starting in the wrong place (The atheist delusion)
by Curtis 
, Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 00:45 (6030 days ago)
It would seem that this argument starts at the wrong location completely. If we are going to start the discussion then let's ask the first question first: "Why is there something other than nothing?" - Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself and this is answered further along but there is an enormous assumption that something should exist, even though we don't know why. - This question is answered by the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is very strong evidence for the existence of God. It also explains why something exists. It uses both philosophical (i.e., logic) and scientific facts as its basis. - It also answers the natural follow on question "Where did something come from?" - Now, I'm not sure how to insert this into the article*. I do have a power point presentation that could be the basis for a written text, but I'm new here and don't quite know how to insert this material. - ![[image]](http://www.agnosticweb.com/images/table.jpg)
- * Have created an image of the table uploaded it to the server and referenced the web address. Anyone wishing to do the same can email me using the contact link bottom right. Alternatively if you can upload to an alternate web address just reference the image from your site ie click on the image tab when creating an entry, and add the address between tags like this: {img}http://www.yoursite.com/images/pic.jpg{/img} - Neil - Web site co-ordination team -
starting in the wrong place
Hrischuk writes: "It would seem that this argument starts at the wrong location completely. If we are going to start the discussion, then let's ask the first question first: 'Why is there something other than nothing?" He goes on to say that the question is answered by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. - I'm not sure that there is a completely right or wrong location for the argument to start, but perhaps this one will offer us a way out of the impasse. Since you are new to the forum, and others are also logging on for the first time, a great deal of the discussion so far has tended to focus on the fact that we are here, so how did we get here? The theory of evolution has figured prominently, with atheists regarding it as obviating the necessity for a God, and agnostics pointing out that evolution does not explain the origin of life. Atheists have argued in favour of abiogenesis; agnostics have pointed out that the theory is unproven. This is a very bald summary of just some of the (at times extremely complex) discussions, but I hope it is fair. - The Kalam Cosmological Argument, if I have understood it correctly, is that the universe had a beginning, there has to be a prime cause, and the prime cause is God. From my agnostic standpoint, while I must allow for the possibility of other universes, I can accept the Big Bang theory as the beginning of this one. Whether there has to be a prime cause is open to debate, since one is always faced with the problem of what preceded the "beginning" (similar to the atheist argument: "Where did God come from?") ... i.e. the infinite regression. But I have no problem with your statement (point No. 17) that "God is possible". Originally agnosticism = the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not, which of course allows for the possibility that he does. I prefer the later, more personal interpretation, along the lines that I just can't make up my mind either way. But to say that God is possible because "God cannot be disproved" is not helpful to me in my doubts. We had a long discussion on the forum relating to Bertrand Russell's teapot agnosticism, but we needn't go into that again. Belief, I'm sure you'll agree, demands positive proof ... as your table appears to promise. - However, the argument that the prime cause is God seems to me to demand a clear definition, and this is where our discussion may take off. It is evident from your point 5 ("The Christian God is experienced and known") that you have a very specific definition in mind. For someone like myself, who is undecided, this raises major questions. Why the Christian God, why not Allah, Yahweh, the multiple gods of Hinduism ... or, more fundamentally, why any deity at all? Why must we attribute particular "divine" qualities to this prime cause? Is there any evidence that the force that made us is still with us, or interested in us? If it is, what is its nature, particularly in the light of the suffering that it has created? - There are many, many more such questions which no doubt you are well used to hearing but which have not as yet figured on this forum ... although they are prominent in the "brief guide". By giving us this new starting point, perhaps you will be able to shed light on a number of problems that are puzzling and indeed troubling not only to those of us who are uncommitted, but also to many believers as well. At least by discussing them, we give ourselves a chance of a better understanding, so thank you for opening up these avenues.
starting in the wrong place
by Curtis , Monday, May 26, 2008, 04:37 (6024 days ago) @ dhw
Thank you for your response. I was quite worried that this site had gone dormant. - Actually, the table, as it was uploaded, is meant to represent what I will call the "web of evidence" for the Christian faith. Each row is one line of evidence, with the whole being more than the parts since there are aspects of mutual strengthening between the arguments. Each row needs to be addressed and much of this has not been done in the pages of these threads that I have read. I thought this table up and have already added a couple of more rows. - I propose we look at the Kalam Cosmological argument post this reply. - I was once an atheist, then agnostic, now Christian, so much of what I am about to say is based on my own life. It is not intended to be a critique of others but an analysis of what I saw in my life, and those like me. - First, let me address the "I can't make up my mind" aspect of agnosticism. Let us assume that you must make up your mind about where to invest your money in the stock market. You must invest it or inflation will eat it up and you will be left with nothing. So how do you go about choosing which stock to invest your money in? I think there are key questions that you start out with and evidence or facts are sought to answer those questions. At some point, alternatives are pruned from the list because they just do not make investment sense in light of the facts. Then those that remain are judged based on their future potential based on a measured uncertainty or risk. Over time, with further pursuit of facts and answers, one of those stocks will achieve a measurable certainty that is below your threshold of fear and you will invest your money in that stock. I submit that this is how one may approach a religion: it is not a faith play but a knowledge play that does require an aspect of faith. The "web of evidence" is intended to provide enough evidence so that there is a very small fear of being wrong. - Secondly, everyone has a religion and it requires faith. Atheism is a religion, just check out the original Humanist Manifesto. Agnosticism is usually "atheism by default" since most agnostics that I know live like atheists instead of living like someone who believes but thinks they might be wrong. The question is "Did you pick your religion or achieve it by default?" I don't mean this as an insult -- it is just an observation that I have made through the years. I just hope that your religion is not by default. - Now, we can get into discussing the evidence. - The first thing that I would like to tackle is that you cannot prove the non-existence of God. If this is true, then there cannot be a true atheist but only agnostics with strong atheistic tendencies. This then sets the stage for the subsequent discussion. - I do not believe you can disprove the existence of God because of the following: (1) To disprove God's existence I must search all reality for Him: I may begin my search in the room I am in by looking everywhere in the room but God may be in my neighbor's house. I can search the neighbors house but God may be in another city. I can search the other city but He may have moved to a different country. Hey, God may be on Mars so I need to search Mars. Why not another galaxy? So the search moves to another galaxy. He may be hiding somewhere (2) The search must be instantaneous: It may be that God is in the other city. While I move to the other city, God sneaks around me and moves into the city I came from originally. In fact, God could always be following me and I would not find him, even though he exists. He may move from one spot to another while I am not looking (3) I must have all knowledge at any time to disprove God. (4) But this is Omniscience and Omnipresence. (5) I must be God to disprove God. (6) The argument is self-refuting because to prove God doesn't exit, I must be God. (7) Therefore, it is not possible to disprove the existence of God. - The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not arrive at the Christian God but it does arrive at a being very close to the Christian God. We can discuss that next, once this item closes out. - My best regards, Curtis
starting in the wrong place
Hrischuk compares the agnostic situation to investing in the stock market, and says "you must make up your mind about where to invest your money....or inflation will eat it up and you will be left with nothing." - The comparison is akin to Pascal's Wager (see Cary, Introduction expanded), but in my view it is based on a false premise. There is no "must", and the fear of being left with nothing is not a basis for faith in anything. The argument that one should weigh up the evidence, on the other hand, is totally fair. Unfortunately, atheists weigh it up and conclude that there is no God, theists weigh it up and conclude that there is a God, and agnostics weigh it up and conclude either that they don't know or that they can't know. "Evidence" is a matter of interpretation. Your claim that your '"web of evidence' is intended to provide enough evidence so that there is a very small fear of being wrong" is precisely the claim that the atheist Dawkins makes. But I am trying to answer you point by point, and here my argument is that the stock market analogy seems false to me. I am not under any compulsion to make up my mind (though I wish I could), and being left with nothing does not provide a criterion for truth. - You say "everyone has a religion and it requires faith. Atheism is a religion..." I agree that atheism requires faith, and have been castigated by the atheists for saying so. My argument may be different from yours, however. An atheist has to believe that life came about by chance, but as you rightly say in your posting to Cary (Introduction expanded), life is a difficult thing to create. That is an understatement. It requires enormous faith to believe in abiogenesis, and that is one major reason for my inability to embrace atheism. - You say that "Agnosticism is usually 'atheism by default'". I would certainly not have written the "brief guide" or set up the website if that were my own case. The fact that I cannot share the atheist's faith in chance means inevitably that I keep an open mind about there being a Creator. In the guide I have spent a good deal of time speculating on the nature of such a being (if he exists or existed), as revealed both in this world, in the Bible, and in other religions. I know of many agnostics who share this state of confusion and uncertainty. I don't take your question as an insult. I'm only surprised that you should ask it, in the context of the guide and the website. - You argue at some length that one "cannot disprove the existence of God". I don't think you need to construct such an elaborate case. Even atheists will agree with your statement, but will equate it with Russell's teapot (see the thread under teapot agnosticism). Not being able to disprove something does not mean that it exists. And as regards the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I have nothing further at this stage to add to my earlier comment. I'll be very interested to hear your response once ... as you say ... this item "closes out". To clarify my own position, then: I accept the possibility of a creator, but have grave doubts about his/her/its nature if there is/was one. I also accept the possibility that there is an afterlife, but I find it equally conceivable that this life is all we have. Unlike Cary, I am unable even to place a bet, but I am not (yet) prepared simply to wait and see. That's why I'm grateful to those like yourself who are willing to share their views, arguments and experiences.
starting in the wrong place
by Curtis , Monday, May 26, 2008, 21:46 (6023 days ago) @ dhw
Dear Dhw, - You make an interesting observation that my stock market analogy is akin to Pascal's Wager. I didn't see that but there is some parallel. I think the stock market analogy may be a weaker form in that it does not posit Hell but simply points out that it may be a wasted life, from the sense of leaving a legacy. - However, I don't think that either wager is a basis for faith. I think both are intended to point out that not making a decision is important. That's all. - So, what is the minimum amount of uncertainty that would cause you to choose one or the other? - Let me clarify my statement "Agnosticism is usually 'atheism by default'" with an analogy. We are back in the medieval times and I am a lowly farmer. My land is owned by Lord Realituf. Lord Realituf is going out to battle with his army and it is not clear if Lord Realituf will return. I think there are two options open to my future: (1) I could expect Lord Realituf will return so I will take his portion of my crop and store it for him; (2) I think Lork Realituf (LR) will die in battle and I will be able to keep his portion for myself. In case (1), it is the more prudent behavior even though I don't know if LR will return. But, case (2) is enticing but far more dangerous. (Please excuse the weakness in this analogy that we know LR does exist.) - The analogy is, of course, how an agnostic chooses to live their life. They can choose to live it in a prudent, conservative fashion whereby they choose to act according to the most pious religion -- this is not what I see. Instead, I see agnostics to live like atheists. - I must agree that this site is quite unique -- the openness and seeking is not the norm. - Now, it would seem that we all agree that we cannot disprove the existence of God. This leaves the possibility that God exists. As you point out, not being able to disprove something does not mean that it exists, so we have a way to go. - Before I get to the Kalam, I want to point out we humans have a strong inclination to not want to believe in God. I think this is in our nature and that we need to be aware of it, perhaps even counter it as it rises. My reasoning follows: (1) God owns everything because God created everything. (2) Everything is God's property. (2.1) At the most fundamental level, we are his possession as objects. (2.2) At the next level we are his subjects as persons. (3) God is the King in a universal monarchy. (4) He can do with us as He wills so there are no human rights. (5) We are confused because we live in a democracy so we think we (His subjects) can disobey the king. (6) As a King, God's commands are laws to be followed. (7) Not following a King's command is called treason (8) Treason is punished with death (9) Sin is treason so .... sin is punishable by death (10) Our opinions don't matter if God exists (10.1) We can say that God is not fair ... it doesn't matter (10.2) We can say that God is hidden ... it doesn't matter (10.3) We can say that God is unjust ... it doesn't matter - I personally must say that I like being autonomous. But, if God exists, He can demand of me whatever He wishes and my autonomy is ruined. And I don't like that but not liking it doesn't make it any less true. I find that there are many ways that I try to deny this but the brute logic is impossible to escape. - Instead, I see many people rationalize away why they cannot accept God because this would incur the loss of autonomy. - I am not accusing anyone on this list of doing this, just putting forward a warning that seeking truth is harder when your heart (i.e., emotions, will, inclination) wants to stay away from the conclusion. - The next post should begin the Kalam. I think that I will set up a separate thread for that.
starting in the wrong place
Hrischuk writes that agnostics can choose to live their lives "in a prudent, conservative fashion whereby they choose to act according to the most pious religion ... this is not what I see. I see agnostics to live like atheists." - The implications of your "Lord Realituf" analogy and the above conclusion, if I have interpreted them correctly, seem to me to be way off balance. Morality and humanitarianism are not the exclusive province of the religious. How do atheists live? Are all atheists the same? Some of the kindest, gentlest people that I know are non-religious, and humanism is far from being a lost cause. On the other hand, I doubt if you will find more pious people than those who are prepared to slaughter others and even themselves in the name of their religion. I hope I've misunderstood you. - Your second point ("I see many people rationalize away why they cannot accept God because this would incur the loss of autonomy") is very pertinent to our discussion. I have tried to cover it in the "brief guide" (see the section on Religion), and I have also tried to cover its converse. In my own case, the implicit loss of autonomy may well be a barrier to belief. On the other hand, part of me hopes that there is a just and loving God, and that there will be life after death when the questions will be answered, loved ones will be reunited etc. This may well be a barrier to atheism. But on yet another hand (sorry if I appear to have more than two hands), I look at the world and at history and at what is supposed to be the Word of God, and I see injustice and suffering everywhere. You are right with your point 10: if there is a God and he is unfair and unjust, it doesn't matter two hoots to him what I think. But it matters to me ... I can only base my beliefs on what I think, regardless of what God might think of me. There is ample evidence for all the arguments: the good, the bad, and the nothing. My thoughts therefore remain divided: it's possible that a creator exists, it's possible that he is just and loving, it's possible that he is unjust and cruel, it's possible that he is indifferent, it's possible that he is no longer there, it's possible that life is a gigantic accident and there is nothing else out there. And herein lies one more factor: the mystery. Whether life came about by accident or by design, you can only gasp at the richness of it all, including its incomprehensibility. But of course gasping doesn't bring you any closer to the truth.
starting in the wrong place
by Curtis , Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 21:23 (6022 days ago) @ dhw
Ok. I am off-base. Not the first time :) - It would seem that the problem of evil and pain is a barrier to belief. We will discuss that when the time is appropriate. - On to the Kalam.
starting in the wrong place
by Curtis , Thursday, May 29, 2008, 13:16 (6020 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, I noticed that you didn't answer the question "So, what is the minimum amount of uncertainty that would cause you to choose one or the other?" - Is it answerable? What are your thoughts here?
starting in the wrong place
Curtis asks what is the "minimum amount of uncertainty that would cause you to choose" between theism and atheism. - I have quoted your question in my response to Cary under BELIEF...., 28 May at 18.20. This thread and the one under 'Atheism' are both concerned with the nature of belief, and we are getting in a bit of a tangle because arguments are overlapping. - To answer you directly, I can't quantify the amount. I agree completely with George Jelliss: "emotional motivational commitment" will only come with "overwhelming evidence reinforced by personal experience". But what constitutes overwhelming evidence is just as subjective as personal experience. I will only know if and when I am overwhelmed!
starting in the wrong place
by Curtis , Saturday, June 07, 2008, 19:40 (6011 days ago) @ dhw
No offense, but I am confused by "overwhelming evidence reinforced by personal experience". It sounds nice but how does this play out in practice. I agree that one needs evidence and that experience is a must. But I'm not so sure about the overwhelming. It's pretty sounding but vaporous.