James Still

<strong>Do you think that atheistic evidential arguments against theism (such as many forms of the problem of evil) have any validity?</strong>

I believe that they are valid so long as they are employed against or in reaction to other evidentialist arguments. Consider the two statements: (1) "I believe that God exists" and (2) "I believe in God." The problem of evil is (in my opinion) devastating to the first but does not touch the second. The second statement might be a fideistic attempt to "believe first and understand later" in which the believer chooses not to judge God by human reason. But if you live by the sword and employ theistic evidentialist arguments then you will also die by that sword since it swings both ways.

<strong>Is it appropriate for an atheist to say that she believes in metaphysical naturalism because that's where the evidence points?</strong>

No. Metaphysical naturalism is an assumption. It is one I happen to share but like all governing frameworks it is useful only insofar as it conforms to the facts. If someone were to discover design in nature that led irrefutably toward an intelligent designer, then I would have to modify my worldview.

Vorkosigan

No. Metaphysical naturalism is an assumption.

It's a belief system. An "assumption" runs something like "assume X is a subset of set Y..."

It is one I happen to share but like all governing frameworks it is useful only insofar as it conforms to the facts.

James, how is it that "facts" are not "evidence." If its usefulness is dictated by facts, how is this not being dictated by evidence? I don't understand this distinction between "facts" and "evidence."

For most of us metaphysical naturalists, facts are the main reason we remain metaphysical naturalists.

If someone were to discover design in nature that led irrefutably toward an intelligent designer, then I would have to modify my worldview.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it...

In any case, how would evidence of Design and an intelligent Designer affect your worldview? Are there no Designers compatible with naturalism (intelligent aliens, etc)?

Vorkosigan

James Still

I feel like I could be having this conversation over definitions for the rest of my life... In metaphysics it is perfectly acceptable to consider a worldview to be an assumption rather than an evidential (or argued) theory. That's all I'm saying.

I did not say that facts were not evidence of course. Evidence and facts are both things taken into consideration when considering the truth or falsity of a proposition. There is no distinction between them in this context.

That's a good point. I was trying to be brief but as Bill Schultz points out in his paper at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html</a> it is possible that design in nature could be the result of an advanced life form. I wasn't ignoring such a scenario, I was merely referring to a situation in which a transcendent Creator was indeed the cause of some effect in the world. My point was that metaphysical naturalism is in principle not something dogmatic but rather self-correcting.

Vorkosigan

My point was that metaphysical naturalism is in principle not something dogmatic but rather self-correcting.


James, it seems you don't understand what I am objecting to. Or maybe I misunderstood you. You originally stated:

• It's true that many of my fellow atheists do not agree with me when I say that "belief in God and evidence have absolutely nothing to do with one another."

I am one of those fellow atheists who don't agree with you, at least the way I read this comment. It seems to say that people don't make up their mind one way or another based on evidence. Is that what you mean? Do you attribute (dis)belief purely to sociological factors, or perhaps genetic factors? Perhaps you could clarify the role of evidence in determining the existence of gods.

Vorkosigan

James Still

<strong>It's true that many of my fellow atheists do not agree with me when I say that "belief in God and evidence have absolutely nothing to do with one another."

I am one of those fellow atheists who don't agree with you, at least the way I read this comment. It seems to say that people don't make up their mind one way or another based on evidence. Is that what you mean? Do you attribute (dis)belief purely to sociological factors, or perhaps genetic factors? Perhaps you could clarify the role of evidence in determining the existence of gods.</strong>

In my original comment I meant only that religious belief is not a matter of evidentialism, but rather it is fideistic (belief without evidence; belief in spite of the evidence). When I say "religious belief" I mean to contrast it to superstition, which is belief by evidence. And now I want to nuance my comments a bit to say that I don't mean all or nothing (either no evidence or all evidence) but something more like a 90/10 ratio because I don't want to over generalize here. So a superstitious believer is one who looks at an effect in the world (stigmata, ghostly visitations, miracle cures, etc.) and believes based on those effects. A fideistic believer by contrast does not base his or belief on the things of this world but rather on the yearning to connect to concepts that transcend the world. That's my explanation in a nutshell.

Am I speaking about atheists here? Certainly not. But while we're on the subject it seems to me that there are two sides to atheism. There is the side that examines the evidence for God and finds it inadequate and there is the side that adopts metaphysical naturalism as a worldview (which has nothing to do with evidence). I'm interested in the relationship between these two sides to atheism but I haven't been able to clarify my thoughts enough to do much with it yet. Clearly a healthy clash occurs when evidentialists (atheists and theists) collide because they are each speaking the same language. But too often we atheists use that same language when clashing with fideistic believers, believing wrongly that evidence will convince them that they are wrong. This is the wrong approach.

Timordog

James, So what approach then do you propose when dealing with fideistic theists, a fideistic athiest argument as in metaphysical naturalism? That seems to me like fighting fire with fire, and also from what does your athiesm arise if not evidence, and like Vorkosigan said what is your oppinion on the role of evidence in the existance of god(s). I had falsely assumed athiesm was always a direct realiztion from a logical scientific mind to evidnence, and that a fideistic view was simply inherebtly flawed thereby. I'm very interested to hear repsone to this matter.

James Still

Hi Timordog,

Your questions are excellent ones and I wish I had intelligent answers for them. But at this point I'm still sorting through my own thoughts on the problem. I can tell you that the approach I propose when dealing with fideistic theists is tolerance, respect, dialogue, and understanding. (This gets back to some of the things Owleye and me were talking about earlier.) Evidence doesn't touch them and we must remember that if we don't wish to alienate them. In my conversations with such people I make sure they know that I respect their position and would not think of attempting to dissuade them from it. Then I share with them my own worldview of metaphysical naturalism and explain that I am quite happy and fulfilled without a belief in God. They might choose to adopt metaphysical naturalism and they might not. Everyone finds their own way.

But something has happened at this point. The arguments over evidence have vanished and you're now dealing with worldviews, which have no foundations. There are no propositions whose truth value determine the truth of metaphysical naturalism. If you know of any I beg you to share them with me. When we are atheists against the God of first causes or the God who exists because he heals the sick at Lourdes or the missing gardener of Flew's famous paper then we are on firm ground from a "scientific mind" as you put it. We know what to do and as rigorous critical thinkers we do it very well. But how to fight the God of faith? The one who is believed to be the ground of all Being but not a being in the world? Here we are on slippery ground and it is fair to ask whether we ought to combat the God of faith or retreat tactfully. We can say that we don't believe but do we have a right to say to the fideist that he ought not to believe? I don't know the answer to these questions. However, I do know that metaphysical naturalism is a much stronger claim than methodological naturalism. It is an assumption that the world is all that is the case. It will always remain an assumption because if something is transcendent then it is by definition something that cannot be determined or known. But the theist has no ground on which to stand and say that atheists cannot hold this view. He cannot appeal to evidence because that brings the transcendent into the world. He must (if he is to be consistent) tolerate and respect our point of view just as we tolerate and respect his point of view. We are in detente.

If I take the long view my hope is that we infidels will help to usher in a new way of thinking in which everyone agrees that God is not a matter of the evidence. I think we're already well on our way toward that goal. Each successive generation realizes that the gaps into which God might be stuffed are few and far between. Science is a tool which has enabled us to understand the world like never before and the utility of science is becoming universally accepted. I truly believe that the day will come in which no one but the very superstitious believe in God because of evidence. But there will still be many people whose belief is fideistic and much more nuanced. But that's not a bad thing. I don't have a problem with religious believers and atheists co-existing in this world. It's a big enough world for both of us -- it's not big enough for pogroms and inquisitions brought on by a God who has given his followers a divine command.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Swinburne's nonsense was mentioned on XTALK. I butted in and got swatted down. The mods were right in saying that I was a bit too ad hom, but they studiously avoided addressing the reason for my ad homs....sometimes I think academics are too tolerant. people are playing...and the people Swinburne works for are playing for keeps. The first people to be destroyed in the new regime will of course be the HJ scholars.

____________________
Vork:
&gt;&gt;I must object seriously. Is Swinburne a list member? Swinburne is
&gt;&gt;clear appropriating Bayes theorem and consciously abusing it.

Mods
&gt;What evidence do you have for this accusation? Did you hear his
&gt;presentation?

Vork
No, Bob, I read the article where Swinburne said that he was aware that what he was doing was unsupported, but went ahead and did it anyway. Look at his responses to the question on base rate and on the Second Coming.

Vork
&gt;&gt;Look at the nature of the questions he was asked. He had to know
&gt;&gt;perfectly well that Bayes theorem is worthless as a support for
&gt;&gt;the Resurrection.

Mods
&gt;He does not seem to think so.

Vork
In order to use the theorem, he had to be aware that it is critically dependent on the base rate. The base rate enables you to estimate the probability of a certain event based on known
instances of that event. Are any of the moderators aware of any known instances of people being resurrected to become gods? Because Swinburne knew perfectly well that was inappropriate -- he said so! -- his exercise must have some other purpose than generating new knowledge or critical methodologies. Unless it is
your argument that Swinburne was so stupid he was unaware of this, or that he has a cache of historical examples all other scholars
are unaware of.

Vork
&gt;&gt;The "ad hominem" lies in Swinburne's abuse of the others who
&gt;&gt;sacrificed so much to create modern Western academics, with its
&gt;&gt;ideals of free exchange of information, and tolerance for new
&gt;&gt;ideas. Had Swinburne shown up at one of the many discussion
&gt;&gt;forumsfor this, like the SecWeb, where I am a frequent poster,
&gt;&gt;he'd have been properly and mercilessly ripped to shreds for his
&gt;&gt;deliberateand outrageous abuse of Bayes theorem.
&gt;
Mods
&gt;Is that your idea of free exchange of information, and tolerance
&gt;for new ideas? To mercilessly rip someone to shreds?

Vork
I don't know, Bob. What is the proper response to someone who is dedicated to destroying the ideals you espouse in your response above?

Further, that is what academics is all about -- testing ideas without mercy or partisanship -- or so I thought. Giving an idea a fair hearing is *not* the same as being nice to it once it is out
in the open.

Also, the SecWeb is not an academic institution. We don't have to be nice to people and ideas dedicated to destroying secular society, and scholarly inquiry, and who abuse scholarship to
create an aura of acceptibility for apologetic horse manure.

&gt;I notice in your wording that you did not refer to Swinburne's
&gt;argument, or his thesis, but to Swinburne himself. This is a
&gt;brazenly ad hominem attack, by definition.

Vork
Oh please. I meant "Had Swinburne posted his idea at the SecWeb, it would have been ripped to shreds." Do you know how many of these "Bayes theorem demonstrates Jesus was Resurrected!" things we get in a year?

Mods
&gt;Nowhere in your message do you actually examine Swinburne's
&gt;argument. Indeed, you seem to judge the merits of his argument
&gt;by the conclusion that he reached (which you obviously detest)
&gt;rather than by any fair examination of his evidence and his
&gt;argument.

Vork
Is there any evidence that anyone on this list knows of that can get you to a probability of .97 that Jesus was Resurrected? Don't you think everyone on this list would be aware of it? If Swinburne concluded, using Bayesian probability, that the Earth was 6,000 years old, wouldn't you assume there was something wrong with his approach? And wouldn't you assume, from the number, that his approach had a certain agenda?

Or to put it another way, if a Creationist showed up here and pillaged geology to prove the earth was 6,000 years old, how much patience would you have? So what I don't understand is why when
someone pillages philosophy to attempt what is ethically exactly the same exercise, you seem to find it acceptable.

Also, the article shows perfectly clearly why Swinburne is wrong, as Swinburne himself admitted in the discussion afterward. Did you read the article or were you present at the seminar?

Additionally, Swinburne has been doing this for years. His ideas *have already been examined* and found wanting. Repeating old nonsense does make it any less nonsense. Giving it a scholarly
venue, however, may make it useful for other purposes.

&gt; Perhaps you are not aware that this list **is** for
&gt;specialists, and we *do* assume mastery of the jargon of
&gt;historical Jesus research, and any methodology that might help in
&gt;that regard (including, potentially, Bayesian inference).

Bob, in a world run by the audience Swinburne is really addressing, do you think XTALK would be permitted to exist?

&gt;I suggest that you re-read the protocols of this list. Politeness
is to be
&gt;observed and is required. Persistent violators of list protocols
will be
&gt;removed from the list.
&gt;
&gt;Bob Schacht
&gt;Northern Arizona University
&gt;Flagstaff, AZ
&gt;

I understand, and will refrain from further posting to the list. I thank you all for your consideration and patience with me.
_____________

The comment about "mastery of jargon" essentially a "we have the authority so shut up Mike" really pissed me off, but what can you do?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

But something has happened at this point. The arguments over evidence have vanished and you're now dealing with worldviews, which have no foundations. There are no propositions whose truth value determine the truth of metaphysical naturalism.

I see two (related) problems with this point of view.

First, it seems true if you are speaking in terms of some putative "absolute truth." But the success of methodological naturalism as a stance for inquiry seems to me to greatly heighten the probability that the world is as methodological naturalism describes. Conversely, the failure of theism to describe the world in any meaningful way would seem a strike against it.

Further, world views are not as separate as you seem to think they are. Certainly theistic worldviews, even Fideism, sooner or later make at least minimal empirical claims. It seems you are arguing that worldviews do not make such claims.

This intersection with reality is to me the hallmark of metaphysical naturalism. After all, one unmistakeable miracle would destroy my worldview, so I can't really agree that our worldviews are not in some way true. At least, in the negative sense, since they can be prove false, they are amenable to empirical testing....

Vorkosigan

Timordog

James thanks for the response but it seems to me that you are taking the mushy Martin Luther King jr. approach to this where i really wanna go Black Panther, I've never liked the high road. Don't get me wrong I respect the hell out of you oppinion, but it seems your fluffing the metaphysical to give theists a more comforatble route of retreat. Vorkosigan really put it much more elgantly than I could so I'll just take your response to him. And I dunno what XTALK is but thats fuckin bobo pissin on your perfectly logical arguments like that, granted you could have been more polite in persuading whoever bob is but I don't see that it would have gained anything even if you did. And more in the scope of this topic could you explain the specifics of teh base rate a little more i'm still kinda fuzzy on it.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Timordog ]</p>