Belief in God and in the supernatural in general is going to be around forever, because belief in meaning, purpose, objective moral value, freedom, responsibility, the self, justice, etc., will be around forever. In fact, belief in God will always be the majority position on Earth, and atheists had just better get used to it. Humanity from its inception has not been inevitably evolving towards atheism. There is no "atheistic revolution" sitting naturally on the horizon wherein the cleansing gales of Reason will make the scales fall from the eyes of the Gullible.
Which is why any overzealous atheist in power will eventually have to resort to force if he wants to rid his land of God.
Anonymous said... Belief in God and in the supernatural in general is going to be around forever, because belief in meaning, purpose, objective moral value, freedom, responsibility, the self, justice, etc., will be around forever.
I am unaware of any necessary connection between the two. There are believers in the former but not the latter, and believers in the latter but not the former. YOu comment strikes me as demogoguery, not argument.
Which is why any overzealous atheist in power will eventually have to resort to force if he wants to rid his land of God.
Much as overzealous religious types have often done to rid their land of religions the zealous types did not like.
I am unaware of any necessary connection between the two. There are believers in the former but not the latter, and believers in the latter but not the former. YOu comment strikes me as demogoguery, not argument.
I see you over at Feser's place, so surely I don't have to tell you how you can transform this into an argument:
1. Final causes (including directionality) do not exist, per materialism. 2. Beliefs, desires, etc are examples of final causes. 3. Therefore, final causes exist. 4. Therefore, materialism is false.
Martin said... I see you over at Feser's place, so surely I don't have to tell you how you can transform this into an argument:
Great. let me know when you get around to an actual argument, instead of throwing together similar-sounding ideas based on different concepts and applying to different fields.
1. Final causes (including directionality) do not exist, per materialism.
As applied to processes like evolution, stellar decay, etc.
2. Beliefs, desires, etc are examples of final causes.
Evolutionary processes have no beliefs or desires. Humans have beliefs and desires, but I've never heard any materialist argue that the notion of final causation does not apply to much human activity.
3. Therefore, final causes exist.
when intelligent agents act, they use final causes in accord with their intelligence.
4. Therefore, materialism is false.
Materialism does not necessarily deny the existence of final causes for the actions of intelligent agents.
Materialism does not necessarily deny the existence of final causes for the actions of intelligent agents.
Well, per Feser at least, that's the problem, isn't it? Final causes are not empirically verifiable, and so therefore on materialism they do not exist.
But the mind is an example of final causality.
Therefore, you have three choices:
1. Eliminative materialism, where the mind does not exist and neither do science and reason. 2. Substance dualism, where you will have the interaction problem. 3. Aristotelianism, where there are no problems except that you then teeter dangerously close to God, whom we all know does NOT exist except that we just lack belief.
My enemy is irrationalism, particularly thoughtless irrationalism. Even if I think an apologetic argument unconvincing, a believer who does and reduces matters to a philosophical technicality is not to me a major threat. My disagreements with them are comparable to my disagreements with other secularists. Nor are thoughtful believers who claim no rational basis for their faith necessarily a great threat, depending on how they apply their religion. I might not like faith-based belief, but I think that secular irrationalism is far more threatening.
So I do not read "higher ratio of Christians now than previously" as a decline in rationality, nor do I read "lower ratio of Christians now than previously" as a triumph of reason.
There has been a growth of `disaffiliated' people in the United States, though still only a minority identify as atheists - probably, more than self-identify as such qualify as such. But this to me is more a cause of worry than comfort, since I think that such people tend to be of the slogan-ridden type so delightfully skewered by Chesterton. I doubt they've become `more rational' by virtue of losing one faith, and most probably never had a very strong faith to lose.
Anon@#2,
"Belief in God and in the supernatural in general is going to be around forever, because belief in meaning, purpose, objective moral value, freedom, responsibility, the self, justice, etc., will be around forever."
Excepting those societies with no such beliefs, or those which do not see any such dependency.
"In fact, belief in God will always be the majority position on Earth, and atheists had just better get used to it. Humanity from its inception has not been inevitably evolving towards atheism."
I do not think of religious demographics as inevitable movements. But atheism, or even simple disaffiliation, is still very recent as even a remotely popular choice. While I think we can be confident that religion will hold a majority for a long time yet, I do not have such confidence for future centuries.
This article is dishonestly cherry-picking, by focusing on "Atheism", and dismissing "none/non-religious/no-religion". And ignoring "How important is your religion to you" surveys.
This is a standard apologetic tactic. To direct the reader to the a priori conclusion.
This article is dishonestly cherry-picking, by focusing on "Atheism", and dismissing "none/non-religious/no-religion".
How is it "dishonestly cherry-picking" when the article explicitly mentions what numbers they're focusing on, including the non-religious? They seem pretty up-front about their perspective and the (easily available, pretty familiar) numbers they're referencing.
As for how many of the irreligious count as "atheists", I think there's actually fewer real atheists around than most would suspect. I've run into too many who turned out to be closet deists or deist-leaning upon pressing, and a number of whom entertain transhumanist/singularitarian thoughts that - in any other age - would be classified as some form of polytheism style theism.
In fact, if we were going to talk about 'hundreds of years from now', I think atheism will still be a belief at the margins. It's going to be overtaken by people who think we're all living in a computer simulation, or that our universe was created by technologically advanced beings. Both positions are vastly closer to polytheist-style theism than atheism.
If a person wants to advocate for a position, in a fair and unbiased way, they are obliged to fully explain all relevant information.
This article does not fulfill that obligation.
Again, the authors do not pretend that there has been no growth in the merely irreligious - they mention it explicitly, and mention what standard they're going by. That was your prime complaint.
That they didn't come to the conclusion you want them to is not itself an indication of dishonesty. If anything they should be commended for recognizing that detachment from popular religion does not automatically make a person an atheist.
I second Crude, adding that the requirement of `all relevant information' borders on the impossible, though I suspect that in practice this actually means `include more information that I like to hear.'
Martin said... Well, per Feser at least, that's the problem, isn't it?
Do you agree that is a problem, or are you just quoting?
Final causes are not empirically verifiable, and so therefore on materialism they do not exist.
There are probably some forms of materialism where the only existing things are those which are empirically verifiable. There are forms of materialism where this is not true.
But the mind is an example of final causality.
In that it can create things that have final causes, or that it has a final cause itself?
Therefore, you have three choices:
Goody, a trilemma. Those are always persuasive.
1. Eliminative materialism, where the mind does not exist and neither do science and reason.
I find it to be an insufficent model of reality.
2. Substance dualism, where you will have the interaction problem.
Agreed, although if you allow for spirit to ignore the conservation of energy, the interaction problem is diminished.
3. Aristotelianism, where there are no problems except that you then teeter dangerously close to God, whom we all know does NOT exist except that we just lack belief.
Aristotelian metaphysics, on their own, do not provide proof for God. The Five Ways requires many additonal assumptions besides material, formal, and efficient causes (with final causes thrown in what intelligent agents act).
You have left out a multitude of positions, such as property dualism.
I'm not sure exacftly what I think is real yet. It seems to me that pattern of things are real, in the sense that there is a physical difference when the pattern is present or is not. But I'm still learning, and would not try to classify my beliefs in that regard.
14 comments:
Even if there were no religions, there would still be homeopaths, reiki, etc. Faith-based thiking will likely be with us as long as there are humans.
Belief in God and in the supernatural in general is going to be around forever, because belief in meaning, purpose, objective moral value, freedom, responsibility, the self, justice, etc., will be around forever. In fact, belief in God will always be the majority position on Earth, and atheists had just better get used to it. Humanity from its inception has not been inevitably evolving towards atheism. There is no "atheistic revolution" sitting naturally on the horizon wherein the cleansing gales of Reason will make the scales fall from the eyes of the Gullible.
Which is why any overzealous atheist in power will eventually have to resort to force if he wants to rid his land of God.
Anonymous said...
Belief in God and in the supernatural in general is going to be around forever, because belief in meaning, purpose, objective moral value, freedom, responsibility, the self, justice, etc., will be around forever.
I am unaware of any necessary connection between the two. There are believers in the former but not the latter, and believers in the latter but not the former. YOu comment strikes me as demogoguery, not argument.
Which is why any overzealous atheist in power will eventually have to resort to force if he wants to rid his land of God.
Much as overzealous religious types have often done to rid their land of religions the zealous types did not like.
One Brow,
I am unaware of any necessary connection between the two. There are believers in the former but not the latter, and believers in the latter but not the former. YOu comment strikes me as demogoguery, not argument.
I see you over at Feser's place, so surely I don't have to tell you how you can transform this into an argument:
1. Final causes (including directionality) do not exist, per materialism.
2. Beliefs, desires, etc are examples of final causes.
3. Therefore, final causes exist. 4. Therefore, materialism is false.
Martin said...
I see you over at Feser's place, so surely I don't have to tell you how you can transform this into an argument:
Great. let me know when you get around to an actual argument, instead of throwing together similar-sounding ideas based on different concepts and applying to different fields.
1. Final causes (including directionality) do not exist, per materialism.
As applied to processes like evolution, stellar decay, etc.
2. Beliefs, desires, etc are examples of final causes.
Evolutionary processes have no beliefs or desires. Humans have beliefs and desires, but I've never heard any materialist argue that the notion of final causation does not apply to much human activity.
3. Therefore, final causes exist.
when intelligent agents act, they use final causes in accord with their intelligence.
4. Therefore, materialism is false.
Materialism does not necessarily deny the existence of final causes for the actions of intelligent agents.
One Brow,
Materialism does not necessarily deny the existence of final causes for the actions of intelligent agents.
Well, per Feser at least, that's the problem, isn't it? Final causes are not empirically verifiable, and so therefore on materialism they do not exist.
But the mind is an example of final causality.
Therefore, you have three choices:
1. Eliminative materialism, where the mind does not exist and neither do science and reason.
2. Substance dualism, where you will have the interaction problem.
3. Aristotelianism, where there are no problems except that you then teeter dangerously close to God, whom we all know does NOT exist except that we just lack belief.
My enemy is irrationalism, particularly thoughtless irrationalism. Even if I think an apologetic argument unconvincing, a believer who does and reduces matters to a philosophical technicality is not to me a major threat. My disagreements with them are comparable to my disagreements with other secularists. Nor are thoughtful believers who claim no rational basis for their faith necessarily a great threat, depending on how they apply their religion. I might not like faith-based belief, but I think that secular irrationalism is far more threatening.
So I do not read "higher ratio of Christians now than previously" as a decline in rationality, nor do I read "lower ratio of Christians now than previously" as a triumph of reason.
There has been a growth of `disaffiliated' people in the United States, though still only a minority identify as atheists - probably, more than self-identify as such qualify as such. But this to me is more a cause of worry than comfort, since I think that such people tend to be of the slogan-ridden type so delightfully skewered by Chesterton. I doubt they've become `more rational' by virtue of losing one faith, and most probably never had a very strong faith to lose.
Anon@#2,
"Belief in God and in the supernatural in general is going to be around forever, because belief in meaning, purpose, objective moral value, freedom, responsibility, the self, justice, etc., will be around forever."
Excepting those societies with no such beliefs, or those which do not see any such dependency.
"In fact, belief in God will always be the majority position on Earth, and atheists had just better get used to it. Humanity from its inception has not been inevitably evolving towards atheism."
I do not think of religious demographics as inevitable movements. But atheism, or even simple disaffiliation, is still very recent as even a remotely popular choice. While I think we can be confident that religion will hold a majority for a long time yet, I do not have such confidence for future centuries.
This article is dishonestly cherry-picking, by focusing on "Atheism", and dismissing "none/non-religious/no-religion". And ignoring "How important is your religion to you" surveys.
This is a standard apologetic tactic. To direct the reader to the a priori conclusion.
This article is dishonestly cherry-picking, by focusing on "Atheism", and dismissing "none/non-religious/no-religion".
How is it "dishonestly cherry-picking" when the article explicitly mentions what numbers they're focusing on, including the non-religious? They seem pretty up-front about their perspective and the (easily available, pretty familiar) numbers they're referencing.
As for how many of the irreligious count as "atheists", I think there's actually fewer real atheists around than most would suspect. I've run into too many who turned out to be closet deists or deist-leaning upon pressing, and a number of whom entertain transhumanist/singularitarian thoughts that - in any other age - would be classified as some form of polytheism style theism.
In fact, if we were going to talk about 'hundreds of years from now', I think atheism will still be a belief at the margins. It's going to be overtaken by people who think we're all living in a computer simulation, or that our universe was created by technologically advanced beings. Both positions are vastly closer to polytheist-style theism than atheism.
If a person wants to advocate for a position, in a fair and unbiased way, they are obliged to fully explain all relevant information.
This article does not fulfill that obligation.
If a person wants to advocate for a position, in a fair and unbiased way, they are obliged to fully explain all relevant information.
This article does not fulfill that obligation.
Again, the authors do not pretend that there has been no growth in the merely irreligious - they mention it explicitly, and mention what standard they're going by. That was your prime complaint.
That they didn't come to the conclusion you want them to is not itself an indication of dishonesty. If anything they should be commended for recognizing that detachment from popular religion does not automatically make a person an atheist.
I second Crude, adding that the requirement of `all relevant information' borders on the impossible, though I suspect that in practice this actually means `include more information that I like to hear.'
..that detachment from popular religion does not automatically make a person an atheist
This is so obvious I'm surprised it needs constant repeating. Satan, for instance, is a theist, even though he is undoubtedly irreligious.
Martin said...
Well, per Feser at least, that's the problem, isn't it?
Do you agree that is a problem, or are you just quoting?
Final causes are not empirically verifiable, and so therefore on materialism they do not exist.
There are probably some forms of materialism where the only existing things are those which are empirically verifiable. There are forms of materialism where this is not true.
But the mind is an example of final causality.
In that it can create things that have final causes, or that it has a final cause itself?
Therefore, you have three choices:
Goody, a trilemma. Those are always persuasive.
1. Eliminative materialism, where the mind does not exist and neither do science and reason.
I find it to be an insufficent model of reality.
2. Substance dualism, where you will have the interaction problem.
Agreed, although if you allow for spirit to ignore the conservation of energy, the interaction problem is diminished.
3. Aristotelianism, where there are no problems except that you then teeter dangerously close to God, whom we all know does NOT exist except that we just lack belief.
Aristotelian metaphysics, on their own, do not provide proof for God. The Five Ways requires many additonal assumptions besides material, formal, and efficient causes (with final causes thrown in what intelligent agents act).
You have left out a multitude of positions, such as property dualism.
I'm not sure exacftly what I think is real yet. It seems to me that pattern of things are real, in the sense that there is a physical difference when the pattern is present or is not. But I'm still learning, and would not try to classify my beliefs in that regard.
Post a Comment