>DM>There are systems of logic that are internally consistent. Euclidean
>>geometry is one example. But, for the purposes of this discussion, the
>>outside referrent is the rationality of the human mind, specifically MY
>>mind. I accept MY capacity for rationality as an axiom, and the capacity of
>>other humans for rationality I have determined by observation.
SC>I have two quick points here:
>
>It seems to me that logic is a consequence of a rational mind. Therefore, I
>fail to see how your rational mind can be an outside referrent for the logic
>that it produces. It sounds circular to me.
If logic is a consequence of a rational mind, then your claim for
circularity may be reasonable. However, logic may be independent of the
rational minds necessary to appreciate it. Did humans invent logic or
discover it? I don't know. I don't even know if it is a meaninful question.
I suspect not.
SC>Another point that I borrow from Blaise Pascal:
>
>Let those who have so much confidence in the rational human mind spend a few
>hours trying to do Euclidean geometry with a fly buzzing around one's head.
>Do you really want to put so much faith in something that can be defeatd by
>such a simple distraction?
Why not? There is no doubt that the human mind can train itself, or be
trained, to "do Euclidean geometry with a fly buzzing around one's head".
The human mind can also, without training, visualise various strategies for
removing the distraction, select an optimum strategy and implement it. I
have faith in my rational human mind because it *works* very well, and it
works well enough for others to have faith in it, too.
>>>DM<< This simply means
>>>that logic is of no use in deciding to be a theist or atheist.... Faced with
>>>this choice, a person who is sceptical about unverified revelation, faith, or
>>>authority will reasonably choose atheism or agnosticism.>>
SC>This sounds like a logical argument for atheism, but you state that logic is
>useless in deciding to be theist or atheist. Which is it?
It is a reasonable, not logical, argument for atheism. It is not
sufficiently rigorous to warrant the "logical" label.
SC>On this point, why don't you try C.S. Lewis' book, Surprised by Joy. It
>documents how an atheist can logically decide that God is real.
Lewis's logic would need to have improved dramatically over his "Jesus is
God, liar or lunatic?" effort.
>DM>One reasonably chooses based on one's own standards of reason. I
>>"reasonably" choose to live as though there were no God, for the same
>>reasons I choose to live as though there are no fairies, trolls, or pixies.
>>To choose otherwise, in the face of NO acceptable evidence,
SC>Derek, this begs the question--what would constitute for you, acceptable
>evidence for the existence of God? Let's try a parallel of logic here. I
>presume that you believe, like most of us, that men landed and walked on the
>moon. But on what basis do we believe this? I also presume that you were
>not one of those who traveled to the moon; therefore, your belief is based
>on the testimony of those who claim to have personal knowledge of the moon
>landing. So, by what logic do you reject those who claim personal knowledge
>of God? How do you know that the basis for believing that men walked on the
>moon is more convincing than the existence of God if you have never
>encountered either situation?
Firstly, let me say that no one is suggesting that I should base my life
around the fact that men walked on the moon. If they were, then the evidence
I have now that men walked on the moon, rather than on a Hollywood movie set
for example, would be insufficient. I would need to research further into
the evidence that men walked on the moon.
Secondly, there is great consistency in detail among those who attest, not
just to the occurrence of the moon-walking episode, but to the occurrence of
the entire Apollo program. There is no such consistency among those who
claim personal knowledge of God. The God of Jerry Falwell is not the God of
Jesse Jackson and neither of them are the God of Pope John Paul II. None of
them are the God of Torquemada. And certainly, none of them are the God of
the Jewish rabbis, the Iranian ayatollahs or the Hindu brahmins.
Almost everyone who believes that men walked on the moon, believes that the
same men walked on the moon, at the same time, on the same day, during the
same mission, following the same other missions, etc. etc. etc.
If belief in the occurrence of men walking on the moon was analogous to
belief in the existence of God, there would be large numbers of people who
believe that:
the first moonwalks occured on a date other than July 20, 1969,
it was astronauts other than Armstrong and Irwin who first walked on the moon,
the first moonwalk occurred during the Apollo 10 or 12 missions,
the first men on the moon were not Americans, or
they went to Mars, not the moon.
So, what would it take for me to believe in God? I don't know - a personal
appearance, probably. Or maybe if everyone who does believe in God believed
in the *same* God, that might be enough!
>DM>There is an objective statement that can be made, and, I understand, is
>>generally believed by theists, agnostics and atheists. There is no PROOF
>>for the existence of God. Beyond that statement, all statements of a
>>religious/philosophical nature are subjective.
SC>By the same token, there is no PROOF of any scientific theory either.
>However, there does exist justification of what we believe. Science and
>philosophical postivism justifies belief based on empirical justification.
>Metaphysical beliefs, including atheism, are justified differently. So, the
>fact that there is no way to empirically justify belief in the existence of
>God is a non-argument.
To those who believe that empirical methods are the only means of arriving
at reliable knowledge, the fact that there is no way to empirically justify
belief in the existence of God is a very powerful argument.
SC>To those who believe, belief in God IS justifiable
>and subjectivity vs objectivity is irrelevant to the justification.
One could also say that "To those who believe in a flat earth, such a belief
IS justifiable and subjectivity vs objectivity is irrelevant to the
justification.
Nobody believes anything that they cannot, within their own frame of
reference, justify. But all that this means is that a great many people,
probably everyone, have one or more inaccurate frames of reference; some are
slightly inaccurate, while some are wildly inaccurate. Are there more
reliable methods than empirical methods to determine how far frames of
reference deviate from objective reality?
>>JB>But atheism, by its terms, cannot give us universal morality.
>>
>DM>I fail to see why this is a problem. Many non-monotheistic communities have
>>lived and now live in greater harmony than many monotheistic communities.
SC>But the point is where do they find their morality?
I would claim that they don't "find" it at all; they *develop* it.
SC>Because they do not believe in God does not mean that their morality does
>not have its source in God.
Alternatively, if they did believe in God it would not mean that their
morality does have its source in God. It would only mean that they *believe*
that their morality has its source in God.
SC>Humans, whether they do or do not believe in God generally hold a
>strong sense of what is moral. But at the same time, humans also tend to
>act with great depravity.
If you actually look at human interaction, you will find that the huge
majority is, and always has been, characterised by altruism, not depravity.
SC>For example, a sociopath would not have second
>thoughts about shooting someone for their Chicago Bulls warm-up jacket. But
>that same person likely would be incensed if someone stole his Air Jordan's.
>Atheists have not adequately explained this dualism of human nature. Your
>rational mind is not a sufficient explanation here.
While the research in this area is nowhere near complete, we have discovered
that some sociopathic behaviour is caused by chemical imbalance in the
brain, and can be corrected by the restoration of chemical balance. Other
sociopathic behaviour is caused by life experiences and can be corrected by
counselling and/or psychotherapy. In any event, sociopathic behaviour can be
seen in animal societies, too. Would you also discuss the dualism of animal
nature? I see no reason to postulate a "dualism of human nature". There are
a vast majority of us with behaviours suited to living in society, and a few
with behaviours less suited to living in a social context.
>DM>And I also note that, while monotheistic religions can give us a theory of
>>universal morality, they have certainly failed to deliver a practice of
>>universal morality.
SC>Perhaps you need to explore the claims of Christianity more closely.
>Explaining God as a source of universial morality, and humans as imperfect
>beings goes farther in explainign the human condition than any atheistic
>rationalism. If you worship at the alter of rationalism, you must account
>for this dualism in the world.
I don't accept that there is any "dualism" in the world. Human behaviours
form a continuum.
A relevant joke: There are only two types of people in the world - those who
believe that the world can be neatly divided into "two types of people". And
those who don't.
And a question provoked by the joke: Would you expect to find a higher
proportion of Christians to atheists in the first category, or the second?
SC>As an atheist you apparently believe that
>your rational mind is the source of morality.
My rational mind is the source of *my* morality, a very significant
contributor to the morality of my family, a less significant contributor to
the morality of my workplace, and an even less significant contributor to
the morality of my society.
SC>If it is, then please explain why,
Because, for myself, I choose it to be! And, for myself interacting with
others, we choose it to be.
SC> and explain the lapses of morality in rational beings.
The tension between the benefit to oneself and one's loved ones deriving
from acceptance as a co-operative member of an altruistic society, and the
benefit to oneself and one's loved ones deriving from the exploitation of an
altruistic society.
SC>If, however,
>the rational mind is not the source of human morality, then please explain
>where humans get their sense of morality.
The rational mind elevates a tendency toward altruism to a system of
morality. The source of the tendency toward altruism I believe to be genetic.
>DM>In view of your question below, I would ask you for a logical argument
>>confirming that the evils perpetrated by Stalin were a specific result of
>>his atheism, rather than any other cause.
>>
>>As a follow-up you might provide a logical argument, consistent with the
>>first, confirming that the evils perpetrated by Torquemada were or were not
>>not a specific result of his theism, rather than any other cause.
SC>It also has been pointed out that Hitler was Catholic, and that this is
>sufficient reason to disavow any belief in God. However, if you take the
>time to explore closely you will learn that Christianity makes no claims
>regarding the perfection of humans.
At no time did I suggest that Christianity makes any such claim. It is
Christianity's *obsession* with humanity's *imperfection* that I find most
distasteful about it!
SC>BUT, Christianity has an explaination for these moral lapses,
But no *monopoly* on such explanations!
SC>as well as an explanation for our ability to
>recognize what perfection would be like.
Do we collectively recognise what perfection would be like? Or do we each
have our own individual concept of perfection?
>>JB>As I've asked many times before: Can the atheist give a logical
argument to
>>>prove that Stalin was evil? I don't think so.
>>
>
>DM:>I don't think so, either.
>>
>>Stalin wasn't proclaimed evil by any process of logic. Stalin was evil
>>because he was JUDGED to be evil by a consensus of those who were influenced
>>by his life and deeds.
>Maybe we have a different understanding of logic! Doesn't judgement imply
>some degree of logic regarding what is right and wrong?
No. Judgement implies action arising from decision. There may be logical
processes involved in arriving at the decision, and in determining the
appropriate action. But judgement is not completly a process of logic, nor
is it necessarily even dominated by logic.
>DM>Good and evil are not subject to logical argument. Good and evil are, and
>>always have been, defined by each person for themselves, and by the
>>consensus of people wielding power/influence in any group of people.
SC>This is just not true. Some people may RATIONALIZE their evil to make it
>seem good, but the true test is when others try to do to them what they have
>done to others. A simple example is the one I used above--That is, it may
>be easy for someone to rationalize why he deserves a Bull's jacket more than
>someone else (i.e., he has defined for himself, and perhaps has the
>consensus of people wielding power in his neighborhood, that he has more
>claim to the jacket than the one who bought it), but just listen to him
>scream when someone makes a similar judgement about his Jordan's.
If he (and his community) screams when someone makes a similar judgement
about his Jordans', then he (and his community) made the decision about the
jacket in spite of, rather than in consequence of, their definitions of good
and evil.
SC>Where does he get the sense that someone should not take things that belong
>to him?
experience of life, and from his own thought processes.
SC>After you answer that, tell me where he also got the idea that he can
>take what he wants from someone else.
experience of life, and from his own thought processes.
SC>Explain the logical source of this dualism.
I don't know whether it's a "logical" source, but the source is the tension
between the benefit to oneself deriving from acceptance as a co-operative
member of an altruistic society, and the benefit to oneself deriving from
the exploitation of an altruistic society.
>DM>Can a theist give a logical argument to prove that any person of their
>>choice was good?
SC>This is not a claim of Christianity. Actually, we claim quite the opposite.
I didn't say *perfect*, just *good*!
SC> So if you want a logical claim that anyone is inherently bad, you've got it
>all around you--as you have noted.
While I have seen claims that humanity is inherently bad, I have seen no
significant logic attached to those claims.
SC>In conclusion:
>
>The imperfection of Christians is not proof against the faith--rather it is
>part of the faith. It explains more than rationalism does about the human
>nature--in particular, it explains the duality of humankind without offering
>some hand-waving regarding relative rationalism.
Only if this claimed "duality of humankind" is not just the extremes of what
is really a continuum. And probably not even then!
And hand-waving?
SC>This duality of humanity means that we all have a tendency to act on selfish
>self-interest, while simultaneously valuing altruism.
>
>Now this is irrational.
Isn't it rational that the opportunities for all of us to achieve our
biological and personal imperatives and goals are enhanced by the fact that
humans value and practice altruism? And isn't it also rational that the
opportunities for a few are enhanced by a choice to exploit the general
altruism of human society?
The dualiasm that you see (and the continuum that I see) is simply a result
of the existence of at least two rational strategies for succeeding in an
altruistic society. Uphold the altruistic society, or exploit it. Or do
both, depending on the circumstances. I think that game theory provides much
of the theoretical basis for these strategies.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------