The God Debate
Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren.
Follow up: I hadn’t read it all when I posted, but my assessment after finishing is that it’s pretty good and easy to follow. I’m biased, of course, but it’s abundantly clear to me that Warren can’t adequately respond to any of Harris’ objections. It’s all the same gobbledygook I used to hear back in Sunday school. That the arguments haven’t improved any, at all, suggests two possibilities: first, it’s just the best they’ve got (they really think Pascal’s Wager is clever); second, it’s sufficient to convince enough people, and in the end, it’s just a numbers game. If you could come up with arguments that would get people to believe in Zeus, then you would have "serious" theology surrounding Zeus (kind of the anthropomorphic principle applied to religious belief).
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Hey, that anthropomorphic principle thing is a good point. "Why do people believe in this particular God? Because this is the god everyone believes in."
And I really love Pascal's wager. It amounts to religious people telling us we should lie and pretend to be something we are not just for the practical benefits. Do they really think it will fool their all-knowing God, let alone other people?
I'm listening to the audio summary right now, I'll read the full text later, but this jumped out at me right away:
"If there is no God then life has no meaning"
Ahh, the standard context drop. Of course, they can never ask "meaning… to whom".
I bet next he'll ask Harris what horrible trauma in his life made him turn away from God…
There has been a recent debate among Philippine bloggers, especially those who had attended the 1st Philippine Blog Awards, about the appropriateness of including invocations in any public gathering that isn't meant to be religious.
Rick Warren's answers reminded me of how those who're in favor of having invocations in such gatherings commented. They have this attitude of smugness that they are always correct, eventhough their arguments plainly does not follow rational thinking. And then they'd accuse the other side of being "bigoted and malicious" by raising a concern over the invocations.
It's "Put Up or Shut Up" attitude that they want to impose on those who do not want to have those invocations.
It's funny because their arguments sounded like something that a bully would say to someone complaining about his bullying in school.
Just like Rick Warren.
After reading that, 'reckon I'll stay an agnostic.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
Ironbear:
Except that the one making the positive assertion has the onus of proof. Also dictated by the rules of reason.
Wowsers, Kyle. You can quote Rush lyrics. ;)
Well, yeah, but the point is that agnosticism still comes down firmly in favor of a particlar position: that God is possible.
Except that the one making the positive assertion has the onus of proof.
Even before that, the assertion requires a definition of what is being asserted. Believers are reluctant to do that because every definition that means something to their belief (and to agnostics' beliefs as well) is self-contradictory. Any such definition is immediately dimsissable as not possible, therefore any posited being so defined does not exist.
Take away the contradictory definitions, and we're left with, at best, a highly advanced alien that maybe created life, and maybe even the earth and sun as well. (But they still would have to have a pre-existing reality in which to do so.)
This is possible, but without any evidence that it is actual, it's an arbitrary assertion, and thus irrational to believe.
By the way, one simple definition sums up all of the known descriptions of God: He who is without context.
Wowsers, Kyle. You can quote Rush lyrics. ;)
Both get the same challenge, Kyle: "Show me the proof".
God exists? Cool – show me the hard evidence.
God doesn't exist? Cool: show me the proof.
Last I checked, that was supposed to be how reason operates.
And atheism doesn't come down firmly in favor of a particular position: that Deity isn't possible?
Of course it does (though Harris seems a little reluctant to explicitly say so). It's just that agnostics like to smugly pretend to be open minded.
Are you making an assumption that a proffessed agnostic like myself must automatically belive in [insert Deity-substitute Here] because I demand proof from both sides of the argument?
No, only that you must believe that [diety] is possible. That is also an unproven (and unprovable) assertion.
I'll put it this way: Do you, Nickoley, or Harris have hard evidence that you can produce that Deity does *not* exist?
You have not defined "diety" here, but by every definition I've ever heard, Yes.
Evidence tht can be displayed, weighed, dissected/examined in labratory conditions, reproduced, falsified, and verified?
You mean empirical evidence of non-existence? Don't be silly. Logical evidence… logical proof, yes. All it takes is for one of His properties to lead to a contradiction to prove that He cannot have that particular property.
Take omnipotence. Either God can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, or he cannot. No other option is possible, and both contradict omnipotence. QED, no God, nor anything else, exists who is omnipotent.
We can take all the other contradictory properties in turn, until we're left with the hypothetical alien. Or are you also agnostic about whether square circles are possible?
The atheist doesn't make a positive assertion about a negative?
"Postive assertion" is not about sentence construction, it's about existence as opposed to non-existence.
BTW:
"but without any evidence that it is actual, it's an arbitrary assertion, and thus irrational to believe." – Kyle
My point exactly. Show me the money. ;)
You took the quote out of it's context (that it refers to a positve assertion about the concrete existence of an alien) in a way that changes it's meaning , and then responed to the altered meaning.
"And atheism doesn't come down firmly in favor of a particular position: that Deity isn't possible?"
You need to define Deity. If what you define falls within the scope of non-contradictory possibility, then it remains for you to show it exists and the proper position for anyone else is to withhold judgment and leave it as an open possibility. But if what you "define" contains contradictions like "supernatural" (there is no such thing), then such a "thing" is beyond context, beyond definition, beyond conceptualization, and thus is merely a floating abstraction that is necessarily rejected out of hand.
Kyle is right: it's not so much that theists have the onus of proof. What they have is the onus of defining their terms. Only definitions within the realm of contextual reality merit a scintilla of consideration.
"Agnosticism comes down in favor of a particular position, yes: both sides of the debate are so-far unproven assertions."
Nope. The theist is not asserting any thing, which is the essence of the atheist position; it's not a counter-assertion. It's no more meaningful than if I were to say that "jonekinsirputs" exist. For that to attain the status of an assertion (that such an existent — thing — exists in reality), I have to define specifically what it is, and such definition must meet with certain logical consistencies.
"The atheist doesn't make a positive assertion about a negative?"
Absolutely not. Atheism is merely a tautological expression of the law of identity: the impossible is not possible, therefore does not exist; the "supernatural" is "outside nature" and therefore does not exist; the undefined has no defining attributes and therefore does not exist.
"I'll put it this way: Do you, Nickoley [sic], or Harris have hard evidence that you can produce that Deity does *not* exist? Evidence tht [sic] can be displayed, weighed, dissected/examined in labratory [sic] conditions, reproduced, falsified, and verified?"
Have you any with respect to "jonekinsirputs?" How about for "hopskiphopbacks?" How about for any of millions of floating, contextless abstractions that could be imagined? Here's a serious question: is your faculty of reason subject to being held for ransom at the whim of anyone's capacity to imagine the impossible?
Another serious question: is it possible to imagine the impossible, and if so, does that fact, in itself, not imply that any assertion that something exists must be validated by a definition that's within the realm of known possibility, followed by some actual evidence? And otherwise, is it not proper to simply reject non-validated assertions as figments of imagination?
Does the sheer number of people able to imagine the same impossibility change anything? How about if they don flowing robes and funny hats, and build great buildings and establish respected institutions to advance their collective imaginations?
And atheism doesn't come down firmly in favor of a particular position: that Deity isn't possible? ;]
Agnosticism comes down in favor of a particular position, yes: both sides of the debate are so-far unproven assertions.
Show me the money.
The atheist doesn't make a positive assertion about a negative?
Are you making an assumption that a proffessed agnostic like myself must automatically belive in [insert Deity-substitute Here] because I demand proof from both sides of the argument?
My point exactly. Show me the money. ;)
I didn't say your Rush quote was inaccurate, you'll note. I do choose to decide: I decide to wait for hard evidence, and reserve judgement until it's produced.
I'll put it this way: Do you, Nickoley, or Harris have hard evidence that you can produce that Deity does *not* exist? Evidence tht can be displayed, weighed, dissected/examined in labratory conditions, reproduced, falsified, and verified?
If not, then why should the agnostic give the atheist's assertions any more weight than I do to Harris'?
Or should I merely…. take it on Faith? ;)
Good grief, you guys can sure write a lot about nothing, ahhh something that doesnt exist.
By the way right now I am in my hotel room in Kaanapali, Maui, HI, reading my email and trying to figure out how to print my boarding pass for our return flight on Wednesday. Anybody have any suggestions? I've got my lap-top, but no printer.
Missed that one.
First, thank you for noting that it's an assertion [assumption] made about my beliefs. ;]
Personally? I think that the existance of deity is improbable. I'd venture so far as to say extremely improbable, bordering upon impossible.
If someone were to provide absolute and irrefutable verifiable proof of a deity, even a second rate demi-god with deity powers, I would re-examine after looking hard at their exibit with great skepticism. So, you are correct to an extent: I'll concede the extremely unlikely possibility that one might exist, and that someone might prove its existance.
I won't hold my breath waiting, however. ;]
It also means that I think it's possible, however unlikely, that someone may one day come up with absolute and irrefutable proof that a deity doesn't exist and cannot exist. Also not holding my breath waiting.
I don't believe either way. I have no faith.
Niether of these possibilities are things that occupy any great deal of my mind nor have any impact on my life – except when I choose to entertain myself examining them with either theists or atheists. ;)
Yes. I do find both sides of the question highly entertaining.
The "God question" just generally isn't that big a part of my life.
"I didn't define "deity" at all. I left it as non-specific, non-demonomational, inclusive because there are an awful lot of God concepts out there."
Then define "God concept" in a completely non-contradictory, hypothetically possible (given existing knowledge of physical reality) manner. If you can't do that, then explain to me why you, me, or anyone ought to leave it an open question.
"Every theist I've read or encountered/argued with has an implicit assertion that a thing exists"
Yes, they do, but my point is that to assert the existence of a thing requires that the thing one is asserting to exist be definable. They have no definition that's not contradictory. As soon as they come up with one that's not, then they don't seem to be talking about "God," any longer. It's the whole point. If it was definable (i.e., limited) then it's not "God." In essence, the "god concept" is equivalent to the assertion that existence has no limits, which is an impossible contradiction.
"The atheist asserts that this thing [force/being/imaginary friend] is impossible both in logic and in practicality, therefore cannot exist. Yes? It's a counter-assertion."
It's logically self-evident. There's no real "assertion" in the same sense that metaphysics is not an "assertion" that existence exists. It's tautological, self-evident, axiomatic, definitional. Contradictions don't (can't) exist in reality, and that's why the sort of God that's generally asserted is impossible.
As soon as they come up with a non-contradictory definition, then it will be time to hypothesize about its existence and not before. And until then, it's simply irrational and moronic to even entertain the possibility that a God, as described, exists.
"I suspect that you and Kyle are slipping into the [erroneous] assumption that "agnostic = believer"."
Not me. The agnostic position is that you don't believe and you don't disbelieve. The first part is the atheist position. The second part is irrational so long as there's no logically consistent and hypothetically valid assertion on the part of theists.
You keep demanding proof of the non-existence of some asserted thing, but that's simply not how things work. The onus of proof is upon them. Moreover, the proper atheist position is to only reject any proposition for "god" that's contradictory (omnipotence, etc.) or hypothetically impossible (supernatural, etc.).
But note: there wouldn't be any such thing as an "atheist" if it was non-contradictory, hypothetically possible beings being asserted. It would be very similar to the sorts of speculating that goes on with respect to life on other planets, advanced or primitive.
Everyone seems to deal with that pretty much rationally. There's no question it's possible. We just don't know for sure. But it's possible, within the bounds and limitations of everything we know about physical nature.
That's the whole point. Nobody should be afraid, per se, of the notion of a "super-being." I'm not. Everything I've seen suggests to me that human-like conceptualizing and integrating intelligence is capable of understanding and controlling greater and greater realms of existence. If there's some hard limit other than physical laws themselves, we don't seem to have reached it, so there's a whole, whole lot that's hypothetically possible.
In fact, there's a lot that's hypothetically possible that make primitive notions of God seem quaint.
That's my biggest problem with the God notion: he's so fucking inferior to human beings and most particularly, to human potential. As typically imagined, he's really a pathetic little creature, if you ask me.
Alright, that's it for me.