Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not (Redux)

[DogmaHunter]

God is to religion as to electron is to physics.

Is it? The "god model" can make testable predictions about what should and should observe in the world and has practical applications as a direct result?

We can't test for existence of the electron. We can only test our model of it. Models are tested to see if these can be applied to predict concistent occurences.

The same is with God. God, in context of religious framework, is A MODEL for describing a "higher order process" of reality we do not directly observe... although we do ascribe certain complex effects to it.

This is simply wrong.

There isn't a single iota, not a single detail, concerning anything supernatural, which can be objectively tested in any way.

If you disagree, I'm just going to ask you to point to such a test.

 

[devolved]

We observe systems changing from one state to another, so the existence of time is apparent. I used common notions to reasonably demonstrate the existence of time. Now, what was the point of that?

Change is what's apparent. You are pointing at that change and say it happens due to some unseen mechanism you call time, but you never demonstrate the time as a mechanism. You are merely pointing at the system changing and say "it's because of time". How do you know that time exits... other than outside of your axiomatic assumption that time is mechanism responsible? How do you know it's not something else causing this change...

Please be patient... I'm getting somewhere with this.

 

[devolved]

Errrrrr..... electrons, electricity, physics in general.... is emperical - not "metaphysical".

The empirical part is the observed effects ascribed to those entities, with the causation agent axiomatically presupposed. We've never observed an electron, so how can it be empirical?

 

[devolved]

yep. With emphasis on the "as long as the models predict expected behavior...". Also known as "backed by empirical evidence"

So, you agree than that neither of these models tests for existence of "unseen agents" that it describes. These models merely test expected results that are observed as some consistent effect that's ascribed to those "unseen agents"... which is what you'd label as empirical data.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The empirical part is the observed effects ascribed to those entities, with the causation agent axiomatically presupposed. We've never observed an electron, so how can it be empirical?

Because the model is empirically testable.

Likewise, before we had tools powerfull enough, we never directly observed atoms. But that didn't stop us from building nuclear bombs.

You talk as if the models for atoms were invented out of thin air. That simply is not true.
Science has been driven to those conclusions through empirical evidence.
And the models that we came up with, were testable through their predictive capabilities.

To pretend as if the acceptance of something like atomic theory is like "religious belief" is prepostrous!

It is nothing alike. It's white and black.

One is based on testable reality and the other is based on "visions" and "dreams" and "revelations" - all of which are indistinguishable from "completely made up" and "hallucination".

 

[devolved]

This is simply wrong.

There isn't a single iota, not a single detail, concerning anything supernatural, which can be objectively tested in any way.

If you disagree, I'm just going to ask you to point to such a test.

First of all, I am not talking about "supernatural". Supernatural is a misleading word, because there technically can't be anything "super-natural". It would just be a part of the same natural. Hence, your qualification of evidence for supernatural is not reasonable in this context.

But again, whatever we ascribe in order to test ... IS THE MODEL, it's never the agent that we test when it comes to theoretical framework. The agent is axiomatically presupposed.

So, God-model of the religious framework presupposes God as the agent and originator of certain functional systems... be it life, moral framework for humanity as a macro-organism, etc. The system has been tested out for several millennia now, and it's a part of our societal legal structure now.

So, what you are doing now is saying... "well... electrical system work just fine based on ratio-metrics alone. We don't really need the electron concept anymore to make it all work". That's essentially what modern atheism boils down to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, you agree than that neither of these models tests for existence of "unseen agents" that it describes.

No, I most definatly do not.

The predictions that flow from atomic theory, are directly related to the model of atoms.
If the model were different, then the predictions would be different as well.

The nature of the predictions are a direct result of the nature of the model.
So every succesfull test of these predictions, brings more support to the model of atoms.

These models merely test expected results that are observed as some consistent effect that's ascribed to those "unseen agents"... which is what you'd label as empirical data.

Not "ascribed". Rather, a direct result of.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First of all, I am not talking about "supernatural". Supernatural is a misleading word, because there technically can't be anything "super-natural". It would just be a part of the same natural. Hence, your qualification of evidence for supernatural is not reasonable in this context.

But again, whatever we ascribe in order to test ... IS THE MODEL, it's never the agent that we test when it comes to theoretical framework. The agent is axiomatically presupposed.

So, God-model of the religious framework presupposes God as the agent and originator of certain functional systems... be it life, moral framework for humanity as a macro-organism, etc. The system has been tested out for several millennia now, and it's a part of our societal legal structure now.

So, what you are doing now is saying... "well... electrical system work just fine based on ratio-metrics alone. We don't really need the electron concept anymore to make it all work". That's essentially what modern atheism boils down to.

See, this is the difference....

In your god model, you're just taking things and then ascribing them to this god.
Whereas in something like the atomic model, we look at the model and make predictions. These predictions are a direct result of the model. Not merely "ascribed to it".

There's a HUGE difference, which you are completely ignoring.

There is no real limit to what you can ascribe to an unfalsifiable, undetectable entitiy.
But there is an extreme limit to the testable predictions that CAN flow from a testable model of reality.

 

[Uber Genius]

Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasona

This trick was first introduced by Antony Flew back in the 1970s.

There is no God is a knowledge claim.

There is a God is a knowledge claim.

Both have to be given evidentiary support in order to take them from the category "belief," to the category of "knowledge."

Fallacy of the undistributed middle (Technical Response to the post-modern proposal by New Atheists to equivocate the terms, "Atheism," and "Agnostic").

P1 -All Russians are revolutionaries
P2 - All anarchists are revolutionaries
A - Therefore all anarchists are Russians.

The middle term is 'revolutionaries." While both Russians and anarchists share the common property of being revolutionaries, making both premises true, there may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we cannot conclude that all anarchists are the same as Russians in every way.

Now let's examine the redefinition of "Atheism," from a claim that there is no god(s) to a lack of belief in god(s).

P1 - All agnostics lack the belief in god(s)
P2 - All atheists lack the belief in god(s)
A - All atheists are agnostics.

Something has happened here that seems wrong but is hard to nail down why. The first two terms are equivocated and I have dealt with that informal fallacy elsewhere.

Let's proceed since the origin to the change in definition seems to orb around Antony Flews 1970s arguments suggesting those lacking belief should not have to defend their position. Further, that it should be the starting point for knowledge.

P1 - All agnostics make no knowledge claims (this premise is also false but work with my assumption)
P2 - burden of proof rests on those making knowledge claims
P3 - All atheists are agnostics
A - Therefore (from 1,2,3) atheists have no burden of proof

The Example is represented by this diagram, where "S" represents the minor term, "Atheists" "P" I is the major term "Agnostics" and "M" the middle term "make no knowledge claims." The diagram does not show the conclusion to be true, which means that the argument is invalid.

Further, we could see the intersection in purple would be the property of "lacking belief in god(s)." But what about the red portion? This is the property of claiming there are good reasons for believing their are no god(s)!

The red area in the Venn diagram above also corresponds with knowledge claims. Or justified beliefs. The agnostic has insufficient evidence to make atheistic knowledge claims. They could gather evidence in the future and become theist or atheist, but currently are not making such claims.

 

[devolved]

The predictions that flow from atomic theory, are directly related to the model of atoms.
If the model were different, then the predictions would be different as well.

Scientific theories are first and foremost about an explanation, which is what a model is. That explanation can use the existing data to make predictions, especially when we are talking about secondary explanations for the existing phenomena. There are multiple ways of describing the same exact things functionally, especially if you are building a model of something you are observing indirectly. For example, whether you adopt aether-based theory, or a discrete position of reality, you'd still have the same outcomes which are merely nominal mathematical ratios. Nominal mathematical ratios can't validate anything other than the prediction of the model.

It's the constraints of the reality that produce the outcome... and not the model. Models are progressively normalized against reality.

For example, we have unit tests in software development. We have a function (a model), we predict the output that this model will give (expected result) based on certain input. So, if the test produces the expected result, it passes and the function is useful. BUT, there's more than one way to give you the same result, hence if you test two independent functions that produce the same exact result... it would be false to automatically assume that they are the same function.

The same is valid for any given scientific model, which don't exist in vacuum and are built on foundation of pre-existing axiomatic assumptions that feed into it. If you presume that space and matter are discrete, then of course you will arrive with atomic theory. If you don't, then you will arrive with something else. But the consistent output of the reality is what normalizes any given model. Models tend to conform to pre-existing data and assumptions. There's no real ways around it, and it's a problem we are running into now when we attempt to interface quantum and classical physics/chemistry models.

The point being in all of this, you seem to imply that only models that are not aware of some data prior to formulation of these models matter. That's simply not the case. We can predict outcomes we already know the answer and data to. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, if the explanation provides adequate utility.

If you are questioning the utility of religous model, then you don't have to look far-beyond Western Civilization. I can give you a dozen of socio-political advantages that such system would present for any developing civilization.

The nature of the predictions are a direct result of the nature of the model.
So every succesfull test of these predictions, brings more support to the model of atoms.

Not entirely.... atomic model was not developed in a philosophical vacuum. The philosophy drives science, and not the other way around. Each successive iteration of atomic theory is based on previous axiomatic assumptions that are existing prior to any models are formulated.

Not "ascribed". Rather, a direct result of.

You are merely shifting semantics into a process that's detached of human agency. Models don't write anything down on paper . People do. People evaluate the data and outcomes and make preferential decisions.

 

[Uber Genius]

Speaking of redux here is my thread I created last April entitled: Why Atheist Philosophers Mock Defining Atheism as a "Lack of Belief in God."

For some atheist philosopher responses to the problems with defining atheism as a "lack of belief,"

See:

-An atheist philosopher’s critique of the “lack of belief” definition of atheism

Atheism: Proving The Negative: The Burden of Proof is on the Atheist

http://www.provingthenegative.com/2007/09/burden-of-proof-is-on-atheist-redux.html

Note: The first link is a reblog as the original atheist philosopher from Australia (could it be Graham) took down the site as soon as theist philosopher William Lane Craig referenced and linked to it. Seems that furthering knowledge amongst philosophically naive atheists was not that philosophers primary concern after all.

 

[devolved]

See, this is the difference....

In your god model, you're just taking things and then ascribing them to this god.
Whereas in something like the atomic model, we look at the model and make predictions. These predictions are a direct result of the model. Not merely "ascribed to it".

Hmm. Again, you are having a process continuum problem here. Predictions can't be "direct result" of a model, because any model is not an independent framework. You inherit an axiomatic framework, and you work through it. Whatever framework you have will feed all of your models of reality.

And again, I used "ascribed" because we are talking about human agency here when formulating explanations. You can't squeeze human agency "thought the model" to get the output. Humans construct the model, feed the assumptions, observe and normalize data and ascribe properties... based on the new or pre-existing data.

There's a HUGE difference, which you are completely ignoring.

I think I've explained it, but I'll condense it here:

1) Utility of explanation will always takes precedent over "previously unknown prediction" in science.
2) There's nothing inherently wrong with "post-diction", and we can use pre-existing data to form conclusions in order to formulate better models. Data is data. It makes no difference whether we look for it in history, or if we look for it in a new experiment that collects it.

Sure, there's always danger of confirmation bias, but so is with any new experiment.

There is no real limit to what you can ascribe to an unfalsifiable, undetectable entitiy.
But there is an extreme limit to the testable predictions that CAN flow from a testable model of reality.

Hmm. That would be the case for any given hypothetical entity. The limit is the minimal and consistently observable reality one is willing to accept as an effect of any given entity given an adequate model of explanation.

Keep in mind that our knowledge is a form of "consentual overlap of concepts". We don't all hold the same understanding of concepts, and we generally reference our own models of pre-existing experience to interpret and communicate any given model.

Likewise, language is representational at any level. For example, the concept of a father is a multi-layered stream of various functional concepts strung together ranging from biology to human experience, to psychological trauma, to whatever. Language must be unpacked before we discuss issue like religion and God.

You seem to be attacking packed language without attempting to understand the model that I propose.

 

[devolved]

One is based on testable reality and the other is based on "visions" and "dreams" and "revelations" - all of which are indistinguishable from "completely made up" and "hallucination".

Well, everything that we do is based on a "dreams" and "visions", because this process is an inseparable process of our brains. What we consciously see is a simulacrum of the reality outside of our senses. I doubt few would dispute this today.

There's a reason why you find most creative people dabble in hallucinogenics, because these remove the structural inhibitions previously placed there by cultural programming.

Hence you do have plenty of people waking up at night with an idea, because that's when your brain "calculates" through various permutations of data. It's not really that much far off from a concept of "religious vision". All of our visions are predicated on the cultural context of the stories that we tell each other.

Again, religious model is rather complex and needs to be unpacked, because it deals with "macro-reality", it doesn't take the route of scientific reductionist and focuses and explains chunks of reality. If you care, I'll try to condense the model in one post, but there's some pre-requisite reading, otherwise you may not be able to understand what I'm talking about.

In the very least, read through this abbreviated Wikipedia outline of the Reality as Process concept.

Process and Reality - Wikipedia

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I'd like to review this particular thread, but give it a different perspective that NV may not see it from, hence I'd like to start it on this thread so any tangent discussions relevant to TOE and other tangent subjects may remain there.

With that in mind, I'd like to begin with a few definitions when it comes to the broader discussion of this topic, since the OP did make some narrow assumptions about semantic meaning of the words "Atheism" and "Christianity" than need to be unpacked.

First, let's agree that Atheism can't be reasonable or unreasonable. As it is defined lately, Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasonable" doesn't really apply. It's nether, since it's a form of withholding judgement pending some further qualifying evidence. If that's the only qualification of "reasonable", our entire system of axiomatic knowledge will slide into the slippery slope of absurd.

Therefore, it seems that this discussion predominantly rests with Christianity (or more precisely, Christian claims) being unreasonable, which it will likely boil down to.

Let's begin with context of "reasonable", because context of any given logical and semantic framework matters quite a bit. "Reasonable" is always hangs on the contextual and axiomatic logical framework against which we measure and label something as such.

I think that it's convenient to debate literalim as absurd, and of course it is absurd. But any version of literalism would be. For example, let's take the literal model of electron. If we read it literally, that it's a point particle (not spacial), but it has a spin... the idea is non-sensical and absurd.

Yet, the language of science needs to be qualified prior to us diving into and labeling scientific literature as absurd.

Christianity is a systematic model, which like many other ancient religions, attempts to describe the process of reality based on "higher order" processes that exist in the scope of reality. Hence, if you do look at Christianity based on language that packs approximation (a model) of metaphysical reality ... I can readily defend it as reasonable... again, in the context that I would present it as such.

Perhaps we can first discuss whether the concept of God is reasonable or not, prior to moving on to Christianity ideas and ideals in general?

Literal reading of the Word of God isn't the problem; it is that the canon is missing a lot of material, and people do not believe that God Himself can educate them fully in the Word of God (i.e. making an idol out of a canon.)

In your electron example, the language of "science" is constantly being redefined - which is why taking it as truth, and judging intelligence on modern science is at best foolish. Modern science works; but it is not the unique solution to the Truth. It was, at one point, absurd for charge and parity to be violated until mixing was taken seriously, and kaons and Majorana particles became a serious part of the Standard Model - violations and all.

In fact, when something like this happens in particle physics (unexplained discrepancies,) one of the first things physicists do is look at the math and determine if another particle could be the reason for violations. This is phenomenological the same thing people do when trying to determine their own solutions to the secrets of the universe - and then replace the "particle" with a god, gods, or themselves.

That kind of fickleness is, in my opinion, not a foundation of truth. It would be absurd to take it as such, and much more prudent to entertain the philosophical approach of honest and humble science.

 

[devolved]

That kind of fickleness is, in my opinion, not a foundation of truth. It would be absurd to take it as such, and much more prudent to entertain the philosophical approach of honest and humble science.

I think that quite the opposite is the case. Truth is contextual in nature. There isn't some "truth" out there. Truth is the "best-fitting" outcome in any given contextual scenario. Hence, the change is the agent for truth, because in order to arrive at what is "true", you have to look back and re-evaluate what is the preferred outcome based on various parameters.

Hence, scientific method is not accidental. That's how our brains actually work when they adopt to any given environment. We simply out-sourced and improved on this process as a memetic alghorithm that we adopt into any successive generation, but trial and error is how we arrive at contextual truth. Since our environements change, the truths would likewise have to adopt.

For example, if someone wrote millions (or however long ago you think it was) of years ago "dinasaurs exist", then if you read it today... such statement is no longer true. The same is the case with much of the Biblical narrative. Much of it is true in context of it's metaphorical or historical framework, but it would not be true today, hence we have to expand, unpack and update the language to properly relate it to the modern cultural memetics, which no longer interfaces with the past one very well.

 

[Halbhh]

I'd like to review this particular thread, but give it a different perspective that NV may not see it from, hence I'd like to start it on this thread so any tangent discussions relevant to TOE and other tangent subjects may remain there.

With that in mind, I'd like to begin with a few definitions when it comes to the broader discussion of this topic, since the OP did make some narrow assumptions about semantic meaning of the words "Atheism" and "Christianity" than need to be unpacked.

First, let's agree that Atheism can't be reasonable or unreasonable. As it is defined lately, Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasonable" doesn't really apply. It's nether, since it's a form of withholding judgement pending some further qualifying evidence. If that's the only qualification of "reasonable", our entire system of axiomatic knowledge will slide into the slippery slope of absurd.

Therefore, it seems that this discussion predominantly rests with Christianity (or more precisely, Christian claims) being unreasonable, which it will likely boil down to.

Let's begin with context of "reasonable", because context of any given logical and semantic framework matters quite a bit. "Reasonable" is always hangs on the contextual and axiomatic logical framework against which we measure and label something as such.

I think that it's convenient to debate literalim as absurd, and of course it is absurd. But any version of literalism would be. For example, let's take the literal model of electron. If we read it literally, that it's a point particle (not spacial), but it has a spin... the idea is non-sensical and absurd.

Yet, the language of science needs to be qualified prior to us diving into and labeling scientific literature as absurd.

Christianity is a systematic model, which like many other ancient religions, attempts to describe the process of reality based on "higher order" processes that exist in the scope of reality. Hence, if you do look at Christianity based on language that packs approximation (a model) of metaphysical reality ... I can readily defend it as reasonable... again, in the context that I would present it as such.

Perhaps we can first discuss whether the concept of God is reasonable or not, prior to moving on to Christianity ideas and ideals in general?

"love one another"

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Are these "true"? -- Since they are specifically a way to live life, then the truth question of them will be whether they are the best of all competing ways to live life in terms of their outcomes. ('true' means the best of all available known, competing ideas -- what works the best)

I tried them to find out, and it was surprising how huge the gains were.

The primary competing idea is: "love a few friends, be occasionally polite or chat a bit with a neighbor as needed, and ignore everyone generally except selected people you prefer".

Having done that major competing alternative model extensively, I found the proposition "love your neighbor as yourself" far better, far more than I expected, sharply raising my quality of life.

So, on the basis of that suggestive outcome, I tried another of the things Jesus said to do, and that also worked exceedingly well. Therefore I tried yet another, and so forth.

Try and see for yourself.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I think that quite the opposite is the case. Truth is contextual in nature. There isn't some "truth" out there. Truth is the "best-fitting" outcome in any given contextual scenario. Hence, the change is the agent for truth, because in order to arrive at what is "true", you have to look back and re-evaluate what is the preferred outcome based on various parameters.

Truth is absolute, otherwise it is a conditional statement. There is a variation of the truth called an axiom which works to accept something as true (independent of its absolute validity.)

There is no such thing as "my truth."

Hence, scientific method is not accidental. That's how our brains actually work when they adopt to any given environment. We simply out-sourced and improved on this process as a memetic alghorithm that we adopt into any successive generation, but trial and error is how we arrive at contextual truth. Since our environements change, the truths would likewise have to adopt.

That is fine to have an adaptive, malleable mind. In fact, it is necessary in order to grow.

However, contextual truth is a misnomer for axiom, or postulate. Truth is absolute.

For example, if someone wrote millions (or however long ago you think it was) of years ago "dinasaurs exist", then if you read it today... such statement is no longer true.

This is a matter of faith, not truth.

The truth about dinosaurs exist independently of the foolish doctrine and models humans make to assuage the gravity of their own ambivalence about existentialism, reality and history.

The same is the case with much of the Biblical narrative. Much of it is true in context of it's metaphorical or historical framework, but it would not be true today, hence we have to expand, unpack and update the language to properly relate it to the modern cultural memetics, which no longer interfaces with the past one very well.

This is also a matter of faith, not truth. The bible canon is a matter of extreme faith - to know it is a canon, and to treat it as the image of truth itself. Christians are told the Word of God is the Truth: the Word of God is a Living Entity in reality - according to the faith of Christians.


Science is also a matter of faith. Actually, science is just a philosophy, but academics that come from it are a matter of faith on the fundamental level. Axioms are set up, and postulates are formed in order to progress ideas as far as they can go.


None of it is about the truth - which is absolute and unyieldingly constant.

 

[devolved]

Truth is absolute.

Can you give me an example of an absolute truth?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Can you give me an example of an absolute truth?

Christ, or The Most High God [exists.]

Other than that (i.e. forgetting spiritual connections, and strictly dealing on observable planes of existence) no, I cannot give an example of absolute truth. That is the point.

That is what philosophers have tried to do since antiquity - find the "truth." Most everything for us is faith based or axiomatic based on faith - which is the point.

No physical institution can say what they have is the absolute truth - including academia. Each comes with a measure of faith, and should be treated as a faith-based system even if it happens to work.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Speaking of redux here is my thread I created last April entitled: Why Atheist Philosophers Mock Defining Atheism as a "Lack of Belief in God."

For some atheist philosopher responses to the problems with defining atheism as a "lack of belief,"

See:

-An atheist philosopher’s critique of the “lack of belief” definition of atheism

Atheism: Proving The Negative: The Burden of Proof is on the Atheist

http://www.provingthenegative.com/2007/09/burden-of-proof-is-on-atheist-redux.html

Note: The first link is a reblog as the original atheist philosopher from Australia (could it be Graham) took down the site as soon as theist philosopher William Lane Craig referenced and linked to it. Seems that furthering knowledge amongst philosophically naive atheists was not that philosophers primary concern after all.

It's considered rude to hijack someone's thread like that.