Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

Throughout this thread you have alluded to some means of evidencing reality that is non-empirical. You have referred to it previously as "philosophical evidence". But I still have no idea what constitutes this form of "evidence" or why you think it is even capable of telling us anything about the existence of entities external to ones own mind. It is evidence and reasoning that makes our conclusions more reliable than blind random chance. It is conclusions made entirely on the basis of subjective conviction rather than evidence that are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses (I.e. just as unlikely to be correct). Why would we? Reason is very much part of the scientific method. Furthermore without the ability to reason there would be no scientific method in the first place. Science cannot derive itself. I would say philosophical reason has a great deal to add. It is theism which adds nothing and which imposes philosophical limitations. It depends what you mean by "learn". If you want to reliably "learn" about the nature of a reality that exists external to your own mind then philosophical reasoning can certainly aid you in working out how best to achieve that goal.And the result of that reasoning, combined with experience regarding what actually works, is the scientific method. The result of that reasoning is that we have learned to deeply distrust the human proclivity to leap to subjective conviction based conclusions. Conclusions such as those advocated by theists.Edited by Straggler, : Spellin 'n' grammar

I do accept that evolution occurs. Our difference lies in the fact that at the very outset we have come to different conclusions. 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.After that our views might even be completely compatible. Presumably evolution happened and we continue to know more and more about evolutionary history. That is the limit of science. Whether or not there are only natural causes or whether there is an intelligence that brought into all into existence and may, or may not have, intervened in the process is a question outside of science.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. 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.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

And my view, as an atheist is that it is possible that the simple rules that result in the complexity of the universe were dictated by some divine being, but it is not necessary and no argument has shown that it is.My view is that there is something that is primal to reality that necessarily results in what we see today, but I don't know what that thing is and neither do you.So who is philosophically limited?

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.

I've been down this road before. What is evidence in my view doesn't constitute evidence in yours. I see existence itself, sentience, consciousness, morality, altruism etc as being evidence. Sure I agree that evidence and reasoning make our subjective opinions more reliable than blind random chance. I'm just saying that if our evidence and reasoning are only products of blind random chance then I don't see any reason to have confidence in them. If however our reasoning has as a first cause a reasoning intelligence then there is reason to have some confidence in our conclusions. Nature is consistent. Natural laws are consistent. If all of our inputs are natural then the outputs of our intelligence should also be consistent. So science came from reason. In that case there had to be evidence outside of the scientific method in order for the scientific method to come into being. My understanding is that it was theists who originally had faith in the scientific method because as theists they presumed order in the universe. I contend that my theism opens me up to philosophy not the other way around. I believe that human imagination can open us up to all sorts of truths that we can’t get through the scientific method, or confirmed by the scientific method. I was in complete agreement with you until that last sentence. You were doing so well. I think part of the problem is that in this discussion we are both stereotyping the others belief. I have pretty much concluded that some but not all atheists are philosophically limited because they won't accept anything that can't be scientifically verified. (AZPaul3 for example.) I also get your point that some theists will be philosophically limited because they will only accept something that they feel they can verify theologically, which means presumably means the Bible, Qur’an etc.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Either both or neither of us depending on which way you want to look at it. I believe that I have at least a part of the answer to what the primal reality is, whereas you believe the answer is unknowable, but we are both open to the idea that we as humans we can gain understanding through philosophy.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I don't believe the answer is unknowable. Only that at present we don't know what the answer is. You seem to be suggesting that it is not possible for simple primal rules to simply exist that lead to the complexity of our present day universe. This seems to be ruling something out which is not yet possible to rule out. This seems to me to be the definition of philsophical limitation.

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

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

If no one knows currently then it sounds to me that you are saying it is unknowable. Like I said to Paul it seems reasonable to conclude that rules require a rule giver. I believe what I believe based on what I know. If I acquire new knowledge that causes me to change what I believe then so be it. Whether we are theistic, atheistic or agnostic our views will impact our philosophical insights but it doesn't of necessity limit them.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

That would imply that it can never be known. That is why I say it is unknown not unknowable. The two words are suitably different for me to draw the distinction. And there is no reason to suppose this primal rule giver is in some way sentient, though it might be.There is a clear philosophical tension of a sentient being that exists prior to the existence of rules - since sentience is a rule-based process. Without rules, the sentience would just be chaos and random chance, the very thing you are trying to avoid by invoking said being. This tension has never been philosophically resolved. I'm open to it possibly being true, but ruling out the possibility of a non-intelligent rule giver is philosophically limiting. Granted. But I was saying that ruling out what you do not believe is the defintion of philosophical limitation. I do not rule out an intelligent rule giver, you seem to be ruling out a non-intelligent rule giver.

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.

But my question remains to you - How do you decide what does or does not constitute a form of evidence? Is something a form of evidence simply because it is believed to be so? How do you decide what qualifies as "evidence" and what does not? Evidence of what exactly?All of these things could be caused by any number of conceivable causes couldn't they? Why does your conviction that these things are evidence of God qualify them as evidence of God? Why are they not cosidered as evidence in favour of any of the other possible causes? We are not automatons!!! We are creative, imaginative, subjective, logically imperfect, biased, limited and intrinsically flawed beings. This is what makes us so delightfully human. But it is also what makes us so woefully unable to discern what is and is not real through human reason alone. This is exactly why we need evidence to keep us from indulging ourelves in conflating wishful thinking from "truth". Reason alone? No. I doubt anyone could have just sat in isolation and reasoned out the scientific method as we know it today. Certainly that is not how it actually came about.But the scientific method is undeniably able to lead to conclusions that are demonstrably superior to those derived from blind random chance. That is the absolutely key point to take on board. The evidence in question is continual comparison of results with reality.As to how the scientific method actually evolved - Well that was a combination of reason, trial and error, empirical success, empirical failure, common sense, abandonment of common sense where incompatible with reality, abandonment of cherished beliefs and methods in favour of more pragmatic ones etc. etc. etc. etc. In short - A long hard slog.But however you look at it - Human reason alone as a method to obtain "truth" has been found severely wanting. Conversely scientific methods have been found to be highly effective. Human imagination can open us up to all sorts of conceivable possibilities. But it is only through evidence and testing our creative inventions (hypotheses?) against reality that we can seperate the flights of creative and subjectively biased fancy from that which is actually real. Maybe. At the moment I think you are a bit unsure about what you mean by the term "evidence" and I suspect you are sort of advocating a form of rationalism (whether you realise it or not).But I may be pigeonholing you. So let's see where we get to.

I didn't mean to imply that. I assume that you would say that at the current time with current information it is unknowable. I agree and so we are left with our subjective views. I don't rule out any possibility. I just believe that an intelligent rule giver is more reasonable than an unintelligent rule giver, particularly when the rules seem to work so well. Like I pointed out, we all believe something. My beliefs continue to evolve. I'm not saying that I am the fountain of all truth. (I couldn't even convince my kids of that. )

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Evolution occurs. Get used to it. I believe it. Evolution occurs. Humans differ. So what? 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. 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.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Again, not to be philosophically limiting I should say that I believe it is the case that with present information it is unknowable.I certainly don't know it's unknowable, some genius might be able to take the information we have now and derive the primal facts of reality and explain what has foxed us for so long. Would you concur that it is not philosophically limiting to have a philosophical opinion or position? Nor is it philosophically limiting to have a philosophical reason to reject another philosophical position.And could you explain why 'work so well' is relevant to intelligent rule givers who could also make rules that don't work so well. Are you suggesting that material primal facts of reality are intrinsically unreliable in some fashion?