Why I Am An Atheist

[Immanuel Can]

I don't doubt your intentions, IC. And I understand you, personally, are not referring to totems or fetishes. However, the exercise itself being profoundly similar, how would Arising, or anyone else, know the difference between having found a connection with God, or merely having found an attachment to the desire to find Him, through practise?

I think we do know the difference between a real encounter and an imaginary wish. At least, I am prepared to give Arising credit for that. I guess we'll find out how much confidence he has in his own rationality and in the method of testing against evidence, won't we?

You may doubt he'll even try. Fair enough. But I'm willing to invest a bit of confidence that some sincerity lies behind his antipathy. I may be wrong, but it's worth at least giving him the chance to find out for himself...at least, I think so.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The relationships of objects and energies in the real world have a consistency and reliability which eventually give rise to life, then intelligent life, then life that can invent logic. I don't think we could have done that without a rational universe on which to model our thought-structures.

Logic is a human invention, though not necessaraily restricted to the use of earthlings. Rationality is universal. OK?

Well, let me repeat back what I'm hearing you say, and you can tell me why I've got your intention all wrong.

1. "Objects and energies" spontaneously give rise to life.
2. Intelligent life "invents" logic, but logic is inherent to the universe itself (i.e. "rational universe"), so it's not actually invented.
3. We "model our thought structures" on this notion of "logic" we "invented" ourselves, and which somehow became inherent to the universe even though we invented it.
4. We "couldn't have done without" this rational universe we invented, and on which we model our thought structures, so it must be right.

You'll see why I have questions about that explanation.

Your problem is that you've dismissed Kant, who cleverly separates the synthetic with the analytic. All maths and Logic are tools to describe and measure the world, they are self referral and circular. They work because they are internally coherent. When used carefully to describe the phenomenal world they get results. This is not because the world is inherently "logical" or "mathematical" it is because the world we can perceive but never fully know is necessary, determined and consistent.

[Immanuel Can]

Your problem is that you've dismissed Kant, who cleverly separates the synthetic with the analytic.

Not at all. I agree with Kant on that. It's a very good and useful distinction...though I can't see exactly why you regard it as relevant here...

All maths and Logic are tools to describe and measure the world, they are self referral and circular. They work because they are internally coherent.

That they "describe and measure the world," as you put it, would classify them as synthetic, not analytic. That they are "internally coherent" would mark them as analytic. Kant said that analytic and synthetic are different. But you feel content to blend them? That's mysterious...and certainly not Kantian.

The truth is that science is empirical. That means it "describes the world" alright, but is not "analytic" or "internally coherent" at all. Rather, it's probabilistic. I don't know of any philosopher of science who thinks otherwise, so you're a bit off the beaten track there.

When used carefully to describe the phenomenal world they get results.

That's "synthetic". Analytic things don't have to be "used carefully," only "used correctly." For analytic assessments are 100% certain and unaffected by empirical factors, since the systems to which they refer is "internally coherent," not "externally verified." We don't need testing to know 2+2=4, because it's a statement about a closed system called "maths." We do need testing to "get results" on the question of whether or not a bridge will fall down, because it's empirical, and the maths in question may or may not be adequate to the empirical situation in which they are being employed. That's the difference between doing "analytic" work and "empirical" (i.e. scientific) applications of that work.

This is not because the world is inherently "logical" or "mathematical" it is because the world we can perceive but never fully know is necessary, determined and consistent.

"Necessary, determined, and consistent"? Then does that mean you're a fatalist? That seems improbable, because you're debating, aren't you? If everything is really "necessary, determined and consistent" then persuasion is an illusion: people cannot in any real sense "change their minds," anymore than the laws of physics can be changed. Everything is "necessary, determined and consistent" regardless of what we do.

[Arising_uk]

You are insisting on a world of perfect forms. ...

Not really, if I'm insisting on anything it's an external world with things and states of affair.

Nature does not recognise logic any more than it can recognise an integer, a straight line, or an irrational number. ...

I disagree about the Logic part(and maybe the integer 1) as my understanding is that Logic comes from there being 'Nature', i.e. things that exist.

These are all things that humans have invented to model the world and are all theory laden constructive and analytical, being self referral and circular in argumentation . ...

I disagree and agree in part, as I think that because there is a world then Logic exists.

A "state of affairs" is a human conceit.

I see it differently, without there being a 'state of affairs' nothing to have a conceit about.

[Skip]

Well, let me repeat back what I'm hearing you say, and you can tell me why I've got your intention all wrong.

1. The relationships of "Objects and energies" spontaneously give rise to life.
2. Intelligent life "invents" logic, [a formal system of rhetoric] but logic is inherent to the universe itself (i.e. "rational [orgaized in a ordered, sane, sensible, reasonable] universe"), [which is not][so it's not actually] invented.
3. We "model our thought structures" on [this notion of ] [the orderly universe we observe ] "logic" we [name and describe]["invented"] ourselves, and [which somehow became] [always was] inherent to the universe [ even though we invented it.]
4. We "couldn't have done without" this rational universe [we invented, and] on which we model our thought structures,[because we cannot do otherwise][ so it must be right.]

You'll see why I have questions about that explanation.

I can recommend a really good ENT specialist, but you'll need an up-to-date OHIP card.

Besides, that wasn't even about you. The abused child remark was.

[Immanuel Can]

Where you live, does that pass for an explanation? Okay.

[Skip]

Where I live, an initially clear statement doesn't require an explanation, since nobody attempts to contort it.

[Dalek Prime]

I don't doubt your intentions, IC. And I understand you, personally, are not referring to totems or fetishes. However, the exercise itself being profoundly similar, how would Arising, or anyone else, know the difference between having found a connection with God, or merely having found an attachment to the desire to find Him, through practise?

I think we do know the difference between a real encounter and an imaginary wish. At least, I am prepared to give Arising credit for that. I guess we'll find out how much confidence he has in his own rationality and in the method of testing against evidence, won't we?

You may doubt he'll even try. Fair enough. But I'm willing to invest a bit of confidence that some sincerity lies behind his antipathy. I may be wrong, but it's worth at least giving him the chance to find out for himself...at least, I think so.

I can honestly say that I'd be interested in the exercise for myself. For me it wouldn't be a matter of belief, as I'm open to it. More a matter of 'discussing' my concerns regarding His system, and reasoning behind it.

[Immanuel Can]

I can honestly say thatbim interested in the exercise for myself.

Well, all I can tell you is it changed my life. Totally. It was the honest encounter with Jesus Christ. I was not expecting it. I was expecting an intellectual exercise, a gathering of information about an idea I'd pretty much dismissed already...but I was wrong.

Everything depends on that little touch of "faith," I think. If a person can even muster up enough faith to try it, and to believe something possibly could be there...well, for me, that was the gateway. It seems that what He said is true: "...a smouldering ember He will not quench." Just a tiny touch of trust is enough. Then you see.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your problem is that you've dismissed Kant, who cleverly separates the synthetic with the analytic.

Not at all. I agree with Kant on that. It's a very good and useful distinction...though I can't see exactly why you regard it as relevant here...

Because you are conflating them above.

All maths and Logic are tools to describe and measure the world, they are self referral and circular. They work because they are internally coherent.

That they "describe and measure the world," as you put it, would classify them as synthetic, not analytic. That they are "internally coherent" would mark them as analytic. Kant said that analytic and synthetic are different. But you feel content to blend them? That's mysterious...and certainly not Kantian.

They are USED to measure the world, they are not determined by it. There are many errors when they are applied, such as PI which attempts to measure but ultimately fails like a square peg in a round hole.
It's you that is conflating them, not I.

The truth is that science is empirical. That means it "describes the world" alright, but is not "analytic" or "internally coherent" at all. Rather, it's probabilistic. I don't know of any philosopher of science who thinks otherwise, so you're a bit off the beaten track there.

Science is NOT maths nor is it logic. These are the tools of science,.

When used carefully to describe the phenomenal world they get results.

That's "synthetic". Analytic things don't have to be "used carefully," only "used correctly."

The statements produced are synthetic. But the language used is based on the analytic tools.

I think you need to be more careful to assume that the person you are reading might know what they are talking about, rather than run off half cocked assuming they do not.

For analytic assessments blah blah blah.... That'..s the difference between doing "analytic" work and "empirical" (i.e. scientific) applications of that work.

This is not because the world is inherently "logical" or "mathematical" it is because the world we can perceive but never fully know is necessary, determined and consistent.

"Necessary, determined, and consistent"? Then does that mean you're a fatalist?
No it means I'm a determinist obviously. It's only fools that have an imaginary friend the extend determinism to fatalism. Fatalism is the accompaniment of omniscience.
That seems improbable, because you're debating, aren't you? If everything is really "necessary, determined and consistent" then persuasion is an illusion: people cannot in any real sense "change their minds," anymore than the laws of physics can be changed. Everything is "necessary, determined and consistent" regardless of what we do.

Like I said, you need to assume that you you might not be the only smart person around you.
Now tun back and take a look at what you yourself said, and explain why you conflate analytic and synthetic.

[Immanuel Can]

Just an interesting quotation on the subject of Atheism from John C. Wright:

“It is an inescapable truth that no man can take all credit to himself and at the same time feel any gratitude to any for his blessings. If you earned it, it is not a gift. If you earned it by yourself with no one’s aid, you owe no thanks to anyone.

And this indeed was the attitude, which I take to be the modern attitude. The Abolisher triumphantly announced that he needed no good fairies, no magic, no grace, no gift from heaven to achieve all his dreams. He disdained to take a magic sword of Elfland; he would forge it by himself, for himself, or do without.

I had a prophetic vision then, and saw how Siegfried, who did indeed forge his magic sword for himself, and relied on none but his own strength, came to an end. For he is foredoomed to fall speared in the back, a coward’s blow, by Hagen, a man with the heart and heritage of a dwarf. The man who lives by himself cannot escape his fate, which is to die by himself.

I hope I will not be misunderstood. I do not mock. I bow my head almost in respect akin to fear. I salute the melancholy, doomed, and gloomy pride of this sad and great pagan with whom I spoke. I do not doubt his word, no, not by an iota, the tiniest of letters. I think he is entirely responsible for his life, and he accepts no aid.

And he will die, and his loved ones will die. Some of his loved ones will die in slow pain, and others in merciful swiftness. Some will die before him, so that he will weep by their graves, and there will be no consolation; and some will die after him, so that they will weep by his, and likewise find no consolation.

I bow my head, because at once, as if with a stroke of lightning, I saw that he and all his kind live in a universe that is a sepulcher.

To be sure, it is a coffin of appalling vastness, fifteen billion light-years in radius, too large for the imagination of man to comprehend even its smallest moiety, godlike in its sheer magnitude of size; but it is a coffin nonetheless, an airtight coffin, hermetically sealed with all the stars trapped inside, and all within are the prey and sport of death and entropy. Everything dreamt and everything done inside the sepulcher will come to nothing in the end. Escape is not merely impossible, it is unimaginable.

They cannot wish upon a star because to them the sky is black.”

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are insisting on a world of perfect forms. ...

Not really, if I'm insisting on anything it's an external world with things and states of affair.
Both human conceits.

Nature does not recognise logic any more than it can recognise an integer, a straight line, or an irrational number. ...

I disagree about the Logic part(and maybe the integer 1) as my understanding is that Logic comes from there being 'Nature', i.e. things that exist.
Rubbish. nature has no human language. the Analytic realm is human made and only applied to describe the universe to offer synthetic statements. Things do not comply with laws; laws are drawn by inference within and for the INTERESTS of humans. Nature does not give a fuck.

These are all things that humans have invented to model the world and are all theory laden constructive and analytical, being self referral and circular in argumentation . ...

I disagree and agree in part, as I think that because there is a world then Logic exists.
Well Duh, Where does it exist, except as an idea?

A "state of affairs" is a human conceit.

I see it differently, without there being a 'state of affairs' nothing to have a conceit about.

There are no affairs, and only states of affairs when observed. You assertion is not verifiable empirically. But Logic did not exist before humans formalised it.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you need to be more careful to assume that the person you are reading might know what they are talking about, rather than run off half cocked assuming they do not.

I'm not trying to twit you in public here, Hobbes. I was just asking for clarification.

"Necessary, determined, and consistent"? Then does that mean you're a fatalist?
No it means I'm a determinist obviously. It's only fools that have an imaginary friend the extend determinism to fatalism. Fatalism is the accompaniment of omniscience.

No, determinism analytically IS a form of fatalism. If you consider, you'll see that it has to be; for if physical laws "determine" everything in the universe, everything in the universe was set from the Big Bang...or before, really, because something must have caused the Big Bang. In Determinism, there are no other "forces," such as, say free human will, that could enter the equation.

Determinism isn't true if there are any non-determined factors in play. That's analytical: it's true by definition, not by opinion.

Now, you're right to say that in, way Ultracalvinist Theology, or in a wide variety of religions and ideologies, there are strands that are fatalistic. But Theism is predominantly non-determinist, since it posits the existence of both free human will and the interactions of God as factors as additional factors with natural laws in the generation of outcomes.

why you conflate analytic and synthetic.

I don't. Check again. I said I like Kant's distinction. See line one of my previous response.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think you need to be more careful to assume that the person you are reading might know what they are talking about, rather than run off half cocked assuming they do not.

I'm not trying to twit you in public here, Hobbes. I was just asking for clarification.

"Necessary, determined, and consistent"? Then does that mean you're a fatalist?
No it means I'm a determinist obviously. It's only fools that have an imaginary friend the extend determinism to fatalism. Fatalism is the accompaniment of omniscience.

No, determinism analytically IS a form of fatalism. If you consider, you'll see that it has to be; for if physical laws "determine" everything in the universe, everything in the universe was set from the Big Bang...or before, really, because something must have caused the Big Bang. In Determinism, there are no other "forces," such as, say free human will, that could enter the equation.

Determinism isn't true if there are any non-determined factors in play. That's analytical: it's true by definition, not by opinion.

Now, you're right to say that in, way Ultracalvinist Theology, or in a wide variety of religions and ideologies, there are strands that are fatalistic. But Theism is predominantly non-determinist, since it posits the existence of both free human will and the interactions of God as factors as additional factors with natural laws in the generation of outcomes.

why you conflate analytic and synthetic.

I don't. Check again. I said I like Kant's distinction. See line one of my previous response.

Determinism is the idea that cause and effect rule the universe.
Fatalism is the idea that NO MATTER what you do the future is already written. This implies that god gives us free will and yet, things are going to turn out as HE wants whatever you do.
This is excellently demonstrated in Lawrence of Arabia the film. When Lawrence saves a man from the desert, who it was determined that his death was already "WRITTEN", later the same man commits murder and Lawrence has to shoot him; having saved his life only to have to kill him later.
For determinism the future is continually being created, and is not know how it will turn out. We act within our will, and each of us can do our part to make the future, being agents of causality. When each of us interact to out motivation and our own interests, we carve out the future.
If determinism were fatalistic, our actions would be meaningless.

Calvin was trapped in a reasonable determinism that nothing can come from nothing, and for everything there is a cause; but he was handcuffed to the notion that god existed and his omnipotence had to mean that the future was know to God, thus God HAD TO HAVE pre-chosen the saved from the beginning of time.

Take out God and you can also jettison the fallacy of free will which is inherently absurd, as it implies that you can act in spite of yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Take out God and you can also jettison the fallacy of free will which is inherently absurd, as it implies that you can act in spite of yourself.

I think God's not actually the problem there. The real problem is Calvin's failure to distinguish between knowing things in advance and forcing them to come about -- in other words, between "foreknowledge" and "determinism."

But even humanly speaking, we can detect Calvin's mistake. To illustrate: you might have accurately "foreknown" that I would reply at some point; it doesn't mean you "made" me do it, though. Even if you had perfectly "foreknown" I would do it, I think you'd agree that nothing in that would entail you being "causally" responsible for my actions. They're separate issues, really. Someone could both foreknow and cause, or could just foreknow.

But I also would say there's nothing that makes "free will" an absurd concept. We all act as if it's true, so some evidence would be necessary for us to stop acting in the natural way and accept determinism.

And that's hard to come by. After all, "free" doesn't even have to mean "without contributing factors." It just has to mean that at the end of the adding up of all the relevant influences and causes, an agent still has the option to make a final determination of which ones he or she will act upon. To prove that that is not the case, even though every living human being acts every day as if it IS true, would require some showing, would it not?

Actually, that's a fundamental principle of law, justice and morality as well. If agents are not "free will" agents, there is no possibility of justification for reward or punishment. After all, if determinism is true, then whether they killed children or won Olympic medals, in both cases they couldn't help doing what they did.