The Atheist Corner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

See this is my problem with Dawkins & his ilk. WHy do we want to dismantle it? what business is it of ours? I am very much of the live & let live opinion....

---

Some of us may want to see better human social constructs evolve. I may not be able to tell you what those constructs are, but when I see women in Africa dying in a fifth rate obstetrics clinic because of their husbands, I forgive myself for being just a wee little bit utopian, eager to dispense with patriarchy from which most contemporary theology stems, and willing, like some atheists, to advocate for change.

As Mill says in the chapter jgweed indicated: "Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

I am assuming that you are referring to the quinque viae as found in the summa theologiae, though there is another version in the summa contra gentiles.

You are welcome to assert that the proofs are flawed, but you haven't pointed out any flaws. The problems with the Five Ways generally come from a rejection of the Aristotelian metaphysical underpinnings and not with the arguments themselves.

So while I agree with you that the Five Ways do not succeed in proving God's existence I disagree strongly with your assertion about the internal structure of those arguments.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by the internal structure (you seem to be putting words into my mouth), but you essentially make my point for me here when you state that you agree that Aquinas was not actually able to prove God's existence. Here's my point: if somebody creates a line of reasoning that sets out to prove God's existence, but that reasoning is unsuccessful, then I would consider it flawed. It is as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

I'm not sure what you mean by the internal structure (you seem to be putting words into my mouth), but you essentially make my point for me here when you state that you agree that Aquinas was not actually able to prove God's existence. Here's my point: if somebody creates a line of reasoning that sets out to prove God's existence, but that reasoning is unsuccessful, then I would consider it flawed. It is as simple as that.

---

No, you are conflating two very separate ideas. To say that the reasoning is flawed is to say that there is an error in it. To say that it is unsuccessful is to say that it does not achieve its purpose in convincing someone of its truth. While it is possible that the reason the reasoning is unconvincing is because it is flawed, it is not the only reason it may fail. I would argue that Aquinas's arguments fail to convince because we are unconvinced of the truth of the Aristotelian framework he used to produce his proof, not from any flaw in the reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

I would argue that Aquinas's arguments fail to convince because we are unconvinced of the truth of the Aristotelian framework he used to produce his proof, not from any flaw in the reasoning.

---

Excuse me for interjecting, but I am trying to get a better grip on philosophical reasoning.

Do you mean by this that Aristotelian logic on its face is not sufficient to prove truth as self-evident?

"As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists more then the details of a person's theism."

Very interesting, although it might at first glance appear to be an attempt at a psychological explanation of religious orientation, it also suggests that belief or non-belief in god has its foundation upon on what one chooses to accept as evidence, proof, or warranted argumentation. Moreover, this foundation can be dependent upon what one is ABLE (or ALLOWED) to choose.

Turning to Aquinas,it seems we should consider the framework of his writing, in which be begins by fairly presenting the opposite view, then his own view ("on the contrary) with his argument ("I answer that"), and lastly by presenting his replies to his opponent's objections. This strategy not only reflects the tradition and high quality of oral disputations of his time, but also his own attempt at presenting the "opposite side" in the best possible manner.
It is necessary to make the distinction between the logic in his arguments, and the premises it employs. In many cases, the latter are derived from accepted authority, and if one accepts the authority and his premises,or his definition of terms, then the conclusions follow in an almost faultless fashion.

We must certainly give Aquinas (and many of his contemporaries) credit for a thorough understanding of Aristotelian formal logic and its development during the scholastic period. Formal logic allows valid conclusions to be drawn from premises (assuming the rules be scrupulously followed) in the syllogism without regard to the truth of the premises themselves, which propositions must be established independently and prior to the actual deductive argument. I think it an important distinction to consider whether an argument is VALID and whether it is TRUE.

Regards,
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Excuse me for interjecting, but I am trying to get a better grip on philosophical reasoning.

Do you mean by this that Aristotelian logic on its face is not sufficient to prove truth as self-evident?

---

It is not the logic of Aristotle that causes the problem here, but rather the metaphysics. When one uses the logic correctly (which I believe Aquinas does consistently) then one is assured of a correct outcome IF (very, very big IF!!!) one's premises are correct.

Let me give an example.

One favorite Aristotelian logical tool is the syllogism, which has the form:
All A are B.
C is A.
Therefore C is B.

This form will give true results as long as the premises used are true (which logic can NOT guarantee).

Consider the following syllogism:

All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is immortal.

Here I have constructed a flawless syllogism, but because the first premise is false, the syllogism gives a false result and Socrates remains dead.

In my discussion of Aquinas I have maintatined the position that while his logical constructions are sound critics have questioned his premises. These premises include such ideas as the real existence of "essences." Therefore the problem shifts from the reasoning to the question of what reality is like, which is the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Some of us may want to see better human social constructs evolve. I may not be able to tell you what those constructs are, but when I see women in Africa dying in a fifth rate obstetrics clinic because of their husbands, I forgive myself for being just a wee little bit utopian, eager to dispense with patriarchy from which most contemporary theology stems, and willing, like some atheists, to advocate for change.

As Mill says in the chapter jgweed indicated: "Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter."

---

Yep but in order to get things to change from what you describe the target to attack is not religion, especially the abrahamic ones were there is a vast number of other followers of the religion that dont act in the ways described. It is cultural change & education required, not telling them they are believing in nonsense. you catch more flies with honey......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Some of us may want to see better human social constructs evolve. I may not be able to tell you what those constructs are, but when I see women in Africa dying in a fifth rate obstetrics clinic because of their husbands, I forgive myself for being just a wee little bit utopian, eager to dispense with patriarchy from which most contemporary theology stems, and willing, like some atheists, to advocate for change.

As Mill says in the chapter jgweed indicated: "Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter."

---

Excuse my late arrival to this thread! Looks like my kind of place - well started, Jozanny.

Just while the solipsysm is being worked out, I'll add a hail mary to this post.

You're speaking my language 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Yep but in order to get things to change from what you describe the target to attack is not religion, especially the abrahamic ones were there is a vast number of other followers of the religion that dont act in the ways described. It is cultural change & education required, not telling them they are believing in nonsense. you catch more flies with honey......

---

The problem with this is that we've tried both ways and neither appears to have worked out too well - there is still a vast majority of believers in those Abrahamic religions.

Personally, I think the battle is lost as while people are leaving the christian churches in many parts of the world, they're as likely to develop an equally-unlikely belief - the growth in psychics has been exponential. Islam, on the other hand, continues to grow and expand. I bet there are some mullahs eyeing up 1 billion heathen Chinese!

I think we maybe need to accept that people want to believe in fairy tales - for god's sake, some people actually believe the Cottingley Fairies were/are real! How we deal with that to minimise the harm, I don't know.

I am quite happy for people to believe in fairy stories, none of my beeswax. I really dont get how someone wanting to believe in the cotingley fairies negatively impacts my life in any manner substantial anough for me to need them to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I am quite happy for people to believe in fairy stories, none of my beeswax. I really dont get how someone wanting to believe in the cotingley fairies negatively impacts my life in any manner substantial anough for me to need them to stop.

---

Funnily enough, I've just been discussing this problem at an atheist forum.

An irrational belief allows other irrational beliefs to grow. Once people start believing in things for which no evidence exists, it's much easier to accept another one. I think that's a bad thing. This sums it up nicely:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

---

So what are we saying here "Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.";) I think it would make for an incredibly boring place to live.


Regarding the Sagan quote, I constantly see & am in contact with people who understand technology - the sparcity isnt really there as far as I'm concerned. Sure there are plenty that dont understand it, but I am far more concerned by the lack of people able to kick a perfect gary owen myself.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

So what are we saying here "Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.";) I think it would make for an incredibly boring place to live.

---

Boring?

The entire universe, a planet of almost infinite beauty and variety, space exploration of the solar system, medical and physics discoveries which astound and you think it's boring?

You are merely making a plea for magic, which I find a bit senseless. There's enough wonder for 100 lifetimes in the physical universe without making more up. Also, do note that fiction is every bit a part of the physical universe - I enjoy fiction immensely myself, but when people cannot tell the difference, the danger starts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Regarding the Sagan quote, I constantly see & am in contact with people who understand technology - the sparcity isnt really there as far as I'm concerned. Sure there are plenty that dont understand it, but I am far more concerned by the lack of people able to kick a perfect gary owen myself.....

---

I'd be very interested to know what circles you move in, because I'm a recruiter of engineers and scientists internationally and it's a fact that there has been a worldwide shortage of technical expertise for several years.

Here's an example for you: I'm pretty technically-minded and many years ago used to enjoy taking cars to bits, fixing them and driving them until they needed fixing again. Nowadays, I wouldn't know where to start; most of the parts are designed for replacement rather than repair and I know of nobody - not even auto technicians - who would be able to diagnose and fix a car with a spanner & driver set alone, which is all one needed 25+ years ago.

Now, the garryowen - that's easy - lack of practice. I can still kick 'em with both feet.

:D

Unfortunately, when ignorant and arrogant religious intolerance is allied with either political or military power, it can have a very harmful impact on one's life. One need only ask a twelve-year Iraqi on his way to school.

Perhaps less dramatic but just as pervasive is the tendency on the part of these same believers to interfere with education.Despite their "reasonableness" in asking for a fair hearing, for example, extreme creationists hope to substitute their religious dogma for scientific inquiry in public education;surely the thousands of gullibles lining up at the entrance of the Creationist Museum, are perpetuating another generation of ignorance lining up at the polls.

In the name of God, others are even now attempting to limit the circumstances under which abortions are legal, and the more radical of these see nothing wrong with bombing abortion clinics or ---in a deadly inconsistency with their principles--- taking the lives of those working there. In the name of God, still others are making every legislative effort to thwart stem-cell research which has so much promise.

When the palm leaf is substituted for the warhammer, only the means and not the ends have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Boring?

The entire universe, a planet of almost infinite beauty and variety, space exploration of the solar system, medical and physics discoveries which astound and you think it's boring?

You are merely making a plea for magic, which I find a bit senseless. There's enough wonder for 100 lifetimes in the physical universe without making more up. Also, do note that fiction is every bit a part of the physical universe - I enjoy fiction immensely myself, but when people cannot tell the difference, the danger starts.

---

Not the world itself that'd be boring, but meeting people who all believe the same thing would bore me to tears. Some people want to get rid of different cultures and national identities. Not me, I love it - differences are what makes the world go round, I love it all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'd be very interested to know what circles you move in, because I'm a recruiter of engineers and scientists internationally and it's a fact that there has been a worldwide shortage of technical expertise for several years.

Here's an example for you: I'm pretty technically-minded and many years ago used to enjoy taking cars to bits, fixing them and driving them until they needed fixing again. Nowadays, I wouldn't know where to start; most of the parts are designed for replacement rather than repair and I know of nobody - not even auto technicians - who would be able to diagnose and fix a car with a spanner & driver set alone, which is all one needed 25+ years ago.

Now, the garryowen - that's easy - lack of practice. I can still kick 'em with both feet.

:D

---

I am trained as an Environmental Engineering Technologist (specializing in Water & Wastewater) unlike the engineers & scientists who design the things we get to play with them and make them work. Currently I am outwith the field and work in Retail Management, on a daily basis I see people come into the store with some technical knowledge of the project they wish to complete, we assist with the extra information required.

Regarding your car analogy - that is because of the huge advancements in automotive technology, would you like your car to lack the electronic enhancements just so anyone with a spanner can take it apart?


On the more important matter of egg-chasing - dont suppose you know of some more kilted kiwis we could steal for the Scotland team:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

Unfortunately, when ignorant and arrogant religious intolerance is allied with either political or military power, it can have a very harmful impact on one's life. One need only ask a twelve-year Iraqi on his way to school.

Perhaps less dramatic but just as pervasive is the tendency on the part of these same believers to interfere with education.Despite their "reasonableness" in asking for a fair hearing, for example, extreme creationists hope to substitute their religious dogma for scientific inquiry in public education;surely the thousands of gullibles lining up at the entrance of the Creationist Museum, are perpetuating another generation of ignorance lining up at the polls.

In the name of God, others are even now attempting to limit the circumstances under which abortions are legal, and the more radical of these see nothing wrong with bombing abortion clinics or ---in a deadly inconsistency with their principles--- taking the lives of those working there. In the name of God, still others are making every legislative effort to thwart stem-cell research which has so much promise.

When the palm leaf is substituted for the warhammer, only the means and not the ends have changed.

---

Extremely well said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

On the more important matter of egg-chasing - dont suppose you know of some more kilted kiwis we could steal for the Scotland team:D

---

Haha! After Wales and Shane Howarth, I'd thought you guys were over that.