Do you believe in Strong Atheism or Weak Atheism?

[Sovereign Dream]

Dreaded? Well, I find attempts to use pure logic to determine God's existence are less useful than empiricism, but perhaps that's personal taste.

That seems to be a category error; as I have elaborated before on this thread, you cannot prove by means of empirical endeavors that God exists as God isn't the sort of thing that is susceptible to empirical endeavor in the first place.

Regardless, I'd offer the following comment from Plantinga himself; "Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

That's more or less taking him out of context; Plantinga famously concedes that a rational person need not accept this argument, and claims only that a rational person could accept it. The reason is that while he thinks a rational person could accept its first and key premise, another rational person could doubt it.

We could go round the bases on it, but no-one (or I should say, only a very small minority) believe that this establishes God. And it does nothing to establish that God is a being of infinite love and goodness regardless.

You will find that many contemporary theistic philosophers find the Ontological Argument to be very powerful, e.g. Craig, Plantinga (of course), Godel, Malcolm, Maydole, et al. Most if not all of these Ontological Arguments do attempt to show the existence of a maximally great being, which includes the property of being omnibenevolent.

I'm familiar with some of Aquinas' work, although I'm a long way from an expert on it. He's interesting to read, but only really in the context of his own time, mostly. Would it surprise you if I said I prefer Voltaire?

No surprise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That seems to be a category error; as I have elaborated before on this thread, you cannot prove by means of empirical endeavors that God exists as God isn't the sort of thing that is susceptible to empirical endeavor in the first place.

*chuckles*
No, I can't. God could if he so wished to. So at least in one context, empiricism would work. And if you're a believer in the miracles described in the Bible as literal, then God did at some point allow demonstration of his power. Not direct empirical evidence of God, of course, but still...more compelling than a logic-based argument. In my opinion.

That's more or less taking him out of context; Plantinga famously concedes that a rational person need not accept this argument, and claims only that a rational person could accept it. The reason is that while he thinks a rational person could accept its first and key premise, another rational person could doubt it.

I agree that a rational person could either accept or not accept the argument. It's usefulness is only to establish that it's not irrational to believe in God. That it does fit within a formal logical framework. I never claimed it was irrational, and make no claim that it is.

It's actually not the first premise I find interesting, but the fifth.

You will find that many contemporary theistic philosophers find the Ontological Argument to be very powerful, e.g. Craig, Plantinga (of course), Godel, Malcolm, Maydole, et al. Most if not all of these Ontological Arguments do attempt to show the existence of a maximally great being, which includes the property of being omnibenevolent.

I'd be interested to know how you equate the argument as requiring omnibenevolence. Could it not be used to argue that a being of pure evil be argued for in the same manner?

No surprise.

I try to read a variety, and I include Christian readings. But obviously some things are easier for me to relate to. Still, reading only what I agree with seems a poor way to expand my mind.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

*chuckles*
No, I can't. God could if he so wished to.

You mean that God could reveal Himself if he wanted to? Sure, but he may have overriding reasons to not do so.

So at least in one context, empiricism would work. And if you're a believer in the miracles described in the Bible as literal, then God did at some point allow demonstration of his power. Not direct empirical evidence of God, of course, but still...more compelling than a logic-based argument. In my opinion.

I agree that a rational person could either accept or not accept the argument. It's usefulness is only to establish that it's not irrational to believe in God. That it does fit within a formal logical framework. I never claimed it was irrational, and make no claim that it is.

It's actually not the first premise I find interesting, but the fifth.

Many do. But P1 is the only premise that could be objected to for the rest of the premises are a mere exercise in modal logic. "Denying" S5 would be tantamount to "denying" modal logic altogether.

I'd be interested to know how you equate the argument as requiring omnibenevolence. Could it not be used to argue that a being of pure evil be argued for in the same manner?

No, at least not so given the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical apparatus I am tentatively committed to. For "goodness" on this view is just conforming perfectly to a things essence. And since God's essence just is His existence... you see where I'm going.

I try to read a variety, and I include Christian readings. But obviously some things are easier for me to relate to. Still, reading only what I agree with seems a poor way to expand my mind.

I'm sure we've all been there. Believe it or not, I had a bout with agnosticism-fluctuating-on-theism-and-atheism for a brief year. It was after reading -- really reading -- Aquinas that I become fully convinced of God's existence. Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God are so often misunderstood by moderns. When they are understood correctly, I daresay that they are nigh insurmountable.

 

[Revoltingest]

A couple points: (I) the theist will obviously disagree that there is no evidence for God's existence;

I don't begrudge them that. We generally define "evidence" differently.

(II) Even if there was "no evidence" for God's existence, it would be fallacious to then conclude that God does not exist. You seem to be aware of this, however, given your previous comments on the matter. To illustrate how such an inference would be fallacious, consider the following syllogism:
P1.) We have no evidence of extra-terrestrial life.
C: Therefore, no extra-terrestrial life exists.
This demonstrates how the inference:
P1.) We have no evidence of God's existence.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.
is fallacious.

That line of reasoning does strike me as faulty, but I don't use it.
Try this...
- Gods aren't evidenced or necessary to describe the natural world. So I speculate that they don't exist.
- Extra-terrestrial life, while not observed, is certainly possible, & its existence would comport with processes we observe. So I speculate that it exists. Does it? I can only say that it wouldn't surprise me that we'd find it some day. I'll offer it some bacon.

(III) the theist does not argue that God exists because his existence offers explanatory power. That would just be tantamount to a "God of the gaps" defense which no academic theistic philosopher defends (indeed, you'll only find theists expounding some "God of the gaps" argument on some internet bastions of ingorance, e.g. YouTube). Theistic arguments rather typically involve some observation, be it a priori or a posteriori and then work from there, to put it simply, to the conclusion that God exists, e.g. Aquinas' "there is change" or Craig's "whatever begins to exist has a cause", etc.

I cannot argue against a priori arguments for god, except that I've yet to meet a premise I like.
All the a posteriori arguments I've seen for gods have been lame.

Again, it is not impossible to prove that God does not exist. In order to do so, one would have to argue that the concept of God is itself incoherent, as the concept of a square-circle of a married bachelor is incoherent, for example. Many atheistic philosophers have some interesting arguments that purport to show, for example, that God's omniscience entails some contradiction or other and so that God cannot exist. Even if such argument ends up being unsound, such atheist is actually attempting to provide a good reason for his atheism, rather than simply sitting and uttering fallacious armchair nonsense to the effect of "there is no evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist lol".

I choose the easy road, & don't try to prove anything to anyone.
All I gots is me guesses.
As some looney pompous poster here once said, "Certainty is the mind killer.".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You mean that God could reveal Himself if he wanted to? Sure, but he may have overriding reasons to not do so.

I don't expect him to. I only surmise that if he did, empiricism would be more useful than logic. And if he doesn't then I'd humbly suggest they have equal validity in determining his existence.

Many do. But P1 is the only premise that could be objected to for the rest of the premises are a mere exercise in modal logic. "Denying" S5 would be tantamount to "denying" modal logic altogether.

I'm no expert on modal logic. Smarter people than I have questioned aspects of it, and I would suggest that nothing invented is infallible. But I think I've made myself clear in so far as saying I'm not questioning that it is a method for proving the rationality of the premise. I'm questioning that it proves the premise.

In simple terms it's the extrapolations and assumptions coming AFTER modal logic is applied that I find interesting and informative.

No, at least not so given the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical apparatus I am tentatively committed to. For "goodness" on this view is just conforming perfectly to a things essence. And since God's essence just is His existence... you see where I'm going.

Okay, I understand. Why is such a being worthy of worship?

I'm sure we've all been there. Believe it or not, I had a bout with agnosticism-fluctuating-on-theism-and-atheism for a brief year. It was after reading -- really reading -- Aquinas that I become fully convinced of God's existence. Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God are so often misunderstood by moderns. When they are understood correctly, I daresay that they are nigh insurmountable.

Time is ever the enemy, but if there is a particular work which you think is reasonably approachable, I'll happily try and squeeze it into my schedule. I have no issue reading anything thought-provoking, regardless of whether I agree with it, and I'm a definite historical buff, so...

Having said that, I'm not a militant atheist, and wouldn't describe myself as seeking answers, so it's perhaps (strangely) more unlikely that a direct challenge to my (un)belief would be the most effective method for instilling belief.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I don't expect him to. I only surmise that if he did, empiricism would be more useful than logic. And if he doesn't then I'd humbly suggest they have equal validity in determining his existence.

The problem with empiricism is that we can always doubt the reliability our cognitive faculties vis-a-vis Cartesian worries. Say that God reveals Himself to you and only you. Might you not think to yourself that you have simply suffered from an illusion wrought by a "chemical imbalance" or some such occurrence? On the other hand, the deliverance of reason is dependable whether the external world exists or not.

I'm no expert on modal logic. Smarter people than I have questioned aspects of it, and I would suggest that nothing invented is infallible. But I think I've made myself clear in so far as saying I'm not questioning that it is a method for proving the rationality of the premise. I'm questioning that it proves the premise.

Worthy of note, however, is that modal logic, like mathematics and other branches of logic, isn't "invented" for that implies that it is a mere convention which could have turned out to be some other way. Rather, modal logic, like mathematics and other branches of logic, is discovered. We didn't "invent," for example, that 2 + 2 = 4. We discovered such truth.

In simple terms it's the extrapolations and assumptions coming AFTER modal logic is applied that I find interesting and informative.

Not sure what you mean.

Okay, I understand. Why is such a being worthy of worship?

Deep theological and philosophical musings evade me at present, so allow me to just consider this banally: say that there is an ultimate source of all being -- indeed being itself, according to Aquinas -- who is all-powerful, who exists necessarily, who is perfect, who is omniscient, etc. Doesn't this by itself illicit worship? Now consider further that this ultimate source of being decided to create everything else that exists, either directly or indirectly, including the universe we inhabit and ourselves and all our loved ones and the He has decisively revealed Himself to us in various ways. Doesn't this just add warrant for worship of such being?

Time is ever the enemy, but if there is a particular work which you think is reasonably approachable, I'll happily try and squeeze it into my schedule. I have no issue reading anything thought-provoking, regardless of whether I agree with it, and I'm a definite historical buff, so...

Having said that, I'm not a militant atheist, and wouldn't describe myself as seeking answers, so it's perhaps (strangely) more unlikely that a direct challenge to my (un)belief would be the most effective method for instilling belief.

I would enthusiastically recommend The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser. He writes from an Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective and his book is extremely rewarding to read through. I must mention that this particular book of his is markedly polemical, but it is unfailingly appropriate and satisfying and directed almost exclusively at the intellectual buffoonery of non-philosophers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al. who think they speak with authority on a subject they have no authority on (i.e. philosophy). It can also be a challenging read generally, especially when he explains and introduces to the reader the Aristotelian-Thomisitc metaphysical apparatus. On a personal note, this book of his was decisive in my commitment to theism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The problem with empiricism is that we can always doubt the reliability our cognitive faculties vis-a-vis Cartesian worries. Say that God reveals Himself to you and only you. Might you not think to yourself that you have simply suffered from an illusion wrought by a "chemical imbalance" or some such occurrence? On the other hand, the deliverance of reason is dependable whether the external world exists or not.

Ahhh....well, I don't think reason can ever determine the nature or existence of a being. In a strict sense, nothing can. But I discard solipsism as useless. And I trust in my own sanity. My wife accuses me of being 'too sane'.
(She works in mental health)

Worthy of note, however, is that modal logic, like mathematics and other branches of logic, isn't "invented" for that implies that it is a mere convention which could have turned out to be some other way. Rather, modal logic, like mathematics and other branches of logic, is discovered. We didn't "invent," for example, that 2 + 2 = 4. We discovered such truth.

All things discovered must be interpreted and applied. There is nothing that precludes the possibility that our understanding of modal logic is flawed. IN any case, as previously stated, I see it useful only in testing the rationality of a position, not in establishing it as factual.

Not sure what you mean.

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to explain it. Basically, I see some flaws in the argument, in terms of it describing anything more than the rational possibility of a supreme being based on logical deduction. That, in and of itself, is not enough to effect my beliefs or behaviour in any sense, since I never precluded such a being in the first place. At times I wondered if this made the most appropriate tag for me 'agnostic' rather than 'atheist', but the tags themselves are pretty uninteresting and uninformative.

Suffice to say I find a God unlikely, and I find a God as described in any Earthly religion more unlikely. But, clearly, some people will use arguments such as this to 'logically deduce' that their particular flavour of God exists.

Deep theological and philosophical musings evade me at present,

I'm a pretty simple guy at heart, so best to tailor the message accordingly...

so allow me to just consider this banally: say that there is an ultimate source of all being -- indeed being itself, according to Aquinas -- who is all-powerful, who exists necessarily, who is perfect, who is omniscient, etc. Doesn't this by itself illicit worship? Now consider further that this ultimate source of being decided to create everything else that exists, either directly or indirectly, including the universe we inhabit and ourselves and all our loved ones and the He has decisively revealed Himself to us in various ways. Doesn't this just add warrant for worship of such being?

Frankly, no. Even assuming a propensity to worship anything (and for the sake of argument, let's call it 'show a high level of respect') I would need to have some understanding of it and it's motives. Why would such a being care in the least as to whether I worshiped it or not? It understands my motives better than I understand them myself, so I would have no need to fear it (if indeed your logical deduction about omnibenevolence are remotely accurate).

I would enthusiastically recommend The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser. He writes from an Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective and his book is extremely rewarding to read through. I must mention that this particular book of his is markedly polemical, but it is unfailingly appropriate and satisfying and directed almost exclusively at the intellectual buffoonery of non-philosophers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al. who think they speak with authority on a subject they have no authority on (i.e. philosophy). It can also be a challenging read generally, especially when he explains and introduces to the reader the Aristotelian-Thomisitc metaphysical apparatus. On a personal note, this book of his was decisive in my commitment to theism.

Hmmm...okay. If that's your suggestion, I'll try and hunt it up at some point pre-Christmas. Gotta say that generically I find philosophy a stretch. It's not that there is no interest, but (as stated before) I'm a reasonably concrete guy, and haven't read enough philosophy to have a really good grounding. History is more my thing, I suppose, with a smattering of just about everything else (including philosophy). We'll see how I go, I suppose.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That "gnostic" and "agnostic" are religious terms, and utlized (misused) as parameters for the discussion. They mean to say strong and weak, but instead have re-named them gnostic and agnostic, which are misnomers and IMO abuses of those terms.

I feel it is the reverse. Agnostic and Gnostic are terms that are rooted in ancient Greek philosphy but made famous by the 5th century Christian Gnostcasism movement. But the terms themselves predate the christian usages.

Strong and weak are terms that are misleading at best.

 

[Willamena]

I feel it is the reverse. Agnostic and Gnostic are terms that are rooted in ancient Greek philosphy but made famous by the 5th century Christian Gnostcasism movement. But the terms themselves predate the christian usages.

Strong and weak are terms that are misleading at best.

"Rooted in the ancient Greek" doesn't make the terms meaningfully ancient. It does make them meaningfully gnostic and not-gnostic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"Rooted in the ancient Greek" doesn't make the terms meaningfully ancient. It does make them meaningfully gnostic and not-gnostic.

Please re-phrase your second part. I don't fully understand what you mean by that.

 

[s2a]

I'm certain that any/all religious claims that assert that any deity(s) (insert name here) as the only "reasonable" explanation of observable "cause/effect" explanations... are a waste of time.

Don't quite know where that places me on you scale... so I chose the "other", just as a buffer and escape plan