From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 9:59 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Brian Holtz on Religion- a critique Jim Humphries wrote > >Humans have no credible evidence or valid proof of any > >deities, including a God, Creator, First Cause, Perfect or > >Necessary Being. > > > The claim that there is no *valid* proof for the existence > of God is false. [..] > What is the case, is that there are not indisputably *sound* > proofs for the existence By valid I indeed mean well-grounded or sound, rather than the special logical sense of the term. I'm changing "valid" to "convincing" here to prevent possible confusion. > that there is no *credible* evidence for > the existence of God is hoplessly subjective; what one > person finds credible may not be credible to another. The credibility of evidence for existence of god(s) is no more "hopelessly subjective" than for existence of demons, forest spirits, vampires, werewolves, faeries, ghosts, reincarnation, alien abductions, etc. > >The Ontological proof assumes without evidence that ideas can exist > >independently of minds, or that universals can exist independently of > >instances. > > > In fact there are many- not one- versions of the Ontological > argument. Many make no such suppositions about universals etc. Reference, please. > The assertion of the > logical possibility of an infinite regress btw contradicts your > conceptualism as expressed earlier: recall that you claimed > that there could not be any actual infinities! I said no such thing. Rather, I said: The number of producible true statements may indeed be infinite, but that doesn't demonstrate the existence of the long-sought "actual infinity". I see no reason why an actual infinity is not logically possible, or why its logical possibility would conflict with conceptualism. > it has been argued for example > that even if there is an infinite regress of causes, a self - > existent being is the only thing that can explain the existence > of the the series. This assumes without argument that such a series of causes stands in need of a cause for the series as a whole. I see no reason to make that assumption. > >The Anthropological proof is undermined by other, more plausible > >explanations for the origin of human nature. > > > I don't think that most theists cite this as a'proof' Not any more, they don't. > I don't myself consider that anthropological arguments > 'prove' that a designer exists. > > >The Mystical proof is undermined by other, more plausible > >explanations of mystical experiences. > > > Again , I have not heard of a mystical 'proof'. What used to be called 'proofs' should indeed now merely be called 'arguments', since so few people consider them convincing. > Rather there are reports of mystical experiences, some of > which it seems may rationally be taken as being true. Would you care to tell *which* such report(s) are the best candidates for being taken as true, or are you still filibustering on this point? > >Pascal's Wager provides no method for choosing among > >conflicting actual and possible religions, > > > Nor was intended to- that is simply to divorce it from > its historical context. Regardless of Pascal's intentions, it has been offered by theists as a reason not to be an atheist. You seem to recognize that it is not such a reason. > There are good theological reasons to suppose that a deity > would *not* reveal itself in such a manner: to do so > would be , in effect, to impose belief on the individual I've shredded this Divine Shyness argument in the Psychology of Atheism thread. > When I have made this point before > all I have heard by way of reply is blatant ad hominem > arguments. On the contrary, in the aforementioned thread you recently completely ignored more than four paragraphs of reply, prompting me to repost them there. > I don't consider that > one can independently establish that there is an afterlife > via such nonsense as 'after-death experiences' for example. I agree. > >Faith is belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt. > > > " Not any faith that I > or other believers hold." Rather the faith of the believer is > ( or may be)based on inconclusive evidence, and is utterly subject > to doubt ( there is of course a vast religious tradition here). As I've already told you twice in the Perception of Reality thread: I didn't say that people who have faith never have any doubts. I now ask for a third time the question you didn't answer there: Can you name any Christians who hold subject to doubt the statement of John 3:16 that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"? An even more interesting question is: would you agree that it is inadvisable to hold any belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt? And: do you hold any such beliefs? (I've asked you this before, again with no response.) > > Skepticism involves zero faith because it holds not even a single > > belief that is based on revelation and exempt from doubt. > > Skepticism holds that truth is not simply revealed but instead > > must always be subject to doubt, demonstration, and rederivation. > > > Surely you want to say that what is *supposed* to be the truth > ought to be subject to revision etc. Absolute Truth is unknowable for synthetic propositions, and so of course isn't what I mean by 'truth' in the context of ordinary empirical truths. > Certainly the theist, too, can allow that the beliefs of all kinds > are subject to revision. Again^4: I didn't say that people who have faith never have any doubts. > >Mysticism is belief base on private and direct experience of ultimate > reality. > >Mysticism holds that belief can be justified simply by the intensity or > >directness of an experience, and without a showing that > >the experience has any objective basis or consequences. > >Rejecting objectivity and the distinction between the experiencer > >and the experienced, mysticism thus mistakes feeling for knowing. > > > Mysticism is more usually defined as "just the simple awareness > of the individual soul and the absolute" [ Rucker] Aside from its contentious and dubious definite references to "the soul" and "the absolute", how is this substantively different from my definition? > It does not commit one to any specific epistemology contrary > to your supposition above. What mystic holds that belief can never be justified without a showing that the experience motivating it has any objective basis or consequences? > > Mystics are forever free to claim that anyone who doesn't feel > > what they feel is somehow "doing it wrong". > > > I am not aware that mystics make such claims. You're not aware that mystics claim that proper meditative practice leads to "awareness" of "the absolute" that cannot be expressed in objective propositions? Try reading Ken Wilber; his new-age "trans-rational" brand of mysticism is the sort of nonsense that will be displacing the old-fashioned theistic brand of nonsense over the next few centuries. :-) > >The conclusions of mysticism are usually unfalsifiable > >or inconsequential and thus propositionally meaningless. > > > I can make little sense of this. The next time you're in a bookstore, browse any text of Wilber's -- but please buy only used volumes, so as not to subsidize his nonsense. :-) > The claim that if a claim is unfalsifiable it is meaningless is > unsustainable- [..] If a synthetic statement is neither falsifiable nor verifiable under any possible circumstances, then it is propositionally meaningless. > So too is the supposition that > if a claim is 'inconsequential' it is meaningless > Perhaps you'd better explain what you mean by 'inconsequential. By "inconsequential" here I mean not making (or motivated by) any difference in any possible world. For example, "the universe is one", taken as a synthetic statement, is inconsequential and therefore meaningless. (As an analytic statement, it's either false or a banal tautology.) > >Religion is any system of belief based on faith or mysticism. > > Religion does not have to be based on any revelation. Yes, some weeks ago I revised my definition to say: Religion is any system of belief based on faith or mysticism, or involving worship of or reverence for some deity. > > questions about meaning and value. > > Those questions are the domain of philosophy, whereas > > science deals with objective phenomena. > > > You haven't really explained what you mean by 'objective > phenomena' By objective I mean not dependent on a point of view or perspective that is inherently private. > >Science depends on the epistemological principle of > >skepticism, and any "conflict" between science and > >religion is really a conflict between skepticism and faith > >(or mysticism). > > > Please [explain?] how science depends on the 'epistemological > principle of skepticism'. The scientific method includes experimental or empirical testing of theoretical consequences, reproducibility of results, and competition for agreement in the marketplace of ideas. These methods reflect skepticism: the idea that belief is always subject to doubt and justified through objective verification. > I don't see any conflicts between science > and religion ( save for fundamentalism)- what did you > have in mind? I have in mind precisely what you're trying to dismiss as "fundamentalism" -- namely, the overwhelming majority of religious doctrine consisting of empirical claims based on faith or superstition. > I suggest you read Gould's Rock of > Ages where he presents his NOMA As I've told you before, NOMA is the right idea when applied to science and philosophy, or to science and that tiny subset of religion not based on faith or superstition. Gould seems to be talking about religion as he wishes (and tacitly encourages) it to be, rather than as it is. If all religionists were like you, then he might be right. But they aren't, so he isn't. > >Of the major groups of believers, only agnostics > >and atheists avoid both faith and mysticism. > > > [..] many atheists > consider that the background spacetime, most basic physical > laws etc. required for a quantum fluctuation 'just were'. > That of course is an article of faith on their part- It's not faith, because it's not based on revelation. > I don't see either why a non-believer could not have a > mystical experience. I didn't say they couldn't. "Only" doesn't mean "all". -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net