The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation

MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Just goes to show you, regardless of the endless posts of pseudo intellectual BS, when the cell door closes Atheism offers nothing.

C.S. Lewis…”Miracles”…Chapters 2 & 3. I promise, it is well worth it. For Christians it will provide a very solid argument for the supernatural, if for nothing, than to provide a solid basis for reason. For the Atheist, it will provide a well reasoned argument that they must deal with before moving on to any other argument.

Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Here let me save you the time.

Miracles are impossible in the natural world, because it is impossible for the natural world to violate natural law. An infinite God who created this world and created natural law can simply violate natural law or work around it.

The issue is if this is rational. It is, because turning water into wine does not violate reason, it violates natural law.

With apologies to Catholics (I’m about to step on your toes a bit), this is why I reject the “miracle” of transubstantiation. I do not reject it just based on Scripture (though there are plenty of arguments against it), I reject it based upon logic. It can’t be both bread and the body of Christ at the same time and in the same respect.

Why? Well, God would not nor could not create a circle that is a square at the same time and in the same respect. Why can’t He if he is infinitely powerful?

The answer lies in his nature. He is infinitely rational and making a square circle (r.t) is irrational, it would violate His nature.

Nonfactor, Hey I responded to you in this thread from a few months ago. This topic brought it back to my memory and and checked it. I thought you may want to read the last two posts.

Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 9:50 PM

No the religious can’t account for it at least not, as you put it, “yet”.
aengus on August 4, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Aengus, you (and others) are welcome to continue the excellent discussion at

http://lionofjudah.squarespace.com/journal/

I think Allah may be pulling the thread for new ones soon.

Whoops!

Whenever you say “atheists cannot account for X” my only answer is “yet,” but I would remind you that neither can the religious.

No the religious can’t account for it at least not, as you put it, “yet”. Bryan posted something a few months back I don’t know if you read it, saying that a scientist he worked with was studying time pockets (it wasn’t called this exactly) that contained multitudes within days. He contrasted this scientific theory with the creation of the world in six days as outlined in Genesis. Does anyone remember this post? I can’t find it through the search function. I forget what it was called. Bryan, if you’re reading this can you link to it?

Whenever you say “atheists cannot account for X” my only answer is “yet,” but I would remind you that neither can the religious.

Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM

I understand that many naturalists believe that the “Great Success Stories of Science” somehow paves the way for “naturalist-friendly” solutions to perplexing and disturbing problems facing all versions of atheism.

But it is impossible to “reduce” or eliminate the human mind to the brain (“matter only”), for the same reason it is impossible to reduce or eliminate the non-natural (and non-man made) immaterial, non-spatial laws of logic.

The religious “can” not because the religious are better people than atheists. The religious “can” not because the religious, by default, are smarter than the atheists. The Bible teaches that knowledge is an act of grace alone.

We “can” because we have a worldview that both metaphysically and epistemologically accounts for the immaterial laws of logic. Metaphysically, unlike naturalism, the immaterial laws of logic are not in inherent conflict with our worldview. Epistemologically, we do have access to these non-causal abstract entities through our human minds. Our worldview teaches this.

Maybe I can open up a thread in the future?

I would enjoy your active participation and dialogue.

can atheism both metaphysically and epistemologically account for the laws of logic? I answer no.

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM

That’s my point. Atheists cannot account for it currently, but neither can the religious. Religious people do use this “god of the gaps” to attempt to explain the metaphysics of the human mind, but they haven’t proven anything.

I can guarantee you that eventually people will understand the brain and will be able to explain it without the use of a God, just like we did with the Grecian gods.

Christians believe in immaterial minds. Atheism, as a system, does not. They believe in human brains as a piece of matter. Atheism, as a system of beliefs in the philosophy of mind, denies the immaterial element.

There is a material connection to the immaterial things we experience; we can see this when parts of our brain react when we think about something or when we take certain drugs. I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that atheists don’t believe in the human mind as a world view. The Orthodox world view believes that 1) God (or gods) exists 2) God has a plan (a good plan) 3) Humans cannot know that plan and thus must take “a leap of faith” 4) Humans must obey the teachings or else be punished. The naturalistic world view says that 1) There is no God thus no plan 2) There is a natural cycle to life that humans are a part of (humans aren’t the highest beings on Earth as described by the Orthodox view) 3) Humans must become their own gods in deciding what moral actions are right. Historians and philosophers can belong to both Orthodox and Naturalistic world views, but even naturalists can find an immaterial “meaning” to history. No where in both those world views is the immaterial capabilities of the mind disregarded.

Religious people cannot claim to understand the mind simply because they believe in an immaterial being.

do we have material brains or do we as humans have minds?

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:36 AM

And why can’t they be the same thing? Is it possible that our material brains act as immaterial minds? If we are to believe the studies of biologists, yes.

If nothing is supernatural, then the brain and all of its functions are part of the natural cause and effect relationship.

Weight of Glory on August 4, 2007 at 11:18 AM

I think the underlying question here is: does our brain act without a cause? Does the brain do something and then we react or do we do something and the brain reacts? I don’t see how if the brain acts without a cause it proves the existence of the supernatural; it proves the existence of a complex organ in our body, but definitely not the supernatural.

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Whenever you say “atheists cannot account for X” my only answer is “yet,” but I would remind you that neither can the religious.

It seems that Naturalism encourages the Darwinian idea of the “survival of the fittest” or “reproduction of genes”.

But mere survival or reproduction of genes has absolutely nothing, by itself, to do with the non-natural concept of “knowledge” or “truth”.

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 11:55 AM

I was not clear or helpful concerning the above earlier quote.

What I meant to say is this. The Darwinian paradigm, (the evolutionary development of homo sapien ) , given the alleged “truth” of Naturalism, does not explain or justify why mankind’s **truth-conducive faculties** do in fact produce “truth-yielding” propositions.

That is, practically, the Darwinian paradigm may tentatively explain how a robust, strong 250 pound man may be able to physically beat up a human competitor, and thus “pass on his genes”, yet it does not explain or justify the existence of human reason or the “odd” faculty of the mind.

I say, “odd”, because, given the alleged assumption of Naturalism, it is “odd” because it is in direct conflict with Naturalism. That is why naturalists want to reduce or eliminate the “odd features” of their worldview.

Good Morning! It is so good to read someone who approaches a defense of Christianity from a more classical appraoch, rather than the current “I feel that God is true”.

Good morning to you too. :-)

Yeah, the current subjectivism of “postmodern apologetics” opens up Pandora’s box of multiple problems. The “Emergent” church’s apologetic style is, I think, ultimately self-refuting. There are some good things about modernity. Not everything is bad about modernity. Indeed, even postmoderns still use aspects of modernity every single day.

Yes, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Lewis’ Miracles deals with the pure naturalist’s problems supporting reason. If nothing is supernatural, then the brain and all of its functions are part of the natural cause and effect relationship.

One philosophical question which I wish I had more time to carefully explore is Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against Naturalism.

It seems that Naturalism encourages the Darwinian idea of the “survival of the fittest” or “reproduction of genes”.

But mere survival or reproduction of genes has absolutely nothing, by itself, to do with the non-natural concept of “knowledge” or “truth”.

Indeed, “knowledge” or “truth” cannot be reduced or eliminated to naturalistic presuppositions. These concepts cannot be “explained away by reference to” or “reference via” naturalistic notions of the Darwinian survival of the fittest. That is precisely why in atheist philosopher writings the notions of modality, concepts, propositions, abstract entities, rationality, knowledge, truth, etc. seem so “odd” in a supposedly naturalistic universe. They seem “odd” because they are in conflict with the Grand Metaphysical Story of Naturalism, i.e. the naturalistic account of origins, etc.

If this is the case then the very proposition “there is no God” has no realtion to truth, but is simply the only thing that person could have said due to the various natural proceses in his mind. For Lewis it was necessary to believe in the supernatural if for no other reason than to save man’s reason. From there, Thomas’ Summa can take you a long way.

Weight of Glory on August 4, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Thanks for your earlier comments. I am at work, so I cannot always post comments now.

Sure thing. I’ll visit the site when I have time, but remind me again the next time a religion thread pops up.

Nonfactor, thanks again for your good comments and active discussion.

I have to head to work right now.

It is enjoyable discussing deep philosophical principles with Nonfactor because Nonfactor does indeed attempt to use reason, laws of logic, correct argumentation, etc. Unlike talking to a member of the American Left, we can make some progress because we both are using the laws of logic in establishing our philosophical points.

My only purpose was never to question Nonfactor’s **personal** use of the laws of logic, but rather his worldview.

Again, thanks for the dialogue.

take care.

Socialism or anti-materialism in an individualistic sense, not the form defined by Marx and Engels. Didn’t Jesus teach to give up your worldly possessions? That if someone were to steal your material possessions from you you should let them and not care about it? Sure, I was using socialism loosely, but anti-materialistic is a definite yes.

Nonfactor, thanks for your clarification.

For the individual Christian believer, Jesus Christ made commands concerning wealth and money. But these principles were not directed at government. Government re-distribution of wealth was never advocated by Jesus.

I think the Religious Left has a very shallow, un-Biblical, false philosophical foundation.

As I said y is y; I hope we can agree on that.

Yes, that is my basic axiom. I believe in the immaterial laws of logic. I hold that the law of contradiction is foundational and necessary for a credible worldview.

My argument is: since we know that the law of contradiction is necessary, what worldview best accounts for the necessity of the laws of logic? My answer is that
atheism cannot metaphysically (on the existence level) and epistemologically (on the knowledge level) account for the laws of logic.

Christians do not have this problem.

The immaterial can be measured, not by a ruler, but by the human mind.
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 2:58 AM

But atheism, as a system, does not believe there is a mind.

I am not telling you what you as an atheist personally thinks or does not think. I am only suggesting that your worldview does not teach that.

Christians believe in immaterial minds. Atheism, as a system, does not. They believe in human brains as a piece of matter. Atheism, as a system of beliefs in the philosophy of mind, denies the immaterial element.

Well, what is the matter with matter?

The answer is that there is much evidence that suggests that our brains are actually minds. Much discussion in the philosophy of religion borrows heavily from literature in the philosophy of mind because of this same issue: do we have material brains or do we as humans have minds?

And the difference here being that theists take these current unknowns and prescribe a God to them. Simply look at the Grecian gods and how current unknowns were given gods to explain them. Was that a rational way to deal with those unknowns? No
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 2:58 AM

This is a good point.

I agree that many people have argued a “God-of-the-gaps” view. My position is not to defend every religious viewpoint in the past. My position is:

can atheism both metaphysically and epistemologically account for the laws of logic? I answer no.

While I agree with you that a “God-of-the-gaps” mentality is mistaken, I also think that a “Naturalism-of-the-gaps” is wrong also.

Showing falsehoods in the bible to disprove the Christian God only works if one takes the bible literally.

deepdiver on August 4, 2007 at 1:32 AM

And if we accept the premise that The Bible is not a literal document than Christianity is moot. Did Jesus literally exist or was he simply an embodiment of the power struggle occurring in Judaism?

I am not arguing “burden of proof” here. I am just pointing out that atheists, just like theists, have un-provable, hidden presuppositions, “first principles.”

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:40 AM

And the difference here being that theists take these current unknowns and prescribe a God to them. Simply look at the Grecian gods and how current unknowns were given gods to explain them. Was that a rational way to deal with those unknowns? No. When your (in general) answer is “God must make it happen” you’re coping out on the entire discussion. Certain “principles” aren’t really principles at all so much as they are truth. They are truth not because God made them truth, they are truth because logic and reason (human conditions so far as we know) dictate their truth. For example “y is y” you don’t need a God to explain, excuse, or create that truth for you.

Suihei Deloi on August 4, 2007 at 1:42 AM

What doctrine of morality is Dawkins preaching? What doctrine does he say you must follow or face the consequences? Don’t be fooled, he isn’t attempting to “convert” people to “atheism” (an extremely loaded suffix -ism is). What he is doing (and don’t assume I agree with him 100%) is getting atheists into the public eye. Many religious people can’t deal with this and to combat it they’ll claim that what Dawkins is really doing is attempting to [insert hyperbolic speculation here].

account for how brains made of molecular, physical, spatial neurons can interact with invisible, non-spatial, immaterial, real abstract entities like propositions, laws of logic, concepts, etc.

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:43 AM

Our brains are capable of amazing things we don’t yet know about. Our brains can make us see things that aren’t there, hear things that aren’t there, taste things that aren’t there. There are even plants and chemical compounds that alter the way our brains work. Take some LSD and I’m sure you’d be amazed at how a mass of tissue can create a dream world of polka-dotted unicorns jumping over cherry rivers while you fly off a waterfall in a canoe. Can we account for this? We know that the chemical affects a certain portion of the brain, but we don’t currently know exactly what it does. Does that mean God is responsible? The Native Americans and many other peoples thought drugs made them closer to God, but as time goes on we’ll see that the answer isn’t as wondrous as the religious may think, which isn’t to say it isn’t just as beautiful.

The question is: how does a worldview account for the immaterial laws of logic?

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:47 AM

As I said y is y; I hope we can agree on that. But a y-shaped stick does not equal another y-shaped stick seeing as how they may vary in length, size, color, et cetera. The immaterial can be measured, not by a ruler, but by the human mind.

Jesus’s teachings on “community” were restricted to the Church, and were not related to the role or function of government.

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:59 AM

Socialism or anti-materialism in an individualistic sense, not the form defined by Marx and Engels. Didn’t Jesus teach to give up your worldly possessions? That if someone were to steal your material possessions from you you should let them and not care about it? Sure, I was using socialism loosely, but anti-materialistic is a definite yes.

I think we have narrowed the issue down for purposes of future discussion:

are the laws of logic man-made?

Definitely the topic for discussion.

May I open a thread on Lion of Judah-Journal in the distant future?

ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Sure thing. I’ll visit the site when I have time, but remind me again the next time a religion thread pops up.

A brief tangent on metaphysics. Our perceptions are very very weak. It’s one point I can agree with Descartes on. Given our weak perceptions how do we know what is true or real? When I dream it sometimes feels as though I’m not dreaming at all, and what’s happening in my dream is really happening. How do we know we aren’t in a dream state this very moment? How do we know we aren’t simply a thought floating in space thinking up this world for ourselves? Descartes answer was “cogito ergo sum.” Thought for Descartes was the answer as to how we know we exist, but here is where I disagree with him. We can think in a dream, we can do everything we’re doing now in our waking life in a dream; so how do we know we really exist? The answer? We don’t. There are two possibilities in my mind for reality. We are either dreaming and everything is fake or we are real and everything else is real. But an even more compelling question for me is: what does it matter? I can deny the idea of a dream world (the Matrix) because it is irrational in relation to all of my experiences on Earth. We dreaming we may be able to fly, but flight is not irrational. The laws of logic do not change. So about reality? Who cares? It’s all about your physical (waking) life, and if this water bottle in front of me doesn’t exist it sure is a good dream.