Monday, March 04, 2019
If God opposes homosexuality, do we owe gay people an explanation as to why?
Here is a question which I have struggled with a lot of late. Suppose we conclude, based on Scripture, that God considers homosexual conduct to be wrong. And suppose a person struggling with homosexual desires asks the question of why God condemns such conduct. That seems like a reasonable question to me, but do we owe them an answer? What would it be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
406 comments:
1 – 200 of 406 Newer› Newest»We do not owe an answer to the question.
1) It is not reasonable to ask for an explanation of God's motivation.
2) This type of "Why?" question is accusatory, critical and aggressive.
3) The question baits a single answer to an issue that has many facets.
4) The premise actually provides all the answer that is needed.
I suppose that depends on whether your intent is to justify your position or to assist the struggling person by providing a more detailed reason for the motive. If the latter, you at least owe yourself the attempt to answer.
Victor Reppert said:
"Suppose we conclude, based on Scripture, that God considers..."
Generally, would you ever conclude anything based only on that? I think the answer is obviously 'no', as the scripture needs to be read in its context and, most importantly, looked at with today's knowledge in mind. Therefore, when we continue:
"...homosexual conduct to be wrong."
Ok, so, that's what scripture says, but what else did we learn about such conduct over the centuries since the most recent scriptures were written?
oozzielionel said...
"1) It is not reasonable to ask for an explanation of God's motivation."
Frankly, that is messed up... there is no way to know, should a God exist, what their motivations actually are. All we have are humans' interpretation. Therefore, it is not reasonable to NOT ask for an explanation for the so-called motivations, as they are really just what people CLAIM they are.
Ok, so, that's what scripture says, but what else did we learn about such conduct over the centuries since the most recent scriptures were written?
That's an interesting question. What have we learned about it since then?
Seriously?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the question. (1) because we want to understand, and (2) there are many things in the Bible we no longer interpret literally (often rightly, I think) and we want to know if this is one of them.
I think there are many possibilities. Perhaps this is one of those things that applied back then, but not now (for various possible reasons). Perhaps it was more people's idea back then rather than God's. Perhaps God thinks it is not the best way for the human race as a whole. Etc. We need to know. Particularly as it is hard to see a reason to accept this teaching unless it is clearly from God.
I think instead of arguing, fighting, discriminating, etc we ought to be praying for God's wisdom, open to the idea that this issue may have different answers than we have previously thought.
Yes, seriously.
" What have we learned about it since then?"
I've long been of the opinion that we have learned nothing new about human nature since the 1st Century. What Homer had to say about Man is as valid today as when he composed the Iliad. The Book of Job remains unsurpassed as an exploration of the mystery of undeserved suffering. The Daodejing of Laozi is to this day a sure guide to right conduct and a just society. The stories of the Patriarchs in Genesis or the life of King David in the Books of Samuel contain all that one needs to know about the human experience.
But, but we have airplanes now. Homer did not even dream of our present technology!
Recognizing your comment for the humor that it is, it is nevertheless quite à propos. Modern weaponry (to include military aircraft) would fit right in amongst the bloodthirsty warriors on the plains of Troy. The very same Greeks who felt no qualms about burning a great city to the ground, murdering its infants, and enslaving its women would not shrink from firebombing it from the air.
People just don't change.
Come on now. I've heard the argument many times that the dramatic changes in technology have made all former ideas obsolete.
It is quite true that the essence of human nature remains what it has always been, and the Bible has an explanation for that in terms of our being created by God but having somehow fallen out of fellowship with God. Whatever you think of the literal stories that are told about how that happened, it seems to explain a heck of a lot of human history better than virtually any other account I can think of. In fact, secular schemes often founder because they expect human nature to be better than it really is.
That said, some things do change in significant ways. One of them has to do with marriage customs. In Bible times, marriage for love was not normative, and, what is more important cultures in all countries, pagan or Hebrew, felt a strong need to reproduce. That was how you were cared for in you old age, this was how you maintained the tribe's defense. So people didn't make their gay relationships their marriage. It was, if anything, something you did for fun and games over and above your marriage, and you basically typically used slaves and young boys for those fun and games. The picture of homosexuality in the ancient world was an ugly one, if you read the account of it given in Sarah Ruden's Paul among the People. It wasn't gay people wanting to marry the one they loved, it was whether it was OK, if you were a male who has a wife, to get something else one the side from someone who was treated as a plaything, whether male or female.
Ruden perceives Paul's condemnation of homosexuality as falling under the rubric of justice. She writes:
"Paul's Roman audience knew what justice was, if only through missing it. They would have been surprised that justice applied to homosexuality, of all things. But many of them---slaves, freedmen, the poor, the young--would have understood in the next instance. Christ, the only Son of God, gave his body to save mankind. What greater contrast could there be to the tradition of using a weaker body for selfish pleasure or a power trip. Among Christians, there could be no quibbling about what to do: no one could have imagined homosexuality's being different that in it was; it would have to go. And tolerance for it did disappear from the church."
Ruden doesn't adjudicate the issue herself. But, she leaves the Christian gay defender an avenue to come back and say: Look, we can understand Paul as not being a blind homophobe for saying what he did about homosexual conduct. But the world has changed. We aren't like that. We don't want to exploit helpless victims. We are just same-sex attracted Christian people who want to replicate the institution Christian marriage with a same-sex partner. We in society today don't feel so obligated to reproduce, (and many married couples don't), and we can still practice parenthood through adoption. (Do married couples have an obligation to at least try to reproduce?)
But it isn't quite that easy for the Christian gay defender. The counter-argument is that it's a difficult argument to make that homosexual acts are condemned in Scripture because of the practice is somehow done in an unjust manner. In many passages in Scripture the acts are cataloged as wrong in virtue of, well, their being homosexual acts. And while we might explain Paul's opposition to homosexuality in terms of his observation of how vile the practice was in his time, Christians hold that Paul had an Inspirer, the Holy Spirit, who as the Third Person of the Trinity, was surely aware not only of what homosexuality was like in the first century, but what it is like now in the 21st. If God had intended to only to condemn the injustice of ancient homosexual practice, He would have said so.
So I think to accept the more liberal understanding of homosexuality along the lines suggested by the argument I sketched above, you have to reject the kind of strong doctrine of inerrancy, for example, provided in the Chicago Statement. Catholics, of course, are playing a different, but similar ball game, in that for Catholics the "inerrancy" is in the Magisterium, and Scripture for them is not considered quite so transparent.
Which goes back to whether we need an explanation for the condemnation of homosexuality. If we feel one is needed, then we might be able to provide one that leaves room for the possibility that gay Christians can, as good Christians, practice homosexuality. Conservative believers, however, can warn that given the sinful nature of man, we have to be careful of accepting interpretations of the Bible that allow us to do what we want to do. If we are not careful, we are going to end up interpreting everything out of Scripture that we don't want to obey.
Like C. S. Lewis, I have never had to deal with same-sex attraction. I respect both viewpoints on this issue. I think the more inclined you are toward an inerrantist model of Scripture, the harder it will be to find homosexual conduct acceptable.
Catholics can also offer natural law as an explanation. Something that many Protestants used to rely on also.
With all due respect (none?)
This thrrat proved to me beyond any remaining doubt that religions poison everything. Sure, they can be useful tools, but when it gets to a point where something as bening and irrelevant as homosexuality gets that kind of messed up reactions and willfull ignorance, I cannot help but realize how bad religious influence is. Not sure why it took me so long to realize that honestly, but that's it, I'm officially done, I think. Cheers.
This thread* proved... ugh
Well if the lesson there is to disengage from people with beliefs you find harmful, then I guess I should never speak with anyone ever again.
I'm with legion on this one. If I only engaged with people whose views on every subject were in lock step with mine, I might as well become a hermit. And even then, I might just start arguing with myself.
Wait, I do that already...
Humph! I guess there's just no talking to people when you tell them they are messed up and they disagree and give you reasons.
Nothing to do with engaging with people I disagree with.
Don't you 3 realize YOU are on a blog from an author that starts from a Christian viewpoint? I.e. the same as yours...
That's what I don't see a point in engaging with anymore, there's nothing more to learn as nothing changes and you're still stuck with the same slowness of thought because of these weird assumptions you can't let go of.
Homosexuality is one of the best example because there's not much to discuss; it's not a matter of opinion, it's not complicated, we're not going to learn more now that we know so much. Yet, most religons afaik still have this messed up, yes completely messed up, approach of looking at homosexuality, something so benign.
Even the more open-minded / tamed approach from Eric and Victor are messed up, because they show the symptoms of this struggle between modern rationality, logic & reason, and some old texts written by ignorant human beings. Because, somehow, you still see some insightful messages from God in there, instead of seeing the truth: it was just people writing stuff down. Sometimes useful, sure, but to be ignored the second it looks absurd. And a lot of it is...
Is that more clear? Probably not... but it's hard to explain in just a comment box.
"some old texts written by ignorant human beings"
Ignorant? Ignorant how? Because they didn't have airplanes?
Are you saying you are smarter than Homer, Virgil, St. Paul, or whoever wrote Gilgamesh? Because you know about airplanes?
"some old texts"
Hmm... Can you name me even one, just one, contemporary work that could hold its own for 10 seconds against the Iliad, The Oresteia, The Book of Job, or the Gospel according to St. John?
Didn't think so.
there's nothing more to learn
That's where the problem lies, I think. Not that you have nothing more to learn, but rather your belief that you have nothing more to learn.
My introduction to New Atheism was a fellow local in 2006, and it didn't take me two years to have heard every single argument they had. At that point there was nothing new to be heard, but I still engaged with them not only because they were entertaining in their arrogant fallacies, but because even though it was the same arguments, each time I engaged was from a new place, with new life experience, more knowledge, etc. And even when engaging something familiar, I never know when I might gain a previously unrealized insight. Granted, their arguments remained unimpressive, but if it was only to gain insight as to why they believed what they did, it was still advantageous to me.
I don't participate on this blog because I agree with Victor or the other commenters. It's because I DISAGREE with them (they approach from a left-wing perspective, while I'm conservative or, even when I agree with the left on a problem, I disagree with them on the solution). I find progressives a much more difficult nut to crack (no pun intended) than New Atheists, trying to understand exactly why they feel the way they do, often strongly, even when it seems to be obviously erroneous. The fact they feel the same way about my beliefs - beliefs I find obvious and non-controversial - only goes to show that I have much to learn. Either I am wrong, they are wrong, we both are wrong, or we both are right but limited in our perspective. And then we lay into each other, which again is a learning experience. When people speak from emotion, it often reveals motivations you wouldn't get from a dispassionate explanation.
You dismiss the Bible as opinionated writings from ignorant men, but that conclusion relies upon Christianity being false. So long as people disagree with you, you have opportunity to learn. Of course, you may not find such knowledge profitable, but I do.
Starhopper said...
"Are you saying you are smarter than Homer, Virgil, St. Paul, or whoever wrote Gilgamesh? Because you know about airplanes?"
Smarter is the wrong word. On average, people back then had the same mental capacity, presumably, but not the same tools nor prior knowledge to rest on. Therefore, we may not be smarter, but we are way less ignorant than them though, no doubt about that. Now, putting this together: the fact that you confuse 'not-smart' with 'ignorant' tells us something about how smart you are specifically...
"Hmm... Can you name me even one, just one, contemporary work that could hold its own for 10 seconds against the Iliad, The Oresteia, The Book of Job, or the Gospel according to St. John? Didn't think so."
To confirm, this is an example of confusing ignorance and rationality. For example, some silly gossip magazine of 2019 can show more traces of knowledge than these old texts, in some cases, if they refer to planes to use your own example, but that means nothing about the quality of the authors' thinking specifically.
Legion of Logic said...
"That's where the problem lies, I think. Not that you have nothing more to learn, but rather your belief that you have nothing more to learn."
It's obviously just a belief, yes, but a belief after online interactions, and some in-person interactions, over ~15 years now. And it's not that there's nothing to learn in general obviously. Au contraire, it's that there is nothing to learn from people who take a religious approach... it's a useless distraction. I still thought until very recently that it could be useful. I just suddenly realized that my mind has changed on that.
"My introduction to New Atheism was a fellow local in 2006, and it didn't take me two years to have heard every single argument they had. [...] their arguments remained unimpressive, but if it was only to gain insight as to why they believed what they did, it was still advantageous to me."
Such lack of self-awareness in this paragraph, just like every single person who engages with the so-called 'New Atheists' and have the same reaction as you. If there is nothing new, it's because YOUR side has nothing new. And I don't like to put people in 'sides' but it is what it is here. Because the atheists are just replying to the BS that comes our from the pro-god-exist side. It's a response to your silly claims and magical beliefs. It's a response to all the non-sense that religions impose on people. Thankfully, most religious people are perfectly fine and we all live together well, again, mostly, but the fact remain that the religions themselves are nothing but speed bumps on the never ending road to increasing collective human knowledge.
"I don't participate on this blog because I agree with Victor or the other commenters. It's because I DISAGREE with them"
Cool, that's a good reason to be here, but you still agree with the original premise of the blog and therefore use the same basic approach to come up with different beliefs.
"I find progressives a much more difficult nut to crack (no pun intended) than New Atheists, trying to understand exactly why they feel the way they do, often strongly, even when it seems to be obviously erroneous. The fact they feel the same way about my beliefs - beliefs I find obvious and non-controversial - only goes to show that I have much to learn."
Given that you just genuinely asked what we learned about homosexuality over the last 2,000 years, ya, I do think you have a lot to learn... but I am willing to bet that you're going to keep wasting your time trying to rationalize what you learn so that it fits within your religious convictions, instead of looking at these convictions in the first place. You assume so much stuff without realizing it.
"Either I am wrong, they are wrong, we both are wrong, or we both are right but limited in our perspective. And then we lay into each other, which again is a learning experience. When people speak from emotion, it often reveals motivations you wouldn't get from a dispassionate explanation."
We are all wrong at times, and I can certainly appreciate the fact that you want to figure out what you are wrong about. But again, I don't think you are willing to look at 'everything' you believe in to see whether you are wrong. By definition, falling on the Conservative/Right side makes you not willing to look at certain ideas, beliefs, thoughts, actions, etc... that's the difference with Liberals/Progressive/Left in a nutshell. That's what the Right is way more united than the Left, because we question everything, all the time, and you question as little as possible and fight to preserve what you feel are correct beliefs. The Right accuses the Left of being more emotional because we see a lot more of it, but the Right is actually the more emotional side, with its nostalgic attachment to the good ol' days, the values of our ancestors (as if being old make them better), the ideas of immutable values, the black-and-white views of groups, etc, etc, etc... gross generalization, but the principle is really that simple,
"You dismiss the Bible as opinionated writings from ignorant men, but that conclusion relies upon Christianity being false. So long as people disagree with you, you have opportunity to learn. Of course, you may not find such knowledge profitable, but I do."
And that sums up my complain very well. Ya, I do think they were ignorant and writing about things they knew nothing about. They made stuff up left and right and you know they did, because today we sort many of these texts as allegories, when people used to take them literally. Yet, you never question the assumptions that make you think that they were writing about true things, i.e. that notion that Christianity might just be false. It's a self-serving circle of beliefs where the reasons to believe in some god are found in the text that depend on that belief to have any sense of meaning and purpose.
Start without the assumption that a god exists, and the Bible is absurd. It is no more impressive to see people getting meaning from the Bible than from Harry Potter; both can be useful tools to help discuss topics of morality, if we want to, but neither contains truth that should be taken at face value. Both make claims about the world that we can then determine on our own when looking at the world around us. Hogward isn't a real place, but friendship and love can still change the world for the better; Jesus didn't walk on water nor raised from the dead, but love and forgiveness can still change the world for the better.
Starhopper said...
Hmm... Can you name me even one, just one, contemporary work that could hold its own for 10 seconds against the Iliad, The Oresteia, The Book of Job, or the Gospel according to St. John?
Using Sturgeon's law, 90% of all the Greek literature produced in Homer's time was crap, and another 9% was unexceptional. So, you are asking up to the precise modern 1% equivalent to the Iliad, etc. Who knows with certainty? Will they still be performing Death of a Salesman in 100 years? 1000?
10 points to One Brow for quoting Sturgeon's Law!
Such lack of self-awareness in this paragraph, just like every single person who engages with the so-called 'New Atheists' and have the same reaction as you.
New Atheists not only had no new ideas, they also had no good ideas. Their attacks on religion were pathetically simplistic and relied on fallacy after fallacy. The fact they considered themselves enlightened was hilarious, when they showed that they knew nothing except how to pompously hate "religion".
You apparently required more specifics to what I said about my thoughts on New Atheist movement, so there it is. They lacked the self-awareness to realize how bad their arguments were, yet never came up with anything new. Thinkers, they were not.
but you still agree with the original premise of the blog and therefore use the same basic approach to come up with different beliefs
I'm not understanding you here.
Given that you just genuinely asked what we learned about homosexuality over the last 2,000 years
Which you did not answer. What have we "learned" about it? That it occurs naturally? All sinful behavior does. So what, precisely, did we learn about it?
By definition, falling on the Conservative/Right side makes you not willing to look at certain ideas, beliefs, thoughts, actions, etc... that's the difference with Liberals/Progressive/Left in a nutshell.
You actually, honestly believe that? See above, where I'm baffled that progressives believe what they do. A much more likely explanation is that the left thinks the left is better, and you are on the left, so...
Yet, you never question the assumptions that make you think that they were writing about true things, i.e. that notion that Christianity might just be false.
On the contrary, I'm a Christian because I've no reason to doubt it. I have indeed questioned my beliefs. I have indeed taken the New Atheists seriously. And...nothing troubling.
It's a self-serving circle of beliefs where the reasons to believe in some god are found in the text that depend on that belief to have any sense of meaning and purpose.
Belief in a god requires nothing religious, just pure logic and what science has shown us about reality. Once you arrive at that conclusion, it certainly makes any given religion more likely.
"Yet, you never question the assumptions that make you think that they were writing about true things, i.e. that notion that Christianity might just be false."
I am perpetually amazed at people who believe this. The greatest persons of faith have throughout the centuries those who have questioned it the most. St. Augustine spent a lifetime doubting the truth of Christianity. St. Thomas Aquinas is legendary for presenting his intellectual opponents' arguments in the strongest possible fashion - nop "strawman arguments" for him! Mother Teresa struggled for decades with soul wracking doubt. St Paul actively persecuted the faith for years before his conversion. And I myself (not to place myself in such august company) have diligently looked into alternative religions (Hinduism, Daoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, buddhism, and yes, atheism) to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything.
Far from me "never questioning the assumptions", I have put them through the most exacting wringer, and found all the counter arguments to be weak, lacking, and self-contradictory.
"Start without the assumption that a god exists, and the Bible is absurd."
This statement proves that you have never read the Bible with an open mind. Even without God, the book is an astonishing compendium of the deepest insight into human nature ever compiled, and a bottomless well of wisdom. The most hardened atheist can find a lifetime's worth of exploration into the the most profound depths of the meaning of existence itself. There is absolutely nothing like it in all of history.
Legion of Logic said...
"New Atheists not only had no new ideas..."
Right, except that, AGAIN, they are replying to claims from religion and they don't hate religion. You see it that way because of your emotional attachment to YOUR religion. Nothing special. Just a lack of self-awareness, AGAIN.
"... They lacked the self-awareness to realize how bad their arguments were..."
Except that (and it's funny because I had not read the next paragraph) you are obviously the one on the side of "lack of self-awareness" as you are not even able to see things in the right order. Religions have been making claims; atheists have been rejecting them. The so-called "new" atheists didn't change much of that, they just made it more accessible and entertaining to a certain, quite limited, audience.
"but you still agree with the original premise of the blog and therefore use the same basic approach to come up with different beliefs
I'm not understanding you here."
Of course you don't, because you lack self-awareness regarding your religious dogma... the point is that you have the same kind of assumptions to form your core beliefs, your religious belief. Then, you build on top of that, just like the other Christians in the room, but come up with different beliefs on some things. It demonstrates that identical religious dogmas can lead to completely different conclusions, because they are open to so much interpretations, just like any secular values.
"Which you did not answer. What have we "learned" about it? That it occurs naturally? All sinful behavior does. So what, precisely, did we learn about it?"
I am not going to answer that. It's just too absurd. Your willful ignorance is shocking.
"...where I'm baffled that progressives believe what they do. A much more likely explanation is that the left thinks the left is better, and you are on the left, so..."
Saying the 'Left' as a whole was actually not quite accurate on my part, as there are elements of the Left that are quite 'Regressive' to use a different term. Progressive, liberals, don't think that they are better; they are just open to discussing what comes next, while conservatives, by definition, want to keep things the way they are. Liberals are more into 'live and let live', while conservatives want to see a more uniform lifestyle; they value Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness only in words, as their actions reveal that they value adherence to their set of values a lot more than the right of others to choose what they want to do.
"I have indeed questioned my beliefs. I have indeed taken the New Atheists seriously. And...nothing troubling."
I don't believe you.
"Belief in a god requires nothing religious, just pure logic and what science has shown us about reality. "
So wrong, nobody is able to come up with such logical arguments. The "best" I have seen is here, on this blog, that's why I found it so interesting... yet it is not even close to lead to the conclusion that a god must exist. And the flaws are always so simple to explain.
"Once you arrive at that conclusion, it certainly makes any given religion more likely."
That's not even logical. The best arguments come "close" to justifying that there might just be something else that created the universe. No religion follows logically from that, none, as they are all just a set of beliefs that humans came up with. They rationalize their beliefs after the fact to fit the narrative, like you're doing now.
Starhopper said...
" And I myself (not to place myself in such august company) have diligently looked into alternative religions (Hinduism, Daoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, buddhism, and yes, atheism) to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything."
That goes to show how stupid your approach to getting new knowledge is. Shopping around for sets of beliefs is NOT a good way to get to what's true. Including Atheism is especially wrong, as if that was some "set" of belief. It's just the rejection of 1 claim; a big one of course, but just 1. Therefore, your so-call diligence is either a lie, as so many people make that same claim as you and I don't believe them, or you truly did it and it was an irrational quest, using a stupid approach that was meant to fail given your background. Muslims or Hindus taking your approach will pretty much always fall back to their own religion too...
"This statement proves that you have never read the Bible with an open mind."
But you know that most Atheists in the Western world grew up with the Bible...
"Even without God, the book is an astonishing compendium of the deepest insight into human nature ever compiled, and a bottomless well of wisdom."
No, it's really dumb actually. It's full of contradictions, it's easily replaceable by other fables to explain the same things. The old testament is full of unnecessary violence and grotesque ideas about how to treat salves or how you should listen to God and kill your own child if asked to, and so many other things. The new testament is more positive, but still a freaking joke when you actually look at it with an open mind... the sermon on the mountain is supposed to be so profound; I remember being taught a lot of good things using it actually, but looking at it on its own, with no context, it really has not much to offer.
I.e. Your dogmatism is so strong. Again, nothing new; you've been around for a long time here!
And I myself (not to place myself in such august company) have diligently looked into alternative religions (Hinduism, Daoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, buddhism, and yes, atheism) to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything.
Far from me "never questioning the assumptions", I have put them through the most exacting wringer, and found all the counter arguments to be weak, lacking, and self-contradictory.
Well, I'm not nearly as harsh about this a Hugo Pelland, since I share some of this history. I was a believer. I started as a Catholic, and did a years-long dive into Biblical literalism, before swimming through Deism and coming out atheist on the other side.
I will say that doing a purely intellectual examination of other beliefs misses the center of what religions provide Religions are powerful because they play on our emotional and social strings. They reassure us, give us a group to belong to, provide us with customs and rituals. If you have never shaved your head to offer your hair to a god, nor (assuming you are male) allowed your spouse to hit you with a stick on Diwali, etc. (there are so many rituals with so many variations, none of these are universal to all Hindus), then you have not truly investigated Hinduism. So, in that sense, I agree "shopping around for beliefs" is not a good way to look at various religions.
The most hardened atheist can find a lifetime's worth of exploration into the the most profound depths of the meaning of existence itself. There is absolutely nothing like [the Bible] in all of history.
The Bible does have some great passages of philosophy and life advice (Job is great until God starts talking, much of Ecclesiates, a small percentage of Proverbs, etc.). However, so do the Tao Te Ching, the Vedic writings, etc. The Bible is no where close to unique in this regard.
Maybe in most of us the desire for knowledge isn't so much to pile up certain facts but to reach some settled place of equilibrium where the itch to know naturally subsides. If so, then applying a correspondence theory of truth to some other system of beliefs---Does this belief fit with my settled understanding of reality?---is futile: the answer will be No. Better, perhaps, to adopt a coherentist approach. But for this you have to be on the inside. The world's religions have been doing this for centuries and big schisms, eg, the Reformation, can occur. A new place to rest emerges. A third way might be to ask why it is that the mind can settle in these seemingly very different places? Part of the answer might be that these systems satisfy a need for beauty, or a sense of the sacred, or of moral rightness, or a vision of a new kind of life. Part might be that, abstracting away from much of the detail, we find poetic truths about human nature and the human condition as it was in times and places past but also for the here and now. Truths that in our modern haste to invent ourselves from the ground up we would do well to recognise.
Religions have been making claims; atheists have been rejecting them.
Rejecting arguments for belief in God is fine. Going around trying to claim that belief in God is irrational, that there is no evidence for God, that religion is harmful with no benefits, that atheists are better at using reason, that science and religion are incompatible, etc is absolutely ridiculous. That was the New Atheist movement - absolutely ridiculous.
Of course you don't, because you lack self-awareness regarding your religious dogma
Yes, my not understanding a sentence of yours due to not being a mind reader is clearly a fault of "religious dogma".
I am not going to answer that. It's just too absurd. Your willful ignorance is shocking.
Looks to me like you don't know how to answer it and are trying to deflect. That's just how it looks, mind you.
Saying the 'Left' as a whole was actually not quite accurate on my part, as there are elements of the Left that are quite 'Regressive' to use a different term.
Well I'm heartened to know you recognize this at least.
Progressive, liberals, don't think that they are better; they are just open to discussing what comes next, while conservatives, by definition, want to keep things the way they are.
Sometimes the way things are is better than the proposed changes.
Liberals are more into 'live and let live', while conservatives want to see a more uniform lifestyle; they value Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness only in words, as their actions reveal that they value adherence to their set of values a lot more than the right of others to choose what they want to do.
I don't think the evidence supports this, as several studies have shown people on the left are as close-minded and intolerant as people on the right in many ways.
I don't believe you.
You're wrong then.
So wrong, nobody is able to come up with such logical arguments.
Rather, no one has been able to refute them. The good ones, anyway.
That's not even logical.
Of course it is. The existence of a deity not bound by the laws of nature automatically makes any given miracle far more likely than if there was no such being, in which case miracles couldn't happen at all.
Legion,
Looks to me like you don't know how to answer it and are trying to deflect. That's just how it looks, mind you.
It looks that way to everyone.
Legion of Logic said...
"Rejecting arguments for belief in God is fine. Going around trying to claim that belief in God is irrational, that there is no evidence for God, that religion is harmful with no benefits, that atheists are better at using reason, that science and religion are incompatible, etc is absolutely ridiculous. That was the New Atheist movement - absolutely ridiculous."
That tells a lot more about what YOU decide to focus on than what they advocate for, just like any other Atheists out there, be it 'New Atheist' or other. It's obvious to me that you're AGAIN showing an emotional reaction to all of this...
- Rejecting arguments for belief in God is not just fine, it's rational. Faith is the only real argument for belief.
- Belief in God IS irrational. Doesn't mean that it's hurtful/harmful on its own.
- There is NO GOOD evidence for God. It's just a shortcut to say there's none.
- Religion is harmful, sometimes, and offers no intellectual benefits. It's again just a shortcut.
- Atheists in general are not better at using reason; just more accurate with 1 specific question.
- Science and religion ARE incompatible, when they address the same questions. But Scientists, as individual, can be religious. Again, you confuse the shortcut with the full picture.
All outspoken public Atheists I have heard of would say exactly the same. I remember Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience, for instance, repeating how he didn't become smarter when he stopped believing in God.
On your end, here's how you sound... 'but but, I am an intelligent rational person and I just happen to believe in God, why do you claim I am irrational?'
Nobody is telling you this; that's what YOU infer from the attacks on that 1 specific position because you are so attached to it, emotionally. It's so freaking obvious; such lack of self-awareness as I have pointed out multiple times here.
"I don't think the evidence supports this, as several studies have shown people on the left are as close-minded and intolerant as people on the right in many ways."
That was a great article to read! Nothing surprising though... and I as I was reading it I was wondering whether they would get to an important detail regarding the differences in the stated intolerance, and I am so glad they did get to it:
"There’s an argument to be made that conservative intolerance does more harm than liberal intolerance, as it targets more vulnerable people. Consider the earlier list of groups maligned by liberals and conservatives. Rich people, Christians, men, whites and the police would generally seem to have more power today than immigrants, gays, blacks, poor people and goths. According to Brandt, “We’ve understandably received a variety of pushback when we suggest that prejudice towards Christians and conservatives is prejudice.” To many it’s just standing up to bullies."
My point was that Liberals are more tolerant of other ideas AND people. Conservatives might just be as tolerant/intolerant of other ideas, but not people! They are intolerant of people who have no way to change... Moreover, as the article explains, Liberals tend to be intolerant of intolerance from Conservatives, which is again just a response to their pushing of a form of religious agenda. Not every point is about that of course, but that's the focus of my complain here; Religious Conservatives aren't nearly as tolerant as Secular Liberals (who may or may not be religious/spiritual/whatever)
Or, as we hear sometimes: not all Conservatives are racists/homophobic/anti-science, but most racists/homophobic/anti-science people are Conservatives, and it's even more true if you include 'Religious'.
" --don't believe you.
You're wrong then."
That's interesting because you cannot say that someone is 'wrong' when they don't believe something you just said... that's not logical... Legion of Logic. I am merely stating that I don't believe what you said; I don't trust you regarding that specific claim. Nothing to do with whether your statement was true or not; I don't know. I just don't believe you when you state it, so I cannot possible be wrong here, as I am not making the opposite claim either.
" Rather, no one has been able to refute them. The good ones, anyway."
Even the "good" ones are easily refuted. You can just point at the obvious flaws; no need to prove the opposite is true. The fact that nobody agrees with which ones these "good" ones are and how almost nobody ever get convinced by them is ample evidence that they are not sufficient. There is no direct path from argument X to religiosity; you know that. Most people, by far, believe for completely different reasons.
" The existence of a deity not bound by the laws of nature automatically makes any given miracle far more likely than if there was no such being, in which case miracles couldn't happen at all."
Haha, no... that's so illogical. There is a giant jump right there already. Some creating deity existing wouldn't, in any way, justifies claiming that this deity has any control over the universe, that it has some sort of mind, that it can do stuff to other minds, etc... there is no link at all. Christians like to come from that point because it makes their beliefs sound more logical. That's probably why you like these arguments...
David Brightly said...
"...Part might be that, abstracting away from much of the detail, we find poetic truths about human nature and the human condition as it was in times and places past but also for the here and now. Truths that in our modern haste to invent ourselves from the ground up we would do well to recognise."
That was all well said, but the only distinction here, which I am not sure you are acknowledging, is that these truths are not for us to invent; they are what they are regardless of who we are. Yet, because of our differences, they appear different to us. Religions make everything worse because they don't look at what is, they look at what was said, by previous "holy men" and what they thought were gods. It just muddles the water; it contrasts with a scientific approach to getting closer to finding truths, which doesn't suffer from that problem as no certainty claims are made and assumptions are always recognized as such, assumptions, and opened to questions. The comfort that religions provide is great, but their supposed 'truths' aren't.
One Brow said...
"Well, I'm not nearly as harsh about this a Hugo Pelland..."
Haha, might be the first topic in a few months of interactions on this blog where I am more harsh!
Good occasion to point out that my view of religious people, as individuals, is not that negative at all. It's the religion-first approach that I find to be utterly stupid and even dangerous in some cases... but even religious people don't do that most of the time, whether they are aware of it or not.
Therefore, that's why I think I will stop caring about a blog like Dangerous Idea from now on, or try to... There is really not much to talk about regarding religion specifically after so many years of running in circles. Religions are just so irrelevant to come up with anything true and useful. They are, at best, cultural artefacts that inform how we celebrate holidays and, at worst, cults that mess up families and societies with authoritarian approaches to everything that govern one's life. But when we discuss with each other, for topics that concerns everyone in our current society, it's very easy to just point out how one's religion is irrelevant. Everybody needs to make a case for why they agree with, or support, something. For example, saying '...because as a Christian...' is void of any value for others, even Christians, as they don't agree with each other. We're in a multi-cultural world, whether they like it or not, and we have no reason to care about what their specific religions have to say.
"There is NO GOOD evidence for God. It's just a shortcut to say there's none."
Wow. Shades of past discussions with im-skeptical, who used to post to this website.
Tell me, Hugo. What, in your mind, constitutes "evidence"? We can't determine whether any exists, if we do not know what it is we are looking for.
Billions of people believing something similar is pretty good evidence I think. But still not conclusive; they could all be wrong, logically.
There are also multiple arguments presented. Does that count as evidence? Not sure...
Also, should have added that it depends what the claims are of course. I don't see how we can have any evidence whatsoever to justify believing that Jesus raised from the dead for example. We know that all we can get, at best, are what people said. So this one is literally impossible to provide evidence for. You can only claim that you believe the texts that relate the words of the people who claimed they saw something...
The major problem with the atheist demand for "evidence" is that they're looking for evidence in the wrong places.
Empirical evidence (which is generally what is demanded) by its very nature can never be "evidence" for God, because He is not one being amongst many in this world. He is the creator of everything we can ascertain by empirical means. He is outside and above the material universe. Looking for empirical evidence for God is (in some respects) like trying to ascertain how much red is in Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
In fact, any so-called empirical evidence for God would in fact be nothing of the sort.
Do you think that sound clever?
Seriously... after reading such comments multiple times over so many years, I still don't know whether people think that this kind of comment is supposed to make them look smart or knowledgeable or creative or rational or logical or ... ?
"Do you think that sounds clever? [...] I still don't know whether people think that this kind of comment is supposed to make them look smart or knowledgeable or creative or rational or logical or ... ?"
Actually, it's not meant to do any of those things. They're not even my words. I don't know who first expressed such thoughts, but they're older than I am for sure.
But they make perfect sense to me. The atheist demanding empirical evidence for God is like a man searching for his keys under a streetlamp because "the light's better there" when all the time he dropped them 50 yards away in the darkness.
Ah ok, it's even worse than I thought...
That tells a lot more about what YOU decide to focus on than what they advocate for
I can only conclude I have far more experience with them than you do.
It's obvious to me that you're AGAIN showing an emotional reaction to all of this
Is this an actual point?
Faith is the only real argument for belief.
No it isn't.
Belief in God IS irrational.
Agnosticism is rational, as is theism. Not so much atheism, at least any explanation that I've seen.
There is NO GOOD evidence for God.
Is there a reason you rate yourself more qualified to evaluate evidence than the entirety of Christianity, which included countless scientists and philosophers?
Religion is harmful, sometimes, and offers no intellectual benefits.
This is false.
Atheists in general are not better at using reason; just more accurate with 1 specific question.
To claim accuracy is to claim knowledge. You do not know what you claim to know.
Again, you confuse the shortcut with the full picture.
I quote what they say. If they are only using shortcuts, they never clarify.
All outspoken public Atheists I have heard of would say exactly the same
I don't believe you.
On your end, here's how you sound... 'but but, I am an intelligent rational person and I just happen to believe in God, why do you claim I am irrational?'
Nobody is telling you this; that's what YOU infer from the attacks on that 1 specific position because you are so attached to it, emotionally. It's so freaking obvious; such lack of self-awareness as I have pointed out multiple times here.
Projection.
There’s an argument to be made that conservative intolerance does more harm than liberal intolerance, as it targets more vulnerable people.
That is incidental, rather than actually worse in of itself. Two people who shoot at each other in attempted murder, and one happens to miss, had the same hate in their heart.
According to Brandt, “We’ve understandably received a variety of pushback when we suggest that prejudice towards Christians and conservatives is prejudice.” To many it’s just standing up to bullies."
Rationalization of hate.
most racists/homophobic/anti-science people are Conservatives, and it's even more true if you include 'Religious'.
"Homophobic", yes. Racist and anti-science, I would heartily dispute.
That's interesting because you cannot say that someone is 'wrong' when they don't believe something you just said
When they have no rational reason to doubt it, yes I certainly can. That level of head-in-the-sand avoidance of engagement is indistinguishable from simply being wrong.
Even the "good" ones are easily refuted.
Wonder why it hasn't been done then?
Haha, no... that's so illogical
That's like saying the presence of a car does not make it more likely that someone can get run over than if there is no car. Think about it some more.
Legion, I see that all you felt like giving back are cheap one-liners. Not surprising. And I think we agree more than you think actually, which is the greatest irony of it all, and so common with Theists like you. Your emotional reactions, pretence to know what New Atheists really mean, and charges of 'projection' are soooo obvious. I could have written your answer for you, seriously. You're so predictable and lackink self-awareness of your own, small, cognitive dissonance.
As I said, nothing else to learn here. In person, it might be interesting. Here, it's futile, you and every theist patting each other on the back cannot pause and see your errors. Again, they are truly not that big. I don't think you're stupid people, but you make some precise, small, stupid reasoning errors and you just cannot see them. Too bad...
I rather doubt Hugo will go away. As far as I can tell his only purpose for being here has been to scold Theists for being stupid, bad people, not to learn the reasons they hold their positions. That much is plain from this thread.
It seems almost like he thinks it's his "religious" duty to proclaim his "truth" to people so they will be enlightened like him and stop being dumb. But when it comes to supporting his position with rational discussion he is outraged that anyone should question him. Missionary work wasn't supposed to be like this! The ignorant should just accept his proclamations
Kind of ironic then when he accuses the Theists of doing what he is *actually* doing when they are chomping at the bit to get to that rational discussion (which he avoids).
Hugo, I suspect you are making the mistake that I made when young of thinking of religion as proto-science. I grant that religious systems, aiming at comprehensiveness, can make claims that are in conflict with science. But that is the least bit of it. Science looks at the world through the lens of measuring instruments---rulers, clocks, ammeters, particle accelerators, etc. It sees only what these things can see. Religion tries to grasp the world as seen through human eyes, the world as felt and lived by each of us: Birth and death, love and hate, joy and misery and the whole damn thing that we find ourselves thrown into and have an attitude towards. To guide us through this we don't turn to scientists---they have no more to offer than the rest of us---but rather to poets, dramatists, novelists, composers, painters, etc, even philosophers and holy men. Better to think of a religion as an evolving, multi-authored, creative work of art in which one might live.
David, that is all obvious, yes. That's why I said scientists can certainly be religious, like anybody, and that religions 'can' be used as useful tools, and that it's really not that big of a deal.
The problem is that there are some specific claims that religions make, and it varies a lot across religions and believers, that are just completely out of touch with reality. Some believers then run with them and create false narratives that 'can' be harmful. It's quite creative indeed.
David,
Science looks at the world through the lens of measuring instruments---rulers, clocks, ammeters, particle accelerators, etc. It sees only what these things can see.
This is not quite right. Humans look at the world through their senses. Instruments merely extend the range of their senses. The "science" you are referring to is the Cartesian inspired philosophical lens used to filter out the aspects of reality that don't pertain to the advancement of technology.
Religion tries to grasp the world as seen through human eyes, the world as felt and lived by each of us:
This is also not quite right. Maybe some people today see religion as completely divorced from science, but I doubt many religious people do. Religion removes the Cartesian filter and considers all aspects of reality. Technological advancement is merely a subset of that greater reality.
Legion, I see that all you felt like giving back are cheap one-liners. Not surprising. And I think we agree more than you think actually, which is the greatest irony of it all, and so common with Theists like you. Your emotional reactions, pretence to know what New Atheists really mean, and charges of 'projection' are soooo obvious. I could have written your answer for you, seriously. You're so predictable and lackink self-awareness of your own, small, cognitive dissonance.
My answers were as substantive as what I was responding to. I was just more succinct.
What's fascinating is you have this "emotional reaction" kick you're on to attempt to invalidate anything I'm saying. Which is amusing, since not only can I not deny it (you'll just "not believe me"), but I have been attacking New Atheism, while you have been attacking me. Looks to me like, if we follow the evidence, you're the emotional one.
Are you a New Atheist? That would explain your emotional responses, your need to lash out at me personally for attacking your beliefs.
See how this works, Hugo? Why the level of discourse you have set is absolutely worthless for any sort of useful dialogue, and easily countered by my one-liners that offer no more substance than your more wordy posts?
Hugo: That's what I don't see a point in engaging with anymore, there's nothing more to learn as nothing changes and you're still stuck with the same slowness of thought because of these weird assumptions you can't let go of.
Hugo, after I attack New Atheism: Such lack of self-awareness in this paragraph, just like every single person who engages with the so-called 'New Atheists' and have the same reaction as you.
By definition, falling on the Conservative/Right side makes you not willing to look at certain ideas, beliefs, thoughts, actions, etc.
I attack New Atheism again. Then Hugo responds with: You see it that way because of your emotional attachment to YOUR religion. Nothing special. Just a lack of self-awareness, AGAIN.
you are obviously the one on the side of "lack of self-awareness" as you are not even able to see things in the right order.
Of course you don't, because you lack self-awareness regarding your religious dogma
Your willful ignorance is shocking.
I don't believe you.
I attack New Atheism yet again, which is followed with: It's obvious to me that you're AGAIN showing an emotional reaction to all of this...
It's so freaking obvious; such lack of self-awareness as I have pointed out multiple times here.
At this point, even I could tell you were flustered at the very least by my criticism of New Atheism. You weren't engaging the ideas, you were criticizing me personally - for not agreeing with your beliefs, as far as I can tell. Trying to invalidate everything I was saying by calling it an emotional attachment rather than rational discourse, the bizarre accusations of lack of self-awareness, saying I'm close-minded for my political leaning, calling me untrustworthy with no justification...so rather than continue on, I started treating your lack of engagement with what I was saying, rather than going after me personally, with the respect it deserved - one-liners that still equaled in substance what you were providing.
Not only is criticizing the speaker of an idea in order to refute their idea a fallacy, it also tends to spring from emotional investment in whatever that idea is attacking. You really don't like me attacking New Atheism - which, while that's fine, does not justify you trying to project onto me. I've done the New Atheism dance for about thirteen years now - they (you?) have nothing to worry me about, nothing to make me feel like I'm having to avoid uncomfortable truths to maintain my beliefs. Sure, I can have emotional reactions to things, but New Atheism is one group that is incapable of doing so, any more than someone could criticize me for ignoring my horoscope and make me upset.
Of course, you can just ignore all that with "I don't believe you", which is frequently the response I got from New Atheists.
Legion of Logic said...
" I have been attacking New Atheism, while you have been attacking me."
Interesting, I am indeed attacking you in the sense that I am responding to what you are saying and inferring other relating things from your statements, both current and past. If you're attacking New Atheism, then that's again something more revealing about you as there is no such thing as 'New' atheism... There are a few semi-famous people who got lumped together under that umbrella, like the 4 horsemen, another label, Harris, Hitchen, Dawkins and Dennet. But did you know that they met only once for sintance? So much for a collective 'New Atheism' thing...
But anyway, the main point here is that, yes, I am attacking you because I am talking to you, now. That's all... so there's nothing emotional here since that's what I have always said I was doing. Blogs are for conversing with other people; they are not forums to try to convince the masses. You realized always nobody sees these, right?
"Are you a New Atheist? That would explain your emotional responses, your need to lash out at me personally for attacking your beliefs. "
I am just an Atheist as I don't believe in god's existence anymore. What you call 'lashing out' is really just replying to your sentences. It's not even a response to you attacking my beliefs because you're not really doing much of that... if any, at all. As I am typing this, I am trying to figure out which belief you would be attacking actually, and I am no sure what that would be. It seems to be that it's, again, a reversal of the logical path here. Theism offers claims, I don't find them convincing. In your attempt to defend these claims, you 'think' you are attacking my beliefs. But that's not logical, as you are the one defending beliefs here, not me. I could be wrong; happy to reply to examples you may find. After so many years, there must be some somewhere for sure...
"See how this works, Hugo? Why the level of discourse you have set is absolutely worthless for any sort of useful dialogue, and easily countered by my one-liners that offer no more substance than your more wordy posts? "
Well like I said, this is just a sudden realization on my part that there is really no point in coming to a blog where the starting point is religious in nature. So ya, there is not much useful dialogue to have, in that specific context, in my opinion. I don't pretend to have offer a lot of substance here; your use of 1-liner just showed that you had not much to present either. I.e. we were pretty much done. But you decided to write a lot more now and I have some free time, so why not. Again, none of this is a big deal...
"At this point, even I could tell you were flustered at the very least by my criticism of New Atheism."
I am flustered by the fact that an otherwise smart person can be making such a bad reasoning error. Again, I repeat, it's not a lot of error, it's mainly just 1 error but with a lot of consequences. The one error I am referring to, to be clear, is the notion of starting with a belief in God, as if that was a given, and then moving on to look at other claims. This is why you see yourself criticizing what you call "New Atheism", instead of, correctly, looking at it for what it is: a reply to that one claim that a belief in God is justified.
" You weren't engaging the ideas, you were criticizing me personally - for not agreeing with your beliefs, as far as I can tell. "
You couldn't be more wrong.
"Trying to invalidate everything I was saying by calling it an emotional attachment"
Well, that's what it is... God belief is not a rational thing. It's mostly emotional, for pretty much everybody. It's possible to come to it through some rational, though mistaken, means, but it's dishonest to pretend that this is the common path. Stating the obvious: we all know that most people, by far, come to some sense of God belief because of their upbringing. We don't learn about it incrementally; we're just told there is a God and that's that, never really question it when part of the religion, and go on from there.
"bizarre accusations of lack of self-awareness"
Of course you find it bizarre; that's the point...
"saying I'm close-minded for my political leaning"
That's kind of a different topic but it did come up, yes, because there is such a strong tie between a more liberal approach to religion and lack thereof versus a conservative approach to religion and fundamentalism, on the other side. You happen to fall on the side of conservatism, with its roots in elevation of conformity above liberty of the individual, in general. But it's complicated of course as you can have elements of the Left, who are generally more Liberal, fall on that authoritarian side as well... Anyway, what you're close-minded about is simpler imho: it's these jabs at anything that's different than you, that I have seen you mentioned before, not here on this thread I think.
"calling me untrustworthy with no justification"
Nah you misunderstood. I don't have any reason to think you are untrustworthy. Saying I don't believe something you are saying doesn't mean the same at all, because I don't think you are lying on purpose. I don't believe you have questioned your beliefs seriously because I don't think you truly know how to do that nor what you would really need to question. I don't believe you have taken the "New Atheists" seriously (not sure who exactly but it doesn't matter) as you keep confusing the order of argumentation. I believe you're being genuine; I just don't believe you really did the work.
"I started treating your lack of engagement with what I was saying, rather than going after me personally, with the respect it deserved - one-liners that still equaled in substance what you were providing."
Sure, nobody is forcing you to write anything...
"Not only is criticizing the speaker of an idea in order to refute their idea a fallacy[...]"
True, but I am really focusing on the actual ideas you are presenting and what I can infer, about you sometimes, from these ideas. I am not saying an idea is wrong because you are conservative, for example, as that would be a fallacy. I am expressing why I think an isolated idea is wrong, and what we can infer from it.
"[...] it also tends to spring from emotional investment in whatever that idea is attacking."
Yes, on your side that's true... you are necessarily more invested in all this because that's such an important part of your life, presumably. Why would you try to defend your religion is you have no emotional investment in it? The opposite isn't true though... and I feel like this is stating the obvious again, but Atheists would be perfectly happy with "not" talking about Atheism ever again. That's the goal actually! So there is no emotional investment from that angle. What's annoying for us is to have all of these religious people come to us with their claims and beliefs that come as a consequence of believing in God. Again, it's very complicated when to looking at the details and there are tons of different variations, but the principle is really that simple.
"You really don't like me attacking New Atheism - which, while that's fine, does not justify you trying to project onto me. I've done the New Atheism dance for about thirteen years now - they (you?) have nothing to worry me about, nothing to make me feel like I'm having to avoid uncomfortable truths to maintain my beliefs. Sure, I can have emotional reactions to things, but New Atheism is one group that is incapable of doing so, any more than someone could criticize me for ignoring my horoscope and make me upset."
This paragraph is a great summary because it's so ironic. You're doing exactly all the things I am criticizing about your approach, in 1 paragraph:
- You lump a bunch of people as New Atheists in order to attack them as a group, when they really have not much in common except rejecting claims about God's existence.
- You ask whether I fit with that group when the answer is obvious: yes, you know I am an Atheist. It's so bizarre to try to put some more specific label here; Atheism is really just rejecting god-related beliefs.
- You think it's projection to point out your emotional reaction, but you're really the only one on a side that cares about that stuff on an emotional level.
- You say there is no truths to be uncomfortable about and that's correct... because Atheism is a response to what you, wrongly, think is true.
- You mention horoscope, a form of magical belief not so different from yours, just in degree.
Finally, since I mentioned him already, and if you want to have a good idea of what I agree with the most regarding Atheism, and in case you weren't aware already: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity
I have not looked at his material in months, but I would be surprised to find something I disagree with. And he's arguably the best I have seen when it comes to explaining why religious claims are wrong, and why Atheism really is just a response to claims, not a positive assertion of any kind.
If you aren't even aware that New Atheism is an actual thing, more defined by anti-theism than simply lack of belief in a deity, then we can't have a conversation.
Coupled with your psychoanalysis of me being about as accurate as the average internet psychoanalysis (not accurate), and there's really nothing else to say. Ive found over the years that New Atheists can't function in discussion without insulting the thinking abilities of those who disagree, and the trend has continued this weekend. Says very little about me, and very much about the mindset of this brand atheist.
Oh well.
"this is just a sudden realization on my part that there is really no point in coming to a blog where the starting point is religious in nature"
Well, bye bye then. Please continue lurking, however. You might just learn something.
Starhopper,
It's probably more like a good night than a goodbye. If it's a goodbye it's a particularly long goodbye.
But I have to comment on this:
explaining why religious claims are wrong, and why Atheism really is just a response to claims, not a positive assertion of any kind.
If this is what Matt Dillahunty is actually promoting it's a sign of New Atheist "logic" and one of the things that set New Atheists apart from Old Atheists. The errors of the Old Atheists, like Betrand Russell, were a little more subtle and they would not have made such an elementary blunder.
Claiming that "A is wrong" is a positive assertion whatever A happens to be and however right or wrong that assertion may be. It's plainly contradictory to then claim that they are not making any positive claim. Not realizing this seems to be a trait common to the NA breed.
Old Atheist arguments aren't plainly baloney prima facie but seem to be arguments that were refuted in ancient times and forgotten or based on new misunderstandings of what Christians believe. For instance I read Betrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian" to see what the best of the Atheist arguments against Theism were. I was dumbfounded to find he actually led with the "Then who created God?" argument.
Legion,
We're not, and have not, really been having a conversation... it's just a blog with a bunch of selective reactions.
New Atheism isn't a thing, no. It's at best another shortcut, some label, to identify a few people. Besides the fact that they're all Atheists, not much else is common.
I have not insulted your thinking ability. Au contraire, I praised them many times. That's why I call you not self-aware about that 1 question. It's a blind spot, but a pretty big one unfortunately.
Therefore, again, your reaction is indeed very emotional. You can't even see that I'm not insulting you as a person; I'm just pointing out that blind spot to you.
" I was dumbfounded to find he actually led with the "Then who created God?" argument."
Dawkins led with the exact same "argument" in his appearance on the Stephen Colbert show. Hell, it appears, hath no imagination.
Starhopper,
I wish there was more to learn, but I think I need to pick and choose my battles, and this one just got old. I appreciate what I did learn over time, that's for sure!
Thanks!
Ha! He couldn't stop until he got one last shot off at Legion.
Yeah, Legion please stop being so emotional!������
Legion, bmiller just said this:
"He couldn't stop until he got one last shot off at Legion."
I ignored what he said before but that was hard not to read, given that email updates show the text right away, so in case I wrote something the wrong way, I want to re-state that this is not one last shot at you, at all.
As I mentioned, I think you sound very smart, but we just disagree on 1 big thing, and my perception is that this 1 thing is a blind spot, you're not aware of it, and it comes mostly from an emotional attachment. Overall, I don't think we disagree as much as it seems from what I read.
Who knows, I might be proven wrong one day, but given that nothing changed in 15 years of me looking at it, and thousands of years of humans looking at it, I simply think it's time for me to move on. There's no good reason to read about a god-firs point of view anymore. Hopefully, I'll stop for good this time...
"Hopefully, I'll stop for good this time..."
Maybe, maybe not.
St. Paul tells us that hope is one of the 3 things which abide.
Wow! Something (March 09, 2019 10:02 AM) can be said about religion that commands the agreement, more or less, of both HP and BM! :-)
Both sides also seem to be agreed that what has gone wrong is a failure of rational thought, though each side locates the error in the other. I agree there is a failure of rationality but it doesn't take the form of a logical mistake on one side or the other. Rather, we have gone beyond the region where language and logic are applicable. Where we come to rest in this terra incognita I strongly suspect has little to do with our reasoning ability.
"Where we come to rest in this terra incognita I strongly suspect has little to do with our reasoning ability."
I would not say that it "has little to do with our reasoning ability" but rather that reasoning alone is no longer sufficient. Nothing in the Christian faith is contrary to reason, but much of it could never be attained by unaided reason. For instance, I doubt seriously that the doctrine of the Trinity could ever have been conceived without revelation playing a role.
"Language" is still applicable, but is used in more powerful ways. Take the parables of Jesus. On one level, they are of course just words. But that "just" is the problem - they are not "just" words, but stories. And stories are always greater than the sum of their parts.
That's where all the biblical literalists get it wrong. The Holy Spirit chose to use stories to reveal the truths found in Scripture because it is a more effective (and ultimately more accurate) means of doing so. I am right now 622 pages into a 4 volume, 2,800 page long commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis. And I am certain that his commentary is not exhaustive. But Matthew itself takes up only 65 pages in my pocket edition of the New Testament. How is it possible for so much meaning to be packed into so small a space? Because it's a story. Every word is charged with significance far beyond its literal meaning.
The so-called skeptic will never understand the Big Questions (let alone their answers) as long as he refuses to abandon his wooden headed insistence on "reason alone". That will only take you as far as the foothills of Wisdom. But to scale her mountains, you need more - much more.
Bottom line: It's not faith instead of reason, it's faith in addition to reason. Think of reason as a propeller and faith as the wings of an airplane. You need both to fly.
Where we come to rest in this terra incognita I strongly suspect has little to do with our reasoning ability.
Like Starhopper I agree that there is nothing contrary to *reason* in the Christian faith. There may be things contrary to Atheist *dogma* which precludes the very existence of God and therefore revelation and miracles.
For most of history "science" and "religion" have not been at odds. It's a peculiar bad effect of the Enlightenment. Although of course Wikipedia is not the last word I think this article is a good place to start.
The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention: "religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization and globalization and the Protestant Reformation,[1][3][14][2] "science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature.[1][4][15][2] Originally what is today known as "science" was pioneered as "natural philosophy". Furthermore, the phrase "religion and science" or "science and religion" emerged in the 19th century, not before, due to the reification of both concepts.[1][2]
It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", "Confucianism" and "World Religions" first emerged.[1][16][17] In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (scientia) and religion (religio) were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge.[1]
Most people don't know how recent this all is and also suffer under what C.S. Lewis termed "chronological snobbery". So if older generations didn't know about airplanes they were somehow wrong about everything.
If you look at the section Incompatibility, it's mostly people who have an expertise in science, not philosophy (not even philosophy of science) and certainly not theology. They may be very accomplished in their fields but that doesn't mean they are competent outside of their fields. From what I can tell they have a inaccurate idea of what Christianity teaches sometimes combined with poor philosophical reasoning. There are plenty of polemic myths about Christianity propogated by Enlightment thinkers that are swallowed whole and unexamined by a lot of scientists and you can see it when they write outside of their own fields.
An interesting clue to Hugo's thought processes is his labeling of anyone who disagrees with him as "emotional". Emotion (an undefined term here, by the way) appears to be for Hugo a negative, even a deal breaker.
Now it would be folly to make a decision or to believe a belief on emotion alone. That would be putting the cart before the horse. It would be like trying to drive a car without any right wheels. But to ignore, or even reject, emotion as part of our decision making tool kit, would be an act of equal folly. Such "technocratic" thinking is what has brought us urban sprawl, industrial pollution, the WalMart-ization of America, the ballooning trade deficit with China, and the Aral Sea ecological disaster.
I don't consider it a parting shot. But there is no way to refute the claim that my position is an emotional rationalization, no way to prove the countless times I've engaged with New Atheists (and the regular kind) and dissected their arguments and counter-arguments. So where else is there to go?
Sure, no one is obligated to believe anything they read online, but I've always thought one of the core principles of conversation or debate, online or otherwise, is the basic charity of taking someone at their word and engaging their position by discussing merit, rather than theoretical hidden motives for having a position or simply choosing to not believe what the other is saying.
"I don't believe you" or "You only think that / disagree with me due to emotional hangups" is a conversation stopper. Hence one-liners.
Thinking on it, it's actually like being accused of bigotry over a position only indirectly related to some demographic checkbox.
"Illegal immigration is a problem."
"YOU'RE A RACIST!!"
"Abortion ends a human life."
"YOU'RE A SEXIST WHO WANTS TO CONTROL WOMEN!!"
In both cases, the tactic is to abandon all charity and attempt to undermine the person rather than the position. I can call anyone in the world a racist and there is not a single thing they can do to refute it. I can undermine any possible intellectual position as being held due to some form of bigotry or non-rational reason, and nothing can be done to refute it. Hugo claims to be an atheist because he knows God exists and is afraid. Starhopper is a progressive because he once lost a bar fight in the South to a Republican. Prove me wrong.
A little charity goes a long way. Perhaps Hugo is right. If he does not have the charity to not attempt to undermine the person rather than the position, perhaps he is burnt out.
Starhopper,
I think Hugo's labeling of his opponents as emotional is just because he doesn't (or doesn't want to) understand the rational arguments Theists present. Because he doesn't understand them and they seem to be otherwise rational people, then they must be putting emotion first perhaps because he has done similarly in the past.
Of course I think we all agree that putting emotion first is the wrong way of going about making a decision and so we should all understand that this was what Hugo's criticism was.
But I think you are getting out of the lane you set for yourself with your examples. Some of those could be seen as prudential arguments of trade-offs between relative goods and evils.
For instance, if we have industry, we will have industrial pollution. So to eliminate all industrial pollution we would have to eliminate all industry which, I think, we can all agree is not a good thing.
But rightly ordered emotion is a good thing because it passionately seeks the good, but is held in check by reason so it doesn't go off the rails and ends up doing evil. A successful athlete must be passionate about his sport, but not so passionate that he punches the winner when he loses. We normally recognize this as a sign of maturity.
Unfortunately, we don't see too much of that today...especially on the internet.
Legion,
Starhopper is a progressive because he once lost a bar fight in the South to a Republican.
I don't believe that for a minute. My money would be on Starhopper in any bar fight! ;-)
But yes, you are right that it's a "tell" that you have left the realm of reasonable discussion when the discussion turns to you or your motivations rather than the substance of your arguments.
" Starhopper is a progressive because he once lost a bar fight in the South to a Republican."
Damn you, bmiller, you beat me to it. I was going to inform Logic that I've won every bar fight I've ever been in.
Of course, I've never actually been in one... (Almost, once. Pretty intense scene for a few minutes there.)
Well at least you can say you've never lost one :-)
I've only been in a bar one time, so my entire experience of bar fights comes from Terminator 2. I can imagine Starhopper throwing guys in MAGA hats across the room and then taking their motorcycle.
Ha! While I cannot count the number of times I've been in a bar, I only came close to a bar fight one time. It was in Ayios Nikolaos, Cyprus. I was sitting at a bar with two of my colleagues from GCHQ minding my own business, when out of nowhere this young British Army NCO starts harassing me. "Hey, just who the fuck are you? What are you doing here anyway?" Obviously, he had something against Americans. He was getting really belligerent, and it was evident he was
a. completely drunk, and
b. in the mood for some serious fisticuffs.
One of my co-workers managed to talk him off of the ledge, and he (grumbling all the way) eventually left the scene. So we continued in our efforts to get royally pissed (as they say).
I wonder if that NCO was David?
David Brightly said...
"Both sides also seem to be agreed that what has gone wrong is a failure of rational thought, though each side locates the error in the other. I agree there is a failure of rationality but it doesn't take the form of a logical mistake on one side or the other. Rather, we have gone beyond the region where language and logic are applicable. Where we come to rest in this terra incognita I strongly suspect has little to do with our reasoning ability."
That's not a bad summary but it's a bit off when it comes to God's existence as the main point from an Atheist's perspective is that there is no rational deduction that leads us to confidently believe in God. Claiming that we are beyond the region where language and logic are applicable is part of the problem... it reminds me of an Opus Dei member I spoke too, many many years ago, who was explaining how his views are supra-rational, they are more than just rational, it is beyond what rationality alone can tell us. I still find it amusing to think of how ironic this is, as it is, by definition, not rational to claim that something is more than rational. It's like saying that something is not just true, it's more than true; that's not logical... some claim is true, or not. That's it.
Starhopper disagrees and added:
" The so-called skeptic will never understand the Big Questions (let alone their answers) as long as he refuses to abandon his wooden headed insistence on "reason alone". That will only take you as far as the foothills of Wisdom. But to scale her mountains, you need more - much more.
Bottom line: It's not faith instead of reason, it's faith in addition to reason. Think of reason as a propeller and faith as the wings of an airplane. You need both to fly. "
I think there's an obvious mistake here. Life, as a whole, or our humanity, personalities, experiences, etc... are indeed a lot more than just "reason alone". But when it comes to assessing whether a claim is true, it is really "reason alone" that can help determine whether the claim is true. It's the only tool we have for assessing truth value of objective claims. Our subjective experience can be enhanced by a lot more, but we shouldn't confuse our personal truths, like feelings and preferences, with objective truths.
Starhopper said...
" An interesting clue to Hugo's thought processes is his labeling of anyone who disagrees with him as "emotional". Emotion (an undefined term here, by the way) appears to be for Hugo a negative, even a deal breaker. "
You're grossly exaggerating. I have labeled Legion here, in this thread, as emotional only because of his position regarding God.
Obvious counter-example: when it comes to political opinion, I never called him emotional and I would agree it's the opposite in this case. Conservatives tend to be less emotional than Liberals when it comes to dealing with; not always, it's not all black and white, but I can think of more examples that way than the other. Take the notion of social welfare for instance. Fiscally conservatives show less empathy, are less emotional, when it comes to addressing that topic. Liberals tend to show more emotions and want to 'save' the poor, the immigrants, the underdogs, etc... Who's right in this case? I am not sure... I personally hover between the 2 camps depending on the specifics. I am more emotional when it comes to poor people I think, because I came from a modest background and feel lucky to have escaped. Others see it more pragmatically and want a less emotional approach, where the pure market-driven forces should dominate.
TL;DR complete misrepresentation of why I used the qualifier "emotional".
Legion of Logic said...
"I don't consider it a parting shot. But there is no way to refute the claim that my position is an emotional rationalization, no way to prove the countless times I've engaged with New Atheists (and the regular kind) and dissected their arguments and counter-arguments. So where else is there to go?
Sure, no one is obligated to believe anything they read online, but I've always thought one of the core principles of conversation or debate, online or otherwise, is the basic charity of taking someone at their word and engaging their position by discussing merit, rather than theoretical hidden motives for having a position or simply choosing to not believe what the other is saying.
"I don't believe you" or "You only think that / disagree with me due to emotional hangups" is a conversation stopper. Hence one-liners."
Yep, you got most of that right. Given that this thread wasn't really about any argument, or not even a conversation imho, I think that's a proper assessment. Two clarifications though...
I didn't say I don't believe you engaged with "New Atheists"; I just don't believe you're really questioning the basic assumptions your faith in God is based on. You can thus dissect counter-arguments all day long, over multiple years, and nothing changes... Because if you did, you would go 1 of 2 ways: either you would realize there's no logical reasoning to support a belief in God, and stop believing, or you would realize the actual foundations are something else, like faith, emotions, bonding, social influence, etc... and you would still believe but acknowledge that it's not because of Logic and Reason. You would use a different moniker like Legion of Faith, lol... Anyway, that's just another way of expressing this thing I call a blind spot regarding belief in God.
And, second and quite related to this, I do take you at your word and believe that you are being honest in your expressions of such beliefs. But that thread isn't really a conversation nor a debate nor an exchange of arguments. At least that's not quite how I saw it. I am not paying attention to details nearly as much as I would if it were actually a debate or argumentation on the actual reasons for beliefs... My bad for being misleading!
Legion of Logic said...
" Thinking on it, it's actually like being accused of bigotry over a position only indirectly related to some demographic checkbox.
"Illegal immigration is a problem."
"YOU'RE A RACIST!!"
"Abortion ends a human life."
"YOU'RE A SEXIST WHO WANTS TO CONTROL WOMEN!!" "
These are other good examples of when you, Legion, were not emotional but the other party was. Disproves that statement from Starhopper again as I don't agree with you for the 2nd statement but I wouldn't call you emotional about it.
" A little charity goes a long way. Perhaps Hugo is right. If he does not have the charity to not attempt to undermine the person rather than the position, perhaps he is burnt out."
That's such a wrong interpretation of what I came here to mention... and how many times do I need to repeat that I am not trying to undermine you, or anyone else, as a person. Do you purposely avoid the sentences where I state that I think you sound really smart, and that I think it's just 1 specific blind spot that you have? Then you wonder why I think it's emotional of you to get upset about that 1 thing... I mean, you're just proving my point again. Why would you think you are being undermined as a person if not because you're emotional about it?
But that thread isn't really a conversation nor a debate nor an exchange of arguments.
Thank you Hugo for confirming my observation that your purpose for posting here was to scold Theists, not to find out the reasons they believe what they believe. You shouldn't have kept mentioning that you came here to learn. That wasn't honest.
I was just talking about that 1 thread bmiller...
You may have been caught being dishonest in this thread, but it's not the only thread.
I've rarely seen you do anything other than scold Theists. You've certainly never engaged them in a rational debate about the existence of God.
See, that's why I mostly ignore you bmiller; seriously, what kind of non-sense is that?
But now, I kinda have to answer, right? Otherwise you'll keep poking fun and state that I had nothing to say, like you did above... so...
Dishonest? Where, how, about what? I am just giving opinions. Why would I be dishonest about that? So you're basically saying that I am not really giving my real opinion? It's so absurd. Am I a theist pretending to not believe in God while we're at it?
Just scold Theists? Well, I would certainly scold you for acting like a troll half the time. You did it so much on some occasions that I couldn't tell whether you were being real or not. That's how absurd you sound to me... But in general, I am just replying to what is being written here, as a hobby and yes, learning experience. Calling this scolding means you see it as angry or intense, somehow? I don't know, but again, might just show some emotional reaction on your part, or others.
Never engaged in a rational debate? Here's an interesting fact for you: if I search in my Gmail for [dangerous idea], I get 612 threads, some with dozens of emails each. Do you not see how absurd it is to claim that NONE of this was a rational debate? And you said CERTAINLY on top of it? How freaking wrong are you trying to be exactly?
But now, I kinda have to answer, right? Otherwise you'll keep poking fun and state that I had nothing to say, like you did above... so...
No, you didn't have to answer. You could have just gone away like you said you would, when you said you would. Or stayed and not responded at all instead of responding emotionally.
You said you came to this blog to learn what other people think, but instead you just tell everyone how "messed up" their ideas are and don't seem particularly interested in understanding their reasoning. In this very thread you mentioned that you've learned all you could and that was the reason you were moving on. But you haven't, just as I predicted. Because your reason for being here is not to learn and exchange ideas but to tell everyone off.
Just like you're telling me off now.
Do you not see how absurd it is to claim that NONE of this was a rational debate? And you said CERTAINLY on top of it? How freaking wrong are you trying to be exactly?
This is what you were apparently replying to:
You've certainly never engaged them in a rational debate about the existence of God.
You've told Legion that you don't believe he honestly debated the issue:
Because if you did, you would go 1 of 2 ways: either you would realize there's no logical reasoning to support a belief in God, and stop believing, or you would realize the actual foundations are something else, like faith,
Here's a chance to prove your point. Let's have that rational debate. Do you want to start with "The First Way"?
"You could have just gone away like you said you would, when you said you would."
I didn't specify when, and I do find it weird to leave when someone addresses me directly... last thread, unless I fail because I have tried before!
"... instead of responding emotionally."
Ya, I am annoyed at your silly comments. That's true, it was emotional in that case, because you're lying about what I am saying, what I said in the past, and what I said I am thinking about.
"You said you came to this blog to learn what other people think"
Yes, and I did learn a lot.
"...but instead you just tell everyone how "messed up" their ideas are."
Why are you generalizing like that? That in itself is something messed up, yes. I don't do that. I don't generalize so your statement is completely false. But I can go further than that and generalize as well, because I think that you, the individual hiding behind 'bmiller' is not able, in general, to understand such nuances. That's why I mentioned before that I am not sure whether you're a smart-ass. Took a little while to figure that one out.
"...you were moving on. But you haven't, just as I predicted. Because your reason for being here is not to learn and exchange ideas but to tell everyone off."
Even with small things like this you managed to get it all wrong. You're right, I am not leaving right away, but you're wrong as to why. I am not telling anyone off, well maybe you, as I am just replying to comments. It's just a blog! Who cares who 'tells anyone off'?
"Do you not see how absurd it is to claim that NONE of this was a rational debate? And you said CERTAINLY on top of it? How freaking wrong are you trying to be exactly?
This is what you were apparently replying to:
You've certainly never engaged them in a rational debate about the existence of God."
Ya, and why did you not recognize your error?
Won't you admit that out of 612 threads there must have been quite a lot that were rational debates about the existence of God? This is the main topic of this blog!
"You've told Legion that you don't believe he honestly debated the issue:"
Nope, that's what I meant, at all. Re-read.
"Let's have that rational debate. Do you want to start with "The First Way"?"
You really think I am going to start a debate with you now? Why!?
In any case... read this if you want to know what I would answer.
Let's have that rational debate. Do you want to start with "The First Way"
In the words of noted scholar Darth Vader, "NNNNOOOOOOOOOO!"
Speaking of, Stardusty appears to have dropped off the internet. Hope he's okay.
Is there a sharp boundary between the rational and the irrational? I don't think so. Obviously one can make logical errors, but these occur within the rational sphere, like holes in a cheese. But the cheese doesn't abruptly stop. It shades away slowly, breaking up gradually and indistinctly like a river delta, as words begin to lose their grip on the ordinary and everyday. Look, I can't even express what I want to say without resorting to metaphor! But I'm serious and even think what I'm saying is true. The problem lies in the connection between language and the world. Take a mundane sentence like 'The cat is on the mat'. That we can judge the truth of this with near certainty must have something to do with the fact that natural kinds are well defined. Not so much that they are sharply defined---one hair out of place and it's not a cat---but that the cats are well separated from the dogs, say, and there is no chimera in the gap between them. But suppose the world of everyday objects lacked this discreteness. There would be little distinctiveness for words to latch on to. Our attempts at communication would be prone to misinterpretation. Something like this happens, I think, as we move away from talk of everyday objects at the centre of the rational sphere to talk of expressly human things: our feelings, our attitudes, our desires, and all the abstractions that make up the whole damn thing about which human life revolves. And that will include the religious language which we use to put some order to this.
In the words of noted scholar Darth Vader, "NNNNOOOOOOOOOO!"
HaHa! The First Way has more power than you can possibly imagine.
You really think I am going to start a debate with you now? Why!?
Of course I don't, that's my point.
I am unsurprised by your exchange with Martin in your debate with him. It seems some people get the distinction or don't between "essentially ordered series" and "accidentally ordered series". Seems you're the kind that doesn't (among other things that are basic to philosophy). But in the end, the debate itself was useful to people like GermyClean who get it now:
Already, just by reading a couple of your posts, I understand essentially-ordered causal series and the kalam cosmological argument much better than I had before, and I can see their value more than I had before. This blog has already been great for my faith!
Hi David,
Is there a sharp boundary between the rational and the irrational? I don't think so.
Perhaps "irrational" is the wrong word to use in your post. Different aspects of the reality we experience require different tools to examine them. For instance, those in the "hard" sciences often look down on the "soft" sciences like philosophy, sociology and psychology because those sciences don't have "happiness" meters to measure happiness. They have to use methods, methods that don't directly measure a physical quantity because, well, happiness is not a physical quantity. It doesn't mean the "soft" sciences use irrational methods, it's just that they use different methods in a rational manner.
Both the "hard" and "soft" sciences rely on rational thought, but they both have to start from assumptions. Is that what you mean by " religious language"?
Speaking of, Stardusty appears to have dropped off the internet. Hope he's okay.
I'll bet he's better than he's ever been now that almost everyone has banned him. He has more time to spend with his family.
David,
I think you mixed up objectivity with subjectivity in your paragraph. It all makes sense from a subjective perspective; we can never be 100% of, well, almost anything besides our own consciousness. But that doesn't mean that statements aren't rational, or not. They all are; it's just hard to know which is which.
bmiller said:
"You really think I am going to start a debate with you now? Why!?
Of course I don't, that's my point.
Oh so you agree it isn't worth my time taking you up on the false offer...
"I am unsurprised by your exchange with Martin"
But the main point was that you lied and grossly exaggerated your insults. That thread is just 1 example of why.
Haha.
Still here? Welcome back.
My point is that you have shown no inclination for a rational debate on the existence of God on this blog site as far as I can tell.
The First Way was considered by Aquinas as the best first argument because almost no one thinks that things don't actually move.
The Summa Contra Gentiles version is probably a better version since it was written for people without training in natural philosophy. The link also has explantions for reasoning associated for each of the premises. You can also follow it uplink to find an index to see how all of the other attributes of God, discoverable by reason, are arrived at.
Here is that version:
[3] Of these ways the first is as follows. Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
bmiller said...
Here's a chance to prove your point. Let's have that rational debate. Do you want to start with "The First Way"?
I don't mind discussing The First Way. If you can provide answers to the questions I have about it, that would put you ahead of the posters over at Dr. Feser's blog.
Blogger bmiller said...
We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity.
This is a common misunderstanding I see in my math students. The notion of "proceeding to infinity" really means "going back without boundary", not "arriving at infinity". We cannot arrive at infinity, but we can proceed in a direction without reaching a boundary.
One Brow,
Why don't you provide me a link to where you think your questions haven't been answered?
bmiller said...
I am unsurprised by your exchange with Martin in your debate with him. It seems some people get the distinction or don't between "essentially ordered series" and "accidentally ordered series". Seems you're the kind that doesn't (among other things that are basic to philosophy).
I understand what the distinction is supposed to be, but as defined, essentially ordered series have no physical manifestation. This is a matter of physics.
bmiller,
It's been years since I commented on Dr. Feser's blog. I don't think the comments are worth searching out.
Why do you think:
"essentially ordered series have no physical manifestation. This is a matter of physics."?
bmiller said...
Why do you think:
"essentially ordered series have no physical manifestation. This is a matter of physics."?
There is no such thing as simultaneous events in distinct locations.
This is starting to become an example of the very phenomenon I'm trying to describe. How to pin down what we mean by 'rationality'? I guess I mean those aspects of cognition dependent upon language and logic. The trouble is that one man's rational can be another's irrational, or so it seems. Why is this? Can it be as simple as one side or other making logical mistakes? I doubt it. I don't think this is a science/humanities or hard science/soft science issue. It's true that scientific language is generally held in check by empirical test, but even a key term like 'energy' is quite hard to explain. Nor a subjective/objective correlate---some of the terms we use to report subjective experience are well-demarcated. Basically I think that we can be led down a metaphysical garden path by the form that language takes and we should be careful, as William of Ockham urged, not to multiply entities beyond necessity. I offer some examples of what can go wrong when we don't take such care here, notably under the Fiction label.
bmiller said...
"Still here? Welcome back."
Hum, I suppose that if you consider sleeping, working, and going to school as being away, then yes, I am back! But it's more that I am bad at ignoring a thread that I get email notifications for and in which there are false claims to correct...
"My point is that you have shown no inclination for a rational debate on the existence of God on this blog site as far as I can tell. "
Good, you've backed away from "You've certainly never engaged them in a rational debate about the existence of God" already. Now it's just 'as far as I can tell'.
But I already told you I have 612 email threads that show up in my inbox for this blog alone. Plus, you had not even specified this blog... but it's obvious that I did engage in many many rational debates on the existence of God as this is the main point of this blog. It's fascinating to see someone not own their mistake, even a small one like that. You just don't know of what exchanges I had here... why can't you just correct your mistake?
Need more examples? The very first thread I participated in on this blog, 5 YEARS ago, was about the existence of God... I was wondering what common starting point we can use to get to the theistic conclusion(s).
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-atheisms-moral-meltdown.html
You'll recognize some familiar faces there...
And the most interesting topic I can recall was this James Ross paper called 'Immaterial Aspects of Thought'. That's the best defense of Theism in my opinion as it makes a solid case in favor of the primacy of consciousness. It was discussed on this blog here:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-summary-of-james-rosss-immaterial.html
The paper comes from:
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43151/ross-immateriality.pdf
Also, looking at emails, it seems to have come up in this thread too:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-argument-from-reason-and-four.html
Now, regarding the details of the positions and any debate surrounding it, I think you're in good hands with One Brow. Not sure why I care but I just wanted to set the record straight... I will let you two enjoy the conversation.
By the way....
Wow, did I just state that there is a good case to be made for Theism? Did I really just imply that there are arguments, evidences and reasons to be a Theists? I guess I am not a New Atheist then!
Hugo,
I clarified my statement that I was referring to this blog and what I was aware of on this blog.
I don't know about nor care about your 612 email threads. I don't know about nor care about what you wrote on other blogs. I don't care what you posted 5 years ago.
And no, I don't expect you to discuss the First Way and I'm pleased. I can tell from just the fact that you linked to that last debate you haven't figured out what went wrong.
One Brow,
There is no such thing as simultaneous events in distinct locations.
Can you please point me to the linked section of the Summa Contra Gentiles where you found this definition?
bmiller,
Of course you don't care. Otherwise you would simply say that your statement "You [Hugo] have certainly never engaged them in a rational debate about the existence of God" was wrong. Your clarifications show what you really meant, what your 'impression' was, and the examples I gave show why the impression is misguided, and why your statement was false. Details matter when you care about what's true. But you don't care.
As for the First Way, there are of course disagreements; you call this getting it 'wrong'. I don't see, as an amateur, what else you could bring to the table that Martin (and many linked articles), haven't brought, but...
We'll see how it goes with One Brow... as I said, there's nothing new to learn about this argument afaik. Like whether this is a matter of physics *facepalm*
bmiller said...
Can you please point me to the linked section of the Summa Contra Gentiles where you found this definition?
I did not find any definition of "essentially ordered series" nor "accidentally ordered series" at that website. Have you?
I got my understanding from The Last Superstition and from Dr. Feser's blog. One of his examples is the hand pushing one end of the stick, and the stick pushing a stone at the other end, in an uninterruptable chain of immediate connections. No such chain is possible.
If you have a better definition, I would be grateful to hear it.
One Brow,
I'm afraid I don't follow. You don't believe it is physically possible to push a stone with at stick?
Hugo,
This is not the first time that I offered you an explanation of what I meant and you rejected it. So be it.
In case you don't know, you are once again, not engaging in a rational discussion.
David,
What aspects of cognition do you think don't depend on language and logic? Just curious since we have an internal dialog that we talk to ourselves with.
bmiller,
It's a rational discussion about 1 specific claim. It's tiny, benign, yet you won't even acknowledge it was a false statement.. AND I do find your explanation sound. It correctly reflects your position, what your impression was, and I have shown you why it was wrong. But your incorrect statement was one of fact, and you said you don't care... So you don't care if a blatantly false statement of yours is corrected, and you don't care whether your impression was correct. It's weird that you bother replying without just correcting an false statement. It's like you care enough to write back, but not to be truthful.
Btw, I don't get whether you're trying to encourage me to write more, or to write less, or to stop so you can insult me more. You're basically saying 'See! Told you he never wanted to engage rationally! He never did, and won't! Haha!'
It's like a weird form of taunting I can't resist to reply to. It's like, how is it called again...it's like this thing that some people do sometimes when they write some things just to provoke, to get a reaction. It doesn't matter whether it's true, they don't care, it's mostly just funny to read a response, no matter the response. What's the word... dammit, I really cannot think of it right now. It's like that time bmiller said he would run naked down the street if the First Way turns out to be proven false but then realized, damn, he can't run fast enough. It's this action of stating something with apparent confidence and seriousness, but not following through, or backing up and changing topic, saying it didn't really matter anyway, nobody cares. Why should I care? Oh I know! Trolling. Ya, I'm not too bad at it either. And it's always on purpose, unlike...
Btw bmiller, if you push a rod that's 1 lightyear long, does the other tip move instantly?
BM, Let's put to one side the well-documented biases that infect informal thought. Even careful, formal, deductive thought, I suspect interacts with our aesthetic and moral sensibilities, and our desire to keep our understanding coherent. But I'd be interested to know what you make of BV's remarks about fiction and my comments thereon. We seem to be poles apart.
Hugo,
I should have followed Hal's advice and just stop responding to you. I was tempted to respond to one of your arrogant and snotty statements and here we are now.
I am going to follow Hal's advice now.
David,
I did read your link and some of the links under Fiction.
The dispute seems to be over what can be said to be "real" or what really exists. Bill seems to think that fictional characters have an existence of some sort but you don't. Do I have that right?
bmiller,
Nobody cares whether you, or I replied, but it's funny that a serious but benign criticism of your false statements, combined with a joke and a genuine point about physics (which you obviously don't understand), is what makes you say that. Out-trolling the accidental troll? Who knew...
Yup, I think that's right.
David,
OK. Sounds like an interesting discussion.
If fictional characters did not have an existence of any sort, how could we be having a discussion about them in the first place?
Well, that's one of the key puzzles! If we've both read our Tolkien we can surely talk about hobbits, but do hobbits have any kind of existence? I suppose we might be tempted to say Yes on account of the sheer number of people who have read LotR or seen the films and talked about them. But suppose I tell you, quite falsely, that I have friend called Jim who was runner-up in the world tiddlywinks championship of 1971. I will have spoken about Jim but would we want to say that he has some kind of existence, maybe a more meager existence than that of hobbits? The counter-question here is, How could mere talk of something grant it any kind of existence?
Jim existed as a thought in your mind before you told anyone about him right? As soon as you told someone then he existed in that person's mind also.
So in that sense both hobbits and Jim exist. Neither exist or have existed as substances. Which just goes to show you that more things exist than mere substances.
Blogger bmiller said...
I'm afraid I don't follow. You don't believe it is physically possible to push a stone with at stick?
My beliefs are not at issue. It is physically wrong to claim this is "an uninterruptable chain". It fits the description of an accidentally ordered series. The sequence is interruptable.
AFAICT, there is no such thing as an uninterruptable sequence of events, and so no essentially ordered series.
bmiller said...
If fictional characters did not have an existence of any sort, how could we be having a discussion about them in the first place?
Why is some sort of existence required for something to be the subject of a discussion?
One Brow.
My beliefs are not at issue.
They are if I want to know what you believe. As of now I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not a good mind reader.
If you decide not to answer my questions, it's going to be a very short discussion.
One Brow,
Why is some sort of existence required for something to be the subject of a discussion?
Because if a thing did not have an existence of some sort it could not be the subject of discussion. It would be nothing, not something.
Why is some sort of existence required for something to be the subject of a discussion?
Something has to exist as an idea at a minimum or else no one would or could discuss it. And ideas exist, if not independently.
Looks like I was just a hair faster than you Legion.
Fictional beings used to be called Beings of Reason.
When you think about it, when we talk about "nothing" as if it existed, it too is a being of reason.
Ah, the common nature. Very good. In all the ten years or more this topic has been discussed at BV's I don't think this has been suggested. But I raise this puzzle just to show, as if further evidence be needed, that quite rational individuals can arrive at radically different responses. How so?
quite rational individuals can arrive at radically different responses
One of the more amusing arguments I saw from the New Atheist camp over the years was their objection to God valuing faith as a virtue, instead wondering why a deity would not instead value Reason with a capital R.
For one thing, the typical Boghossian/Coyne/Dawkins definition of faith as a way of knowing (or "pretending to know what you don't know") is complete BS. Faith is most akin to trust, and trust and reason are not opposites.
But also, why would a deity value reason? Reason, like science, is not a virtue in of itself. It is not helpful or good in of itself. Like science, it is a tool, the use of which is entirely relative to the user of that tool. Hitler used plenty of reason in his Nazi campaign and prosecution of the war and genocide. It will serve the wicked as handily as the virtuous.
Rationality is the same way. It is entirely contingent upon foundational assumptions and moral values. We see that all the time in arguments about every subject. It doesn't mean that one side is being irrational or immoral necessarily, but that those philosophical and moral underpinnings are going to shape what seems rational. Gun control is a good example - both sides agree that defending one's family is a good thing, and both sides agree that reducing gun crime is a good thing. But they may fight bitterly over civilian ownership of firearms, depending on the balance of their personal values. Yet neither side is being irrational.
Here was my answer to Boghossian's take on Faith. Although I wrote this 4 years ago (almost to the day), I wouldn't change a word of it.
Rationality is the same way. It is entirely contingent upon foundational assumptions and moral values.
I'd include personal and/or cultural circumstances along with these. I think that accounts more for the gun control debate. Perhaps in dense urban areas the only ones with guns are cops and robbers, while in rural areas family and neighbors all have them. Neither can understand the reasoning of the other.
bmiller said...
My beliefs are not at issue.
They are if I want to know what you believe.
Does what I believe make something physically possible that is otherwise physically impossible? When I said they were not at issue, that's because essentially order series are a physical impossibility, regardless of my beliefs.
If you decide not to answer my questions, it's going to be a very short discussion.
I did answer your questions in the four sentences you chose to not respond to. If you choose to ignore the bulk of my comments to focus on the parentheticals, it's not a discussion at all.
Can you provide an example of an essentially ordered series? Did you find a definition of an essentially ordered series in the link to Summa Contra Gentiles? Do you have a definition that differs significantly from Feser's?
Starhopper,
Looks like you stirred up a pile of skeppy topped with papilion what that post :-)
bmiller said...
Because if a thing did not have an existence of some sort it could not be the subject of discussion. It would be nothing, not something.
Legion of Logic said...
Something has to exist as an idea at a minimum or else no one would or could discuss it. And ideas exist, if not independently.
Fictional beings used to be called Beings of Reason.
When you think about it, when we talk about "nothing" as if it existed, it too is a being of reason.
From your link:
1. Beings of reason are not really beings. They are only "beings" by analogy.
Later,
Beings of reason come to be...
There is something that "comes to be" that is not a being? This is more language game than philosophy. Ideas may exist, or may not, but can be discussed regardless.
One Brow,
Does what I believe make something physically possible that is otherwise physically impossible?
I asked you if you thought it was physically impossible for someone to move a stone with a stick. Yes, it matters what you think is possible and impossible.
When I said they were not at issue, that's because essentially order series are a physical impossibility, regardless of my beliefs.
Pushing a stone with a stick is a stock example of an essentially ordered series. You believe it is impossible. I believe it is possible. So investigating beliefs are at issue.
did answer your questions in the four sentences you chose to not respond to. If you choose to ignore the bulk of my comments to focus on the parentheticals, it's not a discussion at all.
No you did not answer my question then and you still haven't. The reason I didn't respond to the rest of what you wrote is because it bore no resemblance to anything I'd ever read.
Here is what you posted before:
My beliefs are not at issue. It is physically wrong to claim this is "an uninterruptable chain". It fits the description of an accidentally ordered series. The sequence is interruptable.
AFAICT, there is no such thing as an uninterruptable sequence of events, and so no essentially ordered series.
Who ever claimed something is "an uninterruptable chain". I have no clue where this came from.
1)Can you provide an example of an essentially ordered series?
Hand pushing stick pushing stone.
2)Did you find a definition of an essentially ordered series in the link to Summa Contra Gentiles?
Nope. Didn't look.
3) Do you have a definition that differs significantly from Feser's?
You did not provide one.
Now. I provided the First Way Argument from the Summa Contra Gentiles and a link to the supporting argumentation as a starting point of our discussion. Do you intend to actually read what Aquinas has to say and discuss that?
One Brow,
There is something that "comes to be" that is not a being? This is more language game than philosophy. Ideas may exist, or may not, but can be discussed regardless.
The article was just the first short summary I found when I googled "beings of reason". I'm certain that Suarez would have made the distinction between substantial beings and beings of reason.
Aquinas has a discussion of them in his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics, but it's pretty involved.
I disagree that an idea that does not exist can be discussed.
Starhopper,
You could move mountains if you could pretend to know what you didn't know like children can!
Legion,
Huh? I have no idea what you are trying to say. Kindly enlighten me.
Think he's talking about the GNUs talking out of their hats.
One Brow, hopefully you'll focus on the key failure here:
"Pushing a stone with a stick is a stock example of an essentially ordered series."
That is a stock example of why the First Way is wrong; it is disconnected from the real world it attempts to explain. And that's why there's nothing to learn from people like bmiller; just so far behind... but anyway, have fun with this of course. And that's why I had asked something like: if you push a stone with a 1 lightyear long stick, does the stone move instantly? The answer is obviously no, because it's always no regardless of the length of the object.
Here is a clean explanation: "Any time you push an object, you are not actually pushing the whole object. You are pushing the end near you, which then gets compressed, bounces back from the compression, causing a part of the object a little ways down to get compressed, and so forth, until the compression wave travels through the whole object to the other side. For small rigid objects, this happens so fast, that it seems like the entire object is moving at once. But for large objects, you simply can't ignore this process."
Starhopper,
I pulled a classic "thinking of several things and mixing them" stunt. I was substituting Boghossian's idiotic definition of faith into Matthew 17, but then I botched it and said "children" instead of "mustard seed".
"You could move mountains"
I don't know whether you're familiar with the Ignatian practice of placing yourself within the scene when reading the Gospels, but some time back I used the technique with this passage to see whether I could understand it better.
So here I am with the Apostles, standing next to Jesus right outside the walls of Jerusalem as he curses the fig tree. We're all amazed that the tree withers. He responds by pointing to the Temple Mount (which is directly in front of us) and says, "Even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will be done." (Matthew 21:21) I wonder whether He was referring, not to just any mountain, but rather to the Temple, which was about to be replaced by His own body in the Passion. The faith of the Apostles would accomplish this.
I wonder whether He was referring, not to just any mountain, but rather to the Temple, which was about to be replaced by His own body in the Passion. The faith of the Apostles would accomplish this.
I suspect that very little of what he said had only one meaning for one specific situation. The types and foreshadowing in the Bible are amazing.
Jim existed as a thought in your mind before you told anyone about him right? Perhaps I can advance my thesis a bit by taking this as an example of divergent language use. I don't think I have ever used the construction 'to exist as an X'. Does it mean the same as 'to be an X'? 'First he existed as a boy, then he existed as a man' means 'first he was a boy, then he was a man'? Or is there more to it than this?
Blogger bmiller said...
I asked you if you thought it was physically impossible for someone to move a stone with a stick. Yes, it matters what you think is possible and impossible.
Yes, I think is is possible, just like many other accidentally ordered series.
Pushing a stone with a stick is a stock example of an essentially ordered series.
Except, pushing a stone with a stick is an accidentally ordered series. So, instead of a stock-yet-false examples, can you provide an actual example of an essentially ordered series? Here's a hint: you can't, because as they are described, they are physically impossible.
You believe it is impossible. I believe it is possible. So investigating beliefs are at issue.
Nor your belief nor mine changes the physical impossibility of essentially ordered series. Of course, since pushing a stone with a stick is not an essentially ordered series, I believe that it is possible to push a stone with a stick. It's just that pushing a stone with a stick is not an example of an essentially ordered series, because pushing a stone with a stick is an interruptable chain of events, and the working definition of an
essentially ordered series is an uninterruptable chain of events.
No you did not answer my question then and you still haven't.
My apologies for being insufficiently clear. I do accept that you can push a stone with a stick. Since pushing a stone with a stick is an accidentally ordered series, I do not accept that pushing a stone with a stick is an essentially ordered series. In fact, the description of an essentially ordered series as an uninterruptable chain of events is physically untenable, as any series of events can be interrupted.
The reason I didn't respond to the rest of what you wrote is because it bore no resemblance to anything I'd ever read.
Do you only try to understand ideas you have read before?
Who ever claimed something is "an uninterruptable chain". I have no clue where this came from.
It's my understanding of Feser's definition. Do you have an improvement to offer?
1)Can you provide an example of an essentially ordered series?
Hand pushing stick pushing stone.
This is an accidentally ordered series. Any other examples?
2)Did you find a definition of an essentially ordered series in the link to Summa Contra Gentiles?
Nope. Didn't look.
What is your definition, and how did you arrive at it?
3) Do you have a definition that differs significantly from Feser's?
You did not provide one.
I just quoted it above: an uninterruptable chain of events.
Now. I provided the First Way Argument from the Summa Contra Gentiles and a link to the supporting argumentation as a starting point of our discussion. Do you intend to actually read what Aquinas has to say and discuss that?
So, we are limiting this discussion to just that? OK.
Hence, when one of its parts is at rest, the whole is then at rest.
When I walk, I use my feet to push against the ground. While the foot is pushing against the ground, it is not in motion, so it is at rest. Thus, that which is primarily moved by itself can have one part at rest and another in motion.
Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible.
Except, there is no reason rule out the possibility of an infinite number of finite times adding up to a finite time. We currently teach the convergence of geometric series in College Algebra (aka Precalculus).
For those who say something must exist to be discussed, I would ask if there is a difference between these two statements:
1) X exists as an idea
2) An idea exists concerning X, even though X has no instantiation
David,
Looks like you are discussing predication. What can be said of a thing.
You may not be interested in this article, but Hal may be:
Theory of Predication.
If "Jim" is an idea of yours, then "Jim" does exist and there is something we can say of that idea. One thing we can say of "Jim" is that he won't post to this blog :-)
"Any time you push an object, you are not actually pushing the whole object." (etc.)
Thank you for posting that. I was going crazy trying to find the logical flaw in the concept. Because if the entire light year long stick were moving simultaneously, then faster than light communication would be theoretically possible, which is, of course... (wait for it)... impossible!
I just quoted it above: an uninterruptable chain of events.
It's been a while since I last thought about Aquinas, but if I remember correctly an essentially ordered series is one in which the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed, ie the rock will stop rolling if the hand or stick is removed, since the rock cannot overcome gravity and friction on its own.
Starhopper said...
"Thank you for posting that. I was going crazy trying to find the logical flaw in the concept. Because if the entire light year long stick were moving simultaneously, then faster than light communication would be theoretically possible, which is, of course... (wait for it)... impossible!"
*thumbs up* You're welcome. And ya, it's really that simple; that's why essentially ordered series don't exist as far as we can tell, by looking at the physical world. The analogies are always wrong and that's why the First Way fails. It doesn't prove the opposite either of course, but it's just not a good argument...
For the same reason, this is also not a valid example: an essentially ordered series is one in which the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed, ie the rock will stop rolling if the hand or stick is removed, since the rock cannot overcome gravity and friction on its own. If the hand or the stick is removed, the effect will propagate to the rock no faster than the speed of light/causation. There is no such thing as 'sustained' causation as this is synonymous to 'simultaneous' in this context.
That's what Newton got "wrong" basically (and I use quotes because it's not completely wrong, just an approximation). For instance, using only Newton's laws of motion, we would conclude that the Earth would stop going around the Sun instantly, should it disappear; however, in reality, it would take ~8 minutes for the Earth to stop being influenced by its gravitational pull.
I think you're reading too much into your own thinking there, Hugo. It in no way shows that the First Way "fails" simply because the stick-pushing is a bad analogy. That's like Trump saying that since Manafort was not sentenced for crimes relating to Russian collusion, it proves there was no collusion. In both cases, the logical leap is unsupported.
By the way, I still hold out (a faint) hope that some future advance in physics, some as yet undiscovered principle, will make possible faster than light travel. But probably not in our lifetimes. The super massive colliders (dwarfing anything currently in existence) now on the drawing boards in Europe may lead to unanticipated discoveries in that direction.
Fair enough!
One Brow,
Thank you for telling me that you think a hand pushing a stick pushing a stone is physically possible. I think so too. We are in agreement.
This is an example of an instrument being used to move of the stone (mediately) rather than the hand immediately moving the stone. So hand is moving stick is moving stone. As long as we agree on that, then I'd rather not talk about what you think someone else said without providing a citation of what was actually said.
I just quoted it above: an uninterruptable chain of events.
Can you provide a link to where Dr Feser wrote this?
Thank you starting to read the reasons for the argument.
Hence, when one of its parts is at rest, the whole is then at rest.
When I walk, I use my feet to push against the ground. While the foot is pushing against the ground, it is not in motion, so it is at rest. Thus, that which is primarily moved by itself can have one part at rest and another in motion.
You are correct that when you walk you are not moving "primarily" since part is moving and the part is not. That his reason for saying that "self-movers" do not really move themselves at all since they are moved by their parts. Anything composed of parts cannot move itself.
Referenced work HERE
Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible.
Except, there is no reason rule out the possibility of an infinite number of finite times adding up to a finite time. We currently teach the convergence of geometric series in College Algebra (aka Precalculus).
The example is of an infinite number of objects being moved by a previous object and at the same time moving a successive object. A moving B, B moving C, C moving D and so on. Each object, since it is a materially existing object, occupies space, (not to mention has mass). Aside from the fact that an infinite number of material objects would require an infinite space to contain those objects and the universe is not infinite in size. In order for something to move, it must vacate the space it occupies and occupy a new space. But since the magnitude of this series is infinite it cannot leave a space nor occupy a new in any amount of time.
Starhopper,
Because if the entire light year long stick were moving simultaneously, then faster than light communication would be theoretically possible, which is, of course... (wait for it)... impossible!
The speed of light is still measured to be the same regardless of the motion of the object, no matter how long it is. That is the just current state of physics.
The objection you are referring to actually comfirms the series of moving movers of the First Way.
"Any time you push an object, you are not actually pushing the whole object. You are pushing the end near you, which then gets compressed, bounces back from the compression, causing a part of the object a little ways down to get compressed"
The object is made up of parts. The Prime Mover moves the first part, that part moves the next part and so on until the entire mobile and all parts are moving simultaneously.
No Prime Mover, no movement of the first part or any of the others.
"...until the entire mobile and all parts are moving simultaneously."
*facepalm*
If the hand or the stick is removed, the effect will propagate to the rock no faster than the speed of light/causation. There is no such thing as 'sustained' causation as this is synonymous to 'simultaneous' in this context.
I don't know that the argument itself requires instantaneous cessation of effect. Maybe it does.
facepalm
You seem be saying that if an object is moving at a uniform speed, that all parts of it are not moving simultaneously. If so, that's not a claim I would make.
Going by current understanding of physics, communication at a speed greater than C, the speed of light, is impossible.
I you had a hypothetical stick 5 light years long, and if you pushed it one inch forward at the near end, and the stick simultaneously moved one inch forward at the far end, then it would be possible to send a message over 5 light years distance (the distance to the nearest star) in no time at all (as opposed to 5 years). Say a shove forward was interpreted as a "one", and a pull backward as a "zero". You could then transmit a series of ones and zeros at hyperlight speeds, which could be then translated into information.
Can't be done.
By the way, as a practical matter, even were this possible, it could never be done. Even if your stick were only one atom thick, the energy necessary to nudge a 5 light year long stick would far exceed the combined energy capacity of contemporary Earth.
(Interesting problem, and I have no idea how to do the math. How much would a 5 light year long stick only one atom thick weigh? My uneducated seat of the pants estimate is that it would weigh more than the Earth itself.)
I don't know that the argument itself requires instantaneous cessation of effect. Maybe it does.
"Instantaneous" has nothing do with it. I think some people confuse simultaneous with instantaneous.
The hand moving the stick moving the rock are all moving 'simultaneously' in the example, right? This implies that as soon as the hand moves, the rock moves instantaneously, following the hand. When the hand stops moving, same thing in reverse.
That's what it looks like to our eyes, but that's not how reality works, as far as Physics can tell.
Even when a solid object is moving as 1 thing, its parts look like they're all moving simultaneously, but they're not*. The force applied to the object to make it move has to travel too. It's more like each molecule bouncing off each other, and why too much force makes an object explodes, as the internal forces holding the object together can't counter balance. *(Unless in a perfect vaccum with 0 external forces I suppose.)
Like I said.
Legion of Logic said...
It's been a while since I last thought about Aquinas, but if I remember correctly an essentially ordered series is one in which the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed, ie the rock will stop rolling if the hand or stick is removed, since the rock cannot overcome gravity and friction on its own.
If you are certain, I will go back and re-read it. At this point, I would say your definition means that using a stick to push a stone is essentially ordered on the surface of the earth, but not in a free-fall or gravity-free environment. That seems odd. So, how sure are you?
At this point, I would say your definition means that using a stick to push a stone is essentially ordered on the surface of the earth, but not in a free-fall or gravity-free environment.
In space, there would be no (or for my purposes here, negligible) friction to counteract the motion of the rock. You push it, and it will maintain that same direction and velocity until something interacts with it. Inertia keeps it going without outside assistance, so its motion would be accidentally ordered.
On Earth, the inertia is immediately resisted by friction and gravity. So it requires a "continuous" force acting upon it to maintain forward motion across the ground. If that acting force upon it ceases, gravity and friction stop it pretty quickly. The required acting force to maintain the momentum would make it essentially ordered.
I think.
bmiller said... "Like I said."
*double facepalm*
I politely explained what the distinction between simultaneous and instantaneous is, how it relates to the hand-stick-stone example, and how it is actually relevant to consider both terms in that context. Looks like you just insist on being wrong and ignorant about how the physical world works...
Nice trolling btw, again.
bmiller said...
I just quoted it above: an uninterruptable chain of events.
Can you provide a link to where Dr Feser wrote this?
I just looked up a post, and it seems this his definition in this post:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
This is how he describes a possible per se series that does not require simultaneity:
But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous. Suppose a “time gate” of the sort described in Robert Heinlein’s story “By His Bootstraps” were possible. Suppose further that here in 2010 you take a stick and put it halfway through the time gate, while the other half comes out in 3010 and pushes a stone. The motion of the stone and the motion of the hand are not simultaneous – they are separated by 1000 years – but we still have a causal series ordered per se insofar as the former motion depends essentially on the latter motion.
So, outside of time gates and similar circumstances, simultaneity is a required property of per se sequences.
You are correct that when you walk you are not moving "primarily" since part is moving and the part is not. That his reason for saying that "self-movers" do not really move themselves at all since they are moved by their parts. Anything composed of parts cannot move itself.
Say I am on skates. Once the foot stops pushing, it gets carried along with the rest of the body. Since the rest of the body was moved by the foot, the foot has supplied the motive power for it's own movement. It has moved itself.
If you claim otherwise, from whence came the motive power that moves the foot?
The example is of an infinite number of objects being moved by a previous object and at the same time moving a successive object. A moving B, B moving C, C moving D and so on. Each object, since it is a materially existing object, occupies space, (not to mention has mass). Aside from the fact that an infinite number of material objects would require an infinite space to contain those objects and the universe is not infinite in size. In order for something to move, it must vacate the space it occupies and occupy a new space. But since the magnitude of this series is infinite it cannot leave a space nor occupy a new in any amount of time.
However, this is a confusion of the concept of "no lower bound" and "infinite". To go backwards without end is not to reach infinity.
Legion said...
"The required acting force to maintain the momentum would make it essentially ordered."
I don't think so, because it's still a chain reaction. There is nothing 'maintaining' or sustaining anything in this example either, be it on Earth or not. The friction that you correctly described is still just another event following the previous sequence.
bmiller said...
The object is made up of parts. The Prime Mover moves the first part, that part moves the next part and so on until the entire mobile and all parts are moving simultaneously.
They don't all move simultaneously. In the case of the light-year long stick, the compression wave takes over a year to travel from hand to stone.
One Brow said...
"So, outside of time gates and similar circumstances, simultaneity is a required property of per se sequences."
Right, and that means that there is a duration of "0" between the movement of the hand and the movement of the rock at the end of the stick. It's synonym with claiming that it's instantaneous. But in reality, it never is.
"Suppose further that here in 2010 you take a stick and put it halfway through the time gate, while the other half comes out in 3010 and pushes a stone. The motion of the stone and the motion of the hand are not simultaneous – they are separated by 1000 years – but we still have a causal series ordered per se insofar as the former motion depends essentially on the latter motion."
In Feser's world, it takes 1000 years for the stone to move, not more.
In Reality, it takes 1000 years + "D" for the stone to move, where "D" is "whatever time it takes for the effect to propagate".
In Feser's world, the "D" is equal to 0, because effects can happen instantaneously as a result of a cause.
One Brow,
Since we appear to be in agreement that a hand moving a stick moving a stone is physically possible I think it would be a distraction to discuss different series. Maybe later in the discussion it could come up and then I'd be happy to discuss.
Say I am on skates.
This is pretty much the same as the scenario that Legion mentioned when the stick stopped moving the stone, just on wheels if I get your scenario correctly. The skater will continue to move at the last velocity achieved before the motive force ceased, but friction will slow him down.
However, this is a confusion of the concept of "no lower bound" and "infinite". To go backwards without end is not to reach infinity.
I didn't mention "lower bound" and I didn't mention reaching infinity. Since Aquinas was following Aristotle's understanding, both define infinite as without bound. Maybe the phrasing gave you the wrong impression.
I'll combine your other comment here for convenience.
They don't all move simultaneously. In the case of the light-year long stick, the compression wave takes over a year to travel from hand to stone.
Right, they don't all move simultaneously, instantaneously. First A moves B (now A and B are moving simultaneously) then B moves C (now A, B and C are moving simultaneously) then C moves D (now A, B, C and D are moving simultaneously) etc, etc, etc. Eventually, over a year later (the compression wave travels at the speed of sound depending on that coefficient for that particular material) all the parts will be moving simultaneously.
One Brow,
For those who say something must exist to be discussed, I would ask if there is a difference between these two statements:
1) X exists as an idea
2) An idea exists concerning X, even though X has no instantiation
In order to get an answer you'll have to explain the sense with which you're using instantiation.
For instance. I can have an idea concerning a hobbit although no real instances of hobbits exist. But they do exist as a instances of a "beings of reason".
But if X did not exist as even an idea, then there could be nothing said of it because it would be the opposite of an existent thing, which is nothing (and by the way would not be X or anything else you could think of).
bmiller said:
"...all the parts will be moving simultaneously."
No they're not; not in the sense you're implying. If you push the rod for say 1 second, then every molecule will move for ~1sec, pushing the next one for 1 sec and, most likely in this case, the other end will never move because of the inefficient transfers between molecules.
Or, another way to put it, you would need to keep pushing for the entire time it takes for the end to start moving to get the start and end of the rod moving "simultaneously". And that would mean nothing in the case of the argument, as it would just be different discrete events causing each individual molecules throughout the length of the rod to move. After stopping to push, the end would still be moving until the effect, or lack thereof, propagates.
1) X exists as an idea
2) An idea exists concerning X, even though X has no instantiation
Does naturalism exist, or are there only ideas about naturalism? If naturalism exists because people hold it as an idea, then do hobbits exist as well?
The example of a hand moving a stick that is moving a stone is used only to illustrate that the hand is ultimately responsible for the movement of the stone although the stick is used as an instrument instead of the hand directly moving the stone. If we can all agree on this, then there is no need to continue to discuss it.
I suggest people actually read the link to the section of the Summa Contra Gentiles to discover the arguments Aquinas gives for this version of the First Way. You won't even find the example in question.
Sure, in Feser's words:
"Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all. Still, he thinks this fails to address the heart of the atheist’s critique. For why might a series of causes existing simultaneously, all here and now, not be as infinite as a temporal regress of causes might be (by Aquinas’s own admission)? And if there must be a first uncaused cause in the order of simultaneous causes, why could it not be something other than God, such as basic material particles or gravitational forces?
The very asking of these questions shows that Edwards does not understand the distinction between causal series ordered per accidens and causal series ordered per se, on which the Thomistic arguments (like other Scholastic cosmological arguments) crucially depend."
Just don't think too much about this; accept it as a valid argument based on sound premises. There are 2 types of cause and effect series, regardless of what Physics show. Because we have analogies like the hand-stick-stone; just don't overthink the analogy.
Hugo,
Do you think it is physically impossible for a hand to be moving a stick that is moving a stone?
lol
It's interesting that this seems to be such a difficult question for some. I wonder why.
Well, it's not difficult I think... let's see, trying one more time, quick reset, maybe step by step will work?
- Yes, it's possible for a hand to be moving a stick that is moving a stone.
What this is not strictly speaking: simultaneous. Do you understand why now?
Good. At least you understand that it's physically possible that all 3 are moving at the same time. That is all it means for simultaneous movement.
Now. You should actually read the First Way as presented and follow the link to the reasoning behind the argument.
Lots of things move at the same time; 3 cars on the highway foing at 65mph are all moving at the same time. What's different with the hand-stick-stone system?
Or, do all 3 start to move simultaneously as qell?
Also, you should read books like The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking for a modern view of causation and theories of how the universe works.
Sorry. Let me re-phrase:
Good. At least you understand that it's physically possible that a hand moving a stick, moving a stone are all moving at the same time or in other words simultaneously.
Now. You should actually read the First Way as presented and follow the link to the reasoning behind the argument.
Define "at the same time"...
Seriously, that's the issue here; you can't be loose on that definition when it's then used to distinguish between 2 hypothetical types of causal series.
bmiller said:
- "Instantaneous" has nothing do with it. I think some people confuse simultaneous with instantaneous.
- It's physically possible that a hand moving a stick, moving a stone are all moving at the same time or in other words simultaneously.
Going back to this: the only way this is all true, i.e. consistent with Physics, is if the hand starts to move before the stone starts to move, even though we can't tell with the naked eye.
And the issue is that this is not an example of the distinction between "essentially ordered series" and "accidentally ordered series", because this distinction does not exist as far as we can tell by studying the physical world, where the analogies come from.
We keep repeating the same thing basically... the First Way claims there is a distinction between 2 types of series but that distinction doesn't exist on closer inspection. And that's why you're asking to NOT do the inspection... or as bmiller said "there is no need to continue to discuss it."
Hugo,
When 3 things are moving within the same time period, the hand moving the stick moving the stone, they are moving simultaneously no matter how long or short the time period.
Until they are all actually moving they obviously are not moving simultaneously. At the initiation of a movement some parts move simultaneously while others don't. I talked about this on March 14, 2019 7:17 PM. Once all of them are moving, the hand moving the stick moving the stone, then we can observe that all parts are moving simultaneously.
It's that simple. And this example is not in the linked material.
Now. You should actually read the First Way as presented and follow the link to the reasoning behind the argument.
But it's not that simple... and that's why you must argue to stop looking into it too much. Questioning the premise isn't allowed...
That's false: "At the initiation of a movement some parts move simultaneously while others don't." That's pretending there's such a thing as instantaneous causation; i.e. simultaneous initiation of a movement. That's not possible physically.
I quoted the part that depends on that mistake on the presented links...
But it's not that simple... and that's why you must argue to stop looking into it too much. Questioning the premise isn't allowed...
No. It's simply a red herring since we all agree that it's physically possible for a hand to be moving a stick that is moving a stone. It distracts from discussing the First Way as presented from the Summa Contra Gentiles.
That's false: "At the initiation of a movement some parts move simultaneously while others don't." That's pretending there's such a thing as instantaneous causation; i.e. simultaneous initiation of a movement. That's not possible physically.
Please reread my post of March 14, 2019 7:17 PM. That's not what I'm claiming at all. Change of postion of materially existing beings always involve a change in time. This is a well known position of Aquinas and Aristotle.
But you may have found that out if you: actually read the First Way as presented and follow the link to the reasoning behind the argument.
"we all agree that it's physically possible for a hand to be moving a stick that is moving a stone."
But we don't agree, because this means nothing on its own; there's no difference with a hand moving a stone directly
"But you may have found that out if you: actually read the First Way as presented and follow the link to the reasoning behind the argument."
We all see the links, that doesn't change anything... we can link to explanations as to why it's wrong too. Would you prefer that? It would be great to see you understand it...
1 If "Jim" is an idea of yours, then "Jim" does exist and there is something we can say of that idea. One thing we can say of "Jim" is that he won't post to this blog :-)
2 Does naturalism exist, or are there only ideas about naturalism? If naturalism exists because people hold it as an idea, then do hobbits exist as well?
3 For instance. I can have an idea concerning a hobbit although no real instances of hobbits exist. But they do exist as a instances of a "beings of reason".
We have to be careful here with respect to use and mention. (1) "Jim" (or 'Jim') is a word. Jim is a man, or at least I said he was. Jim is not an idea, though we now have an idea of Jim. (2) Naturalism is an idea or body of ideas. It makes sense to say that naturalism didn't exist before 1500 because few people thought those ideas before then. But hobbits are living things, not ideas. Forming an idea of a hobbit brings the idea into existence, not the hobbit. (3) I would say either that no hobbits exist or that the concept Hobbit was not instantiated. Those are equivalent. Again, if 'to exist as' is just 'to be' and I have understood 'being of reason' correctly then by definition there cannot be instances of a being of reason concept like Hobbit. Tricky stuff!
bmiller said...
This is pretty much the same as the scenario that Legion mentioned when the stick stopped moving the stone, just on wheels if I get your scenario correctly. The skater will continue to move at the last velocity achieved before the motive force ceased, but friction will slow him down.
So, we agree the foot is responsible for it's own motion, and therefore something can indeed move itself? Or, do you disagree, but just decided to skip that part?
I didn't mention "lower bound" and I didn't mention reaching infinity.
You mentioned having an infinite number of bodies, which would mean infinity has been reached.
Since Aquinas was following Aristotle's understanding, both define infinite as without bound. Maybe the phrasing gave you the wrong impression.
I'll combine your other comment here for convenience.
They don't all move simultaneously. In the case of the light-year long stick, the compression wave takes over a year to travel from hand to stone.
Right, they don't all move simultaneously, instantaneously. First A moves B (now A and B are moving simultaneously) then B moves C (now A, B and C are moving simultaneously) then C moves D (now A, B, C and D are moving simultaneously) etc, etc, etc. Eventually, over a year later (the compression wave travels at the speed of sound depending on that coefficient for that particular material) all the parts will be moving simultaneously.
What if A stops moving after 1 minute, instead? Is the series still essentially ordered?
bmiller said...
For those who say something must exist to be discussed, I would ask if there is a difference between these two statements:
1) X exists as an idea
2) An idea exists concerning X, even though X has no instantiation
In order to get an answer you'll have to explain the sense with which you're using instantiation.
For instance. I can have an idea concerning a hobbit although no real instances of hobbits exist. But they do exist as a instances of a "beings of reason"
Feel free to supply your answer for every type of instantiation you feel could be relevant.
Legion of Logic said...
Does naturalism exist, or are there only ideas about naturalism? If naturalism exists because people hold it as an idea, then do hobbits exist as well?
To be honest, I am still on the fence regarding whether ideas, patterns, etc. are real things in and of themselves. However, even if you did not think naturalism had it's own existence, there would still be people who held to naturalism.
bmiller said...
Until they are all actually moving they obviously are not moving simultaneously. At the initiation of a movement some parts move simultaneously while others don't. I talked about this on March 14, 2019 7:17 PM. Once all of them are moving, the hand moving the stick moving the stone, then we can observe that all parts are moving simultaneously.
If the hand stops moving before the stick starts moving, does that change the series from being essentially ordered to accidentally ordered?
One Brow,
What if A stops moving after 1 minute, instead?
If the hand stops moving before the stick starts moving,
Here is the answer I gave Hugo:
Until they are all actually moving they obviously are not moving simultaneously. At the initiation of a movement some parts move simultaneously while others don't. I talked about this on March 14, 2019 7:17 PM. Once all of them are moving, the hand moving the stick moving the stone, then we can observe that all parts are moving simultaneously.
Since we all agree that it's physically possible for a moving hand to be moving a stick moving a stone, how do you think it's an argument against the First Way to bring up cases other than when moving things move other things? There may be effective arguments against the First Way, but bringing up cases that are irrelevant to the premises or conclusion wouldn't be part of those arguments.
One Brow,
So, we agree the foot is responsible for it's own motion, and therefore something can indeed move itself? Or, do you disagree, but just decided to skip that part?
No to both questions. In my quote that you posted I stated this:
This is pretty much the same as the scenario that Legion mentioned when the stick stopped moving the stone, just on wheels if I get your scenario correctly. The skater will continue to move at the last velocity achieved before the motive force ceased, but friction will slow him down.
I mentioned that this looked similar to Legion's post of March 14, 2019 4:48 PM. In both cases, once the motive force is removed, inertia, friction and gravity determine it's motion. How is your scenario different from when the motive force of the stick is removed from the rock?
bmiller said...
"Since we all agree that it's physically possible for a moving hand to be moving a stick moving a stone, how do you think it's an argument against the First Way to bring up cases other than when moving things move other things? There may be effective arguments against the First Way, but bringing up cases that are irrelevant to the premises or conclusion wouldn't be part of those arguments."
That's a fair request, but...
- We don't agree to that basic premise of moving-hand-moving-stick-moving-rock being an example of essentially ordered series.
- We don't agree essentially ordered series exist physically. It only "looks like" they exist to the naked eye, but modern Physics tells a different story. Aquinas couldn't know that btw, for obvious reasons.
Nothing that was linked to changes any of that; that's all on topic. Moving things make other things move, but they don't ever cause them to move simultaneously. It's always the other kind of causation; it's aways accidental, never essential. The entire universe follows that as far as we cab tell. It's induction, so it could be disproved, but how?
To be extra clear, that is not what you want it to be for the First Way: "moving things move other things". They don't cause the movements simultaneously; something moves, then cause something else to move, and so on. We can only repeat this because it's the truth...
Take this simple visualization:
A > B > C
A > B > C (A moved, thus B and C moved)
Let's say A is pushing B that's pushing C. It looks like they're all moving simultaneously, but that's an approximation. Reality is more like this:
A > B > C
A> B > C (A moved)
A >B > C (force transmited to B)
A > B> C (B moved)
A > B >C (force transmited to C)
A > B > C (C moved)
And if they "look like" there's simultaneous movement, it's because A moved multiple times, let's say twice.
A > B > C
A> B > C (A moved)
A >B > C (force transmited to B)
A> B> C (A moved again, and B moved, simultaneously!)
A >B >C (force transmited to B; force transmited to C)
A > B> C (B moved again, C moved, simultaneously)
A > B >C (force transmited to C)
A > B > C (C moved again)
So in this example, we do have simultaneous motions, but they are different chains of causation. A ia still moving first, alone, and C is still moving last, alone. That's what Physics tells us about our reality.
Post a Comment