Best of AW

Monday, August 18, 2014

Julian Baggini Short Intoduction to Atheism.

 photo Julian_Baggini-_zps2a77b19e.jpg

There's a website called Arguing with Atheism. I know who does the sit but for some reason he doesn't include his name so I don't know if he wants the public to know. I'll honor what I imagine to be his wish for anonymity and just refer to the site itself. The point of the site is to carefully examine the very best sources of atheist thinking and to investigate the "better side" of atheism. The site takes this "better side" of atheism (the non hate group side, the real thinking core of the atheist community) and seeks to really understand their point of view; in so doing to test one's own belief.

The first project toward this end is a review and summary of a book by Julian Baggini called




Julian Baggini (editor of The Philospher Magazine)

Author Atheism a very short introduction.
Atheism a Very Short Introduction. Baggini is the editor of The Philosopher Magazine.


Baggini talks about his personal background, his childhood, his road to his current outlook. While he agrees with the usual self definitions of most atheists, the lack of belief in God, Baggini holds out for more than just the negation of a set of beliefs. This is will be important because Christianity is not just a set of beliefs, its not just adding information to the universe. But this phrase is used by the website to describe what Baggini tags onto the conventional definition of atheism:

But atheism is not merely or even principally a series of negations or denials; rather, it is a positive view of what the world consists of and the nature of human beings. At the core of atheism lies a commitment to naturalism, broadly construed as the assertion that “only the objects of the physical sciences-physics, chemistry and biology-exist.” (4) Atheists, however, are not necessarily committed to strong forms of physicalism such as eliminative materialism. The upshot of this description is that the evidence for atheism, according to Baggini, is not primarily counterevidence to the existence of God, but rather consists of the positive evidence for naturalism, broadly construed. This is an important move because it enables him to sidestep the interminable debates in philosophy of religion over the problem of evil, etc. and instead focus on the evidence for naturalism provided primarily by the sciences.


My first reaction to this novel approach is to wonder why reductionists, which Baggini clearly is, make such a big thing out of the little nub of being that's left after they go through tearing away everything in life that is worth living for, then declare the wonder and joy of this nub of a universe that's left. It's a ridiculous outlook. They lose the phenomena of all view points that don't cow tow to their ideology of reduction and then declare their view is the only one of substance because it's the only one standing after they get through stripping away the evdience for any other view. Their approach to hiding the evidence of other views is varied but basically boils down to circular reasoning. Baggini is no exception. The circular reasoning runs like this:

There can't be any evidence for the supernatural because evidence for the supernatural would contradict the ideology and the ideology must be right because science depends upon it. Science is the only form of knowledge, therefore, it has to be protected. Thus any evidence for the supernatural is automatically invalidated and thus must be dismissed.

Now there is no evdience for the supernatural(because any evdience for is automatically wrong since there can't be a supernatural) and that's why the supernatural must be false, therefore, the claims of the supernatural are a priori false. Thus we know there is no supernatural because all the claims for it keep getting dismissed, therefore, there is no evidence for the supernatural.

In Chapter 2 Baggini outlines the positive case for atheism he has in mind. He begins by outlining the components of a persuasive case for any particular point of view: evidence, arguments and rhetoric. The latter, however, can only make the case more persuasive, whether it is reasonable or not, so Baggini focuses on the first two.

Baggini demonstrates this tendency in the very first description of his argument. He sets out criteria whereby one can judge good evdience from bad. The first principle he lays out (this is according the Arguing with Atheism Website)is that anecdotal evdience is not good, evidence but be replicable and public. That is more people who see it the better. The more times it can be repeated the better. That's all find and good, but then it starts getting a little biased. He sets out the example of ice freezing. Of course this is something we all see so its' common, it' also trivial and doesn't have any bearing the question of God. But the image of rock solid science is offered to the reader's mind. What is religious believe contrasted with? The spontaneous combustion of dogs. Yes, dogs, burning up spontaneously.


So evidence that ice freezes at zero degrees centigrade, for example, is strong evidence because it is publicly and universally accessible, whereas the evidence for the spontaneous combustion of dogs is weak because it is anecdotal, that is “it relies upon the testimony of a single person relating one incident.”(13)



Obviously that is pretty anecdotal. So we have this daily event of making ice vs something the vast majority of people live their whole lives and never see. Now for those whose concept of religious experince is the parting of the read sea this may seem like a fair comparison. But there really is a lot more ordinary and available stuff going on God-wise than incendiary K nines.

He could contrast that with mystical experinces, because they are so common some researcher estimate they are had by one in four people. But then he would not be able to set up the premise that supernatural evidence is all anecdotal because mystical experince is demonstrated by 350 or more empirical studies over a four decade period. If you start factoring in studies on religious belief and participation and the effects on health you could have about 2000 studies, and most of them are very good scientific studies. But he would not be able to put up the image that atheists thrive on that "o there's no evidence for the supernatural" not one little bitty piece. Of course if you define the supernatural not as it is in the theology but as atheists want to see, as that which cannot happen because it contradicts reality, then of course there's no evidence for it.



Based on this criterion, Baggini’s contention is that “all the strong evidence tells in favor of atheism, and only weak evidence tells against it.” This is so because, as we saw earlier, in Baggini’s view the evidence for atheism is not merely or even primarily counter-evidence to the existence of God, but rather consists of the evidence for naturalism, broadly construed: “This is only evidence against God’s existence in a negative sense: that is to say, evidence for God’s existence will be found to be lacking and so we will be left with no reason to suppose he exists.” (16)


This move does not strike me as a particularly fair way to evaluate the claims of religious belief.First of all,it is slanted to deny the opportunity for the believer to present best evdience. It practically lays down a guideline if evdience for religious belief doesn't' such it doesn't count as real evdience. This clearly an exercise in begging the question. I will be very interested to see what he trying to analyze as "best evidence." I am so far not impressed because I see no mention of anything that really exists as evidence believers actually use. I suspect that the subtext to his guides are really the idea that science is the only form of knowledge and anything that doesn't count as empirical scientific view point is not admissible as evidence. Clearly this is a move aimed at disposing of the best evidence the believer has before the debate can begin because it compares two things that cannot be compared. God is not given in sense data so the nature of the physical world and sciences ability to discover the workings of the physical world can never be taken as proof against the existence of God. Those are also part of the believer's belief system, I don't know any believers who don't believe in the physical world. Thus he's just crossing categories. He's ruling out the best evdience before the debate starts.

I would term this move as a "trick," and this trick is grossly unfair becasue it's just trying to turn scientists only success (the production of scientific data) into a monopoly for atheist thought and deny the believer any recourse to scientific thought, thus creating the stigma that belief is unscientific. In reality the idea of comparing factual accounts of belief or unbelief to scientific rigor is a huge mistake. Not only do people research according to their biases but science is not a pristine march from ignorance to totally knowledge over the mountains of data. It's a cultural construct. It turns upon paradigm shifts. when the paradigm shifts the whole world turns over all the good little facts from the farmer paradigm become embarrassing old anatomies in the new one. This is why secular minded scientists and atheists have to be skeptical of supernatural effects because their paradigm rules out the supernatural a prori. In other words. it's not the result factual investigation but of ideology.Baggini is hip enough to have read Thomas Kuhn.

He knows that he's just skating over this stuff without even acknowledging it.Because the "cultural constructivist school" has said that science is a social or cultural construct (really the same thing) this has been understood to mean that "science is wrong," or "science doesn't work." He is not saying that Science doesn't work, but he is saying that science is not cumulative progress. The old image of the scientist faithfully stacking one fact upon another, facts patiently gathered from totally objective and therefore totally true observations, is old hat and has to be replaced. Sorry to break the news to the reductionists, but the concept of "progress" is, itself, a cultural construct. There is nothing in nature called "progress." That is a Western notion that comes to us through philosophy and is not strictly speaking, a scientific term. Scientists don't record in their experimental observations "I found the progress in my subject matter." Progress is social and cultural, and it is a relative notion. When we decide we are making progress it is always at the expense of someone elses notion of progress. Due to the nature of paradigm shifts, science does not stack up facts one upon another until x amount of progress is achieved. Science regularly wipes the slate clean and starts over on new paradigms and each new bust of "progress" has to be judged relative to many factors, such as it's social effects.



What then is the positive evidence for naturalism? Baggini uses the example of the nature of persons: the verdict of science is that human beings are mortal animals composed of biological bodies. This is what the atheist’s naturalism would lead her to expect. Any evidence to the contrary, i.e. that points to the existence of a disembodied immortal soul, is weak and anecdotal.


But you see by the nature of this statement, even this is the paraphrase of the guy with the website, the circular reasoning I've already described. He assumes from the outside without presenting any evidence that the believers evidence will be weak and anecdotal. He's also arguing against a straw man version of religious belief as the notion of an Immortal soul in the sense of the ghost in the machine is not indicative of modern Christian theology. This is not what modern Christian thinkers believe, it's an old fashioned verse designed to bring shame to believers. The assertion that the evidence for believe must be wrong and outmoded without knowing what it is is hilarious and I did predict it. The soul is not a Casper the friendly Ghost living inside you. Nor does the Bible tell us that it is. The Bible says that the soul is the life of the believer from the standpoint of the relationship with God. So we do not have souls, we are souls. what might live on after death, if anything, is consciousness, or mind. This is analogous to "spirit" in the Bible. Spirit = mind.

The notion that consciousness is reducible to brain chemistry and nothing that survives exists is totally un-demonstrated and flies in the face of a ton of good scientific evidence. A ton of data supports mind over body. There are basically three arguments:

(1) the hard problem

(2) Top down causality

(3) Veto Power.

There is a movement in property dualism led by David Chalmers, such scientific heavy weights as Penrose are on his side. There is no victory for the brain/mind functionalists yet, far from it. In fact this dichotomy hints at a much larger conceptual frame work that threatens to break open into a total paradigm shift. The handwriting is on the wall for materialism. Major scientific thinkers have already began to see consciousness as other than just some individualistic qualities in each individual person's head caused by brain chemistry and have begun to think of it as something broader, a basic property of nature that we share in, that we exhibit rather than just a side effect of the wiring in our heads.

this is a statement by Peter Russell who was a Cambridge physicists and student of Hawking. I've quoted it on this blog quite recently.

The 'Hard Problem' of Consciousness

The really hard problem-as David Chalmers, professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona, has said-is consciousness itself. Why should the complex processing of information in the brain lead to an inner experience? Why doesn't it all go on in the dark, without any subjective aspect? Why do we have any inner life at all?

This paradox-namely, the absolutely undeniable existence of human consciousness set against the complete absence of any satisfactory scientific account for it-suggests to me that something is seriously amiss with the contemporary scientific worldview. For a long time I could not put my finger on exactly what it was. Then suddenly, about four years ago on a flight back to San Francisco, I saw where the error lay.

If consciousness is not some emergent property of life, as Western science supposes, but is instead a primary quality of the cosmos-as fundamental as space, time, and matter, perhaps even more fundamental-then we arrive at a very different picture of reality. As far as our understanding of the material world goes, nothing much changes; but when it comes to our understanding of mind, we are led to a very different worldview indeed. I realized that the hard problem of consciousness was not a problem to be solved so much as the trigger that would, in time, push Western science into what the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm shift."

The continued failure of science to make any appreciable headway into this fundamental problem suggests that, to date, all approaches may be on the wrong track. They are all based on the assumption that consciousness emerges from, or is dependent upon, the physical world of space, time, and matter. In one way or another they are trying to accommodate the anomaly of consciousness within a worldview that is intrinsically materialist. As happened with the medieval astronomers, who kept adding more and more epicycles to explain the anomalous motions of the planets, the underlying assumptions are seldom, if ever, questioned.

I now believe that rather than trying to explain consciousness in terms of the material world, we should be developing a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental component of reality. The key ingredients for this new paradigm-a "superparadigm"-are already in place. We need not wait for any new discoveries. All we need do is put various pieces of our existing knowledge together, and consider the new picture of reality that emerges.

Consciousness and Reality

Because the word "consciousness" can be used in so many different ways, confusion often arises around statements about its nature. The way I use the word is not in reference to a particular state of consciousness, or particular way of thinking, but to the faculty of consciousness itself-the capacity for inner experience, whatever the nature or degree of the experience.

A useful analogy is the image from a video projector. The projector shines light onto a screen, modifying the light so as to produce any one of an infinity of images. These images are like the perceptions, sensations, dreams, memories, thoughts, and feelings that we experience-what I call the "contents of consciousness." The light itself, without which no images would be possible, corresponds to the faculty of consciousness.

We know all the images on the screen are composed of this light, but we are not usually aware of the light itself; our attention is caught up in the images that appear and the stories they tell. In much the same way, we know we are conscious, but we are usually aware only of the many different experiences, thoughts, and feelings that appear in the mind. We are seldom aware of consciousness itself. Yet without this faculty there would be no experience of any kind.

The faculty of consciousness is one thing we all share, but what goes on in our consciousness, the content of our consciousness, varies widely. This is our personal reality, the reality we each know and experience. Most of the time, however, we forget that this is just our personal reality and think we are experiencing physical reality directly. We see the ground beneath our feet; we can pick up a rock, and throw it through the air; we feel the heat from a fire, and smell its burning wood. It feels as if we are in direct contact with the world "out there." But this is not so. The colors, textures, smells, and sounds we experience are not really "out there"; they are all images of reality constructed in the mind.

It was this aspect of perception that most caught my attention during my studies of experimental psychology (and amplified by my readings of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant). At that time, scientists were beginning to discover the ways in which the brain pieces together its perception of the world, and I was fascinated by the implications of these discoveries for the way we construct our picture of reality. It was clear that what we perceive and what is actually out there are two different things.

This, I know, runs counter to common sense. Right now you are aware of the pages in front of you, various objects around you, sensations in your own body, and sounds in the air. Even though you may understand that all of this is just your reconstruction of reality, it still seems as if you are having a direct perception of the physical world. And I am not suggesting you should try to see it otherwise. What is important for now is the understanding that all our experience is an image of reality constructed in the mind.







Rosenberg's 'liberal naturalism' [CS:JCS:3.1.77]:

"The question of scientific objectivity becomes more compelling when one considers that doubts about the reductive paradigm are by no means new. William James (1890), Charles Sherrington (1951), Erwin Schrodinger (1944, 1958), Karl Popper and John Eccles (1977)--among others--have insisted that the reductive view is inadequate to describe reality. This is not a fringe group. They are among the most thoughtful and highly honored philosophers and scientists of the past century. How is it that their deeply held and vividly expressed views have been so widely ignored? Is it not that we need to see the world as better organized than the evidence suggests?

"Appropriately, the most ambitious chapter of this section is the final one by Willis Harman. Is the conceptual framework of science sufficiently broad to encompass the phenomenon of consciousness, he asks, or must it be somehow enlarged to fit the facts of mental reality? Attempting an answer, he considers the degree to which science can claim to be objective and to what extent it is influenced by the culture in which it is immersed. Those who disagree might pause to consider the religious perspective from which modern science has emerged.

"There is reason to suppose that the roots of our bias toward determinism lie deeper in our cultural history than many are accustomed to suppose. Indeed, it is possible that this bias may even predate modern scientific methods. In his analysis of thirteenth-century European philosophy, Henry Adams (1904) archly observed: "Saint Thomas did not allow the Deity the right to contradict himself, which is one of Man's chief pleasures." One wonders to what extent reductive science has merely replaced Thomas's God with the theory of everything."



The brave atheist physicalist wishes to pretend that his side has total absolute triumph and the silly little religious view point is going "gluge gluge gluge" as it sinks into the sun lite waters of the ocean, but the truth of it is the paradigm shift is already underway. Materialism has vanished. I call my essay "Materialism Vanishes" but it is already gone. Atheists put a happy face on it and call it "phsyicalism" and say it's gotten better, but the truth of it is materialism is gone and it left behind a form of physicalism which incorporates all sorts of idea that just one hundred years ago would have been seen as magical thinking and nonsense. That essay I link to itself offers a wealth of first rate evdience for the supernatural.


Back to the review of Baggini we find more comparisons of non evidence to irrelevant psychical processes of nature that we all agree exist.


Mediums, for example, who claim to be able to communicate with the dead “are unreliable…no medium has ever been able to tell us something that proves beyond reasonable doubt that they are party to information from the ’spirit world’.” (19) Baggini rejects the burden of having to examine each and every possible case of evidence for life after death, because these cases can plausibly be explained by human gullibility and the emotional need to believe in an afterlife. Retreating to the claim that life after death has not been conclusively disproven is not a desirable move either, because many other beliefs which we think are patently absurd are also unfalsifiable.



That just beats the hell out of Christianity. I know so many theolgoians who base their world views on mediums. But notice he refuses to investigate on a case by case basis. I don't care about mediums but this also means that he wont investigate on a case by case basis when it comes to real sure enough God-miracles. That means he's just chucking best evdience without even examining it as I predicted he would. It's just part of that scientific double talk that amounts to circular reasoning; all the cases of claims for supernatural must be wrong because there can't be a supernatural since there's no evidence, we know there's no evdience because we can rule it out without examining it. He says the cases can be explain by human gullibility, but then he's just dumping the while class of evidence without examining it, begging the question that it's all gullibility. How does he know that? Because it violates his ideology so he can just assume so.

The existence (or lack thereof) of life after death contributes to an inductive case for atheistic naturalism: “The evidence of experience is that we live in a world governed by natural laws, that everything that happens in it is explained by natural phenomena.”


What is his assertion based upon? Upon mediums? Mediums can be swept aside without examining their claims, therefore, there's no life after death? This guy is a scientist? How does he know there is no life after death? Of course we are not dealing with his arguments directly, but the website is in capable hands and the one who does the site is very fair minded and I'm sure he's giving Baggini the best possible hearing.



Baggini also offers an argument to the best explanation, contrasting atheism as a worldview with other worldviews. Among the advantages of an atheistic worldview: 1) “It is simple in that it requires us to posit only the existence of the natural world,” whereas “alternatives also require us to posit the existence of an unobserved supernatural world”


I think it would come as a huge shock to most atheists I encounter that atheism is a world view. Most of them relish the arguemnt that its' merely the absence of belief thus freeing it from any responsibility to really explain the world.


2) “the naturalistic worldview…is also more coherent, because it has everything in the universe fitting into one scheme of being. Those who posit a supernatural realm have to explain how this realm and the natural one interact and coexist” 3) “Atheism has great explanatory power when it comes to the existence of divergent religious beliefs”, and so on.


This is an extremely troubling statement because as a world view based upon naturalism and nothing more he's leaving out all sorts of things that even other atheists had the sense to include, but he can't include them unless he's willing to admit that science is not the only form of knowledge. If he does admit that then he has to admit the best evdience of belief, which is philosophical,deductive, and/or phenomenological in nature. What he's leaving out is demonstrably among that which makes life wroth living and yet is naturalistic but inter-subjective and thus opens the door to other form of knowledge that are not naturalistic. I speak of things like Music, art, literature, philosophy, existentialism, phenomenology.



So we can summarize Baggini’s case for atheistic naturalism as follows: naturalism is inductively supported by the (strong) evidence we have for the regularity of the natural world and the fact that many if not all phenomena we observe have natural explanations, and is the best explanation for a variety of phenomena which are puzzling to the theist.


That there is a physical world and it can be studied scientifically is not in question. Therefore, any attempt to compare this to religious belief is mere a chimera. It has nothing to do with a religious view point.

There is a great deal of empriical evidence supporting the supernatural. But of course it depends upon the Peroper Understanding of the Sueprnatural because the atheist's notion of the supernatural as an unseen realm filled with ghosts and demons, angels and major power is the degraded false watered down version that is left in the wake of enlightenment reductionism and Reformation equicicalism. The great psychologist and social scientist Abraham Maslow equated the supernatural with ordinary psychology and he said:

Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it invovles a universal symbology which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypical symbols? (For more on archetypes see Jesus Chrsit and Mythology page II) The "prematives" viewed and understood a sense of transformation which gave them an integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numenous, that is the origin of religion."

"In Appendix I and elsewhere in this essay, I have spoken of unitive perception, i.e., fusion of the B-realm with the D-realm, fusion of the eternal with the temporal, the sacred with the profane, etc. Someone has called this "the measureless gap between the poetic perception of reality and prosaic, unreal commonsense." Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, fromPeak Experience

--Abrham Maslow


He was not far wrong. Religious experince is an empirical example of the supernatural. It is exactly what the supernatural was suppossed to be according to Mathias Joheph Scheeben (Natural and Grace, 1865) the nature of God elevating human nature to the higher level.This is studied empirically and is demonstrated in 350 empirical studies. Some of the distillation of those studies can be seen on Doxa. There is fine scientific empriical evdience for Miracles at Lourdes but one must go on a case by case basis. This is what's so phony about Baggini's approach, becasue in denying case by case basis he's merely ruling out best evidence. The miracles committee uses strict rules,the committees seat the finest medical experts in Europe and even have skeptics on the committee. Best medical evidence is required and rules are designed to screen out remission.

But there's no point to any of this because the best evdience for belief is not empirical evdience at all but the realization of what what it means to be. For that one must face life holistically. The problem with Baggini's approach, and to the extent that he represents a form of atheism, the problem with atheism itself is that it resists a holistic approach to life. It's a reductionist approach. you can't holistically. This is the problem with the empiricist view, it ultimately destroys all forms of knowledge and reduces life to a dull set of facts that aren't worth knowing. The minute one begins thinking about what life means and what its for, the minute one begins thinking there must be something more than just this dull bombardment of atoms in the void,(I don't mean thinking of God I just mean thinking about art or music or what life exists, or why be alive or what is there to live for) one is transgressing, moving over the life of good scientific evdience into the dreaded no man's land of the horrible "subjective."

Belief in God is a realization of what it means to be. Denial of belief is a rejection of everything life is about and everything worth while about living. The reductionist view is an anti-life view.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

stupid atheist trick update

no sooner do  post the stuipd atheist trick then big thinker tops is.

Originally Posted by bigthinker View Post
No meta, it doesn't. The reason it doesn't is because there isn't a God for it to point to -God's existence is not established and it isn't a fact; it is a belief. It points to your belief in God (which is why it is confirmation bias).
 Your argument for God can't also be your evidence. In order to say something fits the description of what God is and therefore is God, you have to establish that God exists and you have to establish what God is. You haven't done that and neither has anyone else.


did he just say before you can make a God arguemnt you must first prove there's a God? what kind of stupidity is that?

 that's what an argument is BT an argument is evidence. to make a God arguemnt is to show evidence for God. tha'ts the name of the game it's the way it's always played.

He's saying that an argument for God si confirmation bias since God isn't proved to exist. but argument for for things are the proof. so he's saying you can't ever have a proof for god since God is not already proved.

isn't true of multi verse. or string? there can never be proof of those because they are not proved so any attempt at proving them is confirmation bias.

Stupid athist Trick of the week

 I started a thread on carm with this post:


 Is it possible for them to even image accepting the concept of God on equal grounds with unbelief? If that was done of course God arguments would always win. the reason they privilege doubt is becuase its' the only way that an pretend that their potion is logical.

the pity is most of these guys think that circular reasoning is fine and logical. Thinking in a non circular way is just some that old top down reasoning that Chrsitians have to resort to to make God look real.

they know circular reasoning is bad when they apply the term to accepting the Bible as an authority. I don't think they really get what makes it circular because they do the very same kind of reason in ruling out God arguemnts.



 Originally Posted by MarkUK View Post
Fine - we can't imagine the being that did the supernatural stuff as depicted in the Bible for a milisecond.


MEta
Of course it is - there can be no such thing as a reasoned doubt of the thing around which your entire worldview is based...


I can contract reasonable doubts that are not fallacious and I can also answer them. that's what you are upset about. you don't want answers the fact that there are some bothers you.

that's why your ideology has to privilege doubt. if you took it equal with faith faith would always win.
Originally Posted by MarkUK View Post
Fallacies are found in arguments, not doubts. Arguments have structure and moving parts; doubts don't
 MEta
 that's ridiculous. you just proved my point, in addition fallacious reasoning you are also into silly justifications.

you are trying to say that your rejection is based upon reasoning.that's ok with you.


let's look at what he said again:

 Fallacies are found in arguments, not doubts. Arguments have structure and moving parts; doubts don't


His privileging doubt is not a fallacy becuase it's not an argument so it's ok to use circular reasoning in that case.

just remember kids is ok to use poor logic as long as you are not arguing.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Response to Sandwalk and the Coutier's Reply.


Photobucket
Over a year ago I put up a comment on a blog called "Sandwalk," the subject: the so called "Courtier's Reply." This is the story otherwise known as "The Emperor's New Clothes." The story says a king was sold "invisible clothes" by some con men who had him parading around naked under the assumption that his clothes were invisible. Everyone was afraid to point it out, some actually conned themselves into believing that there really were invisible clothes. This story has long been used as a symbol of anything where the authorities are clearly in the wrong but everyone is afraid to say so. In the story of course one Little kids says "he's really naked" and everyone laughs becuase it's obvious even if he had invisible clothes you can still see his private parts. I recall some talking head using this as example of the Nixon administration in the latter days of Watergate. Be that as it may the atheists use it as a metaphor for what the think is going on with religion and bleief in God.

So I wrote an answer to this guy well over a year ago. For months I would check on it no response. The other day I noticed a huge amount of hits on this blog coming from that blog. So looking over there I see he finally got around to answering. Let's look at what he says. He has failed to answer my augments actually. He so called Courtier's Replay is just an excuse to remain ignorant. The major use they make of it is to in answer to the argument "you don't know theology." Atheists copy an essay written by one of their major talking heads who compares theology to tailoring. "you just don't know about invisible clothing" is what they think. Don't forget the only argument atheists have is argument form incredulity. Their reasoning can't be other than circular. They "there is no God so if I get something about theology wrong then it doesn't matter because it's all made up. The reason this is circular is becasue their assertions of disproof of God arguments and their assertions of the irrational nature of belief are based upon not understanding understanding theology. Then to say that doesn't matter becuase its made up anyway is just putting the conclusion before the premise. So the premise is based upon the conclusion that is literally the definition of circular reasoning.

They can only see the demand for theological acuity as a challenge to the intellectual. They are usually not cleaver enough to understand that their criticism are faulty because they don't really know what religion is about, becuase they refuse to learn. The so called Courtier's reply is nothing more than an excuse to be ignorant.


Atheists and theists often discuss the existence of God. Unfortunately, these discussions often degenerate into classic Christian apologetics where the main goal of the theist is to rationalize why his or her god doesn't conflict with rationality.


Here we have an extremely biased and self serving statement that in no way stacks up to what's really going on with religion. He defines reasons for belief as rationalization. Here we see again argument from incredulity, the only argument they ever make. It says "I refuse to believe, therefore, it cant' be true." That is nothing but circular reasoning again. The problem is worse than that ass he defines belief as a conflict with rationality but he can't possibly know that if he doesn't understand what belief is being discussed. Since he refuses to learn what religious belief is really about he has no way knowing if it's rational or not. Of course atheists do this because they can't cope with modern theology. If he actually read modern theology he would see that his views are antiquated and he really understand the modern version of liberal Christian thought.



Before long they are rambling on about how to resolve the problem of evil or why god doesn't reveal herself. These problems only exist once you've accepted the premise that there is a god/spirit. This sort of apologetics has nothing to do with the fundamental question of whether god exists in the first place.
Here we see circular reasoning at that again. These issues he brings up such as the problem of evil are impediments to belief. Removing is part of demonstrability of the faith. Of cousre only means of approaching the issue is the form of circular reasoning known as argument from incredulity. "we know there is no God, therefore, these proof of God must be wrong so we don't need to think about them." It winds up they don't understand any of the issues and they don't know believers believe and their trapped in big citation circle quoting their own bad reasoning and making stupid metaphors that don't really apply. He expects one to dump the concept of God a priori before he can deal with the issues as to why one would or would not believe. He's merely privileging his position with nothing to back it up then arguing in a circle. Atheists are also so bad at logic why don't they just give up?


PZ Myers invented the parable of The Courtier's Reply to describe this situation.1 Rather than address the burning question—is the Emperor wearing any clothes?—the believers will complain that you don't understand the latest fashion.
No, he stole it from Hans Christian Andersen and turned a fine metaphor into a rationalization for remaining ignorant. What really sticks in my craw is that he did not answer a single thing I said in that first address.

They are full of little pithy maxims to justify their ignorance: "you don't have learn about astrology to see that astrology is wrong." That would depend upon your criticism of it. In fact this pithy saying assumes you know what it is. If a, astrologer came along and said "I have developed my own updated system that doesn't assume the stars are controlling human destiny so I do all that signs and stuff, I have a new system that works entirely by scinece," and Sandwalk tried to answer it with the same assertion that astrology in the old sense is stupid and we don't need to know about it, his arguments would be totally wrong. Of course the pithy saying assuming you know how astrology works. If there was a loophole than changed what it said the pity saying would be misleading. Obviously if you criticize something you have to know what you are criticizing. That is sheer stupidity to deny that.

They say you can't have a serious discussion about the existence of god because you aren't versed in the sophisticated arguments of Christian apologetics. In other words, you have to be intimately familiar with all the ways of rationalizing superstitious belief in god before challenging the very existence of god.2

Just another version of the same ignorance, circular reasoning, assumes his world view has to be right, no argument for God could ever succeed so we don't need to read them or know about them we can just sweep all that away a priori because it has to be wrong, why? Well because it's us. It's not our deal so it must be wrong. Remember, if you can deny something constantly then it's wrong. "I refuse to believe therefore it must be wrong." Circular reasoning is the ultimate atheist weapon.

How do you know it's only rationalizing if you don't' know what it says?


Now he starts in on the personal insults against me. I disagree with his world view I must be stupiud and I must lying bout my education yada yada yada.

It's amazing how few theists get the point. The latest person to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of simple logic is Joe Hinman at Atheistwatch. Hinman has a Master's degree in Theology and he is currently studying for a Ph.D. in the history if ideas. He exposes himself by complaining about Anti-Intellectual Tendencies in Atheism.
So What this courtier's reply is saying is that if the skeptic says stupid things about theology and demonstrates that he knows nothing about it and the theist says "O your criticism is invalid because you don't understand what you are criticizing" then all the atheist has to do is say "that's the courtiers reply" and the theist is supposed to go "O my God, I've violated a law of logic!" and give up and stop believing in God. But in realty it's into a log of logic, I never heard it in a logic class.It's not in a logic text book, and the meaning of it is silly. I'ts just saying 'You can't point out my ignorance of theology because I will not allow theology to have any kind of validity or importance and religious people may not not any sort of human dignity." That's all it's saying. It's nothing more than anti-intellectual stupidity.

...

This anti-intellectual tendency is not confined to this one tactic. The new tactick, which I have noticed for a few years now, is to deny any sort of discipline of scholarship that has developed within the theological community. So any self defense that a believer could make is automatically suspect and wrong merely becasue it is theological. But then one wonders how the skeptics knowledge that theology is all bull shit could ever have developed in the first place? When we consider the history of Biblical scholarship it becomes clear that the atheists are merely arguing in a circle.

The history of scholarship shows us that it was not invented in answer to pressing atheist attacks on the bible.
Bingo! Christian apologetics was developed by people who believe in god. They needed to explain why their beliefs seem inconsistent with the real world. Many of these rationalizations are extremely "sophisticated" as you might expect since the problem is difficult.

In other words. It's against my world view so it must be wrong. After all, what is his actual argument? The only argument he makes in that paragraph is "Christian apologetic is done by people who bleieve in God so it must be wrong because I don't' believe in God, since I don't' believe it must be wrong."

It really baffles me how imbecilic they are not to understand why you have to know what you are criticizing. This is like tea party stupid. It's Palin stupid. "I don't have to know what it says I kown'd it be wrong, uncle Jed, cause it's proving what I say is untrue so it must be false."

He alleged that I didn't get the logic of their childish gimmick, where do I fail on that? He doesn't actually illustrate it I guess he assuming if I don't' agree with him then I wasn't convinced so I must fail. They really talk like just making claim is the proof of the claim. Because they can say "there is no God" then there's no God. How could any movement survive based upon such stupidity?

I have demonstrated more than total understanding of the logic because I have actually analyzed their rationalizations and circular reasoning.


I don't give a damn about those rationalizations no matter how many books have been written. Atheists don't have a problem with evil or sin or life after death or the resurrection. It's only theists who have a problem.

What does this mean? The so called "rationalizations" are proof, arguments, evidence and reasons for bleief. So what he's saying is "I don't care about the facts, or don't care what the proof show, I don't ar what truth is...I refuse to believe therefore it must be false." Then asserting atheists don't have a problem with evil is the height of stupidity. For a group of people are their hyper sensitive to being thought amoral and unable to come up with a reason to be good, for people who do so much gum flapping about how they can be moral without God to then come out say "we don't have a problem with evil," has to be sheer stupidity.


If Joe Hinman wants to explain why he is a theist then I'd be happy to discuss that topic. What's his best evidence for the existence of a spiritual world?

What would be the point? He's already said he doesn't care what I have to say and any argument I make would just be rationalization to him so what's the difference? I would like to debate him 1x1 just to demonstrate how inept he is at dealing with God arguments. If he will agree to a debate with rules I will debate him. I don't see any reason to try and discuss anything with someone who just admitted he doesn't plan on listening.


If anything proves atheism is a brain washing cult, an ideology, a hate group, surely it's their own  words. These guys are totally sold out to their own ideology they don't care what is true or not. Thank God they are not all like that. I don't think our friend Hermit would be that way.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Grog on CARM finds a study that supports my work

 Grong found a study that backs the Francis stuff on atheist and low esteem.

Papasazis, G., et al. (2014). Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Self-esteem, Anxiety, and Depression Among Nursing Students. Nursing & Health Sciences Jun2014, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p232-238

Research of the role of religious belief and/or spirituality has been conducted on a wide range of health-related topics, across many disciplines, and in many countries. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between religious beliefs, self-esteem, anxiety, and depression in nursing students in Cyprus. One hundred and twenty-three nursing students were asked to complete a survey consisting of four self-report questionnaires ( Beck Depression Inventory, State- Trait Anxiety Inventory, The Royal Free Interview for Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, and Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale). The lowest levels of depression were observed in the third and fourth study year. Normal self-esteem levels were found in the majority of the students (71.3%) and most of them perceived current stress at mild levels. No significant differences on the basis of sex were observed. The vast majority (98.2%) of the students stated a strong religious and/or a spiritual belief that was strongly positively correlated with increased self-esteem and negatively correlated with depression, current stress, and stress as personality trait. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]



This article does not appear to be available electronically so you would have to go to a university library to retrieve it. It clearly does seem to support Metacrock's contention. It is important to point out that it appears to be a correlational study and a positive correlation does not establish a causal relationship. It could be that people with strong religious or spiritual beliefs are involved in supporting communities of like-minded people and thus have their emotional needs met. I think the same correlation could be found in people participating in athletic groups, bowling clubs, etc. In other words, this study does not find that religious belief causes high self-esteem, just that there is a correlation.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Atheists are Willing to Discord Logic but Still Want to be in Charge of Logic.

 In an original thread on CARM Royce argues that God arguments such as those by William Lane Craig are based upon a special notion of "top down reasoning" that privileges belief in God.

 Scott Clifton notes that William Lane Craig engages in top-down reasoning to defend Craig's Kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence, especially this premise:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Craig's preferred, pre-determined theological position commits him to saying that God caused the universe to exist from nothing. So, as per top-down reasoning, Craig tries to defend that claim at all costs. This involves him cherry-picking evidence from experience, ignoring more plausible alternatives, engaging in special pleading, etc. In contrast, Scott shows what would happen if one took a bottom-up approach to the topic, with disastrous results for Craig's argument:

The aforementioned points about top-down reasoning apply not only to Craig's cosmological argument, but other's theistic arguments as well. Many theists (especially apologists) remain committed to pre-determined theological doctrines that they'll defend no matter what implausible nonsense that commits them to. For example:
  • to defend a design argument: claim macroevolution is not evolution at or above the species-level, no matter how many times their told it is
  • to defend a moral argument: claim that an appeal to divine commands / divine say-so is not a version of moral subjectivism, no matter how much evidence one is given to the contrary
  • to defend the Bible: claim that genocide, killing children, etc. would be morally permissible just because God said so

This tendency towards top-down reasoning to defend a pre-determined religious conclusion may result from a link between religiosity and close-mindedness / dogmatism:...

 Scott Clifton is not a big name philosopher btw he's just an atheist posting his opinion on U tube. I argue that all the things Royce actually sites as problems concerning God arguments in that thread are not connected to top down reasoning but are merely the result of creationism and other mistakes by believers. They are not flaws in logic mos of them are empirical in nature, wrong though they may be. When it comes to actual top down reasoning there is no principle here at work. Its' not more than a gimmick on Royce's part. It's trying to claim that God arguments use some sort of wired logic when push come to shove I show that it's no different than any other form of classical Aristotelian logic where premises mandates conclusions and there's a law of non contradiction.[1]

In my thread [2] I deamnd that Royce and his gang tell me the principle that makes top down reasoning of some special kind in God arguments no good, but allows them to keep top down reasoning in terms of privileging their position and upholding the law of non contradiction and upholding the notion that premises mandiate conslusion and that premises must not rest of their conclusions. In 40 posts he never says it. I ask for it over and over and he reapts the same stuff over and over.


Meta:

 O look, he failed to name a Principe again. he can't tell me why I'm in error.

why can't he do that?

there is no difference, see? get it. there is no difference. the top down stuff I talk about is what he meant. he can't say.
 Royce:

It might be humorous to see how long you can go on pretending not to have told what top-down reasoning is, even after you're repeatedly told what it is. I'll start the count at least 7 times. Just how long can the denialism go?



All of this is nothing but a sad attempt on your part to move the goalpost. You want "a single principle that sums it up" to cover for the fact that you repeatedly made mistakes on what top-down reasoning was, even as multiple people explained your error to you.

You've been told what top-down reasoning is, Metacrock. Other people have understood the point rather well. So you can stop pretending you haven't been told. It's tedious dealing with your nonsense habit of pretending you haven't been told stuff when it's convenient for you.

Meta
same thing he said above word for word. here's the big special amazing stuff he said in the op that demarkats his top down.

look here guys: here's what he says about it in that op in the toher thread:

Royce:
 It might be humorous to see how long you can go on pretending not to have told what top-down reasoning is, even after you're repeatedly told what it is. Now at at least 9 times. Just how long can the denialism go?



All of this is nothing but a sad attempt on your part to move the goalpost. You want "a single principle that sums it up" to cover for the fact that you repeatedly made mistakes on what top-down reasoning was, even as multiple people explained your error to you.

You've been told what top-down reasoning is, Metacrock. Other people have understood the point rather well. So you can stop pretending you haven't been told. It's tedious dealing with your nonsense habit of pretending you haven't been told stuff when it's convenient for you.

 He keeps doing that all the way down and never did actually name a principle.

Meta; 

you don't have a concept. it's a con job. if you had one you would say what it is. you aer mystifying your opinions becuase you have nothing to back them up.

I showed from the op of the original thread that every single thing he says about Top down applies to my arguments. meaning, all my attacks apply.

you don't understand. you guys ought to start an EST group
Royce:
Originally Posted by Royce View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Royce View Post
Sometimes people make up false claims in order to support their pet position. To put it another way, they engage in top-down reasoning [or motivated reasoning]: since they want to defend their pet position at all costs, they'll say virtually anything in it's defense, no matter how implausible. This contrasts with bottom-up reasoning, where one tries to reach the most plausible conclusions from the evidence one has, without a bias towards defending a position.

Scott Clifton notes that William Lane Craig engages in top-down reasoning to defend Craig's Kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence, especially this premise:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Craig's preferred, pre-determined theological position commits him to saying that God caused the universe to exist from nothing. So, as per top-down reasoning, Craig tries to defend that claim at all costs. This involves him cherry-picking evidence from experience, ignoring more plausible alternatives, engaging in special pleading, etc. In contrast, Scott shows what would happen if one took a bottom-up approach to the topic, with disastrous results for Craig's argument:
There seems to be some confusion amongst some theists on this thread (though, unsurprisingly, not amongst the atheists ) on what top-down reasoning is. For further clarification, see the first video above from 7:00 to 7:30, 11:50 to 13:08, and 22:48 to 24:59.
 What he's not admitting here is that in the OP I did show why this is inadequate and never said a thing about it. It's clear that he had no principle. It was only wen I started doing it back to him he starting saying different things but he never gave me a principle.

then this other guy comes in who has his own idea of what top down means, based upon some movement in mathetmatics.There's nothing to link to Royce's idea. no indication that they are talking about the same thing.

 Originally Posted by Corvidal View Post
So "no", then. You just guessed what I meant by "constructivist", ignoring my link, and the context of dismissing a law of classical logic.

Compounded Fail.
you are exhibiting the same tendencies you want to deny in God arguments. You have a top down mentality to protect certain assumptions about things and make them responsible for governing all else.

you open the door to unraveling all logic when you make top down the principle to destroy.

 Originally Posted by Corvidal View Post
I do? Tell me more!

Is this still about what I said with regards to mathematical constructivism and the law of excluded-middle, because I can't see any connection.

I thought I was just trying to disabuse people of the notion that logic is grounded in three laws attributed to Aristotle, because it's nonsense, and modern logic has come a billion miles from his wimpy syllogisms, whilst also suggesting that people who haven't studied formal logic should be careful when they declare some principle or other to be a logical axiom, as has happened with Craig's premise in the Kalam. But you seem to have peered deeper into parts of my soul that I was unaware of (or gone completely off-topic and started spouting nonsense based on not being able to read very well) and have seen that I am actually trying to destroy the principle of "top-down."

Again, tell me more!
what did you do in that entrie post but say "that's up and this is down." A is on top and B is less important. A is necessary and B is contentent upon A.

then you want to asset that there's one type of top down we can dispense with (just happens t be necessary in God arguments) the other kinds we can keep.Yet to be able to say the principle that makes that possible you have to use top down thinknig.

I'm waiting for you to show me how to do it. can mysticism, I know you think mathematical gives yu special powers but show me how it's done.

to quote my friend fleetmouse you are merely pouring ought sauce on your predilections.






[1]  see y own thread in answer to his, "atheist double talk on top down reasoning,"
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?197089-atheist-doulbe-talk-on-top-down-reasoning

[2] Ibid

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Stupid atheist trick of the week: I wont respond to what you say I know I'm right.

Originally Posted by America View Post
Arguments are top-down; logic is not.
wrong. of cousre it is. any binary opposition is top down. any argument that says there's a premise that determines it's conclusion is top down.
Meta:
that in itself is the height to stupidity. argument are top down and logic is not. why would that be? that's just becuase he doesn't understand what arguments are. the thing that makes arguments top down is logic. because premise necessitates a conclusion. that's top down.


America:

You don't even understand the subject you're ranting about...
Meta:

wrong. I studied it in Graduate school for four years. you can't study Derrida without studying that. that's at the heart of deconstruction.

you don't know what you are talking about and that's why you think I don't. because you don't know what Derrida is about.



America

ps. Go ahead and respond, I wont be reading it. Your disruptive and largely off-the-mark comments are par for the course. 
Meta
O brother that more anything says you know you can't beat my arguments.

don't confuse me with the facts. I know I'm right.