Do many (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments?

[harvey1]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Sure we can eliminate possibilities. We can do this by utilizing mathematical and logical implications that lead to contradictions or absurdities.

If they lead to absurdities and contradictions it is because your assumtions are wrong, not that nature has to conform to your assumptions because YOU think it is logical. The weak link in the logical chain is you, not nature. When a scientist runs up against this limit he assumes he lacks understanding or knowledge. A Philosopher TRIES to take it further and MAY be able to indicate the most likely path toward further understanding, but when the Philosopher is on the far side of that limit his conclusion are more and more speculative and uncertain, so when you say you can eliminate the possibility of an Atheistic begining we can only be certain that you are speculating(and allowing your personal opinions to corrupt your logic, besides)

.

For example, let's take the idea that the universe creates itself. This leads to the absurdity that every event in the universe is uncaused and without reason.

So??? I don't think there is a reason for anything in the universe. As for cause, that still remains an unknown. Once the First Cause(the cause of the Big Bang) occurs, all other events have a cause. And since neither you nor I know what the First Cause(original conditions)is/are we will probably never be justified in coming to any conclusions at all.

So, here's just one example of an metaphysical depiction that we can pretty much eliminate and not consider further.

That may satisfy you, I have much higher standards of proof(as, evidently, does every other scientist you have debated this with), to me this is unjustified sophistry. Your opinion is noted.

Grumpy

[Bugmaster]

I agree with you to a certain extent as to speculating beyond our ability to know.

That's the problem with philosophy: it has no ability to know anything. In order to know things, you have to go out into the world and discover them, and philosophers spend all their time inside their heads (metaphorically speaking).

An example of logical improbability is that science is very unlikely to discover that life did not evolve. The reason is not that its physically impossible that life didn't evolve, rather its physically unlikely. However, "physically unlikely" just means that we have what we believe to be some very good logical assumptions about the world, and logically it does not follow that those logical implications that stem from those assumptions are false.

Firstly, how do you know your assumptions are good ? Philosophy has no answer. Secondly, you don't need a lot of good assumptions to discover that life evolved; all you need to do is look at fossils. Again, this is a difference of approach: a philosopher tries to build up a worldview from basic assumptions, inside his head, from scratch, whereas a scientist looks at the evidence available in the real world.

Sometimes, though, in this debate, I think the atheist wants to have it both ways. They want to stand on the side of agnosticism when it comes to the claims of theists, but then they suddenly seem to have acquired keen philosophical abilities when it comes to rejecting agnosticism.

I'm sure some people are like that, but not me. I really do believe that it's highly unlikely for theism to be true, and I really do believe that agnostics are wrong. I think Grumpy is with me on this one. Why do you keep bringing this up ?

[Cathar1950]

I hate to side with Grumpy because Harvey gets so jealous but here goes.

Sure we can eliminate possibilities. We can do this by utilizing mathematical and logical implications that lead to contradictions or absurdities.

Your math and logic are only as good as your observations. Contradictions and absurdities may show the lack of understanding and the inadequacy of language as well as false premises.
I find it hard to believe you have spent any time studying philosophy and yet fail to see the obvious. Truly you are a man of great faith.

For example, let's take the idea that the universe creates itself. This leads to the absurdity that every event in the universe is uncaused and without reason. However, such an idea is absurd since its quite obvious that we do have reason for certain events occurring. Typing this post in response to your post, and you responding to my post is an example of this. So, here's just one example of an metaphysical depiction that we can pretty much eliminate and not consider further.

Why is that any more absurd then God creating him/her/its self or always having existed out side of time? How come you allow God to be uncaused with out reason? Since we do have reasons for events why would you exclude God for no reason except that you have come to a dead end?
I am typing a response to your post and you did not ask for one. I took a nap and came back. If I had gone swimming instead I might not have even read your post. Your elimination seems rather premature. Your metaphysical depiction seems to allow a special exception to God.
This might be find for you but with out any real reasons or experiences it seems unwarranted and would make some think your math and logic are flawed at the corresponding level.
This lack of correspondence may be why you are a dualist due to your inability to experience something outside of experience time and the cosmos and still maintain a platonic view of God shrouded in Jewish and Christian myths. Your philosophy seems to make you more evasive then explanatory.

p.s.
Now I have to agree with Bugmaster too.

[theleftone]

That's the problem with philosophy: it has no ability to know anything.

You're criticizing "philosophy" on epistemological grounds? That seems a tad ironic to me.

[harvey1]

If [proofs] lead to absurdities and contradictions it is because your assumtions are wrong, not that nature has to conform to your assumptions because YOU think it is logical... I have much higher standards of proof

This is an outright contradiction, Grumpy. Proof is a logical concept. You want to reject any reasonable assumption, but at the very same time you say you have a higher standard of proof which requires reasonable assumptions. You want it both ways, and you simply cannot have it both ways and be consistent in your reasoning.

The weak link in the logical chain is you, not nature. When a scientist runs up against this limit he assumes he lacks understanding or knowledge. A Philosopher TRIES to take it further and MAY be able to indicate the most likely path toward further understanding, but when the Philosopher is on the far side of that limit his conclusion are more and more speculative and uncertain, so when you say you can eliminate the possibility of an Atheistic begining we can only be certain that you are speculating(and allowing your personal opinions to corrupt your logic, besides)

Notice, though, how this kind of reasoning naturally requires that we believe in pre-scientific (i.e., philosophical) methods of reasoning:

1) Premise: Science produces some knowledge about the world through its premises and methods
2) Premise: Science is limited in acquiring knowledge about the world
3) Hence, some knowledge of the world is required about the world prior to scientific exploration (from 1)
4) Hence, the limitations of science are based on pre-scientific knowledge (from 2,3)
5) Definition of knowledge: Knowledge (pre-scientific and scientific) restricts how the world can actually be
6) Hence, pre-scientific knowledge is not necessarily limited by scientific knowledge (from 3, 4)
7) Scientific knowledge is only part of the process of gathering knowledge of the world which makes non-scientific knowledge as metaphysical knowledge (from 6)
8) Therefore, pre-scientific methods of gathering metaphysical knowledge of the world can tell us how the world is restricted in being (from 5, 6, 7)
9) Conclusion: Philosophers who metaphysically analyze the world with their methods of gaining knowledge can justifiably produce knowledge about the world (from 8)

For example, let's take the idea that the universe creates itself. This leads to the absurdity that every event in the universe is uncaused and without reason.

So??? I don't think there is a reason for anything in the universe.

Well, there goes biological evolutionary theory as being the reason why life exists (just the tip of the iceberg... not too mention the mystery behind you replying to my post versus a million other posts that you could have typed or not typed).

[harvey1]

Firstly, how do you know your assumptions are good ? [sic] Philosophy has no answer.

Any claim to knowledge requires assumptions. Acceptable assumptions are those assumptions that if they are not true lead to an unrecognizable world. So, for example, if science were to prove that we don't exist, this would undercut our assumption that existence is whatever is there, and if there is nothing there, there is still something there that science originally investigated. So, this is a good assumption. If it were false, the world would be unrecognizable to us. Philosophy bases itself on assumptions like this which require that we believe (indeed, science uses the same assumptions).

Secondly, you don't need a lot of good assumptions to discover that life evolved; all you need to do is look at fossils.

Well, you do realize that there are many, many assumptions being taken for granted when you look at fossils in the ground, right? Actually, philosophers are more likely to engage in fierce debate about these kind of base assumptions that many in science often consider to be absurd discussions. I think this suggests that philosophers for the most part are also dedicated (as is science) to truth.

Again, this is a difference of approach: a philosopher tries to build up a worldview from basic assumptions, inside his head, from scratch, whereas a scientist looks at the evidence available in the real world.

This is a bit of a mischaracterization. Philosophers of course look at evidence in the real world, they will spend more effort to pool all available knowledge into one discussion. So, for example, quantum physicists might spend no time at all trying to reconcile special relativity with quantum physics, whereas many philosophers of science spend a great deal of time analyzing the aspects of these theories where they actually collide.

Sometimes, though, in this debate, I think the atheist wants to have it both ways. They want to stand on the side of agnosticism when it comes to the claims of theists, but then they suddenly seem to have acquired keen philosophical abilities when it comes to rejecting agnosticism.

I'm sure some people are like that, but not me. I really do believe that it's highly unlikely for theism to be true, and I really do believe that agnostics are wrong. I think Grumpy is with me on this one. Why do you keep bringing this up ? [sic]

Notice, though, you are claiming metaphysical knowledge as an atheist, and therefore it is terribly at odds with a rejection of aquisition of metaphysical knowledge in general. To be blunt, it comes off as "philosophy is okay just as long as it doesn't prevent me from sucking my thumb of atheism."

[harvey1]

Your math and logic are only as good as your observations. Contradictions and absurdities may show the lack of understanding and the inadequacy of language as well as false premises.
I find it hard to believe you have spent any time studying philosophy and yet fail to see the obvious. Truly you are a man of great faith.

Cathar, the reason that you say contradictions and absurdities "may show the lack of understanding and the inadequacy of language as well as false premises" is that there is structure to the world that allow you to say and think this. If there is structure, and if we can say anything at all about the world, then we must be busy going about trying to understand that structure. Of course mistaken assumptions and false reasoning is the major pitfall in acquiring knowledge, but you can only say that because you feel like you do possess knowledge of the world. So, since you are claiming knowledge you are in the same position as me (i.e., non-mystic) who seeks to know what those assumptions are that allows us to claim knowledge and what the appropriate implications of those assumptions require us to believe about the world.

Why is that any more absurd then God creating him/her/its self or always having existed out side of time? How come you allow God to be uncaused with out reason?

Well, as you should know by now, I analyze what a logical relation is, and from that determine that a logical relation is not complete without satisfaction. In other words, in any possible conceivable world I see a need for satisfaction, hence God. It just does not make sense to speak of cause of anything without some basic concepts (e.g., causation, possibility, actuality/existence, math, logic, God, etc.).

I am typing a response to your post and you did not ask for one. I took a nap and came back. If I had gone swimming instead I might not have even read your post.

You're just telling me how you went about responding (the effect) of my post (the cause of this post). Had I not typed my post you would not have spent the time typing this post with these words.

Your elimination seems rather premature. Your metaphysical depiction seems to allow a special exception to God.

I don't think that I do allow a special exception to God. I think that prior to modern prejudices (based on loosening of power by the religious institutions due to democratic processes), most thinkers of the past came to the natural conclusion that God must be fundamental. After the loosening of religious power, the natural mind began to experiment with a whole slew of ideas--but very little of it based on an understanding of metaphysics.

This might be find for you but with out any real reasons or experiences it seems unwarranted and would make some think your math and logic are flawed at the corresponding level.

On the contrary, by getting back to Tarski's semantic project and looking at that project as a realist, I think such an approach is very warranted given the success of Tarski's project.

This lack of correspondence may be why you are a dualist due to your inability to experience something outside of experience time and the cosmos and still maintain a platonic view of God shrouded in Jewish and Christian myths. Your philosophy seems to make you more evasive then explanatory.

I was real disappointed that you didn't respond to this post yet since it suggests that all you want to do is evade the discussion. Yet, I'm the one who is said to be evasive. Go figure.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Grumpy wrote:
If [proofs] lead to absurdities and contradictions it is because your assumtions are wrong, not that nature has to conform to your assumptions because YOU think it is logical... I have much higher standards of proof

This is an outright contradiction, Grumpy. Proof is a logical concept.

Wrong, proof is a mathimatical concept(in this case, that the CA rules give you reason to reject an Atheistic begining, given THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU MAKE WHICH GO BEYOND THE ABILITY OF SCIENCE TO SUPPORT. Or as Steven Gould said about mathematical proofs

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

So, if it's all right with you I'll be taking Dr. Goulds view of your "Proof".

An illistration of a flawed premis is:

5) Definition of knowledge: Knowledge (pre-scientific and scientific) restricts how the world can actually be

What a load of male bovine droppings!!!

This has been a logical falacy since the first post of yours I read.

Knowledge restricts nothing in the real world, and it is always subject to revision given new information. Knowledge is a construct of our view of the real world and can guide us but has absolutely no effect on the real world.

The rest of your premises are equally garbage, sophistry to inject religious views as having validity in the sciences. Garbage!!!

Grumpy

[harvey1]

What a load of male bovine droppings!!!... This has been a logical falacy since the first post of yours I read... The rest of your premises are equally garbage, sophistry to inject religious views as having validity in the sciences. Garbage!!!

Well, everybody, I'm going to do us all a favor and not even reply to this type of post. It doesn't conform to the rules of civil discussion and it certainly tries to force an opinion by uncivil tactics. Let's all try to avoid discussion about the poster, and instead focus on civil discourse.

I'm assuming this response will be okay with the moderators. (I hope so, bcz I really wanted to respond back by being insulting back. As most of us are in habit of doing, I'll take the high road.)

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Well, everybody, I'm going to do us all a favor and not even reply to this type of post. It doesn't conform to the rules of civil discussion and it certainly tries to force an opinion by uncivil tactics. Let's all try to avoid discussion about the poster, and instead focus on civil discourse.

Well, if you do not want your logical falacies pointed out to you, please quit repeating them!!! You feel free to insult our intelligence, but feel you shouldn't have to face your own faults. Believe me, I am far from the only person on these fori to notice them. It is your arguements which are ridiculous and pointing that out to you is my purpose. Your ARGUEMENTS are simply garbage, only you can do anything about that.

Philosophy without valid evidence to redirect and correct it is sophistry, useless as science.

Grumpy