Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

Hmmmm.... never in my wildest dreams would have thought that we would be experiencing the second coming right here at EvC. I'm just saying that enlightenment has had both its upsides and downsides. I think that the evolution of mankind into what is overall a kinder gentler species is only partly due to science, but even at that I would contend that the emphasis that science puts on things like curing diseases is a part of that spiritual evolution.We are gradually evolving into societies that are less self absorbed. It is an uneven evolution with a long way to go, but I contend that we are making progress.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

One of these days I am going to learn to read the additional messages in a thread before I respond.I see where others are addressing your points quite well. I'll not pile it up.[Lurk Mode = On]

What I did was respond to you as you were the one that I was corresponding with, and I also replied to Straggler as he opened the thread.I think my responses covered the other posts to some degree anyway.These discussions are good for the mind or our random collection of atoms. (Take your pick. )

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Correct me if I am wrong - But your entire argument seems to be based on rejecting the requirement that to qualify as a form of evidence something should demonstrably and reliably lead to conclusions that are more reliable than blind random chance. Is this the case? If so what are you suggesting instead? Is "evidence" simply whatever one chooses to base ones beliefs upon? Is "evidence" nothing more than personal conviction? This is like comparing the question "What is art?" with "What is real?" Unless you are going down the solipsistic rabbit hole of claiming that "We are brains in a jar. Everything is entirely subjective. Nothing is real" - I fail to see why you think the comparison is valid. The fact that your ability to reason seems to be wholly dependent on your physical brain functioning correctly suggests otherwise.

Without going too in-depth into neurobiology, I highly doubt that the inputs could ever be the same. Your emotional state from one moment to the next is not the same, and that is one of the inputs. As we have been discussing in this thread, there are many schools of Reason, each having their own rules (i.e. epistemology). It is no different than football, IMHO.

Are you not the author of this statement? -> You seemed to be suggesting that our ability to understand through the scientific method is flawed from the get-go, and you appeared to me to be using a caricuture of the Theory of Evolution as an example of this supposed fundemental flaw. Of course it starts with reasoning? Yet, we have reasoned that testing hypotheses to determine their validity is a good way to determine the strength of the argument put forth. That doesn't mean we test our hypotheses by determining which one "sounds like a good argument". We attempt to test them by looking for experiments which might possibly falsify them.You seem to be suggesting that 'reasoning' (as you put it) lays outside the human brain, that it is some metaphysical power or object.

Not really. It just appears to me that if blind random chance is all that there is then I don't see any basis for us to have any confidence in our own reasoning. We can probably agree on what constitutes empirical evidence but there is evidence that is subjective, and you are likely right in the sense that most world views are based on subjective evidence or personal conviction if you like. OK, but it seems to me that if reasoning only comes from a strictly material world then we would all agree on what is beautiful. I don't disagree that the brain is necessary to the thought process.The question really is, does philosophical reason have anything to add to what we can learn through the scientific method. I contend that it does and if an atheist or anyone else for that matter claims it doesn't, then it seems to me that they are philosophically limited. Of course that all depends on my being correct in believing that we can learn things philosophically that we can't learn scientifically. If I am wrong in that the whole question is moot. (Which of course would beg the question of why you brought this up in the OP in the first place.)Are there no philosophers on this board to give me a hand here?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Not at all. One of the reasons that I have confidence in the scientific method is that I believe that there is reason and intelligence undergirding our existence.I don't like to comment that much on the ToE because frankly I don't have enough knowledge about it to have an opinion of my own based on my own knowledge. I'm prepared to accept it as accurate based on the opinion of those who do have that kind of knowledge including many on this forum. The ToE has no bearing on either my philosophical or religious beliefs. I'd call myself a theistic evolutionist but frankly that gives me too much credit. I'm a theist who has no problem in accepting the ToE. But not all reasoning can be tested. How can you test reasoning that is subjective? I can certainly see why you would come to that conclusion. I wish I had a clear cut answer to give you. I'll go back to the computer. Our computers can only come up with information because it has been, or is being, subject to an external intelligence whether it be the programmer, the designer or the operator. Our brain is physical just as the computer is physical and we can observe the impulses in the brain as it undergoes various thought processes. It seems to me that there must be something more. We make decisions that aren't necessarily consistent or rational. We have original ideas.I suppose I am suggesting a metaphysical component which I would call the mind as I can't come up with a better answer. All I'm saying is that I believe there is more going on in our thought processes than the physical activity we can see in the brain.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

As my explanatory skills are lacking I'll post thise excerpt from C S Lewis' "God in the Dock". Maybe it will help clarify things. I remain hopeful as always.

quote:

---

The laws of physics, I understand, decree that when one billiards ball (A) sets another billiards ball (B) in motion, the momentum lost by A exactly equals the momentum gained by B. This is a Law. That is, this is the pattern to which the movement of the two billiards balls must conform. Provided, of course that something sets ball A in motion. And here comes the snag. The law won’t set it in motion. It is usually a man with a cue who does that. But a man with a cue would send us back to free-will, so let us assume that it was lying on a table in a liner and that what set it in motion was a lurch of the ship. In that case it was not the law which produced the movement; it was a wave. And that wave, though it certainly moved according to the laws of physics, was not moved by them. It was shoved by other waves, and by winds, and so forth. And however far you traced the story back you would never find the laws of Nature causing anything.

​

The dazzlingly obvious conclusion now arose, in my mind: in the whole history of the universe the laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to do that? How do you get a move on? The laws of Nature can give you no help there. All events obey them, just as all operations with money obey the laws of arithmetic. Up till now I had had a vague idea that the laws of Nature could make things happen. I now saw that this was exactly like thinking that you could increase your income by doing sums about it. The laws are the pattern to which events conform: the source of events must be sought elsewhere.

​

This may be put in the form that the laws of Nature explain everything except the source of events. But this is rather a formidable exception. The laws, in one sense, cover the whole of reality except—well, except that continuous cataract of real events which makes up the actual universe. They explain everything except what we should ordinarily call ‘everything’. The only thing they omit is the whole universe.

---

quote:

---

Not really. It just appears to me that if blind random chance is all that there is then I don't see any basis for us to have any confidence in our own reasoning.

---

But nobody believes that. You'd have to be a hard core creationist to even to think that anyone believes that.

quote:

---

OK, but it seems to me that if reasoning only comes from a strictly material world then we would all agree on what is beautiful.

---

Only if we were all identical. And materialism gives us no reason to expect that whatsoever.

quote:

---

The question really is, does philosophical reason have anything to add to what we can learn through the scientific method. I contend that it does and if an atheist or anyone else for that matter claims it doesn't, then it seems to me that they are philosophically limited. Of course that all depends on my being correct in believing that we can learn things philosophically that we can't learn scientifically. If I am wrong in that the whole question is moot. (Which of course would beg the question of why you brought this up in the OP in the first place.)

---

Of course philosophy can say some things - but whether they are things that cause any problem to atheists is another matter. Philosophy has not managed to prove - or even come up with solid arguments - that there is a God, for instance.And look at you. I've quoted two badly wrong statements from you in this very post. Isn't it at least possible that theists are even more limited by an excessive regard for their own opinions ?

Thanks for providing yet another example of a philosophically limited theist.

I believe it and I'm not a creationist hard core or otherwise.Here is an article by John Lennox:John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, has written an excellent article explaining why Stephen Hawking has it wrong: you can’t explain the universe without God. Here is the article in full:

quote:

---

As a scientist I’m certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can’t explain the universe without God.

​

There’s no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.

​

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

​

Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

​

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

​

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

​

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

​

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

​

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

​

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

​

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

​

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

​

Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

​

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

​

Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

​

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

​

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

​

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

​

Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.

​

He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

​

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

​

This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

​

We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion ‘letters’?

​

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don’t like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

​

That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle’s view of the ‘eternal universe’ without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

​

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

​

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

​

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

​

Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.

​

The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

​

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

​

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

​

Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

---

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines inside quote box.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

I believe it and I'm not a creationist hard core or otherwise

---

If "blind chance" is the only alternative to creation that you will allow then clearly you ARE a hard core creationist. Clearly such a view must be based on a complete rejection of evolution or a serious failure to understand it.Lennox does not refer to "blind chance" but only an "unguided process" which - if you understand that it means an absence of intelligent or goal-directed guidance is at least accurate. But of course, natural selection is a form of guidance, so the qualifications are important. And if I had more time I would point to the bad arguments produced by Lennox, which once again cut against any idea that "philosophical limits" are in any way something that should be especially attached to atheists.

I have no problem as I have stated numerous times with the idea that God created using an evolutionary process. I am of the view that God created but I'm open to ideas as to what the process was. I agree that natural selection is a form of guidance but it would also fit under the heading of physical laws which Lennox deals with in that quote.

quote:

---

I have no problem as I have stated numerous times with the idea that God created using an evolutionary process. I am of the view that God created but I'm open to ideas as to what the process was.

---

Except that you don't allow evolution as an alternative to creation, only blind chance. If you cannot accept that evolution even occurs, how can you be open to the possibility ?

quote:

---

I agree that natural selection is a form of guidance but it would also fit under the heading of physical laws which Lennox deals with in that quote.

---

If you accept natural selection then you must reject the notion that blind chance is the only alternative to creation. If you even accept that OTHER PEOPLE believe that natural selection is right you must accept that your use of "blind chance" is nothing more than a strawman.And I must point out that natural selection, in itself, is an inevitable consequence of a varied population of replicators competing for resources to fuel replication. No Gods required.