Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is someone equating non belief in gods with being a materialist? What exactly do they mean by that and how are theists any less materialistic? If anything I've known theists who are more materialistic then I am...

I have no doubt. Theists and atheists alike are prone to bad behavior...human nature is a curious mix of virtue and vice, isn't it? But this is the materialism being referenced:

(from a few posts back)


This the dictionary definition:

"Materialism is a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter."

That being defined, I offered this problem:

"Humans seek justice (through the legal system, through their own work making the world a better place).

But there is great injustice in this life. (Despite our best efforts, evil does well and good suffers.)

So justice cannot be found in this life.

Either justice is found in something beyond this life, or justice is simply not met by reality.

One or the other, not both.

So perhaps our demand for justice is just a subjective quirk of the human psyche. There is no foundation in reality for our instinct to seek justice. No justification for that drive. Seeking justice is a subjective wish we may have, a personal preference, but not an objective reality."

Materialism says the universe is material objects with physical properties. Justice is none of these things. Therefore, it does not exist as objective reality.

And yet, good and evil, fair and unfair, right and wrong, are inescapably part of our human experience. Even the most cold-hearted materialist will yell "Hey! You cut me off! That's not right!" on the Beltway. So it is impossible to say that we have no sense of justice.

The last refuge is to say justice is something we create, something subjective, a personal preference, a feeling. But then it is still actually not real. It is a delusion. There is no supreme, objective standard. There just is what is. So any human act cannot really be evil. We may not like it, but there is no authoritative standard hovering out there.

Either this materialism is true, or it is false. If it is false, then it is a profound falsehood, a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be human. If there is more to a human being than his material, physical form, something immaterial, something which cannot be quantified by the material universe, then that is significant. Viktor Frankl, a famous Jewish psychologist, put it this way:

"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere project of heredity and environment, we see the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone...the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or..."of blood and soil."

[Anonymous]

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere project of heredity and environment, we see the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone...the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or..."of blood and soil.

OK this is a more comprehensive statement than whether there is justice in the world. Is the human being a physical thing or is there more? This is a fun metaphysics question that has been discussed by philosophers forever.

I'll start a little thought experiment. The experiment gets more difficult as you go along. It is based on the writings of a philosophy PhD who I will try to identify and credit when I can.

Let's say that I have a defective neuron in my brain, and someone replaces it with an electronic component that conducts electricity in the same way. Am I still a person?

If I keep replacing neurons, am I still a person? At what point do I become not a person?

More to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Circle of Life song from The Lion King comes to my mind after reading the Shakespeare bit.

Are you man or beast?

I'm a talking lion.

What kind of question is that?

Just in case you were making a serious observation, and not just being silly:

You equated Macbeth's exquisite disgust towards and acceptance of the materialist reality of human existence with the "circle of life" we observe in the natural world. I actually found that rather insightful.

Because if the materialist worldview is right, we are, actually, a beast. A talking one, as you said. But there is nothing to us that transcends our physical body. Materially, we do not differ from our brother mammals. We might happen to edge them out along the evolutionary chain, but our lives our snuffed out as utterly as theirs when all is said and done.

(My oldest daughter loved that you chose a talking lion...she loves The Chronicles of Narnia. Great stories. You should read them to your kids sometime.)

Mine is old enough to read that one on her own, but hasn't shown much interest in fantasy literature.

And, that's a rather dark view of the circle of life. You're minimizing the living and creating new life part of the circle. We're not all that different from other mammals. Maybe not that different from other creatures. I think we have a hard time finding intelligence if it does not mimic our own.

[Anonymous]

So perhaps our demand for justice is just a subjective quirk of the human psyche.

Why "just"? It's a fundamental part of what makes us human. The fact that it's an evolutionary trait doesn't make it any less wonderful. Hooray for us!

The last refuge is to say justice is something we create, something subjective, a personal preference, a feeling. But then it is still actually not real. It is a delusion.

This doesn't follow. There are plenty of things you can rap your knuckles on that are "real". Folks have affection for one another. You're overreaching to say that's a delusion...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The "wishful thinking" argument can be used to justify atheism, too:

Believers cannot bear the thought of living without perfect Justice, so they believe in God.

This is literally the stated position of at least one PP.

Unbelievers cannot bear the thought of living with an absolute Authority, so they do not believe in God.

No rationalist has made such a claim, and you haven't shown that it follows from any claim they have made. Is this just more wishful thinking?

This exchange reminded me of one of my favorite commercials. Just think of Troy Polamalu as God:

http://youtu.be/p-IVSmVmCvA

Like this:

Atheist: God, why don't you tell me you exist?

God: You owe your existence to me, and there's more to you than just your material self. I made you for so much more than that.

Atheist: That's not what I was asking.

God: Isn't it?

Atheist: No.

God: Isn't it?

Atheist: Yes.



Sure, other than the fact that no one has ever had this conversation. The most obvious explanation to this is that there are no gods. (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but my favorite quirk of "theist" argument is that it's chock full of these little stories where "atheist scientists" engage in a conversation with "god", who stumps them with sort of presumed logical conundrum. Frankly, a "'Sup!" would be sufficient. Hasn't happened yet.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Shakespeare expressed so many truths of human existence in his magnificent plays. I played Lady Macbeth in 8th grade, and one of Macbeth's speeches at the end of the play perfectly captures the materialist's last stand:

MACBETH
Wherefore was that cry?
SEYTON
The queen, my lord, is dead.
MACBETH
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

This may surprise you, but many so-called materialists live and die happy. Death does not take that away.

Precisely. Existential despair is an equal-opportunity affliction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Shakespeare expressed so many truths of human existence in his magnificent plays. I played Lady Macbeth in 8th grade, and one of Macbeth's speeches at the end of the play perfectly captures the materialist's last stand:

MACBETH
Wherefore was that cry?
SEYTON
The queen, my lord, is dead.
MACBETH
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

This may surprise you, but many so-called materialists live and die happy. Death does not take that away.

Precisely. Existential despair is an equal-opportunity affliction.

To quote Jesus, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me!?!"

See, if Jesus had been a rationalist, he wouldn't have been disappointed. (c.f. final scene of Life of Brian)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere project of heredity and environment, we see the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone...the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or..."of blood and soil.

OK this is a more comprehensive statement than whether there is justice in the world. Is the human being a physical thing or is there more? This is a fun metaphysics question that has been discussed by philosophers forever.

I'll start a little thought experiment. The experiment gets more difficult as you go along. It is based on the writings of a philosophy PhD who I will try to identify and credit when I can.

Let's say that I have a defective neuron in my brain, and someone replaces it with an electronic component that conducts electricity in the same way. Am I still a person?

If I keep replacing neurons, am I still a person? At what point do I become not a person?

More to come.

I look forward to hearing more about this philosophical "experiment," though I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

But deciding whether a human being is solely a physical being, or "something more," is more than a "fun question." That decision defines the meaning of our existence. And it has to be one or the other. Either materialism is right, or it is wrong.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

Why not actually critique the point PP made? That way we can resolve your doubts.

Do *you* understand what a neuron actually is?

[Anonymous]

This exchange reminded me of one of my favorite commercials. Just think of Troy Polamalu as God:

http://youtu.be/p-IVSmVmCvA

Like this:

Atheist: God, why don't you tell me you exist?

God: You owe your existence to me, and there's more to you than just your material self. I made you for so much more than that.

Atheist: That's not what I was asking.

God: Isn't it?

Atheist: No.

God: Isn't it?

Atheist: Yes.



Sure, other than the fact that no one has ever had this conversation. The most obvious explanation to this is that there are no gods. (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but my favorite quirk of "theist" argument is that it's chock full of these little stories where "atheist scientists" engage in a conversation with "god", who stumps them with sort of presumed logical conundrum. Frankly, a "'Sup!" would be sufficient. Hasn't happened yet.)

I was going for subtlety, but that's OK.

By denying the existence of God, you first must contemplate His existence. In order to be an atheist at all, a person must ask, "Is there God?", because a-theist is a negative answer, meaning "no God."

No one in this life answers affirmatively because they experience God directly. Any knowledge we have of God in this life is indirect. A summary of this indirect knowledge: "God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created things by means of the natural light of human reason."

So the atheist asks, "Is there God?" God responds through His material creation, our human reason, and our human experience, which all offer evidence that there is more than the material universe.

The atheist says, "That's not what I was asking."

This is his rejection of the knowledge of God that is available to him in this life. The atheist was asking for direct knowledge of God. But God cannot be known directly.

And this is where the atheist remains. As you said, a "Sup!" would earn your faith. Until then, you reject the indirect evidence as insufficient.

Very well. As I said several pages ago, "I know" eventually must become "I believe." Theists' "I know" becomes "I believe in the material universe and God." Atheists' "I know" becomes "I believe in the material universe and no more."

But our ability to know God remains. And, of course, God is still there--in fact, He is outside of time. And He is still answering your query "Why don't you tell me you exist?" Just not the way you asked for the answer to be formulated.

[Anonymous]

By denying the existence of God, you first must contemplate His existence. In order to be an atheist at all, a person must ask, "Is there God?", because a-theist is a negative answer, meaning "no God."

Let me stop you right here. Your framing is all off: the default position is that God doesn't exist. Neither does Pippi Longstocking, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. (Not trying to be rude here; to the rationalist, they have equal claims to reality).

I'm here blithely living in the rational world, and someone comes by and says, "Why don't you believe in God?" I'm not asking the question; you are. It's perfectly reasonable to ask two things: 1) what do you even mean by "god", and 2) why one Earth should I.

Just for the sake of argument, what's the accepted word for "one who doesn't believe in alien abductions"? "Atheist" begs the question in the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

Why not actually critique the point PP made? That way we can resolve your doubts.

Do *you* understand what a neuron actually is?

Certainly not! I am just a mom. I have no expertise whatsoever on neurons. But PP said the replacement would "conduct electricity" like the neuron. My limited understanding is that neurons #1 do more than conduct electrical impulses and #2 are living cells, with immense complexity.

But to address the (limited and unfinished) point the PP made:

That philosophical hypothetical does not pose an actual problem for either the materialist or the theist. If you believe in materialism, there is no more to a human being than matter. If there were a way to switch out inorganic matter for organic, it is actually all the same. Human beings are just particles--that is all they are. The living material humans are comprised of evolved from non-living material, and that is all that there is. So if the day came that we could switch back and forth, well, that's just what the universe does on its own anyway.

But the theist would not be troubled, either, in this highly hypothetical scenario. Because theists believe in a material universe AND an immaterial universe. The laws that rule matter, and energy, and force, and DNA, are all within their own system, the material universe. Immaterial things are different.

So, what is the philosopher piecing together? Artificial intelligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This exchange reminded me of one of my favorite commercials. Just think of Troy Polamalu as God:

http://youtu.be/p-IVSmVmCvA

Like this:

Atheist: God, why don't you tell me you exist?

God: You owe your existence to me, and there's more to you than just your material self. I made you for so much more than that.

Atheist: That's not what I was asking.

God: Isn't it?

Atheist: No.

God: Isn't it?

Atheist: Yes.



Sure, other than the fact that no one has ever had this conversation. The most obvious explanation to this is that there are no gods. (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but my favorite quirk of "theist" argument is that it's chock full of these little stories where "atheist scientists" engage in a conversation with "god", who stumps them with sort of presumed logical conundrum. Frankly, a "'Sup!" would be sufficient. Hasn't happened yet.)

I was going for subtlety, but that's OK.

By denying the existence of God, you first must contemplate His existence. In order to be an atheist at all, a person must ask, "Is there God?", because a-theist is a negative answer, meaning "no God."

No one in this life answers affirmatively because they experience God directly. Any knowledge we have of God in this life is indirect. A summary of this indirect knowledge: "God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created things by means of the natural light of human reason."

So the atheist asks, "Is there God?" God responds through His material creation, our human reason, and our human experience, which all offer evidence that there is more than the material universe.

The atheist says, "That's not what I was asking."

This is his rejection of the knowledge of God that is available to him in this life. The atheist was asking for direct knowledge of God. But God cannot be known directly.

And this is where the atheist remains. As you said, a "Sup!" would earn your faith. Until then, you reject the indirect evidence as insufficient.

Very well. As I said several pages ago, "I know" eventually must become "I believe." Theists' "I know" becomes "I believe in the material universe and God." Atheists' "I know" becomes "I believe in the material universe and no more."

But our ability to know God remains. And, of course, God is still there--in fact, He is outside of time. And He is still answering your query "Why don't you tell me you exist?" Just not the way you asked for the answer to be formulated.




There is nothing more dishonest than a person who writes the dialog that he imagines his opponent must be saying.

But I would have to say a close second is the idea of "indirect evidence".

[Anonymous]

Theists' "I know" becomes "I believe in the material universe and God." Atheists' "I know" becomes "I believe in the material universe and no more."

Theists assertion is that, although there's no evidence for gods, I believe in them. That's called "faith". Rational folks say, "I neither believe nor disbelieve in things for which there is no evidence. In fact, I spend almost no time thinking about them; they're generally irrelevant."

But our ability to know God remains. And, of course, God is still there--in fact, He is outside of time. And He is still answering your query "Why don't you tell me you exist?" Just not the way you asked for the answer to be formulated.

You may not believe in the Easter Bunny, but our ability to know him remains. And of course, (of course!!) he is still there. Why? Because he's outside of time. (Of course!) And he's still answering your query "Why don't you tell me you exist?" Just not the way you asked the [answer] to be formulated.

[Disclaimer: Here is where the theists usually accuse non-theists of being "disrespectful". But I think that's got it exactly wrong. I show you just as much respect as I would if we were arguing anything else non God-related. Frankly, your argument is fallacious, regardless of how many times you make it, and shows a certain level of disrespect for the folks you argue with.]

[Anonymous]

PP wrote (as a hypothetical)

Let's say that I have a defective neuron in my brain, and someone replaces it with an electronic component that conducts electricity in the same way

You responded:

My limited understanding is that neurons #1 do more than conduct electrical impulses and #2 are living cells, with immense complexity.

This strikes me as a naked dodge of the question, and disingenuous. Why not argue that "electronic components" are too large to replace a neuron. God, you theists can be a slippery lot.