Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

quote:

---

To get back to the OP I would have to think that atheists are philosophically limited. Presumably, and correct me if I'm wrong, an atheist would be by definition a materialist. If that is the case then they would have no use for philosophy and would thus be limited in that department.

​

Wouldn't an atheist reject philsophy altogether making the whole question moot?

---

There are two errors there. Firstly it is false to say that the definition of atheism entails materialism. But far worse is the assertion that materialises have no use for philosophy. The materialism referred to is, in fact, a philosophical position - and of course there are atheist philosophers.

quote:

---

I think you're probably right, but it seems to me that if there is nothing else around but matter, then "love of wisdom' depends entirely on how matter interacts with itself and that there is no final wisdom as your wisdom may be very different than my wisdom. Doesn't that make philosophy meaningless?

---

I don't think that speculations about the ultimate nature of wisdom or the existence of "final wisdom" whatever that is have much relevance. Especially as "wisdom" per se doesn't seem to have anything special to do with the mass of subjects we call philosophy.

quote:

---

Without hunting for examples I seem to recall atheists on this forum rejecting philosophical evidence claiming that the only evidence that matters is empirical. It seems to me that if one was a materialist that position would make sense.

---

I think what you have in mind is atheists refusing to accept the value of alleged "non-empirical evidence" when that "evidence" is never produced for investigation. Which seems to be a perfectly respectable position.

quote:

---

I won't try and pretend I'm not out of my depth here, but it seems to me that if we live in an entirely material world then we are all just a collection of atoms and everything is relative and thus philosophy is meaningless.

---

Obviously you are philosophically very limited yourself. You are unable to understand that the origin of a word does not dictate it's subsequent use for ever more. And you certainly have no understanding of materialism as a philosophical position. I doubt if you could even provide a sound explanation of your position if you tried.

quote:

---

That's a circular argument. It is understood that non-empirical evidence cannot be produced for investigation.

---

Of course I am not literally demanding that the experiences of whatever is alleged to be "evidence" be literally piped into the minds of the others present. But at least we should have a description of the evidence and an explanation of why it should be considered evidence. And as I remember it, that never occurred.

quote:

---

You can't have it both ways, but it shows the point I was trying to make. Atheists or materialists don't accept as evidence that which can't be produced through material means, therefore they limit themselves philosophically.

---

Of course the mere claim to have "non-empirical" evidence should not simply be accepted. So your "point" fails.So let me make a philosophical point. If neither this alleged evidence nor the connection between it and the assertion it is alleged to support can be adequately explained how can it possible be the case that the claim to have "non-empirical evidence" is actually true ?

quote:

---

So, to go back to my point the materialist is always limited to material answers, but for myself as a theist I'm am prepared to accept that there is something beyond the material where we might find answers.

---

That isn't what you said before at all. It's a major retreat from your previous assertions. And all the quote says is that materialism doesn't accept mind as a separate substance.Nor does it reveal any significant limitation for materialism. Materialists may certainly be open to alternatives. They just don't BELIEVE them.

quote:

---

How is that.e is a quote from my post to Straggler which I think is consistent with what I posted to you, and maybe adds context.

---

It's just a repeat of the same thing. If you think that refusing to go with the evidence is good because it opens up more room for speculation then I have to say that you are a lousy philosopher.

quote:

---

OK if you say so, but it seems to me that if it is your firm belief is that there is nothing beyond the physical then you will not accept the possibility of non-physical answers, as non-physical answers can never be physically proven.

---

Of course there is no demand for physical proof here. Just real evidential support for the "non-physical" answers. And someone claiming to have "non-empirical evidence" that they will not describe or explain certainly does not count.

quote:

---

The fact that we exist at all is evidence of something. Why have we come to exist at all. It is that "why" which is the big question and which philosophy and for that matter theology attempt to answer, but not with the scientific method. I agree that random chance is a possible answer but it isn't the only one.

---

Attempting to answer a question is all very well, but philosophy and for that matter theology have not exactly done well in their attempts. I would add that the question itself is even poorly posed since it fails to explain what aspects of "us" seem to need special explanation.It seems to me that the biggest philosophical limitation is to be found on the other side of the tent, where reams of poor argument (including supposedly serious philosophy) is produced to attempt to defend the idea that God exists.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

I do accept that evolution occurs.

---

But you think of it as "blind chance", not acknowledging the role of natural selection, as only the hardcore creationists do. Or at least that is what you are claiming in this thread.

quote:

---

The very starting point of our world view comes from what believe about first cause. Why does anything exist? As near as I can tell, (I have a feeling I don't need to tell you to correct me if I'm wrong ), you believe in a completely natural first cause. I have concluded that there is an intelligent first cause.

---

You are wrong about my views since I do not hold any definite view on the existence of a first cause. There might have been one, or our universe might be a small part of something greater that exists eternally. Even when you describe your own views, I think that "assume" would be more accurate than "conclude". Even if you somehow found good evidence for an intelligent cause for our universe (and I know of none) how could you tell that it was the first cause ?

quote:

---

I look at a universe that seems to be designed to support life on Earth, (and possibly elsewhere), I consider the complexity of a living cell, I consider sentience and consciousness etc and have come to the conclusion that it is far more likely that our universe is the product of external intelligence than from strictly natural causes.

---

That seems more like rationalisation to me. The idea that the universe is designed to support life in such a tiny part of it is clearly nuts. Evolution seems to do a good job producing complexity. And why seek to explain the origin of sentience and consciousness in a way which requires special pleading ?

quote:

---

Of course I believe in natural selection. You don't even have to believe in the ToE to accept natural selection. But natural selection is a law of nature. It is consistent throughout nature. The question is - does a law require a law-giver or can that law just exist because of random chance. In my view - God required.

---

But I have already pointed out that this is a false dilemma. Why would the inevitable require someone to make it happen ? That is what you are claiming, and it makes even less sense than your other arguments.

quote:

---

I explained that in the first para. of my last reply to you

---

Let us be correct. You attempted to do so, but your explanation made no sense. All you are doing is trying to pretend that evolution does not occur because it is inconvenient for your argument.

quote:

---

"Assume" would have been a better choice of words.

​

Of course there is no answer as to how I could tell. Maybe our first cause had or has a first cause. We just aren't going to know, in the way we know that 2+2=4, all the answers. We just use our subjective and limited reasoning as best we can and obviously we don't all come to the same conclusions.

---

But you can't know it in the way that we know evolution occurs, or the way that we know humans differ - both facts you see fit to deny - either. And if you have to deny facts to make your argument, how can you claim that it is anything more than a rationalisation ?

quote:

---

Evolution produces complexity but what produced evolution? There is an explanation for sentience and consciousness. I don't think it is any more special pleading to claim an intelligent creator than it is to claim strictly materialistic causes.

---

And there we see another example of your philosophical limitations. You don't consider the fact that your proposed intelligent cause must itself be sentient and conscious. How could that be the case ? We know that you won't invoke an infinite regress of creators so special pleading is your only option.

quote:

---

But why is something inevitable. It is only inevitable because it follows a natural law which goes back to the point that this is a response to.

---

I already TOLD you why it is inevitable. There IS no natural law making natural selection happen. When some replicators do better than others at reproducing they will become more common and the others will become proportionately (at least) less common. This is inevitable, there is no requirement for anyone to make it so. We do not need a special natural law to explain natural selection.Assume an experiment with bacteria growing on a culture that a mutant strain is more effective at metabolising. Assume that the mutant strain doubles in numbers twice every second while the wild strain only doubles once. Does it not necessarily follow that the mutant strain will grow in numbers more quickly and become proportionately more common in the colony ? What extra natural law is needed beyond the additional success in reproduction ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Evolution occurs. Get used to it. I believe it

---

So stop pretending that it doesn't.

quote:

---

Evolution occurs. Humans differ. So what?

---

So your arguments make assumptions which you know to be false.
Thus they are obvious rationalisations. So what does it say about your theism that you should be forced into such a position ?

quote:

---

The idea of there being "something instead of nothing" that came about from a non-intelligent source requires special pleading. So yes, I do invoke special pleading but so does any other answer that attempts to explain the first cause for existence.

---

That depends on the features used to infer causation. If the same features were found in something that was presumed to be uncaused then there would indeed be special pleading. I'm not aware of any argument for a non-intelligent cause of the universe that has that flaw. So all you have is an unsubstantiated tu quoque.

quote:

---

As you seem to agree though with this statement, the drive for additional success in reproduction is a natural law, one that we can expect to see replicated in other organisms.

---

I do NOT agree. I categorically and absolutely disagree. There is no such natural law.

quote:

---

It says I'm a theistic evolutionist. What's your point?

---

Why does being a theistic evolutionist require you to make arguments based on assumptions you know to be false ? I thought that it just showed that you had a need to present a pretence of rationality for a belief that was not rationally supportable.

quote:

---

Our space time universe had a T=0. Where else do we see that?

---

What exactly is the relevance of this claim ? It looks to be an admission of error, but I'd rather you were clearer about it.

quote:

---

OK then - natural selection appears to be a consistent feature in nature.

---

Another unclear claim. Your argument was that natural selection required some basic law of nature which you assert must be due to pure chance or God (a false dilemma) and that therefore you could equate godless natural selection to pure chance (a non-sequitur). How does this claim - itself unclear - help you there ?

quote:

---

My only point is to ask the question of whether or not a law requires a law giver, and that is a philosophical or theological question that can only produce a subjective result.

---

I can answer this one. The whole idea of a law requiring a law givier is based on confusing human law with natural law. Just because the same word is used, it does not mean the same thing.A human law is a decree about how humans should behave, decreed by whatever authority is accepted as a legitimate maker of laws and enforced by society.A natural law is simply a regularity in nature - in the purest sense followed without exceptions (although many "natural laws" fail to meet this standard in the strictest sense, but that is because they represent simplifications of the real state of affairs). Obviously this is so different from human law that we cannot simply assume a law maker based on any such analogy, nor is it intuitively obvious that one is required.Thus we do not even have a sound subjective case for the assertion that natural laws require a law giver.Do we have a case against the assertion ? Yes, I believe that we do. Natural laws are simply regularities, If all regularities must be decreed by a law-giver, or derived from those regularities, then that law-giver itself may initially incorporate no regularities, nor use any regularities in moving from the decree of the first regularities to their actual implementation. But a law giver must be a highly ordered entity capable of formulating and understanding it's decrees, and must have a way of implementing them, so obviously it must incorporate regularities simply to function and to implement it's decrees. Thus certain basic regularities must exist prior to the decrees of any supposed "law giver".