Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Cephus]

The challenge to atheism does not begin with a posit of god, but a posit of no god.

But atheism doesn't posit no god, it rejects claims made about gods by believers in those gods. Believers haven't met their burden or proof, therefore atheists don't take them seriously. That is the most basic concept behind atheism.

 

[Willamena]

But atheism doesn't posit no god, it rejects claims made about gods by believers in those gods.

Rejecting doesn't happen for no reason--just as I reject for good reason your posit that "atheism doesn't posit no god." I reject it because of its negation.

Believers haven't met their burden or proof, therefore atheists don't take them seriously. That is the most basic concept behind atheism.

That suggests that atheism is frivolous. I don't believe that, either.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure, but it remains your invention, logical or not. And thus a diversion.

It's not a diversion. It's an explanation. I'll try again. In argumentation (i.e., real world application of logic in debate), if your "opponent" claims X, in order to demonstrate her or him to be wrong, it suffices to show either ~X, or (if X was a conclusion reached using a series a series of propositions and inference rules as in proof or derivation such as the one the Strenger quoted, it suffices to show that any step in the deductive process was not justified). In other words, it suffices to show that the argument is invalid. If an argument is valid, it can still be false, because logical validity depends only on structure: an argument is logically valid if the conclusion "follows from" the premises (more formally, if the premises were true, then the conclusion must be true). In order to show that an argument is correct (sound), it must be valid and the premises must be true.

Hence this is a valid argument:
The king of Spain rules the Moon
I am the King of Spain
Conclusion: I rule the Moon

It is completely false, because the premises are false, but it is valid.

This is the argument in question:
"(1) If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
(2) If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
(3) A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
(4) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3)"

Now, from a strictly logical point of view, this entire proof is an assumption. Every time you see "if" (or ⊃, or →), it means "assuming [something] to be true, then...

Let Gx= "x is a god", Nx="x is nonphysical" (and there for ~Nx means "x is physical" or "x is not nonphysical"), Px="x is a person or personal being" (because of the parenthesis, I am taking as equivalent person and personal being; otherwise the argument is ambiguous as to what it asserts because the operator v ("or") in logic is always inclusive)

Then we have
(1) ∀x(Gx→~Nx) | Assumption (translation: "for all x, if x is a god, then x is nonphysical")
(2) ∀x(Gx→Px) | Assumption (translation: "for all x, if x is a god than x is a person")
(3) ~∃x(Px & Nx) | Assumption (translation: "there exists no x s.t. x is a person and x is nonphysical")
(4) ∀x(Px→ ~Nx)| Equivalent to (3) (translation: "for all x, if x is a person then x is physical")
(5) ~∃x(Gx) |From (1), (2), & (3) or (4) by assumption and reductio/contradiction

I threw in an extra line to show you an example of logical equivalence. Also, I have opted somewhat for clarity over rigor. Normally, I'd be working within a specific formal language/system such that I would have to ensure every line that wasn't assumed was properly justified according to that system. Because logic must be completely unambiguous, bracketing is not just essential for knowing which operator (such as "&" or "→") operates on what (more technically, operates on which well-formed formula or WFF, pronounced "woof"), but also for quantification scope. This means that in order to derive (5) I'd have to do things like use dummy variables for elimination and other things that you can learn about in the free sources I provided.

The point is that logically this argument rests entirely upon assumptions. It is valid (or would be if expressed according to some predicate calculus system), but the following "proof" is just as valid:
(1) If I exist, God exists
(2) I exist
(3) God exists

Now we have to see if the argument is sound. This is no longer a matter of strictly formal logic, because that is entirely unambiguous (your computer can tell you if an argument is valid, an in fact it works because it is a physical instantiation of Boolean logic- the processor uses logic gates). And immediately we run into a flaw: the equivocation fallacy. There is nothing that says a personal god must be physical (nothing to justify this assumption). Note that the argument doesn't assume that there are no non-physical beings, but uses equivocation in order to go from "personal god" as understood in the theological sense to an interpretation of "personal" in terms of a person. Formally, it is asserting in (2) ∀x{(Gx→Px) but in (3) and (4) we really have P'x (i.e., the P stands for a different predicate). The argument is not sound. Therefore it is false.

 

[Cephus]

Rejecting doesn't happen for no reason--just as I reject for good reason your posit that "atheism doesn't posit no god." I reject it because of its negation.

Sure it is. I reject belief in unicorns, leprechauns and honest politicians. I have no faith in any of those positions, I reject them because there is no evidence for them.

That suggests that atheism is frivolous. I don't believe that, either.

Honestly, it mostly is frivolous, in the sense that it exists solely as a response to religion. If religion went away, there would be no point in identifying as an atheist at all. The religious are directly to blame for the rise of the "new atheist".

 

[Bunyip]

It's not a diversion. It's an explanation. I'll try again. In argumentation (i.e., real world application of logic in debate), if your "opponent" claims X, in order to demonstrate her or him to be wrong, it suffices to show either ~X, or (if X was a conclusion reached using a series a series of propositions and inference rules as in proof or derivation such as the one the Strenger quoted, it suffices to show that any step in the deductive process was not justified). In other words, it suffices to show that the argument is invalid. If an argument is valid, it can still be false, because logical validity depends only on structure: an argument is logically valid if the conclusion "follows from" the premises (more formally, if the premises were true, then the conclusion must be true). In order to show that an argument is correct (sound), it must be valid and the premises must be true.

Hence this is a valid argument:
The king of Spain rules the Moon
I am the King of Spain
Conclusion: I rule the Moon

It is completely false, because the premises are false, but it is valid.

This is the argument in question:
"(1) If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
(2) If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
(3) A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
(4) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3)"

No mate, it is not even vaguely related to 'the argument in question', but that is hardly new or a surprise at this point. (1) Is nonsense - I make no such claim or proposition. If god exists I would assume he would have to be physical, not nonphysical. You again confuse me for the opposition. That a nonphysical god exists is not the claim of New Atheism, your confusion here is epic.
(2.) Is also nonsense. It is not my claim or position, quite the opposite - I even said so. Spiniza's god (also known as the god of the atheists) is not personal. (3.) I don't know what a 'personal being' is and never used the term. But yes, people are physical. Your 'version' of what you think is my argument is catastrophically misguided.

Now, from a strictly logical point of view, this entire proof is an assumption. Every time you see "if" (or ⊃, or →), it means "assuming [something] to be true, then...

Let Gx= "x is a god", Nx="x is nonphysical" (and there for ~Nx means "x is physical" or "x is not nonphysical"), Px="x is a person or personal being" (because of the parenthesis, I am taking as equivalent person and personal being; otherwise the argument is ambiguous as to what it asserts because the operator v ("or") in logic is always inclusive)

Then we have
(1) ∀x(Gx→~Nx) | Assumption (translation: "for all x, if x is a god, then x is nonphysical")
(2) ∀x(Gx→Px) | Assumption (translation: "for all x, if x is a god than x is a person")
(3) ~∃x(Px & Nx) | Assumption (translation: "there exists no x s.t. x is a person and x is nonphysical")
(4) ∀x(Px→ ~Nx)| Equivalent to (3) (translation: "for all x, if x is a person then x is physical")
(5) ~∃x(Gx) |From (1), (2), & (3) or (4) by assumption and reductio/contradiction

I threw in an extra line to show you an example of logical equivalence. Also, I have opted somewhat for clarity over rigor. Normally, I'd be working within a specific formal language/system such that I would have to ensure every line that wasn't assumed was properly justified according to that system. Because logic must be completely unambiguous, bracketing is not just essential for knowing which operator (such as "&" or "→") operates on what (more technically, operates on which well-formed formula or WFF, pronounced "woof"), but also for quantification scope. This means that in order to derive (5) I'd have to do things like use dummy variables for elimination and other things that you can learn about in the free sources I provided.

The point is that logically this argument rests entirely upon assumptions. It is valid (or would be if expressed according to some predicate calculus system), but the following "proof" is just as valid:
(1) If I exist, God exists
(2) I exist
(3) God exists

Now we have to see if the argument is sound. This is no longer a matter of strictly formal logic, because that is entirely unambiguous (your computer can tell you if an argument is valid, an in fact it works because it is a physical instantiation of Boolean logic- the processor uses logic gates). And immediately we run into a flaw: the equivocation fallacy. There is nothing that says a personal god must be physical (nothing to justify this assumption). Note that the argument doesn't assume that there are no non-physical beings, but uses equivocation in order to go from "personal god" as understood in the theological sense to an interpretation of "personal" in terms of a person. Formally, it is asserting in (2) ∀x{(Gx→Px) but in (3) and (4) we really have P'x (i.e., the P stands for a different predicate). The argument is not sound. Therefore it is false.

Exactly, the arguments FOR god reduce to nothing more than assumptions, and hence are of little challenge to NA. You are criticizing the NA for the failures of Christian,apologetics.
Legion, you are a very confused person - you either forget what you said within a paragraph and repeat it, only to repeat the same posts over and over again with the same things repeated several times within them. Or you address spectacularly misguided strawmen of your own invention - or worse posts like this one which are endless pointless and misguided lectures. I understand logic Legion, although very much doubt you do as you are attributing to me the arguments of those making the positive claim, not the atheists. Please spare me the lectures and do try to keep on point.

All you are doing is a rather painfully pompous and transparent exercise in obfuscation and avoidance.

If you could in fact address the argument in hand, you would have done so.

You appear to actually believe that debates are won based upon volume of words and number of repetitions, whilst rarely (if ever) being on point.

 

[Bunyip]

The universe has no intellect.

Nonsense, it has countless intellects. Minds are subsets of the universe, and there are plenty of intelligent minds.

As Stenger and other new atheists specifically state otherwise, why are we doing this? If I recall (and I do), you offered no basis for this claim, I quoted and cited several counter-examples, and you ended up claiming some contradictory things regarding names, gods, and who or what the new atheists are concerned with. I do not wish to once again have to show you what the new atheists actually say in their arguments just so you can finally state you "clarified" the multiple blatantly false assertions you made. If you wish to make assertions about what the new atheists say, and as you have been shown undeniably to have made incorrect claims about what they do or do not do/say, then please provide evidence, or we can stop now. I am not interested in representing the new atheists for you just so I can then argue against the positions they actually hold rather than the one's you have falsely ascribed to them.

Legion you are stuck in one of your tragic repeat loops again. I don't need you to represent the NA for me, I need you to stop getting stuck in little mental dead ends of endlessly repeating the same mistake that has been addressed dozens of times.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nonsense, it has countless intellects. Minds are subsets of the universe

No, they aren't. Not even in naive set theory and I seriously doubt you are able for formulate the bald statement above according to more sophisticated models of set theory. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't need you to represent the NA for me

No, you're perfectly content to misrepresent them. I don't need your permission to quote you here because you've done it blatantly and obviously here. For example:

LOL No mate, none of the 'New Atheists' rely on such an argument anyway - you are tilting at windmills. They only mention that you can not prove gods absence in response to apologists endlessly trying to shift the burden of proof

Only we found that it is not, in fact, true that they "only mention you can not prove gods absence in response" to anything, but rather that several actually claim to prove gods absence.

 

[Bunyip]

No, they aren't. Not even in naive set theory and I seriously doubt you are able for formulate the bald statement above according to more sophisticated models of set theory. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Sure, the universe is the set of all things, intelligences are subsets of that whole. Not sure what you are failing to grasp there, but it is hardly surprising.

No, you're perfectly content to misrepresent them. I don't need your permission to quote you here because you've done it blatantly and obviously here. For example:

Only we found that it is not, in fact, true that they "only mention you can not prove gods absence in response" to anything, but rather that several actually claim to prove gods absence.

Wow, that is actually quite amazing - you repeat the same apparent contradiction which has been addressed what is it? Twenty times now? Incredible.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No mate, it is not even vaguely related to 'the argument in question'

Let us recall the argument in question:

You are yet to engage with Stenger's argument other than endlessly repeating the same objection that has been addressed a dozen times.

Can you address the argument or not?

Not knowing which argument you meant (having addressed several), I asked you to clarify, and you responded:

Stenger made multiple arguments and I wrote an entire post on some of them. If you would like to direct me to the argument you refer to then I will be happy to address it.

It was the one YOU quoted, about how immaterial beings do not exist.

The argument in question is the argument Stenger made which I provided for you. You have simply borrowed from what I gave you (including the source Stenger used). I have demonstrated the flaws in the proof, showing that it's validity depends upon granting its assumption and how it fails to be sound. You continually asked for a counter-example, and I tried to explain that to show Stenger's proof fails doesn't require such a thing.

You then completely misunderstood my scans, which you interpreted as being nonsense rather than the straightforward logic they are, and have yet to show me you can indicated why I must provide a counter-example to refute the soundness of Stenger's borrowed proof.

(1) Is nonsense - I make no such claim or proposition.

These are quoted verbatim from Stenger. This is about the new atheists, you asked me to "engage with Stenger's argument", but now you call the first line in his proof "nonsense".

Please spare me the lectures and do try to keep on point.

I have. However, as you haven't read Stenger it is natural that you are unable to recognize when I am doing exactly what you asked of me and engaging in the argument you asked me to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure, the universe is the set of all things

'things" can be abstract, and this isn't a set-theoretic definition. More importantly, there are approximately one billion human beings, endowed with some degree of intellect, who belong to the Catholic church, which I can rigorously define in set-theoretic terms as consisting of all Catholics. Does the Catholic church itself posses an intellect? Not intellects, which is not Spinoza's position, but a singular intellect?

Wow, that is actually quite amazing - you repeat the same apparent contradiction which has been addressed what is it? Twenty times now? Incredible.

When you continually contradict yourself I'll continually point it out. You have asked me to stay on point regarding an argument I provided you, as you specified, and having stayed on that point you have accused me of not doing so and of not addressing your argument, despite the fact that the argument you asked me to address was Stenger's, to whit and to which you previously stated you offered the same, but now again reveal you don't actually know. You can't recognize the first line of his proof that you asked me to address, which you have now called "nonsense".

 

[Bunyip]

Let us recall the argument in question:

Not knowing which argument you meant (having addressed several), I asked you to clarify, and you responded:


The argument in question is the argument Stenger made which I provided for you. You have simply borrowed from what I gave you (including the source Stenger used). I have demonstrated the flaws in the proof, showing that it's validity depends upon granting its assumption and how it fails to be sound. You continually asked for a counter-example, and I tried to explain that to show Stenger's proof fails doesn't require such a thing.

You then completely misunderstood my scans, which you interpreted as being nonsense rather than the straightforward logic they are, and have yet to show me you can indicated why I must provide a counter-example to refute the soundness of Stenger's borrowed proof.




There are quoted verbatim from Stenger. This is about the new atheists, you asked me to "engage with Stenger's argument", but now you call the first line in his proof "nonsense".


I have. However, as you haven't read Stenger it is natural that you are unable to recognize when I am doing exactly what you asked of me and engaging in the argument you asked me to.

Sigh...back on ignore.

 

[Cephus]

Sigh...back on ignore.

Probably for the best. There are far too many theists who are essentially like talking to a brick wall. They don't care what anyone says, they're unable to even consider the possibility that they're wrong in any way.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Probably for the best. There are far too many theists who are essentially like talking to a brick wall.

I'm not a theist. I'm an agnostic.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not a theist. I'm an agnostic.

The are not exclusive categories.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The are not exclusive categories.

I do not believe in the existence of any god, deity, or similar religious or spiritual entity. I am not a theist, deist, pantheist, polytheist, anti-theist, or any x-theist. There is no religious or spiritual doctrine in which I believe, nor do I have any religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

[Bunyip]

I do not believe in the existence of any god, deity, or similar religious or spiritual entity. I am not a theist, deist, pantheist, polytheist, anti-theist, or any x-theist. There is no religious or spiritual doctrine in which I believe, nor do I have any religious or spiritual beliefs.

Then you are an atheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Probably for the best. There are far too many theists who are essentially like talking to a brick wall. They don't care what anyone says, they're unable to even consider the possibility that they're wrong in any way.

Speaking of "brick walls" and the incapacity to admit that one is wrong, let us recall that a fundamental disagreement under consideration is formal (symbolic/mathematical) logic, set theory, and logical derivations/proofs. These are independent of religious belief, and if you would like to point out any error I have made in any of my posts, feel free.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Then you are an atheist.

According to your definition, yes. According to the definition most use, and the definition of the one who coined the term, not to mention the way the term is used in specialist literature, I'm not. Because I also do not believe that there are no gods. Formalizing this requires something beyond the logic we've dealt with thus far as it requires non-classical logics (or rather, a non-classical logic, of which many a single system would be sufficient.)

 

[Bunyip]

According to your definition, yes. According to the definition most use, and the definition of the one who coined the term, not to mention the way the term is used in specialist literature, I'm not. Because I also do not belief that there are no gods. Formalizing this requires something beyond the logic we've dealt with thus far as it requires non-classical logics (or rather, a non-classical logic, of which many a single system would be sufficient.)

So you don't believe in any gods, but at the same time don't believe in no gods? LOL So much for logic.
Much as I would love to explore whatever the distinction is I fear it will reduce to quibbling about semantics.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you don't believe in any gods, but at the same time don't believe in no gods? LOL So much for logic.

Classical logic is divided into two components, propositional calculus and predicate calculus. The second is an extension of the first and is more powerful, as it allows us to define statements such as Gx to be "x is a god" (the uppercase letter is the predicate), and introduces the existential and universal quantifiers.

However, belief statements are not of the form allowed in classical logic, because they are not "ordinary" predicates, but mental state predicates. If treated as such, they lead to contradictions. Let Bxyz= "x believes y is z", s= "superman", c= "Clark Kent", l= "Lois Lane", Wxy= "x works with y"
(1) Wlc | Given (Translation: "Lois Lane works with Clark Kent."
(2) ~Blcs | Given (translation: "Lois Lane doesn't believe Clark Kent is Superman")
(3) ∀x(c=x→c=s) |Given (translation: for all x, if x is Clark Kent, then x is Superman)
(4)Wls | from 1 & 3, substitution (translation: "Lois Lane works with Superman")
(5) ∀x(Wlx &∀y{y=s →~Blyx})| from 1 & 2 (translation: "for all x, if Lois Lane works with x AND for all y, if y is Superman then Lois Lane doesn't believe x is superman")
(6) ∃x(Wlx & ∀y{y=c →Blyc}) | from 1, 3, & 5 and substitution (translation: there exists an x such Lois Lane works with x and for all y, if y is Clark Kent then Lois Lane believes y is Clark Kent")
(7) ∃x(Wlx & ∀y{y=x →Blys}) | from 1, 3, 5 & 6 and substitution (translation: there exists an x such Lois Lane works with x and for all y, if y is x then Lois Lane believes y is Superman")
(8) ∀x({Wlx & x=c} →Blxs)| from 7 (translation: "for all x, if Lois Lane works with x AND x is Clark Kent, then Lois Lane Believes x is superman")
***(9) Blcs | from 8

Here we have a straightforward contradiction. Because we treated belief like any other predicate, we proved a contradiction. Many like this could be offered (and in fact the above could be simplified but I used a somewhat extended version as a teaching tool), but the point is that predicate calculus ("classical logic") requires the identity operator to actually identify something as being itself (Superman IS Clark Kent, they're just two different names for the same person), while beliefs do not. It is possible for Lois Lane to work with Clark Kent and not believe she works with Superman.

Hence, other logics exist which allow epistemic predicates.