Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 26, 2018, 05:01:31 PM
-
........Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.
The next statement from New atheism section in Wikipedia.
-
I don't understand reality.
-
I don't understand what Phyllis Tyne is getting at.
-
I don't understand what Phyllis Tyne is getting at.
I'd be surprised if he knows either!
-
........Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.
That seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement, unless you have some counter examples.
-
That seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement, unless you have some counter examples.
Oh dear. I think this is a case where Wigginhall hit the nail on the head and you hit your thumb.
-
Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place. (Note the"arguably": I'm not ssying I necessarily agree.)
-
Oh dear. I think this is a case where Wigginhall hit the nail on the head and you hit your thumb.
Doesn't look like it. It looks more like a case where you shot yourself in the foot.
-
Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place.
That's just nonsense. I'm glad you don't necessarily agree.
-
Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place. (Note the"arguably": I'm not ssying I necessarily agree.)
Wouldn't help, that merely shifts the goalposts to understanding 'god'. That's just burying the problem rather than facing it.
-
Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place. (Note the"arguably": I'm not ssying I necessarily agree.)
How does that argument go, then?
-
........Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.
It's a sort of a non-statement really. Which version of god(s)? What does 'supernatural' really mean? What objective methods could possibly be used to investigate any claims regarding them?
Is there any reason at all to think that either are anything more than human superstitions?
-
How does that argument go, then?
If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.
-
Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place.
Would you like to justify that rather bizarre statement please.
I don't 'assume god' and therefore by your comment cannot understand anything.
The whole process of science, which has lead to an unparalleled increase in our understanding of reality, doesn't not 'assume god' - so is this all flawed. Are all the things we understand through science, all the technologies we routinely use and are based on scientific understanding actually false?
-
Would you like to justify that rather bizarre statement please.
Read my post above yours.
-
Doesn't look like it. It looks more like a case where you shot yourself in the foot.
All I've done so far is to venture that Wigginhalls statement that he doesn't understand the universe is closer to the real situation rather than an approach like yours which seams to say, use naturalism and you can understand the universe.
That seems like not just a world view but cosmic view which makes the claim we are not afraid to say we don't know a bit suspect.
The only other thing I did was to quote what Wikipedia sees as a stock belief of New Atheism
-
Would you like to justify that rather bizarre statement please.
I don't 'assume god' and therefore by your comment cannot understand anything.
The whole process of science, which has lead to an unparalleled increase in our understanding of reality, doesn't not 'assume god' - so is this all flawed. Are all the things we understand through science, all the technologies we routinely use and are based on scientific understanding actually false?
You are perilously close to saying science established what reality is rather than chipping away to discover reality. The old invention/discovery thing.
-
If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.
Right, I recall that rather bizarre argument. Why wouldn't evolution produce rational beings? Evolution is rather good at producing organs that are good at what they do, and a function of the brain is to represent the external world in order to react to it. Drawing correct, rather than erroneous, conclusions about the world would be a clear advantage.
-
Right, I recall that rather bizarre argument. Why wouldn't evolution produce rational beings? Evolution is rather good at producing organs that are good at what they do, and a function of the brain is to represent the external world in order to react to it. Drawing correct, rather than erroneous, conclusions about the world would be a clear advantage.
Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.
-
Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.
Not all human brains have been convinced supernatural entities exist. Why do you think it is advantageous to believe in some illusions?
-
Not all human brains have been convinced supernatural entities exist. Why do you think it is advantageous to believe in some illusions?
Perhaps because if we had to deal with the naked truth with no illusions, we'd all despair and top ourselves. Again, I'm just hypothecising, not saying that this is what I believe.
-
Perhaps because if we had to deal with the naked truth with no illusions, we'd all despair and top ourselves. Again, I'm just hypothecising, not saying that this is what I believe.
The illusion of god with which I was presented as a child was a very unpleasant one, which I could well have done without. :o
-
Sigh... ::)
-
Not all human brains have been convinced supernatural entities exist. Why do you think it is advantageous to believe in some illusions?
What is God an illusion of?
-
Right, I recall that rather bizarre argument. Why wouldn't evolution produce rational beings? Evolution is rather good at producing organs that are good at what they do, and a function of the brain is to represent the external world in order to react to it. Drawing correct, rather than erroneous, conclusions about the world would be a clear advantage.
Is the universe rational? Why should it be rational?
Isn't the idea that the universe conforms to our evolved rationality just a sophisticated version of Adams Puddle and hole analogy?
-
Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.
Yes we do tend to invent invisible beings (not just gods) probably for the same reason we see faces in clouds and fire, and it probably was an evolutionary advantage to over-recognise agency and other creatures.
That is a long way from saying "we can't understand anything unless we assume God". And as Prof Davey has pointed out, the success of science is very good evidence that we do, through science at least, understand the world remarkably well.
The argument that this couldn't have happened via evolution without some god, really is a non-starter.
-
Yes we do tend to invent invisible beings (not just gods) probably for the same reason we see faces in clouds and fire, and it probably was an evolutionary advantage to over-recognise agency and other creatures.
That is a long way from saying "we can't understand anything unless we assume God".
That isn't the claim the counterclaim of which is you do not need God or the supernatural to understand REALITY.
-
That isn't the claim the counterclaim of which is you do not need God or the supernatural to understand REALITY.
Which of course you don't.
-
That isn't the claim...
It was the claim of the argument Steve brought up in #6 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16336.msg755798#msg755798).
-
Is the universe rational?
Do you mean in the sense of logically consistent? If so, it appears to be, yes.
Why should it be rational?
I don't know, but if it wasn't (at least locally) then it's difficult to see how it could contain intelligent observers.
Isn't the idea that the universe conforms to our evolved rationality just a sophisticated version of Adams Puddle and hole analogy?
Are you suggesting more than one version of logical consistency?
-
You are perilously close to saying science established what reality is rather than chipping away to discover reality. The old invention/discovery thing.
Which bit of the word understand did you fail to get Vlad.
My whole point was about the value of science in understanding reality - in other words discovery. Where did I ever suggest that science invented reality - I didn't, not even close.
-
If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.
Thought I remembered this, here is Daniel Dennett on the subject: Plantinga's Attempted Reductio ad Absurdum of Naturalism (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/10061#sec-2).
-
One problem with Plantinga's argument, is that it seems to treat cognitive operations by the brain as somehow suspect, whereas operations by other organs are reasonably reliable. Of course, you could go nuclear and say nothing is reliable, but you contradict that immediately by using your faculties to make breakfast. Pragmatically, the body works well enough. (Repeating Dennett really.)
-
Which bit of the word understand did you fail to get Vlad.
My whole point was about the value of science in understanding reality - in other words discovery. Where did I ever suggest that science invented reality - I didn't, not even close.
So not really pertinent to the central declaration that God or the supernatural are not necessary to understand reality and thus not relevant to the thread.
You also confuse science with naturalism on which the declaration is made.
-
Do you mean in the sense of logically consistent? If so, it appears to be, yes.
So there is no logical inconsistency going down/on in the universe anywhere?
-
There is also the amusing corollary that the argument that reason is suspect, is then itself suspect. This is quite like presuppositionalism, horror, horror.
-
One problem with Plantinga's argument, is that it seems to treat cognitive operations by the brain as somehow suspect, whereas operations by other organs are reasonably reliable. Of course, you could go nuclear and say nothing is reliable, but you contradict that immediately by using your faculties to make breakfast. Pragmatically, the body works well enough. (Repeating Dennett really.)
I think Plantigna is having a dig at the New atheists who are more than prone to calling psychological incompetence.... except of course when it comes to them for they have risen above it ...in a non evolutionary way funnily enough.
-
It's striking how these arguments, like Plantinga's, often use words like "merely" and "simply", hence we are merely the result of unguided evolution, hint, not the magnificent result of an all-powerful intelligence, which doesn't do merely.
-
It's striking how these arguments, like Plantinga's, often use words like "merely" and "simply", hence we are merely the result of unguided evolution, hint, not the magnificent result of an all-powerful intelligence, which doesn't do merely.
To be fair the same sorts of thing are suggested by naturalists...i.e. "We are just a sophisticated ape"
-
Thought I remembered this, here is Daniel Dennett on the subject: Plantinga's Attempted Reductio ad Absurdum of Naturalism (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/10061#sec-2).
He seems to counteract his own view of evolution and psychological competence which he classes with the admirable functionality of other evolved features and yet suspends in the case of religion.
We are left wondering, if not evolution, what declares God to be unnecessary and are back to a circular naturalist philosophy.
-
If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning,
Sorry, I don't see how that shows that we can't do valid reasoning.
so how can we trust our reasoning,
Well since our thoughts and reasonings are the result of chemical and electrical changes in the brain, just ask yourself what you do to trust a line of reasoning, and there's your answer.
Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.
nah.
-
All I've done so far...
Exactly.
I requested counter examples to the initial statement. You could have shot it down by providing them. Instead you burble on about stupid hammer and nail analogies.
Clearly, you do not have counter examples to the initial statement which therefore still stands.
-
Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.
There's no separate "you" for your brain to convince. You are your brain.
Anyway, this brain is definitely not convinced there is a god although it does entertain the idea that it is evolutionarily advantageous to believe in God.
In fact, thinking about it, going along with the group think has always had an evolutionary advantage. Historically, not toeing the official ideological line has been quiet unhealthy.
-
Exactly.
I requested counter examples to the initial statement. You could have shot it down but providing them. Instead you burble on about stupid hammer and nail analogies.
Clearly, you do not have counter examples to the initial statement which therefore still stands.
The initial statement is a form of cosmic view.... what examples demonstrate it? How can you possibly think you have provided examples for the initial statement.
There is no demonstration that it's true.
We've come this far Jeremy and the trump card against you has not been played.
-
The initial statement is a form of cosmic view.... what examples demonstrate it?
Oh sorry. I thought that was pretty obvious. Science has had enormous success in improving our understanding of reality in spite of explicitly not assuming God.
Other methodologies, including things like religion have got nowhere.
Now, where are your counter examples to the initial statement.
-
There's no separate "you" for your brain to convince. You are your brain.
Given then your proposition here of the illusion of self....what is it that is being illuded.
-
Given then your proposition here of the illusion of self....what is it that is being illuded.
Please put that in English.
-
Oh sorry. I thought that was pretty obvious. Science has had enormous success in improving our understanding of reality.
Oh dear science is not naturalism Jeremy. How stupid of you.
-
If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.
It might be an argument against it, but it doesn't get you very far, as the alternative is no less true. Simply because our thoughts are arguably deterministic in origin is no reason to think that they must be invalid.
What seems to me to be important here is to judge whether our reasoning is reliable. If we fall sick after eating a certain type of fungi, then our reasoning would suggest that one wouldn't fall sick if we avoided it. If this is borne out by avoiding said fungi, then our reasoning has proved to be reliable. I would argue that evolution has given us the capability of finding out what is reliable and what is not as regards our environment, and we have discovered that the world seems to work by a basic process of cause and effect.
-
Oh dear science is not naturalism Jeremy. How stupid of you.
Who cares? The initial quote doesn't talk about naturalism.
Counter examples please.
-
Who cares? The initial quote doesn't talk about naturalism.
The statement IS naturalism .If science is not naturalism then no amount of science is going to exemplify it.
-
He seems to counteract his own view of evolution and psychological competence which he classes with the admirable functionality of other evolved features and yet suspends in the case of religion.
Not really, he says "admirable - but not perfect". There are lots of ways in which humans tend to get things wrong.
We are left wondering, if not evolution, what declares God to be unnecessary and are back to a circular naturalist philosophy.
You keep on about "god" is is there were an agreed definition. As for the vaguely connected human ideas of gods, in order for them to even be in contention for being necessary for any sort of understanding of reality, they need to be properly defined and there needs to be some objective means to investigate claims made regarding them.
So far, there isn't either.
-
Not really, he says "admirable - but not perfect". There are lots of ways in which humans tend to get things wrong.
You keep on about "god" is is there were an agreed definition.
If New Atheists and I'm quite willing to accept you are not in that number can confidently assert that nowhere is God necessary to understand reality then it suggests they know what they mean by God.
Therefore to suddenly rif on God not being defined probably undermines the confidence of the assertion.
It doesn't help a Atheist assuming agnosticism about God and at the same time being pretty sure there isn't one.
My purpose is to call the assertion of the OP into question.
-
The statement IS naturalism
No it isn't. It's a statement about the realationship of God and the supernatural to our understanding of reality.
If science is not naturalism then no amount of science is going to exemplify it.
The statement doesn't mention naturalism anywhere. It simply says God and the supernatural are not necessary to help us understand reality. Science helps us understand reality. Fact. Science explicitly excludes God and the supernatural. Fact. Its success supports the statement.
Now, I've done enough supporting the statement. Show us your counter examples.
-
If New Atheists and I'm quite willing to accept you are not in that number can confidently assert that nowhere is God necessary to understand reality then it suggests they know what they mean by God.
Let's assume it's your god. Is the god of Vlad necessary to understand reality. No.
Your move. Counter examples please.
-
No it isn't. It's a statement about the realationship of God and the supernatural to our understanding of reality.
The statement doesn't mention naturalism anywhere.
Any definition which has itself inside it is a piss poor definition.
The statement defines Naturalism because it says that the supernatural is not needed.
-
Any definition which has itself inside it is a piss poor definition.
What are you talking about?
The statement defines Naturalism because it says that the supernatural is not needed.
The statement is a statement that claims that God is not necessary to understand reality. Nothing more, nothing less. Show me a counter example if you think God is necessary.
-
What are you talking about?
The statement is a statement that claims that God is not necessary to understand reality. Nothing more, nothing less. Show me a counter example if you think God is necessary.
The statement is a declaration of naturalism end of.
It is a world view stated by new atheists therefore, supporting examples are on you.
-
The statement is a declaration of naturalism end of.
Who cares. It says what it says. Concentrate on that and provide your counter examples.
It is a world view stated by new atheists therefore, supporting examples are on you.
I gave you the example of science. Now let's see your counter examples.
-
Who cares. It says what it says. Concentrate on that and provide your counter examples.I gave you the example of science. Now let's see your counter examples.
It's not a matter of caring about it.It is what it is.
Science is not Naturalism and doesn't exemplify it.