jump to navigation
...praise and blame ought not be attached to beliefs or disbeliefs, but only to rational or irrational ways of holding them. —Bertrand Russell, The Value of Free Thought

Two Types of Knowing June 13, 2006

Posted by Rastaban in : Naturalism, Non-Existence Arguments , 1 comment so far

If the world outside of our thoughts was of the same essence as the world of our thoughts, there would be only one kind of knowing. Yet philosophers have long recognized that knowing comes in two distinct varieties. There is knowing which is innate, Plato’s forms, Kant’s analytical knowledge—and there is knowing which is acquired through the senses, empirical knowledge.

Why should there be two types of knowing? Why should that be a feature of our existence? Yet it is. This is the key, the giveaway clue, perhaps the single most important observation in all of philosophy.

If the world and our thoughts were of the same basic stuff, there would only be one type of knowing. Yet we have a different kind of knowing for the world—one which is approximate, inexact, provisional—than we have for our thoughts themselves, and that means that the world and thoughts are different in essence. The domain of our thoughts is mental in nature, with an innate conceptual/rational/analytic framework. The world outside lacks any such framework. It is non-mental, non-rational, non-knowable in its essence.

The consequences of this are simple and significant.

We expect our thoughts to be rational and meaningful because that is appropriate for thoughts; but outside of our thoughts the world is not rational or meaningful because the outside’s essence is non-mental. Consequently it makes no sense to expect the outside world (the world outside thoughts) to have characteristics that pertain to thoughts, such as meaningfulness or rationality.

It is only common sense that the world outside our thoughts must be irrational and meaningless — otherwise we would never have developed two types of knowing.

To expect or wish otherwise is to be confused.

Mind, Matter & Divine Creation

Posted by Rastaban in : Naturalism, Non-Existence Arguments , 1 comment so far

Perhaps the greatest challenge to a naturalistic worldview is explaining consciousness. This difficulty has several aspects. How did experiencing and consciousness evolve? For that matter why would it have evolved? But more troublesome than the evolutionary question is the basic biological one. How can the brain cause sensations and subjective experiences as well as — to put it bluntly - create the mind? Many theists consider this last to be an insurmountable problem for advocates of naturalism.

The Theist’s Own Difficulty

The theist, however, faces an equivalent task. The problem of how mind and matter can interact with each other — much less one cause the other — does not disappear by adopting a supernatural worldview. In fact the difficulty the theist faces may be greater than that faced by the atheist for the simple reason that the theist is committed to a class distinction between spirit & body, mind & matter, to which the advocate of naturalism is not.

The natural scientist adopts the assumption that consciousness is some kind of physical phenomena. If it is a physical phenomena, then it should not be impossible for another physical phenomena to cause it. Understanding how this happens may still be quite difficult, but at least the relationship — between biological brain and physical phenomena of experiencing — is not conceptually impossible. (Of course, understanding how our thoughts can be “merely physical” remains a difficulty, but not an inherently unexplainable one.)

The theist, on the other hand, is committed to a fundamental distinction between matter and mind (or body & soul) that seems to make interaction between the two impossible to conceive. (more…)

More Unintelligent Design May 2, 2006

Posted by Rastaban in : Evolution & ID, Non-Existence Arguments , add a comment

Intelligent Design advocates like to claim that evolution can’t explain the existence of “irreducible complexity” in humans and other species. But they would be much better served worrying about the far greater difficulty Intelligent Design faces: how to explain mistakes and flaws in the “design” of humans and their world — or to put it another way, how to explain “blunders” by the intelligent designer. (After all, the intelligent designer is God, and God is supposed to be infallible.)

The latest example of a design “oversight” in humans was reported yesterday by EurekAlert!. Researchers at the Univ. of Calif San Diego School of Medicine have discovered the existence of certain T-cell molecules called “Siglecs”, “immune-dampening proteins that bind to sialic acids” which (more…)

Evolution — the Dividing Line March 29, 2006

Posted by Rastaban in : Existence Arguments, Non-Existence Arguments, gods & God , add a comment

It’s not surprising that the issue of teaching evolution (or not — or countering it with intelligent design) keeps cropping up around the country.

For practical purposes, evolution is the dividing line between theism and atheism.

Evolution points the way to a naturalistic explanation for the design we see in the world around us. If evolution is false, a naturalistic explanation for design becomes extremely difficult to hold, so that for all practical purposes we can say that if evolution is false atheism is probably false. Conversely we can say that if evolution is true, then theism is probably false.

Only probably.

But that’s enough to make evolution into a continental divide. (more…)

Agnosticism Revisited & the Case for Atheism July 7, 2005

Posted by Rastaban in : Agnosticism, Non-Existence Arguments, gods & God , 6 comments

It is easy to understand how one can be undecided about the existence of God. I’m often undecided myself, since doubting my convictions is the first step in any serious analysis; yet I am as atheist as they come.

Agnosticism generally takes three forms today. There is the traditional agnostic who maintains that no one can prove or disprove God’s existence and therefore the only intelligent position is to say “we can’t know”. The second sees agnosticism as a beginning point, a method of skepticism or doubt from which to proceed. The third type says withholding belief in God because of insufficient evidence is identical to being atheist (generally called weak atheism).

Today a great many atheists are actually agnostic-atheists of this last sort. For an example of the 2nd group, see David Eller’s essay “Agnosticism: the basis for atheism not an alternative to it”. (Eller argues that agnosticism is a method that if properly followed leads directly to atheism.)

But my focus now is agnosticism of the first sort. Advocates of this position claim to know basicly two things:

(a) there are no logically sound proofs or disproofs of God’s existence

(b) therefore there is insufficient reason to adapt either theism or atheism

I have no doubt that to the agnostic’s best knowledge, both claims are true. He or she isn’t aware of a convincing case for belief or disbelief.

But maybe that’s because our agnostic simply hasn’t been exposed to strong atheist arguments. Which would not be surprising. Most atheists are actually weak atheists, our group three above who disbelieve because of insufficient evidence. Weak atheists, it seems to me, are often unaware of the best arguments for atheism.

The strongest philosophical argument for atheism, the Argument from Perfection, is rarely presented anywhere in full (often it has to be extrapolated from discussions of “the Problem of Evil”); likewise for the other arguments that constitute specific atheism. (more…)

An Irreverent Look at God, Sex & Design February 13, 2005

Posted by Rastaban in : Non-Existence Arguments, The Bible, Unsacred Texts, gods & God , 11 comments

Theists like to argue that design — especially the complex design we see in organisms — is proof there must be a Designer. And theists denigrate evolution precisely because it provides an alternate explanation for design. If evolution suffices, then not only does there exist a viable competitor to God, but it is a competitor without the contradictions and supernaturalism of theism.

It follows that the debate between atheism and theism is to a significant extent a debate about which viewpoint — God or evolution — provides a better explanation for the design we see around us.

One prominent observation about organisms is that they often come in sexes; that most complex animals have male and female sexual organs and engage in a variety of sexual behaviors. I will now proceed to look at which explanation — God or evolution — better addresses this aspect of animal design. (more…)

Competing Moralities & Perfect God

Posted by Rastaban in : Non-Existence Arguments, gods & God , add a comment

The existence of evil is difficult to understand if we assume the universe is the product of a perfect God. However, embrace the scientific/evolutionary viewpoint and evil becomes understandable. After all, what is supremely “good” for the ebola virus is extremely “evil” for the primate infected by ebola.

Natural selection provides a framework which enables us to understand why species are so often in conflict with each other. If each species has its own morality or “rightness”, it follows that the result of the evolutionary process is a world of competing moralities.

Evil exists, from the evolutionary perspective, simply because other species exist with their own conflicting needs and rights. Why conflicting? Because there is a limit of resources — so much sunlight, so much oxygen, nutrients, energy resources, and no more. Sometimes, it is true, a species will develop a symbiotic relationship with another species in those situations where the two use resources in a mutually beneficial way. But far more common is conflict.

The simple truth is that species often feed on each other. The delicious meal which is profoundly good and necessary for the wolf is profoundly evil from the lamb’s perspective. This is understandable within the context of natural selection, but not easily explained if there is a perfect God.

Why would a perfect God create a world of such limited resources and resulting competing moralities?* Or, to turn this question around into an even more devastating form for theism: why would the existence of a world of limited resources and competing moralities, be best explained by postulating a perfect God? (more…)