A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Register or Log In

1. 

   JonJon
   Member

   Look, here's a proof for the necessary existence of God from the original atheist, Spinoza. I don't care if it makes you believe in God, hell, you can say it doesn't work. What I'm saying is that I'm not intellectually irresponsible for holding this position, because it is rationally defensible.

   "The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as is obvious. If, then, that which necessarily exists is nothing but finite beings, such finite beings are more powerful than a being absolutely infinite, which is obviously absurd; therefore, either nothing exists, or else a being absolutely infinite necessarily exists also. Now we exist either in ourselves, or in something else which necessarily exists (see E1A1 and E1P7). Therefore a being absolutely infinite --in other words, God (E1D6) --necessarily exists. Q.E.D."

   I couldn't find my better translation of the first sentence, but it reads more easily as "to be able to not exist is weakness; on the other hand, to be able to exist is power, as is self-evident"

   You can say you don't agree with the argument, that's fine by me, <i>I'm</i> not even sure I agree with it. But in the framework Spinoza set up, it is logical, and not at all circular.

   Posted 3 years ago #
2. 

   phrankygee
   Member

   Somebody is going to have to explain that first sentence to me. I find it ANYTHING but "obvious", OR "self-evident".

   Descartes screws up in the same way, declaring things "self-evident" that are absolutely not. It's been a long time since I studied Descartes, but even as a devout college freshman, I remember being able to drive a train through the logical holes in his famous Meditations, and wondering why this guy was supposed to be such a "big deal" among philosophers.

   To be able to not exist is weakness? Tell that to a Buddhist. Escaping the cycle of rebirth, (hence ceasing to exist) is one of the things that a Buddhist works very hard to achieve. The weak are FORCED to keep existing, like it or not. So to everyone in the Hindu/Buddhist tradition, that first sentence is utter hogwash. Hence, the argument is not logically defensible, since it is based on a false premise.

   Posted 3 years ago #
3. 

   JonJon
   Member

   "So to everyone in the Hindu/Buddhist tradition, that first sentence is utter hogwash. Hence, the argument is not logically defensible, since it is based on a false premise."

   No, the premise that it is built on is that existence is something that things do, existence as an activity, requiring power, not that to be able to exist is self-evident. Self evidence is his justification for that first premise. If you disagree with that first premise, then that's okay, but it doesn't invalidate the argument that you disagree with it, or even that you feel the justification for it is shaky.

   Look, this is a tangent. My point is that religion is rationally defensible. This is actually a very weak point. It doesn't mean religion is true, or morally good, and it doesn't even mean that you can't rationally defend positions that are obviously wrong. But it is possible to rationally defend religion. I don't see what the issue is with this statement. Brilliant people have been doing it for most of the history of western civilization, and long before that.

   Bertrand Russel, strident atheist and the father of modern logic, fell off his bicycle while considering the ontological argument, because he realized that it was logically correct. (At least that's the story.) Did he start believing in the existence of God? Hell no! But he admitted that the position was rationally defensible.

   Am I just missing something? I've now attempted to provide evidence that religion is rationally defensible, and I have in fact provided evidence that noted atheist philosophers have either proved the existence of God themselves, or acknowledged that such a position is rationally defensible. Is there some evidence that religion is not a rationally defensible position?

   (incidentally, Descartes' defense of the existence of God is in fact circular. I'm not saying that every defense of religion is rational, just that such a thing is possible.)

   Posted 3 years ago #
4. 

   Jabster
   Member

   "I'm sure you've heard several."

   No I haven't, that's why I'm asking and of course, as phrankygee so correctly states, you're need to make sure you have the definition of god.

   Sigh, 2000 years of blind worship rendered worthless?

   Posted 3 years ago #
5. 

   JonJon
   Member

   Well, I just posted one. Spinoza's proof for why "God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists."

   He has more, but they depend far more on reading the rest of the beginning of his book, which is hard and not very fun.

   I'm not sure what you mean by "the" definition of God. There are several, but I like "infinite, necessarily existing, ontologically basic entity."

   Posted 3 years ago #
6. 

   Elemenope
   Moderator

   I like to compare the history of philosophy to the histories of astronomy and chemistry. In both cases, humans undertook the practice originally to complete some goal (explicate the divine, or make substantive predictions about future events from the motions of the "spheres", or turn base metals into gold). None of the goals were ever met, but the intellectual/scientific methods and tools that were developed turned out to be more useful when applied to other ends, such as studying the motions of heavenly bodies for their own sake, or discovering useful combinations and reactions of the material around us.

   So one is perfectly justified in tossing the goal of two thousand years of philosophy as the failure that it was, while appreciating the various tools, ideas, and metaphysical speculations that accompanied that failure. As I often mention around here, the religious legacy of philosophy is something that religion has positively contributed to humanity, and there is no doubt that intellectually struggling with the ineffable and the infinite has enriched our thoughts and our capacities. The problem with philosophy is that it is not a science, so unlike astronomy or chemistry, it can never be quite as decisively shown that the original goal was a will-o-the-wisp.

   Posted 3 years ago #
7. 

   Jabster
   Member

   I'm not sure what you mean by "the" definition of God. There are several, but I like "infinite, necessarily existing, ontologically basic entity."

   Which describes many gods that you happen to not believe in ... do you think it's rational to also believe in these gods and if not why is you version of god so different?

   Oh and "have either proved the existence of God themselves ..." so god is a proven fact now. Well that's faith out the window isn't it but at least the Pope will be pleased. Maybe you should give him a call?

   Posted 3 years ago #
8. 

   JonJon
   Member

   @ Jabster

   I think you misunderstand the word 'proof' in this context.

   The pope stopped taking my calls when I tried to sell him a new long-distance plan.

   I think that particular definition of God applies to most religions with a conception of an infinitely powerful creator God. This isn't all religions by any stretch, but it fits several. If I were making a choice from scratch, the next thing I'd look at would be internal consistency.

   @ Elemenope

   This seems like a nice point, but can you clarify a bit. If alchemy led to chemistry, and astrology to astronomy, your argument is that religion led to philosophy? Or is it that philosophy led us to the point where we don't need philosophy? I get the feeling you mean the former, but I'd like to be sure.

   The other problem with this analysis is that while chemists no longer admit the possibility of alchemy or study the work of the alchemists, and while astronomers no longer admit the possibility of astrology or study the work of astrologers, many modern philosophers do in fact admit the possibility of a God/'true' religion, and even more study the work of those philosophers who who considered that possible.

   Posted 3 years ago #
9. 

   Jabster
   Member

   "I think you misunderstand the word 'proof' in this context."

   So what you meant was that it wasn't proof at all then?

   "I think that particular definition of God applies to most religions with a conception of an infinitely powerful creator God."

   I'll repeat, do you think it's rational to also believe in these gods and if not why is your version of god so different?

   Posted 3 years ago #
10. 

    phrankygee
    Member

    You seem to be using the words "defend" and "defensible" in a way I don't understand, and "prove" in a way I really don't understand.

    If you propose an argument, and I point out a gaping flaw in it (that what is supposedly self-evident is actually not at all evident), then how have you proved, or successfully defended, anything?

    If you prove something to me, then I believe it. If I have any legitimate reason to remain unconvinced, then you have not proved anything.

    "Exist" is another word that you (or Spinoza) seem to be misusing. A rock does not expend any energy to exist. A vacuum does not expend energy to exist. A hole does not use energy to exist.

    Existing is NOT an activity. "Exist" is a word we specifically invented to describe the thing that is left when all activity stops.

    Posted 3 years ago #
11. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    Yes, my general point is that theology, broadly defined, led to (most of) philosophy. Today, though, it is a minor branch of philosophy, not nearly as productive as in the days when the theonomic context was dominant in western society. I hesitate to say that it is completely played out, but it has definitely been suffering from diminishing returns for the past three centuries or so.

    The other problem with this analysis is that while chemists no longer admit the possibility of alchemy or study the work of the alchemists, and while astronomers no longer admit the possibility of astrology or study the work of astrologers, many modern philosophers do in fact admit the possibility of a God/'true' religion, and even more study the work of those philosophers who who considered that possible.

    This is the general weakness of the philosophical method (as compared to the scientific method), in that it is poor at identifying and discarding dead and/or trivial hypotheses. And, FWIW, most theist philosophers these days treat God as Thomas did (the end of knowledge, not the beginning) and scoff very derisively at God in philosophy as "the metaphysical trump card", pulled only when someone doesn't have anything useful to say.

    Posted 3 years ago #
12. 

    JonJon
    Member

    "I'll repeat, do you think it's rational to also believe in these gods and if not why is your version of god so different?"

    I think they can be rationally defended, yes. 'My' version of God is not at all that different.

    I said these are 'proofs' for the existence of God (and when I said 'proved', I meant 'presented logical proofs'). You said that made God 'a proven fact,' which is not generally implied in a logical proof. There are logical proofs for and against the existence of God. Neither has 'proved' (the way I take you to mean 'proved') the existence or non-existence of God.

    Posted 3 years ago #
13. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    Existing is NOT an activity. "Exist" is a word we specifically invented to describe the thing that is left when all activity stops.

    Suggesting, perhaps, that "existence" is a fairly useless word.

    Posted 3 years ago #
14. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    There are logical proofs for and against the existence of God. Neither has 'proved' (the way I take you to mean 'proved') the existence or non-existence of God.

    I would say, without much hesitation, that philosophy alone may not have proved the non-existence of some hypothetical God, but one does not need to leave philosophy in order to utterly obliterate any God described in the books, myths, and stories of any human society. The philosopher's God is one with, if any, very very few worshipers.

    Posted 3 years ago #
15. 

    phrankygee
    Member

    "Exist" is a useless word like Zero is a useless number.

    It's very useful. But not worth much all by itself.

    Posted 3 years ago #
16. 

    JonJon
    Member

    @ phrankygee

    "If you prove something to me, then I believe it. If I have any legitimate reason to remain unconvinced, then you have not proved anything."

    If you have a reason to remain unconvinced, legitimate or illegitimate, then I have not proven anything to you. That does not mean that I (or Spinoza, or Anselm, or whoever) have not proven anything. There is a difference between logically proving something, scientifically proving something, and convincing someone of something.

    When I say position x is rationally defensible, what I mean is that it is not intellectually irresponsible for me to hold to position x. That doesn't mean that it has to be right, only that it is reasonable to hold that position.

    @ Elemenope

    I take your point. Philosophy as a whole has been of diminished importance with the rise of science, for that matter. While I suppose it is possible that disproving God, or coming up with a far better explanation that eliminates or answers most of the philosophical problems that God answers while raising fewer new ones, is just bogged down in loopholes and die-hards, it seems to me that the biggest distinction between philosophy and other disciplines is that philosophy doesn't push the idea of coming to a consensus. It isn't as though there is a technically correct philosophical viewpoint on every given issue, or even most.

    If you would like to say that 'philosophically defensible' is relatively weak because so very many disparate viewpoints in philosophy are themselves defensible, then I would not totally disagree with you. I would point out, though, that this is not a philosophical problem that has particularly easy answers.

    Posted 3 years ago #
17. 

    JonJon
    Member

    "The philosopher's God is one with, if any, very very few worshipers."

    I agree.

    Posted 3 years ago #
18. 

    LRA
    Member

    @BRG

    This is something we're just not going to agree on. You seem to think that parents own their kids and can do to them whatever they please. I disagree. Your kids are on loan to you until they turn 18. Then they become part of larger society. The way they turn out affects more people than just their parents, and as such, I see children in a "it takes a village" way. If I didn't, then why would I bother teaching them?

    Also, I am not reducing a quality education to just evolution or science. Social studies/history is also an area that neo-theocrats attack. Further, I'm not against all homeschooling, especially when said homeschooling leads to a quality education. I am against neo-theocrats who willfully or ignorantly teach misinformation to their kids in order to indoctrinate them. I've said this over and over.

    Posted 3 years ago #
19. 

    JonJon
    Member

    Actually, I agree with this, too.

    ""Exist" is a useless word like Zero is a useless number.

    It's very useful. But not worth much all by itself."

    The existence of God is not particularly meaningful by itself. The existence of God in a way that impacts the physical nature of the universe, or a political system, or whatever, is far more meaningful, but these are pretty contingent on the actual existence of God.

    Posted 3 years ago #
20. 

    JonJon
    Member

    Hi LRA!

    For a point of friendly comparison, I don't think that either society or parents own kids. I think both society and parents share responsibility for a kid until the kid is able to take that responsibility upon his or herself. Each responsibility is handed off as the kid becomes capable of handling it, and their are some adults who still need to be cared for by their parents, just as there are some adults who have to be cared for by the state.

    I do like your point (as I've come to understand it better) that the politically motivated and the poorly educated are a bad combination. I can't argue with you on that one.

    Posted 3 years ago #
21. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    Further, I'm not against all homeschooling, especially when said homeschooling leads to a quality education. I am against neo-theocrats who willfully or ignorantly teach misinformation to their kids in order to indoctrinate them. I've said this over and over.

    The problem, LRA, is that you cannot attack one but not the other, not in any practical way, anyway. Either it is possible to homeschool or it is not. If it is, there will be both good homeschooling and bad homeschooling. If it is not, then everyone has to go to an accredited school (which, practically speaking, means most will have to go to a public school).

    The problem there becomes once people lose to right to differ from the educational standards of the state by taking their ball and going home, the fights over curriculum will intensify *greatly*. If it becomes illegal to take your kid out of school in order to teach them that Jesus rode on dinosaurs, people who believe that will focus (like never before) on eviscerating the public school science curriculum. Given the sheer numbers (and politics) involved, that is not a battle, frankly, that the forces of good and righteous science can bet on winning, to say nothing of maintaining a secular social studies or history curriculum.

    Posted 3 years ago #
22. 

    phrankygee
    Member

    When I say position x is rationally defensible, what I mean is that it is not intellectually irresponsible for me to hold to position x. That doesn't mean that it has to be right, only that it is reasonable to hold that position.

    Well if two people can submit mutually contradictory "proofs", then the reasonable, intellectually responsible person has to figure out which is wrong. Because one is.

    That is logic at its most raw. Two mutually contradictory things cannot both be true. Putting something in the form of a mathematical proof, and claiming Q.E.D. At the end does not mean that the "proof" proves anything. I pointed out exactly why the one example you gave does not work. I could use the same method to prove that invisible pink unicorns are "self evident". Simply define the terms (essence? What is essence?) to mean what you like at the beginning, and the rest works itself out. QED.

    Posted 3 years ago #
23. 

    JonJon
    Member

    "Putting something in the form of a mathematical proof, and claiming Q.E.D. At the end does not mean that the "proof" proves anything."

    I agree, and I've been trying to say this. The point is that there *are* multiple proofs for contradictory things, and you kinda have to pick one. What I have also been trying to say is that it is not intellectually irresponsible to pick the one you think is best if things are contradictory. If I thought that the proofs (or evidence) for the non-existence of God (and there are many, and some are quite convincing) outweighed the proofs (or evidence) for the existence of God, but still believed in God, that would be intellectually irresponsible. Nor is it intellectually irresponsible to look at the same arguments for both sides and find the ones for the non-existence of God more convincing. Something being rationally defensible or intellectually responsible does not at all preclude difference of opinion.

    Although I cannot reproduce the entirety of Spinoza's 'Ethics' in this format, it is not circular. With that said, you wouldn't like it very much, because it does rely heavily on its definitions.

    Posted 3 years ago #
24. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    Well if two people can submit mutually contradictory "proofs", then the reasonable, intellectually responsible person has to figure out which is wrong. Because one is.

    Absent the existence of some decision mechanism (and I don't think anyone has come up with a reasonably intersubjective empirical test for "god"), one should first determine whether each position is provisionally rational to hold. This is the old Clifford v. James debate. Clifford argued that you need to have a decision procedure (based, in his examples, in empirical verification) in order to hold a belief. James pointed out (I think correctly) that Clifford's standards were unworkably strong. Now, it may be that James standards were a little too weak, but the general point stands that in many areas of life it is unreasonable to demand scientific standards of proof between competing hypotheses in order to rationally choose one over the other.

    Posted 3 years ago #
25. 

    Ty
    Moderator

    I'm sorry, but a philosophical 'proof' is the beginning of inquiry. It actually proves nothing other than that we can conceive of the idea. For that idea to actually have any evidence, you have to move beyond philosophy to scientific inquiry. At this stage, god/s utterly fail all the tests.

    And, again, all of this depends upon the foundation of the existence of the supernatural, which is an irrational belief. The fact that you can create logical structures on top of that irrational cornerstone doesn't really mean anything.

    Also, the "smart people have defended this for two thousand years" is such a lame argument. Smart people have defended stupid ideas all through history. Appeals to authority don't get you much.

    Until someone can provide evidence that ANYTHING supernatural exists, all the rest of the arguments are mental exercises.

    Posted 3 years ago #
26. 

    phrankygee
    Member

    El, I have no F*ing clue what you are talking about.

    JJ, if you can look at two mutually contradicting "proofs" and choose the one you find more "convincing", then your "proofs" become little more than very elaborate statements of opinion.

    Factual matters can be proved or disproved, and argued on the merits. Matters of opinion can never be proved, and mutually contradictory statements of opinion can simultaneously be true.

    Reality is that which continues to exist even when you stop believing in it.

    Ty, you pretty much nailed it. "Mental Exercises" is what we're dealing with.

    Posted 3 years ago #
27. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    El, I have no F*ing clue what you are talking about.

    People for the most part agree that the decision to believe in God is not attested by much, if any, empirical evidence. People don't, by and large, believe *because* they saw something or heard something and associate that experience with God. Absent any evidence, the competing hypotheses that are contradictory about God cannot be solved by appeal to evidence.

    Given that, there is a debate in epistemology & ethics (this is cross-disciplinary, bitches!) as to whether it is ever rationally or ethically justifiable to believe in something for which there is no evidence. William K. Clifford famously argued no. William James famously argued yes. I tend to agree more with James than with Clifford, though James I think was generally too permissive in his criteria of what would be ethically and rationally justifiable to believe.

    I brought it up because this is essentially the argument that JonJon and Ty were having.

    Posted 3 years ago #
28. 

    cynic
    Member

    " Christianity can be rationally defended"
    No goddamn way

    Christianity requires you accept the fact that Christ was born of a virgin and pulled off the most questionable 'three' days by dying on Friday and resurrecting on Sunday.
    All based on the words of book that includes talking snakes and donkeys

    That goes against Rationality pal

    Posted 3 years ago #
29. 

    JonJon
    Member

    I just don't understand it, guys. Sincere belief from the majority of you that religion is impossible to rationally defend, and that people who are religious are necessarily intellectually irresponsible?

    I don't think I can let that rest. If you are unshakably committed to that view, then I don't know what we can learn from each other. Our dialog will roughly consist of you demeaning my intelligence, and me attempting to 'prove' somehow that I'm as rational as the next guy, which will be utterly futile, since you won't acknowledge that religion can ever be rationally supported.

    Posted 3 years ago #
30. 

    Elemenope
    Moderator

    I don't think I can let that rest. If you are unshakably committed to that view, then I don't know what we can learn from each other. Our dialog will roughly consist of you demeaning my intelligence, and me attempting to 'prove' somehow that I'm as rational as the next guy, which will be utterly futile, since you won't acknowledge that religion can ever be rationally supported.

    No need to take it personal. Most skeptics are (whether they know it or not) Clifford fans. The default mode of skepticism, if you will, is to think about leaps of faith as intellectually unserious. As a critical mode, it is quite effective in most areas of life.

    But when it comes to forced, living, momentous choices (the specific subset which basic religious beliefs unhappily fall within) which happen to admit no evidence, its conclusions seem suspect.

    I don't think anyone, looking at your writing, would come away with the impression that you are generally intellectually irresponsible, but they do earnestly hold the opinion that one of your beliefs can only be arrived at in an intellectually irresponsible way. It is likely, as you point out, that that belief is not likely to be shaken. I happen to disagree with them, but as Atheists go, Jamesians are in the way minority.

    But it certainly doesn't mean you can't learn from each other.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.