The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
Neil said:
So, like rhetoric, or violence, or emotional pleading, or intimidation – a useful human practice, nothing more. Good to know that about you.
I already said.
This is your god on drugs.
Hmm, yes, 🙂
Revelations. And to a lesser extent, John.
At least Neil is consistent; if atheism is true, then logic really is nothing more than a human practice, subject to the relative vagaries of physics and chance. Which renders both science and argument absurd – people running about making claims and assertions that have no basis other than the driving material solipsism of physical law and chance producing whatever it happens to produce as thought or sensation or idea or belief.
KN says that norms are binding … binding how? On whom? They’re certainly not binding on me. How the hell is a norm “binding”? I can shrug my shoulders and say “so what?” and “transgress” a norm any time I want because norms aren’t even supposedly tied to anything necessary or absolute. There is no innate, necessary penalty for doing evil, no necessary reward for doing good if they just represent “norms”. They are nothing more than customs and traditions. Or evolutionary predilections. Nothing more. So, once I know that, why should I give a crap if I “transgress” a norm?
Those are just words and concepts. They’re not presumed to be assigned to anything real – there is no real penalty for transgressing a norm. Why should I obey logic in a discourse? Why should I submit to the oppression of mathematics, or the oppression of so-called scientific fact? Why does KN not see those norms as violent oppressors of “metaphysical freedom”? Or are they more than mere norms? Does mathematics and science represent metaphysical truth? If not, why champion their oppressive chokehold on metaphysical freedom?
Kantian Naturalist,
What do you think of the (to me, odd) theory that it is somehow self-contradictory for there to be knowledge that is not subject to deception?
I’ve heard it claimed that knowledge requires certainty: this is the first time I’ve heard it suggested that the two are incompatible.
hotshoe_,
Loki is cool and would be an excellent guy to have as an ally. Do you think he’s worthy of our worship, though? That’s a high bar. Not sure anything could hit it!
William J. Murray,
if atheism is true, then logic really is nothing more than a human practice, subject to the relative vagaries of physics and chance.
You keep saying this stuff, but it’s just a bias. I ask again–Why does the necessity of non-contradiction require a deity? Would its contingent or necessary falsity require a deity?
Okay, except that I don’t know what it means to say that atheism is true. “Atheism” is a label, not a set of beliefs.
But that is nonsense.
No, I’m not sure anything could get over that bar, for me at least.
Worshipfulness is a sentiment I haven’t felt inclined to indulge in for … hmm … decades now.
But I’m inclined to disagree about “high bar” as a useful idea. I see trying to set the bar high enough that only certain beings are “worthy of our worship” results in selecting only beings which are so distantly perfect that, paradoxically, they aren’t entities we can worship at all. How on Earth could the omni-all god of the universe be worship-able? It’s like the ants worshipping a human. They really can’t do it, they can’t know enough to relate, to have even a halfway comprehensible picture of their human deity upon which to project their worship. Not the term “worship” as I understand it, anyways.
We had a set of kitchen gods while I was a child, err, rather we had their figurines, not the actual gods. But I can imagine growing up (in a somewhat different time and place) to genuinely worship the gods behind those icons, those small gods of the hearth and the threshold, whose powers extend only to such things as helping to make sure the rice didn’t scorch. Worth gratitude, and a moment’s prayer before breakfast, and an offering of a sweet on a religious holiday. Not a high bar at all.
Some norms are binding on us by virtue of how we’ve been enculturated, but what I have in mind here, with regard to the epistemic and semantic norms of rational discourse, is that they are binding on us to the extent that we reflectively endorse them. But to some extent all norms are social: they are sanctioned — prescribed or proscribed — by others. An example: “that doesn’t make any sense!” or “but that doesn’t follow from what you already said!”.
Of course one can always say, “that’s OK, I don’t care about making sense” or “that’s OK, I don’t care about argumentative validity”. Yes, one can respond that way — which then means that one is exiting the conversation, has no interest in being taken seriously, or isn’t interested in being understood.
That’s right — one can always abstain from conforming to the semantic and epistemic norms of discourse, but the expense of having nothing to say.
Moral norms are somewhat different and require a different treatment. I’m interested for the time being in the norms of rational discourse.
I don’t know what “nothing more” is doing here. In any event, though customs and traditions are norms, not all norms are customs and traditions. The norms of rational discourse are not customs or traditions. Likewise, the norms of rational discourse are not “evolutionary predilections” (whatever that means), though our capacity to engage in rational discourse has an evolutionary explanation: they function to facilitate cooperation, which in turn was selected for due to cooperative foraging being an ecological niche for hominids. (See The Evolved Apprentice for the role of cooperative foraging in hominid evolution and A Natural History of Human Thinking for the connection between cooperation and rationality).
That’s right — the world itself doesn’t punish you when you assert p and ~. But other people won’t understand what you’re saying, if you’re saying anything at all.
To understand what you yourself are asserting, and to be understood by others.
Mathematics is a different case, though — in mathematics one can freely invent any axioms one likes, so long as one can prove theorems using them. But Neil can speak to that much better than I.
In scientific practice, we do get a special case of norms in which we hold ourselves accountable to the results of experiment and observation. We can, of course, say, “I don’t care what the data are; I believe what I believe and that’s that!” Fine and good — but then one is no longer doing science.
I don’t think that mathematics and science “represent metaphysical truth”, nor even what it means to “represent metaphysical truth”. It all depends on whether or not cares about being understood by others, or even understood by oneself. And that in turn depends on whether one cares about successfully cooperating with others.
If one has no interest in being beholden to any epistemic or semantic norms at all, that’s fine — then you’ve chosen to be a hermit, that’s all. Nothing wrong with being a hermit. You get to keep your own hours, don’t have to be home at a certain time, and can walk around naked all the time. It’s nice. Some folks find it a bit lonely after a while, though, and there’s an evolutionary and neurological explanation as why solitary confinement can lead to permanent psychological damage. Human beings are social critters, even more so than other primates.
Neil Rickert: But that is nonsense.
Right, it’s more of a yearning than an assertion. He wants there to be a God SOOOO BAD that there just must be one! There just has to be!!!
You may be right. The prostrating oneself is a bit much. But it’s nice to worship the winning side when there are big battles up there. I’ll bet your little hearth and threshold gods wouldn’t hold up long against Shiva or Thor.
http://media1.santabanta.com/full2/Hinduism/Lord%20Shiva/lord-shiva-48v.jpg.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7p7rocHEecE/maxresdefault.jpg
Acutally, WJM’s sentence would be more likely true if he had said “If theism is true, then logic is nothing more than human …”
Yeah, I’ve read as much as I can stand of WJM’s particular brand of theism, which may (or may not, after all) make sense of a universe which appears to be underlain with objective laws and logic — but that brand is not the theism which most people have practiced in human history. Theists believe in god(s) who can upset the laws of physics on a whim, overrule chance to ensure a favored gambler’s win, and – depending on which version you hear – ignore the most fundamental principles of logic.
If you’re a theist other than WJM (and a few of his kind) then god created the world full of illogic, demon power, chaos and potential miracles. It’s only the maligned “materialists” who have managed to impose order (logic, scientific theory and practice) – and that “material” order is still fought against by witch-burning christians at this very moment.
It’s funny that god mostly settled down and started behaving itself almost as soon as humans invented the scientific method. Too bad so many people refuse to get the message.
Don’t make me choose between Loki and Thor! 🙂
No. Or, at least, not in how I do mathematics.
What chokehold?
You are perfectly free to spout what others see as gibberish, if that’s the kind of freedom you want. You would not be the first to spout gibberish.
Earlier:
Here’s the link.
A quote:
What a hypocrite Barry is.
Pick me! pick me!
Precisely my point but more succinctly stated.
If god existed, I would believe in him. I do not believe in god, therefore god does not exist. I should make a youtube video!
That’s where the logic leads if one has already conceptualized the norms of discourse as containing the presuppositions of theism. That’s about as impressive as allowing other people to see you hiding something behind the couch and then expecting them to be surprised when you find it.
Be that as it may: I certainly don’t think that my way of thinking about the norms of discourse has any deep connection to “atheism” or similar.
It could well be, as far as the conception of rational discourse is concerned, that the existence of the God of classical theism is the best explanation for why we have those norms and why they are so remarkably successful and effective. I’m skeptical of that, but it’s a possibility I don’t mean to cut off at the knees.
Conversely, any philosophically adequate naturalism is going to have to find its own way of explaining the origins of those norms and their success. That’s a tall order, and while I think it can be satisfied, I certainly don’t think there’s anything irrational about those who evince skepticism at it or who think that theism is a better explanation at the end of the day than naturalism is.
At this point, all I am objecting to is the attempt to build theism right into the very conception of rational discourse itself.
walto,
I’m sure neither Shiva nor Thor want their rice scorched.
Let’s just say that he doesn’t have a grasp of logic that is absolutely certain or has one that he doesn’t fully comprehend.
What about you and keiths? Are any of the laws of logic absolutely certain? Will you trot out some empirical objective evidence for your belief in the existence of the laws of logic?
I’m one of those people who believes if I wait long enough I’ll eventually get an even better price. Meanwhile, real estate prices continue to rise. =P
Just four comments in, and Mung is already having a bad thread day.
Sounds just like TSZ!
keiths, give it time bro.
I am bookmarking posts that I think are worth responding to. So far none of yours has made the cut. Imagine that. If you have a problem with that, do better.
Did you ever responded to walto’s criticism?
Have you presented an argument defending your claim that Christianity is false yet? Do I need to give up on my expectation of actually seeing one from you? You do defend your claims, right?
Up first, defend your reliance on logic. Assuming you rely on logic at all. Given that you admit that you can’t have certain knowledge, that would be a good place to start.
Oh, and when you do that, if ever, given that none of us can have certain knowledge either, explain just how it is that you think your argument ought to convince anyone else.
You’re a lucky fellow actually. Once you’re done sawing off the branch you’re sitting on, lots of nice people are here to catch you and let you down gently.
I think you could have worded that much better, as I don’t believe that is what advocates of design theory actually say. The metaphysical implications of actual design in nature are huge.
To start the problem of induction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
If the universe is not fully comprehensible then induction is merely wishful thinking.
That 2+2 equaled four when I started this post is not evidence that it will equal four when I finish it.
If the universe is not fully comprehensible then I might be my own brother if I was to visit another town.
You might counter that the universe is only possibly incomprehensible in places you haven’t been. But I would then ask “how would you know that?”
peace
ok, you surprised me. You responded to walto. Chalk one up in your favor.
Since you accept that an omniscient God cannot be fooled, and your argument is that God cannot know that he is not being fooled, your argument is that God cannot know that he is omniscient. For if God knows that he is omniscient, then it logically follows that God knows that he is not being fooled.
Do you agree?
btw. If do you agree, then my original critique of your argument was spot on. But don’t let that affect your answer. 🙂
Because The Christian God can be grounds for knowelege.
Surely you agree that if Yahweh exists he could reveal somethings to us such that we can know them for certain.
If you think there is way to know things in a universe with no Yahweh please present it.
I would love to test my presuppositions
so far it’s been crickets
keiths:
fifth:
And no other conceivable God can, in your view? Why not?
Please consider elevating it to an OP.
You philosophers often have interesting things to say but they are often buried somewhere deep in lon and unrelated threads and are perhaps therefore taken for something completely different. 😉
I assume that Socialist Russia and Communist China were not “properly secular”?
Another post just begging for an OP.
fifth,
No, it hasn’t. Do you believe that lying brings glory to God, fifth?
Yet again:
fifth:
keiths:
For starters It takes the incarnation for a God who is not part of the universe to be able to communicate effectively with beings inside the universe.
It’s possible that there is some loophole that would allow a hypothetical God to bridge the gap but Ive yet to see an argument made to this effect.
I’m all ears so far it’s been crickets
Once we get past the problem of incarnation we can discuss the importance of Tri-personality to revelation.
If we get that far I’m sure other unique qualifications that are necessary.
But we need specifics to evaluate a vague amorphous “conceivable god” is not going to cut it.
What have you got?
peace
Knowledge is Justified true belief.
If you can never know a belief is true how can you be justified in holding it?
IOW how do you know stuff in your world view?
That is the question I’ve been asking for a few days now. I’m not interested in what you treat as knowelege
When it comes to the actual question I’m asking all I hear is crickets
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Or you could start by providing an operational definition of this god thing you keep going on about and some objective, empirical evidence that it actually exists. Until that’s established, you’re quite literally talking nonsense.
Oh you are funny. But God cannot know that he is omnipotent because he cannot know that he isn’t being fooled into merely thinking that he is omnipotent.
Are you finally catching up, keiths?
Not only that, but why don’t you devise some empirical test by which God can come to know that he is in fact omnipotent? He could, for example, create a rock of infinitely small mass and test to see if he can lift it, then add just an infintely small amount of mass to the previous amount and then see again if he can lift it. Ad infinitum.
And then you can mock my empirical challenge to you and Patrick, again. You who worship at the altar of empiricism. But surely you’re all skeptical of empiricism too, right?
how about this
quote:
The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.
In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.
end quote:
1644 LBCF
peace
It’s mostly a pseudo-problem (a kind of origins myth for philosophers).
That
is a logical consequence of the definitions used by mathematicians.
Incidentally, right now
because I just switched to using mod 3 arithmetic.
I would not make that distinction. The universe might be partially incomprehensible right where I am now.
fifth,
So you think Yahweh was unable to communicate effectively with Abraham and Moses, because he hadn’t yet incarnated?
You haven’t thought this through at all, fifth.
fifthmonarchyman,
One aspect of an operational definition is that it allows an objective observer to determine if an artifact, entity, or observation meets the criteria for that which is being defined. It allows one to distinguish between that which is being defined and other things.
Try again, without the woo if you can manage it.
I’d like to see an operational definition for objective observer
There are no objective observers. We all have our own bias.
peace
I think you come tantalizingly close here to identifying the problem with the argument.
Let’s say, just to keep things interesting, that there is no real difference in the two cases. What might possibly make that the case?
keiths accepts that it’s logically impossible for God to create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift and that this is somehow part of the meaning/definition of omnipotence.
[So much for that vaunted keiths inability to know for certain.}
So upon what rational basis does keiths accept that as a matter of logical necessity God’s omnipotence entails that God cannot create a rock too heavy for God to lift, while at the same time denying that as a matter of logical necessity God’s omniscience entails that God cannot be fooled?
How is it not likewise part of the meaning/definition of omniscience that such a being cannot be fooled? It is logically impossible for God to believe to be true something that is not true.
Talk about special pleading!
Subjective keiths.
The metaphysical implications of actual design in nature are negligible: if there is actual design in nature, then there exists at least one designer.
That’s it. The entirety of the metaphysical implications are that there exists at least one designer. We know nothing of what the designer is, or what it intends, how many of them there are, or anything about its (their) capacities. The sole metaphysical implication is that design implies a designer.
Now, you are correct that this implication is compatible with a great of speculation about the designer, but implication is not speculation.
Heck, the existence of a designer is perfectly compatible with atheism. Even if it were highly confirmed that the entire universe were designed, that would still be compatible with a Demiurge or a committee of higher-dimensional beings that program the universe or whatever one could possibly imagine.
I do not even see how the confirmation of design theory could increase our confidence that God exists. The advocates of the ID movement often assume that this is the case, but I think that they are all quite badly mistaken about that point. Even if ID were to be highly confirmed — which would be very interesting in itself — it would have no relevance to the question as to whether God exists.
fifthmonarchyman,
Some more than others.
Rather than continuing to attempt to distract from your inability to define your terms or support your claims, consider the objective observer to be an ideal that we can all strive towards and that can be approached by consilience among multiple individuals.
Now how about addressing the issue instead of doing the usual fundamentalist rhetorical dance. I’ve seen it enough. It wasn’t even entertaining the first time.
I don’t agree with that definition of knowledge.
Even so, I can be justified in holding a belief as long as I have a strong enough basis for that belief. Perhaps you would not count that as meeting your definition of “knowledge”, but I could still be justified in holding that belief.
What we mean by “truth” is itself much debated.
Ever heard of Christophany? God never once communicates without the Logos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophany
There is no “before the incarnation” from the perspective of a timeless God. I never cease to be amazed at the shallowness of some peoples’ knowelege of Christianity
peace
When we have theists spouting this kind of verbiage, we already have evidence that the universe is not fully comprehensible.