Announcing a new Meetup for The Philadelphia Contingent!

What: Religion, Mysticism & Gods

When: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:00 PM

Where:
Chez Colette — Sofitel
120 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 569-8300

I thought a big, heavy topic with lots of potential for debate might be right up the alley of those who haven't come to any meetups yet.

The title says it all. What are the origins of religion? What are its affects on the world? What is the difference between religion and philosophy? What are gods? Do gods exist? Is agnosticism a tenable position?

For those of you who have not had a chance to meet up, come join us!

We'll be meeting at the Hotel Sofitel bar located on Sansom and 17th in Center City.

Learn more here:
http://www.philadelph...

Interesting article on agnosticism:
http://www.slate.com/...

Kir --

Thanks for the cite. This article reflects an email/message board debate that I was having with our chief, Nathan, who seems to be a dogmatic atheist, and claims to have "certainty" of his position. (See his article in the Lost Liberty Cafe.) I disagree with him, although for a lot of practical purposes I think that atheism and agnosticism are more similar than different. (I personally prefer the term "realist" to both of these, and I describe myself that way.) Underlying the debate, though, is typically a misunderstanding of exactly how science functions, which often leads to the accusation by religious persons that the adoption of science by non-believers is just another form of "faith." That is wrong, however, because science should not be considered as offering to "prove" anything, but rather, it only offers to disprove things. In other words, whatever science offers as its current theories should never be considered in some final or ultimate sense as "proven," or as "truths," because new evidence might come along tomorrow that undermines those current theories -- it has happened over and over in science -- and the genuine scientist will always go with the evidence, no matter where it leads, even if it undermines his/her current theories. But I agree with the writer of the article that the dogmatic attitude on the part of some atheists is kind of distasteful, and frankly, unscientific.

Dave

Dogmatic? Really? I'm not sure how that is an argument against my reasoning.

I've yet to see anyone in the realm of agnosticism vs. atheism actually disagree and bring actual arguments to bear on the specific reasoning I've used in order to correct my error in thinking. I have also never encountered anyone who "disagrees" with my reasoning who doesn't simply re-assert an argument I've already addressed (in the article). What specific arguments did I make that you disagree with?

To say that there is no way to disprove the existence of something is to say that there are no disproofs for the non-existence of something. To say with such certainty that there are no disproofs for the non-existence of something is in itself an argument for the non-existence of something, in this case "disproofs". Also, 2+2 = 4 will not suddenly be disproven tomorrow by new undiscovered scientific evidence to the contrary.

My question to you would be this: What is your methodology for determining truth from falsehood?

If you want to claim "certainty" about logical truths like "2+2=4," that's fine, and if you define "God" in a manner that is logically inconsistent, that's fine. I agree that certain definitions of "God," when examined for their implications, are internally contradictory, and therefore cannot (in our human understanding, anyway) refer to any existent object.

The point that the non-certainist, non-dogmatists make, however, is that this is not saying much -- and I think they're right. You might as well just claim, "Objects that are not possible (e.g., four-sided triangles) do not or cannot exist." Or simply, "Objects that cannot exist cannot exist." But so what?

The problem is that theists can (and do) easily get around those internal contradictions by defining the "God" to which THEY are referring in a manner that isn't logically inconsistent. They might say, for example, in response to the "creating an unliftable stone" objection, that "God's" omnipotence simply means that God is able to do anything that it is possible to do.

There are many ways to conceive of deities that avoid such contradictions -- even the "problem of undeserved suffering," which to me has been the strongest argument against the notion of the Christian God, at least -- can be avoided by theists who don't include "all-good" or "all-loving" in God's attributes.

You can't have a debate without defining terms. If you say X is Y and I say X cannot be Y because of Z you cannot then redefine X as A and then say A is Y therefore X is Y. This is a fallacy called "moving the goal post".

Imagine if we were playing chess, we're taking eachother's knights and pawns and you've finally calculated your way into a position of check mate. I can't move anywhere. It's the end of the game and you say "check mate I win!"

Imagine how irritated you would feel if I suddenly changed the rules saying no that's not check mate, you have to get my rook in check not my king because the rook, you see, is really the king in disguise. That's how we play in my country, the rook is really the king, therefore I win.

You cannot redefine the terms or change the rules like that.

If "God" is defined as something consistent with itself and everything else in the universe, then why on earth call it a god? Why not call it an alien? Why not call it whatever it is?

Traditionally throughout millenia though, a god has been defined as a being with various supernatural characteristics such as the ones you describe. Typically these characteristics are the exact opposite of a human being yet always has some kind of human characteristics for "some reason".

Also, I've not heard from any agnostic that is consistent with their agnosticism in other areas. It's only gods they talk about. It's never leprechauns, it's never Santa Claus, and they're never selling invisible and intangible boxed items of value with the claim that these items might exist in another universe (and therefore no refunds). They've never made the claim to their professor, on a math test, that 2+unicorn = blue is true as a starting premise for a mathematical theorem because it might be true somewhere outside of time.

I would not be so certain about something if it weren't well justified with a substantial amount of reasoning. I think the problem agnostics have is with certainty and it's likely to do with something in their family history about truly arrogant and dogmatic people who were certain with irrational justifications (or no justification), or something else.

I don't know why you say "you cannot redefine the terms" -- of course you can, it happens all the time in all kinds of disciplines and debates. As you point out, definitions are not true or false, nor are they meant to be -- they're just the starting points or assumptions upon which you build a theory or a proposal or whatever. So they are either useful or not useful as instruments for that purpose -- that's how definitions are evaluated. Although I agree that "moving the goalposts" or changing the rules as you describe seems to reflect poorly on the person who does it, there is also the fallacy of setting up a straw man and then knocking it down, right?

So, if I characterize the position of the theist in the weakest, most ridiculous, most absurd, most impossible way, and then demolish that position in a flurry of deductive logic, and say, "A-HA, see, I've shown your position to be ridiculous," then really, what has been accomplished? Not much, except that hopefully the theist now understands that his original position yields inconsistent results, and so, he should reject or amend his position. I think it's better for both opposing sides, and more challenging (and interesting) to both sides, for each to characterize the opposing position in its strongest possible light, not its weakest light, and THEN proceed to see who's right.

I actually do this all the time in my own job, which involves arguing before the federal appellate courts about constitutional issues -- but if my opponent is doing a bad job of constructing and defending his position, I will not only knock down that position, but I will recharacterize my opponent's position in the strongest possible light, and then proceed to knock THAT down (if I can).

Besides, scientists and mathematicians who come up with new theories or proofs always start with definitions and assumptions, and when other scientists or mathematicians critically examine their theories and proofs and show that such definitions yield inconsistencies, there is nothing wrong with the initial scientist/mathematician going back and "re-working" their starting definitions/assumptions to avoid the inconsistencies. In fact, any scientist or mathematician who proposes a new theory or proof should WELCOME such criticism, so that he or she can correct his theory or proof and get rid of the unforeseen errors. So you can see it as "moving the goalposts," or you can see it as simply refining your original position to make it better and avoid error. What's wrong with that?

The article in SLATE makes an interesting point about this, and illustrates why any individual such as a physicist or mathematiciam or philosopher cannot simply theorize ALONE, and not subject his ideas to critical scrutiny by others in the same discipline -- it's simply because "you don't know what you don't know." That's why theories and proofs have to be subjected to high-level, critical peer review before they can be accepted -- the person who comes up with it in the first place, and who may be convinced it's right, is still in the position of "not knowing what he doesn't know." And that's why any such person should WANT critical scrutiny by others, so that if he did make an unforeseen error, somebody can point it out to him so he can correct it.

That's also precisely why if MY particular experiment yields certain results, those results are not considered valid unless someone else can repeat the same experiment and have it yield the same results for them too -- the fact that it "worked" when I did it is not enough, nor should it be. It has to be repeatable by others, and only then will it be deemed "verified." Frankly, when I pose an argument or a theory or a position, I WANT to know if I'm wrong, and I should be grateful to anyone who points out my error.

So I fully agree that the theists should be grateful to we (us?) atheists for pointing out to them that certain of their initial assumptions can lead to ridiculous and impossible results. But if they then want to learn from their initial unforseen errors and to readjust their assumptions to avoid those results, well, I see no reason to begrudge them and not let them do that.

Although WHEN we do that, I see nothing wrong with (sarcastically) pointing out to them -- hey, theist, NOTICE that we're not talking about the same thing anymore, as in what YOU originally thought "God" meant. NOTICE that you, theist, are being forced to backtrack. I think this move is especially forceful when the theist must redefine God to avoid the "all-good" part -- because once they do that, there's nothing wrong with making them realize that, hey, please NOTICE that we're not talking about anything even close to the "Christian" notion of God anymore, but some more abstract notion.

But if we stubbornly insist that they MUST maintain their original and flawed definitions and assumptions, I think that makes US look weaker, not stronger. I say we let the theists characterize their position in any way they want, in the strongest possible light, and then we take the debate from there. We can afford to be gracious. Go ahead, you theists, take your best shot -- BRING IT ON.

Or, as the article in SLATE put it, when the atheist points out the absurdity of the some of the typical theistic positions, that is not the END of the debate. Rather, that's just the beginning.

If god is defined as something consistent with the natural universe, then why call it a god? What's the point in redefining it? Once you've redefined it this way, then there is no debate.

If unicorn is defined as a horse with a horn on it's head, there's nothing inconsistent about that. Horses exist, rams exist, it's not inconceivable that something like that could evolve or could have evolved on another planet.

Redefining terms is not equivocation.

If I say that a man accused of murder committed the act using telekinesis. Then when you prove telekinesis impossible, I don't redefine telekinesis as walking over to pick up the gun with his hand and pulling the trigger with his finger, because that's not what telekinesis means. That's moving the goal post, not redefining terms.

I also don't completely remove the goal post in its entirety by saying that no one can define telekinesis because everyone defines it differently.

The only point anyone can have in doing that is to evade any chance of being certain about something.

But your argument seems circular. You are saying that "God" MUST be conceived in one specific way only, and that this preferred way leads directly to logical inconsistencies. And then since logically inconsistent things can't exist, you conclude that "God" (so defined to be logically inconsistent) doesn't exist.

While I don't know how I ended up defending the theist side here, since I'm definitely not a theist by any means, doesn't it seem kind of convenient or self-serving that, right up front, you exclude any conception of "God" that is NOT logically inconsistent, and then conclude, "A-HA, since logically consistent things don't exist, that means God doesn't exist."

But my point is -- what does that prove? Your conclusion was already assumed in your premises.

And by the way, are WE the only two people in this group? I thought there were many others, like another 76 people? So where is everybody? Are we boring them or something?

Who knows where they are? :)

To reiterate an unanswered question, if god is defined as something that is consistent, why call it a god?