Nearly ten years ago, on the 15th September, 2001, I read this piece in the Guardian, by Richard Dawkins.
I was a theist then, a catholic, in fact, by conversion, in my early twenties, having been baptized in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, sung at matins every Sunday until from age 8 to 11, sent to a Quaker boarding school, where I was devout, if rebellious, and became a Friend, later being confirmed at a High Church Anglican church in Devon, and finally, having married a catholic, feeling I had “come home” to the catholic church.
Always liberal, though – when I was being prepared for reception into the catholic church by the university chaplain, a Benedictine called Fr Fabian Cowper, he asked me if I had any concerns. I said, yes: contraception and papal infallibility. He replied: well, contraception is a good example of papal fallibility. So I thought I’d be OK. It was still not that long after Vatican II, liberation theology was in the air, and the Dominicans in Oxford were regular attenders at the Greenham Common protests, and there was a sense that the church might be a slow vast tanker but the People of God would turn it round. I hung on in there, even when my mother, who later converted herself, was temporarily excommunicated for publishing a book that argued that the church’s moral teaching on medical ethics was mostly wrong (a Jesuit professor of moral theology preached the eulogy at her requiem mass, and paid tribute to her for “having the courage to say what we dare not”, and for having had more faith in her church than her church had had in her. But looking back, that piece in the Guardian was the beginning of the end.
I remember thinking, and saying to my fairly recently bereaved father: “he makes a devasting point – it will be interesting to see how the churches rise to the challenge”.
But they didn’t. There were a couple of peeved responses, IIRC, but no-one took up the challenge. No-one had anything to say to rebut the charge that religion was not just not the defender of morality, but its actual enemy.
I think there is a rebuttal. But it’s a sad reflection on religion IMO that the response has been so pathetic.
Ideology should have died that day. I don’t think religion is the only evil ideology, and it seems to be a human tragedy that the worst deeds are done in the name of some perceived greater good rather than out of simple brutal appetite. One of the most evil things in the world seems to me to be the conviction that your own views are right. Hence the strapline to this blog.
No, I’ve compared the logical ramifications of the two premises (theistic and non-theistic) and have concluded that the only one capable of sufficiently grounding a rational worldview is theism.
Again, you don’t seem to be understanding this argument, which has nothing to do with evidence per se. The “which premise produces a rationally consistent worldview” argument is a strictly logical argument.
One begins with each premise (or any set of foundational premises) and examines them rationally to see if the can sufficiently ground a rationally coherent worldview. Atheism cannot sufficiently ground a rationally coherent worldview for reasons I’ve already covered. It has nothing to do with what anyone “wants” to believe, or proving via evidence which premise is the true one.
I haven’t produce any evidence whatsoever that my rational theism argument is true, so I can hardly be accused of manufacturing evidence in favor of my premise. It’s entirely a logical exercise.
But accepting the premise of a multi-god universe is not atheistic, it would simply be a theology that conflicts with your own single-god one.
Pursuing that a bit further, any portion of an “absolute good” might be contributed by a different god.
You could still have your “absolute good”, but it could be very different than you imagine.
A question you haven’t answered yet, is why an uncaused A prohibits the existence of an uncaused B and/or C.
If nothing exists to prohibit A, then nothing exists to prohibit B. A can’t prohibit B since A cannot precede B, since space and time do not exist.
By accepting that your conclusion holds, you are asserting that your initial premises are true. You are accepting them as valid evidence for your logic.
If you don’t see this, write your logic as a truth table. You will have to assert that “one-god and nothing else” is true to support the output. If you mark false, “0” or untrue, your logic falls apart.
You have proven your premise, not your conclusion, when you assert your conclusion to be valid first.
Empirically, the world is a mess, exactly what you would find if no “absolute good” existed for us to follow.
William J Murray,
Well, I’ve rationally compared the logical ramifications of the two premises (theistic and non-theistic) and have concluded that the only one capable of sufficiently grounding a rational worldview is toe theism, and that’s why I believe that my left big toe is god, my right big toe is the devil, and my other toes are angels, and since I and my 942 billion invisible friends believe the same thing it must be true. After all, personal beliefs and testimony are evidence and that is all that is necessary. I can personally vouch for the beliefs and testimony of my 942 billion invisible friends, really I can, and I would never assert anything based on a false or non-evidential premise, so you can and should take my word for it.
I have to go now. I have an appointment for a pedicure.
I have not ever asserted that my premises are true, and of course the logically consistent consequences of those premises are just that – not proof of the “truth” of the premises. They only demonstrate that the premises produce rationally coherent conclusions.
Your insistence that my argument is something other than what it is, and what I have stated it is, is nothing but a straw man.
The theistic set of premises lead to a rationally coherent worldview in regards to the topics under consideration; the non-theistic worldview does not. – or, at least, I’ve never seen one presented, and nobody here has tried, so all we have is my examination of the essential question-begging nature of morality and the infinite-regress (or other irrational models) of causality problems under the non-theistic premises.
Of course not all theistic premises will produce rationally consistent worldviews. One needn’t resort to multiple gods to realize this; a mad or entirely capricious single god also cannot lead to a rationally consistent worldview.
I didn’t claim all theistic premises generate rational worldviews; only that theism provides the opportunity to deliberately develop and discern a rationally consistent worldview. Atheism does not provide such an opportunity.
I am not saying your argument “is something other than what it is”, I ‘m saying it is flawed in its construction.
If you had instead concluded that “only atheism leads to a rationally coherent worldview”, your argument would be just as flawed.
There is nothing wrong with a theology that helps you accept, understand, and function in the world we find ourselves in and if you tried to argue that was not the case, we would be debating that point from opposite sides too.
My argument with you and all those on UD who take this same position, is that your premises are unfounded. What you have done is taken a conclusion, in this particular case, that we all have the same idea of what a rational worldview is.
In order for this logic to be true, you need an output we’ll call “rationally coherent worldview”, but, ….before… this, you need some reference, or “grounding” to tailor our behaviour to, in other words some sort of “absolute good”.
This absolute good must exist for your argument, but since it’s objective and external to us, someone else has to create it. So, …..before…., the “absolute good” can exist, it’s maker has to exist, which is your god.
So the logic flow on paper, looks like this;
IF (god) THEN (absolute good ) = 1
IF (absolute good) THEN (WJM rationally coherent worldview) = 1
Your logic, which is faultless, leads to this:
IF (NOT god) THEN (absolute good ) = 0
IF (NOT absolute good) THEN (WJM rationally coherent worldview) = 0
Your faultless logic leads to exactly what you suggested would happen, your “rationally coherent worldview” is not possible without god.
Your logic relies strongly on one main premise, and that is the output, “WJM rationally coherent worldview”.
Your argument only works if my idea of a rational worldview is the same as yours, but what if it isn’t?
If it isn’t, no god or “absolute good” needs to exist.
Toronto,
You say:
“Your argument only works if my idea of a rational worldview is the same as yours, but what if it isn’t?”
…as if “rational” is not an objective system of evaluation according to sound logical principles and inferences.
If “logic” is, as you indicate, nothing more than what it seems to each of us to be, then how is your claim that my logic is flawed anything other than just your personal, subjective perspective?
If one believes that a “rational worldview” is just whatever it “seems to be” to every individual, why argue one way or another?
Yet, you say my argument is flawed as if there is some objective way to evaluate arguments about rational worldviews, so it appears you are at least implicating a self-contradiction.
A worldview is either rationally coherent, or it is not; what it “seems” to anyone is irrelevant to that. “Rationlly coherent” is not a subjective feeling.
It is not rational to assert the existence of entities for which there is no objective, empirical evidence. Until you provide a clear definition of what you mean by “god” and the objective, empirical evidence to demonstrate the existence of such an entity, no worldview that includes it can be considered rational.
I didn’t say your logic was flawed, I said it was faultless. There is nothing wrong with your logic at all.
I see problems with your premises. If I feed my premises into your logic, I get a different conclusion than you do.
I purposely used the exact same logic for both of our positions so that you can see the error is NOT in your logic.
You assert without justification, that there is a god.
You also assert without justification, that not only would he define an “absolute good”, but also that it would result in a “good” that would support your idea of a rational coherent world-view.
You also assert that the resulting world-view is the one that “everyone” would consider to be coherent and rational.
That is also an unsupported assertion.
I didn’t assert it, as I’ve explained several times in this thread, which I supposed you failed to read.
Toronto:
A worldview is either rational,or it is not; it is not “someone’s idea of” a rational worldview. Also, I did not assert that god exists.
You have yet to provide your rational worldview based on atheistic premises. If you are going to keep saying that a worldview based on atheistic premises is logically sound, then make your case; until then, it is nothing but rhetoric.
Allright.
I’ll use your logic and my premises.
IF (NOT god) THEN (absolute good = 0)
IF (NOT absolute good ) THEN ( subjective good = 1)
IF ( subjective good) THEN ( multiple subjective rational worldviews = 1)
I’ve been following the discussion and I see you referring to or assuming the existence of an entity with characteristics that you have not defined and for which you have provided no objective, empirical evidence. It is not rational to believe in such.
If you want to make the case that a theistic worldview is rational, you must first demonstrate the existence of a god or gods. No one has ever done so, but I suppose it is possible that you could be the first.
Things are getting a little personal in here, so I’ve done some tidying up 🙂
Still hoping to catch up with this thread soon, but things are bit mad in RL right now.
So it’s behave or be guanified?
Patrick:
I no more have to demonstrate a god exists in order to develop a rational worldview from that premise than I have to demonstrate that logic exists, or that I exist, or that an objective world exists outside of my mind in order to develop a rational worldview from those premises.
Necessary a priori assumptions are held not because they can be proven or demonstrated to be true, but because without them the logical consequences are either absurd or useless. That is the argument here; not that god can be proven to exist via evidence, but rather that we must posit that god necessarily exists to provide the necessary grounding for a rationally coherent worldview.
As I have pointed out before, premises are not assertions.
If you say that you are simply doing this as a logical exercise, I see no problem. If you are going to actually adopt a world-view with this premise, you have then accepted that your premise is actually a valid assertion. In this case, you have asserted that god does exist.
I hope you have followed what I mean and I’m willing to clarify it if need be.
As a logical exercise, you have used the existence of god as a “premise”, which may or may not be valid.
If you “accept” the conclusion, it is no longer simply a premise for the purposes of argument, you have “asserted” that god exists and have “used” that conclusion to form a world-view.
The “existence of god” is therefore no longer simply a premise, but an assertion for a derived conclusion you have adopted and acted on.
So, if you truly “believe” your conclusion, you truly “believe” that god exists.
I only guanify posts, not people 🙂
And it’s just to keep them out of the way. If it wasn’t a bit time consuming, I’d leave a link to the moved post, but it is, so I won’t. If I can do a hack I will.
In other words, no moral condemnation is implied by a post being moved to guano, it merely indicates that the ref (loudspeaker in the ceiling?) has deemed the post violates the game rules.
Which can be summarised as: assume the other posters are posting in good faith (even if you are sure they aren’t).
As you were 🙂
Toronto:
An a priori, necessary premise is not an assertion, and it is not necessary to subject such a premise to any validation process other than establishing it as a necessary premise for a rational worldview. Other such premises – that logic works in objectively discerning true statements from false and that such logic correlates to the real world and that humans can independently apply such logic to discern true statements – are also necessary assumptions that cannot be proven. That I exist and that an external world exists are also necessary a prioris that cannot be proven.
I believe logic is a valid, objective means of discerning true statements about the universe. I believe I exist. I believe a world external to my mind exists. I believe I have the independent capacity to discern true statements from false (independent from causal determinism, which can as easily make me believe patently false and absurd statements are true). Even though I cannot empirically prove any of those things, I must accept such a prioris in order to even hope to deliberately establish a rational worldview.
In order to define information as evidence, and to establish a scientific method, and to arrange tests and sort research into corresponding theories, such a priori premises and more are necessary or else there can be no empirical scientific method to study anything with. This is the point many cannot see: one cannot call for the empirical validation of a premise when that very process of empirical validation ultimately requires assuming the very premise you demand verification of.
You are asking for me to empirically substantiate a premise by a means of validation that cannot even begin without first assuming the premises in question. Without a rational, universal “lawgiver” , provider of corresponding, valid logic and source of independent free will, there is no reason in the first place to believe that our application of science and empiricism is anything more than leaves rustling around in trees and raccoons creeping about in the underbrush; there is no reason to suspect that we don’t simply exist entirely within our own minds or that the universe is anything other than chaotic or capricious.
IOW, you ask me to validate the reality of a premise – theism – that I am arguing is required in the first place before one can expect any meaningful “validation” process. That atheists use the process that ultimately relies upon theistic assumption doesn’t mean the theistic assumption isn’t necessary, it just means that atheists are blind to the fact that they are employing a stolen concept in their use of the process.
For me to provide “evidence” of god would in fact be a circular in relationship to my argument here, because my argument here is that any acquiring and processing of evidence towards conclusion of fact requires assuming god exists in the first place to ground the expectation that such orderly and logical processes discern true conclusions and humans have the independent capacity to utilize logic systems towards true conclusions, which can only be sufficiently warranted if existence is grounded in a rational, orderly, deliberate entity.
There is no reason to assume the universe is rationally discernible without the premise that a rational entity deliberately made it so. There is no reason to assume that humans have the capacity to freely, independently discern true statements without the premise that a rational entity deliberately made it so.
Blind luck or chance based on physicalism or materialism is not sufficient warrant for such expectations.
Also, when I say I must accept such a prioris in order to even hope to deliberately establish a rational worldview, that means that without such premises, reason (logic) itself breaks down into nonsense. You would ask me to prove or support a premise when without the premise, no such means exist to prove or support anything; indeed, without the premises listed, “prove” and “support” and “evidence” have no meaning other that that which is arbitrarily and subjectively assigned to them by deterministic force subsets we call “humans”.
Thus, without the premises I have listed that lend the potential for “objective facts” and “objective truths” and a factual methodology called logic that exist regardless of what humans subjectively believe, experience or think, I can simply assert anything I wish as “proven” and “substantiated by evidence” because such phrases only refer to whatever I feel they should mean at the time. “Proof” becomes nothing more than feeling and rhetoric.
Asking for evidence, proof, or logical inference without a grounding that such things exist objectively rather than as mere subjective human inventions and capricious assignments is the same as asking me to convince you by beating you with a hammer. Your exhortations for proof, evidence and logic are meaningless without any grounding that provides such things significant, objective merit.
And that is the most important a priori of all, and it can only be provided by the fundamental premise of a deliberate, rational, god.
There is no reason to assume that we don’t.
As empirical evidence contrary to your position, your are talking to a human who believes that I “can freely and independently discern true statements without the premise that a rational entity deliberately made it so”.
1) One of our two subjective opinions is wrong.
2) I believe it is possible, that I might be the one who is wrong about this particular statement of yours.
3) You can’t say that or your “rational, universal “lawgiver”” argument falls apart.
4) That means that I have the “free will” to think the one thought you can’t.
5) Therefore, you are wrong.
There is one out for you and that is infallibility on your part.
William J Murray,
An a priori, necessary premise is not an assertion, and it is not necessary to subject such a premise to any validation process other than establishing it as a necessary premise for a rational worldview.
This looks arbitrary to me, William, since it seems to depend on a person’s idea of what the words “rational worldview” mean, but I would like to learn more about it. Is this something you’ve worked out on your own or is it something that you’ve learned? If the latter, would you kindly direct me to some sources of this understanding?
Yes, there is, under non-theistic premises, as I’ve already covered, and you’ve provided no warrant that the logic you attempt to use in our debate as an arbiter is either valid or binding in any meaningful sens. IOW, you are applying a stolen concept from theism to imply your (supposedly) logical argument is true and not just the rhetoric of happenstance, interacting molecules that I can dismiss with a wave of my happenstance, interacting molecules.
Unless we agree that logic discerns true statements, there is no argument to be had. “Rational worldview” is not an arbitrary commodity; one’s worldview can either survive logical scrutiny, or it cannot.
If your worldview depends on an entity with no clearly defined characteristics and no objective, empirical evidence that it exists, then you simply have a useless, extraneous element in your worldview.
If your worldview includes belief in an entity for which there is no objective, empirical evidence, then your worldview is inherently irrational.
Finally, even if you could demonstrate that a rational worldview requires the existence of an entity for which there is no objective, empirical evidence, without demonstrating the existence of such an entity all you would be able to conclude is that it is not possible for you to fashion a rational worldview.
A worldview that includes belief in an entity for which there is no objective, empirical evidence cannot survive logical scrutiny if that belief has any consequences with respect to the worldview or the actions of the individual holding it.
Such a belief is either extraneous or irrational.
Patrick,
Claiming it is not demonstrating it. What is a necessarily irrational inference that stems from the theistic premises I’ve provided in this thread?
I used your logic, without modification. The only change in my argument is in the assertions, NOT the logic.
You keep bringing up logic when that is not the problem.
There is nothing wrong with your logic. Please let me hear you say that you understand that I believe there is nothing wrong with your logic.
We only need to deal with your assertions.
They are assertions when you attempt to draw a real conclusion from them.
If you are simply “philosophizing”, there is no problem with you accepting or using any premise at all. The problem is when you believe they have led you to a “valid” conclusion. That is when you need “valid” premises.
Patrick used a good word, “consequences “.
There are “consequences” that result from your conclusion. At that point, you had better have input premises that are “valid” and supported by evidence.
William J Murray,
As I have shown you in a previous comment, I have the “free will” to believe I am wrong.
With your accepted world-view, you are not free to think that.
Therefore you have no free will.
sez wjm: “I believe logic is a valid, objective means of discerning true statements about the universe.”
There’s your problem: Logic doesn’t “discern… true statements” about anything. Rather, logic “discerns” consistent statements. If you start off with true premises, then sure, you’re prolly going to end up with true conclusions. But if you start off with false premises… well, that’s why the phrase Garbage In, Garbage Out was coined.
Thanks, William, but I do not agree that logic discerns ‘true statements.” As others have pointed out, given untrue premises, logic (which is a set of rules for maintaining consistency in reasoning and discourse) will deliver untrue conclusions. And, when logic is properly applied, it will deliver untruth from false premises as reliably as it will deliver truth from true premises.
I don’t want an argument. On the contrary, as I asked earlier, I would like to learn where you picked up these ideas about logic and reason.
Pedant,
If you do not believe logic discerns true statements, then we have nothing to debate, nor anything to discuss.
Once again, my premises are not assertions.
A true statement given the premises is a true statement given the premises whether or not the true statement corresponds to anything factually existent or not.
IF Santa Claus exists and IF he can flay at 20,000 MPH, and IF there are 500 million good children’s homes that are an average of (A) miles apart, THEN the statement “It would take Santa (X) amount of time to visit each child” is a true statement given the premises, whether or not santa even exists.
You are confusing true statements based upon premises for factual statements concerning reality. As I have repeatedly said, this is a logical exercise, not a fact-finding mission about what actually exists.
Before one can start making claims about the real world, one must have a valid means of making those claims; before one can start filtering data about the real world, one must make sure their filtering premises and inferences are cogent and coherent.
If there is not sufficient warrant in one’s worldview to expect logic to be able to discern true statements, or for humans to be able to meaningfully apply it, then their worldview can’t even get out of the conceptual gate in order to start applying it to the real world.
If a person doesn’t believe logic can discern true statements from false, there really isn’t any reason to argue, because how are they going to discern which statements that are made in any argument to be true or false? How are they going to then be able to discern true statements about the world?
So… Garbage In doesn’t mean Garbage Out?
William, please do me the courtesy of reading what I write. I did not ask for a discussion. I asked you for the source of your belief that logic discerns true statements and you have not answered me. I sincerely want to know. Do you not remember the source?
sez wjm: “You are confusing true statements based upon premises for factual statements concerning reality. As I have repeatedly said, this is a logical exercise, not a fact-finding mission about what actually exists.”
No, I am not “confusing true statements based upon premises for factual statements concerning reality”. I am quite clear on, and comfortable with, the distinction between “statements based upon premises” and “factual statements concerning reality”. I simply don’t much care about “statements based upon premises” — or at least I care about such, a great deal less than I care about “factual statements concerning reality”.
If all your let’s-assume-god-exists verbiage is just an intellectual exercise, fine. It’s no skin off my nose, and you can indulge in that intellectual exercise all you like, with my compliments. Let me know if you ever plan to upgrade your let’s-assume-god-exists verbiage from an intellectual exercise to a factual statement concerning reality, okay?
“If there is not sufficient warrant in one’s worldview to expect logic to be able to discern true statements, or for humans to be able to meaningfully apply it, then their worldview can’t even get out of the conceptual gate in order to start applying it to the real world.”
I can refute this argument in four words: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Or, in somewhat more than four words: Logic is an intellectual machine. You put in your premises, you turn the crank, and it generates conclusions. Where does ‘discern(ing) true statements’ enter into it? Answer: ‘discern(ing) true statements’ doesn’t enter into it. You can generate all the ‘statements based upon premises’ you want, but if those premises are not valid for the world in which you live, neither will the generated ‘statements based on (those) premises’ be valid for the world in which you live.
Personally, I think that if I’m going to have a worldview at all, that worldview should be valid for the world in which I live. If you disagree — if it just isn’t important to you whether or not a person’s worldview is valid for the world in which they live — well, we got nothing to say to each other.
If this is simply an exercise, then you have NOT reached the conclusion that only theism can result in a rational world-view.
If you have concluded that only theism can result in a rational world-view, then it is NOT simply an exercise.
Logically, it can only be one or the other.
Which is it?
William J Murray,
As others have been pointing out, logic only guarantees that, in a valid argument, the conclusion is entailed by the premisses. That conclusion may be true or untrue, meaningful or nonsense. Logic alone cannot distinguish between them.
For example, you may remember the following, the words borrowed from Lewis Carroll:
All toves are slithy
All borogroves are toves
Therefore all borogroves are slithy
That is a valid logical argument that is also complete nonsense.
As for truth, I should explain that I hold what I believe is known as the correspondence theory thereof. Any statement or claim is true only to the extent to which we observe it to correspond with what we are able to observe of objective reality, the a priori assumption here being that there is an objective reality beyond our subjective consciousness whose existence does not depend on whether or not we are aware of it.
On this view it is possible to construct any number of rational worldviews, including theistic ones, but only empirical investigations can discern the extent to which they can be said to be true.
If your argument is that rational worldviews can only be founded on theistic assumptions then I have to say that I do not find it persuasive. I think we can find theistic worldviews that are demonstrably irrational and non-theistic worldviews that are rational. That does not mean that all theistic worldviews are necessarily irrational or that all non-theistic worldviews are necessarily rational only that reason or logic do not necessarily entail theistic a prioris.
That’s the wrong question. The right questions are:
1) If any of my inferences depend on the existence of a particular entity, what are the characteristics of that entity and what is the objective, empirical evidence that such an entity exists?
2) If none of my inferences depend on the existence of a particular entity, what does the assumption of the existence of that entity add to my worldview?
Now, Patrick, WJM has explained what he thinks the assumption of
deity has not prevented them from using logic does not faze WJM, because in his view, the assumption of 
deity-less types are merely ‘stealing the concept’ of logic, which we couldn’t even hope to do unless $deity really was there to make logic work in the first place.
sez wjm: “You are confusing true statements based upon premises for factual statements concerning reality. As I have repeatedly said, this is a logical exercise, not a fact-finding mission about what actually exists.”
In your terms, a ‘true statement based on premises’ is true for a hypothetical world in which those premises happen to be true. As a long-time fan of SF and comicbooks, I have no problem whatsoever dealing with ‘true statement(s) based on (the) premises” of a baby whose parents sent him away from his doomed planet on an undersized starship, or a 200-year-old galactic adventurer getting blackmailed into exploring a mysterious artifact of literally astronomical size, or any of the myriad other ‘premises’ on which various comicbooks and/or SF novels are based.
But there’s one thing I do, which you’ve provided no indication whatsoever that you do: I distinguish between fiction and reality. Now, you may think that your logic discerns true statements from false mantra offers a way to distinguish between fiction and reality… but I don’t see how logic, in and of itself, even can distinguish between fiction and reality. If you’re okay with not being able to tell whether $deity is a real entity or a made-up thing, fine — but in that case, don’t be too surprised if people who can and do distinguish between fiction and reality point and laugh at your silly face.