialistic occurrence. But that begs the very question under debate, doesn’t it? Again, Dawkins has merely defined God out of his mental world with mere words. It makes for a nice little chat over tea with an old chap, but not very careful thinking at all.
Rather, probability is something quite different in an materialist universe than it is in a Biblical universe. If the atheist is not allowed to impose his materialistic beliefs on the question of God, then he will have to take seriously the possibility that something other than a materialistic explanation is the most probable one. As Jesus said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26; Luke 18:27). Obviously, if God is denied from the outset, then an explanation that involves God will be not only unlikely, but impossible. But if the atheist’s gratuitous assumptions are kept from ruling the thinking, then it could very well be that the most probable answer is one which involves a supernatural God, and we will have to find a different way of approaching the question than through that very limited range of evidence that we can see, touch, smell, etc.
If the Christian makes the mistake of shifting into the arena of materialistic probability, then they have already subjected the idea of God to a category which denies the very possibility of His existence. Probability, as the scientist calculates it, deals only with empirical, sensory, phenomena. God by definition does not fit into this mold, so talking about Him in such a way which limits Him in those terms, denies Him at the outset. No wonder Russell, Dawkins, and other atheists love to talk about God in such a way. Probability is the devil’s ill-fated prayer, and Dawkins, the self-dubbed “Devil’s Chaplain,” kneels at its mention, chants it in rhythm, and crosses himself with its capital “P.”
Conclusion
Such is the recurring banality of atheism, especially the popular kind represented by Dawkins and others who repeat Russell: they can’t stand God, and so they try to define Him away with mere words. They try to reduce Him to something as superfluous as a celestial tea pot. Minimize Him, scrutinize Him, box Him in, trivialize Him — do whatever they can to suppress the knowledge of Him. They want to put Him in a bottle, like “I dream of genie.” Problem is, the God described in the Bible and throughout Christian tradition is no such character. The attributes ascribed to the Triune God of Scripture require the would-be critic to deal with God as God, and as nothing else. You cannot liken Him to some orbital fantasy, then critique that fantasy, and then pretend you’ve said anything at all meaningful about the God of Scripture. Yet this is exactly the bait-and-switch game that Dawkins plays.
This is just one more reason why, in the end, atheism should not be taken seriously as an intellectual system. It is not very serious thought at all. It is well-trained verbiage, selective propaganda, and well-funded marketing. It is not serious philosophy. It is a philosophical tempest in a teapot.
End Notes:
[i]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006) 51.
[ii]. Dawkins, 53.
[iii]. Quoted in Dawkins, 52.
[iv]. See the chapter “The Higher Sodomy,” in Richard Deacon, The Cambridge Apostles: A History of Cambridge University’s Elite Intellectual Secret Society (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1985) 55-68, though Deacon notes that Russell himself was heterosexual (62).
[v]. Deacon, 71.
[vi]. Deacon, 70.
[vii]. Quoted in Deacon, 69.
[viii]. Deacon, 70.
[ix]. Deacon, 70.
[x]. Dawkins, 50. Italics mine.
[xi]. Joel McDurmon, Manifested in the Flesh (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007) 115.
[xii]. Dawkins, 53.
[xiii]. Dawkins, 53.
[xiv]. I realize that Christian theology would make a qualification of this statement due to Christ, the Incarnation of God.
[xv]. Dawkins, 50.
29 Comments:
What a silly blathering argument you've made. But I'm sure you thought it was brilliant.
Most atheists are materialists because there is no sound evidence for any other view. Show us the evidence for a transcendent reality and we'll take a look. Unlike you, we are not a close-minded and dogmatic lot.
Another problem with your analysis is that this God of yours supposedly created a materialistic universe, performs miracles that cure materialistic cancers, and if prayers are truly answered, then he must be meddling with our materialistic world all the time.
Then it is fair for the scientist and atheist to expect some materialistic evidence for God's existence just as physicists can learn about invisible particles from the trails they leave in a vapor chamber. Unfortunately for you, no such evidence exists.
The burden of proof remains on you, the believer, to prove that this preposterous First Cause exists. Science and reason render Him unecessary for explaining anything from matter to the human mind, and even the nature of ethical behavior.
You are deluded as Dawkins knows.
You believe in the god that you believe in because you were taught to believe in that god. Had you been born in Mumbai or some such you would believe in other gods. The lack of a unified conception of god among human beings is disastrous to Abrahamic theism in particular. The need for coaches (preachers or divinity "students") in matters divine is evidence of the Abrahamic belief systems are nonsense. Only if every human being was born with a god sense and the god senses were all alike would it be practical to accept the notions of Abrahamic theism. Silly column, yours.
This post has been removed by the author.
You're right Joel. Materialism rules in both of these replies. It's a shame that they do not hold their own theories such as "abiogensis" to the same standard.
Jane, a few questions.
1.) Where did Joel say anything about a "First Cause" (even though it is ultimately a valid question)?
2.) What kind of "materialistic evidence for God's existence" do you require?
3.) How do you account for the laws of "Science and Reason" that you appeal to in a athiestic and materialistic worldview? I can account for them in my worldview, but I think you will have trouble doing so.
Ivan,
If what you say is true, then how come all children who are taught by their parents to believe in God don't. There must be another explanation.
Would you hold that a belief in a god is part of a human's genetic makeup? If not, why is it so prevalent? (Let's face it, atheism is a rarity of rarities in human history.)
Hmmm, a lot of puns and wordplay about tea. Couldn't find the bit where
the teapot argument is actually refuted though, must have gone over my head. The teapot argument is
about parsimony and it works like this;
1. The teapot is unobservable
2. No observation in the universe explained by the teapot
3. The presence of the teapot requires an explanation.
So for God...
1. God is not observed
2. As far as we know, there is nothing in the universe that requires a
God to explain it.
3. The presence of a God would require some sort of explanation
Hence God is unparsimonious. To achieve parsimony one would need to
demonstrate an observation of God or a phenomenon that requires God as
an explanation. Hence the burden of proof idea.
I have seen a lot of Christians attack the teapot lately claiming that
it uses a strawman representation of God. But the beauty of the teapot
argument is that it works on the entire set of possible creator God
figures and concepts from sophisticated and unimaginable deities to less complex ones that invoke
godmen and virgin births.
Christopher,
#2 and #3 are just plain wrong.
2. As far as we know, there is nothing in the universe that requires a God to explain it.
Many of your atheistic cosmologists would disagree. The origin our our universe (it is not eternal) requires something outside of that universe to create it.
3. The presence of a God would require some sort of explanation.
How so? If God is the self-existing I AM, what further explanation would be required.
The reason that the teapot argument is a strawman is because the existence of the teapot has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God.
Puritan Lad said:
"You're right Joel. Materialism rules in both of these replies. It's a shame that they do not hold their own theories such as "abiogensis" to the same standard."
You don't know that you're talking about. Abiogenisis is the most parsimonious theory of the origin of living mater consistent with known chemistry and physics. It is only a theory and unproven, but it is supported by evidence. Like all unique past events, the ultimate experiment of creating life in a test tube just like happened on Earth is unlikely. But we have created all the building blocks of life's chemistry in the lab under conditions simulating the ancient Earth.
Next thing you'll probably tell us is that Evolution is a lie. No wonder America is falling back in science. Yet Joel has the gall to write a book entitled "The Villiage Atheist" implying we are villiage "idiots". I guess that explains why Einstein, Hawkings, and 93% of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists. Your Bible calls us fools and apparently you have taken license from its ignorant manners to show who is the really foolish one here.
Puritan Lad said:
"Jane, a few questions.
1.) Where did Joel say anything about a "First Cause" (even though it is ultimately a valid question)?
2.) What kind of "materialistic evidence for God's existence" do you require?
3.) How do you account for the laws of "Science and Reason" that you appeal to in a athiestic and materialistic worldview? I can account for them in my worldview, but I think you will have trouble doing so."
1. Unlike you, I appear to have the ability to infer knowledge from information presented. I also read some of Joel's other claptrap.
2. There are many. Well documented and critically examined miracles that can't be explained by chance or other materialistic explanation (clearly supernatural), a mathematical or physical law that requires God, evidence that the universe or life must be intelligently designed.
3. Your worldview of Science and Reason is just magical wishful thinking. There are many plausible explanations for human reason, science, and morality which do not require God or religion. Read Daniel Dennett for a few - he does a better job than even Dawkins or Harris. I'm a neuroscientist. That man should evolve reason, altruism, and morality is selective for survival.
It seems to me that you are missing the point. #2 is saying that
nothing in the universe 'requires' God to explain it (by which of course I
mean the known universe). If our universe does need a prior cause (and
it may not) then that cause does not have to be God. For example it
could be a prior universe or a black hole or a 11 dimensional space of
higher dimensional branes. Sure, you can say God explains anything, but
there are always other options, millions of them. By positing God you
are selecting one of those millions of possibilities and raising it
above all others for no good reason. Hence the lack of parsimony.
I am not sure what you meant by "many of your atheistic cosmologists
would disagree." Obviously they wouldn't disagree with point 2, because
then they wouldn't be atheists, are you saying they disagree with you?
#3. Obviously I AM is not a very good explanation, in fact it is
probably, mathematically speaking the worst explanation it is possible
to give. None the less it is an attempt at one. But it raises more
questions than it answers don't you think? Before the universe did time
exist? If so why did God wait an infinitely long time before creating
us? That seems indecisive, if not, is creation possible in the absence
of time? Is this God timeless? How does he talk to people? I AM does not
deal with any of the first cause problems and I can always say that the
universe JUST IS and it is an equally good (or rather poor)
Of course, the existence of God does not depend on whether there is a
celestial teapot. It is just that the arguments for their existence are
very similar indeed. Ultimately, the teapot argument is challenging the
theist to come up with something, an observation, anything to make it
look like the God concept is not just something made up a few thousand
years ago by people who had no idea how the universe worked.
“Most atheists are materialists because there is no sound evidence for any other view. Show us the evidence for a transcendent reality and we'll take a look. Unlike you, we are not a close-minded and dogmatic lot.
Jane,
No matter what evidence the Christian brings forth, you will always interpret the evidence according to your pre-commitment to naturalism until you quit suppressing the God whom you do know. Notwithstanding, let me jump into your worldview for a moment. You claim to be a materialist; accordingly, you cannot account for abstract entities, such us the laws of logic. Being finite you cannot account for the universality or invariant nature of such laws. Consequently, you cannot account for what must be true in order to make justifiable deductions. How do you square your epistemology with your metaphysic, which you must do in order to justify inductive inferences? How do you account for the abstract mind when all you perceive is the material brain? There are no freebies in philosophy, Jane. You must reconcile your commitment to materialism with your denial of the necessary precondition for those very immaterial tools of argumentation you would like to employ in order to try to refute the Christian worldview.
“Then it is fair for the scientist and atheist to expect some materialistic evidence for God's existence just as physicists can learn about invisible particles from the trails they leave in a vapor chamber. Unfortunately for you, no such evidence exists.”
The evidence is abundant. God’s revelation provides the necessary precondition for the inductive principle, which is the basis for all scientific inference. You see Jane, I know that the immaterial rationality of the mind and categories of thought correspond to the external, mind-independent material world because a common creator stands behind the two, providing a fruitful connection. But what say you? How do you account for true correspondence without universal experience? Justify the truth of your metaphysic and the truth of you theory of knowledge, which of course will have to presuppose ethical absolutes that also do not comport with chance acting upon matter of time. You see Jane, you make dogmatic claims that presuppose truth values yet there can be no justification for “truth” in your worldview for truth is abstract, universal, and invariant whereas your worldview purports you as being material, finite and dynamic.
“The burden of proof remains on you, the believer, to prove that this preposterous First Cause exists.”
Actually, the burden of proof is on the professing unbeliever. However, proof of God is child’s play so the challenge is not one for the Christian to run from. As far as first causes go, how did you arrive at this point in time if time is not created? After all, if time is not created as your worldview suggests, then to get to any point in time and infinite amount of time would need to have past; yet as you are bound to concede, an infinite amount of anything cannot pass, now can it? Accordingly, time must have had a beginning.
“Science and reason render Him unecessary for explaining anything from matter to the human mind, and even the nature of ethical behavior. ”
Ah, but you are assuming what you must first justify. Again, there are no freebies in philosophy Jane. How do you begin to justify the mind and ethics? You’re borrowing from my worldview Jane without philosphical warrant.
Ron
Outstanding.
I'll also add that atheists treat the laws of logic as if they were a transcendent reality, despite the fact that they have never been able to prove them as such. (Don't you love Bahnsen).
Of course, we are the closed-minded, dogmatic ones.
Ronald,
First off, if you Fundys aren't proselytizing you always seem to insist on putting thoughts in other people's heads that weren't there. Leave the straw men out of an argument for a change if you please. I'm not committed to any dogma like you, be it Christianity or naturalism. I believe primarily in reason, logic, and evidence because they all make claims that are either self-referentially (like logic or math) or externally verifiable (empiricism). I wish there was a just and loving God and an afterlife but the facts and logic tell me otherwise. I don't know God any more than you claim to and have no reason to suppress him any more than you are suppressing the Tooth Fairy. I know I will have won this debate when you and your sycophants pray for me. So spare me all your posturing.
I'm not committed to materialism, it is simply my default position until evidence, reason, and logic present a better alternative. I am also not just a materialist/physicalist either and embrace elements of some other philosophies including limited dualism, unlike many of my peers (I'm a neuroscientist/biophysicist). Furthermore, unlike you, I am not afraid to say that there are things I simply don't know. I don't have a magic book that has all the big answers like you do. Science hasn't answered all the mysteries of nature or the mind yet and there may be some that are impossible to answer. Obviously, pious men centuries past thought God was the prime mover behind all phenomena from the orbits of planets to the demons of disease. Science has steadily pushed back your God of the gaps to the point where there are only three deep unanswered questions; the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the nature of consiousness. Quantum mechanics already shows theoretically and experimentally how matter can appear from nothing (look up virtual particles) . Science already has formulated plausible yet unproven hypotheses for the first two big questions and we are making good progress towards the third.
You Fundys should be running scared if your vision of God depends on Him being the Creator because there is a decent chance that all these big questions will be largely answered by science within my lifetime. Instead you go into denial about such things as evolution. Galileo's contemporaries had the same problem. The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems. Likewise, your argument that I cannot account for abstract entities is a non-sequitor as it is a self-referential system. But the ultimate in stupid explanations is to posit an omniscient omnipotent creator God. God simply begs the question where He came from. And if you can say he always was, you can say the same of the Universe/Multiverse. It's simple math; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. God is greater than the universe He created, no? He could create an infinite number of universes if He wanted, no (like M-Theory)? Then if the improbability of the universe coming into existence is very high, God's improbability of existence must be infinitely higher. For this analysis to be untrue, you would have to peel back God's magical omnipotence and omniscience.
You say "Actually, the burden of proof is on the professing unbeliever." No wonder your arguments on logic, the abstract and natural correspondence are non-sequitor nonsense. If you understood anything about logic than you must know that you cannot prove a negative. Until you really understand this, debating you on deeper metaphysical philosophies would be a waste of my time. You need to be able to do arithmetic and algebra before calculus.
Fianlly, if you really want to understand how the mind and ethics could arise without your God hypothesis, I could give you many references to fascinating and well-supported plausible theories. But let's be honest, you wouldn't read them would you Ronald? And if you did, it would only be to dissect and cherry pick quotations out of context like the intellectually dishonest YEC/Creationists did with the late evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould. Because your mind is made up or you're afraid of indulging whatever doubts you've buried in your intellect. How sad that there are so many like you. To the extent you may be salvageable, please know that any true belief worth having is worth questioning. Don't be afraid.
Here's one of my favorite quotes (from Vaclev Havel): "Seek out those who seek the truth and run away from those who've found it."
Cheers,
Jane (aka FedUpWithFaith at richarddawkins.net)
Jane,
Are you capable of discussing anything without ad hominems?
I'm not committed to materialism, it is simply my default position until evidence, reason, and logic present a better alternative
You have yet to explain how reason and logic can have any significant meaning in a materialistic world. If they are just the by-products of your own human neurons, than why should you assume another should accept them as a default position?
if you really want to understand how the mind and ethics could arise without your God hypothesis, I could give you many references to fascinating and well-supported plausible theories.
In your view, are ethical standards objective or subjective?
Finally, if you admit that science and reason can't explain everything, then aren't you being quite closed-minded by rejecting the possibility of a Creator?
Puritan Lad,
I found it funny that a sycophant of the author of this blog would have the hypocritical gall to criticize ad hominems, especially since mine are simply counters to his and others whether explicit or implicit on this website.
I think it's time for you to start answering my objections and questions for a change. I think I've answered yours sufficiently for now. I don't have time to write books here to address all your questions, which obviously aren't posed to seek real knowledge but rather seek some conundrum which few here will understand so you can win debating points. My views concerning the material linkage of mental logic and reason would most closely approximate those of Profs. Daniel Dennett and Terrence Sejnowski whose writings on neuroscience and philosophy are widely available. Will you read them with an open mind if I send references?
I sense you want to trap me in a solipsistic argument, which, like God, cannot be disproven. This could get very deep and opaque to most readers. But I can give it a try if you like. Is it not reasonable to believe that most humans experience the world as I do? If I am deluded, or the rest of the world is, there isn't much logical point to the human enterprise or this argument. Descriptions of experience, the wiring and behavioral tracing of our brains, and the states associated with unusual forms of mental diseases (such as the -agnosias) all provide ample evidence that we share a common mind/brain computing architecture and the resultant processes of logic and reason. While there is no scientific debate as to whether qualia (the way the brain feels, e.g., blue, cold, love) can be traced to neuronal processes, a science of qualia is only in its infancy. I suspect this problem will be solved when consciousness is solved. Perhaps we will create AI based on emergent computational properties that will solve it for us by linking our brains with a calibrated standard of qualia and other mind states. Again, I repeat, I don't have the final answer. Can you demonstrate that positing God offers the best, most logical, and most parsimonious solution - or does it just seem simple? It isn't. When science has failed to explain these phenomena by other means than I will consider dualist solutions like God. However, there are still many other plausible hypotheses, and presumably many to be discovered, that I would investigate before resorting to a magical fairy tale and implausible deity.
As far as ethical standards are concerned, my views could be wrong but there are other plausible scientific explanations I would investigate before I would hand wave it away as "God did it". My views of ethics have different levels. In my view, some elements of ethics are objective and others are subjective. All morality is ultimately tested by its consequences. Since consequences are objective and empirically testable, at least that component is objective. If we were all wired and/or culturally inclined to murder our neighbor we would quickly see the consequences to our survival. Because altruism is adaptive in communal cultures (many primates display it), evolution selected for it as it also selected for other moral and immoral behaviors (such as rape to propagate genes). To that end, certain moral standards, taboos (e.g., incest, eating your own feces), capabilities, and proclivities are objectively probably hard-wired to various extents in the brain. However, they all have levels of variability that must be tuned by the community and culture for maximal adaptability. To the extent that cultural communities evolve standards of behavior this is largely subjective, e.g., hemlines, sexual stigma, etc. But again, all such cultural evolutionary change in subjective moral standards is ultimately tested by its consequences. The Golden Rule can therefore be considered an objective moral law since it can empirically be demonstrated to maximize human peace, happiness, and minimize pain under almost all human circumstances where life and limb are not imminently threatened.
Finally, in answer to your last question, I never rejected the possibility of a creator any more than I can reject Russell's teapot orbiting the sun. I can't reject the possibility of Zeus, Osiris, or Thor either, can you? You can't disprove a negative either. If you nevertheless say "yes", you are as close-minded as you sought to prove I was. I simply believe that your Christian God is so improbable as to be no more worthy of belief than Allah, Zoroaster or Ra. I don't believe in them either.
“I believe primarily in reason, logic, and evidence because they all make claims that are either self-referentially (like logic or math) or externally verifiable (empiricism).”
Jane, you are begging the question. How do you know the laws of logic are universal and invariant? How do you know that the external world and your internal categories of thought correspond according to any sort of truth?
“I wish there was a just and loving God and an afterlife but the facts and logic tell me otherwise."
If the facts tell you otherwise then you should be able to do the following:
1. Put forth a deductive argument that proves your conclusion.
2. Justify the premises of your argument.
3. Justify deduction.
“I don't know God any more than you claim to and have no reason to suppress him any more than you are suppressing the Tooth Fairy.”
The tooth fairy doesn’t provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.
“I'm not committed to materialism, it is simply my default position until evidence, reason, and logic present a better alternative.
Jane, you have yet to grasp the weight of my last post to you. If you were honest you would abandon materialism because it doesn’t comport with what you need to try to argue against Christianity (see my previous post).
“Furthermore, unlike you, I am not afraid to say that there are things I simply don't know.”
Jane, you are ignoring what is before. It’s irrelevant that you don’t know things. What is germane, however, is that you cannot justify any knowledge you claim to have.
“I don't have a magic book that has all the big answers like you do.”
Precisely, Jane. You refuse to submit to the book that answers all the reasons why your worldview reduces to skepticism. The proof of God’s existence is that without him you couldn’t prove anything. So, rather than submit to the magic book that would enable you to justify argumentation, you become a walking contradiction. There are no freebies in philosophy Jane. Justify logic, induction and ethical absolutes given your precommitment to materialism. While you’re at it, deal with my argument against the non-eternal nature of time itself.
“Quantum mechanics already shows theoretically and experimentally how matter can appear from nothing (look up virtual particles) .”
Even the most pagan scientist would run for cover on that one Jane. What you are probably referring to is Karl Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” which states that one cannot measure momentum and position of an atomic particle at the same time. The fallacy of your position is that the inability to measure nature exactly does not imply inability of nature to act exactly.
“Science already has formulated plausible yet unproven hypotheses for the first two big questions and we are making good progress towards the third.”
Jane, you’re simply over your head but I’ll play along for a bit by asking you to justify induction, which is the basis for all scientific inference. You can’t even point to probability theory since probability presupposes the uniformity of nature, the very thing you need to justify!
“You Fundys should be running scared if your vision of God depends on Him being the Creator because there is a decent chance that all these big questions will be largely answered by science within my lifetime.
Decent chance? What’s chance after all in a materialistic universe? Jane, I’m waiting for you to justify induction.
“Fianlly, if you really want to understand how the mind and ethics could arise without your God hypothesis, I could give you many references to fascinating and well-supported plausible theories.”
Jane, I don’t want many references. I just want you to justify universal, abstract entities that are invariant given your precommitment to materialism.
Jane, you have shown yourself to be one who is not very capable. But don’t despair. Your problem is not intellectual but ethical. Accordingly, don’t worry about your intellect not being able to save you. It never could. What needs to change is your heart.
Ron
Ron,
You sir are the one guilty of begging the question and still haven’t answered any of mine. Your presuppositional reasoning on logic and reason are tautologic arguments. You simply lack the intellect to realize that or you are dishonest. I can’t say which – another thing I don’t know.
You don’t seem to understand the concept of self-referential axiomatic systems be they logic, mathematics, or even the computational nature of matter itself – as the eminent physicist John Wheeler said, “It from bit”. The onus is on you to tell me how true=false, 1=2, or 2+2=5. Can God change the laws of logic? Can He make 1+1=4? I would argue that even God couldn’t change these laws. Maybe you need to read some Kurt Gödel and understand decidability too.
As far as inductive logic is concerned, it comes in two forms, self-referential mathematical “hard” induction and probabilistic induction, the pragmatic basis for science to conclude the likelihood that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, inductive logic can be wrong, just as science could be, if the laws of the universe are not stable and invariant. So far the universe hasn’t flown apart so such pragmatism seems warranted. But since it can’t be proven it knocks the legs out from under your presuppositional argument.
Your tactic may have worked for Bahnsen against an unprepared Stein but the so-called TAG (Transcendent Argument for God) has since been completely refuted both by atheist and theist philosophers in a manner not too dissimilar from debunking St. Anselm’s Proof of God centuries ago. Such arguments have more to due with the vagaries of human language than they do with truth propositions.
If TAG is the best you can do sir than I wish to waste no further time on debating your disingenuous “proof” of an insufferable Christian God. And I see no reason to reargue what others have spent more time than I and tomes debunking. Here are some references for your less gullible readers:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Morgue.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/CVTcircles.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html
Ironically, it is possible to turn your argument on its head to construct a proof that the Christian God is impossible (TANG: Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God). However, I don’t buy that one either for the same reasons.
“Jane, you have yet to grasp the weight of my last post to you. If you were honest you would abandon materialism because it doesn’t comport with what you need to try to argue against Christianity (see my previous post).”
Obviously I understood your argument. Unfortunately any intelligent person who really analyzes your sly argument with reason must come to the conclusion that it’s dead-“weight”.
So your magic book, the one that endorses slavery, says pi=3, and has innumerable other contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors was wrong again. Sorry – try science!
Jane: “Quantum mechanics already shows theoretically and experimentally how matter can appear from nothing (look up virtual particles).”
Ron: “Even the most pagan scientist would run for cover on that one Jane. What you are probably referring to is Karl Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” which states that one cannot measure momentum and position of an atomic particle at the same time. The fallacy of your position is that the inability to measure nature exactly does not imply inability of nature to act exactly”
Sorry, you’re wrong again. Virtual particles are real matter that come from nothing.
Check out:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
In closing let me thank you for your good wishes hoping on my change of heart, which you imply is inferior to yours. Please allow me to offer likewise hope for your change of brain, which self-evidently appears to be inferior to mine.
Cheers,
Jane (FedUpWithFaith at richarddawkins.net)
Jane,
Do you have a problem with slavery? Why?
Hello!
First of all, as much as the Christians would like it to be the other way around, the burden of proof in any argument is the positive side of that argument. That is basic debate knowledge that I learned in the 7th grade and has be re-affirmed throughout my educational experience. There is no reason religion should get a free pass. I am claiming there is NO god. I am therefor the negative side of the argument. If you choose the positive side, you adopt the burden of proof. If you don't want it, or cannot shoulder the responsibility, then don't enter the arena.
The reason the positive side of the argument shoulders the burden of proof is because it is demonstrably impossible to prove a negative. Case in point: nobody here can prove that I am not god. All I need to do is make the wild claim that I am the lord almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. If you deny that, I would ask you to provide proof... of which you have very little. You could claim that God is immaterial... I'd say I can do whatever I like because I'm omnipotent and timeless. You cannot prove I'm not divine... hence, why the burden of proof is on ME to PROVE it. And I can't. So you have no reason to believe I'm god. I seriously doubt when I made the claim earlier, you had a crisis of faith.
In much the same way, when someone makes the positive argument "There is a god", and I come back with "prove it" and they can't do so, I also don't have a crisis of faith. I've never for a moment worried if maybe the Vikings had it right and I should start offering sacrifices to Odin or Thor. The Christian god Yahweh fits nicely into the same crowd. He just happens to be the flavor of the past two millenia.
Also, I object to dismissing atheism as being 'deviant' simply because it is 'rare'. The same could be said about reading. Until very recently, reading and writing was a skill possessed by a very small amount of people. Only in the past couple hundred years have we been spreading the gift of reading to a wider audience, and this is completely as a result of a recent upthrust in education. Back then, reading may have been counted as 'deviant'. Was it wrong, then?
Also, a short point about morality. We are an altruistic species. It is in our nature to favor good acts and punish bad ones, because we have evolved into a social species that relies on community. All of this is thunderously easy to understand. We don't need a magical invisible friend to tell us killing is wrong... we just know it is. And we know this because we ourselves would not like to be killed. If you cannot imagine a reason to do good acts without an invisible authoritarian... that is to say, if you do good ONLY out of desire for a reward or fear of punishment, then you are NOT A MORAL PERSON. People who are truly moral do moral acts because it is the right thing to do, and they require no other motivation.
If morality stems purely from the christian god, how can you explain the successful histories of Chinese and Japanese cultures? How can you account for the Native American tribes that would probably still be around today if the white christ-believing settlers didn't butcher them and cast them off their land? I think there's a bit more 'cult favoritism' than rational thought going on there. I reject god and all religions as absolute fallacy, and yet I have somehow managed to go my whole life without killing or raping anybody. I don't even curse in front of my grandmother, and I've never gottan a parking ticket. I must have superpowers!
God simply cannot be proved, any more than Baal, Odin, Loki, Bast, or the Flying Speghetti Monster can be proved. Russel's Teapot can ALSO not be proved. But if the burden of proof is on the NEGATIVE side of the argument, the mere mention of them, like my earlier mention of my diviity, cement them in truth. If the burden of proof is on the positive side of the argument (where it belongs in all debate everywhere), suddenly they evaporate.
Rife with hyperbole and metaphor as the original blog article was, it was patently wrong. It was wrong more than just about god. It was wrong about the laws of debate, the burden of proof, and the definition of 'proof'. The author is simply ignorant about these things, and perhaps in the future should stray far from the subject.
Puritan Lad said...
Jane,
Do you have a problem with slavery? Why?
Normally, if such a question is raised in debate with intelligent decent people, I assume it's facetious. However, with Fundys who often tend to hold various forms of bigotry you never know.
You have your magic book and Jesus to justify slavery. But let's hear your argument for it first for a change before I once again am forced to attack a negative proposition. As Chris has eloquently explained yet again above, the onus is on you to show why slavery is good.
If you had any unfettered powers of deduction or inference, you'd have noticed I'd already answered the question implicitly above anyway. It follows from the Golden Rule, an objective morality proposition that I already argued can be rationally evolved and explained from culture and biology.
Brothers,
I've asked Jane several times to justify induction. No answer has come forth; nor will one come forth. The reason is, there is no answer to Hume's skepticism outside a sovereign God who stands behind the created order and the mind, providing a fruitful connection between the two. I asked Jane to justify eternal, uncreated time in light of the fact that we'd never be able to arrive at any point in time if an eternal amount of time had to first pass. She has yet to deal with that one either. So once again Jane assumes that which contradicts her worldvew.
Notice how Jane makes dogmatic statements but doesn't put together any defense of her assumptions. She simply offers us a sharp tounge but no substance in what she says.
Note her assertions that are not arguments, such as:
"Sorry, you’re wrong again. Virtual particles are real matter that come from nothing."
Argument, or assertion?
How about: "However, inductive logic can be wrong, just as science could be, if the laws of the universe are not stable and invariant"
Again, no argument just an assertion. The assertion is also riddled in confusion. First off one's inductive or scientific inference can be wrong even given that the universe is uniform. But aside from the obvious, Jane was to justify why she operates on the basis that the universe is uniform. To say that the universe might not be uniform is not an answer to why she operates as if the universe is uniform. Why does Jane trust that the future will be like the past? Is it because it has always been that way? Well, then her argument would reduce to "the future should be like the past because past futures were like the past pasts." However, that would not be an argument but simply a re-assertion of what she was to defend. To which I would ask, Why should the future be like past futures as they relate to past pasts? If she lays claim on probability to try to answer the question, then she will have begged the question since probability presupposes uniformity. Jane is boxed in. She needs to assume uniformity in order to live but her assumption does comport with her worldview. Her worldview strictly speaking does not allow for such assumptions, yet she really does not grasp this inconsistency. She doesn't grasp the weight of David Hume.
What is Jane's answer to Hume's skepticism? Will it be Kant?! Is she going to psyhcholgize science with arbitrary a priori categories of thought? Or is she going to actually try to argue that our minds can actually tell us something true about the external world? How would Jane go about justifying such things? How is Jane to bring together her metaphysic, theory of knowledge and code she lives by in a way that is not arbitrary and inconsistent?
At base, until Jane defends causality, which she assumes contrary to who worldview, there is no basis for interacting with her.
So long brothers in Christ. Jane's issue is not intellectual but rather ethical. She'd rather be arbitrary and inconsistent than acknowledge she knows the God she refuses to honor; she refuses to repent of her sin of pride and look to Christ for the saving of our soul. Let this be another example of Romans one and man's depravity.
Blessings my brothers. Goodbye Jane.
Ron
Actually, Ron, to contradict something you said in specific: "I asked Jane to justify eternal, uncreated time in light of the fact that we'd never be able to arrive at any point in time if an eternal amount of time had to first pass. She has yet to deal with that one either."
This is known as the 'God of the Gaps' argument. The way the God of the Gaps works is that any hole, or gap, in human knowledge get's 'filled' by god as a temporary placeholder. Take, for example, epilepsy. Once called the 'prophet's disease', it was believed that epileptic siezures were caused by demonic possession or divine congress. We now know that to be false, and can explain scientifically why it happens.
In much the same way, there is a gap in our knowledge regarding the beginning of the universe. Since time itself is merely one of the four dimensions that make up our universe, we actually DO know when time started. At or around the big bang. The Big Bang was the onset of both time and space. What we DON'T know is what came "before" it. I put 'before' in quotes because we cannot really ascribe a place in time for the event since the event itself CREATED time.
Was the event god's doing? I'l admit, that remains a possibility. It also remains a possibility the event was the doing of an enormous rabbit named Oliver. It is possible the Big Bang began with a singularity moving from a state of high to low entropy. Thing is, we don't know... yet.
Soon, however, we will. In my lifetime? Perhaps. But when we do figure it out, god will once again be forced into a retreat; though I imagine, much like the WWII Japanese, the faithful will call it not a retreat, but a 'retrograde maneuver'. They will simply find a new gap in our knowledge for god to sit in, until science once again brushes it out the door with its broom.
Ron said: “So long brothers in Christ. Jane's issue is not intellectual but rather ethical. She'd rather be arbitrary and inconsistent than acknowledge she knows the God she refuses to honor; she refuses to repent of her sin of pride and look to Christ for the saving of our soul. Let this be another example of Romans one and man's depravity.”
Brothers AND Sisters:
Ron knows he is losing so he is now attacking my ethics since he can’t beat my argument. He is arguing from a playbook and found himself in a dead end. Now he’s just repeating himself since I have answered him repeatedly. He just doesn’t like my answers because they don’t support his dogma. I provided references in my last post as well as explanations in my previous that address the problem of induction, morality and uniformity. I see no reason to reargue or cut and past arguments that have already been addressed and settled. Go read the references for yourself rather than relying on the word of the pious ignorant determined to pray for Heaven instead of openly seeking the truth.
Ron, if you can’t bear to read the references without worrying that doubt might creep into your soul and damn you to Hell, then admit that. Otherwise, let’s see you break those arguments. Post your counterarguments here and I’ll argue them. I’ll do my best to try to guide you on a path to reason. But you have to open your eyes first.
Likewise, you attacked my argument on virtual particles as another empty assertion. You are simply lying or not reading the references I attached. Virtual particles are real entities theoretically postulated by QM AND experimentally verified. My references would have led you to the actual theories and experiments that prove them. But you insist on being blind.
I really get a kick out of your reliance on David Hume by the way. Do your brothers know he was an Atheist? And Hume’s arguments and assertions on induction and epistemology, the ones your argument depends on, have also been countered by other philosophers. I can give you many references, but you wouldn’t read those either would you? See, I can even disagree with fellow atheists because unlike you, I’m not dogmatic or reliant on blind faith.
I also loved how you told your flock that there is “no reason to interact with me” and then said in closing “Goodbye Jane”. Do you presume to speak for your brothers and sisters? Do they follow you blindly trusting your wisdom? Can’t they think and argue for themselves without your guidance? Is this even your website for you to make such arrogant pronouncements? You don’t want them to engage me for the same reason you are leaving the battlefield – because you lost.
Listen, I wouldn’t even be over here in this blog if its author hadn’t come over to Richarddawkins.net’s forum to shill his book, that from the looks of it on Amazon, few people want to buy. He invited argument and then ran away. As they say, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”.
Cheers,
Jane (FedUpWithFaith at RichardDawkins.net)
"The real philosophical challenge is to disprove an all-powerful God Who created the material universe, upholds it, and thus transcends the material universe. Such a God defies any attempt to measure Him by finite standards,[xiv] or call Him to any finite bar of judgment. For Him to stoop to meet such a standard would be for Him to deny both His Sovereignty and His own existence. The very act of submitting Himself for verification implies that someone else is the ultimate Judge and the ultimate standard.So, I will hear no more about tea pots. I will consider only arguments that tackle the existence of the kind of God who created tea, and the rest of the world for that matter. Once atheists start to become honest about this issue, then the “burden of proof” will be re-established a bit more squarely, and the debate over God will move from the atheist’s comfortable tea-room of materialism, to the transcendental question that it is."
This is blatant question begging. And, since it is the 'crux' (pun intended) of your argument, your whole edifice falls.
Since your argument assumes from the outset that which you wish to prove, it has no logical content and cannot be parsed for meaning in any valid way.
In other words, you just wrote 3000 words of ... nothing.
Good try though.
My Dear Mr. Random,
I see now that the first string has departed the field in defeat, the second string has entered the arena – and it shows in the quality of your argument. Merely repeating the dogmatic tautological assertions and presuppositions of your predecessor demonstrates the true waste of verbage here.
Again, I have nothing to prove – you do. Oh my, all the armchair philosopher-theologians quoting great philosophers like Hume yet don’t understand basic logic – you can’t prove a negative Sir.
Of course, you pre-shield your circular presupposition by asserting without logical argument that God is beyond test and verification. (Did you see that Ron? – time to teach your fellow Fundy disciple here some first string principles at least you claim to understand.) Boy, that was convincing! That’s the type of argument I expect to hear from some falutin ayatollah followed by a death sentence to the infidel. Thank you for not calling for my death in repost.
Your arguments for God are the ultimate in circular reasoning. First, a God itself is question begging. Who created God? Why ask when you can cut to the chase and simply say the universe is all that ever was and its fabric supports all logic and reason in the recursive mathematical/logical underpinnings that are embedded in all matter and energy that can be equally represented as information and the patterns that bind them. Again, to quote the great physicist John Wheeler, “It from bit”. Maybe you should look it up the underpinnings of that profound yet deceptively simple statement to understand its true significance and why it underlies just one abstracted physical argument of why your transcendence argument is unnecessary. When you ask yourself why should we be able to describe the universe mathematically (e.g., E=mc^2) through abstract logic, your answer is “God”. It is at least equally valid and more parsimonious to say that logic and mathematical abstractability is simply part and parcel of the fabric of the universe itself.
But if that wasn’t bad enough, your Van Til/Bahnsen/Frame presuppositional arguments are all circular question-begging. Your apologetics even admits this and seeks to carve out a special exception for your dogma. For those of you unfamiliar with TAG arguments, please let me quote Douglas Wilson from the 1999 Wilson-Drange Debate entitled “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of the Christian God vs. the Arguments from Nonbelief and Confusion for the Nonexistence of that God." That can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/douglas_wilson/drange-wilson/wilson3.html:
“all ultimate questions involve circularity, and we might as well get used to it. The virtue of the Christian transcendental argument is that this feature which is necessary to all creaturely thought is simply embraced and understood, and the right ultimate question is properly identified. But the process of necessary circularity can be still seen when anything is falsely elevated to the level of ultimacy.”
To prevent confusion, Drange was the atheist, Wilson is YOUR guy! Why are you entitled to “necessary circularity” and I’m not. Your non-argument argument is pure foolishness dressed in velvet.
So your argument for God is doubly circular yet you accuse me of tautologic thinking. The irony is, my arguments are only tautologic if I accept your argument as true, which would add a third level of unnecessary circularity.
None of my words are wasted by the way, whether you understand them or not, because I’m enjoying this. And I also have comfort in knowing that at least while you are here, reading my words, you’re not using that time to lobby against stem cell research, keep condoms out of Africa, take evolution out of biology textbooks, or contributing to the election of another Fundy crackpot like G.W. Bush.
Cheers,
Jane
I clicked in from the Dawkins forums...I'm OhioLen there.
[QUOTE]
One of the silliest fallacies that is circulating among the atheists — in fact, one of their staple arguments these days — is found in this attempt to shift the “burden of proof” in the debate over God’s existence. It is becoming more and more popular — and one can understand why — for the atheists to assume from the start that their atheistic worldview is the norm, and that any theistic claim is a deviation that must be “proven” (of course, what constitutes proof will be a factor, which we will deal with below).
[...]
This refutation applies equally to a related argument that the modern atheists like to use. They claim that no one believes in the gods of ancient mythology: all (or most) people are, therefore, “atheists” with regard to these gods. The atheists, including Dawkins, boast that they just go “one God further.”[xii] This rhetorical saccharin vaporizes in the boil of real philosophy, and it doesn’t sweeten a thing. It is mere steam from the spout of Russell’s tea pot. It simply places the Christian God in the same category as “Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster,”[xiii] and is thus a categorical and definitional mistake.
Thus the existence of the God of Christianity cannot be determined by gratuitous parallels to material objects like dizzy tea pots or frightening pasta, and, while we do not have time here to line them all up, the Christian God is also qualitatively and categorically different than any of the pagan gods one can list.
[/QUOTE]
Your flights of fanciful teapot terminology cannot mask the deficiency of your core argument. Your see, the atheistic worldview is the norm (in this context defined as "nature's default") at birth. Religious beliefs must be instilled by extended social conditioning; such beliefs are not innate to the human species. Given the lack of an innate sense of religion, such beliefs have been fostered by men seeking authority over others. Religions have unsurprisingly arisen in a multitude of types throughout history, uniform only in their variety.
Your alleged "categorical and definitional mistake" on the part of atheists fails to stand up to scrutiny. Precisely what criteria (beyond bare assertion) make your deity exempt from this alleged "mistake?" Religions have existed in practically every culture that ever existed on Earth and Christianity is a Johnny-come-lately, albeit a surprisingly successful one. Amon-Ra was worshipped for thousands of years in Egypt, and was believed to be categorically and definitionally the Supreme Deity of All. Today, Amon-Ra is just another exotic name from the rich cultural history of ancient Egypt. What makes you think that what you believe to be absolute and true won't suffer a similar fate?
This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town
And beats high mountain down.
As for the burden of proof, it does indeed fall upon those relying upon Invisible Magical Entities to explain material-world phenomena. For example, take a look at this photo of a car wreck. We are presented with this image absent context, and asked to explain what we think happened. It is my contention that the crash was the direct result of a driver losing control of his or her vehicle due to mechanical failure or operator error (in this or another vehicle involved but not pictured). It is someone else's contention that an Invisible Magical Entity's anger at the driver was the cause of the crash.
Now, while these views may not be prima facie incompatible (A does not necessarily exclude B and vice versa), the postulated Invisible Magical Entity introduces an unmeasurable and ultimately valueless variable into the equation. We didn't see the wreck in that photo take place, but which cause is more reasonable and likely to presume: mechanical failure and/or operator error, or the wrath of an Invisible Magical Entity?
Admittedly that's a lousy example, but here's the point. If there is a verifiable, natural, scientific and yes, material explanation for a given phenomena, why bother even entertaining the Invisible Magical Entity hypothesis? Where there are gaps in human knowledge, why do you feel the need to fill those freely acknowledged seams with Invisible Magical Entity-brand caulk? Like the soft plates that make up a human infant's skull, those seams will grow together in time and seal themselves. Why introduce a foreign substance in the gaps to seal them prematurely? Any foreign substance will first interfere with the body's natural growth process, then either be accomodated or rejected by the infant's immune system. You see, you're missing the point of the silly teapot analogy and this rant of yours illustrates that:
[QUOTE]
The real philosophical challenge is to disprove an all-powerful God Who created the material universe, upholds it, and thus transcends the material universe. Such a God defies any attempt to measure Him by finite standards,[xiv] or call Him to any finite bar of judgment. For Him to stoop to meet such a standard would be for Him to deny both His Sovereignty and His own existence. The very act of submitting Himself for verification implies that someone else is the ultimate Judge and the ultimate standard.
So, I will hear no more about tea pots. I will consider only arguments that tackle the existence of the kind of God who created tea, and the rest of the world for that matter. Once atheists start to become honest about this issue, then the “burden of proof” will be re-established a bit more squarely, and the debate over God will move from the atheist’s comfortable tea-room of materialism, to the transcendental question that it is.
[/QUOTE]
Terribly sorry to disappoint, but I've seen this tactic of yours used many many times and I'm not falling for it. Joel, Surely you recognize that your prerequisite hypothesis must be addressed before getting into the subsequent "transcendental question." Only then can the larger matter be legitimately addressed.
After all, we should first specify precisely which Invisible Magical Entity we're discussing. Every "chief" god throughout history, without exception AFAIK, has been associated with such cosmic attributes. Mere assertions of "they were wrong and Christianity is right" are unacceptable for obvious reasons. Unfortunately for you, that scripture of yours is an anchor around your neck. Good luck with that.
As I've written elsewhere, the Hubble Deep Field depicts nothing less than a fragment of Eternity. The knowledge that there are thousands of entire galaxies located in a patch of sky that — to us — appears both tiny and empty, is profound. In comparative terms, our entire solar system is roughly equivalent to a single atom. Earth is merely an electron circling its solar nucleus, and the entire history of the human species represents less than a quark. For the sake of argument, let’s say that some sort of incomprehensible supreme being created all of this. Would an entity capable of bringing forth such immensity care that a fraction of a quark somewhere on the outer fringe of that immensity worshiped it?
The very idea is absurd.
Looking into the face of Eternity, the human concept of deity itself fails. Nothing the human mind is capable of grasping can encompass the immensity of the universe; the word “god” pales in woeful inadequacy. The belief that mankind was made in the image of god is laughably chauvinistic but forgivable, coming from ignorant nomadic tribesmen of millenia ago. In the modern age, associating Bronze Age superstitions, prejudices and hero legends with the existential wonder of the tiny region of Infinity which our meager science has allowed us to glimpse is the height of provincial, primitive arrogance.
[QUOTE]
When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” — Genesis 15:17-21
[/QUOTE]
The idea that this real-estate folktale somehow involves the hypothesized creator of the universe is ludicrous.
As some of you folks here know, there is a bet going on over at Richarddawkins.net over how long McDurmon will let this debate go on before he deletes at least the atheist comments that have been so devastating. I have received many IMs on this.
Despite the aggressive nature of the arguments here, I do wish to commend the author's adherence to openness and free speech so far. Limiting such speech, would be the ultimate admission of defeat.
I have participated in debates on Fundamentalist blogs before and seen them deleted more often than not when the theist ideas become boxed in. This happens also, but to a lesser extent, on moderate religious blogs. But the average intelligence and education of the people who believe in the TAG argument seems to be much higher than the average Fundamentalist. Excepting its "necessary circularity" (quoting Doug Wilson, TAG advocate) The TAG argument also has the merit of at least being internally consistent unlike most theist arguments I encounter.
For the theists here, I would encourage you to also bring your arguments over to richarddawkins.net (I have no vested interests in this non-proft site BTW). You will find that there are many intelligent theists there who have an opportunity to air their views to a community of atheists and theists and everything in between. As long as you don't engage in overt proslytizing or selling your books, you will find yourself welcome for intelligent debate.
There are fence-sitters at that website who are undecided and seeking the truth. If you are correct, then they offer you an opportunity to save some souls as well as debate your arguments.
Whoa there Jane, I'm on YOUR side. Re-read my post. The first paragraph is a quote from the article. I then explain that it is question begging.
I agree with you 100%, you can't prove a negative. Hence, negativity is the default position, and it is the statements of positive value, i.e. "God exists" that require proof.
Random,
My apologies! I feel like an idiot. Wait, the bible says I'm a "fool" - I'll go with that. Somehow I misinterpreted the quotes and forgot the source and so your argument looked like an affirmation of the earlier TAG ones to me.
My argument was still a good one though didn't you think (laughing)?
The original blogger post is barely worth responding to. The burden of proof is on theists because they are the ones making a claim about the universe. Atheism is a lack of belief in god due to insufficient evidence. The existence of god isn't presupposed. We don't know if god exists or not and there is no evidence that one does -- therefore the burden of proof is on theists. Just because someone decides to claim that atheists are the ones who are making an independent claim doesn't actually mean it's true. Anyone who is able to think for themselves can clearly see that theists are the ones who are claiming god exists -- atheists are simply rejecting that claim due to a lack of evidence.
Underneath the ramblings of these people isn't even an argument worth disputing. Take a look at this quote from the original blog post:
Simple. Dawkins’s view of probability is limited and ruled, just like his definition and classification of God, by his materialistic assumptions. It only stands to reason that if you presume a materialistic world at the outset, then the most probable occurrence in that world can only be a materialistic occurrence. But that begs the very question under debate, doesn’t it? Again, Dawkins has merely defined God out of his mental world with mere words. It makes for a nice little chat over tea with an old chap, but not very careful thinking at all.Rather, probability is something quite different in an materialist universe than it is in a Biblical universe. If the atheist is not allowed to impose his materialistic beliefs on the question of God, then he will have to take seriously the possibility that something other than a materialistic explanation is the most probable one. As Jesus said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26; Luke 18:27). Obviously, if God is denied from the outset, then an explanation that involves God will be not only unlikely, but impossible. But if the atheist’s gratuitous assumptions are kept from ruling the thinking, then it could very well be that the most probable answer is one which involves a supernatural God, and we will have to find a different way of approaching the question than through that very limited range of evidence that we can see, touch, smell, etc.If the Christian makes the mistake of shifting into the arena of materialistic probability, then they have already subjected the idea of God to a category which denies the very possibility of His existence. Probability, as the scientist calculates it, deals only with empirical, sensory, phenomena. God by definition does not fit into this mold, so talking about Him in such a way which limits Him in those terms, denies Him at the outset. No wonder Russell, Dawkins, and other atheists love to talk about God in such a way. Probability is the devil’s ill-fated prayer, and Dawkins, the self-dubbed “Devil’s Chaplain,” kneels at its mention, chants it in rhythm, and crosses himself with its capital
I don't want to be accused of quote-mining, so that is the entire snippet that I am going to quote from.
Rather, probability is something quite different in an materialist universe than it is in a Biblical universe. If the atheist is not allowed to impose his materialistic beliefs on the question of God, then he will have to take seriously the possibility that something other than a materialistic explanation is the most probable one. As Jesus said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26; Luke 18:27).
The author is claiming that probability acts according to different rules if you change your perspective about the world -- a.k.a., if you re-align your perspective to attune yourself with a biblical universe, probability has no meaning when applied to god. That sounds convenient, except for the fact that there is no argument whatsoever. You are claiming that probability applies to everything else in the universe except an alleged god because … you said so. And from there you go on to quote the bible in the following lines. Not a great assertion, champ.
Probability is the devil’s ill-fated prayer, and Dawkins, the self-dubbed “Devil’s Chaplain,” kneels at its mention, chants it in rhythm, and crosses himself with its capital
Probability is the devil's work. Gotcha. Thank you for wasting approximately 10 minutes of my time with your drivel. You have no argument, no evidence and absolutely nothing worth responding to. You should actually be glad that atheists are even bothering to respond at all.
No worries Jane.
You're absolutely right that I'm definitely second-string 'round here.
I particularly liked this part of your argument:
"Of course, you pre-shield your circular presupposition by asserting without logical argument that God is beyond test and verification."
While I'd not quite missed that in the original post, my thoughts on the matter weren't cohesive enough to realize just what a large hole that is.
Post a Comment
<< Home