My earlier post, "How not to argue with an atheist" (http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-not-to-argue-with-atheist.html) generated a couple of responses from two atheists, Justin and Samuel. Their replies have brought a good illustration of some of the points I was trying to make. Hence this post to draw some attention, hopefully to bring more clarity to anyone who was trying to follow what I was saying. The comments thread to read is here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6097581429595233439&postID=8635448673055433548
Samuel and Justin both seem, from our discussion so far, to be complete newcomers to the idea that atheism should have to justify its own assumptions. Their responses thus far indicate that they have both taken completely for granted their own nature as logical, rational beings - and the idea that truth should be investigated and received on the basis of arguments based around proving propositional statements.
In other words, they have taken completely for granted that man is precisely the kind of being that the Bible says he is - made in the image of God, with intelligence and the scope for processing, discussing, accepting and rejecting of ideas. He's not just an ape whose only purpose is eating, sleeping and reproducing - he's made for higher things. He has a generally reliable reasoning faculty that reflects the perfect one of his Maker, and that should be used to think great thoughts, not just hunt for food and sex.
But hang on! This is the Christian set of assumptions. It's fine for me to behave as if rationality was handed down from heaven on a plate - because that's my position. For the atheist to do so, though, is serious inconsistency. Atheism's assumptions are that our thought processes are the result of millions of copying mistakes in DNA. Our reasoning faculties are just chemical machines, constructed through a long series of errors. On that basis, why should we trust it? Is it rational to trust the result of millions of mistakes? Shouldn't Justin and Samuel have to justify what they're doing before I let them do it - why should they get a free pass?
My correspondent Justin is continuing to stick to his guns. He tells me that I'm the one making the case for God, so I must prove it - and resolutely refuses to justify any of his own atheistic assumptions. The onus is on me - and we'll just shove the issues of why he, from an atheist point of view, should believe in logic, reason and rationality under the carpet. But from his point of view, this is just illogical. As there's as yet no reason offered as to why I should believe that Justin is a logical, reasonable being, it would be a bit silly of me to start offering him logical reasons. Shouldn't he have to justify his own assumptions? He wants to continue taking all the fruits that flow from his being created by God for granted - yet maintain that he isn't accountable to God for them. The only line of attempted justification for his own position so far is this: "Mine has been clearly demonstrated as correct through your avoidance of any real conversation by using word games to hide your lack of reasons to believe." Justin - come on - it's only schoolboy debates that are won by scoring points when your opponent makes (supposedly) bad arguments. Atheism needs just a little more justification than saying that theists are talking twaddle to explain how we come to be the rational thinkers that you say we are.
The interaction so far has well illustrated the point I started from - that atheists figure that the way to maintain their position is to award themselves a massive set of privileges. Theists will, they assert, have to justify all of their assumptions - but atheists get a free pass on theirs. When the debate is set up this way, it's no wonder that the atheists often walk off feeling smug that they didn't end up being convinced. They want to assume that logic works in an atheistic universe just like it would in a created one - but without explaining why. To fight God, they can't find any tools to use - apart from God's. Or in other words, the Bible is true; they have the knowledge of God, but wilfully suppress it (Romans 1:18ff).
15 comments:
"complete newcomers to the idea that atheism should have to justify its own assumptions"
I look forward to you explaining the assumptions shared in common by atheists who are: Objectivists, Secular Humanists, Religious Humanists, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Raelians, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, monarchists, utilitarians, nihilists, Marxists, and existentialists, just to name a few. You will need to explain how, exactly, these alleged assumptions proceed necessarily from the ideologies of these atheists. I'd also like to learn how it is that atheists with such diverse beliefs happen to end up with the same basic assumptions. That's quite a coincidence. Divine intervention, perhaps?
Samuel Skinner
I'm not assuming that I am rational. If you looked at my last post I admitted that I probably wasn't. I am, however capable of rational thought. I don't assume this- I can see it in the way I talk. I don't "borrow" from theism.
What's next? Atheists "borrow" morality from theism? Hope from theism? Joy, emotion and empathy from theism?
The fact is saying God exists is a claim about the world, one that is resolved with evidence. There happens to be no evidence for your god (any more than any other). That leads people to weak atheism. The fact that such a concept is logically impossible leads to strong atheism.
As for your understanding of evolution... it sucks. Long string of errors, copying mistakes, chemicals... all these are true, but in your case substitute for thought. Think about this carefully- if the your body doesn't fit a certain set of tolerances... you die. That would be the force that drives natural selection, the fact not everyone survives and breeds. Since being able to think is an advantage, it is reasonable to assume it was selected for and we can see it in the primate family.
You seem to think it is unfair atheism gets a free pass. Evidence is like that- it doesn't give a damn about what you think. Gravity and Aristotelean mechanics are not on equal footing and neither is atheism and theism.
Anonymous 1 (please give yourself at least a nickname so that we can distinguish you from all the other anonymouses in the world who might also chime in...): So, what's your point?
All people everywhere, of all persuasions, generally act as if humans had a unique ability to make rational argumentation as if their brains were reliable. They do this despite some of them holding to ideologies, such as evolution, which ultimately tell them that there is no reason to believe that - or even tell them it would be more consistent to believe the opposite. So, how come all these people act inconsistently with their professed system of thought, behaving as if they can take their own rationality for granted? They do this because God made them rational beings - regardless of how much their systems of thought deny it. They're constrained by their creation to behave that way. We can't escape our constitution as rational beings, even if we espouse the most ludicrous ideologies. We still have to live in God's world even if we try to construct an alternative mental world that has quite different assumptions.
David
Samuel - you're still swatting and missing here.
Aside: By "rational" I'm talking about our capability for rational thought, not infallible rational thought. As you want me to justify my assumptions by presenting a rational case for theism, I'm turning the tables and asking you to justify your assumptions by showing how, on atheist presuppositions, we can even know that you're rational (as in, capable of rationality) in the first place?
Swatting and missing: You seem either not to understand the argument being made, or to understand it too well and not know how to combat it. If we're going to start talking about evidence for God, which you again press me for, then we first need to ask if we, as human beings, are equipped with the necessary equipment to process that evidence. The problem is that if you begin with atheism's assumptions, then there's no way of showing that that equipment even exists. A debate itself would be irrational, because we wouldn't even know if we were talking truth, or just being misled in the way that our brain chemicals are programmed by Darwinism to mislead us. It's only the theist who can assume that we're rational creatures, because he believes that the God of rationality made us.
You continue to press me for "evidence", without understanding the point that it's only by assuming the reality of your creation as a being made in the image of God, able to process and analyse such evidence, that we can even have the discussion. I'm pressing you to justify why we can have that discussion on your set of atheistic assumptions. Your set of assumptions doesn't even make discussion possible.
You've told me that rational thought improves survival ability. Really? From an evolutionary point of view, we're in no position to make that judgment. Humans have been around only a blink of an eye in evolutionary time - so far the bacteria are winning I think; I wonder if they must be more rational than we are? It'll only be a few more hundred million years down the line before we can even make the judgment as to whether the (assumed!) evolution of rationality helped our species outlast others or not. Humans aren't the most numerous species on the planet, nor the longest lived; mosquitoes seem to do pretty well too. Should I assume that mosquitoes think more rationally than we do?
Samuel Skinner
Let me put it this way. Bacteria are incapable of thinking. However we are. Although 100000 years is short in the universe it is long in history. We can gleam plenty of instances of people not acting ratioanlly. Read the Darwin awards for modern examples.
Come to think of it, how do you think irrationally? Do you go randomly or are there rules you have to follow? Come on David- you know this on.
Also this doesn't prove God exists. I could say we are rational because the space aliens designed us this way (scientology). Basically your arguement just requires human minds to be designed. There has to be some sort of sorting mechanism, quality control, selection... it sounds like a job for... EVOLUTION! Sorry- couldn't help it.
You say
Atheism's assumptions are that our thought processes are the result of millions of copying mistakes in DNA. Our reasoning faculties are just chemical machines, constructed through a long series of errors. On that basis, why should we trust it? Is it rational to trust the result of millions of mistakes?
You really can't call these "mistakes" unless it is your agenda to make the atheist's position look stupid. They are not mistakes if they wind up improving the organism. They are neither mistakes nor right answers, just changes. Your description is quite slanted to make your position seem correct and to denigrate that of the atheist. Is this a blind spot in your thinking? It's likely.
You ask about mosquitos and rational thought. The key problem with our "rational" thought is that our mind is always completely convinced that it is absolutely right. Sure, we can remember times when we've been wrong about something. But it is in the past, and that we're now right about being wrong back then. And, most people minimize any incorrect thinking they may have had. It was right to do that wrong thing, etc.
This is perhaps the only thing I know for sure. Yet, I am so sure that I may actually be wrong about my thinking that any other thoughts right now may be wrong too. The only stake we have in the ground is that our minds think they are right-- all the time.
I'm sure you feel absolutely correct about your strong beliefs and that there is a God, etc. But this is a defect in your mind if you are not also uncertain of the answer as well.
Most theologians are so certain that they have the right answer that I am absolutely certain that they probably have it wrong.
By the way, I stumbled to your blog because I was looking for people who are interested in the foundations of life and religious thought. I'd like to recommend a new book called Coils of the Serpent. You can get an overview here.
The basis for this book is quite remarkable, because it claims to find the pattern of life, DNA, etc. in ancient biblical scriptures. But don't get the idea that this is sudden proof that your beliefs are correct. As I said, you can't be certain.
--RCL
RTL, Hi. Your argument on DNA is novel, but useless. If we re-label the mistakes as just "changes", it makes no difference - there's still no explanation for how millions of "changes" can give us knowledge that our rationality is real and not a delusion which our DNA is forcing on us. The rest of the response: well, I'm giving you the reasons I find convincing. I'm not sure what to do about being told that I'm not allowed to find statements about God convincing. Actually for you to say that is a position of dogmatic certainty itself - you're in no position to know that I don't have sufficient reasons to believe as I do. To tell me that I *can't* be certain is just as dogmatic a position as mine. Why can't I? Are you certain about it? How do you get to be certain about what I can and can't believe and I don't? I think that line of argument is self-refuting.
Sauel, you're still missing the structure of the argument. I've been comparing the explanatory power of two competing explanations - Christianity and atheism. The structure isn't inductive. You could bring in space aliens too and play that hteory often against the others. But I was comparing the relative explanatory power of Christianity and atheism and finding the latter wanting in comparison. You're also still missing what I mean by "rationally" - I've posted a new post which I hope will bring some more clarity.
All future comments to latest post on the subject, please - trying to kepe this relatively tidy! :-)
Samuel Skinner
The reason atheism can't justify its assumptions is it is a fact statemnt, not a worldview. Fact statements are pieces of information about the world- worldviews are ways we interpret information.
The question you want to ask is how do you justify your worldview if you don't believe really hard it is true? For me I don't. I try to avoid having worldviews except as a temporary lens.
Samuel,
Whether we choose to consider atheism as worldview or purported fact doesn't affect its inability to give an account for the rational structure of reality, especially when compared to Christianity. New comments to the new post as requested, please.
David
Samuel Skinner
Pah- once again you miss a major point. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it is true. In the past we couldn't explain how the universe began, and theist used it as a point in their favor. You are arguing from ignorance and doing the "if it is useful it must be true". Neither of these prove god exists. Saying that "god created everything" is a nice and easy answer, but it doesn't prove god exists.
None of this is saying I can't explain logic- I'm just pointing out this explanation sucks on it face. Logic works because the universe is orderly. By that I mean reality follows rules completely and it never departs from them. Never. In such a universe logic will work. If we didn't live in such a universe we wouldn't exist- conditions would be too choatic for us.
Samuel Skinner
Why is the universe obey logic? Well in some places it doesn't. Remember quantum theory, where things get weird and things can be and not be at the same time (if that isn't a violation of A cannot be not-A at the same time, I don't know what is). The laws of logic are approximations of our universe, like Newton's laws. The reason are universe works according to rules is the only alternative is a completely random universe. However a completely random universe could spontaneously annihilate itself. So the only stable ones are rule based. This work for you?
Mr Anderson,
One of the ways that you rock, in contrast to me, is that I don't have the patience to deal patiently with the sort of illogic and irrationality one always encounters when trying to reason with 'atheists.'
"Anonymous 1 (please give yourself at least a nickname so that we can distinguish you from all the other anonymouses in the world ..."
I sometimes refer to an "Anonymous" as an "Anonymouse."
How about "Anonymice" as the generic plural for "Anonymous?"
Post a Comment