Your perspective is a common one, but I'll try to explain the atheist perspective. Saying we only believe science and reason isn't true for all atheists, but even if it was, it encompasses more than you think.It is a common perspective because it makes a lot of sense. I know there is no one atheist position but you see variations of this same theme over and over and they generally don't appreciate the difficulties it has.
Science is a way of explaining the natural world, so atheists simply deny the supernatural and think everything is understandable even if we haven't yet understood it. Make sense?It does make sense. It just says a lot about the nature of the thing in question. If you say love is completely understandable as a physical phenomenon then you are saying it is only a chemical thing. That love songs completely miss the true nature of love. One person's brain chemistry has been effected by interacting with another person. Sure that is part of it, but is it the whole thing?
Other people say love is the greatest human good. That true love is something we should devote our lives to. It is something we should be willing to die for. Which of these ideas are true can be debated. What cannot be debated is that they are different ideas. That to hold them both is inconsistent. The fact is many atheists do hold both or at least act like they do. They say everything is reducible to science but they believe, not based on science, that only this woman can make them happy. So that is all I am trying to point out.
I'll take issue with your points specifically. In number 1, you say that you can't prove truth. That may be true in a philosophical sense, but we can determine what is consistent with our shared perceptions of reality. That is closer to proven truth than any religion provides.I don't think I was saying that. I was not talking about how we get to know truth. I was talking about the virtue of loving the truth. Many atheists have this virtue. Not everyone does. There are a lot of liberal Christians who play games with truth. They use unclear language to finesse around contradictions. Atheists typically don't do that. This is good. But is the reason they don't do it based on science or is it prior to science? If it is prior to science then you have violated your creed.
Point 2, I agree that it is subjective. Someone's importance is only relative to an individual or group.I am not saying all atheists will have all these beliefs. What I am saying is many have at least one. If they do then they don't really beleive all truth is accessible through science. I do think your last sentence has huge moral implications that you don't appreciate.
Point 3, 4 & 9 deal with morality, which to me is just what is more beneficial or harmful to an individual or society. I am outraged far less than most, but in cases of loss of life, I am saddened by the waste of it all and want justice just so that it is less likely to happen again. I see this as completely rational, don't you?It is rational but it is not scientific. You cannot do experiments that tell you about justice. It is a common mistake for atheists to assume any talk about religion or morals or metaphysics is inherently irrational. Some religions say that. Catholicism does not. It say not all truth is scientific but all truth obeys the laws of logic and reason.
I don't think my life has meaning of its own right, but I want to create meaning in part to give me something to do, earn esteem from those around me and be remembered, pretty rational, right?Not really. If your life has no inherent meaning then other people's lives would be inherently meaningless as well. So how do you create meaning by having meaningless lives interact? Earning esteem from meaningless people? Being remember by meaningless people?
I thank those who help me, because I'm social and want to maintain relationships.
How is appreciating our time is limited not rational?Again, not everyone will see themselves in all the points. That is why they all begin with the word "if." I think many atheists cease to act like atheists around art or around death. The point is the atheist creed is almost impossible to live. It does not mean it is false. It just means the human mind operates in terms of the transcendent even when they have accepted as fact that it does not exist.
It is kinda brain chemistry, and therefore explainable. Also, we are social creatures and it's harder to go through life alone.
I'm never really overwhelmed....but I do prefer some music, movies and the female form. There are studies about how we form preferences, so....science.
That leaves the atheist with two options. Either accept that the human mind senses something real and that there really is something there and materialist atheism is false. The other choice is to distrust the human mind. Again you are going down a path that seems simple but has huge consequences. If you can't trust your own mind then how can you know anything? But that is a whole other can of worms.
"That leaves the atheist with two options."
ReplyDeleteWell, no. That leaves your false dichotomy, I'm afraid.
You could actually say why you think that. Just saying it does not make it so. You can deny the human mind tends towards the transcendent. The data is against you but you can deny it. Not sure how else to avoid this dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteThanks for addressing my issues so prominently. As you might imagine, not many atheists get such treatment on theist blogs.
ReplyDeleteYou said "It is a common perspective because it makes a lot of sense." I want to comment on this real quick. Just because something is a common perspective or makes a lot of sense doesn't mean it's right. The world being flat was a common perspective back in the day, and for the time it made a lot of sense. Conservatism and liberalism are both common perspectives and make sense in their own ways, but they obviously can't both be right.
Now, to addressing your addressing. ;-)
You seem to accept that some of your points don't apply to everyone, yet if just one point applies to every atheist then they are inconsistent. Before I get into detail about how I disagree with any points, I want to know which you claim are universal. If none are, then I'd argue that this is a strawman argument.
Thanks for addressing my issues so prominently. As you might imagine, not many atheists get such treatment on theist blogs.
ReplyDeleteNo problem. I like to interact with anyone who can do so intelligently and charitably. Thanks for stopping by.
When you said, "Your perspective is a common one" I took that as a dig. That I was making a tired objection and should not be taken that seriously. To some extent that is true. Still I think many atheists duck this issue and are able to duck it because it is complex and perhaps it has never been communicated to them in its full strength. My post was an attempt to do that.
I want to know which you claim are universal. If none are, then I'd argue that this is a strawman argument.
I don't agree at all. The point is not that every atheist falls down on the same point. It is that almost all fall down on some point. That what we call atheism today is more a Christianity/atheism hybrid. That people have a hard time embracing full materialist atheism. They tend to sneak in some "oughts" because the human mind naturally drifts towards them.
The fact that different atheists will sneak in different "ought" type beliefs in different ways does not matter. The point is there is something inhuman about strict scientific materialism. If it was true that would be strange. Why would our minds find it hard to grasp the truth? We might find it hard to live it but should there not be a beauty to the truth that would attract us? I know, that is an "ought" statement. I am human too. That is the point. If the human mind constantly thinks in term of what should be and the truth has nothing to say about what should be then the human mind is a poor instrument.
So none of your claims must apply, glad we cleared that up. This makes your last paragraph a false dichotomy, by the way, the other commented was correct.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean by “ought” beliefs outside the scope of morality. I can see feeling that ideals like equality ought to be more prevalent even when their not, but we can come to this rationally. By not having equality, the door is open for prejudice against yourself and your loved ones, so it stands to reason that we shouldn’t foster prejudice against strangers. If anything, reason informs morals better than religion. I’d cite biblically approved prejudices against gays, women and minorities.
Speaking of protecting loved ones, you mentioned this was a hallmark of human nature that makes atheism inconsistent. I don’t understand how you can believe this. This isn’t even unique to humans. Most animals protect their family unit and sometimes the community at large. Some sacrifice their lives for their offspring. I can even reference examples of animal morality, especially between primates. Does this mean you think animals also believe in God and go to heaven?
I’m also really confused when you say that “love for the truth” is somehow a trancendent trait many atheists share. I are saying that curiosity requires the divine? That accepting reality as we find it is irrational? I need some clarity here.
So none of your claims must apply, glad we cleared that up. This makes your last paragraph a false dichotomy, by the way, the other commented was correct.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the logic of that at all. If all human minds are not consistently defective in the same way then they are not defective? Or in all human minds are not perceptive in the same way then they are not perceptive? Most, if not all, humans think in terms of transcendence even when their creed denies the transcendent. So either the human mind is wrong or the creed is wrong. Why is that a false dichotomy?
Not sure what you mean by “ought” beliefs outside the scope of morality. I can see feeling that ideals like equality ought to be more prevalent even when their not, but we can come to this rationally. By not having equality, the door is open for prejudice against yourself and your loved ones, so it stands to reason that we shouldn’t foster prejudice against strangers.
A prejudice-free environment might be in my best interest. Then again it might not be. You are conflating moral reasons with pragmatic ones. Do I oppose prejudice because it is better for me or because it is the right thing to do? If it is the ladder reason it would be a moral reason but on what basis do I believe it is the right thing to do? I have imported an "ought" from somewhere. I have become an inconsistent atheist.
If anything, reason informs morals better than religion. I’d cite biblically approved prejudices against gays, women and minorities.
The bible can be read prejudicially. That is why bible-alone Christianity is inadequate. But does reason tell us the proper roles for women and men in society or what sexual acts are moral or immoral? I would say silence has been interpreted as a green light for anything. But really silence means we don't have a clue. So consistent atheists should say we have no idea whether gay sex is moral or immoral. We just don't have the philosophical framework or categories to even address the question.
Speaking of protecting loved ones, you mentioned this was a hallmark of human nature that makes atheism inconsistent. I don’t understand how you can believe this. This isn’t even unique to humans. Most animals protect their family unit and sometimes the community at large. Some sacrifice their lives for their offspring. I can even reference examples of animal morality, especially between primates. Does this mean you think animals also believe in God and go to heaven?
Humans are rational animals. So they can follow their instincts or they can go against their instincts when their reason tells them it is beneficial to do so. Morals tell humans how much weight to give to those instincts. Reason alone would give them zero weight. Like I said, that is inhuman. Still it is where reason alone leads.
I’m also really confused when you say that “love for the truth” is somehow a trancendent trait many atheists share. I are saying that curiosity requires the divine? That accepting reality as we find it is irrational? I need some clarity here.
Why should we love truth? Why not just accept what people tell you and be happy? It would be easier. I think loving truth is a virtue. Atheists will pursue truth even against their own interests. Because it is the right thing to do. But where do they get the notion that it is the right thing. It comes from religion.
I must apologize for the spelling and grammer errors in my last post. I've been drunk on DayQuil all week and commenting from my phone. :-)
ReplyDeleteThe dichotomy as stated was "either accept that the human mind senses something real and that there really is something there and materialist atheism is false. The other choice is to distrust the human mind." If none of your points necessarily apply, then a human mind you can trust that doesn't sense any of your points is also possible. Hence the dichotomy is false.
I'm saying that if there a reason for the "right" moral choice than it is also a pragmatic moral choice. To this atheist, every moral choice has a reason that informs it. If you can explain why a given moral choice is the right one (other than simply citing the bible) then the same applies to you. I hope it does.
"So consistent atheists should say we have no idea whether gay sex is moral or immoral. We just don't have the philosophical framework or categories to even address the question." I agree with the second part. Gay sex isn't a moral choice at all--it's not right or wrong. As an act between consenting adults, it's neutral. Like going to a movie or taking a road trip...or something.
You kinda glazed over my point about animals. Do you think dogs or monkeys face your dichotomy as well? If not, why? We may not know what goes on in their heads, but their actions portray many of the same "transcendent" thoughts you brought up.
I can only speak for myself, but I seek the truth because it betters myself and allows me to contribute to society. Better understanding the world around us has lead to the technology that sustains the world's current population. It makes everyone's life easier and more enriched. That's plenty reason for me.
I must apologize for the spelling and grammer errors in my last post. I've been drunk on DayQuil all week and commenting from my phone. :-)
ReplyDeleteNo worries. Glad to have you in whatever state. I hope you are well soon.
The dichotomy as stated was "either accept that the human mind senses something real and that there really is something there and materialist atheism is false. The other choice is to distrust the human mind." If none of your points necessarily apply, then a human mind you can trust that doesn't sense any of your points is also possible. Hence the dichotomy is false.
There is logical impossibility and practical impossibility. The human mind just does not seem wired for materialism. It wants the eternal. It want the significant. It wants the good. It wants love. It wants beauty and on and on. Materialism comes along and says all of those impulses are defects and don't correspond to any reality.
So you want to hang your hat on the idea that some strange human somewhere might have a mind that is cold and humourless and faithless and heartless. So much so that he might actually be able to be a materialist. If such a person existed how much would that matter?
I'm saying that if there a reason for the "right" moral choice than it is also a pragmatic moral choice. To this atheist, every moral choice has a reason that informs it. If you can explain why a given moral choice is the right one (other than simply citing the bible) then the same applies to you. I hope it does.
I can give reasons for moral choices. They are not always material reasons. They would have to do with the intent of things.
If I am limited to material, pragmatic choices then I would say that is not morality at all. Maximizing your personal material outcome is not being moral. In fact, whether morality matters can be measured in how radically you depart from the pragmatic, material strategy.
I agree with the second part. Gay sex isn't a moral choice at all--it's not right or wrong. As an act between consenting adults, it's neutral. Like going to a movie or taking a road trip...or something.
This is not what I was saying. It is a common atheist logic error. Not having moral information does not mean there is no moral information. It is like saying everything is legal because I didn't go to law school. It just does not follow. Atheism cannot conclude anything about morality. It can't turn the lights on so it assumes the room is empty.
You kinda glazed over my point about animals. Do you think dogs or monkeys face your dichotomy as well? If not, why? We may not know what goes on in their heads, but their actions portray many of the same "transcendent" thoughts you brought up.
You think so? I don't. They do not make the same kind of choices people make. If human minds were like those of dogs and monkeys then religion would not exist. Neither would science. Science requires religion.
I can only speak for myself, but I seek the truth because it betters myself and allows me to contribute to society. Better understanding the world around us has lead to the technology that sustains the world's current population. It makes everyone's life easier and more enriched. That's plenty reason for me.
What does "betters myself" mean? It sounds like smuggling in an "ought" to me! Why do we care about technology? Why do we care about the world's population? You have some notion that the human person was meant to discover and progress and improve. But there is no experiment that tells you that humans should do this. You know it some other way.
“The human mind just does not seem wired for materialism. It wants the eternal. It want the significant. It wants the good. It wants love. It wants beauty and on and on.”
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you are projecting your feelings to everyone else. “It” doesn’t want. “You” want. I’m asking you to try and see things from another perspective.
“So you want to hang your hat on the idea that some strange human somewhere might have a mind that is cold and humourless and faithless and heartless.”
No, I’m trying to explain how a materialist doesn’t need to be cold, humorless and heartless. Faithless, maybe, but that’s a feature in my mind, not a bug.
It’s clear we don’t agree on the issues of (and possibly the definition of) morality. If you want to learn my stance and engage me further on this, I’ve dedicated a dozen posts to morality on my blog DeityShmeity.com.
“Not having moral information does not mean there is no moral information.”
Where do you get your moral information?
“You think so? I don't. They do not make the same kind of choices people make. If human minds were like those of dogs and monkeys then religion would not exist. Neither would science. Science requires religion.”
I think some animals demonstrate morality, loyalty and love, their actions inform this opinion. What informs yours?
“What does "betters myself" mean? It sounds like smuggling in an "ought" to me! Why do we care about technology? Why do we care about the world's population? You have some notion that the human person was meant to discover and progress and improve. But there is no experiment that tells you that humans should do this. You know it some other way. “
“Betters myself” means educating myself so I may propagate useful ideas, be social, and contribute to society. Why would I need belief in God to find value in the truth? What’s the alternative? Speading falsehoods? We would go back to being hunter/gathers in a couple generations.
Great read thank yoou
ReplyDelete