Good news from the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization:
Atheism on the Rise
For Gen Z, “atheist” is no longer a dirty word: The percentage of teens who identify as such is double that of the general population (13% vs. 6% of all adults). The proportion that identifies as Christian likewise drops from generation to generation. Three out of four Boomers are Protestant or Catholic Christians (75%), while just three in five 13- to 18-year-olds say they are some kind of Christian (59%).
This was particularly interesting…
Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them.
…as was this:
Nearly half of teens, on par with Millennials, say “I need factual evidence to support my beliefs” (46%)—which helps to explain their uneasiness with the relationship between science and the Bible. Significantly fewer teens and young adults (28% and 25%) than Gen X and Boomers (36% and 45%) see the two as complementary.
Well, that’s a tall order, because reason, truth, and logic aren’t “things” that “exist” in the same way that trees and tables are things that exist.
So you would need to start with what you mean by “things” and “exist”, then explain why you think that truth, reason, and logic are among the things that exist.
To be honest I think you are in the grip of Plato’s fallacy: you recognize that concepts aren’t objects, but then you imagine that concepts are just a really weird sort of object.
I’m a little confused by that chronology. I thought he actually gave a kind of argument for God’s existence in God and Other Minds, and he certainly gave a very hairy ontological argument subsequent to that in The Nature of Necessity. So I’m thinking that If he decided that one can’t prove the existence of God, he must have come to that conclusion more recently–perhaps during or subsequent to his epistemological work on warrant.
In God and Other Minds he argued that the belief in God is a “basic belief,” just like our belief in the minds of other people; it doesn’t require justification any more than our belief in minds other than our own requires justification. God and Other Minds is 1967. Nature of Necessity is 1979, so it looks like he changed his mind about the soundness of the ontological argument in response to Kripke.
(Note: Naming and Necessity was first given as lectures at Harvard in 1970, then published in 1972 in Semantics of Natural Language and as a stand-alone book in 1980.)
no, An omnipotent God can do anything that is possible so regardless of how we define our terms God is up to the task.
That is unless you want to claim that things like truth and reason and logic don’t exist in any sense whatsoever. Is that really the road you want to go down?
That is not it at all. You are trying too hard to deny God’s existence. You are looking for philosophical ammunition to support your denial instead of simply listening to what is being said.
It does not matter if truth and logic are concepts or swiss cheese. It does not matter if Plato is greatest philosopher ever or just a fat guy in Beetle Bailey’s platoon.
We are taking about what an omnipotent God can do. God can explain why there are things like logic and reason because by definition he can explain anything that can be explained.
If an omnipotent God can’t explain why there are things like logic and reason then nothing whatsoever can. Is that really the road you want to go down?
peace
google is your friend
https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf
quote:
I’ve been arguing that theistic belief does not (in general) need argument either for deontological justification, or for positive epistemic status,(or for
Foley rationality or Alstonian justification)); belief in God is properly basic. But doesn’t follow,of course that there aren’t any good arguments.Are there some? At least a couple of dozen or so.
and
What are these arguments like, and what role do they play? They are probabilistic, either with respect to the premises, or with respect to the connection between the premises and conclusion, or both. They can serve to bolster and confirm (‘helps’ a la John Calvin); perhaps to convince.
end quote;
peace
The evidence of a big bang and the universe with a beginning created a concept or what materialists call a paradox. Within the accepted laws of physics operating within time nothing is supposed to precede the beginning of the universe and spacetime. But anything with a beginning requires something that set it in motion – caused the big bang. But the big bang it supposed to be the beginning of time, so how could something be before time came into existence?
That’s where the philosophy of science is required which l offend call it the dilution of facts because that’s what it often does with facts so that they don’t look as obvious as they actually are…
Why the belief in God is so wide spread and not say… Panspermia or abiogenesis?
How many people, out of the recently discovered tribes that had no contact with civilization, in the Amazonian territory would believe in other than Godlike creator of life and the earth?
Maybe this should change…
Otherwise you are going to fall victim to the narcissistic, angry, cherry-picking , obtuse, self-righteous toxicity of the new atheism and its disciples… and its empty liberation…
There is only one liberation it can promise you is -certain death.
Yes, it is. Thanks for reading.
Of course Gerbil would say that. But I prefer not to talk to Gerbil because he’s impervious to reason (the irony!) by choice (part and parcel of presuppositional bullshitologetics). He doesn’t care about honest exchange, and he will keep running in his spinning wheel of absurdity, while arrogantly making fun of anybody who doesn’t want to jump in with him.
Sal,
How would you answer the question I raised earlier?
I don’t care about what God supposedly can or cannot explain. I care about what you can explain. I’m not talking with God; I’m talking with you!
The irony (noted above) is that you’re so completely sure that only by assuming God can we have any confidence in reason or logic, but when it comes to actually giving us arguments, you back off — “oh, I’m not making arguments!”.
Well, so much for my latest attempt to take you seriously, I guess.
Entropy,
The cause of predictability in our spacetime is intelligence. Predictability can exist outside our space time. So can intelligence. What you are failing to realize is your argument depends on all reality existing inside our space time. If all reality existed inside our spacetime then your argument would hold.
I don’t think we know what the make up would be. If we lived in a 2D simulation and were converted to be able to view a 3D reality it would be very different then what we tried to conceive inside the 2D simulation. In this case objects would not only exist as images they would have this weird characteristic called mass and we could physically interact with them. It might have a “nature” but something very different then we experience.
The most important issue for the argument is there are two separate realities so that the predictability of one realty can be caused by intelligence from the other reality. It maybe fundamental to itself yet caused by another intelligence inside another reality.
All this being said your argument is very interesting.
We are both under no obligation to prove of disprove Gods existence. From my perspective Walto has ignored the arguments for God. This is his choice but I think that leaves his current commitment to his own worldview very tentative.
Reading through fifth’s absurd exchange with walto just confirms my earlier impression: fifth is looking for reassurance.
He knows his position is ridiculous and weak, and that makes him feel insecure. He’s got a script that he wants walto to follow, and he thinks that if he can just hound, coax or cajole walto into following that script, then walto will fail, the world will make sense again, and fifth can rest easy in his faith.
It ain’t gonna happen, fifth. First, there’s no reason for walto to start with your goofy assumptions. Second, even if he agreed to do so, that wouldn’t validate them. They’re bogus, and — contrary to your claims — they aren’t necessary.
You need to come to grips with an uncomfortable reality: Unless by some miracle you deconvert, you face a future of looking into mirrors and thinking, of the man you see: “He can’t defend his faith.”
Not a good feeling.
Moved a couple of posts to guano.
Yes, that was my impression of Plantinga’s position on the matter. I actually picked up Nature of Necessity in Oxford, before it was available in the U.S. I lugged it and a fat book by Kneale on logic around England for a couple weeks. Never got through the thing, though. Very dense.
He did, and you pretended not to see.
phoodoo,
Who did?
The universe. You.
That is all that is needed require a “burden” that someone explains how or why.
The dodge that you and KN are trying to make, by saying, “it could just happen for no reason” is likewise a claim that requires you to provide evidence for.
AS KN tried to get out of this burden by saying, “Well, humans can’t make self-sustaining systems, so intelligence isn’t enough” , he then takes on the burden of saying then what is. But he hopes we don’t notice this slight of hand.
You have done the same-you claim something comes from nothing, without taking any responsibility for explaining how or why you could believe that.
I don’t find your dodging to be a very impressive rhetorical technique. I think it simply highlights the weakness of your position.
I think I’ve actually given them more attention than they’ve deserved. There are a number of other topics I wish I’d spent more time on in my life. I’d have been better off spending less on theology, imo.
I have no idea what that means.
The desire to shift this burden has confused you. If you think the existence of the universe needs to be explained and can only be explained by God, you are free to offer that up as a proof–as Aquinas did. Then that proof can be assessed.
I don’t know whether the universe ‘happened for no reason’ and have made no assertions one way or the other about it. Why the hell should I know why there is something rather than nothing–because you happen to think you know why?
I find it amusing that so many of the theists here seem so uncomfortable. They say they believe in God, but seem so bothered if others don’t. There must be some inkling that they really have no idea what they’re talking about, or you think they’d be content to just go home and chat with their lord(s) about their plans for their kingdom.
Imagine if we used this type of thinking for other observed phenomenon. Things fall to Earth, why do we need to explain it?
Light exists, why do we need to explain it, it just is, there is no reason to look for a cause. It just is. Someone died, it just happened, who says there has to be a reason.
Two metals are magnetically attracted. One person says, well, there should be a reason why these two particular metals want to bond together, and another two pieces of metal want to repel each other when oriented a certain way. One person claims it requires an explanation. Another says, no it doesn’t, it just is. Why does it require an explanation? Things just happen.
The side which chooses the “It doesn’t require an explanation” looks rather silly and lacking in intellectual curiosity or depth.
walto,
It’s the reassurance thing.
It just comes in slightly different forms, depending on the theist. For fifth it’s as described. For colewd it’s about believing that his faith is scientifically respectable, though it clearly isn’t. For phoodoo it’s about putting the eggheads, with their books and their fancy degrees, in their place.
keiths,
Or perhaps its about pondering why things fall to Earth, besides just saying, “Well, it just happens.”
walto,
On what basis have you determined how much attention the arguments deserved?
It means you haven’t challenged your own worldview (atheism). It is your default position and whether it is true or not seems of little consequence. It maybe why you don’t think it requires any burden having to defend it.
Don’t know. Don’t really care.
phoodoo,
The eggheads are way ahead of you on that one, as usual.
keiths:
Sal:
You don’t care whether scripture is trustworthy?
This is one of the most ridiculously unfounded and impossible-to-know statements that has ever been made. Unfortunately, it does have a lot of company.
Bill Cole, presumptive expert on what can exist outside of space time. No evidence, but none needed for his beliefs.
Glen Davidson
Bill’s consistent error is to take himself seriously. If proofreading a one-line comment and generating an acronym are beyond your limits, it’s a safe bet that the properties of non-space-time are, too.
This is my point. You are not really interested in discovering the truth here you are interested in philosophical backgammon.
God can explain the existence of things like truth and reason and logic. This is true regardless of who your debate opponent is. That fact is not rocket science it’s part of what it means to be God.
I don’t try to prove God’s existence with argument. To do so would be to place myself in the position of God. God himself makes his own existence known to you. He doesn’t need me to do that.
The Christian’s job is not to prove that God exists with argument it’s to demolish the puny arguments that are raised against God’s existence
quote:
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
(2Co 10:5)
end quote:
peace
I find it fascinating that someone of walto’s obvious intellectual heft finds a very particular sort of comment to be incomprehensible or perplexing.
It says a lot about the power of the subconscious IMO
peace
Wait a minute you have it backwards.
This thread is supposed to be a celebration that some folks are supposedly abandoning a nominal theism and embracing atheism as if it’s some sort of athletic contest.
I for one am not particularly bothered that folks reject God. It’s a free country and I was told to expect this after all
I am bothered when atheists try to act as if atheism is the intellectual default neutral starting position. Only because I’m bothered by claims that are obviously and glaringly false
peace
Are you seriously suggesting that asking for an argument for the existence of God is the same as setting up atheism as the default intellectual position?
As I said, and as the last collection of their posts here make very clear, the theists on this thread have one, and only one, goal: burden shift. Won’t give an argument, yet can’t live with the fact that people don’t agree with their fantasies. Conversation with them is a lot like yelling into your shoe.
It’s not me–it’s you, says colewd; it’s not me, it’s gravity, says phoodoo; it’s not me, it’s God, says fmm. Well, I’ll leave this thread with the simple remark that it actually is YOU. YOU have the burden of showing there’s a God if you care that other people agree with that position (as you obviously do).
Plantinga gets this. But you three don’t, apparently, and I can’t help you to see it, any more than he can. Sorry. As that is so, I suggest you try to simply get more comfortable in your faith(s). I can assure you, at any rate, that your attempts at burden-shifting will no more convince any sensible non-theist than a Green Lantern adherent’s would.
KN,
I don’t think you responded my questions. You said that in order to have a discussion about whether or not atheism
You also said:
We’re talking about a specific belief: that more atheists and less theists is better than the converse. So, “generally speaking” is an improper starting point to try and support the particular belief under consideration. Thus the entire process of the rest of your list of reasoning comes from a faulty starting point.
Once again, what do you mean by “justified”? Do you think all beliefs are the same kind of belief and so should be justified the same way?
Also, what do you mean by “better”? Better at what, or better for what? Don’t you think there are different kinds of “better”? Don’t you think it is possible to have belief that is better grounded in current empirical evidence, but that the adoption of that belief would not be better (in various meaningful ways) for certain individuals or or the social good? Do you think it is a good thing if a person has a belief that both empirically grounded, but also causes serious depression and anger?
Do you think it would be better in some cases to have false beliefs if those beliefs aided in social equanimity and personal happiness, and the converse would disrupt those things?
Until someone actually defines what they mean by “good” or “better”, and how atheism has been shown to provide more of that “good” than theism, the claim that more atheism = “a good thing” is, IMO, ignorant ideological tribalism that hasn’t even begun to think out the potential ramifications of spreading their ideology.
Why is every atheist here assuming that the more empirically valid a belief is, then it is necessarily “better” to hold that belief? While that is certainly true of some or even most beliefs, why should anyone think that is true of all beliefs? Isn’t it possible that the thriving of a conscious, sentient species might rely on some false beliefs? After all, survival of a species doesn’t rely on truth; there are species that use all kinds of forms of “falsehoods” to survive – various forms of camoflage or use of attracting or threatening smells or visuals. Nature doesn’t care, I would think, that our thoughts are true, only that they aid us in our survival.
Not every atheist. I agree it may indeed be beneficial for individuals or a group to retain a suite of beliefs (or at least espouse them socially) in spite there being no empirical justification for them. Pretty sure that’s why the US remains a country of religious believers in the majority. Unlike many European countries, there’s often no social alternative to belonging to your local religious community in (bible belt) USA.
Looks like your assumption is wrong:
William, dear, you’re getting your desires confused with reality, again.
I found Plantinga’s argument for the “basic belief” in God to rely to heavily on conflation and faulty premises. I’d buy the argument that there is a “basic belief” in something “other than the immediate natural world that we are used to experiencing with our senses (call it the “supernatural” if you like) among humans throughout the ages, but I think it’s a stretch to go from that observation to the a “god” concept, let alone the Christian “God” concept.
Now I have no argument with people who feel there’s something beyond the material world. I don’t think such folk need to justify anything except – and here’s the real kicker for me – if they insist that some element or elements of that “beyond material” needs to be incorporated as a basis in our social/societal framework. At that point I demand justification, just I demand justification for any infringement on my and other people’s behavior and activities. I think there is fairly solid justification for prohibiting murder, for instance, so if someone says some element of their experience with the supernatural indicates that murder is wrong, I’m inclined to go along. However, if someone says some element of their experience indicates that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, I need something more than some group’s say-so to get on-board.
This discussion got me thinking and I realized that for me, atheism vs theism has nothing to do with which is “better” or a more rational/less delusional, more inductively supported or whatever…
For me it boils down to trust. I trust the experiences I’ve had with this world and seem them as a valid basis for my actions and behavior. I have not experienced anything that leads me to feel there’s something beyond the material and at this point I don’t have a lot of trust in those who who insist there is. Such folk are clearly not experiencing the same things in this world I am and since the experiences I’ve had are perfectly trustworthy to me, I need a significantly compelling reason to override or ignore them in order to even begin to consider some other, contrary, claimed experience as possibly valid. Such would require extraordinary trust in the person making the claim and the claim itself, but so far such folk have not proven trustworthy to me. So, until such folk prove otherwise, I have no problem continuing with my behaviors and activities in the manner I do trust.
Being wrong certainly doesn’t do anything to make him teachable.
It’s just reason for him to go on to be wrong again.
Glen Davidson
Why are you assuming that?
Glen Davidson
Is that why you’re here, you’re bothered by your glaringly false claims?
I’m bothered by the way that you think the intellectual default neutral starting position is that you’re not a criminal. You should be presupposed a criminal. Makes as much sense as your inability to consider that presupposing that God is anything at all is hardly a proper default.
You’re not much good at epistemology, justice, or getting anything right.
Glen Davidson
If that is true then why is an assumption necessary?
Why do you assume what is known?
Camouflage doesn’t involve the organism using camouflage to suppose that it is itself just the ground, or what-not. It involves trying to deceive other organisms about the matter.
Which is a good example of why Plantinga is wrong about evolution not producing “true beliefs,” generally. One organism evolves to deceive another, while the other organism evolves to see through the deceit to the truth of the matter. Organisms with general intelligence do that with organisms’ “attempts” to conceal the truth (esp. social animals), and need to be able to figure out what’s generally “true.”
Even then, organisms’ understanding of “truth” tends to be phenomenal, rather than scientific. We didn’t really evolve to do science per se, but, because we can refine our understanding of “truth,” we have slowly made it past our phenomenal predispositions. If not so much at UD.
Glen Davidson
How a full grown man/woman can think an omnipotent being is a (good) explanation for anything at all is beyond me
Logically, it’s a great explanation for just about anything.
Epistemologically, it’s useless unless you have sound evidence that it actually exists–and evidence that it not infrequently acts in the world.
Glen Davidson
Thankfully Newton didn’t agree with you.
I guess, to the extent that a tautology is a great logical explanation
“I wish it weren’t so, but if the Intelligent Designer created plagues then He is exactly the Intelligent Designer that is described in the Old Testament, which Jesus claims is also the wrathful God of the New Testament who will send people to hell on Judgement Day.”
Sal,
Don’t let anybody, especially this narcissistic lapciuch to get under your skin… If my 12 and 14 year old kids can find satisfying answers to some issue that seem questionable, you can too…
Here is a quote from the OP I did in September:
“It doesn’t seem to be true at least in case of Job and his family, as the verses from Job 2: 16-19 show that Satan was the one who caused all the natural disasters and diseases that directly affected Job and his family…”
God bless! 🙂