-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How does one come to believe something?
- Thread starter Joshua260
- Start date
lumberjohn
Active Member
“I exist” is a properly basic assumption. Another is “My senses and memory sometimes provide me with accurate information.” In my view, these are the only justified properly basic assumptions. They may be false, but to deny them is to deny any possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge. Without them, we could not even begin to construct a workable model of reality. We would be left with radical skepticism: the view that we can know nothing about anything. Epistemically, there would be nowhere left to go. The assumptions are therefore justified by their practical necessity. So long as they remain consistent with our experiences, we are further justified in retaining them.
Because we cannot verify them empirically, the assumptions must remain provisional, always subject to revision or even abandonment if necessary. Nonetheless, they can be considered “properly basic” -- basic in that that are foundational to knowledge and “properly” so because they represent the minimum necessary upon which to build an epistemic framework. They give us something upon which to attach the scaffolding supporting the models we build of existence. Once they are in place, empirical evidence can take over and carry us the rest of the way by applying the rules of logic and reason through which valid inferences can be drawn, either inductively or deductively.
Upvote
0
lumberjohn
Active Member
With all this discussion of dark matter and quantum mechanics, it may be useful to step back and discuss why arguments like these fail from the outset. They are merely arguments from ignorance.The argument from ignorance posits that any time science can’t provide a definitive answer to some question about the universe, one should immediately jump to the conclusion that the Christian God is the answer. It posits the Christian God as the default explanation for any and all unanswered questions. And, conveniently, any time a comprehensive theory covers some discrete issue on which no clear scientific consensus has emerged, the entire theory must be abandoned in favor of the “alternate” explanation that “God did it.” That is why the argument from ignorance is also occasionally referred to as “the God Default.”
The argument from ignorance is based upon a false dichotomy that things are either explained in their entirety by a comprehensive and consensus-based scientific theory or they are explained by God. It can be summarized as “If we don’t know with certainty how something happened, then God must have done it.” One might as well say that if something can’t be completely explained, it must be magic.
There is no justification for making the Christian God the default position. Any religion could claim the same in a game of “King of the Hill.” Where we don’t know something, agnosticism (“We just don’t know”) is the only rationally justified default position. We should only accept and believe a claim if it is supported by evidence. Until that happens, we should withhold judgment – not jump to the conclusion that the deity of one’s preference is the true cause.
The argument from ignorance also rests on the false assumption that what we know now is all we’ll ever know – that the “as yet unexplained” should be treated as “forever unexplainable” and that if no satisfying natural explanation is currently at hand, such an explanation is impossible. Accordingly, it posits, we are justified in throwing up our hands, ending our quest for knowledge, and simply concluding that God must be responsible. As such, it implicitly proposes an end to scientific inquiry in favor of blind acceptance of theological causation.
The best approach when confronted with a scientific question for which no clear scientific consensus has emerged is simply to acknowledge that we don’t know the answer yet. As history has demonstrated again and again, science will eventually plug the gaps in our knowledge. It is reasonable to wait for that to happen rather than inject an unnecessary and unjustified hypothesis (God) out of a desire for immediate certainty. The alternative to the God Default is, of course, the Naturalistic Default. That means that if we don’t know the answer to some scientific question, we should assume the question has an answer found within the natural world unless and until proven otherwise.
What, you may ask, justifies the Naturalistic Default over the God Default? Only that whenever a natural explanation to a scientific question has been assumed, that assumption has always turned out to be correct once more knowledge was obtained. By contrast, every time a supernatural explanation has been assumed for something ultimately explained, that assumption has been proven wrong. There are innumerable examples of the former, but no examples of a supernatural explanation proving to be correct. Ever. I think a 100% success rate is justification enough.
If science has taught us anything, it is that the unknown and the unknowable are different things and the first does not imply or require the second. Science has made a practice of identifying the unknown and explaining it. History is strewn with those claiming the unknowable, only to find the fact was merely unknown, and temporarily so that. As scholar Robert Price has said, “Experience tells us that whenever a scientist or historian has stopped short, shrugged, and said, ‘Well, I can’t explain it! I guess it must be a miracle!’ he has later regretted it. Someone else was not willing to give up, and, like a detective on a Cold Case Files show on TV, he or she did manage to find the neglected clue.”
Given that we have no experience with supernatural explanations, we would need to eliminate all natural explanations decisively before defaulting to a supernatural one. The burden then is always on the apologist to eliminate every possible naturalistic explanation before arguing for a supernatural one. In short, “We don’t know, therefore God” is not sound reasoning. “We don’t know” is never a good reason for believing any particular theory. All we can say within the bounds of reason is “We don’t know; therefore we don’t know.” In the meantime, however, we are justified by analogy in assuming the world works according to natural laws, and that a natural solution will be found if given enough time. The God of the gaps posited by the argument from ignorance is merely a pocket of scientific ignorance that is always diminishing.
The biggest problem with the argument from ignorance, however, is that, as used by apologists, God does not represent an alternative explanation at all. The purpose of an explanation is to dispel mystery. No valid explanation introduces an even more mysterious concept to explain the first. Assume you witnessed a man pull a rabbit out of an apparently empty hat, and asked him to explain how he accomplished this feat. You would not be satisfied if the man simply told you “it’s magic.” To say something is “magic” amounts to another way of saying we have no explanation. To identify the explanation of something as “God” without clearly defining God and the process by which God accomplishes the result in question is no different than saying the explanation is magic. It represents a glib and ultimately meaningless tautology.
To compare explanations, furthermore, they must be roughly equivalent. Scientific theories provide testable models that describe how things currently work and allow for predictions for how they will work under different conditions. Religious “explanations” do neither.How can they when God and his ways are considered forever unexplainable? These types of arguments can never justify nor legitimately advance belief in the Christian God.
The argument from ignorance is based upon a false dichotomy that things are either explained in their entirety by a comprehensive and consensus-based scientific theory or they are explained by God. It can be summarized as “If we don’t know with certainty how something happened, then God must have done it.” One might as well say that if something can’t be completely explained, it must be magic.
There is no justification for making the Christian God the default position. Any religion could claim the same in a game of “King of the Hill.” Where we don’t know something, agnosticism (“We just don’t know”) is the only rationally justified default position. We should only accept and believe a claim if it is supported by evidence. Until that happens, we should withhold judgment – not jump to the conclusion that the deity of one’s preference is the true cause.
The argument from ignorance also rests on the false assumption that what we know now is all we’ll ever know – that the “as yet unexplained” should be treated as “forever unexplainable” and that if no satisfying natural explanation is currently at hand, such an explanation is impossible. Accordingly, it posits, we are justified in throwing up our hands, ending our quest for knowledge, and simply concluding that God must be responsible. As such, it implicitly proposes an end to scientific inquiry in favor of blind acceptance of theological causation.
The best approach when confronted with a scientific question for which no clear scientific consensus has emerged is simply to acknowledge that we don’t know the answer yet. As history has demonstrated again and again, science will eventually plug the gaps in our knowledge. It is reasonable to wait for that to happen rather than inject an unnecessary and unjustified hypothesis (God) out of a desire for immediate certainty. The alternative to the God Default is, of course, the Naturalistic Default. That means that if we don’t know the answer to some scientific question, we should assume the question has an answer found within the natural world unless and until proven otherwise.
What, you may ask, justifies the Naturalistic Default over the God Default? Only that whenever a natural explanation to a scientific question has been assumed, that assumption has always turned out to be correct once more knowledge was obtained. By contrast, every time a supernatural explanation has been assumed for something ultimately explained, that assumption has been proven wrong. There are innumerable examples of the former, but no examples of a supernatural explanation proving to be correct. Ever. I think a 100% success rate is justification enough.
If science has taught us anything, it is that the unknown and the unknowable are different things and the first does not imply or require the second. Science has made a practice of identifying the unknown and explaining it. History is strewn with those claiming the unknowable, only to find the fact was merely unknown, and temporarily so that. As scholar Robert Price has said, “Experience tells us that whenever a scientist or historian has stopped short, shrugged, and said, ‘Well, I can’t explain it! I guess it must be a miracle!’ he has later regretted it. Someone else was not willing to give up, and, like a detective on a Cold Case Files show on TV, he or she did manage to find the neglected clue.”
Given that we have no experience with supernatural explanations, we would need to eliminate all natural explanations decisively before defaulting to a supernatural one. The burden then is always on the apologist to eliminate every possible naturalistic explanation before arguing for a supernatural one. In short, “We don’t know, therefore God” is not sound reasoning. “We don’t know” is never a good reason for believing any particular theory. All we can say within the bounds of reason is “We don’t know; therefore we don’t know.” In the meantime, however, we are justified by analogy in assuming the world works according to natural laws, and that a natural solution will be found if given enough time. The God of the gaps posited by the argument from ignorance is merely a pocket of scientific ignorance that is always diminishing.
The biggest problem with the argument from ignorance, however, is that, as used by apologists, God does not represent an alternative explanation at all. The purpose of an explanation is to dispel mystery. No valid explanation introduces an even more mysterious concept to explain the first. Assume you witnessed a man pull a rabbit out of an apparently empty hat, and asked him to explain how he accomplished this feat. You would not be satisfied if the man simply told you “it’s magic.” To say something is “magic” amounts to another way of saying we have no explanation. To identify the explanation of something as “God” without clearly defining God and the process by which God accomplishes the result in question is no different than saying the explanation is magic. It represents a glib and ultimately meaningless tautology.
To compare explanations, furthermore, they must be roughly equivalent. Scientific theories provide testable models that describe how things currently work and allow for predictions for how they will work under different conditions. Religious “explanations” do neither.How can they when God and his ways are considered forever unexplainable? These types of arguments can never justify nor legitimately advance belief in the Christian God.
Upvote
0
To ALL === After the post on "evidence" (Step 3, #479), now, in Step 4, I will go into the "proofs" (or demonstrations) of a God - e.g. Aquinas' five. This leads to the definition or description of my concept of God. Other "proofs" will come up with issues.
Some say that Aquinas' "proofs" are obsolete. We shall see. His demonstrations are, as we observe: 1) that something in motion needs to be put in motion by another object already in motion. This latter by another in previous motion, etc. to a series of regressions which cannot go to infinity. Hence, there must be a first mover. This concept we call God.
2) that science says every effect has a cause and that nothing can be the cause of itself. So, again, previous causes cannot go on to infinity. Hence, the first uncaused cause is a concept called God. 3) that by the nature of (physical) things, they either exist or they don't -- as they come into existence and pass out of it. Something that can not exist cannot be the cause of existence. So, there must be an existence of itself. This concept we call God.
4) that we qualify objects by varying degrees (e.g. greater or lesser). Such are relative to a max or min (superlatives). There must, then, be a max (or min) greater (or lesser) than anything we observe. This concept we call God. 5) that inanimate & non-intelligent objects act/exist, w/o awareness, toward their best possible purpose. This implies a guide (as an arrow by an archer). This ultimate guide concept we call God.
Notes: Arg. 1 works natural philosophy to motion & change (physics). Arg 2 is a transition from physics (cause-effect) to metaphysics. Arg 3 carries Arg. 2 into metaphysics & rational speculation about being itself. Arg 4 is unique -- neither physical nor metaphysical -- but qualitative and use of abstraction. Arg. 5 appeals to the wonder, the order, of both animate & inanimate elements of the universe.
There are conceptual ties, but differences in the first 3 arguments. #1 considers (only) motion of individual objects, where #2 considers the entire universe itself. Arg. 1 take existence of the world for granted and addresses observable change. Arg. 2 works to account for the existence of the world. #3 considers the concept of being itself with a gaze toward the theoretical non-observed states beyond experience. Thus, the results are that only a God-type of concept can account for the physical world 1) change, 2) existence and 3) of existence itself.
So, to this point, the definition/description of the God concept, by the Aquinas observations, is the only & ultimate: 1) Mover, 2) Cause, 3) Purely active (absolutely necessary) Being, 4) Max & Min, First & Last (Alpha & Omega), 5) Grand Planner & Order-maker.
Needless to say these are attributes as described in human understandable terms. The real or true description of a purely spiritual (or conceptual) being is beyond human understanding as the spiritual is beyond our physical dimensions. We can only extrapolate from the results, our observations, which defy our limited senses. Hence, logic, which reaches into the metaphysical, is needed.
Notes: 1) Both a priori (from cause, orig. principles) & a posteriori (from effect as observation) methods are needed as well as interpolation (between facts) and extrapolation (progression beyond end points). 2) As mentioned (in #479), there are different kinds of evidence and, hence, varying degrees of confidence of results/conclusions. 3) One must understand the difference between essence (foundational, fixed) & accidentals (attributes or characteristics, changing) of a thing. Argument.
Some say that Aquinas' "proofs" are obsolete. We shall see. His demonstrations are, as we observe: 1) that something in motion needs to be put in motion by another object already in motion. This latter by another in previous motion, etc. to a series of regressions which cannot go to infinity. Hence, there must be a first mover. This concept we call God.
2) that science says every effect has a cause and that nothing can be the cause of itself. So, again, previous causes cannot go on to infinity. Hence, the first uncaused cause is a concept called God. 3) that by the nature of (physical) things, they either exist or they don't -- as they come into existence and pass out of it. Something that can not exist cannot be the cause of existence. So, there must be an existence of itself. This concept we call God.
4) that we qualify objects by varying degrees (e.g. greater or lesser). Such are relative to a max or min (superlatives). There must, then, be a max (or min) greater (or lesser) than anything we observe. This concept we call God. 5) that inanimate & non-intelligent objects act/exist, w/o awareness, toward their best possible purpose. This implies a guide (as an arrow by an archer). This ultimate guide concept we call God.
Notes: Arg. 1 works natural philosophy to motion & change (physics). Arg 2 is a transition from physics (cause-effect) to metaphysics. Arg 3 carries Arg. 2 into metaphysics & rational speculation about being itself. Arg 4 is unique -- neither physical nor metaphysical -- but qualitative and use of abstraction. Arg. 5 appeals to the wonder, the order, of both animate & inanimate elements of the universe.
There are conceptual ties, but differences in the first 3 arguments. #1 considers (only) motion of individual objects, where #2 considers the entire universe itself. Arg. 1 take existence of the world for granted and addresses observable change. Arg. 2 works to account for the existence of the world. #3 considers the concept of being itself with a gaze toward the theoretical non-observed states beyond experience. Thus, the results are that only a God-type of concept can account for the physical world 1) change, 2) existence and 3) of existence itself.
So, to this point, the definition/description of the God concept, by the Aquinas observations, is the only & ultimate: 1) Mover, 2) Cause, 3) Purely active (absolutely necessary) Being, 4) Max & Min, First & Last (Alpha & Omega), 5) Grand Planner & Order-maker.
Needless to say these are attributes as described in human understandable terms. The real or true description of a purely spiritual (or conceptual) being is beyond human understanding as the spiritual is beyond our physical dimensions. We can only extrapolate from the results, our observations, which defy our limited senses. Hence, logic, which reaches into the metaphysical, is needed.
Notes: 1) Both a priori (from cause, orig. principles) & a posteriori (from effect as observation) methods are needed as well as interpolation (between facts) and extrapolation (progression beyond end points). 2) As mentioned (in #479), there are different kinds of evidence and, hence, varying degrees of confidence of results/conclusions. 3) One must understand the difference between essence (foundational, fixed) & accidentals (attributes or characteristics, changing) of a thing. Argument.
Upvote
0
=== RESP: 1) Apparently, is OK on this site; but, no apologetics for Christians. 2) Of course not. Where did you get this? 3) I've not been talking abt. world -- we've got enough to handle just here in the US!
P.S. The "time" has come! Just the post after yours - #506. Enjoy & learn!
Upvote
0
=== RESP: 1) Funny, assuming the Christians were losing (on their own site)! ;-) But, in one way, apparently we did lose in another way -- it being no longer PC to defend Christianity on our own web site! The crazy world that we live in! ;-( BTW: You said such a forum was closed, but gave a ref?
2) Atheism has all the (negative) dogma of any religion that I know. If it walks, talks, & flies like a duck, then, .... Believing it is not a religion is just a façade.
3) I'm hesitant to resp. to this -- as I might be accused of defending Christianity! But, taking a chance -- rather, you should look at our own America -- its foundation & development (as in Brokaw's "Greatest Gen.") and compare to today's secular society practices (e.g. among politicians & corp. execs.). So, is God the best, most positive, choice for America? BTW: Now you have my (partial) definition of God in #506.
4) As I said, I can discuss God w/o having to defend Christianity. This is about common sense (logic or philosophy, as is the forum) and observation (personal as well as the majority of Americans). You must accept the bible (and Christ) as, simply, historical sources acceptable to many Americans.
Upvote
0
lumberjohn
Active Member
1. We now know Aquinas was wrong about this. Everything is in motion and this may have been so for all eternity. There is no need for a "First Mover."
2. Causality is something we have observed within our own post-Big Bang universe, but we have no justification for extrapolating it beyond that. Causality is a temporal concept that depends on linear time. Prior to the Big-Bang we don't know if there was such a thing as linear time.
3. We have never seen anything cease to exist in this metaphysical sense or come into existence. We have only observed changes in the composition of matter and energy. All we see may have always existed in some form. We don't know.
4. That we quantify certain things as greater and lesser need not entail the superlative you suggest. While there may be a largest star in the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean a larger star isn't possible, or that there must be some "maximally large" star. These are just terms we use to relect relative quantities.
5. You haven't even established there is any such "best possible purpose." Aquinas lived in a pre-evolution world before the appearance of design was explained by natural selection. There is no basis to accept this claim today.
Upvote
0
=== RESP: I guess I'll have to be more subtle with you -- with your resistant to learning! ;-)
Upvote
0
lumberjohn
Active Member
Please cite some atheist dogma for us. I want to make sure I'm towing the party line.
Upvote
0
=== RESP: Simple. The main dogma is that "there is no God"! And, atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, & Russell) go to great lengths to defend this fundamental principle! A corollary is "religion is a delusion". New Age atheism goes further -- YCYOR (you are your own god who creates your own reality).
Upvote
0
lumberjohn
Active Member
Are you kidding?
Many of the greatest societies known to man made their accomplishments without Christianity: Greece during the golden age, the early Roman Empire, several dynasties of China, the Islamic empire under Muhammad, or the historic Japanese culture. Look to medieval Christianity for the purer more scripture based form, and you will see it wasn’t so great. The legacy of Christianity was called the Dark Ages -- and with good reason. It was a period in which many of the previous societal advances were overturned. Scientific books were burned or written over for more copies of religious text. Christians have a terrible track record when it comes to slavery, wars, inquisitions, witch hunts, scientific progress, and so on.
The United Nations Developmental Program’s Human Development Index is a ranking of the world’s nations based on key factors such as health, education, living standards, literacy, and life expectancy at birth. The report shows that less Christianity and less religion of any kind is associated with better societies overall. Social scientist Phil Zuckerman has concluded after decades of studies that that “high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health.” The least religious countries are better off than most of the religious countries. Atheist countries have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, less crime, fewer suicides, fewer homicides, higher literacy, less poverty, greater gender equality, better healthcare, and so forth.
You might also want to look here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/
http://www.smartskeptic.com/argumen...-can-humans-be-moral-without-god-or-religion/
So if you belive we need to live less, have more dead babies, more crime, more suicide, more homicides, less literacy, more poverty, less gender equality, and worse healthcare, then with those assumptions in place, I suppose God is the best choice. Where you and I part ways is that I don't share those assumptions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
lumberjohn
Active Member
I know of no atheist that takes "there is no God" as some dogmatic principle. All the atheists I know simply don't believe in God because God fails the test of epistemic reasonableness. They likewise don't believe in other things that fail this test - not because of some dogmatic commitment, but as a consequence of their evidentialist approach. The evidentialist approach is in turn justified because it consistently offers a reliable method of interpreting the world - superior in every way to any alternate approach. If you have evidence of atheists taking a different approach, please cite it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
You are free to make that defence, but this philosophy forum is not the platform to do it in.
All references on this site have been removed.
It never ceases to amaze me to see a religionist use their own nomenclature in the pejorative.
Not mine.
Comparing it to more secular nations, in many categories, it would not appear so.
Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat and that the cosmos rotates around us.
A fallacious argument from popularity.
I don't have to. It is my understanding that the Bible fails to meet the criteria for being considered a historical document.
http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf
Upvote
0
=== RESP: 1) I'm surprised. I thought you knew some other atheists. But, of course, you (or they) don't call it "dogma" -- that word is only what you use against religious people. 2) OK, just rephrase it. So, Dawkins, Harris, Russell, etc. don't argue against a God? We can argue "reasonableness" and/or "pragmatic". Yes, not your scientific reason -- which limits you.
3) You haven't encountered atheist physicists that think they've found the equations by which the universe was created? No "dogmatic commitment" here? 4) So, you only believe in one kind of evidence (or approach) vs. my 4 types (#479) or various methods/approaches (bot. note in #506)?
5) Yes, perhaps, the best that a material minded person can do. But, using our unique, special, higher level human faculties, I will argue about "superior" -- let alone "in every way". I see that your way is limited. 6) No, I don't plan on side-tracking to studying atheists. You will do just fine!
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
I do not claim that knowledge.
My position would be more clearly stated here:
"Being No One: Consciousness and the Phenomenal Self"
Upvote
0
Similar threads
