luvluv

Has anyone read the book? I just finished it and am looking to discuss it. I remember there being a thread about it a while back but I can't find it using the search function of the site. Can anyone refer me to that thread? Or barring that who would like to discuss it?

I wonder how many atheists think that God as a concept is incoherent, as Nielson says. And does the fact that an object is, to us, incoherent, mean that such an object does not exist? And what do you make of the fact hat Nielson seems to content to simply totally ignore all cosmological data in considering the possibility of infinite regress?

I was impressed by Dallas Willard (anyone reccomend any books by him) and by Keith Parsons. No one else really said anything earth-shattering, but I think Craig did his usually excellent job. Not a book that is going to convince anyone one way or the other, and at some point the participants started talking more to each other than to the audience and as such began reverting to a short-hand that went over my head (as it would anyone who lacks signifigant training in philosophy. I have no idea what a post-Deridian is, for example, or what being a post Deridian would indicate about one's beliefs regarding language and identity). Still, it was a good read and the Bibliography is very good.

Thoughts?

diana

Hi, luvluv.

I haven't read the book. I'm interested in hearing what arguments were made, for and against, though.

I think God as a concept is incoherent. I've yet to hear an explanation of this being that does not consist of disembodied concepts that are defined primarily by what they're not, and for whom the concepts are logically incompatible.

Since the claimant has the burden of proof, the incoherency of the object/being certainly puts that claimant in a pickle.

The default assumption is that the being does not exist.

The rest, I guess I'd need to read the book to respond to. Meanwhile, we can chat about this, if you like.

d

luvluv

Well, in the case of this debate, both sides had the burden of proof. The question was "Does God Exist" not "Should we believe God exists"

If a debator answers the question in the negative, that is if the debator is making the positive claim that God does not exist, then that debator bears the burden of proof just as much as one who answers in the affirmative.

For instance, Nielson's comments make one believe that he is a believer in infinite regress. But, so far as I can tell, infinite regress is as incoherent a concept as is God. Yet Nielson admonishes us to remain open to one possibility despite the fact that it is incoherent, and totally discard the other ON THE BASIS of it's incoherence.

Smells like cheating to me.

betzerdg

Let see.....if G-d does exist, I spend eternity with HIM enjoying the new heaven and earth and the atheist spends eternity separated from HIM in a place of eternal punishmnet.

If G-d doesn't exist....I just die and so does the atheist.

LOoks to me like the BUrden of proof lies with the atheist.

Shalom,

BETzer

sandlewood

The burden of proof lies with the atheist because of Pascal’s Wager? You might have to explain that one to me.

(So you are saying God is an incoherent concept? Couldn’t resist.)

I supposed it depends on what he was talking about. An infinite regress of what? I don’t think the concept is incoherent, since numbers can continue infinitely. But God isn’t supposed to be just a concept. I didn’t read the book, though. So I can’t really comment.

Wyrdsmyth

Looks to me like the return of horsetrack theology. With matza balls.

luvluv

sandlewood:

I guess what he means is that since I am in more danger if theism is true and I decide to be an atheist than I am in if atheism is true and I decide to be a theist, that the safe position would be theism. Therefore, one would need a very, VERY good reason to be an atheist and the notion that atheism is the "default" theory unless theism is absolutely proven doesn't get it.

(Not my opinion mind you, but a respectable one)

According to Nielson, that was the whole basis of his argument. I would say that certain of God's attributes are inconceivable , but then God says this about Himself repeatedly in the Bible. I don't know about incoherent, Nielson never explained exactly what he meant by the term. If all he means is that we simply don't have a good grasp on what the term actually means, I don't think that is a good reason to disbelieve. (Or else I wouldn't believe in quantum mechanics).

I do think it is incoherent to say that there is an infinite series in existence which has a termination point (the present). If it is infinite, then how can it terminate in the present moment?

In addition, how can there be an existent series of causally related events that never BEGAN. How can a series EXIST which never BEGAN? If it never began, how did it "get here"?

It wouldn't be that big of a deal to me if it were not for the fact that Nielson made such a big deal out of the fact that we don't know what God means, or that we cannot concieve of what it means for a being to "make something out of nothing." Frankly, God making something out of nothing (not literally nothing, but out of his own power, IMHO) is a lot more intelligible than the implications of an infinite regress of causally related events. But even more damning is Nielson's insistance that we ignore, completely, Big Bang cosmology. Moreland gave a decent overview of the philosophical implications of the Big Bang, and Moreland simply said "well, we shouldn't pay attention to all of that because that all could change one day"

Nielson insists that "philosophically and scientifically" educated people should not believe in God. But a scientifically educated person surely would have heard of the big bang and would be familiar with it. Why does he call for people to be scientifically edcuated at all if he would adjure them to ignore scientific data when it works againsttheir philosophy? And I also wonder how he would react if Moreland told him he should ignore scientific data about the evolution of species because "it might change someday."

One more word about atheism being the default position. I agree that any advocate of a PARTICULAR conception of a God (Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) bears the burden of proof. However it is far from obvious to me that atheism is the default position of humankind. Perhaps it SHOULD be, and if you caught most of us in our cribs and intervened before we could develop a God belief, then perhaps atheism (or more accurately, agnosticism) would be our default position. But then, such an atheism would be just as socially enforced and impersonal as much theistic belief today. Regardless, I see no reason why a person who has grown up a theist, and who has never considerded for a moment that atheism is actually true, should have to prove his OWN belief TO HIMSELF. I don't see why such a person bears the burden of proof, unless that person is seeking to convert an atheist. His default position, since the time he has been old enough to consider philosophical questions, has been theism. All of our default position perhaps SHOULD be agnociticism, but this is not actually the case. So the burden of proof, in my mind, depends upon the person making the claim. And I don't think that I am making a claim SIMPLY by being a theist.

The claim that there is no God is as radical a claim as the claim that there is a God. I know most of you will try to fall back to the notion that atheism is simply the lack in belief of Gods, but if that is the case what is agnosticism? (My theory is that many of you opt for linguistically massacaring the meaning of the word "atheist" because the label "agnostic" wouldn't impress your friends or torture your parents. )

Incidentally, I'm thinking of redefining theism as the lack of God disbelief.

Automaton

No, I haven't read the book, but a central thesis appears to be delightfully fallacious.The concept of an object identifies said object specifically, it gives it identity. Identity is the way we distinguish between one object and the next. Without a coherent indentity, this distinction is lost and the concept becomes null. It can't identify anything because the identity is simply not there, incoherence is the same as meaninglessness. Thus an incoherent concept, which becomes the same as a null concept, cannot identify any object. It is like saying just because " " doesn't mean " " doesn't exist. Just think about it for a second. Determining "God" as an object immediately requires there to be a functional concept of said entity otherwise the word fails to give identity to any object in the first place. Just think about it for a minute. (Gah, why bother? If such a basic tenet of logic can't be comprehended, there's not really much we can do for the poor superstition-addled folk's mental capacity. )

diana

Salutations, luvluv.

I don't find the "belief just in case" position respectable at all, as a matter of fact. To me, it reeks of superstition, fear, and a lack of confidence in one's own reasonable conclusions.

Nor does it explain which God you need to place your faith in. As has been rehashed through the centuries since Pascal first posited his simple-minded wager, as you--being a well-read man--surely know.

Your belief notwithstanding, the argument is about the existence of God. When we're arguing this, we can't make the statement "God says this about himself in the bible," as this begs the question. The fair comment here would be, "The writers of the bible acknowledge this about God"--which of course is still beside the point (whether "God says this about himself" or "someone else says this about God").

Hm. Interesting point. Of course, I'm no scientist, but can't we reliably predict outcomes when we apply the theories of quantum mechanics? The ability to reproduce results and make accurate predictions speaks to the veracity of a theory.

I can't even see an analogy between this and the ongoing inability to produce a coherent definition of what is meant by "God."

Positing God only moves the "began," as you well know. It doesn't solve the problem. To the contrary, it introduces an infinitely more complex, undefinable, unpredictable and unknowable variable into the picture, all--essentially--so we can say we "know" where we came from. Dropping a god into the equasion only makes it worse.

The difference between positing a God vice the Big Bang in cosmology is that we admit the Big Bang is just a theory. It's looking like a very promising theory, but it's open to disproof. God is not. In Moreland saying "well, we shouldn't pay attention to all of that because that all could change one day," he tacitly acknowledges that, should the Big Bang be disproven and a newer better theory take its place, theists will be quick to jump and say, "See? Science can't even make up its mind!"

He appears to simply be admitting this up front. Also, it bears remembering that the utter inability of science to explain any given thing with even one theory does not mean "God" wins by default. It just means scientists don't have a working theory yet.

I suspect Moreland is simply dismissing the dangerous and misleading Either/Or thinking that is so often encountered in such discussions.

And where did you get that "God belief," to develop it?

Belief seems to be what you get when you've only been given one "theory"--and I use the term in its common sense, so we can include religion--as though it is truth. Until you're given no competing theory, you may not think to compare or even doubt the veracity of what you were told first.

I think of this as "belief from ignorance." This is what children get when they're told all about God as though it's true. They often haven't the mental development to reason through it, and they're being told these "facts" from trusted authority figures. Most aren't truly aware of how many different "gods" there are to even choose from (most adults I encounter don't, either, for that matter).

They believe because they have been told this by the same people who've told them they'll get burned if they touch that hot burner on the stove, and that 2+2=4, and that the grass is green because of chlorophyll. It's accepted as just another "fact."

But at some point, they encounter a theist of another stripe. They often automatically believe he's wrong and shut him out because they've been indoctrinated to do so. The same happens when he encounters atheists, quite possibly--but his rejection of anything they might say is often far stronger than any other religion, also based upon the indoctrination of his religion.

Until he allows himself to honestly entertain the possibility that they are right and he is wrong, his belief remains a belief from ignorance. He may know the other possibilities are there, but he hasn't been fair to them. His mind is closed, usually with the blessing and encouragement of his faith.

Until he gives competing theories an equal chance and an honest, fair evaluation, he cannot prove his own belief to himself, as his belief is not in any danger of being disproved in his mind.

In short, your position here is in line with my thoughts about religion, luvluv. If a theist never gives serious consideration to the possibility that his religion is the wrong one, or that religion itself is only glorified wishful thinking, he has nothing to prove to himself.

It's only when he steps into the realm of intellectual honesty and admitting that he may have been misguided by well-meaning parents and friends that he must prove anything.

In the sense that "theism" is "belief in God," I'd say the only thing you're claiming is that you believe in a God. But if you go further and claim that the existence of that God is a fact, you are making a claim that requires you bear the burden of proof.

I disagree with your positive assertion here. Please bear the burden of proof.

The claim that there is no ogre living under the bridge by my house is not a claim that would be considered radical, except people would wonder why I feel compelled to reassure them of this (and I can--I've been under that bridge, and there is no ogre living there).

Why, then, would the claim that there is no god be considered "radical"? There is no more proof for said god than there is for the ogre living under that bridge. No one has a problem with my making a positive assertion, on the basis of no evidence in all of human history, that there is an ogre living under that bridge. Further, they'd scoff at me for even taking the time to go under there and look.

So why do theists scoff at the "radical" claim, also based on the utter lack of evidence in all of human history, that no god exists?

Agnosticism = not knowing. We're all agnostic, in its strictest sense. But in it's strictest sense, it's no more a discriminating factor than the self-classification "human."

Most people use the word to connote "I don't know and I don't care and I'd rather talk about butterflies, puppies and politics." Or somesuch.

"Agnostic" is about a condition of knowledge; "atheism," like "theism," is about a condition of belief. They do not fall on the same continuum. Apples and oranges.

Most of us differentiate, I'll warrant, simply because we are very aware of the nuances in meaning and implication. It is those who'd rather not think about it who toss the terms about interchangably. (I am an agnostic atheist, because I know I don't know and on that basis, make the positive statement that I do not believe.)



So "theism," then, is "denial of the non-existence of a god"?

d

sandlewood

[quote] You’ve explain Pascal Wager. But you haven’t explained why the burden of proof shifts away from whoever can make up the best-sounding story with the best promises after death.

I, of course, am a disciple of Unicornism. In Unicorn heaven you live for eternity plus 1000 years. That’s better than Christianity’s heaven which only lasts for eternity. And in Unicorn heaven, you get three more cherries on your banana split than what you get in Christian heaven. Therefore, the burden of proof shifts back to Christianity. You’d have to have a very, very good reason not to be a Unicornist.

I realize it isn’t your opinion. But I don’t think it’s a respectable one.
[quote] Personally, I don’t think I agree with Nielson then, based on what you’ve said. I wouldn’t be so sure that there is an infinite regress of events or of time. I just think that we don’t know.
[quote] What do you mean by “power”? What is “power” in that ethereal soup that God supposedly existed in before the Universe was created? Certainly not power as we know it. It’s only a vague place-holding term.
Consider the theory of evolution. Evolution should not be a default position. It should have to be proven. If there is no sufficient explanation about the origin of humans, then our position can be agnosticism. We do know that humans exist and that they came from somewhere. There is no question of that; there is no doubt that there must be some explanation.

The question of a god is a different type of question, however. It is a question of whether or not something exists. If a god really didn’t exist, then there would be no “evidence”. So the lack of evidence for a god needs to count for something. Unlike the question about the origin of humans, the question of a god’s existence is an either-or question. A god either exists or doesn’t. If there is objective evidence for a god, that counts in favor of his existence. But if there is not, that should count against. It’s not so much that atheism is a default position; it’s that a lack of objective evidence counts in favor of atheism.