The Logic of Atheism/2

3017amen

The Debate was closed (I guess it's because I won :razz: ), so I thought I would pick up where 180 and I left off. And also provide an opportunity for other Atheists to either correct my reasoning and/or defend their belief system . As a Christian Existentialist, Revelation has always told me that the concept of a God is something beyond logic and pure reason, in many ways (think Kant-intuition, etc.). And since there seems to be a mixed opinion as to what one’s belief system actually consists of, by attacking the definition standard(s) alone, this may/may not provide a pathway to depersonalizing the arguments such that some sense of objectivity can prevail. I remain hopeful, sort of.

But first, Hanover may have forgotten our rules that 180 and I agreed to (that's okay); so just some housekeeping matters from the last debate:

"Title: Atheism is not Logical

1. No word limits per post.

2. No links to previous posts on TPF.

Take as much time as needed between posts.
[Debate was closed prematurely]

I will start the debate with an opening argument(s)."

The next concern is/was to explore whether the definition standard(s) for most Atheists here are appropriate for all, (I'm thinking that they are not, so please provide input) hence:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief- inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Lack of faith.
Belief- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction; a religious conviction. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
God- (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions), a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. an adored, admired, or influential person.

In a succinct fashion, just by virtue of those simple/standard definitions alone, Atheism itself is not predicated in logic. For instance, if one were to define a God as an Omnipotent Being, that would simply transcend the notion of logic itself (bivalence/law of non-contradiction) and thus make a God logically impossible. However, many things in life also transcend logic and seem logically impossible to explain/describe/reconcile (without at least some paradox) yet still exist (time, consciousness, etc..).

In cosmology, as the term super-natural would imply, something beyond the laws of nature and pure reason has caused something rather than nothing. These concepts further imply there must be something, logically, that goes beyond the laws of nature (mathematics), and is complicated by the logically impossible explanation/descriptions of consciousness itself.

In that respect, since there is obvious mystery, paradox and contradiction in life, how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically?

Cuthbert

There exist, as you say, many important and mysterious things we cannot explain. It does not follow that, for some important and mysterious thing we can't explain, that thing exists.

I cannot explain how my brother proved the Riemann hypothesis. The solution is a mystery. The solution is certainly important for many areas of mathematics. And lastly, the solution is wholly delusory, because it has not yet been found.

I cannot see that either atheism or theism lack logical coherence. One of them lacks religious faith; the other doesn't.

3017amen

One of them lacks religious faith; the other doesn't. — Cuthbert

Great point, thanks!

The only concern there is, that so-called either/or argument implies some sense of faith, for a lack of a better term (I hate using that term because it doesn't work with logic proper). But I suppose to some degree a belief or disbelief encompasses a type of faith nonetheless. For example, the definition of Disbelief is inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Lack of faith.

Of course, those aren't my definitions. This is one reason why I want to attack the definition standards...albeit we are back to the inescapable notion of philosophy living in words and logic... (?).

I'm more interested in the question regarding how an Atheist justifies their belief/disbelief without the use of the word faith.

jorndoe

There's a worthwhile distinction to make here.

Stories: Here gods/God are various narrated characters, found in religious texts and such. These are more elaborate (and often include divine intervention), and adherents go by rituals, commands/rules, impositions, fate designations, they have public aspects (and advertising), etc.

Definitions: Here gods/God are defined by apologists, and definitions may vary. Some are results of apologetic arguments. Some do not differentiate, say, theism and deism, and some are more panpsychist or Spinozist (or whatever) than others.

The distinction matters because people have different attitudes towards the two.
Additionally, the former category is typically where we see social impacts, be it in politics or interfering in people's lives or some such, so these warrant more attention.
Also, you cannot derive the former from the latter.

I'd suggest setting out what's meant so as to anchor goalposts and minimize ambiguities.

Jack Cummins

↪3017amen

I am reading 'Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens: The Four Horsemen (The Discussion that Sparked an Atheist Revolution, 2019). One idea which I will raise for your area of debate, if relevant, is that of how we consider religious texts. Harris queries the nature of texts as being an 'epistemological gold standard'. He asks,
'If the Bible isn't a magical book, Christianity evaporates. If the Qur'an isn't a magic, Islam evaporates. And when you look at the books and ask yourself, "Is there the slightest shred of evidence that this is a product of omniscience?'

I believe that the nature of religious texts is important to understanding about truth and religious claims. It can be argued that any careful consideration of theism or atheism needs to take this on board as an aspect of the debate about the existence of God. What do you think about this, in relation to the logic of theism or atheism?

Philosopher19

Dear 3017amen

As a Christian Existentialist, Revelation has always told me that the concept of a God is something beyond logic and pure reason, — 3017amen

I disagree with this point. There is no beyond logic and reason. There is rational and irrational; logical and illogical; truth and falsehood. However, you can say that there are unknowns to non-Omniscient beings such as us. This is not the same as saying there are things beyond logic and pure reason. The statement "there are things beyond logic and pure reason" is as contradictory/irrational as "there are more triangular things than perfect triangles". Any given belief or statement that is contradictory or irrational, is wrong by definition.

With regards to why God's existence is indubitable, I recommend the following:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11100/god-as-the-true-cogito/p1

With sincerity to God/Truth/Goodness,
Nyma Bakhshayesh

tim wood

Fuck off, 3017. You had your fair platform, the one you wanted, worked for, earned, got on your own terms, and chickened out of and ran away from. You are contemptible. And your agendas, whatever they are, are certainly absolutely nothing philosophic, as you have made repeatedly clear over many threads.

I invite all who may be tempted to reply to you to withhold their replies and look into the character of 3017 as displayed in his own comments. A combination of weasel and scorpion, wanting only to jab and annoy for his own perverted purposes.

Cuthbert

'If the Bible isn't a magical book, Christianity evaporates. If the Qur'an isn't a magic, Islam evaporates. And when you look at the books and ask yourself, "Is there the slightest shred of evidence that this is a product of omniscience?

Paul would have been astonished to hear that Christianity evaporates without a magical book that would not come into existence for a couple of centuries after his own time. If he had heard that he was writing some of it, he might have lost faith altogether. Luckily, the Bible wasn't ever intended to be magical and Christianity didn't evaporate.

Jack Cummins

↪tim wood

I don't see how we can really look into characters fully in discussions on the forum, because we don't know know much about other people's lives at all. We are really only able to discuss ideas.

Apollodorus

how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically? — 3017amen

Good question. I would say that one way of looking at the theism-atheism issue is that there seems to be no hard evidence for the existence of God. But there is no evidence against either.

For a philosopher, there being a God seems preferable to there being no God as this provides us with a vast area of philosophical inquiry. It is better to have something to philosophize about than to have nothing.

As for the Atheist, he probably starts with doubting the existence of God after which he starts doubting the possibility of God's existence after which he is so taken by the belief that there is no God, that it crystallizes or fossilizes into "certainty".

Whilst theism may undergo changes in terms of belief, practice, and experience, atheism seems like a dead end, a self-imposed limitation of consciousness, experience, and thought.

Also, in linguistic terms, atheism is a derivative of theism: first there was theism and then a-theism, which suggests the primacy of theism over a-theism.

Agnosticism and theism seem preferable to atheism.

frank

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. — 3017amen

If I don't believe in ducks, there isn't necessarily any defiance of logic in it, even if I deny ducks while staring at one. It's just odd, not illogical.

The sun is one of the oldest divinities. As long as an atheist can explain what properties the sun is missing such that it's not divine, they're fine.

If an atheist can't explain why the sun isn't divine, but persists in asserting it, this might be some sort of cognitive deficit.

Jack Cummins

↪Cuthbert

One aspect which I think is important is that the gospels and other writings of the New Testament were written many years after the time of Jesus's death. I don't believe that we can really sidestep the Bible in connection with Christianity, or any religious texts when thinking about any specific religious viewpoints. Surely, beliefs about God were given a voice through these works.

3017amen

As a Christian Existentialist, Revelation has always told me that the concept of a God is something beyond logic and pure reason, — 3017amen
I disagree with this point. There is no beyond logic and reason. There is rational and irrational; logical and illogical; truth and falsehood. However, you can say that there are unknowns to non-Omniscient beings such as us. This is not the same as saying there are things beyond logic and pure reason. The statement "there are things beyond logic and pure reason" is as contradictory/irrational as "there are more triangular things than perfect triangles". Any given belief or statement that is contradictory or irrational, is wrong by definition. — Philosopher19

Thank you for your reply!

There is a whole lot to unpack there. My gut reaction is that your thought process boarders on a type of Fundy interpretation of God. Meaning, one ultimately or universally or cosmologically posits the concept of God for a reason that defies reason itself. Think of it as logical necessity.

Further, ask, does logical necessity itself have logical meaning?

Anyway, I think the most important misguided concern that you have is that, for one to associate as you say "wrong" definition standards to the concept of God, one must think they rightfully understand same (the mind of God). I don't think you mean that. Alternatively, what do you mean by "wrong'?

frank

I invite all who may be tempted to reply to you to withhold their replies and look into the character of 3017 as displayed in his own comments. — tim wood

Shut your trap.

tim wood

I don't see how we can really look into characters fully in discussions on the forum, because we don't know know much about other people's lives at all. We are really only able to discuss ideas. — Jack Cummins

You can look at what you have. Which is all anyone can do anyway. And certainly each of us controls what we put here to a much higher degree than what we present to the world in general.

I invite you to consider this from 3017:

The Debate was closed (I guess it's because I won :razz: ), so I thought I would pick up where 180 and I left off. — 3017amen

I ask you directly to evaluate the truth of it. I'll help.

The debate was closed: true

I guess it's because I won, :razz:. A guess? Really? And no you didn't. You abandoned the debate, having offered zero of substance. And :razz?

So I thought. Disingenuous.

I would pick up. Nope, you never started.

where 180 and I left off. You and 180 were never engaged. You never "left off" because you never began.

So many lies and so much deception in a compass of so few words. M. Scott Peck had a description of people who do this: he called them "People of the Lie," and wrote a book of the same title about them. And he noted they were extraordinarily toxic, amounting to what he called evil. The basic truth about them their dishonesty and deception in service of hidden agendas, and the harm they do.

And that just the first sentence of his OP, his rhetorical appeal on behalf of his character, judgment, and goodwill. How do you see it?

RogueAI

Atheism might not entail physicalism, but that's certainly what every atheist I've ever encountered believes, so for the materialistic/physicalistic atheist, they have to have some explanation for how brains produce consciousness. The ongoing failure in this area has been (and is going to be) a problem for the kind of atheist I referred to.

TheMadFool

God is something beyond logic and pure reason — 3017amen

God moves in a mysterious way — William Cowper

God Moves In A Mysterious Way

This is the ace up the theist's sleeve but comes at a cost. With one simple sentence, "god moves in mysterious ways", the theist disarms the atheist of the one powerful weapon that has proven itself against theism viz. reason.

The atheist however has a good retort, if god is truly "beyond logic and pure reason" as the theist claims then how does the person justify this claim? After all, reason now is off-limits. The theist has apparently shot faerself in the foot.

Not to worry. the theist is not exactly employing logic here. What the theist is really doing is drawing our already overstretched attention to the limits of logic and reason. If worst comes to worst and the theist can't deny that he's using of reason, he can always say, "only to expose the limits of reason." The theist shot himself in the foot but, as luck would have it, missed. That's that!

What is the cost to the theist then? It's that the theist must refrain from making logical arguments that has God in its premises or conclusion. After all, by his own admission, logic/reason is incapable of handling God in any conceivable sense.

Stalemate! Neither player can move...or so we think.

The theist has another ace up his sleeve. :point: The Twilight Of Reason. There's more than one way to skin a cat! Reason's soldier, the atheist is left paralyzed while the theist, employing other pararational (alternatives to reason/logic/rationality) means, rides off into the great unknown, relieved that fae at least can move, a must if fae must find God or whoever the hell is behind all this.

praxis

In that respect, since there is obvious mystery, paradox and contradiction in life, how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically? — 3017amen

It could be said that everyone has a 'belief system' or more or less coherent set of beliefs that work together to form a framework of the world, but there is a significant difference between a secular belief system and a religious belief system. The purpose of the latter is to bind a community, via common values and telos. It employs rituals, narratives, moral norms, a hierarchy of authority, etc. It is necessarily social and requires an ultimate authority figure and necessarily requires faith in that ultimate authority.

Atheists don't need their beliefs validated by a higher authority.

It is better to have something to philosophize about than to have nothing. — Apollodorus

I'd rather philosophize about nothing than philosophize about sky father.

first there was theism and then a-theism, which suggests the primacy of theism over a-theism. — Apollodorus

Ah, the my beliefs came before your beliefs argument. By this logic flat earth theory has primacy over science.

Michael

In cosmology, as the term super-natural would imply, something beyond the laws of nature and pure reason has caused something rather than nothing. These concepts further imply there must be something, logically, that goes beyond the laws of nature (mathematics), and is complicated by the logically impossible explanation/descriptions of consciousness itself. — 3017amen

Even if that were true, it doesn't follow that this "supernatural" cause is "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions), a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. an adored, admired, or influential person."

In a succinct fashion, just by virtue of those simple/standard definitions alone, Atheism itself is not predicated in logic. For instance, if one were to define a God as an Omnipotent Being, that would simply transcend the notion of logic itself (bivalence/law of non-contradiction) and thus make a God logically impossible.

If God is defined as an omnipotent being and if this made God logically impossible then theism would be illogical and atheism would be logical (atheism rejects the existence of a logical impossibility).

However, many things in life also transcend logic and seem logically impossible to explain/describe/reconcile (without at least some paradox) yet still exist (time, consciousness, etc..).

You're misusing the term "logically impossible". Certain phenomena currently can't be explained (or at least their explanation doesn't have universal agreement), but that doesn't mean that their existence contradicts logical axioms.

Jack Cummins

↪tim wood

I think that the question of God's existence, and the debate between theism and atheism is central to philosophy. It is not about winning or losing , or any of our shortcomings as individuals, and will go on long after you or I, and Amen discuss the matter. So, I think that it is worth looking at the arguments with disregard to any of our past as present faults as human beings. It is a philosophy question and area for debate of central importance.

Michael

In that respect, since there is obvious mystery, paradox and contradiction in life, how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically? — 3017amen

The atheist does not believe that there exists some X such that it is "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions), a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. an adored, admired, or influential person."

They reject the existence of such a thing on the grounds that either a) the existence of such a thing is logically impossible or b) there is insufficient evidence to support the belief that such a thing exists.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of a) and b), it is a logical (i.e. internally consistent) position to hold.

jorndoe

they have to have some explanation for how brains produce consciousness — RogueAI

I guess so?
Presently, "don't know" seems to be the honest response, the only honest response, at least as far as any comprehensive understanding goes.
(And that makes for some dishonesty out there, doesn't it?)
There are reasons to associate minds and bodies, though, pretty good reasons.

Yet, theism doesn't explain this sort of thing either.
Typically, the response is a bit like that of idealism: mind is instead just assumed to be irreducibly basic, and so not explainable in terms of anything else in the first place.
With theism, there's that vague "supernatural" or "magical" type undertone as well, which could be raised to explain anything, and thus explains nothing.

Levine's explanatory gap / Chalmers' consciousness conundrum seems to stuff a wedge in between either explaining the other (which isn't a contradiction, but rather a gap), yet that's not related to theism in particular.

Just asserting that we can't acquire more understanding (say, in some sort of "physicalistic" terms), even in principle, won't do.

tim wood

So, I think that it is worth looking at the arguments — Jack Cummins

You have evidence that 3017 will do that? Please refer me to that evidence that I may apologize to him for mistaking him.

tim wood

and the debate between theism and atheism is central to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Question to you and anyone who may care to answer: what exactly is that debate?

NOS4A2

↪Cuthbert

In that respect, since there is obvious mystery, paradox and contradiction in life, how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically?

The noun "God", or whatever name it is given, has yet to be shown to refer to anything in the universe. One can only scan certain literature to find any remnants of it, or at any rate, the existence of it cannot be shown to extend beyond our language.

Given history, it is clear the concept has sprung from the human mind as an explanatory fiction, more a product of ignorance than of experiment and reason, and not much different in form than the idea that anthropomorphic beings move waves and thunder. Such beliefs have long-since been superseded by more plausible, evidence-based models.

praxis

↪tim wood

His faith must empower his extraordinary shamelessness.

3017amen

Thank you to all who have legitimate concerns, questions, etc.. I will get to all that were addressed to me, and want to also focus on Michael's concerns first because there are some very intriguing points thereto... .

As an ancillary note, I hope that likewise some can find little nuggets of intrigue that inspires them to ask the right questions about this particular subject matter... . (They say that philosophy is about knowing which questions to ask... since maybe the simplest question can lead to some other novel discovery of sorts.)

↪Michael

Jack Cummins

↪3017amen

That sounds good, and it is not as if the answers to the question have to be overnight, because philosophers and others have spent a long time thinking about it all.

3017amen

↪Jack Cummins

:100: :up:

Hanover

The noun "God", or whatever name it is given, has yet to be shown to refer to anything in the universe. — NOS4A2

For any entity X, evidence for its support can either be direct or circumstantial. Direct would refer to a direct perception of it. If referring to God, if someone claimed to have seen, heard, touched, smelled, or felt God, then there would be direct evidence of his existence. Whether you find these accounts credible is another matter, but if someone says they felt the presence of God, they have defeated your argument that God references nothing in the universe and is a created fiction.

And then there's circumstantial evidence, which is just as valid as direct evidence, and which we commonly use to prove all sorts of things. I can be fairly certain a deer walked across my yard if I see deer prints, see deer droppings, and see trampled flower beds. By the same token, if his DNA is on her, we conclude he was with her. And so goes the teleological argument, where we see design and infer a designer. There are always other explanations of course for what we see after the fact. but as long as we apply the same epistemological standards to proving God than what we use to prove deer, we haven't violated our standards.

Kenosha Kid

In cosmology, as the term super-natural would imply, something beyond the laws of nature and pure reason has caused something rather than nothing. These concepts further imply there must be something, logically, that goes beyond the laws of nature — 3017amen

Wut. Lemme get this straight... What you're saying is that because we define "supernatural" to be beyond nature and reason, there must logically be something beyond nature and reason?

The Logic of Atheism/2

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions