I understand there's something like an argument out there along the lines of "atheists claim they disbelieve but disbelief in God is still a belief, so they're incoherent" (or something). Our associate pastor made a similar argument the opening night of our RCIA course when he declared that atheists' disbelief in God is incoherent because disbelief requires an existent object. (Being Filipino and, evidently, a Fregean, he phrased it less coherently than that).
This is a bad argument. That's all. What is objectionable about atheism is not whether it constitues faith or doubt but the object of its faith or doubt -- not its fervency but its falsity. A weakly-defined or weakly-held atheism is no less objectionable than a militant one.* Who cares whether it's better to say that atheists don't believe in God or to say they believe there's no God? Is there any interesting implication regarding the outcome of such a linguistic squabble?
It's one of those silly and completely inane bits of BS, which I'm baffled anyone thinks sophisticated. It's similar to the typical Christian-turned-atheist conversion story they all feel the need to share, along the lines of "something bad happened to me once so God must not exist!" No one cares, yuppie. Let it go.
The reason I bring this up is that it appears to be a main theme in an atheist video advanced by a YouTuber named QualiaSoup. Pretty well done video, by all accounts, and an able presentation of (what passes for) the rationale for atheism, although initially it seems he might bristle at being called such. Nor, however, does he permit himself to be called an agnostic, and here he ceases to be terribly engaging: agnosticism, he says, is a specific epistemic attitude, and his belief (or lack of belief, he insists on saying) does not even go so far as to encompass that. Well, we'll see about that.
The reason I say this isn't an engaging argument is because it relies on a linguistic malformation common to the vulgar use of the English language today: the presumption of distinction between "knowledge" and "belief." There is, of course, a distinction in the loose sense that they refer to different things; but they refer to different things in the also-loose sense that my throwing brick at a window is different from the window shattering. Knowledge and belief are not untethered from one another, an argument I made earlier. Belief is simply the assent of the will to something apprehended by reason. I believe the sky is blue because I know the sky is blue. I believe I have ten fingers because I know I have ten fingers. And agnostics withhold belief because they regard the question as simply unanswerable -- because their reasons apprehend (albeit improperly) that the question is unanswerable. A person who says "I believe in UFOs" isn't expressing a belief he thinks is irrational: he's generally convinced by (what he sees as) the evidence that UFOs exist. And a person who refuses to assent to something he knows to be true, such as the battered woman who insists that it'll be different from now on, is not doing anything noble: they're simply delusional.
Anyway, QualiaSoup gets to what he actually believes at around three minutes into the video, when he declares that the theistic assertion of God's existence is "irresolvable" because "no procedure available to us could reliably establish the existence or non-existence of such an unscientific entity." What he means here, of course, is that no scientific procedure exists (he doesn't ever acknowledge that there are plenty of metaphysical procedures available to us to reveal this truth, namely syllogistic logic, so it's reasonable to question if he's even aware of them). And he believes this because he's a positivist. Which he means he does, in fact, approach the question with a particular epistemology -- one that is so fundamental to his worldview he does not even acknowledge it by name and, presumably, never bothers to ask whether it's actually true.
The problem with positivism, I've said before, is that it's incoherent. The denial of nonscientific knowledge leads invariably also to a denial of scientific knowledge for two reasons. One, science cannot establish its own validity: there's no scientific experiment you can conduct that would validate the scientific method. Two, that means the only other method available to you of establishing the validity of scientific knowledge is a metaphysical axiom which is itself unscientific. So positivism winds up refuting itself -- and that which refute itself cannot be possibly true. You can get around this if you make an unpricipled exception to your own belief system, and you may be content with that, but why should anyone else be satisfied with the incoherent patchwork mess you've concocted?
So this strange breed of confused, hybrid agnostoatheism is, evidently, all atheism and no agnosticism. He proves this immediately afterward, when he declares that "God (the being said to exist in biblical times) exists" is "demonstrably false." He declares there are "many problematic qualities" we're asked to accept about this God that proves its falseness, but then provides perhaps the stupidest sample of what those "problematic qualities" are: "No being can be regarded as perfect," he says, "if it needs to be worshipped."
Agreed! Such would be a contradiction in terms. God, being perfect, has no imperfections in need of realization and therefore no "needs." So we should not presume to worship God because we think He needs to be worshipped. We should worship Him because he deserves to be worshipped, and moreover, because it is good -- that is, consistent with our natures as created beings who owe their creator a debt of gratitude and obedience -- to worship Him. The argument as expressed by QS is stupid and he is right to call it such. But he is wrong to call it a "problem" for theism because no one, to my knowledge, has aksed anyone to accept that argument. Anyone who did, I'd regard as ignorant. This is quite remarkable since we're evidently supposed to believe that this belief no one believes is not only a problem for theism but is representative of all the kinds of problems theism faces. Well, if that's the worst we have to deal with, then I suppose we're well-off!
It doesn't seem to occur to QS to question this argument. If "God is perfect" and "God needs worship" are irreconcilable, isn't that just as likely to be proof that one of the two statements has been improperly formulated than that the whole idea of "God" is bogus? Indeed, he doesn't seem to be aware what theists actually believe, nor does his ignorance so much as trouble him. It's as if he's never really encountered any theism more sophisticated than the postings of his silly pseudo-Baptist friends on Facebook.
QS goes on to claim that "a lack of belief in gods is the default position." Let's ignore for a moment the historical evidence that this is not, in fact, true, and simply grant him the benefit of the doubt that he's trying to establish some sort of epistemic norm: that one should not assent to something not known to be rational. That's a perfectly defensible position. But it's not as if there are no arguments for theism -- there are only arguments one might refuse to accept because of unquestioned and basically irrational nominalist and positivist presuppositions. That doesn't make him a neutral or disinterested party, nor is proper for him to pretend as much, because nominalism and positivism are themselves the assertion of a particular metaphysical worldview. When one says, then, that I must provide scientific evidence for the existence of God, one is essentially asking me to do the legwork for them of inserting God into a preexisting existential paradigm that denies there is anything knowable that cannot be known through the scientific endeavor. In fact, such a task is impossible, not because God doesn't exist but because that paradigm is false and irrational.
Around 8 minutes in, QS loses me entirely. He proceeds to complain (with a grating, plaintive whine) that atheist fervency is a response to Christian name-calling provocation. To this, I say: eh. Take a look at the last century's treatment of Christians, especially Catholics and the Orthodox, at the hands of atheists and then have the temerity to complain that they regard atheists with suspicion and contempt.
A full treatment for the case for theism is beyond the scope of this post. You can find a simple one in Bonald's "Finite and Unlimited Being" -- and atheists, be warned that the man's an astrophysicist and very likely smarter and better-versed in matters scientific than you. Suffice it to say that there is no really good reason to treat QS' breed of bland and thoughtless scientism as even a respectable position to hold, much less the default one.
*Except where militancy causes one to, say, go nuts and start killing people.
EDIT: An anonymous commenter e-mailed me to suggest that the belief that God "needs" prayer may actually derive from too heavy an investment in science fiction and fantasy, where the meme appears to be common, especially in the writings of Terry Pratchett. Given the non-zero correlation between atheism and literary escapism, it sounds plausible to me.
Good stuff, good arguments.
When I think back on my agnostic era, what seems to have happened is that I thought the matter was intrinsically uncertain because (as you suggest above) I had reversed my basic assumptions concerning what should be doubted and what accepted.
For example, things like belief in the survival of the soul after death, or telepathy, or that dreams are meaningful and can be predictive are built into humans - they are 'meant' to be taken for granted and built upon, perhaps modified - they are not meant to be abandoned or reversed.
These spontaneous beliefs also include a variety of anti-PC things, such as that women and men are different, the recognition of races, nepotism, fear of strangers etc.
But if we decide (or absorb) that these particular things (but of course *not* innumerable other things) should as a default be disbelieved without 'proof', then they will not be believable and that is that.
The possibility of Christianity as a natural progression from spontaneous paganism has been pretty much eliminated.
Posted by: bgc | January 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Hi Proph,
Very good job bringing out QualiaSoup's unstated and unexamined premises. Are internet atheist videos a new thing, or am I just now hearing about them?
It's very interesting to me that you presented poor arguments both against and for theism, and that while--as you showed--they all made pretty big mistakes, they both seem to produce ineffectual versions of the same sorts of arguments that more sophisticated atheists and theists make.
The atheist-agnostic in the metaphysical sphere, like the liberal in the political sphere, always makes a try for victory by default. He always claims that his position is the one without metaphysical/ideological baggage, the one based on nothing but empirical data and logic. Therefore, we should accept their position without even entering the metaphysical/ethical debate. To us, this seems very odd, because the claims to neutrality and ideological uncommittedness are so obviously false. I think someone would be on stronger grounds arguing that atheist naturalism is the true metaphysics and liberalism is the correct comprehensive moral system. Those at least aren't obviously absurd beliefs.
The theist, on the other hand, would like to prove that his belief is true, but he sees in the atheist's claim to lack metaphysical baggage an easier target. This is an attack that you pull off very well in this post and that your RCIA instructor pulled off very badly. Still, I get the sense that he was trying to make a similar argumentative move.
I expect that there are reasons why we keep getting sucked into the same types of arguments.
Posted by: Bonald | January 24, 2012 at 02:39 PM
One also has to mention our definition of what God is for either side as that's half the battle. If an atheist thinks God is a large man with a beard that looks like Zeus and is as capricious with his thunderbolts for evildoers...his marshalling of counter proofs will involve astronomy, physics, and the 'how dare this self-appointed judge of my conscience condemn my beloved proclivity towards X". On the other hand, if by God we mean the very ground of all existence and of our own spiritual souls (the organizing principle of our matter), then the available proofs either way will not consist of petri dishes, satellite dishes or gizmos operated by men in white lab coats but necessarily be indirect via metaphysics or if you prefer phenomenological analysis of what we commonly do and why it's possible for us to do what we do (like use conceptual thought). This sort of analysis will lead us to Aristotelian conclusions of a personal being who is goodness, being, and justice itself. But beyond that, not much else. Certainly not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. For that we need other proofs besides without discounting the metaphysical ones. Most Atheists don't articulate the difference.
Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2012 at 02:58 PM
The notion that God or "the gods" depend on or need the worship of people to survive or at least avoid attenuation of their powers, is damn near ubiquitous in older SF & fantasy; I recall it in James Branch Cabell, Heinlein, Asimov, & Clarke. It seemes an unsupported assumption & bothered me as an atheist teenager.
A more explicit exposition is in The Tritonian Ring by L. Sprague de Camp.
"When the gods resolve to destroy Lorsk, principal kingdom of the sinking continent of Pusad, because its ruler is the one man whose mind they cannot read, the king enlists his son Vakar Zhu to save the realm from destruction. The prince is tasked
with traveling the known world in search of what the gods most fear"
The hero's sobriquet 'Zhu' means, not exactly dull, but 'one lacking supernatural perceptions - not even did the gods visit him in dreams.' The gods of course fear precisely that more people will be born like Prince Vakar & they (the gods) will perforce fade & dwindle. De Camp, an old-fahioned freethinker, clearly expects his readers to find this prospect just peachy.
http://www.search.com/reference/The_Tritonian_Ring
Spengler remarked in 1919, "But already the opinions of Comte and Spencer, the Materialism and Monism and the Darwinism, which stirred the best minds of the nineteenth century to such passion, have become the world-view proper to country cousins."
http://www.uctaa.net/articles/graveyard/agnoschurch/BIBLEC-11.htm
30 years later De Camp had not gotten the memo.
Posted by: Joetexx | January 24, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Proph and Boland, above, have struck close to the heart of the matter and it is worth attempting to push this somewhat further, similar to what I have tried to address in a number of recent comments. The well-known Protestant theologian Francis Schaeffer has a “two-story” metaphor, of close relevance here, that may be familiar to a number of readers. The matter is nicely framed by a writer, Gregory Koukl, as follows:
Schaeffer explains that modern man lives in an oddly fractured world. His life is lived on two different planes. Picture a two-story house with no staircase connecting the upper story with the lower story. The lower story consists of one kind of reality – facts, science, the laws of nature, rationality, logic, the world as it really is. The upper story is where values, meaning, religion, faith, morality, and God reside.
The tragedy of modern thinking is that there is no way to bring the two together. Schaeffer calls this the “line of despair.” There is no way to extract transcendent meaning from the mere facts of life. There is no way to infer religion or morality from the details of the world as it really is. The line that separates the lower story from the upper story is absolute and impermeable.
Modern man is split in two. In the lower story – the “real” world – he is imprisoned in a machine-like universe of cause and effect, matter in motion. His life is determined by natural forces which cannot be violated and which he cannot control. Mankind is dust in the wind, leading to despair.
Koukl, continuing from above:
Modern man’s only hope is what Schaeffer calls the “upper-story leap.” Meaning and significance cannot be found in the facts of the real world. Therefore, [in the modern conception] they must be fabricated by our imagination and believed against all fact and reason. Man invents significance, value, and morality for himself by making an irrational, blind leap of faith into the upper story. This alone gives hope, but it’s only a placebo. It gives nothing substantial to answer our despair. It only makes us feel better.
Listen to Schaeffer’s sober description of the plight of modern man:
“What we are left with runs something like this: Below the line there is rationality and logic. The upper story becomes the non-logical and the non-rational. There is no relationship between them. In other words, in the lower story, on the basis of all reason, man as man is dead. You have simply mathematics, particulars, mechanics. Man has no meaning, no purpose, no significance. There is only pessimism concerning man as man. But up above, on the basis of a non-rational, non-reasonable leap, there is a non-reasonable faith which gives optimism. This is modern man’s total dichotomy.” [Francis Schaeffer, “Escape from Reason,” in “Complete Works,” 1:237-8.]
(http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_bible_and_history.html)
Posted by: Peter S. | January 24, 2012 at 10:08 PM
There is much to quibble with in this post, but allow me to raise just a few points.
You are too quick to declare QualiaSoup a positivist, when he could very well be a post-positivist, such as a scientific realist. What's more, insofar as one's notion of God includes a being that is actively and continually involved in the natural order, like the Christian's god, the question of its existence is amenable to scientific inquiry (e.g., the efficacy of prayer).
I'm confused by your claim that positivism is a "metaphysical worldview", when you've previously charged that it rejects "metaphysical procedures" as a waying of determining truth. Wouldn't that make it non-metaphysical?
Speaking of metaphysical procedures (are there such things?), how is syllogistic logic one of them? What is the basis of such a claim? And how is logic incompatible with positivism? (Indeed, the more common name for positivism is logical positivism).
(And just out of curiousity, what logical syllogisms reveal the "truth" that your god exists?)
You claim, "But it's not as if there are no arguments for theism -- there are only arguments one might refuse to accept because of unquestioned and basically irrational nominalist and positivist presuppositions."
This isn't clear. Is it your view that arguments for theism are only rejected on irrational grounds? Or that some epistomologies may contain rational reasons for rejecting theistic arguments, while others don't?
If the former, it seems to conflict with the "perfectly defensible" position that one should not assent to something not known to be rational. There have existed, and do exist, many societies and cultures in which theism is not known to be rational. Consequently, if the idea of theism was introduced in those places, it would be rationally rejected.
If the latter is in fact your view, what epistomologies contain rational reasons for rejecting theistic arguments?
You wrote, "[QS] proceeds to complain (with a grating, plaintive whine) that atheist fervency is a response to Christian name-calling provocation. To this, I say: eh. Take a look at the last century's treatment of Christians, especially Catholics and the Orthodox, at the hands of atheists and then have the temerity to complain that they regard atheists with suspicion and contempt."
But "suspicion and contempt" are different from "name-calling provocation" (the former is a passive stance while the other is active). And in any case, how does ill treatment justify either response? Two wrongs now make a right? I read that Christians are commanded to "turn the other cheek" (Matt. 5:39) and to "love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44). Did something change?
Posted by: Robert | January 25, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Hello Robert, welcome to the blog and thank you for your feedback. To address each of your points in order:
Re: QS' epistemology, I am not overly interested in what the precisely appropriate term might be to describe it. I take his assertion that God is an "unscientific entity" to mean that "God is an entity the existence of which cannot be deduced through scientific inquiry." Given that he proceeds to answer the question of God's existence in the negative on these grounds, I take it that he approaches the question with an epistemology that denies that the nonscientific is knowable.
I admit my language in discussing positivism seems confused. I dash out posts here sometimes without giving thought to consistency in terminology. Positivism as such is indeed a metaphysical system insofar as it relates to a metaphysical thing, which is knowledge. Its curiosity is that it generally does not admit as valid that knowledge gained through nonscientific methods. You are right to point out that this is a contradiction (insofar as "scientific knowledge alone is valid" is nonscientific and therefore self-refuting), hence my criticism of it. It is an incoherent system.
It is a staple of scientific thought that a seemingly-rational hypothesis must not be accepted until scientifically confirmed. Thus syllogistic logic is at best a hypothesis-generating endeavor, according to positivists. The truth of any such endeavor is presumed to be null (or at least indeterminate) until scientifically confirmed.
I recommend Edward Feser's "Aquinas" for a full treatment of that question.
My view more closely approximates the former: I have never heard a convincing refutation of the arguments for theism described, for instance, in Feser's "Aquinas." They rely on implausible and absurd nominalist suppositions.
You are, I think, conflating "not known to be rational" with "known to be not rational." That I do not know definitively whether black holes exist does not mean black holes definitively don't exist. The undefined example you give of societies where theism is not known to be rational would not be right in asserting atheism (as you seem to suggest) if theistic principles were introduced. The proper response would be to withhold judgment until they can make a fully informed one.
Of course, crudity and cruelty are rarely permissible. That I indulge in it here periodically is a weakness of will on my part. But that something is impermissible does not mean that it is not understandable. A dog routinely abused by males is going to be suspicious of males, even if any particular male has good intentions toward him.
Posted by: Proph | January 25, 2012 at 04:57 PM
> There have existed, and do exist, many societies and cultures in which theism is not known to be rational.
I am interested in concrete examples of this, together with the historical, political and cultural context of those societies. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 25, 2012 at 05:44 PM
Proph, it seems to me you're unclear of the meaning of some of the terms you're using, which rather undermines your case. If your claim is that QS applies an illogical or incoherent espitemology in his objections to theism, then it's important you accurately identify and understand what that epistemology is, otherwise, you're merely attacking a strawman.
You charged QS with being a positivist. You stated that positivism is a "metaphysical worldview" or a "metaphysical system" which "denies that the nonscientific is knowable" and "does not admit as valid that knowledge gained through nonscientific methods," such as logic, which you asserted is a "metaphysical procedure".
All of this is disputable, or easily refuted.
As previously noted, merely from his claim that "no procedure available to us could reliably establish the existence or non-existence of such an unscientific entity" does not make automatically him a positivist. But even if he was, your accusation that positivism holds "scientific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge" is incorrect. Rather positivism is "a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences". Or better (from Wikipedia):
"Positivism is a view of scientific methods and a philosophical approach, theory, or system based on the view that, in the social as well as natural sciences, sensory experiences and their logical and mathematical treatment are together the exclusive source of all worthwhile information. Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected."
So it's not quite accurate to say that positivism holds "scentific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge"; logic and mathematics are also included. What's more, I think you'll search in vain for any characterization of positivism as a metaphysical "worldview" or "system", or even that logic is a domain within metaphysics (it's categorized as a branch of philosophy, of which metaphysics is another branch).
I won't dispute that positivism is hobbled by legitimate criticisms, but yours are not among them.
What's the rub? Your objection to QS's claim is off the mark. Personally, I'm not entirely clear what QS means when he says God is an "unscientific entity". Does he mean this entity is not amenable to scientific inquiry, whereas theism (in theory) suggests it should be? That's how I understood it, but it's only conjecture.
You still identify no logical syllogisms that reveal the truth of God's existence, though, earlier, you seemed confident that they could. As for Aquinas' arguments, their failure doesn't depend on "nominalist suppositions". Certainly not the teleological argument, nor the cosmological argument.
With respect to "not known to be rational", these were your words. I maintain that in some societies and cultures (of which I'll soon gives examples, per Dirichlet's request), theism was literally "not known to be rational", and thus (again, your words) it would be perfectly defensible to not assent to it. This could mean the same thing as "withold judgment". It may have been a poor choice of words on your part.
Finally, if atheists are subject to "name-calling provocation" - an activity, I remind you - then that's merely "understandable"? Such a reaction seems far short of your god's commands, not to mention the activity itself.
Posted by: Robert | January 26, 2012 at 02:44 PM
In response to Dirichlet:
Probably the best example of societies and cultures where theism is or was not known to be rational include those in east Asian where Buddhism gained large followings.
In hunter-gatherer cultures, animism was a popular belief.
Of course, shamanism is another popular belief dwelling within many worldwide cultures, even today.
Posted by: Robert | January 26, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Robert, your objection is uninteresting hair-splitting. *Of course* science includes mathematics or else it would be incomplete; do you really imagine I am unaware of this? The problem, as I said, is that science cannot furnish a basis for its own validity, which by its own logic it must since nothing else licitly can; saying "but the scientific method includes mathematics!" (which I don't contradict) doesn't change that fact. What would a scientific study establishing the *sole* validity of science even look like? By definition this notion that scientific knowledge is the best or even only kind relies on metaphysical assumptions that science itself cannot establish, such as the intuition that our senses are reliable (i.e., that if I observe difference X, it's because difference X exists and not because my senses are misrepresenting reality). Likewise, the mathematics on which statistics is built is nonempirical and basically intuitive: hence, axiomatic. There are no studies proving definitively that for every two points in space there is exactly one straight line connecting them. It is simply understood, intuited; one cannot imagine a world where this would *not* be true. It is not even sufficient to say, as a positivist ought to, that it's safe to conclude that the axiom is true because we have never observed its falsity. We *know intuitively* it is not only true but universally so.
Of course I "identify no logical syllogisms that reveal the truth of God's existence." Natural theology is an endeavor stretching over three millennia. I'm not going to drop my blogging efforts just to educate you on work you're not doing yourself. With due respect, the conjectures you made re: natural law on your own blog suggest to me you are not terribly well-versed on the issues at hand here. You keep imagining that problems addressed satisfactorily by men who've been dead for centuries are somehow new and challenging when they aren't.
Yes, "not known to be rational" were my words. Note that I did not say "known not to be rational," which is how you're (improperly) interpreting them. I mean simply that no one should be expecting QS to take theism on trust. There are good reasons to believe it: science just isn't the place to look for them, and the belief that it is false even by its own standards.
Posted by: Proph | January 26, 2012 at 03:16 PM
re Schaeffer
http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2009/01/where-francis-shaeffer-goes-wrong-is.html
Posted by: Martin Snigg | January 26, 2012 at 05:13 PM
Robert,
Thanks for your reply. Having re-read your comments, I would like to reinforce Proph's point that you are equivocating on the meaning of the phrase "not knowing theism to be rational," which contradicts the examples you have given me. The phrase could have the possible two meanings:
1. Culture X has no knowledge about theism
2. Culture X rejects theism, or has elements that would make it reject theism if it were introduced.
(I understand 'theism' as any non-naturalistic worldview like monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, etc.)
From your first post:
> "There have existed, and do exist, many societies and cultures in which theism is not known to be rational. Consequently, if the idea of theism was introduced in those places, it would be rationally rejected."
Here, you appear to be endorsing definition (2).
Now, from the examples you have given me:
> "Probably the best example of societies and cultures where theism is or was not known to be rational include those in east Asian where Buddhism gained large followings."
The mainstream schools of Buddhism do not reject theism outright. They simply regard the question as useless because its answer does not bring the person closer to liberation from samsara and the resulting spiritual enlightenment. In fact, in some schools, there is worship of certain beings with ascribed divine attributes.
> "In hunter-gatherer cultures, animism was a popular belief."
Animism does not imply or lead those who hold it to reject theism. Shintoism, Japan's traditional religion, is a form of animism that also holds polytheism and a creation myth. There are many similar examples.
> "Of course, shamanism is another popular belief dwelling within many worldwide cultures, even today."
Same as above. Shamanism is simply the belief that certain practices (and drugs, lol) allow the individual to experience the supernatural. The traditional Mayan religion was shamanistic and held polytheism and a creation myth.
All of your examples contradict definition (2), and the historical evidence shows that particular forms of theism have not been uniformly rejected in societies with those beliefs, even Buddhistic ones, e.g. contemporary Korea and 16th century Japan.
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 26, 2012 at 05:15 PM
In reply to Martin Snigg’s link above, which – having brought Schaeffer into the mix – I felt obligated to take a look at, this is actually a very valuable article, dealing with the reading – or misreading – Schaeffer brings to St. Thomas Aquinas in his understanding of the distinction between grace and nature. It is a rather long and subtle article that can only be nodded to here, but I believe it to be essentially correct in its critique of Schaeffer’s critique of the Angelic Doctor. This is something I was uncomfortable with even in my mid-teens, when first introduced to Schaeffer’s now somewhat dated but still valuable series and book, “How Then Should We Live?” Even then, not really knowing much about the issues at play, I felt Schaeffer was wide of the mark on this point.
Having said this, I brought Schaeffer into the mix, as previously with Musil, Voegelin, Schuon, Eliade, Scruton, Weaver, Lewis, Sproul, Derbyshire and Plato – in no particular order – because I thought he had an insight of value with regard to the metaphysical and epistemic quandary of modern man. The article linked to does not significantly contest this, being largely taken up with other matters. According to materialism, there is only the “lower level” – as Koukl states – “facts, science, the laws of nature, rationality, logic”. The rest – the “upper level” – “values, meaning, religion, faith, morality and God” is unsupportable fantasy. Schaeffer’s representation of this is entirely correct. My earlier quote of Sproul’s summary of the “Argument from Meaning” dovetails Schaeffer’s analysis here closely. I would push the matter further than Schaeffer himself does, leveraging the “Argument from Reason” I previously summarized in a quote from Lewis, and push rationality and logic – without which “facts, science and the laws of nature” are rendered epistemically impossible – to the “upper level” as well, unsupportable in a materialist conception, in consequence of which the “lower level” is found to be emptied, with all the nihilistic implications that flow from that realization.
In short, to speak of a “lower level” and “upper level” is useful from the point of view of describing a materialist explanation, which – even if it attempts, through some ultimately impossible legerdemain, to push values, meaning and morality to the “lower level” – will want to leave religion, faith and God in the “upper level”, if only to deny it. From the point of view of what might broadly be termed a theistic metaphysics, however, there is ultimately only the “upper level”, the “lower level” reduced to an empty set. If the “upper level” is denied, as in a materialist worldview, then man is cast at once into ontological and epistemic dispossession, there to gnaw upon imaginary husks among chimerical swine.
Posted by: Peter S. | January 26, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Proph, it seems you're either just skimming my replies, failing to understand them, or purposely ignoring my points. What I wrote is that positivism considers not just knowledge gleaned from scientific methods as valid, but also knowledge gleaned from logic and mathematics. You suggested in your original post that logic was something positivism excluded. Here are your own words:
"What he means here, of course, is that no scientific procedure exists (he doesn't ever acknowledge that there are plenty of metaphysical procedures available to us to reveal this truth, namely syllogistic logic, so it's reasonable to question if he's even aware of them). And he believes this because he's a positivist."
I showed why your understanding of many of the matters you speak of is faulty. Ignoring this, you focus instead on a red herring: whether science includes mathematics. Huh?
As I've already demonstrated, you're attacking strawmen - and wildly at that. You charged QS with being a positivist. Such a conclusion was not warranted; he could very well be a scientific realist (a stance, by the way, that accounts for your criticisms of science, which you would have known had you even bothered to look the term up). But, curiously, you continue to harp on this topic.
If you cannot identify logical syllogisms that reveal "the truth" of God's existence, then why did you first claim there are plenty of them that can?
If the problems I've raised have have in fact been satisfactorily addressed by long-dead men, then it seems you're not representing their answers very well. Perhaps it's you who's not terribly well-versed.
Posted by: Robert | January 27, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Dirichlet, you regard theism to mean "any non-naturalistic worldview like monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, etc."
I can find no source that supports such an understanding. The majority of sources define it in a manner similar to "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."
Under this definition, I regard my examples as non-theistic, and therefore, hold to my original claim.
If there are sources supporting your understanding, please provide. I'll gladly consider them.
Posted by: Robert | January 27, 2012 at 02:47 PM
I have no interest in squabbling over semantics, Robert. QS declares God to be an "unscientific entity." He furthermore proceeds to discount the possibility of His existence on these grounds. What exactly is your objection here? That I have accused him of positivism when he *may hypothetically* be some obscure variant of it? You do not get to indulge here in the semantical legerdemain, common to liberals and atheists everywhere, of defending your beliefs using the language of some vulgar ideology and then defending only a more refined version of it when challenged philosophically. In any case he is subscribing to an epistemology that discounts the possibility of extrascientific knowledge. In a real sense he is begging the question against theism.
You yourself objected to my characterization of positivism as relating to the invalidity of extrascientific knowledge on the grounds that positivism includes "logic and mathematics." Well, *of course* it does -- science itself includes logic (which, I said before, is regarded as permissible only insofar as it is hypothesis-generating -- it is in a sense allowed but only as a means to an end) and mathematics. Why bother bringing it up and then accuse of me changing the subject when I point out its nonsensical character? It does not change the content of my objection: that the scientific method *cannot* account for itself on its own philosophical terms, and thus that any claim that nonscientific knowledge is invalid is necessarily self-refuting.
For the third time, natural theology is beyond the scope of a combox. You are literally asking me to drop everything I'm doing to present three millennia worth of philosophical inquiry. I have pointed you in a worthy direction already: Edward Feser's "Aquinas."
Posted by: Proph | January 27, 2012 at 03:02 PM
A note on logical positivism: in understanding its nature, it's better to be aware of the original goals of this school. The logical positivists wanted to give an account of the philosophy of nature that excluded metaphysical reasoning, grounding everything on the infamous verification principle (rougly, the idea that a claim is only true if and only if it can be verified by empirical methods or logico-mathematical reasoning).
Now, the problem is that they never found a satisfactory definition for the verification principle -- either it cut too much (ultimately undermining itself, since it could not be verified) or too little (opening the doors to metaphysics). The enterprise is pretty much dead, even by Ayer's own admition.
Anyways, I don't know if QS is a logical positivist —he might as well be, but he could be many other things— and from my experience of this demographic they tend towards some naive form of empiricism to which they haven't really given much thought. Treating something as a nonscientific because it is not in accord to your own vague definition of what counts for 'scientific' amounts to begging the question, but I really haven't payed much attention to this. I don't even know why Proph decided to go after some random atheist kid on the YouTube who is basically repeating what the other hundres of atheist kids on YouTube say.
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 27, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Proph, I posted another comment in reply to Robert, but it seems to have disappeared. Can you find it?
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 27, 2012 at 04:14 PM
I see no other post from you on my dash -- you are not the first person who has lost a post to TypePad's commenting interface!
As to your last sentence, no special reason. It popped up on an (atheist) friend's Facebook page and it struck me as a reasonably well-put-together synthesis of atheist reasoning. So much of my blogging these days amounts to neuronal sparking in response to arbitrary provocations!
Posted by: Proph | January 27, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Proph, I managed to recover my comment by doing Ctrl-Z in Notepad. Phew! Let me try posting it again...
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 27, 2012 at 04:40 PM
This is weird. It's the third time I try to post the same comment and it even tells me that it *did* get posted successfully after the Captcha. It just doesn't appear!
Anyways, I will paste it somewhere else and hope Robert gets to read it that way:
http://pastebin.com/Ee28ja4E
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 27, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Well, it's possible you're running afoul of the blocked-word filter, which I instituted to keep down the large volume of spam comments. I have no idea why your post would run afoul of it though; it's mostly brand names.
To expand on my response to your earlier comment: "Anyways, I don't know if QS is a logical positivist —he might as well be, but he could be many other things— and from my experience of this demographic they tend towards some naive form of empiricism to which they haven't really given much thought."
It doesn't matter *what* the proper name for it is, though; that is my point. The statement "knowledge is X" is *always* a metaphysical statement: it relates to something which is prescientific. So whatever knowledge is, it must include metaphysics to some extent, which means the science-only crowd (by whatever name) is wrong. We can quibble over the proper metaphysics but we cannot simultaneously deny them altogether and retain science as an authoritative endeavor. Science cannot, after all, prove its own validity: even if you could do a study to prove the validity of scientific studies, its result could support the hypothesis only if you made the a priori assumption that science can validly reveal truth.
Either nothing is knowable (in which case we couldn't know anything is unknowable) or else, of necessity, there is more than what is revealed by science that is knowable.
Posted by: Proph | January 27, 2012 at 06:53 PM
You're challenging QualiaSoup to a debate? You brought a knife to a tank fight.
All of the times you say he hasn't addressed logical proofs just shows your own ignorance. QS has several videos about logic, and besides, the scientific method runs on logic. Saying "you can't validate the scientific method with the scientific method" is inherently, as you would say, a stupid argument.
QS's failure to provide citation for the claim that the Biblical God needs to be worshipped is arguably that video's greatest failure...but then again, he's arguing with people who will vehemently deny the truth even when spelled out in the most basic terms possible. Also, it doesn't take long to find quotes like "I am a jealous God." It is as he said: "Those who can't approach the discussion with a basic level of intelligence & maturity shouldn't expect to be taken seriously."
And if there was ever proof that you lacked maturity, it was your hypocritical "grating, plaintative whine" about teh ebil atheests purscutin' ya. Please. It must be soooooo haaaaard spearheading mobs to beat up queers & other social weirdos. You pooooor baby.
He quite irrefutably demonstrated the difference in nonbelief and belief in lack with his court analogy, quit being a sore loser as well as a pseudointellectual prick.
Posted by: Lithp | January 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM
lol.
Posted by: Dirichlet | January 31, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Welcome back, Lithp. Pointing out someone's ignorance of theology doesn't equate to challenging them to a debate (actually, it constitutes a good reason *not* to debate them: in the absence of philosophical common ground, what is there to discuss?).
"Saying "you can't validate the scientific method with the scientific method" is inherently, as you would say, a stupid argument."
My position is more along the lines of you, "You can't deny metaphysics with a metaphysical argument." Any statement about the nature of knowledge is primarily metaphysical: scientific methodology simply builds on its legitimacy. So whatever knowledge is, it must at least include metaphysics, the validity of which QS (along with most atheists in general) seems to deny in principle. I concede the possibility, raised by Robert, that QS is simply incoherent, but this isn't much of a saving grace. So complaining that all the arguments for God are metaphysical and not scientific is sort of stupid. The methods must be suited to the field of inquiry. You wouldn't approach an analysis of Plato's "Republic" with a t-test, would you?
QS may indeed be arguing with ignoramuses, which is to say the average ignorant American evangelical Protestant. But there is more to Christianity than American evangelical Protestantism, by definition a relatively recent and historically aberrant phenomenon. His arguments may indeed carry weight against this weakest possible form of Christianity, but he shouldn't act as if it's representative of Christianity in general, as he seems to.
I'm afraid I don't see how the idea of God as a "jealous God" (i.e., a God who demands what He is owed) is evidence of His "needing" anything. God's justice is God's justice and nothing else, and justice is the giving of what is owed. Even humans sometimes pursue justice for its own sake, not out of need; in fact, there's a good case to be made that we pursue justice to the point of need.
It is telling that the worst example of Christian behavior you can conjure up is beating up gays (I suppose anal buggery is rather representative of your entire pathological worldview), whereas we can point to examples within just the last few decades of formal persecution of Christians.
The distinction between "atheism as belief in nonexistence" and "atheism as lack of belief in existence" of God is, as I said before, completely uninteresting. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand affected to endow one's own ignorance with moral respectability. At best, it is excruciating minutiae.
Also, you are banned from the blog for persistent violation of our editorial policy, including rudeness, vulgarity, ignorance, and generally being boring and unoriginal.
Posted by: Proph | January 31, 2012 at 09:31 AM
I had typed up a longer response, but then discarded it when I realized my points were perfectly encapsulated in your claim:
"It does not change the content of my objection: that the scientific method *cannot* account for itself on its own philosophical terms."
Here once again is the ignorance and the equivocation that characterize the "content" of your objection. Educating you with definitions, citations, and alternate epistemologies – none of which you’ve challenged - has had no effect, so it would be fruitless to demonstrate your flawed understanding of the scientific method (hint: it’s a method). A minute of research would dispel many of your errors, but then you’d have to face the arguments on their merits. One can only conclude you prefer the traditional theistic practice of pious fraud, perhaps purposely emulating the present Pope.
I gotta admit, though, calling me a liberal was the cruelest cut. But it’s emblematic of your intellectual torpor. One click on "About…" while you were visiting my blog would have quickly revealed my real political philosophy.
In any case, I’ll read Feser’s "Acquinas", if only to find out just how he proposes to mediate among competing and conflicting metaphysical claims.
Posted by: Robert | January 31, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Dirichlet, I too have posting challenges. I replied to you on Pastebin as well:
http://pastebin.com/kJAZn5wv
Posted by: Robert | January 31, 2012 at 03:43 PM
"Here once again is the ignorance and the equivocation that characterize the "content" of your objection. Educating you with definitions, citations, and alternate epistemologies – none of which you’ve challenged - has had no effect, so it would be fruitless to demonstrate your flawed understanding of the scientific method (hint: it’s a method)."
I honestly do not understand what your difficulty in grasping my objection is.
If science is the sole authoritative basis of knowledge then you must be able to account for *how* you know this to be true. If in fact this claim is true then it must be possible to demonstrate its truth scientifically.
But you *cannot* know this to be true scientifically, because, as I said, science can adduce no evidence for its own validity -- even if it did, you could only accept that evidence on the condition that you accepted a priori that science is capable of producing meaningful results. Hence it *cannot* be the case that science is the sole authoritative basis for knowledge.
You can escape this problem, somewhat, by claiming that science is the "best" or "most authoritative" form of knowledge. That makes the claim simply specious on its own terms (since it lacks scientific validation, which is supposedly the best way to know a thing to be true) instead of obviously false.
In any case, it leaves us with the question: how do you know science is a valid form of knowledge, period? From whence does science derive its legitimacy? You can say "because reality is objectively real and our senses are in principle capable of apprehending its nature." But this is a nonscientific intuition which must simply be accepted, which cannot be verified scientifically, and without which the whole scientific endeavor fails. When you smuggle it in you automatically acknowledge the validity of metaphysics. So it becomes a question not of whether or not metaphysical inquiry is valid but what is the proper metaphysics and why.
Hence you *cannot* have an epistemological system that flatly denies the validity of metaphysics.
Either nothing is knowable, or else more is knowable than is revealed to us by science.
In either case the objection that God cannot be known because He cannot be observed empirically (which seems to be the thrust of QS' complaint) is emphatically *false*. This is the peril and absurdity of trying to devise a nonmetaphysical epistemology. There is no such thing.
And this remains true regardless of by WHAT name you call the claim: positivism, scientism, etc.
There are *perfectly good* metaphysical speculations re: the existence and nature of God. You may disagree with them, as I said before, perhaps because you subscribe to a different metaphysical system; but you *cannot* discount them because they are metaphysics qua metaphysics without undermining the basis of *all* knowledge. And if your dispute is that the metaphysics in question are *wrong* in this case and not merely that they are false in principle, than *that* ought to be the brunt of the objection: not that God cannot be known scientifically but that theists bring to the table the wrong metaphysical attitudes.
Atheists would get much farther by simply asserting that their metaphysics are the correct one, instead of indulging in the *obviously* meritless claim that their beliefs are free of dubious metaphysical baggage.
For the record, what I said (at least I think this is what you are referring to) was that the rhetorical trick was *characteristic* of liberals. I do not in the slightest care what you actually are.
Posted by: Proph | January 31, 2012 at 04:26 PM
"In any case, it leaves us with the question: how do you know science is a valid form of knowledge, period? From whence does science derive its legitimacy?"
You really crack me up. I feel like I'm reading stuff at fstdt.net sometimes.
I can answer your questions very simply: Spirit and Opportunity.
Posted by: Robert | February 01, 2012 at 10:13 AM
And that means... what, precisely? Please stop with the cryptic pedantry and actually articulate a point.
Posted by: Proph | February 01, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Did you do a search? Oh, that's right. Dumb question.
First, find out what Spirit and Opportunity refer to.
Second, marvel at their accomplishments, and what it took to achieve them.
Then finally, reflect on the inanity of the question, "From whence does science derive its legitimacy?"
Profit!
Posted by: Robert | February 02, 2012 at 01:52 PM
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that I was simply misinterpreting your inane non sequitur. It's clear to me know that you still have no idea what I am saying here, which is that the claim that science is the basis for all truth is instantly self-refuting because the claim itself is nonscientific. It does no good pointing to particular scientific accomplishments; they are valid only in the context of an intuitive (and thus nonscientific) assumption that reality is objectively real and that our senses are basically competent to apprehend its nature. But if this assumption exists *and is valid* then scientism itself must be false, for clearly there is more that can be known than is revealed to us by science.
Your failure to apprehend this basic point is alarming. It means you're either an ineducable moron (which I doubt) or else intentionally affecting ignorance to dodge difficult metaphysical questions you know cannot be answered. The fact that you spend the first several posts in this discussion quibbling over semantics and evasively changing the topic proves this to me. In either case you are clearly incompetent to discuss issues of basic philosophical importance and thus are no longer welcome to post here.
Posted by: Proph | February 02, 2012 at 02:20 PM