Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rational paths to theism generally lead to frustration. Consider Nicodemus. Teacher of Israel. Followed the rational path of the Mosaic law. Asked Jesus what must he do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus told Nicodemus he must be "born again". Nicodemus could not rationalize what Jesus told him. How can a man be born again??? The point Jesus was trying to make was that there is no "rational" path to the Kingdom of heaven... there is no rational procedure or formula that can be followed ...that our "second birth" is like our first, at a place and time of God's choosing not ours. Although Jesus was powerless to persuade Nicodemus of this (at this time) Jesus was not frustrated by Nicodemus' lack of faith.

I find it odd that a theist would agree with me on this. I think you may have missed my point.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting article in a science mag!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.amp


Atheists aren not nearly as rational at some think they are. So says the article..... I have been saying that here on RF since i started . After all if you are in "religUS forums" reading this article and an atheist, it certainly is not for scientific rational reasons. Maybe atheists can give some non rational reasons why they are here. Then again that might be like asking a religious creationist to give a rational explanation for 7 day creation!!!!!!!

I can only imagine for some its a sense of superior reasoning over religion. Then again thats a bit like picking on the disabled so its only for gratification of the ego and that specifically is Not rational but rationalizing. .lots of that goes on here to say the least.

An article on atheists thinking written by a researcher in religious studies who is funded by the john templeton foundation. Sounds legit to me.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I find it odd that a theist would agree with me on this. I think you may have missed my point.

I'm probably one of the more irrational theists you'll ever chance to meet lol. I'm a math/software guy and I realize there is no rational basis whatsoever for why I believe as I do. None. Given that, there is nothing I can do to convince you to believe as I do. Nothing. Nor should I try. The most I can do is witness what I believe. Sometimes that witness is well received (with a consternated look from whoever I'm talking with at the time), sometimes it isn't.

 

[Polymath257]

Why can we not simply agree that mechanical causation does not answer the question of subjective experiences of consciousness? Why the sarcasm?

Well, first of all, I think the research that has already been done goes a *long* way to answering the question. The processes happen inside one skull, so are experienced by only one 'person': that is what a subjective experience *is*.

Essentially, you are not only claiming we have no answer *yet*, but claiming that no answer is *possible*. Given what we already know, that seems like a very, very strange claim.

 

[Willamena]

If those rational reasons can be explained by science doesn't it connect them with science?

Science doesn't usually tackle topics that are not science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Don't you just hate anything that starts with "some major grouping of people" are (or are not) or have (or have not) some particular quality? "Atheists are....," "Christians aren't...," "Muslim's all...," etc. Yecchh

 

[atanu]

It's not really a question; it's a claim. In a roundabout way, you're claiming that "mechanical causation" can't cause consciousness, despite the fact that you have no rational justification to assume this is true.

So, you do not like questioning?

Because you should know better. Because ridicule is an easy way to communicate that something is ridiculous.

I do not agree. Ridicule hinders communication.
...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you do not like questioning?

You aren’t questioning. This tangent started with you stating your conclusion.

I do not agree. Ridicule hinders communication.
...

I only use ridicule when I don’t think the other side is interested in honest communication.

 

[dimmesdale]

Interesting article in a science mag!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.amp


Atheists aren not nearly as rational at some think they are. So says the article..... I have been saying that here on RF since i started . After all if you are in "religUS forums" reading this article and an atheist, it certainly is not for scientific rational reasons. Maybe atheists can give some non rational reasons why they are here. Then again that might be like asking a religious creationist to give a rational explanation for 7 day creation!!!!!!!

A person would have to read them, study to get the jist of their position. Ken Ham...''Millions of Christians around the world hold this view, as did Jesus, the apostles, and virtually all orthodox Christians prior to the 1800s.'' So why were they all wrong, including Jesus and the moderns right? If all those were wrong then what else were they wrong about? According to Ham it is ''naturalism which is the ruling paradigm by which geologists and astronomers interperet the universe and Earth to be billions or yrs old.''

I

 

[atanu]

You aren’t questioning. This tangent started with you stating your conclusion.
I only use ridicule when I don’t think the other side is interested in honest communication.

I did, since I explained that naturalism was not adequate to explain reasoning or our consciousness or unity of self.

 

[dimmesdale]

Then please give us an example that demonstrates that gods have objective existence, or don't.

Objective relative to us? The start of the universe would rationally need a trigger. That trigger would be objective relative to us and it would rationally be a mind all things considered and as opposed to its alternatives. The question presupposes an unbias mind on the other end when that is hardly ever the case. What critics would need to do is falsify God or come up with an alternative explanation for the universe and life here which beats Gen.1:1.

 

[Polymath257]

Objective relative to us? The start of the universe would rationally need a trigger. That trigger would be objective relative to us and it would rationally be a mind all things considered and as opposed to its alternatives. The question presupposes an unbias mind on the other end when that is hardly ever the case. What critics would need to do is falsify God or come up with an alternative explanation for the universe and life here which beats Gen.1:1.

On the contrary, the beginning of the universe could not have a trigger. ALL causality happens within the universe, so any trigger would have to be in the universe. Remember that time is also part of the universe, so there also cannot be a 'before the universe'.

Even *if* you allow such constructs, there is absolutely no reason to think the 'trigger' would have to be something as complicated as a mind.In fact, a much more likely scenario would be something quite simple, like a quantum fluctuation.

Genesis is a myth that simply doens't correspond to the known facts of the universe. There is no firmament separating waters above from waters below (the waters above would be why the sky is blue in the myth). There was no 'deep' which was dark prior to the formation of the universe (see above), nor for that matter, before the formation of the Earth.

maybe a bit of learning would be a good thing here: find out what modern science actually says instead of the propaganda spread by those who want to control you.

 

[dimmesdale]

On the contrary, the beginning of the universe could not have a trigger.

There is no basis in the present to assume an uncaused effect.

ALL causality happens within the universe, so any trigger would have to be in the universe.

Not really.

Remember that time is also part of the universe, so there also cannot be a 'before the universe'.

So that leaves out any cause. There is something extrinsic of our universe or we would not be here. Naturally, time would be involved in some manner. So yeah time was prior to the universe. Otherwise, it stops all possible causes.

Even *if* you allow such constructs, there is absolutely no reason to think the 'trigger' would have to be something as complicated as a mind.

It is the most parsimonious given the alternative. There is not one thing to extrapolate back from the present which would allow for uncaused effects/events. The most rational is a trigger extrinsic of time space and matter.

In fact, a much more likely scenario would be something quite simple, like a quantum fluctuation.

Not really. Besides, that would also be the initial first cause of all life here since it would be the cause of the universe. There is no basis to assume a nonliving first cause for life.

Genesis is a myth that simply doens't correspond to the known facts of the universe.

It remains the best explanation for the universe and life as opposed to your alternative of everything from nothing or quantum fluctuations.

There is no firmament separating waters above from waters below (the waters above would be why the sky is blue in the myth). There was no 'deep' which was dark prior to the formation of the universe (see above), nor for that matter, before the formation of the Earth.

None of that falsifies the basic premises of a Divine living being outside the universe as the first cause of the universe and all life here. It is also compatible with know science of life causing life. As opposed to the alternative of exclusive nonlife as the cause of all life. If it is living then its cause is living. We can extrapolate that back to a start point. The other we cannot. There is not one thing in the present to deduce an exclusive nonliving first cause. No science or rational basis.

maybe a bit of learning would be a good thing here:

Not here for your advice.

find out what modern science actually says instead of the propaganda spread by those who want to control you.

This is not science which has to do with experimental in the present. This is nothing more than naturalistic (atheistic) history myth based on blind faith and wishful thinking. You need to make a case which beats Gen.1:1.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no basis in the present to assume an uncaused effect.
Not really. So that leaves out any cause. There is something extrinsic of our universe or we would not be here. Naturally, time would be involved in some manner. So yeah time was prior to the universe. Otherwise, it stops all possible causes.

Sorry, but we know of many uncaused effects: pretty much every quantum level event is uncaused.

Yes, really. Time is part of the universe. More specifically, the universe is all of space and time and the combined structure, called spacetime, is what is modeled in cosmology.

It is the most parsimonious given the alternative. There is not one thing to extrapolate back from the present which would allow for uncaused effects/events. The most rational is a trigger extrinsic of time space and matter.

No, the most rational position is that the universe itself is uncaused.

But let me ask you this: suppose the universe was caused by some trigger....what was the cause of that trigger? And the trigger for that trigger? At *some* point, there needs to be something uncaused. And, the simplest and most rational point to end this progression is the universe itself.

Not really.

Yes, really. To postulate something as complex as a mind begs the question of how such a mind is possible. That takes complex interactions and is more in need of a 'trigger' than the *known* uncaused quantum events.

It remains the best explanation for the universe and life as opposed to your alternative of everything from nothing or quantom fluctations. None of that falsifies the basic premises of a Divine living being outside the universe as the first cause of the universe and all life here. It is also compatable with know science of life causing life. As opposed to the alternative of nonlife as the cause of all life. If it is living then its cause is living. We can extrapolate that back to a start point. The other we cannot. There is not one thing in the present to deduce an exclusive nonliving first cause. No science or rational basis.
Not here for your advice.
This is not science which has to do with experimental in the present. This is nothing more than naturalistic (atheistic) history myth based on blind faith and wishful thinking. You need to make a case which beats Gen.1:1.

I just did. There is no firmament. There are no waters above and below. The progression in Genesis is against what we know. And, the very words of Genesis show that there was a 'deep' that had structure. There was already an 'over' so there was gravity. You see, it is a myth made up by a culture with no science. It has inconsistencies, both internally and when compared to the real world.

The faster we recognize Genesis to be a nice story, but not fact, the better.

 

[dimmesdale]

Sorry, but we know of many uncaused effects: pretty much every quantum level event is uncaused.

You don't know that for a fact. Besides, you have no macro level validation for uncaused effects.

No, the most rational position is that the universe itself is uncaused.

Blind faith. That is why your atheism does not resonate. It explains nothing and is nothing dependent.

But let me ask you this: suppose the universe was caused by some trigger....what was the cause of that trigger? And the trigger for that trigger? At *some* point, there needs to be something uncaused. And, the simplest and most rational point to end this progression is the universe itself.

It would rationally be uncaused since they rule out infinite regression. Besides we do not need to know identity to rule out uncaused. Anymore than an investigator would need to know identity or lineage of the killer to rule out suicide or natural death. It is not like they say we did not observe an alleged killer and we don't know identity so we cannot rule out natural death or suicide. All that is inconsistent with standard investigation practices. They observe the scene in the present and rule out possibles like suicide and natural or accidental before they start to look for the killer. They don't say well we don't know identity or lineage so natural must be the best answer. That is not going by the evidence or science. It is retrofitting philosophical assumptions which govern interpretations. You do not get to rule out intelligence from the get-go and make all sorts of nauseating appeals to science. If it is a search for truth then ginned up restrictions will lead to wrong answers.

Yes, really. To postulate something as complex as a mind begs the question of how such a mind is possible.

Via the effects in totality. From effect to cause.

That takes complex interactions and is more in need of a 'trigger' than the *known* uncaused quantum events.

We have a host of known effects compiled including the universe life laws order and purpose right down to building codes in DNA. The only possible, a mind.

I just did.

No you did not.

There is no firmament. There are no waters above and below. The progression in Genesis is against what we know.

There is no way that you can know anything scientifically since you cannot go back in time to test your assumptions against what happened. It is ancient language translated to English. It is very vague and subject to interpretation. The context indicates a far different set of circumstance then the present where the ground is cursed and subject to futility. Nobody knows for sure what the conditions were like.

And, the very words of Genesis show that there was a 'deep' that had structure. There was already an 'over' so there was gravity. You see, it is a myth made up by a culture with no science. It has inconsistencies, both internally and when compared to the real world.

And everything from nothing is consistent? All life from exclusive nonlife? The fact being something triggered the universe and subsequent life here. Can't have the latter without the former. The way they do history is to reconstruct the past from the present and your scenarios have no basis in the present to extrapolate to the past. Your dependence is on too many Ad Hoc Rescues.

The faster we recognize Genesis to be a nice story, but not fact, the better.

It is called testimony from history and it is evidence. Mostly consistent throughout early history including the 1800s when consensus assumed an eternal universe. You can believe what you want. The fact being you have no case which beats Gen.1:1. You either get it or you don't.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't know that for a fact. Besides, you have no macro level validation for uncaused effects.

The macro level is simply the sum of the micro levels.

Blind faith. That is why your atheism does not resonate. It explains nothing and is nothing dependent.

No, reason. Time and causlaity are part of the universe. So, the universe itself cannot have a cause, nor can there be a 'before the universe'.

It would rationally be uncaused since they rule out infinite regression. Besides we do not need to know identity to rule out uncaused.

So you allow an infinite progression? Either *something* is uncaused or there is an infinite progression. There is no logical alternative. ALL you have done is claim an uncaused event (God) that we can know nothing about as opposed to an uncaused universe.

Via the effects in totality. From effect to cause. We have a host of known effects compiled including the universe life laws order and purpose right down to building codes in DNA. The only possible, a mind.

As you said, blind faith. There are many known alternatives and explanations that are consistent with known laws of physics that don't involve unknowable deities.

No you did not. There is no way that you can know anything scientifically since you cannot go back in time to test your assumptions against what happened.

That is not required to know about the past. There is information that has survived from the past that we can analyze today to learn about the past, knowing the laws of physics.

It is ancient language translated to English. It is very vague and subject to interpretation. The context indicates a far different set of circumstance then the present where the ground is cursed and subject to futility. Nobody knows for sure what the conditions were like. And everything from nothing is consistent? All life from exclusive nonlife? The fact being something triggered the universe and subsequent life here. Can't have the latter without the former. The way they do history is to reconstruct the past from the present and your scenarios have no basis in the present to extrapolate to the past. Your dependence is on too many Ad Hoc Rescues.

Yes, all aspects of the myth. But we can, and do, know about the past from evidence that still remains from the past. Notice that denying any possible knowledge of the past negates any possibility of having authority from Genesis at all: the book is a writing from the past.

It is called testimony from history and it is evidence. Mostly consistent throughout early history including the 1800s when consensus assumed an eternal universe. You can believe what you want. The fact being you have no case which beats Gen.1:1. You either get it or you don't.

Genesis doesn't even come close to a reasonable explanation. it is a myth made up by ancient people to describe a universe they were ignorant of. Testimony is the *worst* sort of evidence if you want the truth. Even truthful people often make mistakes, mis-remember, or didn't see the whole of an event. Even in a car accident, it is common for many eyewitnesses to give very different *truthful* accounts.

Much, much better than testimony is actual physical evidence. Without that, the rest is hearsay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did, since I explained that naturalism was not adequate to explain reasoning or our consciousness or unity of self.

Yes, that was the (unsupported) conclusion - not a question - you gave before.

 

[atanu]

Yes, that was the (unsupported) conclusion - not a question - you gave before.

Yes. I said "With a mechanical causation of consciousness, the unity of self, memory, and competence for reasoning cannot be explained." But I had supported what I said with: If everything is caused by material causation, then there is no room left for a ‘reason’ to cause something. The event is already fully explained in terms of the laws of nature. Where the question of 'being convinced' arises?

Although I value science, I understand that objective knowledge is one thing and knowledge of the subject another. These two knowledges occupy non-overlapped domains. The knowledge of the subject that knows about the object is not trivial and certainly not irrational.

But pure empiricism is self refuting and therefore not 100% rational as is assumed. If all knowledge is natural, then this proposition, if true, cannot be known to be true. It is believed without justification.
...

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Sorry, but we know of many uncaused effects: pretty much every quantum level event is uncaused.

That 's an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Have you never heard of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation? I don't accept it, but the point is that there are several, conflicting interpretations possible.

No, the most rational position is that the universe itself is uncaused.

The problem here is that at the macro level (ignoring the micro level as a reification of mathematical models) events have causes. We instinctively conduct our lives on that basis. If people didn't, they wouldn't do physics, for a start.

But let me ask you this: suppose the universe was caused by some trigger....what was the cause of that trigger?

If the cause was a mental act, then they (unlike physical events) are not necessarily caused.

To postulate something as complex as a mind begs the question of how such a mind is possible.

As opposed to how a physical universe is possible? Incidentally, it doesn't "beg the question", it "raises the question" — in educated discourse, "beging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. I said "With a mechanical causation of consciousness, the unity of self, memory, and competence for reasoning cannot be explained." But I had supported what I said with: If everything is caused by material causation, then there is no room left for a ‘reason’ to cause something. The event is already fully explained in terms of the laws of nature. Where the question of 'being convinced' arises?

And where's the "support," exactly? You just restated yout conclusion and gave the question that you begged to reach it.

Although I value science, I understand that objective knowledge is one thing and knowledge of the subject another. These two knowledges occupy non-overlapped domains. The knowledge of the subject that knows about the object is not trivial and certainly not irrational.

But pure empiricism is self refuting and therefore not 100% rational as is assumed. If all knowledge is natural, then this proposition, if true, cannot be known to be true. It is believed without justification.
...

All of this is irrelevant. “We can’t answer every question empirically” does not imply that any particular approach is justified or valid. You still need to justify your approach on its own merits. Good luck with that.