|
A Debate - Part 4 |
|
The following is a series of exchanges that took place on "The Fray" user discussion forum on Slate On-line magazine at http://www.slate.com. The numbers at the beginning of each "post" indicate the sequential order of the posts in this thread. I (Jeff Richardson) used the moniker "jeremiad" during this discussion.
1776. jeremiad - December 12, 1996
1777. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 First, I recommend you read my post again - slowly this time. I stated that people free from mental defect have an "innate tendency toward religious belief". Now you basically lie about what I said when you say I implied people are mentally defective, immoral, delusional or brainwashed who "doubt God's existence". I think _most_ religious people (whether theists, atheists, et al.) have _doubts_ about their faith at some time or another. My proposition is that people _begin_ with a _tendency_ toward religious belief and are then conditioned in one way or another to support this tendency or deny it. Immorality and delusion and brainwashing exist all over the map from my experience - in theists and atheists both (your own irrationality demonstrates that). However, I would say that a person who denies what is true is delusional and that, given this definition, atheists are delusional. People who recognize their need and want to believe, but whoare sincerely unconvinced are not, in this sense, volitionally delusional, but, rather, are honest doubters. These people seek substantiation of their hope that belief is rational and reasonable. People who, on their own faith, commit to unbelief and refuse to recognize their inconsistency more accurately fit the mold of the deluded.
1778. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 As sentient beings capable of reason and rationality, we can learn, understand, seek and evaluate evidence, develop mathematical constructs, obtain moral knowledge and gain propositional truth through the use of the brain as informed by Ideals. The key difference between what I will, for now, call "idealism" (the belief that Ideals exists in and of themselves) and "physicalism" (the belief that _only_ matter exists) is that, for the physicalist,morality, love, mathematical axioms, propositions and all other non-corporeal entities are _created_ by mere physical interactions in the brain and are not necessarily true or objective - and there can be no claims are "truth" or "objectivity" since these require some Ideal to exist - in fact, the entirety of truth and objectivity is refuted by physicalism carried out consistently. On the other hand, the idealist believes that truth, love, justice, mathematical tautologies are not _created_ by the human brain, but are _discovered_ by the human brain. That is, there is _objectivity_ and _truth_ to these things. As to the brain/mind connection, we delve into a larger pool of discussion. Can the supernatural (only implying the non-physical) "interface" somehow with the physical? What about the laws of thermodymanics? And wouldn't physical interaction require some sort of physical existence? There are real questions to be discussed here, and there are good answers to these questions. I don't think I can summarize the discussion in under a few pages, but if you are interested, I can work up a summary of the relevant discussion and email it to you.
1780. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 You are still attempting to "hold God responsible" for the consequences of our choice. I believe you think this because you still don't grasp the explanation I have given of God's nature. You still haven't comprehended the nature of God as defined in Christian theology. The example I gave is, admittedly, limited. In the example, the "cure" for cancer is something distinct from the person holding it - that is, the cure can be separated from the holder. In the case of God, He is the "cure". That is, He _is_ relief from suffering and fear and pain. He cannot separate this relief _from_ Himself because it _is_ Himself. Further, God does desire that we love him freely - which is why free will exists in the first place. We are free to choose God or not choose Him. Either choice has _concequences_. It is not God's _fault_ that choosing Him results in joy and choosing something else doesn't. As I have already explained, we cannot have the fruit of the relationship without the relationship. THIS IS NOT A THING GOD WITHHOLDS FROM US, IT IS SIMPLY HIMSELF. Given the Christian description of God, it is a logical impossibility to have any good thing without being with Him. (This isn't a limitation on God's power anymore than His inability to "make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it" or any other non-sensical logically contradictory statement.) It is no less a free choice to love God (given the consequences) than it is a free choice for you to use your brakes when speeding towards a brick wall. It is not the brick wall's "fault" that its inherent nature in that situation will yield uncomfortable results for you. Neither is it God's "fault" that by His nature, refusing to be with Him will yield unpleasant results for you.
* 1781. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 I never implied or intended anyone to believe that mentally capable persons are not _responsible_ for their choices. Mentally deficient (in the organic sense) people,I believe, will certainly be "covered" by "God's grace" - if I may use these Christian terms in this discussion. But as for those who deny their own sense of God, they are responsible for their choices. And it is _their fault_. I have known too many people raised in atheistic environments (including many I have met from former Soviet Bloc countries) who rushed to God when free to do so. My understanding of Jesus' teaching is that each person will be responsible for that knowledge to which they have been exposed. Paul, in the Roman letter, further addresses this issue when he declares that all people everywhere can at least recognize God's existence - though they may not understand His nature or other specifics due to a lack of revelation - through the universe itself - the sense of wonder, beauty and moral rightness and wrongness (truth, justice, love) that exists. What is the fate of these people? They are required to live up to the "revelation" to which they have been given - just as all people are. If any person refuses God, he or she must live with the consequences of that choice.
1789. slaterdr9 - December 12, 1996 No this is not my ultimate point. What I am trying to say is that we have to argue from own systems. And usually, as I think and hope in our cases, there is a large degree of overlap. This what makes the discussion interesting. And allows us, if not, to modify our views then to at least gain a deeper insight into them.
B Thanks. This is the only point I have been making. And this is why your logical argument fails. For example, how do know that your notion of rationality is `true' knowledge. Therefore I am able to question validity of your arguments from my system and you can not simply dismiss my arguments.
C
* 1790. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 Just when I thought you might be willing to admit the frivolity of that previous post... You state: "Therefore I am able to question validity of your arguments from my system and you can not simply dismiss my arguments." No, you can't question validity at all because your belief system REJECTS ANY POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF VALID KNOWLEDGE. You, amazingly, continue, "Your position claims that a cult Satanist can argue rationally yet a materialist cannot." I claim nothing of the sort. Any person _can_ argue rationally. But most people believe rationality exists. You cannot believe it exists according to your own belief system. Therefore, while you may be capable of forming rational arguments (though you haven't yet), the process of doing so is logically inconsistent with YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM. Either materialism is wrong, or rationality does not exist. These are your options unless you can develop a basis for rationality within the confines of materialistic dogma. Which neither you nor anyone else here have been able to do - since I have asked about thirty times now for someone to try. Ultimately, you seem incapable of seeing the clear self-refutation of holding a belief as true that denies the existence of objective truth. I can only have sympathy for such a flawed noetic structure.
1799. slaterdr9 - December 12, 1996 As expected. We must agree to disagree. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 Message #1778 Thank you for the information. I disagree with this theory. I think that our culture is source of what you would consider `Ideals'. (Plato (?) introduced the concept of Ideals.) Babies develop language from their exposure to language. All else is also learning. The farthest I would go is to suggest that some `Ideals' are equivalent to memes. As may be expected I believe in epiphenomenalism. So no non-physical interface. I do not feel your concepts are required for rational thought. I can not think of any further useful topics to discuss - unless you wish to discuss thermodynamics. If you have any books to suggest, please do. (I am very curious.) I thank you here in advance. If you wish to gain some insight into how scientists think, I very highly recommend Paradigms Lost `Images of man in the mirror of science' by John L. Casti 1989 Chapter 1 `Faith, hope and aspererity ` Thanks again for the interesting discussions.
* 1800. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 Seeing as I am an engineer with a minor in physics and graduate studies in mathematics, I don't need to read about how scientists they think, but thanks for the offer. You state, "I do not feel your concepts are required for rational thought." As long as you're freely admitting you can offer no alternatives to or rebuttals of my premises for rationality (and your belief in rationality while being a materialist) beyond "feeling", I'm completely satisfied. For the record (not directed solely at slaterdr9): Some five hundred posts since I first presented the premises for rationality and the inherent self-refutation of materialism, the cumulative response of the materialists has been "I don't feel this is right"; "I don't agree"; and "You can't expect me to logically prove this" And still, no one has offered a materialist defense of rationality - yet they all continue to believe they possess it. Rank hypocrisy and blind faith - I call it "atheism".
1801. mclallen - December 12, 1996
1802. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 In response to your request for references, I recommend the following texts dealing with rationalism, idealism, scientism, dualism, brain physiology, and epiphenomenalism that I have found helpful: The Mystery of Life's Origin: ReassessingCurrent Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984). God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978). Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, 2nd ed., trans. T. M. Green and H. H. Hudon (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1960). Eccles, J. C. 1980 The Human Psyche (Springer Internat.: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York). Eccles, J. C. 1982 "How the self acts on the brain". Psychoneuroendocrinology 7, 271-283. Margenau, H. 1977 The Nature of Physical Reality. Woodbridge, Conn.: Ox Bow Press. Judson C. Webb, Mechanism, Mentalism and Metamathematics: An Essay on Finitism, Dordrecht, 1980. Kai Nielsen, Philosophy and Atheism (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1985). Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979).
* 1803. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 Actually, it is Karl Marx who is "credited" with the statement you reference. He first made the statement in an essay titled, "Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law. Introduction" in a one-time publication called _Deutsche-Französische Jahrbücher_. This is a trivial example of why I get so irritated with atheists; they want so much to occupy the intellectually higher ground, but appear to lack the necessary rigor and skill to do so.
1804. KSandfort - December 12, 1996
* 1805. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 a) materialists, by both actions and admission believe in rationality and reason - they believe in free will (agency and intentionality) - that we can review evidence and propositions and reach conclusions b) materialists do no believe that anything other than matter exists c) a and b above are self-refuting (see posts 1270-1274) This is a gross oversimplification of my arguments, but it basically boils down to this - I have stated the necessary conditions or premises that must exist in order for rationality to exist (my posts 1270-1274). Among these premises are things such as agency, intentionality and objective truth (propositions, ideals, et al.). However, materialist doctrine precludes the existence of such things. Thus, rationality cannot exist in the materialist worldview (yet they admit and act as though it does). I have asked repeatedly for someone to either (a) _establish_ why one or more of my premises is incorrect, (b) reconcile the premises for rationality to materialist dogma, or (c) present a set of premises for the existence of rationality that do not directly conflict with materialism. Finally, the materialist doctrine is internally incoherent and self-refuting. That means, simply, that the conclusion of the position contradicts one of the premises. This is clearly the case with radical materialist belief as espoused by several participants in this forum. See my web page on this debate at Is God There? for further details.
1808. KSandfort - December 12, 1996 Am I correct in reading your last message? Is the central question the existence of rationality? Or does the question revolve around what you refer to as the materialist viewpoint, ie., that there is no such thing as spirit? Please clarify.
* 1812. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 The central question I put to materialists is the existence of rationality. They generally seem to agree that it exists, but can't seem to say why it does or why my premises are not necessary. One response was "I feel this is incorrect". Another was "I can't prove it, it's just obvious". The point I have tried to establish is that belief in rationality and reason and belief in materialism are contradictory. If one is a materialist, then there is no rational discourse - and we cannot decide, in any event, to _reach_ a conclusion because we logically "ought" to - because agency and intentionality don't exist in materialist doctrine. I don't intend to rehash this because I've already made the argument and after 500 posts, it has yet to be disputed by anything other than pejoratives and emotionalism. Please try the web site at Is God There? for any further information.
1811. lafrankie - December 12, 1996
* 1815. jeremiad - December 12, 1996,br> Re: Message #1811, lafrankie. You neglect the fact that I pointed out in my post that the general claim I was making was not directed solely at slaterdr9. You also neglect to point out slaterdr9's [by your standards] intellectual snobbery by suggesting that he had complete understanding of the scientists' perspective [I don't think slaterdr9 intended this - nor did I take it this way, but given your judgment of my statement, his statement would fall under equal scrutiny]. Is selective criticisma social grace I have not heard of? I bear no ill will or anger toward any I have debated with here. I also bear no false sentimentality when, in the face of their own inability to meet the evidentiary criteria they demand from theists, atheists attempt to leave the discussion as if they'd held their ground. If this is offense, it is offense in the name of honest, reasoned discourse. An accusation I stand ready to bear.
1817. slaterdr9 - December 12, 1996 1168. jeremiad - December 2, 1996 Message #1168* "You are duly misinformed as to the origin of the scientific method. I think you're confusing itwith the theory of evolution! It did not "evolve", but was stated crisply by Francis Bacon." Wrong jeremiad. The scientific method did evolve. (See: The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800, Herbert Butterfield 1968) This is a trivial example of why I get so irritated with jeremiad; he wants so much to occupy the intellectually higher ground, but appear to lack the necessary rigor and skill to do so. jeremiad. Remember I am never far away, so try to stay honest.
1819. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 I stand by the statement I made. Bacon developed what we call the scientific method as we use that term today. We certainly _know_ more now than we did in Bacon's time; but the approach to empirical data is the same. While you made a graceful exit in light of your inability to support your arguments rationally, it seems rather pitiable and smallish of you to fire off would-be barbs and criticisms from the sidelines. Lafrankie, any thoughts?
1820. slaterdr9 - December 12, 1996 I really enjoyed this book.It does not push any creed. And it is a non-technical and easy to read. The key point is that after comparison of various philosophical stances, Casti states the obvious: Scientists are usually very pragmatic, are unaware of the `deep' philosophical problems and really do not care. (As stated elsewhere, Feynman thought philosophy was nonsense.) Anyway now that I have given away the plot you may not want go see the movie. And thanks for the book list.
1822. lafrankie - December 12, 1996 Jeremiad: why do you force the argument to your single premise? Reading back, the rationality/materialistic conondrum is one from it's premise. The inarticulation of atheists is fragile ground upon which to build a fortress. Where do you stand? Was there an Ark? Does god look like us? Was Bacon struck by a divine revelation? I will visit your page for answers. Be back later.
* 1823. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 I apologize for the retortive quality regarding your book reference. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the psychology of science. I find it interesting, too, that, in accordance with your comments in Message #1820, most scientists I know (Ph.D. level, anyway) are rarely atheistic. They, too, rarely consider how some of their scientific beliefs may contradict certain philosophical tenets. G. K. Chesterton said that one of the beauties of the mystic is the ability to take two conclusions with contradictory premises and, instead of choosing one over the other - as you would expect a consistently rational person to do - they take both and the contradiction as well! It makes one wonder who the real mystics are!
1824. jeremiad - December 12, 1996 I assure you I don't "force the argument to [my] single premise" if you're referring to the larger argument of God's existence. I have shown that materialist doctrine is self-contradictory. That is all I have attempted to show. Since the materialists have deigned to respond with a rebuttal and have lost interest in the discussion (I wonder why that could be?), I am more than ready to launch into other areas of discussion. Do I believe that an ark existed? I think it is very likely. Do I believe in worldwide flood? Less likely. Do I believe God "looks like" a human being? No. Is it wrong to prescribe to God certain anthropomorphic attributes? Certainly not. No more wrong than it is for Shakespeare to compare his mistress' eyes to the sun (though in reverse!). Do we in our nature as human beings share some attributes with God. I think so.
1892. slaterdr9 - December 13, 1996 1. No, you can't question validity (of my arguments) at all because your belief system REJECTS ANY POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF VALID KNOWLEDGE.
jeremiad - December 12, 1996 Message #1800
A
B MT: The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul by Nobel Laureate Francis Crick (Also see copious references at end of book.) 1994 ST: The Self and Its Brain, Karl R. Popper and Nobel Laureate John C. Eccles 1985. Also Message #1802
C But, if verified, really it will change very little. We will be who we always have been. Only, we will have a better understanding why we are the way we are. Continued.
1893. slaterdr9 - December 13, 1996
C When will the confirming data for a theory become available? Again nobody knows. Perhaps, as people have argued in the past, the problem is intractable. But people are working on the problem.
D Continued.
1896. slaterdr9 - December 13, 1996 "2. And still, no one has offered a materialist defense of rationality - yet they all continue to believe they possess it. Rank hypocrisy and blind faith - Icall it"atheism"." Finally jeremaid has argued that people who do not accept his argument can not think logically and so can not question the validity of his theory. "1. No, you can't question validity (of my arguments) at all because your belief system REJECTS ANY POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF VALID KNOWLEDGE." A particularly effective way to silence the voice of disbelievers.
E The obvious answer is: jeremiad's argument may be correct. But it requires SUPPORTING DATA. And there is NO SUPPORTING DATA. So jeremiad will just have to wait with the rest of us to see if his theory can be validated. Therefore ST is still just a possible theory. And MT is also a possible theory. What if ST was the sole theory put forward? With no SUPPORTING DATA , ST would still only just be a theory. Albert Einstein said it: "Through purely logical thinking we can attain no knowledge whatsoever of the empirical world."
G It is strange to see a fanatic of the religious right trying enforce his cherished beliefs in Slate. And who says fanatics can not be well educated, intelligent and persuasive. Remember. Hitler was bright and charismatic. Why else would Germans die for him?
1918. jeremiad - December 14, 1996 I guess you found something else to discuss! You state, "It is strange to see a fanatic of the religious right trying enforce his cherished beliefs in Slate." I can only assume you're referring to me as a "fanatic". I find this not only comical, but a very pressing case of projection. The only person who has fanatically held to a belief system that has been rigorously (and eloquently by your own admission, thank you) shown to be self-refuting and nonsensical - IS YOU! Thus, while you are certainly free to slander people in this forum, if you are as intellectually honest as you claim to be, you need to identify yourself as a fanatic before casting such aspersions at others. Finally, nice attempt at evasion. But the bottom line is your belief system has been shown to be self-refuting. This means that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE - let alone have "sufficient evidence" to support it! Keep trying though, maybe you'll be the first to establish a logical basis for materialism!
1919. jeremiad - December 14, 1996
You say, There you go lying again! How "morallybankrupt" of you! I have never said anything of the sort - in fact, I even said the exact opposite. Materialists can certainly argue logically (though despite your brave attempts you have been unable to). All I have proved is that you can't argue logically and be consistent with your materialist dogma. I am still waiting for the refutation of this. Well, a refutation more rigorous than your "I don't feel this is right" response!
1921. slaterdr9 - December 14, 1996 I am no longer arguing. I am stating that your claims are completely fraudulent and without basis because there is NO SUPPORTING DATA. If you wish to say that you believe your claims to be that is fine by me. But do not represent them as a legimate logical argument that must be refuted. Just say this is what I believe. I will not fault you for that. It is your rigorous self-righteous dogmatism I find dangerous. It is not worthy of you. I think we all can separate belief from support fact. My belief is materialism simply because I am a skeptic. If I find materialism is not congruent with the best experimental evidence I will reject it just as easily as first accepted it. I only have a methodology of separating what I think is fact from fantasy. I do have a vision of what must be reality.
1924. AlexKhan - December 14, 1996 Gee, SlaterDr9, you are quite something else. No supporting data? For what? For a logical refutation? In what Jeremiad has asked you to address, he has presented nothing that can be identified either as fact or as belief, because he has made no positive assertion. As far as I can see, Jeremiad has made only a negative claim, i.e., that your materialism is incoherent and inconsistent. How does one fit "supporting data" into all this? Why have you failed to understand this? It's time to admit that materialism is a religion. You and I are religious.
1937. jeremiad - December 15, 1996 I have now been accused of being a "fanatic", of presenting "completely fraudulent" logic and several other things including being compared to Adolf Hitler. All this because slaterdr9 has been unable to present A SINGLE COGENT ARGUMENT to support his belief in reason and rationality (and the scientific method - as created by Francis Bacon!) that is not contradicted by materialist doctrine! "Fanaticism" is defined as an emotionally based or irrationally support of something. I have clearly stated my logical basis for the rejection of materialism. I have made it obvious to the most casual observer that this world view is self-refuting. I am sorry, slaterdr9, if this upsets you. But you have resorted to demagoguery, bigotry, slander, lies and ad hominem attacks in a desperate attempt to overcome what you, I am sure, recognize as a major philosophical problem with your belief system. You state that I have "cloaked" my beliefs in my logic. Another lie. I have been completely forthcoming and honest about all my suppositions - and stated them clearly. I have simply asked you to do the same and you have been COMPLETELY UNABLE TO. Continued.
1938. jeremiad - December 15, 1996 Further, you have attempted, pathetically, to paint _me_ as some sort of Elmer Gantry attempting to "persuade" people to my viewpoint. This is most interesting. I have done nothing other than present a logical basis for rationality, explain how materialism contradicts this and asked you to provide an alternative basis that is consistent with your fanatical beliefs. I have used technically sound argument and syllogism to establish my position. You, on the other hand, have used insults, personal attacks, stereotyping, evasion, false humility and obfuscation to attempt to bolster your beliefs. Who is attempting to "persuade" here? Who is the charlaton? Finally, I am still awaiting your explanation of the existence of rationality that is consistent with your religious belief. Continued.
1939. jeremiad - December 15, 1996 Let me also add that you keep discussing EVIDENCE. I have, with great patience, demonstrated to you that evidence is ONLY USEFUL if a person has FREE WILL to assess argument and evidence and REACH CONCLUSIONS THAT OUGHT TO BE REACHED BASED ON THIS INFORMATION. By assuming that "evidence" will make any difference in what you think, you have already _assumed the existence of rationality_ which is the presupposition you have FAILED TO PROVE WITHIN YOUR MATERIALIST DOGMA! I feel sorry for you, slaterdr9. In the past, you have seemed to be a (marginally) reasonable person. I suppose when we are finally confronted with our own inadequacies, we find out what we're really like.
1962. slaterdr9 - December 16, 1996 Let me explain to you as simply as possible why EVIDENCE is crucial. Suppose we decide to bet on a horse race may be held sometime in the future. Your horse is Supernatural and mine is Material. The race will decide whether the Supernatural Theory or the Material Theory of the function of our brain is correct. You study your horses pedigree and go to see him in training.
I do the same. The pedigree of my horse looks incredible. Material is the direct descendant of horses that have never lost a race: Not only this, but Supernatural's owners state the horse's only chance is if he can draw energy from some sort of `place' outside our physical universe where Ideals exist. Who knows this may be possible. But, to me, this sounds like nonsense. Continued
1963. slaterdr9 - December 16, 1996 By the way who concocted the `logical' argument you are presenting? And when? And who supports it? Does Eccles support it? If he does I think I will double my bet. If Eccles does not know about this argument, you should see what his opinion of it is. (Post it to Slate. I am sure some of us would be interested in his comments.)
1964. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 You should've quit while you had some shred of intellectual credibility left. First, you have created a "straw man" to argue against that is so far from the topic of discussion as to be laughable. Second, you still lack any kind of understanding of what I am saying. I believe strongly in evidence and the scientific method (as stated by Francis Bacon!). But I believe in it _because I know rationality exists and is real_. Not only do I believe in this, but my belief system _supports and substantiates_ my belief in these tools as means to reach real knowledge about the natural world. Your religious beliefs about materialism, as I have shown repeatedly - and you have been unable to refute, DIRECTLY CONFLICT with any claims about rationality and the ability to research evidence and reach conclusions based on this evidence using reason. You mischaracterize "materialism" as the basis for scientific discovery. Most of the great scientific discoveries were made by theists of one stripe or another. And they have nothing to do with your religious zeal for materialism! Continued.
1965. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 You're attempting to take credit for scientific discovery (the basis of which lies in religious belief about order and intelligence in nature) to bolster your faultering religious convictions. Finally, I've read Crick's book - it was the beginning of a sixth month reading excursion I took on the mind/brain issue. He's simply espousing the same old materialist stuff that's been around in philosophical circles for millenia. He dresses it up with neurological jargon and hopes that his credentials in _completely unrelated_ areas of science will convince people of his religious dogma. Eccles is a much more credible source for this discussion. Why is the "source" of my argument relevant? Why do you continue to invoke the names of people? My argument stands as a simple, succinct and clear refutation of your position. If you have to use unethical methods to malign me personally or unsound techniques to evade the discussion, I think you need to ask yourself why. Continued.
1966. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 Further, claiming that my argument is "unsubstantiated belief" is exactly what you _claim_ I have done - to label another's position as "illogical" to avoid having to deal with it. I have used only simple premise, proposition and conclusion according to fundamental rules and syntax of logic. Stating that this is "unsubstantiated belief" is somewhat like saying the square root of 9 being 3 is unsubstantiated belief. You have become increasingly petty and evasive. You have still been unable to formulate a basis for rationality within your own belief system - yet you claim boldly that it exists. I see no need to discuss this further. My position is clear and stands ready to be discussed. But, apparently, you are more interested in evangelizing for your faith than engaging in real discourse.
* 1984. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 Perhaps using your own methods to explain my position will be helpful to you. slaterdr9 (s): I'm going to bet on the Materialist Theory (MT) horse. jeremiad (j):I'll be betting on the Supernatural Theory (ST) horse. (Uncomfortable silence.) J: Uh, S; I don't mean to pry, but have you noticed that your horse has no legs? S: Don't be silly. Of course it does. J: Oh. Could you show me where they are? S: Look, I can't show you the legs, but I really feel them to be there. I just know they are. J: OK. Don't you think this is a lot of faith to hold on to in light of the evidence? S: Of course not. I'd rather believe in a horse with no legs winning the race than have to admit your horse would win. J: Why is that? S: Because the only people who believe in your horse are religious fanatics who base their entire belief system on faith! (Uncomfortable silence again.) J: But, aren't you the one displaying all the faith in a horse that can't possibly even _enter_ the race? S: Look, you're just a fanatic - like Hitler! I don't have to listen to you no matter how much sense you seem to make. It's all just a trick! (Fade to black.)
1996. slaterdr9 - December 16, 1996 I AM PUZZLED. "Why is the "source" of my argument relevant? Why do you continue to invoke the names of people?" Go back and you will see that you started naming people, not me. And justifably so. You proudly stated that Eccles has a non-materialistic point of view. I find your reticence to give me an answer amazing. Especially since, I think you have claimed, the argument has been around for 20 years and no atheist has ever refuted it. PLEASE SOME ANSWERS.
Who developed the `logical' argument you are presenting? THANKS.
1998. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 Please refer to the posts again. I referenced Eccles AT YOUR REQUEST FOR RELEVANT BOOKS/INFORMATION. Your reading comprehension continues to amaze me. Are you a product of public or private schools? Further, I have been answering your questions consistently and fairly from the beginning of our exchange. Yet you have flatly refused to answer mine. Tell me, why is it you think you are above answering questions? The argument I present is not quoted verbatim, but is a representation of several different thinkers, including Augustine, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, et al. Writings by all of these are available in bookstores and some articles on the Net. I have not used Eccles in any fashion except to succinctly refute your bold claims about modern science being consistently materialistic. Please read Eccles books for his position on this. As to his opinion on my argument against materialism, I don't know if he reads Slate or not. Further, he's a neurophysiologist - not a philosopher, so I don't expect I would care any more about his opinion than I would about any other layman's. Your consistent habit of evasion, petty insults and lack of clear thinking continues. SOME ANSWERS PLEASE: How do you substantiate rational thought in light of materialist doctrine? Please use common logical premises and syllogism and conclusion to phrase your answer. Reference my posts 1270-1274 for an example.
* 1999. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 You state: "I find your reticence to give me an answer amazing. Especially since, I think you have claimed, the argument has been around for 20 years and no atheist has ever refuted it." I never made such a claim. I stated that Logical Positivism (and its variants) has generally been rejected in philosophical circles because it is self-refuting. I have _never_ read or heard a rebuttal to this. I don't know if one exists or not. This is why I have asked you for weeks now to provide one if you can. Since you have been unable to find or produce one, I believe your belief system is based on faith _in spite of_ reason and evidence. Thus, you are a hypocrite for citing theists for "lack of evidence", are you not? You accuse me of "reticence" in not answering your post made earlier today. Yet you have not answered the question I put to you weeks ago. You apparently believe you are not under any compulsion to substantiate your beliefs while all those who disagree with you are. This is not surprising. Most atheists would sooner die than think - and they often do. Your evasion and dishonesty are a discredit to your credibility.
2003. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 I hope you will take time to think about why you continue to seek for ways to discredit my argument on grounds other than logic (questioning who created it, who supports it, etc.) Either it is sound logic or it is not. If an atheist came up with it, would it make any difference as to its soundness? I ask you in the name of honesty, to analyze the argument, locate its weaknesses, if any, point them out AND ALSO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY MATERIALISMIS COHERENT AND SUPPORTS RATIONALITY. I don't believe these to be unfair or excessive claims for a person who obviously regards systematic methods of reaching conclusions as a sound basis for understanding, do you? Please, resist the urge to focus onside issues or generalizations of my position. Take the argument as stated in posts 1270-1274 and look at each premise and the conclusions. I do not believe your recent excursions into demagoguery and ad hominem attacks to be beneficial to anyone except preachers of confusion and fraud. I will check back in awhile for your response.
2005. slaterdr9 - December 16, 1996 THE TRUTH WILL OUT! "Further, he's (Eccles) a neurophysiologist - not a philosopher, so I don't expect I would care any more about his opinion than I would about any other layman's." Nobody could prove you wrong! You are just a highly opinionated prig. And you accuse me of not wanting to discuss issues with you!
2013. jeremiad - December 16, 1996 You may believe in your religion greatly, but you believe it _in spite of_ the evidence and _in spite of_ logic and reason. I made the comment about Eccles to point out that _anyone_ can present an argument - and that I will regard it based on its merit - not on its source. A point of reason lost, apparently on both you and mnjperry who are caught up in "messiah" watching - looking for the most popular scientist to put your faith in. Also note: I have answered your questions. You have not answered mine. The only person whose faith is on the line is yours. And it looks as though the line has already broken. How did H. G. Wells put it... "the mind at the end of its tether"? Too bad the veracity of your intellect doesn't match that of your bitterness. You might have had a chance. If this is the best the atheists can muster, it's a wonder there's any discussion at all.
2021. jwendell - December 16, 1996
* 2027. jeremiad - December 17, 1996 Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. You ask, "how God can exist in any real sense (not imaginary) and be outside of space and time[?]" It begins with your approach about the substance of the universe. Is there one kind of"stuff" or two? The two basic positions are ontological monism and ontological dualism. I have explained these in earlier posts. See my web page at Is God There? for further details. If matter is all there is, then obviously God couldn't exist outside of space and time. However, I don't believe matter is all there is. I believe the stuff of "mind" or "soul" exists as well. You could refer to this as a "spiritual dimension" if you wish - although I don't necessarily like all the baggage that comes with that phrase. Note that either of these positions are _presuppositions_. That is, you _begin_ with one or the other - you don't "determine" them. However, after studying yourself and the known universe, I believe one of the two options will explain our universe and will be coherent with what we know and the other will lead to irrationality. This is the point I have made with mnjperry and slaterdr9. Materialism leads irrevocably to the demise of rationality - which, of course, means that things like inductive reasoning and the scientific method are meaningless and provide no access to real knowledge. I believe the scientific method and rationality and inductive reasoning _do_ provide us with real knowledge of ourselves and our universe - therefore, materialism must be flawed. Please refer to posts 1270-1274 for a complete proof of this statement. Also note that no counter argument has been offered for this position - so if you can explain how materialism is not self-refuting and how it can be reconciled with rationality, please do.
2029. slaterdr9 - December 17, 1996 Your dismissal of Eccles as a philosophical layman was absurd. He wrote his book with Popper who was one of the titans of philosophy in this century. Also your dismissal of Crick's ideas on free will was equally absurd. "So you want to go with the most prevalent opinion?" Message #2014 Finally your dismissal of any majority concensus among experts in the field is ludicrous.
Consider You are only pushing your own synthesis of a `logical' argument based on 19th century and older philosophical concepts. And you ask for credentialsto be dismissed because you have none. You are trying to level a playing field you are not even standing in!
2032. jeremiad - December 17, 1996 "That is what life is full of: AMBIGUITIES and IGNORANCE." I will certainly agree that your position is full of such things. You still are unable to simply answer the question, aren't you? It has been more than apparant that your only response to the discussion is to use personal attacks, evasion and insults. You offer nothing in the way of substantive discussion. I have stated an argument that anyone who is willing can understand. I have spoken within realms of common knowledge - making no claims about specific scientific areas except to state that the specialists are in complete disagreement and your statements to the opposite are lies or ignorant. You cling with religious zeal to your position - offering no logical support of it - and claim that I am somehow unsound. Do you not recognize the pitiable position you have taken? I realize it is hard to admit that you have no reasonable basis for your beliefs, but if you are as intellecutally honest as you would like usto believe, you would admit this.
* 2033. jeremiad - December 17, 1996 You state, "You are only pushing your own synthesis of a 'logical' argument based on 19th century and older philosophical concepts." I can only call this a lie. The argument I presented was a synthesis of reading I have done primarily of philosophers who are _still living_! The only one I mentioned who isn't is Augustine. I only reference him because of his approach to presuppositional logic. Finally, why do you continue to attack the "source" and the "date" of the argument I have presented? If it is so anachronistic and uninformed, surely you in all your modern learning can easily refute it. I plead with you one final time: please refute my "illogical", "19th-century", "uncredentialed", "out-of-date", "fraudulant" argument. Since you consider me to be an unlettered buffoon, this should be a simple task for one so skilled in scientific endeavor. PLEASE PROVIDE AN ANSWER IF YOU CAN.
2034. jeremiad - December 17, 1996 You state,"you keep claiming you are the biggest bull frog in the pond when others would not even view you as a tadpole" Please provide a reference to the post in which I stated my expertise in any field whatsoever. You also say, "Neither you nor I have any credentials or even useful knowledge in the areas we are discussing." Please explain, if you are as ignorant in these fields as you claim to be, why you are arguing? Finally, consider this: nothing I have presented as an argument rests on anything other than simple logical syntax. If you are claiming that because people do not have advanced degrees in highly specific areas of science they cannot have any understanding of themselves or their surroundings, I suppose we should simply drop this. I believe that normal, intelligent people have the requisite reason to discuss issues and reach valid, real conclusions. I have not endeavored to explain brain function. I have pointed out that it is not a "closed case" and that many specialists recognize that something "extra" seems to be required. YOU WERE THE ONE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT MODERN SCIENCE - NOT I! I responded to your ignorant statements with quotes and references only to further demonstrate the impotence of you position. The issue still remains before you: you cannot substantiate you belief in and use of reason and rationality within your religious belief.
2031. jeremiad - December 17, 1996 I agree with you that fear has certainly been a motivational tool used by many religious people to secure converts. However, because imperfect zealots or well-meaning fanatics have abused or mischaracterized the nature of God doesn't actually change God's nature. The pages of the NT read more like a love story than "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". I can't make excuses for what people have done in the of religion anymore than I can for what people have done in the name of science or love or justice - but I don't give up on science, love and justice because they have been mischaracterized or misunderstood by others. I still believe the problem you present is a false one. We don't reject God because He is unbelievable; we reject God because we are sinful - we desire to be our own god. God asks that we acknowledge Him - that we accept Him and seek to love Him. When we do so, it is His presence that is our reward. When we refuse to do so, it is His absence that is our punishment. Why would God not simply set our sins aside? Well, first let me say that I believe He does set our sins aside - when we let Him. God is a just God. Evil should be punished. However, God provided a payment for our evil and asks only that we accept it in order to remove the barrier _we_ have created between ourselves and God. If anyone spends eternity in torment, it is through their own desire to be separate from God.
2035. mnjperry - December 17, 1996
2037. jeremiad - December 17, 1996 I agree these are fair questions - and I will offer my opinions about possible answers. "Why was such a payment necessary?" Because God created (actually determined by His nature) standards of right and wrong which were violatedby sin. Justice demands payment - thus requiring some recompense for evil (as a reflection of the "imago dei" in humanity, it is our very nature to demand payment for wrongdoing) "Why would a loving God inflict a painful death on his only son to cover a debt that he could have just set aside?" "Setting aside" evil is not justice. A payment was required by God's just nature. The only sacrifice that would be equivalent to the evil in the world was that of a sinless, willing sacrifice. "And if God has already paid himself off for a debt that only exists because he says it does, why do we have to do anything more?" Actually the debt exists because _we_ committed evil acts - not because God "says it does". But further, we _don't_ do anything more. There's nothing we _can_ do. Everything that is necessary for salvation has already been done. The price has been paid and the account cleared - we simply accept the free gift of grace. "What purpose of God's is served by requiring us to make an explicit act of acceptance in order to be spared suffering?" You are still creating a non-existent dilemma. You're asking that God force us to be with Him whether we want to or not. He has offered the sacrifice that removes the barrier between us and Him - so that we are capable of being with Him. He will not force us to be with Him, however. We may still ignore or reject Him and choose our own way. He loves us enough to let us decide our fate for ourselves. But, within the confines of freedom and justice, He has done all that can be expected to save us.
|