- rinolandFeb 19th, 20127:10 AM20
Related Posts
- Your Bizzzare Rant To &Quot;L&Quot;
- &Quot;A&Quot; Queen
- Did Anyone See &Quot;Single White...
- Lets Say &Quot;I Don't&Quot;
- Tim Can You Remove The &Quot;Rants...
- No, There Is No &Quot;Maybe Not This...
- Someone Said They Enjoyed My...
- You Seem To Be Really Worried That
- A Better Way To Live
- The Wooden Bowl (I Guarantee You Will...
To &Quot;Jaytheatheist&Quot;
The logical self-defeating nature of atheism.
Make your argument but as I indicated before, your argument will be rejected out of scope if your 'logic' relies on superstition.
-J
Let's define our terms.
In your own words, how do YOU define atheism?
Atheism is the non-belief in any gods. By Gods I would mean the personal type that dominant the human experience and rule over their affairs.
-J
Am I understanding you correctly?
My definition is clear. Please make your case. I did not come here to debate words.
You made the claim. Defend it or retract it.
-J
I'm not engaging in any superstition.I'm merely suggesting that we define our terms.If you are unwilling to even go that far then it's a sure indicator to me that you are dogmatically predisposed (faith based) in your worldview.
I'm sure you find your definition to be clear to you.The obvious problem is that the vast majority of people equate atheism with a rejection of God's existence.
Folks like you claim to have all logic and reason.Well, step up.Explain to all of us what the difference is between a person who lacks belief in God and a person who believes that God does not exist.
Put up or shut up.
Let's cut to the chase shall we? When Theist normally make the absurd claim that Atheism is self defeating, they almost always roll out the Ontological Argument of Anselm or some one off variation.
The problem is that many counter arguments (some amazingly by Theist themselves) effectively counter it (granted: not disprove it). This at best creates a 'tie' so to speak where neither side can move the argument further. Such is the case in most of philosophy.
However, since it is a tie, at no time can a "valid" claim be made that Atheism is "logically" self defeating as you can not falsify the logic that is against your argument or you can not fully prove certain assumptions made in favor of yours. Based on your opening statement. You loose before you begin.
Your fail was using a absolute statement that Atheists were at face value wrong rather then just saying that an Atheist can not prove the non-existence of God. (Which by the way I agree with which makes the discussion even more ludicrous).
It is precisely why I threw the word "personal" into my definition of god as that completely derails the Ontological Argument as the argument moves from God to god. You sensed this which is why your latest reply was peppered with a hint of irritation.
Rookie.
-J
You were the first one to express "irritation."I'm just returning the sort ofstuff you're dishing out.
Being that you've basically admitted that atheism is self-defeating I would suggest that you change both your attitude and your moniker.
Perhaps something like "jaytheagnostic."
Being unable or unwilling to make a defense of one's own worldview is a sure sign of insecurity.
It really has nothing to do with defending my world view as much as it is descending into the same trite and predictable conversations that I have had ad-nauseum with scores before your comment. The argument is not new and is well defined.
BTW, It is perfectly acceptable for an Atheist to concede they can not 'prove' the non existence of God. Most who have back grounds in science understand what 'proof' means. While this may seem to invalidate the term Atheist in favor of Agnostic, the key term is the word 'prove'. While I can not prove God does not exist (nor should I), I feel confident that the concept of God is little more then human frailty and is closer to delusion then anything else.
An Agnostic more or less believes the existence of God is a crap shoot though they generally do reject concepts of 'personal' gods.
-J
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
Anyway in regards to my own beliefs I guess the best way to put it is, I still go out on my back deck periodically at night, usually after a bad day, and with fist raised I still look to the heavens (or sky leaving religous referances out of it) and scream, "You don't know shit!"Until someone or something screams back, "Watch your mouth little man" I'll probably stick to what I know of the world.
My question to you J though is...Do you think the world is a better place to live because of religion?I to a degree believe religion evolved from mans effort to save man, to set boundries over what's right and wrong.I'm thinking the 10 commandments are a perfect example.I know there have been numerous wars over religion and many have died due to opposing religious beliefs but I still believe the world is a better place because of religion or atleast religous beliefs.
So forgetting what you believe in regards to god or no god, has religion been a good thing or bad?Would the world be a better place now if religion had never existed?
Always a pleasure. Yours is a thought provoking question.
Contrary to outward appearances, I generally think that religion has its place in the world. At it's simplest, anything that provides comfort is a valued asset in life.
One level deeper, if faith helps someone to be a better person towards their fellow being then such should be extended courtesy as being a valued part of life as well as society.
Clearly, as a personal attribute, religion works. Unfortunately, religion seldom scales to societal needs.
It is usedagainst people who do not subscribe to the dogma. Consider the bigotry exhibited against homosexuals. How dare faith judge how people love and who they can marry. The faithful don't own the concept of marriage.
It is used instead of critical thinking. There is a wealth of evidence for evolution yet faith based factions continually attempt to weaken the educational system by inserting creationism into the schools. This is akin to teaching "stork theory" in place of obstetrics. It's just so 'effing silly.
It is used to challenge our very form of Government. Consider the latest polls where Santorum leads Romney. Regardless on how you feel about the Republicans, Santorum **only** leads because he is pandering to faith. Democracy should be about the needs of the people - not the needs of the Christians. I can think of no more of a threat to Democracy then its people voting for a candidate based primarily on his/her faith.
While I have used modern examples, the modus operandi has been the same over time with equally problematic (and sometimes worse) results for those who differ.
Secondly, the assumption that religion offers morality is largely incorrect. Things like the "Golden Rule" exist outside of religion and seem to be embedded not only in our species but in other species as well. Much research is being done in the field and several studies point to morality being inherent in (as young as) 18 month old babies. In truth, it is religion that creates immoral behavior as it violates, quite plainly, the Golden Rule by pushing it's dogma as a criteria.
While I can appreciate your thoughts on the roll of religion in saving man, my own thoughts roughly equate to we would save more without religion as our species, freed from the dogma, would likely be a much more hospitable one.
Whew.
The short answer is, religion is fine as long as its adherents practice it in private, come to terms that they are not privileged in a Democracy and conduct themselves by the rules of an open society (rather then a Christian society) in public.
And if they don't, well, I might have a vocal thought on why they would think that invisible wizards in they sky who sanction and promote slavery, rape and infanticide are worthy of worship...(smirk)
-J
The only logical conclusion is that everything is by chance.
The man who died today because his tire on his car blew out died only because he was in the car and had shitty tires. God did not arrange it or plan it.
I hadn't considered your point about people using religion against people that don't subscribe to the dogma.That is a problem with over zealous religious views.The reference to gay marriages was an excellent example. I even got a bit of a chuckle from it due to it made me wonder if an hour after Jesus told his disciples, "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you," if he didn't chastise himself saying, "Damn, I forgot to say, except for those gay people, their a completely differant story!"
I also agree with you in regards to religion being a good thing because of the solace it gives people.My wife is as devoted a "Christian" as you will ever find.She shows it every day by the way she lives.She's definately an inspiration to me!I have an older son who is currently in Mexico doing mission work and "spreading the word."I am SO PROUD of him and his devotion to his beliefs.I know personally how much peace and comfort their faith gives them.It would kill me if I or anyone for that matter were to take this away from them.I just can't get myself to grasp this concept of faith as they do no matter how hard I try.so while my son and I have had debates on the topic we both agree just to live and let live.
So to get back on point I see faith or religion as just something man created to set boundaries and ease his fear of death.About the only disagreement I have with your comments is the concept of morality being inherent.I disagree with this for a couple reasons.One, by definition this implies that morality is something you're born with. That it's a given, we all have it in us and I just don't see that panning out.I see morality more as being a learned response.An example would be how differant practices are accepted differantly in differant cultures.If morality was inherent, wouldn't we all have the same morality imbedded in us?Secondly, I believe mans only instinct is simply survival.we thrive to survive. Morality can cause conflict with this.I think back to the time when the first caveman picked up a rock to kill another in order to steal his food so he may eat and not starve. While I'm sure my logic is flawed, if morality was inherent this scenerio would never happen.Here brother, lets share this so we both may live, would be the ending most likely to result.
No, I think morality is learned.It comes from mans wising up and realizing if boundaries don't exist then we'll literally end up in a world of hurt. I also think that the evolution of religion (Wow! I combined evolution and religion) helped set and sustain those boundaries.So while religion has its flaws, I believe if religion hadn't come about the world would be a much worse place to live in due to that fact.
Again J thanks for your thought provoking comments and you'll have to excuse me....there's someone at my back porch I need to go scream at!
Indeed. It always puzzles me how some of faith can so easily dismiss other of God's creations based only on a book that doesn't always agree with itself. I would think that the concept of a kind and loving God would be the dominant characteristic to worship. I suppose that is why I favor the Eastern philosophies as they seem to abide by the ultimate moral litmus test - "The Golden Rule". (another way of saying "Live and Let Live"
I didn't mean to come across and so absolute in that we are born with our morality. To be sure, morality is certainly learned. One only needs to consider the differences in cultures to see this in action.
I was pained the other day in watching a video of a Muslim girl, no more than 3 years old espousing hatred towards Jews. As shocking as it was, it needs to be acknowledged that it is the accepted morality of the culture that drove that behavior. To be sure, morality is very much indoctrinated into us culturally.
What I meant to convey was that life will find a way (shameless stolen from Jurassic Park). Your example of a caveman acting on survival instincts is fair enough but consider what would happen if 3 cavemen banded together and agreed to share resources including standing watch to prevent the rogue one from coming in and stealing food. Life would favor the those who cooperated rather then the lonewolves. It seems a constant even in the present - "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". So true. So true.
In many respects, this is where we converge as I can easily see that religion is what allows people to band together. Perhaps early on, this was a facilitator; especially if one considers how much of the practical world was then unknown (to your point of boundaries, fear and death). I also believe that our species was significantly less sophisticated in our past. Time does bring understanding and pushes boundaries back and removes fear; this perhaps weakens the bonds that were forged.
It seems to me that any more religion (not faith) is a source of angst in the world. Somewhere along the line, the concept of God became an instrument to foster separation rather then togetherness across our species. It has morphed into an antonym of itself.
Google this term "six month old good and evil" and read the news articles. While not conclusive, it does provide some interesting incite that we seem to be born with something innate that if not interfered with (read: buried under dogma) propels our species toward good rather then evil.
-J
How can someone get all the praise for good things yet never receive blame for the bad?
The man who sends his wife to the store late at night and she ends up in a car accident finds comfort in the words " it was God's will that she die so feel no guilt.
The truth he has to face is the fact had he not sent her she would have been home safe. His need for God is to not face his guilt.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.
Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.
seems Rhino is not conversant with any concept of supernaturalism other than theism.As most students of U.S. history know many of the "founders" of this country were avowed Deists.Under your definition they would be defined as atheists since they held to providence rather than to a belief in a personal god.While your definition may be technically correct that "ATheism" is a non belief in Theism, it tends to confuse those unfamiliar with non theistic belief systems.So let me ask you do you accept that Naturalism is a logically self defeating belief system using the Argument from Reason?
Thanks for your comments.
I don't accept any argument as self defeating unless it can be proven so. In the case ofthe existence of Gods, Deities, or even ghosts, there is simply no way to prove or disprove their existence with any degree of certainty - or even clarity as some of the 'proofs' are quite torturous. This was my point with the Ontological Argument and my stancealso applies to the "Argument from Reason". Not to denigrate Philosophers but theirs a a very imprecise science. There really is no "Ah-ha" moment in these arguments. As such, using them to define my thought process (or place a label on me) is something that is wholly unreliable.
At least for me, the difference between Atheism and not Atheism is simply about observation. As noted before, while I can not prove a personal God does not exists, I observe that they seem to spring up with regularity and commonly represent the needs of man rather then wisdom of a God. For a timeless being, they seem to be awfully seeped in the time they were created. The God of Abraham enjoyed 'burnt offerings" and thought of women as property. For this reason, I reject the notion (more religion then God) as something strictly man-made which more or less forces me from Agnosticism into Atheism by the practical design of language.
As far as naturalism (Deism), I would suppose that I can be called Agnostic but such is an unfair label as I can also be agnostic to the concept that a "winged fairy" created the universe but does not get involved with the lives of men. While a personal God presents many opportunities to disagree as the concept is born in the (narrow and self serving) minds of men, naturalism does not have the same limitations to it's beliefs. It seems to be little more then a vague notion of a life force in the universe that at times is a catalyst for our world - though not so much on a personal level.
Since there is nothing to point out as likely false or even man-made, I can not take a position against it directly. Nor should I since, by the same token, as there is nothing to point to as true (other then wishful thinking by it adherents), it equally is not something to agree with (as Agnostics would give the benefit of doubt to).
I guess at this point, it really is a glass half filled or half empty proposition as to whether any credence is given to the notion of a life force in the universe. That said, by using the same criteria as naturalism, I can claim the universe was created by a lobster. IMHO, Just because something can be conceived by man's thought process, it does not automatically mean that some measure of respectability should be conferred upon it. For this reason, the term Atheism still applies to my thought process more then Agnosticism.
At the end of the day, I really do not care what label is applied to my thoughts. I do not believe and will not do so until some measure of a observable, rather then philosophical, proof can be provided.
-J
Interesting response.You are confusing Naturalism (the belief that all of reality consists of the natural observable universe) with Deism (the belief that there is an unknowable supernatural force that created the universe including natural laws but does not interfere with nature in the form of miracles etc.) and Jedi mysticism (the belief that "the force" animates the universe and determines the fate of beings)
This aside lets look at your response on self defeating arguments you state "I don't accept any argument as self defeating unless it can be proven so" I agree.So lets look whether naturalism (the belief that there is no Supernature or Supernatural entities such as God etc.) is can be proven to be self defeating.When we say an argument or belief is self defeating we mean that it is not logically coherent in its own terms.For example if we say(P1)This is Fred
(P2) All cats are named Tom
(C1) Fred is a Cat
We can see that this argument or belief system is logically self defeating for if P1 and P2 are true then C1 is not true.
Now let us examine the idea of naturalism or anti-super-naturalism.
The fundamental claim or proposition is that based on the evidence available it is rational to believe that nature is all there is ,(no mysterious super nature for gods or other supernatural things to hide in), everything in the universe including human beings are the product ultimately of non-rational(no mind of god or providence or "force" directing things from behind a curtain) forces of nature. Likewise we and all of our behavior are fundamentally artifacts of natural non-rational process.In other words we are for example shaped the way we are by natural non-rational forces of nature such as how much gravity our planet has, the chemistry of our atmosphere, evolutionary competition of species etc.
Likewise our behavior is also a product ultimately of the complex intersection of innumerable natural forces acting on the organisms we call us.These are inescapable logical implications of the belief that the natural universe is all there is.
Ok now so if this were true thenour thoughts and beliefs would also necessarily be products of these same natural non-rational forces.
Therefore all of my (so called) thoughts and beliefs (including naturalism) are the product not of reasoning but rather of the non-rational natural forces that are acting on the organism I call me at this moment in time.
Therefore the belief in Naturalism is non-rational.Belief in non rational beliefs is logically not rational.Therefore belief in Naturalism (the belief that the natural universe is all there is) is not rational.Thus the belief in Naturalism is logically self defeating for if it were true then no belief including naturalism would be rational.
As you point allude to this does not prove the existence of any particular supernatural entity (god, faeries, demons, etc.).What it does is show that it is logically self defeating (and hypocritical) to argue that the natural universe is all that exists.Now if one wanted to say "the natural forces of the universe have non rationally determined that the artifact that is called me will espouse the belief that the natural universe is all there is but there is no rational basis for this" at least that would not be hypocritical. For me I choose (not allowed in naturalism) to reason (not allowed in naturalism) that I (not allowed in naturalim) am more than a complex biological robot which does the bidding of the non-rational forces of nature but rather am a being withthe capacity of reason, choice and identity.
Please let me know if I am writing to a robot whose responses are programed by natural forces or a human being with the capacity to reason and choose your thoughts.
Point taken on my use of the word naturalism. My intent was to speak of deism or beliefs of a non personal nature.
As I have already stated, these philosophical arguments have all been dissected from both sides and there has never been a clear winner in them.
For instance, in your response, assumptions are made as to what "non-rational" means. Unlike "cat" and "name", this word is more subjective especially if we consider it in the context you are attempting to use it in (without God). We can spend hundreds if not thousands of words on what that means and still get no where.
In the bigger picture, as previously noted, it has all been said already. Wiki: Metaphysical naturalism. I see no reason to cut and paste responses.
While these arguments have value in helping people see past a 'simplified' world view, outside of Philosophy 101 they don't seem to be able to change a world view or, perhaps more importantly, add anything significant to the argument of the existence or not of God.
Good or bad, I really don't see Philosophy as particularly well suited for these discussions. When my children were young and started to learn about atoms, I blew their minds by pointing out that if (P1) electrons repel each other and (P2) all atoms have electrons in their outer shell (C1) you can never 'touch' anything. From a logic. point of view, perfectly true but from a practical point of view. . . things are no so clear; tell a mother she is not 'feeling' her child right after she gives birth. Welcome to Philosophy; so messy but certainly always thought provoking
Distilled down -
A Believer follows the path of "It is faith"
An Agnostic follows the path of "It is Unknown"
An Atheist follows the path of "It is Bullshat".
A Philosopher trolls all three paths and attempts to trip anyone who walks down any of them.
-J
Also in my opinion you are correct inearlier posts regarding the ontological argument.I disagree though that discussions regarding the nature of reality are not beneficial.I find that for many people the religious impulse is essentially a means for them to cope with the inability to come to grips directly with the existential question that Veeger asks in Star Trek the motion picture "Is this all there is? Is there nothing more?"Interestingly I find that for many declared atheists and agnostics their active rejection of religion and with it the concept that we are more than just artifacts of the universe is a manifestation ofexistential despair turned outward.
I apologize if my question regarding your beliefs about the nature of yourself seemed impertinent.It is just that I am always curious when persons self definitions are framed primarily in terms of what they disbelieve rather than what they believe.
Well anyway thanks for the civil conversation on this topic.
I spend a lot of my time looking around me. Not in the over-my-shoulder style.
No.
Rather, I look at the whole picture and how our little world has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.
The very fact we can communicate on this subject is the proof that someone, somewhere, made sure we would learn how to evolve.
I sure don't give a name to the Creator. The closest would be "The Great Engineer".
He or she has all the time to make us evolve.
It wasn't so long ago that the human race was just a little bit above being apes.
In my view, we are still far behind other beings who have visited our planet and decided to leave it alone until we finally get our evolution figured out.
But the fact remains, this didn't happen by accident.
What is the purpose? Who knows.
But the Engineer has a hell of a sense of humour! A little warped at times, but maybe that is the ultimate test to the next step.
J my friend you defiantly still have a way with words and I have to agree with your conclusion on the matter. It has been a pleasure reading your responses. It has been quite a while since I stopped in here to look around, I see some things have change but looks like the topics haven't.I for one do not believe in a personal god or gods as the religious folks do. They can not even answer one little question after another about the bible. One question I keep asking is "If Adam and Eve were the first two people and they had Cain and Able as sons and Cain slew Able and the people judged him" where did the people come from? Also Cain and Able went off into the world to find wives, HELLO again they are the first four people on the planet according to the bible so where are the wives coming from? Just a couple of minor questions that no one of religion will even care to debate an answer because there is not a feasible one for their side. As far as I'm concerned we may have been placed here by an evolved race as a science experiment some time ago and that maybe why the Mayan, Chinese, Hopi and who knows who else' calendars end in December, because that is when they are coming back to see how we are doing and what to do with us then. About as logical as god told me to do it and god did this and that I think. Enjoyed being here and expressing for a minute.
J, Hippie, Dangerous and anyone else that I missed that might be worth a tinkers damn and that is few, have a good one.
what you describe as your beliefs is known as Deism.The belief that the Universe was created by a supernatural force or entity that established in that creation the laws of nature in such a way that the purposes of creation would ultimately be fulfilled but that"creator" or creative force does not interfere with the creation through violation of the natural laws (miracles).
Deists (such as George Washington and Ben Franklin) reject the idea of a personal god (theism) who is constantly tinkering with the creation.
My apologies for brokering a feeling in you that your questions were impertinent. On the contrary, your comments have been thoughtful and interesting. Your latest are no different.
I believe that we agree that discussions regarding the nature of reality are beneficial. Frankly, I feel that Philosophy should be required in High School - along with Theology (as long as it covers the subject in a neutral manner). These are worthy concepts to consider but I think only so in the formative years where mind expansion is at its greatest.
Wickedly interesting observation that " [You are] always curious when persons self definitions are framed primarily in terms of what they disbelieve rather than what they believe."
I think in part this projected persona of the Atheist and Agnostic is the result of a need to be on the edge so to speak. I live in a society that seemingly accepts religious sensibilities as something that is above challenge. In the course of challenging these conventions, a perception that we are about the "disbelieving" aspect can certainly present as the dominant trait.
Speaking for myself, the core of being an Atheist really stems from a practical application of what surrounds me. I often trot out the Easter Bunny (or sometimes Fairies) to illustrate this. Idisbelieve in chocolate candy pushing woodland creatures who visit my house one day of the year but such belief is rarely challenged. In fact, ifI did believe, certainly those around me would eye me with suspicion and remove any pointy objects from my proximity.
Existentially, I think the whole "Is there nothing more?" argument more applies to those of faith as it seems to be a major concern for them.
I read an interesting Theory offered by Richard Dawkins that the purpose of life was to simply move forward to the next generation. If that were to fail in any given instance, the universe would not care as the universe has no vested interest in life. While I can not speak for all Atheists or Agnostics, most who I do converse with have no objection to that concept at face value. That is, we don't see [existentially] the world as meaningless or absurd; it simply is life doing what life needs to do to be life and the process really is a trial by error proposition. Humanity is here only because its evolutionary line found a way to survive nature.
For those of faith, there almost seems to be a need to believe in something with the subject of the belief being almost subordinate to the need to believe. I suspect this is why, throughout time, man has worshipped everything from rocks, to planets, to Gods both like himself as well as unlike himself. As you hinted at, faith is a way of coping with the unknown. I would add - "for those who are uncomfortable with the unknown". This is certainly not something that most Atheist seem to be concerned with.
Return thanks for the civil conversation.
-J
Noted your comment.
" Just a couple of minor questions that no one of religion will even care to debate an answer because there is not a feasible one for their side."
I assume you mean that those who believe in literal Biblical innerancy won't debate it with you rather than all persons of religion.I am confident that a Rabbi (particularly since his religious ancestors not the Fundamentalist Christians originated the scriptural texts you refer to) would be happy to explain Genesis to you.
The basic answer to the thrust of your comments is that the people of "religion" that you refer to are usually quite ignorant of several things including the actual text of the scriptural documents you refer to and more importantly how the authors of those texts understood the meaning of the oral traditions they were recording.
( Just a little bit of trivia according to early Hebrew scripture Eve was not the first woman nor even Adam's first wife.)
More importantly legitimate scholars of these texts (and the majority of theologians) agree that those texts are written metaphorically not literally.
The fact that some persons of "religion" are ignorant of the nature of the text that they espouse is perhaps tragically amusing but is not of course evidence of the validity or non validity of religious beliefs in general.
Hope you also have a great day.
generally agree with all points made in your post a couple of qualifications.
You state "These are worthy concepts to consider but I think only so in the formative years where mind expansion is at its greatest."My observation is that many persons have significant misconceptions about there own beliefs because they have never been exposed/required to being logically reflective.So even later in life this can be quite beneficial.
I also am familiar with that idea espoused by Dawkins it represents his notorious tendency to use slippery language to sneak in purpose and meaning while simultaneously denying purpose and meaning in existence.Note the phrase "purpose of life"a more correct phrase would be the function of life.Purpose implies intent which implies a mind this gives rise to the whole Jedi mysticism stuff.Another way to think of this is that purpose is prescriptive while function is descriptive.This is one of my problems with Dawkins he avows to be an atheist and a naturalist (until recently now agnostic apparently) which is just fine but then continuously tries to sneak elements of supernature (like free will, agency and reason)in the back door without acknowledging them.
I agree with your observation that for many "faith is a way of coping with the unknown. I would add - "for those who are uncomfortable with the unknown"of course the same is equally true with Science, literature, etc.Each represents a modality for human beings to understand, and to come to grips with human existence in a mysterious universe.
But going back to Dawkins basic idea purpose of life is to perpetuate itself.If this is so then all species behavior includingbelief systems of atheism and theism are simply manifestations of this purpose rather than manifestations of any logical reasoning process.Their validity or non validity can only be determined ultimately not in terms of their inherent correctness or truthyness (love colbert) but rather in terms of their functional benefit to the propagation of the species.But rather than following his proposition to this logical conclusion Dawkins and others (CH for example) maintain that in fact their belief systems are inherently more Truthy than their debate oponents.
Its always nice to get away with having it both ways. (love to eat that cake and have it too)
Cobra
I can't say that I would disagree that function would be an acceptable term. Point taken that the word purpose would imply intent needs to be formed.
At times I do find Dawkins to be a bit over the top on some things but I think he speaks in the language of the scientist more then that of the philosopher. Purpose can also mean - "a practical result, effect or advantage" if one is to believe dictionary.com. As such, I don't see it so much as he is going down a slippery slope as much as both the language of the teller as well as the experience of the listen can color the meaning of the idea. In much of the same vein, Scientist often attribute male or female characteristic to inanimate objects. The primary intent is never to not make the object male or female but instead seems to be a consequence of language.
I'm not sure you can make the logical leap from the trail by error of life moving forward through natural selection to a claim that all species behaviors are simply manifestations of purpose rather than logical reasoning process. If we were only purpose driven, there would little reason to strive to understand the unknown. We would simply be busy spawning the next generation.
I think what you statement neglects to take into account is that reasoning might be nothing more then successful evolution.
The development of complex behavior can be thought of as a consequence of life moving forward. To be sure, challenges existed against life early on and some behaviors worked better then others at moving life forward past them. This is the essence of 'natural selection'.
There is no reason to assume that after some level of complexity is attained, decision making based on available information (reasoning) would not occur naturally as a consequence of the increasing complexity of life. We tend to look at reasoning as if it is something deserving of being placed on an alter. Perhaps but perhaps it is also nothing more then life stumbling onto a path where those who can make immediate and relevant changes to their environment succeed in greater quantity.
At least for now. Perhaps the path leads to extinction if this 'reasoning' ability is not all it is cracked up to be.
Perhaps you are correct that 'logical reasoning' does not exist and it is all behavioral. I would suspect that if you take 20 million behaviors, the cumulative action of these behaviors would result in what appeared to be what we would call 'reasoning'. However, at that level of obfuscation, it would seem the argument for "truthyness" (Love Colbert also) would become moot.
Enter the Philosophers.
I think therefore I am.
-J
Yall have a good one, Later on
In relation to the sense that each religious person believing that theirs is the "only true religion" I would refer you to theBahai Faith.I am not Bahai and am not advocating for them but note that they interestingly embrace all religions as different aspects of truth.Sort of a many paths to one destination idea.
Your comment of possible after life possibilities reminds me of a chat with a Jesuit priest years ago when we were discussing religious focus on afterlife vs conduct of oneself in life.He stated sardonically " many people waste time wondering about the afterlife. The truth is we will allow find out sooner than we want to."
Thanks for the response I agree with your statement.
I think your discussion of language is revealing to the issue.You suggest that Dawkins use of the term is simply an issue of convenience of language.You state that the experience of the speaker and the listener can color the meaning of the words chosen.I agree and would suggest that is exactly what is happening with Dawkins.While he overtly argues against the existence of any metaphysical reality his experience of himself as a rational free willed agent rather than an evolutionarily derived probabilistic automaton of the universe colors his language.
When the scientists use the term she or he to describe an object rather than the neutral it of course they are anthropomorphizing the object to reduce its alienness and to create a sense of association and connectedness.
It is interesting that you use the term "forward" in describing the evolutionary process.This is very common among even scientists.This idea or sense of moving forward displays an inherent mental model of life progressing towards a goal.
I should be clear that I was not actually arguing that logical reasoning did not exist only saying that in a purely natural universe where there is no metaphysical reality actual reasoning, free will and agency are all impossible.
The problem is that I actually experience my own agency, free will and reasoning in the act of writing this response (In other words I concur with Descartes basic postulate that I actually exist).So based on this evidence I am forced to rationally reject the idea that the natural world is all that there is.The alternative (since logical reasoning not just adaptive decision making can not arise from the natural universe) is that it comes from somewhere else.What ever that somewhere else is I will label simply as Supernature.In considering the qualities of that Supernature I can rely only on my experience of supernatural phenomena (no not ghosts or miracles) that being my reasoning, free will and agency.So that is how I come to be a Deist.I see the natural universe as a place that is being constantly invaded by supernature through the medium of (at least) human minds.
Ahhhh, words, words words. . .
I think it dangerous, at least to my position to any argument within philosophy, for the word "forward" to be taken as "progressing" towards a "goal". This grouping of words almost claims intent or purpose which is something that would not fit the scenario that I align with. In an oversimplified example, a raindrop falling from the sky eventually finds it way 'forward' by falling down. Nothing needs to be said about progressing or goal; it simply is an action that takes place.
Indeed, I did not take your argument as being against the existence of logical reasoning but I am aware of your stance as a Deist that you support a concept of God as a first cause. The point that I was making was that perhaps logical reasoning is little more then an evolutionary step thereby negating the need for a supernatural first cause. We, as owners of the trait, see it as a pinnacle but that may simply be a built in bias much how people often perceive their personal God as the only possible truth.
The various positions around free will I find to be interesting on one hand but ultimately overly complex. In my mind, it fits into my previous analogy of the Philosopher who makes no path of his own but lies in wait to trip others up. If a set of arguments can be presented that both supports as well as questions each possible path equaly, then such an arrangement of ideas and concepts can not be reflective of a cause of that reality and instead simply represents abstract thoughts that exist as a consequence of such a reality. A broken water glass on the floor might have been caused by two Jedi Knights having a duel (possible) but from a practical nature, perhaps not.
Currently, it is about 9:30 am on a Sunday. My wife have plans to be somewhere by 11:30. Before that I time, I have three things to do. (1) write this post, (2) perform maintenance on my aquarium, and (3) shower. I made a conscious [free will] decision (at least so I think) to write first while having coffee. While it can be argued that the decision was being driven by anything from quantum mischief to the hand of God (or perhaps they are one in the same?), it presents in the reality that I perceive as no more complex then an ability to choose between available options.
It seems natural that from a practical consideration that when dealing in a reality, abstract concepts remain outside of what can be considered a root cause until such time that they become less abstracted and represent a reasonable path of their own.
-J
"I made a conscious [free will] decision (at least so I think) to write first while having coffee"
Well that really does go to the heart of the matter.If you did indeed do that (make a free choice) then it was not an simply an evolutionarily driven behavior (or quantum mischief or the hand of god) I am sure you experienced it as a free will decision.If it was actually a free choice then where did it come from?We can't suggest that free will is just an evolved trait because then it is not a choice but rather evolutionarily determined behavior.
It is fine to suggest "I don't know where it comes from" but logically if the natural universe is all there is then free will is impossible.If on the other hand free will and actual decision making exists then supernature becomes a logical necessity.I agree that philosophers often take delight in obfuscation.Logicians on the other hand do not and seek to apply reason to evidence logically to draw rational conclusions.I believe applying reason to the evidence of my experience leads to the logical conclusion that either A. I actually have no reason, free will or identity and these are just illusions evolved in a naturalistic universe or B. If I do have reason, free will and identity which are logically impossible in a naturalistic universe then something more exists than the natural universe from which these phenomena arise.
At the end of you post you implicitly draw away from addressing this choice into the refuge of pragmatism.I have no intellectual problem with the position of pragmatism which says "I have no way of knowing anything about the nature of reality and thus don't bother myself with thinking about it instead I just focus on pragmatic understandings of the universe and how they can help me get along in it."
The pragmatists solution to the existential problem is to simply not deal with it and to save themselves the headache.The pragmatist implicitly accepts that they have no true reason, free will or identity and just asks to be left alone to pursue their evolutionarily determined path through their "three score and ten".
Its been nice chatting with you.
I think you are being too narrow in your connection between evolution and free will. Evolution says nothing about influencing or predicting a particular behavior. Evolution simply allows us to adapt to environmental pressures and those that do not effectively do so die out. It is a selector for those things that work best and far more fail then succeed.
There is no reason why we can not think of "the ability to make a choice" as the result of evolutionary steps. Early on, stimulus and response were certainly the order of the day but just like primitive behaviors and structures gave way to more complex behaviors and structures, I would imagine that stimulus and response became more complex as other factors were allowed to be considered. This seems to be the way of our existence; we grow more complex which creates the opportunity for more choices and almost necessitates the ability to make complex decisions. Perhaps this is where we differ. You see free will as something incredible and deep where I see it as an ability to make a decision based on available evidence. It is untrue that I accept the proposition that there is no free will; I just don't see it as a philosophical problem to be considered. To me, it is much more practical consideration.
To say I am not dealing with the existential problem to save a headache is a bit disingenuous as the problem presents no headache for me. While philosophical arguments can be created for the proof of the deity, so can arguments be crafted to refute the same deity - or more corectly the argument that gives rise to the deity. I find such arguments to be useless in any consideration for such matters. In considering the genesis of free will (or intelligence, or morality, or altruism, etc.), it seems quite rationale to me to only consider those possibilities that actually have some level of reasonableness to them. To not consider a deity as being the cause of these things is no different to me then to not consider they are result of a Dolphin named Alvin.
-J