Gary's Corner

[Immanuel Can]

"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things — trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

A superb quotation from a famed Christian author...who, as a young man, was a hardcore angry Atheist. Well chosen. It's not that we believe Christianity is a delusion and we prefer to be deluded. But if it WERE a delusion, just as the Atheist insists, Atheism still would have nothing to offer.

And that's really the point, I think. Atheists get very angry at Christians, and feel perfectly justified in hurling all kinds of accusations and problems in the Christians' direction. And fair enough -- any worldview worthy of being believed owes us answers to these things. But if even just the very same questions Atheism raises are raised to Atheism, it goes dry immediately. It simply cannot handle the problem of evil, or the question of values, or the purpose of life, or anything else essential to a functioning worldview -- and it protests that it doesn't owe us to. It asks those it criticizes to do all the cognitive work, and continues to carp about the answers, while having nothing whatsoever to commend itself to any of us.

And it supposes we won't notice?

However, even the Atheist would have to admit that Christianity proposes answers (whether we decide we like them or not) for all these things. What has the great emperor Atheism got? No clothes at all. How is that commendable? Why should we be Atheists?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[phyllo]

It's not that we believe Christianity is a delusion and we prefer to be deluded. But if it WERE a delusion, just as the Atheist insists, Atheism still would have nothing to offer.

IOW, you don't believe that Christianity is a delusion but if you knew that it is a delusion, then you would choose to be deluded over atheism.

However, even the Atheist would have to admit that Christianity proposes answers (whether we decide we like them or not) for all these things.

Made up answers.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not that we believe Christianity is a delusion and we prefer to be deluded. But if it WERE a delusion, just as the Atheist insists, Atheism still would have nothing to offer.

IOW, you don't believe that Christianity is a delusion but if you knew that it is a delusion, then you would choose to be deluded over atheism.

Not quite. I might prefer to be Atheistic, for all I can say. For whatever reason, I'm inclined toward truth. Atheism would give me no reason to prefer it, but I think my natural constitution would possibly still compel me in that direction. But what is certain is that if I did that, I'd be less happy, lose all grounds of values, have no reason to prefer truth or integrity over their opposites (and so lose things like science and civility completely), have to recognize there's no purpose in life, and believe I was just going to die and be eaten by worms. Atheism itself would force me in that direction, inevitably.

Now, at present, one value I do hold is rational consistency -- a value which is prized by all philosophers worth their salt, I would say -- so if I did believe Atheism was true, I would have to become just as dismal and hopeless as Atheism rationalizes us to be.

And right now, I'm asking Atheists to explain on what basis they would commend even things like rational consistency, given that their worldview offers absolutely nothing.

And in answer, I'm hearing crickets.

[phyllo]

If you are basing your decisions and actions on the truth and logical consistency, then you can expect better results than starting from some other point.

Even if you choose to be deceptive and false, a starting point of truth is logically better.

[Immanuel Can]

If you are basing your decisions and actions on the truth and logical consistency, then you can expect better results than starting from some other point.

Rational consistency matters, I agree.

But what does it tell us, when we realize that almost all Atheists behave rationally-inconsistently? They continue to pretend that there are such things as duty, as dignity, as meaning, as integrity, as science, as morality, and as truth -- all things that their professed worldview denies them any grounds for believing in. Does it not imply that they've found rationally-consistent Atheism unlivable, and simply abandoned it? Does it mean they've stared into the abyss to which rationally-consistent Atheistic worldview compels them, and then turned back, and preferred safe delusions to the black pit of meaninglessness yawning in front of their feet?

I think it does. And this explains why they appeal to such ephemera as "human flourishing," or "social consensus," or "the survival imperative" or whatever, in the vain hope of justifying their recommitment to morality and meaning, you'll find they're utterly incapable of explaining how Atheism itself compels them to any such imperatives. Does the hostile and uncaring universe mind if we don't survive? Does the universe bend to social consensus? Does this entropic universe care one fig for how much people suffer, and whether they "flourish" in some way they imagine? Atheism can't explain how.

I'm actually thankful for their rational-inconsistency. For it surely makes them (Christianly-speaking) more moral, decent people than Atheism will provide them any warrant for being. I give them full credit for being better than their creed...still, does it not still strongly point us to the bankruptcy of Atheism itself? I think so.

Even if you choose to be deceptive and false, a starting point of truth is logically better.

Well, if you start with truth, and behave rationally-consistently, I would say it's better. But "better" is not an objective quality an Atheist can really explain. Things are not "better" or "worse," in an Atheist world, except for instrumental purposes individual Atheists might choose, but which purposes themselves the Atheists are powerless to justify. Thus, Atheism always ends up being practiced inconsistently and irrationally, but it's probably for the better -- that it is, at least for the rest of us.

What is, after all, Atheism's claim to be "the truth"? How does Atheism establish that, given an Atheist world, "truth" is even a necessary thing?

[Gary Childress]

If you are basing your decisions and actions on the truth and logical consistency, then you can expect better results than starting from some other point.

Rational consistency matters, I agree.

But what does it tell us, when we realize that almost all Atheists behave rationally-inconsistently? They continue to pretend that there are such things as duty, as dignity, as meaning, as integrity, as science, as morality, and as truth -- all things that their professed worldview denies them any grounds for believing in. Does it not imply that they've found rationally-consistent Atheism unlivable, and simply abandoned it? Does it mean they've stared into the abyss to which rationally-consistent Atheistic worldview compels them, and then turned back, and preferred safe delusions to the black pit of meaninglessness yawning in front of their feet?

I think it does. And this explains why they appeal to such ephemera as "human flourishing," or "social consensus," or "the survival imperative" or whatever, in the vain hope of justifying their recommitment to morality and meaning, you'll find they're utterly incapable of explaining how Atheism itself compels them to any such imperatives. Does the hostile and uncaring universe mind if we don't survive? Does the universe bend to social consensus? Does this entropic universe care one fig for how much people suffer, and whether they "flourish" in some way they imagine? Atheism can't explain how.

I'm actually thankful for their rational-inconsistency. For it surely makes them (Christianly-speaking) more moral, decent people than Atheism will provide them any warrant for being. I give them full credit for being better than their creed...still, does it not still strongly point us to the bankruptcy of Atheism itself? I think so.

Even if you choose to be deceptive and false, a starting point of truth is logically better.

Well, if you start with truth, and behave rationally-consistently, I would say it's better. But "better" is not an objective quality an Atheist can really explain. Things are not "better" or "worse," in an Atheist world, except for instrumental purposes individual Atheists might choose, but which purposes themselves the Atheists are powerless to justify. Thus, Atheism always ends up being practiced inconsistently and irrationally, but it's probably for the better -- that it is, at least for the rest of us.

What is, after all, Atheism's claim to be "the truth"? How does Atheism establish that, given an Atheist world, "truth" is even a necessary thing?

Truth concerning reality = what is the case. If an atheist thinks there is no God, and there is no God, then it's truth. If an atheist thinks there is no God, but there is, then that is false. An atheist, like a theist, assumes something no living mortal can know the answer to.

As far as "better" it's very easy for anyone to describe "better" depending upon what one thinks is most important. If one possesses what one thinks is most important, then that can be described as "better". If one lacks what one thinks is most important, then that can be described as "worse". An atheist can know the difference between "better" and "worse" by what they think is better or worse. Everyone has things they think are better or worse, even an atheist. Things like comfort, happiness or truth are usually considered better than things like pain, unhappiness, or falsity.

[Gary Childress]

After some reflection I've realized the following about my position on theism.

I'm ultimately agnostic out of intellectual honesty. (Meaning if someone asks me whether there is a God, I will usually not categorically say either "yes" or "no".) There are times when I opine that there may not be a God. And there are times when I opine that there may be a God. I see no legitimate reason to be otherwise.

Am I wrong? And if so, what is wrong about my position? Do I in fact know that there is or isn't a God? Should I in fact commit to either knowing or not knowing there is a God? I see no grave reason to either affirm nor deny that there is a God.

As far as I'm aware, atheists don't judge me as immoral or wrong because of my agnosticism. But followers of the Abrahamic religions do judge me as immoral or wrong for being an agnostic. This is why I prefer the company of atheists more so than the company of followers of the Abrahamic religions.

Am wrong to feel this way?

[phyllo]

Do I in fact know that there is or isn't a God?

Either you have seen some convincing evidence for the existence of God or you have not.

So apparently, you have not.

[Gary Childress]

Do I in fact know that there is or isn't a God?

Either you have seen some convincing evidence for the existence of God or you have not.

So apparently, you have not.

No, I have no evidence for the existence of God, however, logically, I can't say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But I'm kind of inclined to think that if there is a God, then there ought to be evidence of God's existence available to everyone (if not just out of divine compassion). But again, logically, I can't deny something that is logically unknowable from top to bottom.

[phyllo]

Unknowable?

You're going to get a lot of disagreement with that.

[Gary Childress]

Unknowable?

You're going to get a lot of disagreement with that.

Well, according to an atheist, I am wrong to be an agnostic as in being "incorrect". According to a follower of the Abrahamic religions, I am wrong as an agnostic both in being incorrect, and morally wrong as in possessing "evil" for my lack of belief or faith.

Now an atheist might say I am morally wrong for some other reason, such as being a hedonist or something, but it's not because I am agnostic. It is for my hedonism, not my agnosticism that I might be considered morally wrong by some atheists. I can see the possibility of being morally wrong for ultimately valuing personal pleasure over duty to others, but I see no wrong for admitting what I cannot possibly know (the existence or not of a God).

[phyllo]

The overwhelming view is that one can know whether God exists or not.

It's not some unattainable thing.

[Gary Childress]

The overwhelming view is that one can know whether God exists or not.

It's not some unattainable thing.

Well, it's not my view. I don't see how anyone can know with any kind of certainty what exists or doesn't exist beyond the visible or verifiable or prior to death. And indeed, perhaps there is nothing at all to follow after death. Even if there is a God, that's a possibility as well. It's also based on our own experience of not existing (at least as far as we know) before we were born.

[Immanuel Can]

An atheist, like a theist, assumes something no living mortal can know the answer to.

I think that's plainly untrue. You can, and you should know the answer. Those who claim not to are "without excuse." (Romans 1.)

As far as "better" it's very easy for anyone to describe "better" depending upon what one thinks is most important.

No, that's not logical, Gary. "Better" requires a hierarchy of values. And nothing in the Atheist's worldview allows for any value to be better than any other, or any values to exist at all, really.

An atheist can know the difference between "better" and "worse" by what they think is better or worse.

Is "what they think" determinative of anything? It's impossible to say how it is.

Now, they can wish to believe, or make up arbitrarily, something as "better" or "worse" for some instrumental purpose they may personally have; but that's purely subjective, and can't inform anybody else of their duty, or of their proper moral assessment. And they can't possibly establish what the "right" purpose to have is, so they can't justify their personal preferences about "better" and "worse." Thus, their "better" and "worse" vapourize at the end of their nose; nobody else can be required to believe them or care.

Now, nobody says they can't imagine "better" or "worse". They just can't justify them. There's all the difference in the world between the former and the latter.

[Gary Childress]

Now, nobody says they [atheists] can't imagine "better" or "worse". They just can't justify them. There's all the difference in the world between the former and the latter.

What do you mean by "Justify"? What is "justification" for something? Can you explain or give an example of what "justifies" something.

For a concrete example, if I am holding a gun and confronted by someone who is angry at me and also has a gun and seems to pose an existential threat to me (is threatening to kill me), what should I do? What would you do and what is your "justification" for that action as a believer in God?