I'm no longer surprised when "god" debates degenerate into a theist telling me that I'm an atheist only because I hate his/her particular god or because I want to "live in sin." Most recently, I have been engaged in an exchange with another (surprise!) angry Yahoo! Answers user named Gorillawits, who has accused me of everything from lying, to hating [his] god, to being "evil" and not caring about anyone else.
Sigh.
Sadly, these sentiments are not uncommon, yet it remains suspiciously unclear how one is supposed to hate something that he does not even believe exists. The prospect of hating a god is not unlike the prospect of hating orcs or Smurfs. I suppose one can hate the idea of something or hate how that idea is portrayed (as in a story), but it is quite impossible to actually hate something that one doesn't even know to exist.
Further, an atheist who also rejects religious dogma in general is unlikely to find meaning in the concept of sin, so accusing an atheist of wanting to "live in sin" is just as nonsensical as telling an atheist that she hates a god.
The underlying assumption to "you hate god" assertions is that atheists actually believe in some god, usually the local god, and it is from this assumption that theists launch their accusations. Of course, this is tantamount to making an ad hominen attack on the basis of a straw-man. Dual-fallacy claims are always fun.
Maybe I can't prove to anyone that I really don't believe in gods aside from stating so and arguing my case, any more than I can prove that I like chocolate aside from stating so and voraciously consuming it. Of course, this is a two-way street; theists can't prove that they believe in a god aside from stating it and arguing their case. Where does this line of thought take us? Absolutely nowhere. If a simple stating of positions in an insufficient basis from which to analyze or debate, then perhaps some of the parties involved are being less than reasonable (or have motives that do not involve genuine analysis or debate at all).
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Evidence and Logic
A user named Michael posted a question on Yahoo! yesterday, but I didn't receive the notification e-mail until after the thread was closed. It's interesting, so I'm addressing it here.
The problem with the above is that it assumes, without apparent justification, that someone claiming or asking for evidence of a god seeks to "know" whether said god exists or not on the basis of that evidence. In effect, this demands an umbrella of absolutism that I don't believe most people have in mind when they provide or request evidence. At the very least, science certainly doesn't work that way.
On a related note, asking for evidence is a wholly separate issue from asking for a logical argument. Theists routinely fail to deliver on both counts, but I'm unsure why the poster has concluded that the two things are necessarily so related.
>> "In other words, anyone who claims to know anything based on evidence commits a logical fallacy." <<
This is a strange summation of Hume's position. Keep in mind that David Hume was an empiricist, meaning he thought that knowledge could be obtained through experience. Depending on what a piece of evidence is and what a person is claiming to know from it, the conclusion might be entirely justified.
I personally don't subscribe to a strict dividing line between knowledge and everything else. Rather, I regard knowledge as resting on a spectrum of certainty.
There is an entire category of logical fallacies relating to induction. It is unclear exactly which one the poster thinks these many atheists and theists engage in by bantering about evidence. Needless to say, Hume is generally regarded as one of the great philosophers, and rightfully so, but induction itself is not a fallacy. Humans beings base most of their lives around inductive thinking, and it is hard to imagine how we might operate in any other manner.
Regarding science, see methodological naturalism, particularly the positions held by Steven Schafersman and Robert Pennock.
>> "If that's true, almost all of the arguments on this site are pointless. We are chasing something, evidence based belief supported by logic, that does not exist."
Again, this assumes absolutism, and it again portrays a bizarre relationship between asking for evidence and asking for logical argumentation. Further, the poster declares that we are fallaciously chasing "evidence based belief," when the entire point of his post up to this point is knowledge and how one is justified in claiming it. Why the sudden change?
Lastly:
>> "So my question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?" <<
As I have said many times, things like value and purpose are subjective. Specifically regarding Yahoo! Answers users, I speculate that a significant percentage, like myself, simply enjoy arguing. In a greater sense, truth probably factors into the mix somewhere, and a significant portion of non-believers I've encountered (myself included) are concerned about religion in government and the suppression of science. Moreover, it's worth noting that the question, "...what are we trying to accomplish here?" follows some dubious reasoning, as I think I've shown, albeit briefly, in the preceding text.
A question about evidence, logical fallacy and belief in God?
A lot of the interaction in R&S seems to center around evidence and logic as they relate to belief in God. Which is all entertaining and fun. After all, what feels better than skewering your opponent by pointing out the defects in their reasoning? But there's a problem with all of this. Both the atheist who demands evidence and the theist who provides it are engaging in a logical fallacy. Hume seems to have proven conclusively that no inductive (based on inference) argument can ever be logically valid. In other words, anyone who claims to know anything based on evidence commits a logical fallacy. If that's true, almost all of the arguments on this site are pointless. We are chasing something, evidence based belief supported by logic, that does not exist.
So my question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
As always, thank you for your thoughtful replies.
The problem with the above is that it assumes, without apparent justification, that someone claiming or asking for evidence of a god seeks to "know" whether said god exists or not on the basis of that evidence. In effect, this demands an umbrella of absolutism that I don't believe most people have in mind when they provide or request evidence. At the very least, science certainly doesn't work that way.
On a related note, asking for evidence is a wholly separate issue from asking for a logical argument. Theists routinely fail to deliver on both counts, but I'm unsure why the poster has concluded that the two things are necessarily so related.
>> "In other words, anyone who claims to know anything based on evidence commits a logical fallacy." <<
This is a strange summation of Hume's position. Keep in mind that David Hume was an empiricist, meaning he thought that knowledge could be obtained through experience. Depending on what a piece of evidence is and what a person is claiming to know from it, the conclusion might be entirely justified.
I personally don't subscribe to a strict dividing line between knowledge and everything else. Rather, I regard knowledge as resting on a spectrum of certainty.
There is an entire category of logical fallacies relating to induction. It is unclear exactly which one the poster thinks these many atheists and theists engage in by bantering about evidence. Needless to say, Hume is generally regarded as one of the great philosophers, and rightfully so, but induction itself is not a fallacy. Humans beings base most of their lives around inductive thinking, and it is hard to imagine how we might operate in any other manner.
Regarding science, see methodological naturalism, particularly the positions held by Steven Schafersman and Robert Pennock.
>> "If that's true, almost all of the arguments on this site are pointless. We are chasing something, evidence based belief supported by logic, that does not exist."
Again, this assumes absolutism, and it again portrays a bizarre relationship between asking for evidence and asking for logical argumentation. Further, the poster declares that we are fallaciously chasing "evidence based belief," when the entire point of his post up to this point is knowledge and how one is justified in claiming it. Why the sudden change?
Lastly:
>> "So my question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?" <<
As I have said many times, things like value and purpose are subjective. Specifically regarding Yahoo! Answers users, I speculate that a significant percentage, like myself, simply enjoy arguing. In a greater sense, truth probably factors into the mix somewhere, and a significant portion of non-believers I've encountered (myself included) are concerned about religion in government and the suppression of science. Moreover, it's worth noting that the question, "...what are we trying to accomplish here?" follows some dubious reasoning, as I think I've shown, albeit briefly, in the preceding text.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Meaning and Purpose
It's nauseatingly common in discussions about god(s) for believers to either ask whether non-believers have meaningful or purposeful lives, or to smugly declare that meaning and purpose are impossible outside of god-belief. These encounters might range from a simple inquiry like, "What do you live for?" to the disturbingly popular, "Why do you even get out of bed in the morning?" and "Why don't you just kill yourself?"
Certain apologists like CARM's Matt Slick have tried to wax philosophical about atheism and purpose, formulating convoluted arguments like the one presented in "Atheism, evolution and purpose" on the CARM website. In essence, Slick argues that a naturalistic view of the universe can only account for "an illusion of purpose." Since he himself has actual purpose, unlimited by natural laws, a god must exist. Never mind that Slick makes no effort to objectively differentiate between purpose and "an illusion of purpose." In fact, even granting the main idea of his article, he gives me no reason to think his own purpose is anything but illusory, or that the concept "illusion of purpose" is even coherent.
Curiously enough, the "atheistic point of view" attacked by Slick appears only on the CARM site. I can find not one instance of an actual atheist advocating what Slick apparently attributes to all atheists. Since he addresses nonsense like, "If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural laws, but that his mind and will have 'risen above' these laws and he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose..." -- well, it's no surprise to discover that Slick has likely invented that which he attacks.
Seriously, I wonder where Matt Slick found a single naturalist willing to claim that his or her mind has "risen above" natural laws. Pure silliness. Even if humanity discovered something in the universe greater than the sum of its parts, like free will, such is not incompatible with a philosophy of mind position like property dualism. Slick can dispute this only by committing a composition fallacy.
He claims that an atheist positing free will "is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws, and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws," and that this constitutes "an argument from silence." The problem here is that Slick is again making things up. Saying, "I do not have a full understanding of the natural laws," is not equivalent to saying, "I am free to not be bound by the natural laws," nor does the latter follow from the former. As usual, Slick neither makes any effort to link the two, nor does he bother to list a single atheist who actually made such a statement.
Further, the discovery of something like libertarian free will would not contradict or invalidate natural laws, but would simply indicate that our understanding of natural laws is incomplete. Moreover, appealing to such unknowns is not necessary in order to demonstrate the folly of Mr. Slick's position, as I will illustrate below using only a dictionary.
Ahem. Anyway....
Despite the introduction, my intention here is not to painstakingly deconstruct all of Matt Slick's errors in the CARM article linked above. It's just that CARM tends to be an umbrella of Christian thought, and Slick presents such an easy target. Generally, I'm interested here in the notion often furthered by god-believers (specifically monotheists) that non-believers necessarily lack meaning or purpose. Part of the problem in such discussions is coming to some sort of agreement on what exactly "meaning" and "purpose" mean. For a Christian, purpose might entail obeying the Bible and getting into some sort of Utopian afterlife. This is useless for non-believers, since it presupposes Christianity. For a non-believer, purpose is likely to be more immediate: e.g. finish medical school, start a particular career, start a family, publish a book, be a decent person, etc.
For now, I'll settle on definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary (2009):
Given the above definitions, how can an atheist not have purpose or meaning? Even if her purpose and meaning are dictated solely by chemical reactions in her brain, prompted by environmental stimuli, this still qualifies as purpose and meaning. There is no qualifier in either definition that requires one or the other to transcend natural laws, as Matt Slick claims.
By simply reading the "Conclusion" section of Slick's article, it becomes obvious that he constructed the "atheistic" positions on existence and purpose for the sole purpose of pitting them against one another. I reiterate that he has failed to connect those positions to anyone other than himself. Note also the weakness of his final point:
Emphasis mine. How are "bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli" necessarily devoid of purpose? Well, the answer is offered a few lines earlier, where Slick backpedals after getting bogged down in his own nonsense:
So Slick attaches qualifiers beyond that offered in general definitions of the term "purpose," then bases his entire argument on those spurious qualifiers, all while straw-manning atheists from start to finish with made-up positions. His position is so flimsy, in fact, that he has to cover his own tracks by referring to "self-determined purpose" and "self-intended purpose for existence," neither of which were part of the equation earlier in the article when he asked, "From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?" Hilariously, his own brand of purpose -- that handed down by a god -- doesn't meet the criteria of "self-determined" or "self-intended," either.
All things considered, he answered his own question in the article: purpose is determined through a given biochemical makeup reacting to stimuli. It's so incredibly simple and anticlimactic, that Slick apparently felt a need to move the goalposts in hopes of lending support to an exceptionally dubious argument.
Now that it is clear atheists can and do have purpose and meaning, what about theists? Specifically regarding Christians, what is their purpose? Where does that purpose come from? From my perspective, the Christian purpose is slavery, to serve an invisible god under threat of punishment, hopefully gaining access to a magical realm after death so that one can continue his or her servitude in an eternal Utopia rather than suffer in an eternal hell [1].
In my opinion, if any of that were true, it would render human life less than meaningless. A naturalist might consider his purpose to derive from chemicals in his brain reacting to stimuli, but a Christian must embrace a nefarious being that deliberately enslaves its creation, bestowing a slave's purpose. Which is worse: no purpose at all or one derived from chemical reactions, or a purpose handed down by an invisible tyrant and embraced through fear?
**
1. Christian denominations vary in how they envision the fate of the so-called "unsaved," but suffering of some sort in an eternal hell generally covers most of them.
Certain apologists like CARM's Matt Slick have tried to wax philosophical about atheism and purpose, formulating convoluted arguments like the one presented in "Atheism, evolution and purpose" on the CARM website. In essence, Slick argues that a naturalistic view of the universe can only account for "an illusion of purpose." Since he himself has actual purpose, unlimited by natural laws, a god must exist. Never mind that Slick makes no effort to objectively differentiate between purpose and "an illusion of purpose." In fact, even granting the main idea of his article, he gives me no reason to think his own purpose is anything but illusory, or that the concept "illusion of purpose" is even coherent.
Curiously enough, the "atheistic point of view" attacked by Slick appears only on the CARM site. I can find not one instance of an actual atheist advocating what Slick apparently attributes to all atheists. Since he addresses nonsense like, "If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural laws, but that his mind and will have 'risen above' these laws and he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose..." -- well, it's no surprise to discover that Slick has likely invented that which he attacks.
Seriously, I wonder where Matt Slick found a single naturalist willing to claim that his or her mind has "risen above" natural laws. Pure silliness. Even if humanity discovered something in the universe greater than the sum of its parts, like free will, such is not incompatible with a philosophy of mind position like property dualism. Slick can dispute this only by committing a composition fallacy.
He claims that an atheist positing free will "is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws, and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws," and that this constitutes "an argument from silence." The problem here is that Slick is again making things up. Saying, "I do not have a full understanding of the natural laws," is not equivalent to saying, "I am free to not be bound by the natural laws," nor does the latter follow from the former. As usual, Slick neither makes any effort to link the two, nor does he bother to list a single atheist who actually made such a statement.
Further, the discovery of something like libertarian free will would not contradict or invalidate natural laws, but would simply indicate that our understanding of natural laws is incomplete. Moreover, appealing to such unknowns is not necessary in order to demonstrate the folly of Mr. Slick's position, as I will illustrate below using only a dictionary.
Ahem. Anyway....
Despite the introduction, my intention here is not to painstakingly deconstruct all of Matt Slick's errors in the CARM article linked above. It's just that CARM tends to be an umbrella of Christian thought, and Slick presents such an easy target. Generally, I'm interested here in the notion often furthered by god-believers (specifically monotheists) that non-believers necessarily lack meaning or purpose. Part of the problem in such discussions is coming to some sort of agreement on what exactly "meaning" and "purpose" mean. For a Christian, purpose might entail obeying the Bible and getting into some sort of Utopian afterlife. This is useless for non-believers, since it presupposes Christianity. For a non-believer, purpose is likely to be more immediate: e.g. finish medical school, start a particular career, start a family, publish a book, be a decent person, etc.
For now, I'll settle on definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary (2009):
[purpose]
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal....
[meaning]
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance...
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end....
Given the above definitions, how can an atheist not have purpose or meaning? Even if her purpose and meaning are dictated solely by chemical reactions in her brain, prompted by environmental stimuli, this still qualifies as purpose and meaning. There is no qualifier in either definition that requires one or the other to transcend natural laws, as Matt Slick claims.
By simply reading the "Conclusion" section of Slick's article, it becomes obvious that he constructed the "atheistic" positions on existence and purpose for the sole purpose of pitting them against one another. I reiterate that he has failed to connect those positions to anyone other than himself. Note also the weakness of his final point:
Since I determine I have a purpose, and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by natural laws, it is reasonable to assume I believe in God and that there is a God.
- Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli. I believe man is more than that.
Emphasis mine. How are "bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli" necessarily devoid of purpose? Well, the answer is offered a few lines earlier, where Slick backpedals after getting bogged down in his own nonsense:
3. If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then...
A. He has no self-determined purpose.
B. He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him.
C. He serves nothing more than natural laws.
4. Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self-intended purpose for existence.
So Slick attaches qualifiers beyond that offered in general definitions of the term "purpose," then bases his entire argument on those spurious qualifiers, all while straw-manning atheists from start to finish with made-up positions. His position is so flimsy, in fact, that he has to cover his own tracks by referring to "self-determined purpose" and "self-intended purpose for existence," neither of which were part of the equation earlier in the article when he asked, "From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?" Hilariously, his own brand of purpose -- that handed down by a god -- doesn't meet the criteria of "self-determined" or "self-intended," either.
All things considered, he answered his own question in the article: purpose is determined through a given biochemical makeup reacting to stimuli. It's so incredibly simple and anticlimactic, that Slick apparently felt a need to move the goalposts in hopes of lending support to an exceptionally dubious argument.
Now that it is clear atheists can and do have purpose and meaning, what about theists? Specifically regarding Christians, what is their purpose? Where does that purpose come from? From my perspective, the Christian purpose is slavery, to serve an invisible god under threat of punishment, hopefully gaining access to a magical realm after death so that one can continue his or her servitude in an eternal Utopia rather than suffer in an eternal hell [1].
In my opinion, if any of that were true, it would render human life less than meaningless. A naturalist might consider his purpose to derive from chemicals in his brain reacting to stimuli, but a Christian must embrace a nefarious being that deliberately enslaves its creation, bestowing a slave's purpose. Which is worse: no purpose at all or one derived from chemical reactions, or a purpose handed down by an invisible tyrant and embraced through fear?
**
1. Christian denominations vary in how they envision the fate of the so-called "unsaved," but suffering of some sort in an eternal hell generally covers most of them.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Blaming Science and Hurtling Toward a Stroke
Yahoo! Answers user Vegeta asked the following question:
The general consensus, as is usually the case with such mindless questions, was that no one had anything to prove. We participate in the forum simply to amuse ourselves at the expense of hapless fools like Vegeta. In short, the questioner was humiliated and eventually made the question private, so people not in his handpicked contact list can no longer view the post, even if they left an answer previously (as I did).
But Vegeta's cowardice doesn't stop there. No, he/she decided to e-mail the following to me (unedited):
Wow, looks like I hit a nerve! So much so that Vegeta disabled e-mail contact after sending the above diatribe, so I have no means of replying aside from posting this bullshit in public.
I've never understood how people can make claims on the Internet, using their computers, that science hasn't proved or accomplished anything.
Actually, that would be billions, and it's not just medicine. Agricultural advances and climate control also come to mind, along with many, many other technologies. In fact, I would say that most fields of science have improved human lives in some regard.
Science is no more responsible for the weaponry men create than are the mathematics and languages used in the same process. Consider how silly it would be to blame the German language for enabling Hitler to spread his propaganda. Same thing with blaming science for weapons and weapon-related deaths. Moreover, weapons can be a good thing when used for defense.
The second paragraph of Vegeta's message is worth a chuckle, but not worth responding to.
As for the "10,000 points" things, I'll point out that I have used Yahoo! Answers since June 2006 (42 months as of 12/2009), whereas Vegeta's account was opened in March 2009 (9 months as of 12/2009). I have posted 3,235 answers, whereas Vegeta has posted 351. By those numbers, I have posted 70 answers per month on average, and Vegeta has posted 40. Vegeta has also asked 45 questions, bumping his/her total to 396 and his/her average to 44. So on a monthly basis I post roughly 26 more messages than Vegeta. Considering that it usually takes 1o to 30 seconds to answer a question, this is not a significant time investment over a span of four weeks, especially considering that those are down seconds I would have otherwise spent playing Chess Titans or Solitaire. Even if Vegeta considers it a waste of time (curious, since he/she isn't far behind me), it isn't his/her time to waste.
In any case, thanks for the laugh, Vegeta. You might want to see a doctor before your blood pressure gets out of control.
"Theists, Atheists, Religious, Non-Religious!? What are you trying to prove?"
The general consensus, as is usually the case with such mindless questions, was that no one had anything to prove. We participate in the forum simply to amuse ourselves at the expense of hapless fools like Vegeta. In short, the questioner was humiliated and eventually made the question private, so people not in his handpicked contact list can no longer view the post, even if they left an answer previously (as I did).
But Vegeta's cowardice doesn't stop there. No, he/she decided to e-mail the following to me (unedited):
From: Vegeta
Subject: Well hello there
Message: You're the idiot. Of course I believe in gravity, but your beloved science has not proven anything, more or less helped soceity. Yes, science has saved millions with improvements in medication, but it has killed many more with advancements in weaponry for example.
btw, I just asked a simple, nice question. You're a jackass. However, you do amuse me, you little ******* retard. You humor me with your plight. You think you're so superior, so intelligent to others, but you're just a simple dumbass, and a prick. I hate ppl like you my friend. It is a terrible thing to say, but I'm typing it so I don't feel so bad. Isn't that how you feel when you insult people on Y/A? If you insulted me to my face, Id kick your ***. But you feel so safe on your computer typing **** to others. Go ahead, continue with your pathetic life, and materbate to some porn too why don't ya.
over 10,000 points on here. Wow, quite a life you have. You're pathetic and a waste of space on this overpopulated planet. Have a gr8 day, you piece of ****.
Wow, looks like I hit a nerve! So much so that Vegeta disabled e-mail contact after sending the above diatribe, so I have no means of replying aside from posting this bullshit in public.
>> "...your beloved science has not proven anything, more or less helped soceity."
I've never understood how people can make claims on the Internet, using their computers, that science hasn't proved or accomplished anything.
>> "...science has saved millions with improvements in medication,"
Actually, that would be billions, and it's not just medicine. Agricultural advances and climate control also come to mind, along with many, many other technologies. In fact, I would say that most fields of science have improved human lives in some regard.
>> "...but it has killed many more with advancements in weaponry for example."
Science is no more responsible for the weaponry men create than are the mathematics and languages used in the same process. Consider how silly it would be to blame the German language for enabling Hitler to spread his propaganda. Same thing with blaming science for weapons and weapon-related deaths. Moreover, weapons can be a good thing when used for defense.
The second paragraph of Vegeta's message is worth a chuckle, but not worth responding to.
As for the "10,000 points" things, I'll point out that I have used Yahoo! Answers since June 2006 (42 months as of 12/2009), whereas Vegeta's account was opened in March 2009 (9 months as of 12/2009). I have posted 3,235 answers, whereas Vegeta has posted 351. By those numbers, I have posted 70 answers per month on average, and Vegeta has posted 40. Vegeta has also asked 45 questions, bumping his/her total to 396 and his/her average to 44. So on a monthly basis I post roughly 26 more messages than Vegeta. Considering that it usually takes 1o to 30 seconds to answer a question, this is not a significant time investment over a span of four weeks, especially considering that those are down seconds I would have otherwise spent playing Chess Titans or Solitaire. Even if Vegeta considers it a waste of time (curious, since he/she isn't far behind me), it isn't his/her time to waste.
In any case, thanks for the laugh, Vegeta. You might want to see a doctor before your blood pressure gets out of control.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
John MacArthur's Deity
The website of evangelist John MacArthur contains an article/outline titled "God: Is He? Who Is He?" Predictably, the content is a mish-mash of bad arguments for the existence of the Christian deity and a few outright falsehoods. I found this nonsense through a post on Yahoo! Answers, from someone who apparently cannot distinguish reason from claptrap. Let's examine MacArthur's claims (and here I am assuming MacArthur wrote or at least approved the content, as it is on his website as a "resource").
Introduction
The introductory section of the outline contains three points: A) "God Is the Eternal Creator," B) "God Is a Merciful Refuge," and C) "God Is a Just Judge." Of course, all three points presuppose the Christian deity and the truth of the Bible, and they have no attachment to anything in reality that I can ascertain. If this is an attempt to halfheartedly provide some manner of ontology for the Christian deity, that's fine, but I don't know how to connect tautological labels like "creator" and "refuge" and "judge" to what is supposedly a disembodied consciousness. Later, MacArthur even refers to this "God" entity as a "person." I don't know about John MacArthur's mystical experiences, but not only is there no evidence of consciousness existing without a physical body, but there's no evidence for the personhood of anything without a physical body. Anyway, let's assume that the intent here is to make it known that MacArthur is referring to the Christian God and leave it at that.
God - Is He?
The Debate on God's Existence
In this section, MacArthur recounts Freud's position on human god-belief (that men have invented gods for assorted reasons), then he asserts:
First of all, this counter does nothing to differentiate the Christian deity from other "oppressive" gods, so it isn't an argument against Freud. In fact, the Christian deity purportedly demands capitulation on pain of eternal death (and eternal torture, depending on the denomination). Moreover, gods vary greatly from religion to religion, but all are seen as harboring some power, which is why they are worshiped in the first place.
Secondly, MacArthur attempts to defend his claim that mankind "would rather that God did not exist" by appealing to --- you guessed it --- the Bible, in the very next paragraph. He couldn't be bothered to cite a peer-reviewed study opposing Freud. No, he just states his disagreement and then cites scripture allegedly inspired by the very deity in question.
MacArthur then claims of these oppressive other gods:
Of course, this claim is put forth in a vacuum, with no attempt to attach it to reality or defend it.
The Defense of God's Existence
Here we have the standard apologetic rigmarole. MacArthur lists six arguments: teleological, ontological, aesthetical, volitional, moral, and cosmological. To be fair, he is describing these arguments in summary, not putting forward a comprehensive case.
The Despair of Life Without God
This section laments the emptiness of existing as though there is no god (no Christian God, of course). MacArthur commits intellectual suicide (again) by asserting, "People who deny the existence of God often lead lives of great despair," which is complete and utter bunk. I speak from experience, but let's not concern ourselves with that. The title of this section is "The Defense of God's Existence." Of course, people despairing because there is ostensibly no god, even if they claim to need a god, is not an argument for the existence of any god.
MacArthur also says:
The author has been content so far to simply claim evidence exists and to make assertions in place of evidence, so it's no surprise to see that trend continue here. Nonetheless, what I would call a truly "bleak outlook" in terms of human existence is not disbelief in gods and eternal life, but servitude to an invisible, disembodied consciousness, with the penalty for refusal being eternal death and/or eternal torture. MacArthur tries to dodge this by quoting some rosy verses from Psalms, but he isn't fooling anyone but himself. His god is fundamentally identical to all the other unnamed gods he labeled as "oppressive" earlier in the outline, and he knows it.
The remainder of the article entails desperate rationalizing from the faulty conclusions concerning the Christian deity's existence with scripture, so it's relatively pointless to continue. One would be better served considering the characteristics of orcs, elves and dragons from her favorite fantasy novel, as at least there might be some entertainment value there.
Introduction
The introductory section of the outline contains three points: A) "God Is the Eternal Creator," B) "God Is a Merciful Refuge," and C) "God Is a Just Judge." Of course, all three points presuppose the Christian deity and the truth of the Bible, and they have no attachment to anything in reality that I can ascertain. If this is an attempt to halfheartedly provide some manner of ontology for the Christian deity, that's fine, but I don't know how to connect tautological labels like "creator" and "refuge" and "judge" to what is supposedly a disembodied consciousness. Later, MacArthur even refers to this "God" entity as a "person." I don't know about John MacArthur's mystical experiences, but not only is there no evidence of consciousness existing without a physical body, but there's no evidence for the personhood of anything without a physical body. Anyway, let's assume that the intent here is to make it known that MacArthur is referring to the Christian God and leave it at that.
God - Is He?
The Debate on God's Existence
In this section, MacArthur recounts Freud's position on human god-belief (that men have invented gods for assorted reasons), then he asserts:
Freud's view of religion is rather simplistic. A careful examination of human religions reveals that the gods are rarely of the delivering kind, but usually of an oppressive nature that needs continual appeasement. I disagree with Freud; I don't believe that man has invented God. If man had his way he would rather that God did not exist.
First of all, this counter does nothing to differentiate the Christian deity from other "oppressive" gods, so it isn't an argument against Freud. In fact, the Christian deity purportedly demands capitulation on pain of eternal death (and eternal torture, depending on the denomination). Moreover, gods vary greatly from religion to religion, but all are seen as harboring some power, which is why they are worshiped in the first place.
Secondly, MacArthur attempts to defend his claim that mankind "would rather that God did not exist" by appealing to --- you guessed it --- the Bible, in the very next paragraph. He couldn't be bothered to cite a peer-reviewed study opposing Freud. No, he just states his disagreement and then cites scripture allegedly inspired by the very deity in question.
MacArthur then claims of these oppressive other gods:
Such gods are actually a representation of real demonic activity.
Of course, this claim is put forth in a vacuum, with no attempt to attach it to reality or defend it.
The Defense of God's Existence
Here we have the standard apologetic rigmarole. MacArthur lists six arguments: teleological, ontological, aesthetical, volitional, moral, and cosmological. To be fair, he is describing these arguments in summary, not putting forward a comprehensive case.
- Teleological
MacArthur actually says, "Design implies a designer." He also invokes the long-debunked Watchmaker Argument and a new one (an elephant running into a tree and a piano forming in the resultant mess). Never mind that we have no objective evidence of design (only claims by creationists), these analogies are fallacious at face value by attempting to compare the observed totality of existence, which has evolved over billions of years, with known man-made objects. - Ontological
MacArthur says of the Ontological Argument, "This argument reasons that since the mind of man can conceive of an absolutely perfect Being, that implies the reality and existence of that Being." More appropriately, the Ontological Argument should be renamed the Imagination Argument. Imagining something doesn't make it real. Four-year-olds understand this. - Aesthetical
MacArthur claims, "Because there is beauty and truth in the world, it is logical to assume that somewhere in the universe is a standard on which beauty and truth are based." Of course, beauty is entirely subjective. That notwithstanding, just because John MacArthur says there must be a cosmic standard of beauty, doesn't mean there is one. At best, everyone sets his own standard. As for truth, the standard is cogency with reality, and one should always keep in mind the distinction between reality and the propositions by which we describe it. - Volitional
According to MacArthur, "...man faces a myriad of choices and exercises volition, [therefore] it is logical to assume that there must be an infinite will somewhere." Why is this logical? He never bothers to tell us, but he does add, "The world exists as an expression of that will." How does he know this? Again, he doesn't say. - Moral
"That we know there is right and wrong suggests the necessity of an absolute standard." Unfortunately for MacArthur, "we" don't know any such thing. "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking make it so," is an equally valid maxim, and this implies we all determine rightness and wrongness by making subjective value judgments and deferring to our respective environments and experiences. Even if we accept the assertion that "we know there is right and wrong," the "necessity of a absolute standard" does not follow in any meaningful sense. - Cosmological
This is where MacArthur completely discredits himself, if he hasn't already done so. He begins by stating:"Cosmology is the argument of cause and effect. The world and universe exist, and we conclude that someone made it."
That is asinine, as cosmology is the study of the universe and the nature thereof, and should not be confused with the cosmological argument, which is what MacArthur is actually invoking here. He then tell us:That makes more sense than believing that everything came out of nothing--that no one time nothing equals all things--which is essentially what the theory of evolution says.
It's no surprise that he yet again fails to cite one scientific source for a prevailing "everything came out of nothing" theory, since there isn't one. The theory of evolution most certainly says nothing of the sort, as its only purpose is explaining biological diversity. Merriam-Webster defines evolution as "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory." It has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. That MacArthur doesn't understand this and proudly struts his ignorance before the world, is telling.
Building upon his poor definition of "cosmology," MacArthur then provides us with a list of "effects" and their purported causes:(a) The cause of limitless space must be infinite.
He never bothers to demonstrate that space is limitless or that it must be caused.(b) The cause of endless time must be eternal.
MacArthur provides no reason to believe that endless time must have a cause. Moreover, time as we understand it began at the origin of this universe, at the expansion event.(c) The cause of perpetual motion must be powerful.
Why MacArthur believes that something which does not exist must be caused by something "powerful," is anyone's guess.(d) The cause of complexity must be omniscient.
Again, what leads him to this conclusion is anyone's guess.(e) The cause of consciousness must be personal.
Yet another assertion in a vacuum. What does MacArthur even mean by a "personal" cause? He doesn't say. Sigh.(f) The cause of feeling must be emotional.
What about chemical?(g) The cause of will must be volitional.
Will = volition. Merriam-Webster defines volition as, "1 : an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made, 2 : the power of choosing or determining : will." So the cause of will must be willful. I'm not sure that makes any sense, Mr. MacArthur. In fact, I'm fairly sure it doesn't, and you're flirting with a fallacy of composition if you think a network of neurons cannot possibly create consciousness and volition.(h) The cause of ethical values must be moral.
No, unless there's a case to be made that environments and preferences are "moral" per se. If there is, MacArthur doesn't make it here.(i) The cause of religious values must be spiritual.
I'm not sure what "religious values" even are. Are they different from "ethical values?" For that matter, I can't attach the term "spiritual" to anything in reality, so at this time I conclude that MacArthur's claim is at least a non sequitur but is more likely incoherent.(j) The cause of beauty must be aesthetic.
Again, beauty is subjective, so claims centered here are dubious under the best of circumstances. Why can't a perception of beauty be neurological, relative to past experiences and other facts the subject might have no control over? MacArthur doesn't bother to delve into this. He just pukes a claim onto the wall and hopes it sticks.(k) The cause of righteousness must be holy.
What is righteousness? Is that synonymous with "ethical" or "religious?" Why must it stem from something "holy?" Surprise, MacArthur doesn't elaborate.(l) The cause of justice must be just.
This is just silly. Let's say someone kidnaps a child and is absconding out of town to murder the little tyke and hide the body. Lo and behold, while stopped at an intersection the would-be murderer's car is broadsided by a drunk driver. The would-be murderer dies, while the child in his trunk escapes relatively unharmed. Is this a case of justice being caused by something just?(m) The cause of love must be loving.
How about chemical?(n) The cause of life must be living.
While it is true that spontaneous generation was discredited by Louis Pasteur, this does not preclude hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. For starters, the conditions under which life appeared ~3.5 billion years ago were drastically different than conditions today, and it is unlikely that early life would have been comparable to what we see in nature today. Additionally, results of the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment were reanalyzed in 2008, and scientists now know that all 20 amino acids required for life can assemble spontaneously under certain conditions.
MacArthur then claims that, "Our world gives evidence that there must be a God who is the cause of all those qualities...." Even if we accept every one of his claims, it doesn't directly follow that the cause is a god, and it doesn't follow at all that the cause is the Christian God. The explanation for these "qualities" more likely centers on MacArthur's imagination and his desire to shoe-horn reality into his religious presuppositions. As such, he is prone to spew inanity like "The cause of justice must be just," and "The cause of consciousness must be personal." After reading his outline, I'm left wondering if even he has any clue as to what he's talking about.
The Despair of Life Without God
This section laments the emptiness of existing as though there is no god (no Christian God, of course). MacArthur commits intellectual suicide (again) by asserting, "People who deny the existence of God often lead lives of great despair," which is complete and utter bunk. I speak from experience, but let's not concern ourselves with that. The title of this section is "The Defense of God's Existence." Of course, people despairing because there is ostensibly no god, even if they claim to need a god, is not an argument for the existence of any god.
MacArthur also says:
The evidence shows that God exists. How sad it is for people to forsake the evidence and come to such a bleak outlook.
The author has been content so far to simply claim evidence exists and to make assertions in place of evidence, so it's no surprise to see that trend continue here. Nonetheless, what I would call a truly "bleak outlook" in terms of human existence is not disbelief in gods and eternal life, but servitude to an invisible, disembodied consciousness, with the penalty for refusal being eternal death and/or eternal torture. MacArthur tries to dodge this by quoting some rosy verses from Psalms, but he isn't fooling anyone but himself. His god is fundamentally identical to all the other unnamed gods he labeled as "oppressive" earlier in the outline, and he knows it.
The remainder of the article entails desperate rationalizing from the faulty conclusions concerning the Christian deity's existence with scripture, so it's relatively pointless to continue. One would be better served considering the characteristics of orcs, elves and dragons from her favorite fantasy novel, as at least there might be some entertainment value there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
