Naturalism and free will...
One of the most popular games on “The Price is Right” is Plinko[1]. Contestants drop circular chips that slide down an inclined grid of pins, bouncing between them and eventually falling into one of several slots. These slots correspond to different amounts of prize money. It’s routine to say that the final position of each chip is “random”, or that the chip bounces around “randomly”. In reality, this is not the case. Here, “random” is a word we use to mean “not completely understood”. There are many things the contestant does not know, such as the frictional properties of the game board, the exact weight and balance of the chip, the exact speed and movement of the chip when it’s released, the elastic coefficients of the chip and the pins, the microscopic contours of the game board, and so on. If the contestant knew all of these things with perfect precision, they could predict with 100% accuracy where the chip will land. The contestant just has to choose the right place to let it go. Once it’s been released, where it moves from there is entirely a matter of physics. There is no “randomness”; each slide and bounce is the result of natural laws.
The contestant creates the initial conditions when they drop the chip. Everything after that is determined by these initial conditions. My question is this: are you a Plinko chip?
From a naturalistic viewpoint, the entire universe is a game of Plinko. The surface of the board and the pins represent the laws of physics. Every atom, molecule, planet, and organism bounces around entirely due to their interaction with these physical laws. This means that, like the game chip, every movement is “determined” by the initial conditions. In the case of the universe, the initial conditions were set by the Big Bang. With nothing but these natural laws to produce effects, everything that happens is purely natural, purely a matter of physics, and completely determined by the initial conditions. There may be things that seem “random”, but only because we don’t know everything about all of the natural forces.
What is missing in this arrangement? Choice. Once the chip is dropped, the contestant cannot intervene to divert it. The chip does not choose to alter the way it bounces. There is no choice after the drop. In terms of the universe, according to pure naturalism, the same is true. There are no entities of choice, only the laws of physics. This means that human choice, or free will, doesn’t really exist. Our personalities, our emotions, our relationships, and our accomplishments are just bounces of a chip on the board of natural laws. From a purely naturalistic standpoint, it’s an inescapable truth: there is no free will, man is determined, and everything is just atoms and physics.
By “naturalism” and “pure naturalism”, I mean the belief that there is no supernatural “anything”, and that the universe and its natural laws are all there is. Specifically, this means that there is no God, and human beings have no non-physical components. The contrasting view would be that human beings do have non-physical components, and that there is more to “existence” than just the natural laws of physics. These two ideas create contrasting opinions about free will.
To the naturalist, there cannot really be free will. If matter and energy are all that exist, then everything is governed by the laws of physics. “Free will”, therefore, is in the same category as the northern lights, the shape of sand dunes, or the pattern of waves in the ocean: a completely natural, pre-determined phenomenon. To the Christian, on the other hand, free will can and does exist. In the Christian worldview, man is more than the sum of his physical parts. Man has a supernatural component that is not governed by the laws of nature; this allows man to be truly capable of choice.
Are there adherents to naturalism that believe in this determinism? Yes. Do these persons live as though they believe in determinism? No. In fact, it’s impossible to really live consistently according to a belief in determinism. You can give the idea intellectual endorsement, but in daily life, everyone lives under the assumption that people can choose. Daily life, in and of itself, requires the assumption that you, and others around you, can make decisions. To act on the belief that no one really “chooses” would make life unlivable. One naturalist confessed this contradiction as follows:“What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, ‘Oh well he couldn't help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.’ Maybe we should…”
When asked if this represented a contradiction in his own views, he replied:“I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.”
This naturalist was none other than Richard Dawkins[2], which explains the hasty attempt to ignore the religious implications of determinism. Dawkins cannot escape the fact that true naturalism must, logically, exclude free will. And yet, he can’t live consistently with that, so he divides truths in his mind[3]. Dawkins is in a hurry to separate this from religious questions for a good reason. Without some supernatural component, free will cannot really exist. Dawkins wants to have his deterministic cake and choose to eat it too. Stephen Hawking has made the same connection between naturalism and determinism, with a similar conclusion:“Is man determined? Yes! But since we do not know what is determined, he may as well not be." –Stephen Hawking
What both Dawkins and Hawking conclude about determinism is this: it is true, but that truth has no value. The Christian concludes that free will is true, and that truth has value. Apparently, regardless of the truth value of determinism, its practical value is non-existent. There simply is no benefit to believing in determinism. Are you a Plinko chip? Dawkins, Hawking, and yours truly would all agree on at least one thing: yes or no, you can’t live like one.
In the last post, on Pascal’s Wager, I suggested that Christianity had value, even if it’s not true. I also implied that atheism does not have similar value, even if it is true. Here, we find a similar point about determinism and free will. Even if determinism is true, that truth has no value – we cannot live with deterministic assumptions. Even if free will is false, there is value in living according to it. Consider these two pairs of points in preparation for the next post:
Atheism, even if true, is ultimately not beneficial. Christianity, even if ultimately false, has value. Belief in determinism, even if true, has no beneficial value. Belief in free will, even if untrue, has great value. This sets us up to consider two interrelated ideas on Monday: the worthless truth and the worthwhile lie.
[1] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinko
[2] – http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/09/did-dawkins-really-need-to-say-that.html; reported in other sources as well.
[3] - http://telicthoughts.com/dawkins-deterministic-idea/
November 29, 2007
Predestination Plinko
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
(reader):
Here is a comment posted by Ron that I moved here because it was off-topic:
Ron has left a new comment on your post "Odds Are, They Don't Get It (CA)":
” You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible.”
What a foolish and shallow statement. The statement “evidence-and-logic-driven trust in what the Bible says” clearly indicates that my trust in the Bible as a reliable source is based on evidence found outside of the Bible.
Oh, okay. What evidence have you found outside the Bible that has convinced you that you can fly?
” How can atheism be internally inconsistent?”
Atheism is a worldview...
Already answered.
” Maybe that's the real reason atheists have little problem living with their worldview?”
I’ve stated over and over that atheists don’t live out their worldview. They have little problem? They can’t do it! You haven’t defended the idea, because you can’t.
Already answered. I'm under no obligation to try to defend your straw-man charicature of atheism. If you want to know what atheism is, I suggest you look it up. Choosing not to believe in a giant, invisible man in the sky is perfectly reasonable.
You have told me that you think life is ultimately meaningless, and purposeless.
I don't remember saying that. When did I say that life has no meaning or purpose?
Yet, you don’t live that way. Either admit your irrationality, or enlighten me as to how you can disbelieve in purpose and live as though you do believe.
Already answered. Several times.
” Besides, how seriously am I supposed to take your critiques…fly like a bird one day?”
You apparently missed the idea that “strange” and “untrue” are not the same.
They're the same when it comes to Scientology. They're the same when it comes to Mormonism. But you Christians are an exception, I suppose? Quantum physics is weird, to be sure. But that has mathematics behind it. Where's yours? Tell me, what mathematical equations did you use to conclude you can fly?
”Logically, the implications are "downstream", so to speak.”
First, the implications are downstream, but also necessary. There’s an inescapable connection between atheism and determinism, meaninglessness, and purposelessness. A=
B=C. You can’t ignore B and C just because they make you uncomfortable. They cannot be separated; hence, if you don’t really believe in determinism, meaninglessness, or purposelessness, you can’t rationally believe in Atheism.
You refuted that yourself: " It’s not true or untrue as a result of the implications, of course..." God either exists or he doesn't. Just defining kittens as 'something that cannot exist without God' doesn't mean that atheists don't believe in kittens. It means you're playing word games.
Substitute 'purpose' for 'kittens'.
Secondly, atheism is self-defeating. If, as you’ve said, it makes no difference what we believe once we die, then you have no argument against the choice to live a Christian life.
Well, I have one argument. You can't fly.
After death in an atheistic universe, I won’t be any better or worse off than you.
So why not go through life believing the world is 6000 years old or that evolution is a gigantic lie, eh? Pass.
Plus, you can’t actually live out what you believe.
Oh, I can live out what I believe just fine. I just can't live out what you say I believe.
”Why are you still pushing that? PW has been falsified not once, but three different ways. You falsified it yourself in your original post!”
I explained PW, gave a better understanding of it, and clearly explained its drawbacks; I didn’t completely obliterate it.
Now there's a selling point: As a rationale it's not completely obliterated!
I’m defending it as a rationale to take the question of Atheism vs Christianity seriously, and as a refutation of the idea that Christians have something to lose by choosing God over oblivion. If that’s really that hard for you to get, then just admit that this kind of discussion is over your head.
Christianity will be 'over my head' the day Christians fly.
With that in mind, this discussion is getting off topic at best and pointless at worst.
We've been off the topic of PW for quite some time now. If it's all the same to you, I think I'll get off this bus right about here.
You want to convince me that Christianity's true? Easily done--Just start to fly like a bird.
Posted by Ron to Gladio Mentis - The Sword Of The Mind at Monday, December 24, 2007 6:18:00 AM EST
Ron,
” What evidence have you found outside the Bible that has convinced you that you can fly?”
There is a great deal of literary, historical, archaeological, logical, scientific, and philosophical evidence supporting the Bible as completely true. The rapture is discussed in the Bible; I’ve seen evidence sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible; therefore I have good reason to believe in the Rapture.
”Atheism is a worldview...Already answered.”
No, you have not. You haven’t even tried to explain the inconsistency between believing in meaninglessness yet living as though life had meaning. Or purpose, or justice, or freedom, or anything else.
”You haven’t defended the idea, because you can’t. | Already answered. I'm under no obligation to try to defend your straw-man charicature of atheism.”
I’ve clearly stated the necessary implications of atheism, which you have made no progress or effort to defend as either accurate or livable. Atheism means “there is no God”. That statement has inescapable consequences. Where is the straw man?
What you are saying is like a person saying “I have no hands.” When confronted that, therefore, they can’t pick up things with the hands they don’t have, they reply “stop trying to play rhetorical games. All I said was that I don’t have hands. That has nothing to do with the implications.” Ideas like determinism and meaninglessness are inescapable – atheism cannot be separated from them, any more than the lack of hands is inseperable from an inability to pick things up with the nonexistent hands.
”If you want to know what atheism is, I suggest you look it up.”
If you want to defend atheism, I suggest you actually think about it.
”Choosing not to believe in a giant, invisible man in the sky is perfectly reasonable.”
Probably. What religion teaches that? If you want to know what Christianity is, I suggest you look it up.
”I don't remember saying that. When did I say that life has no meaning or purpose?”
Your comments in some of our prior conversations, as well as statement like this: ” Would there still be meaning to life the day after an asteroid slams into the earth? The correct answer isn't "yes" or "no". The correct answer is "who cares?"” Also, you claim to be an atheist, and you have not yet explained how you can believe both in atheism and ultimate meaning. If you’d like to try, please do. Otherwise, your philosophy speaks for you.
”Yet, you don’t live that way. Either admit your irrationality, or enlighten me as to how you can disbelieve in purpose and live as though you do believe. | Already answered. Several times.”
Answered? Several times? You haven’t even answered it once, Ron! All you’ve done is deny that you even have to think about it!
”Tell me, what mathematical equations did you use to conclude you can fly?”
The question itself makes it clear that this entire line of thought is beyond you, at least right now. See my comment above about scriptural evidences. Think about how you would answer this: “what mathematical equations did you use to disprove that God exists?” The question is nonsensical.
“There’s an inescapable connection between atheism and determinism, meaninglessness, and purposelessness. A=
B=C. You can’t ignore B and C just because they make you uncomfortable. They cannot be separated; hence, if you don’t really believe in determinism, meaninglessness, or purposelessness, you can’t rationally believe in Atheism. | You refuted that yourself…Substitute 'purpose' for 'kittens'.”
Atheism necessarily means that everything in the universe is a product of atomic interactions, bound purely by the laws of physics and not subject to any supernatural influence whatsoever. By definition, this means that the universe has no purpose, and neither do we. Note my example about lacking hands. That’s not rhetorical gymnastics, that’s common sense logic. If you can show how purpose, meaning, and so forth can exist without the supernatural, please do. Send your answers to Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, because both of them agree with me on this point.
”Well, I have one argument. You can't fly.”
And I have one response. No one said I’d be flying right now. I guess nothing that hasn’t happened yet can ever or will ever happen. Spoken like a devout empiricist.
”After death in an atheistic universe, I won’t be any better or worse off than you. | So why not go through life believing the world is 6000 years old or that evolution is a gigantic lie, eh? Pass.”
So why go through life telling yourself that, rationally, nothing really matters, but we’ll pretend it does? Pass.
”Plus, you can’t actually live out what you believe. | Oh, I can live out what I believe just fine. I just can't live out what you say I believe.”
Then maybe you need to explain what you believe. I’ve asked you to many, many times, and you haven’t yet. How do you believe in purpose, meaning, or free will, lacking the supernatural – logically, rationally, objectively? I suspect that if you had a rational answer, you’d have given it to me by now.
”Now there's a selling point: As a rationale it's not completely obliterated!”
I discussed the drawbacks and limitations of PW. If you’re going to keep playing the shallow fool, we can just end this.
“Christianity will be 'over my head' the day Christians fly.”
This is, sadly, may be most philosophically true thing you’ve said in this entire discussion. The conversation at hand, however, is another matter.
”You want to convince me that Christianity's true? Easily done--Just start to fly like a bird.”
Ron, the sad part is that if the rapture happened right now, you still wouldn’t believe. As wise men have said, the willingly ignorant always want more evidence, no matter how much you’ve given them. It’s the mark of an uneducated mind to always want more proof of something than was ever possible in the first place.
Hi again MM--
Just a quick note to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas. I hope your Dad's feeling better, and I'll pick up again tomorrow.
"” What evidence have you found outside the Bible that has convinced you that you can fly?”
There is a great deal of literary, historical, archaeological, logical, scientific, and philosophical evidence supporting the Bible as completely true."
Uh huh. So this means you have "a great deal of literary, historical, archaeological, logical, scientific, and philosophical evidence" that the first woman came from a rib. What is it?
"”Atheism is a worldview...Already answered.”
No, you have not. You haven’t even tried to explain the inconsistency between believing in meaninglessness yet living as though life had meaning. Or purpose, or justice, or freedom, or anything else."
Let me ask you something--The question of whether or not Truth, Justice and The American Way objectively exist or are human constructs is still an open question. Why is it a problem for you to accept that people can make their own meaning in life? Not everybody needs to be spoonfed what to believe, you know.
"Atheism means “there is no God”. That statement has inescapable consequences. Where is the straw man?"
The 'inescapable' part, for one. Is it really an 'inescapable consequence' of atheism to define kittens as something that cannot exist independently of God, therefore atheists don't believe in kittens? That's pure wordplay and nothing else. God either exists or he doesn't. If he does not exist, then you cannot use the implications that flow out of that fact to try to disprove that fact.
"”Choosing not to believe in a giant, invisible man in the sky is perfectly reasonable.”
Probably. What religion teaches that?"
Oh, let's see: Islam, the Norse religion, oh there was another one, what was it? Oh yeah--yours.
"”Tell me, what mathematical equations did you use to conclude you can fly?”
The question itself makes it clear that this entire line of thought is beyond you, at least right now. See my comment above about scriptural evidences. Think about how you would answer this: “what mathematical equations did you use to disprove that God exists?” The question is nonsensical."
The First Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the concept of divine creation ex nihilo.
More later, as time permits...
”Uh huh. So this means you have "a great deal of literary, historical, archaeological, logical, scientific, and philosophical evidence" that the first woman came from a rib. What is it?”
Re-read the statement I made, because your comment suggests you didn’t get it. There’s enough evidence for what the Bible says to trust it in places where evidence is less available. Remember my comment about the uneducated wanting more proof than was ever possible? Unless we can find Adam’s skeleton, we can’t prove it one way or another.
” Let me ask you something--The question of whether or not Truth, Justice and The American Way objectively exist or are human constructs is still an open question.”
They are open questions for some, but Christians believe that Truth and Justice are objective ideas with real meanings.
“Why is it a problem for you to accept that people can make their own meaning in life?”
Because that’s an absurdity, and you should be able to see that. “I make my own meaning?” How does that work in any objective sense? And, don’t you realize that that’s an implicit admission that everything’s meaningless anyway? If you can make your own meaning, it means that there’s no meaning there to begin with.
”Not everybody needs to be spoonfed what to believe, you know.”
You’ve said this enough times that it’s time to call you on it. You say “spoon-fed” as though Christians are incapable of thinking at all, and as though atheists are entirely self-sufficient. God calls Himself Father because that’s the kind of role he plays. Parents spoon-feed their children until they’re developed enough to eat on their own, and to ensure that they get the right kind of food. The Bible even discusses how believers are supposed to move from “milk’ to “solid foods” in a spiritual sense. God gives us the best moral and spiritual plans to start with, and allows us to grow from there.
Are you suggesting that no one, ever, in your life, ever gave you moral guidance of any kind? No one taught you anything about right or wrong? You learned it all how, then? By trial-and-error? Do you avoid talking about any moral or personal issues with your children, so that they won’t be “spoon-fed” anything? If someone, anyone, in your life gave you some kind of moral instruction, then you’ve been “spoon-fed” as much as anyone else. If you spend any time at all telling your children than some things are right, and some things are wrong, then you’re “spoon-feeding” them.
“Is it really an 'inescapable consequence' of atheism to define kittens as something that cannot exist independently of God, therefore atheists don't believe in kittens?”
No, but I understand why you keep resorting to something like this instead of defending the other ideas we talked about. I’m not asking you to defend kittens. I’m asking you to defend purpose, free will, and meaning. How many times are you going to avoid answering those questions? Not everything is an inescapable conclusion of atheism, but those things are. If you disagree, then start defending your position, rather than making silly remarks about cats.
“That's pure wordplay and nothing else.”
I think it’s pretty clear that you’re the one attempting to dodge the issue with wordplay. Inserting kittens instead of purpose is senseless; either defend how purpose and meaning are independent of God, or admit that you can’t.
”Probably. What religion teaches that?" | Oh, let's see: Islam, the Norse religion, oh there was another one, what was it? Oh yeah--yours.”
Can you quote the passage describing God as an invisible giant who lives in the sky? Or do you want to come up with some other immature caricature of God that’s easier for you to ridicule than the one Christianity believes in? Maybe you should start by looking up the definition of a “straw man”, since you like to use the term.
”The First Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the concept of divine creation ex nihilo.”
Having read that, I can conclusively say you don’t understand the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law, stated as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be changed into different forms. That says the complete and total opposite of what you tried to suggest.
According to natural law, you cannot create matter or energy. Yet, it’s here. Science knows that it’s been here for a finite time, a la the Big Bang. At some time, that matter must have been created. Since natural laws say matter creation is impossible, the creation of matter must have been, by definition, a super-natural event. The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the scientific laws that points strongly towards a supernatural creator.
Ron, you’re really making it clear that some of this is over your head. I’m not trying to be condescending, but I don’t think you actually understand most of what we’re talking about now. I’m discussing how the non-existence of God has some necessary implications about free will, purpose, and meaning; you’re trying to bring up kittens. I’m talking about how evidence supporting the Bible gives credibility to parts not disproven; you’re asking for evidence that doesn’t exist. You’re trying to bring up laws of physics that you don’t even understand. You’re refusing to defend your own ideas, and making caricatures of mine instead. That means that this is becoming more and more a waste of my time.
If you want to continue, you need to start here: how can a person who disbelieves in God believe in meaning, purpose, or free will? Are those ideas real, or purely constructs? Are they objective, or subjective? What are the bases for those ideas, and do they continue after a person dies? If they are constructs, then how does a person rationalize living as though they were real while believing they are not?
We need to stay at least close to the topic of the post, so tell me what and how you believe in these things, and why. Either start to respond to some of the questions above, or the conversation is over. If you want to make jokes, duck the questions, or whine about how atheists don’t have to think about those things, I can just delete the comment and be done with it.
"”Uh huh. So this means you have "a great deal of literary, historical, archaeological, logical, scientific, and philosophical evidence" that the first woman came from a rib. What is it?”
Re-read the statement I made, because your comment suggests you didn’t get it. There’s enough evidence for what the Bible says to trust it in places where evidence is less available. "
Now explain to me why that isn't tantamount to saying "The Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it" ---? Interesting logic.
I've prompted you to share some of this mysterious evidence you say you have. Something like 3 times. It's more of a taunt now. You believe in the mystical. You insist there's heavy-duty evidence that would convince any reasonable person that you're going to fly one fine day. But when it comes right down to it, you don't have any, I expect. Of any kind whatever.
The fact is that you're accusing my worldview of being illogical or inconsistent, all while your own worldview claims that you are going to fly in the air like a balloon, and that a multi-headed beast wearing crowns is going to come out of the sea. While you have every right to believe that if you like, it makes it much harder for you to be taken with any seriousness. It's the kind of thing you'd half-expect Tom Cruise to say. It's like saying you're unconvinced by the Big Bang theory, when all along you believe the world rests on the back of a turtle.
"” Let me ask you something--The question of whether or not Truth, Justice and The American Way objectively exist or are human constructs is still an open question.”
They are open questions for some, but Christians believe that Truth and Justice are objective ideas with real meanings."
Sounds so lofty, until you realize one of the 'eternal truths' you believe in is Exodus 21.
"“Why is it a problem for you to accept that people can make their own meaning in life?”
Because that’s an absurdity, and you should be able to see that."
Let me try and understand this. A multi-headed monster rising out of the sea you have no problem with, but people making their own meaning in life--that's absurd?
You want to frame the question in a self-serving way and you expect me to jump through that hoop, and I'm not going to do it. The question of whether or not God exists is completely independent of whether morality is objective or merely a human construct. And besides, your Biblical moral code explicitly endorses slavery, at least in one historical example, so it seems to me you're in a very poor position to give any morality lectures, either.
”The First Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the concept of divine creation ex nihilo.”
Having read that, I can conclusively say you don’t understand the First Law of Thermodynamics...According to natural law, you cannot create matter or energy. Yet, it’s here. Science knows that it’s been here for a finite time, a la the Big Bang. "
Are you suggesting it is a claim of any branch of science that matter and energy literally appeared out of nothing at all? Completely ex nihilo? Because that's the Christian view--matter and energy were 'poofed' into existence from nothing by God. That seems to contradict your statement "According to natural law, you cannot create matter or energy."
The 1st LOT says it is impossible to do what Genesis describes God as doing. God is in violation of the laws of physics in the Genesis account.
"Since natural laws say matter creation is impossible, the creation of matter must have been, by definition, a super-natural event."
Aren't definitions wonderful? So the more impossible scientifically your worldview is, the more it is confirmed, just by defining it that way? That's an example of the logic that led you to believe you can fly? Christianity really does seem to me to be an intellectual house of cards.
It's for reasons like this that I accuse you of rhetorical games.
"If you want to continue, you need to start here: how can a person who disbelieves in God believe in meaning, purpose, or free will?
Well, that's simple enough, I guess. I can disbelieve in God without disbelieving in free will, love, or morality because they are not the same thing.
Ron,
I'm going to keep this short, because it's definitely a waste of energy.
There are non-Biblical sources that confirm events mentioned in the NT. There is historical support for what is described both in the OT and NT. Archaeology has continually proven the Bible more accurate than critics believed. There is scientific suport for scripture, including ideas like a universal "beginning" and so forth. Logic and philosophy lend a lot of weight to the Bible's description of the human condition.
I clearly indicated that it was extra-Biblical evidence that gave me confidence in the Bible. Your comment doesn't reflect that you understand that.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, especially since I know that no amount of such evidence will make a bit of difference to you. I answered you each time by indicating the types and areas of support that the Bible has; I'm not going to make an exhaustive list for you.
You, on the other hand, don't want to give me any answers at all. You just want to claim that the questions don't apply to you.
I'm not going to justufy your mention of prophetic metaphors in Revelation with a response. I might as well try to argue quantum theory with someone who's never taken grade-school physics.
The same goes for OT law. I've tried to explain to you how OT law fits into the convenant system, and that it's no longer in force. I've also tried to explain cultural and historical issues related to it. You don't understand any of it, so you haven't even changed your angle of attack in regards to them.
I can't think of anything more self-serving than dodging questions about the most fundamental questions in life, as they pertain to athiesm, the way you are. You keep trying to drag me into defending some straw-man view of a metaphorical point, rather than defend your own idea.
The question of God's existence is not dependent on issues like morality; that does not mean it's separate from them. As you said, they are "downstream", but they are "necessarily downstream." That's one of those distinctions you're not getting. This is over your head, Ron, so why should I keep it up?
You also don't seem capable of getting the 1st law of thermo. I'm not the one who came up with it, and I'm not the one that defined conservation of matter and energy. There is no natural process by which matter or energy can be created; they can only be changed. That fact that they have existed for a finite time necessarily means that something other than a natural process had to have created them. Science doesn't explicity claim that they were created; but the fundamentals of science say they had to have been.
All of your objections about matter creation being non-natural are exactly my point.
After all of that garbage, you eked out this as a response to the questions I've been asking over and over and over:
"I can disbelieve in God without disbelieving in free will, love, or morality because they are not the same thing."
Well, Hallelujah. Something in the general region of an answer.
Now, please continue. Where do free will, love, or morality come from, according to your view? How do we define them?
I'm tired of wading through paragraphs of immature, sophomoric bull to get to the topic at hand; stick to the free will, love, morality questions or expect the whole comment to be deleted.
Ron,
I wasn’t bluffing about deleting the whole thing. What you wrote was more of the same, and 90% of it having nothing to do with the posted topic.
I’m not doing your homework for you, as I’ve said. You and I have already discussed scriptural evidence, and there’s no point in me starting to give specifics when you won’t accept any of it, and none of it will ever be enough. You’re even asking me to defend concepts, such as six-24-hour-day creationism, that I’ve explicitly told you I don’t support.
You’re also distorting my statements about scriptural interpretation. The Bible hasn’t changed what it says, and there is no sense in which I have ever claimed that the Bible says something different now than it did in the past. You just don’t have the analytical ability to see the difference between what you want my arguments to be, and what they actually are.
I’m perfectly happy to shrug and accept that fact that there’s no point in discussing it with you. I’ve given you resources in the past to examine, you can either use them or not.
You can make snide remarks about what you see as immorality in the Bible, but even semi-literate skeptics don’t make the kind of silly attacks you do. That’s another area where you refuse to learn or accept anything, so why waste the time? After all of the discussion we’ve had, and all the times you keep coming back to the same things as though I’d never said anything about them, it’s pathetic for you to accuse me of being evasive. I challenged you to confront the topic at hand over and over, and after all that all you could give me was a semi-answer.
If Steven Weinberg has something relevant to say about the 1st LOT, then quote it, link to it, mention it, or otherwise use it. It’s not useful to the conversation simply that he’s an atheist. His opinion on it, much as Dawkin’s on free will, might not be as complimentary as you want it to be.
You don’t understand my argument about the matter conservation, probably because you don’t understand the 1st LOT itself. I know what the rational atheistic response to the argument is, and it's not a bad response at all. It opens up a can of worms, but it's a somewhat sensible answer. Yours is not an answer, it's a demonstration of profound ignorance.
If you want to try re-commenting with your opinion about free will, morality, and so forth being human constructs, please feel free. I’m not bluffing about keeping this on-topic. If not…shrug.
"comment deleted"
Your entire case is a joke and you just proved it.
Ron,
Yes, my case is a joke because I won't get baited into another off-topic infinitely wide argument. The topic is the relationship of atheism to ideas like free will, purpose, and meaning.
I don't bluff. I said I'd delete anything that was off-topic. Your comment was 90% off topic by volume, and 99% off topic by substance, so you were deleted.
You're right that these questions (morality, free will, purpose) do not, of themselves, tell us if there is a God or not. That's not the discussion. The discussion is how atheism defines those things, whether or not that view is self-consistent or coherent, and what that means for atheistic criticisms of Christianity.
You keep crying that 'that's not the same as the question of God's existence'. Yes - and you're either don't get that God's existence is not the topic, or you do get it and you're trying to avoid the question.
The question of scriptural evidence is one you and I have discussed before, and one which I have provided you resources for. You're one of the examples of the critic for whom references are only required of Christians, and no amount of data is ever enough. Do your own homework.
I'm not going to discuss the prophecies of Revelation with you because you can't even apply good interpretive principles to the straightforward parts of the Bible. Eschatology is a tough enough topic for the open-minded and scripturally literate - you're hung up on the idea that Christianity is "weird."
In short, I'm not going to let you duck the fundamental questions of life as they pertain to atheism by balooning this discussion into any topic you want.
You can't defend your view of free will, morality, purpose, or meaning because you haven't actually thought out what you believe. This and our other conversations has made this abundantly clear. You don't even have answers for what you believe, let alone why or how.
I'm not even asking you for proof of your worldview, I'm just asking you to explain how your view of the world works. You've done everything you can to avoid answering that - because you haven't thought about it. You've always responded as though the questions don't apply to you.
If you said, "MedicineMan, I have no no eyes", it's fair for me to ask if you can see, and how. It's not unfair for me to ask how you rationalize colors if you have no eyes. You can't just blow that off as irrelevant.
You genuinely don't understand most of what you're trying to attack (from eschatology to prophecy to OT law to thermodynamics to basic philosophy) well enough to even make a coherent argument. You really don't understand the ideas being discussed. You know how to repeat the arguments that other skeptics make, but you're not thinking these things through before you regurgitate them.
It's typical of the immature skeptic to refuse to even explain what they believe, and then complain when someone expects them to play it straight and stick to the questions at hand. If you're going to pout because I wasn't bluffing, then so be it. I would have thought better of you.
Post a Comment
Dissenting views will not be censored; however, trolling, abusive language, threats, spam, attempts to derail the topic, or other unreasonable comments will be deleted.