"There is no god."
The fact that a person can hold to that opinion amounts to evidence to the contrary.
As you read my words and either agree or disagree with them, you are displaying consciousness which by it’s very existence points to a creator god.
Atheist Colin McGinn asks, "How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness?"
Materialist must explain how thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. have sprang up from chemical reactions and purely physical events.
Most try to simply say that at a certain point consciousness "emerges" as a biological process. As philosopher J.P. Moreland says, you’ve left the realm of materialism and entered into panpsychism. You are now saying that matter is not just physical, but that it also contains mental potentials or proto-mental states.
Your argument ceases to be that there is only matter, but that the world began with not just matter but what Moreland calls "pre-emergent mental properties." You are now closer to theism than atheism.
Also, if your mind was simply a by product of blind evolutionary forces, you would have no reason to trust the logic that it produces. If random forces and nonrational laws programmed your computer would you trust what it said? Why would your mind be any different?
British evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane said, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Darwinist evolution cannot explain consciousness without leaving the realm of materialism. It is not, nor will it ever be possible.
Philosopher Robert Augros and physicist George Stanciu concluded, "The vain expectation that matter might someday account for mind … is like the alchemist’s dream of producing gold from lead."
Information provided by The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel.
On a barely related note, I heard an anecdote about a man abducted by Irish terrorists, where he was asked “Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?”
“I’m an atheist” the man replied.
“Well,” asked the terrorist, “Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”
LOL. Lots to learn from that story.
All this tail-chasing leads to just one conclusion: we can’t really know anything for certain. Theists are skeptical of skepticism but credulous about credulity. Atheists are skeptical about credulity but credulous about skepticism. “Be still and know that I am God” seems a better strategy for theists, scientific research for skeptics. Perhaps admitting the tentativeness of all knowledge would be best for both.
I think that there are two extremes here – we can know nothing for certain, or we can know everything for certain. The first is defeatism, the second is hubris.
I think a more reasonable approach is the three tiered approach:
This is an analogue of the following pithy sayings:
In light of this, how are we to act? A wise man would take the first ideas (beyond a reasonable doubt) and live confidently as if they were absolutely true, employ the second category (know, but not certainly) with caution, all the time looking at the results, and not waste his time speculating about the last category (will never know), except as an intellectual exercise.
“There is no god.”
if one were to replace ‘god’ with ‘fsm’, then i would tend to see the wisdom this article. as well, i can see the value in seeker’s(OP) attempt to define certain outcomes given certain inputs. generally, i tend not to see the value in espousing moral relativism if given an indeterminable system. but it is difficult to see otherwise.
The problem with his approach is that he ignores the differences between individuals and their approach to reality. We are both fairly intelligent and well-educated men who happen to see things in completely different ways. It’s impossible to see essentials is such a way as to achieve unity, nor can we agree beyond a reasonable doubt on much. This is what I meant when I maintain that we can’t really know much of anything with certainty. Reality is, at base, unknowable. We must live it, not know it.
Hi Louis:
I like these lines:
Theists are skeptical of skepticism but credulous about credulity. Atheists are skeptical about credulity but credulous about skepticism.
I think the reality is more complicated, but reality is always more complicated and the phrase was a good one. I agree with you that we cannot know anything with certainty a, recognizing that one of things we might be wrong about is whether or not there is anything we know for certain. IMO the best we can do is take in what information we can and exercise our best judgment. Now when I do that the argument seeker cited wrt consciousness seems very convincing to me. It seems to me that there is a conceptual difference between the inner experience of awareness and the behavior of atoms following the laws of physics. One can easily conceive of atoms being arranged in a pattern so that they respond to external stimuli to produce the kind of behaviors we associate with consciousness. In fact, the collection of atoms could behave that way without actually BEING conscious–the behavior is different from the inner experience, it seems to me. Materialism IMO leaves no room for the most obvious thing in the world: that we are actually conscious of things. It seems to me therefore obvious that materialism is wrong. None this by itself implies there is a deity, but I can tell you that this idea was one of the things that nudged me toward Christianity.
“Be still and know that I am God” seems a better strategy for theists, scientific research for skeptics. Perhaps admitting the tentativeness of all knowledge would be best for both.
I like both strategies, applied in the arenas for which they are suited. Different tools for different jobs, just like the spoon for soup and your hands for KFC.
Anyway, I’ll get back to celebrating my state’s most recent repeal of civil marriage discrimination. Catch you later.
your friend
Keith
LOUIS WROTE: It’s impossible to see essentials is such a way as to achieve unity, nor can we agree beyond a reasonable doubt on much
Again, when defining essentials, there are two extremes – making the list too long, thereby excluding all but a few who agree entirely, or so short as to be meaningless.
When we say ‘these are the essentials of what we hold true,’ we will automatically exclude some, but that is unvavoidable. What we must honestly do is define the essentials as the minimum set of primary assumptions needed to complete the core of our ideology, or in other words, to determine the set of core beliefs that are the irreducible set, below which the ideology lacks logical coherence.
So for example, regarding Christianity, if one of your core tenets is that Jesus died for our sins, you might reason that you must also hold to the related doctrine of salvation by grace and not works.
KEITH WROTE: Anyway, I’ll get back to celebrating my state’s most recent repeal of civil marriage discrimination.
And I will get back to mourning the further collapse of truth and health in my nation, and wipe the vomit off of my chin after watching men kiss on TV. Soon, we may be like Canada, fining and imprisoning people who declare homosexuality to be a dysfunction and a sin.
What we must honestly do is define the essentials as the minimum set of primary assumptions needed to complete the core of our ideology, or in other words, to determine the set of core beliefs that are the irreducible set, below which the ideology lacks logical coherence.
The problem here is that what you describe are assumptions, to be taken on faith. You need the agreement of most (if not all) involved to achieve this level of agreement. Obviously, this is an arbitrary arrangement. It may be necessary to some kind of order, but it must be understood by all involved to be tentative and subject to change when new conditions or facts arise. This is illustrated by your extreme comments re: gays being treated as equal citizens and human beings. You are nauseated by such a concept while I, in turn (and most others), am nauseated by your reaction. I’m also nauseated by the long history of cruelty, irrationality, and stupidity inflicted on us all by monotheist religion and its absolutist programme based on little more than evidence-free assertions.
I maintain that humility in the face of ultimately unknowable reality is the better policy. In Christian terms, this means humility before God, something xians refuse to admit. This, to me, is the essence of all religions (something people like seeker need to learn):
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8
If we are to agree on a core set of assumptions which all can agree on, this, to me, is the one.
Those are great general principles. You don’t even have to be faithful to a particular religion to follow those. If that is your entire summary of spirituality, that is good. However, it lacks the specificity which Jesus required. What about Jesus command to preach the gospel? What about his warnings about coming judgment and hell? What about his commands to not lust or be sexually immoral? Is this excluded from the above?
People who want to exclude either love or truth from the equation are problematic. The former want to excuse sin, the latter want to forgo mercy. We need both.
I believe we should follow the example of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery – “I do not condemn you, [but] go and sin no more.”
That’s because you, seeker, are at heart a moralist. Morality is your primary concern, not justice or kindness or compassion. As I was taught from childhood on (before I encountered the reality of christianism), love is the primary force in the universe because God is love. Everything flows from that. Justice is more than a set of dictates and rules and regulations that moralists and religionists get to use for control and self-aggrandizement: it is the flip side of love, a concern for fairness and balance and the eternal worth of each and every individual before God – love in action, as it were. This is the problem with the Pharisees and those of like mind: they think rules and regulation (the Law) are the end and goal of religion, and therefore they attacked Jesus for his penchant to disregard them. One can certainly pick and choose among Jesus’ reported words to build a case for legalism, but only by distorting his overall mission and actions.
As I’ve charged before, seeker, your cruelty and heartlessness puts you in the camp of the Pharisees and other legalists. For you, man was made for the Law. And, of course, you get to be the judge.
Justice is more than a set of dictates and rules and regulations that moralists and religionists get to use for control and self-aggrandizement: it is the flip side of love, a concern for fairness and balance and the eternal worth of each and every individual before God – love in action, as it were.
That is well said, and I agree. However, I am not a mere moralist. I am one who is concerned for those in the valley of decision, who might give credence to hardened skeptics who ‘suppress the truth in unrighteousness,’ – I care for those who might be tricked by such liars – especially children.
As I’ve charged before, seeker, your cruelty and heartlessness puts you in the camp of the Pharisees and other legalists. For you, man was made for the Law. And, of course, you get to be the judge.
I may be guilty of being harsh and a bit unkind with the law at times, and need to repent and stop doing that. However, I do not reject the law, nor do i expect men to keep it well. What I do expect is that, illuminated by the law, men learn to avoid sin and love what is good. While you want to reject the law, I want to use it properly, and NOT Pharisaically. However, I think that you reject the concept of rebuke, which is entirely acceptable.
As Paul so eloquently said:
Note that in that last statement, “if there is any other commandment” would include promiscuity, bestiality, and homosexuality, even though they are not named here, they are named among the moral commandments.
And as he said to Timothy about the proper use of the law for unrepentant sinners who flout the law:
Well, you are a fundamentalist xian after all. Excuse me if I find much of this irrelevant, and certainly no basis in which to formulate law in a secular society.
My point is that there is a proper use of rules, and one of them is to correct the non-penitent who insists on hurting himself and others. You also called me a Pharisee, which gave me permission to use scripture to outline the correct use of the “law” as it were.
You may certainly find that irrelevant, but I take issue with your definition of love, which avoids the truth of homosexual illness, and the damage of pushing it as wellness.
You can take issue with what I have to say all you want. That doesn’t, however, make you the arbiter of the truth or what constitutes illness. In fact, you sound a little mad (as in “insane”) with your insistence, in the face of the entire scientific establishment’s finding to the contrary, of the “truth” of hx “illness.” You speak of “damage” as if you are free of it or the will to inflict it. You delight in judging (“rebuking”) others; too bad you can’t apply the scalpel to yourself. As I said before, no humility, as if God requires it of all His followers but you.
Forget me and our feud for a moment. What if you are wrong? It’s possible, you know. Your’s isn’t a mild or moderate objection, but a fevered jihad (and the word is precise). You can admit no room for error. Your rhetoric is so extreme that it invites comparison to the worst fanatics and enemies of mankind. What will God have to say to you? What will you say to Him?
The humility your LORD demands of you is nowhere in sight. Neither is kindness. Do you really fool yourself into believing that you are being just towards gay people? Will you weep and gnash your teeth?
As for me, the matter is pointless, for I believe in nothing at all (with the possibility of naked self-interest).
HI Seeker:
KEITH WROTE: Anyway, I’ll get back to celebrating my state’s most recent repeal of civil marriage discrimination.
And I will get back to mourning the further collapse of truth and health in my nation, and wipe the vomit off of my chin after watching men kiss on TV[emphasis mine] Soon, we may be like Canada, fining and imprisoning people who declare homosexuality to be a dysfunction and a sin.
While I disagree with all of your paragraph above, the bolded part betrays a bigotry, it verifies something Louis once said (I think): a big part of your objection to homosexuality seems based on the fact that you find it icky.
your friend
Keith
ACtually, i really don’t think that it is bigotry. There is such a thing as natural disgust when nature is perverted, abused, or destroyed.
I feel the same way when I see forests clear-cut, oil spills, terrorist murders, or other sins against nature, God, and man.
Even Christ uses vomit, though in a little different way:
Revelation 3:16
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
Or perhaps:
Psalm 119:158
I see the treacherous, and am disgusted,
Because they do not keep Your word.
I believe I have a natural, healthy revulsion to abuses of nature. While disgust can be learned or unlearned, I think it is naturally healthy to be disgusted at things that are unhealthy and unnatural.
What makes me actually nauseous when I see men kissing is that, for a moment, as any observer would, I experience the act through watching it, and in this secondary participation, I am repulsed. That’s not bigotry, that’s nature, and honesty.
Many people are disgusted by same-sex intimacy, just as they might be by incestuous intimacy, and rightly so. If I am a bigot for being repulsed by such things, then so are people who are repulsed by incest, bestiality, or other perversions.
closet-case gets sick when his repression is threatened. “gay panic” I think it’s called.