Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

[rocketdodger]

No, it is a waste of time because no atheist, no skeptic ever seems to understand anything. Even all these people who are fond of inserting "Dr" in their names.

Maybe the problem is that you are more interested in winning arguments than learning from others -- in which case, I agree, this place is a waste of time for you.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Maybe the problem is that you are more interested in winning arguments than learning from others -- in which case, I agree, this place is a waste of time for you.

Learn from skeptics and atheists? Now you're really having a laugh.

I can't learn anything from them. They just all express the modern western Weltanschauung and none of them really ever seriously question its underlying tenets. Nobody on here seems to have done any independent thinking. They have effectively been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of modern western intellectual fashion.

And besides that I couldn't learn anything from you guys anyway since I already know you are all wrong. I only ever came onto this board in the first place because I was curious as to why skeptics/atheists believed in such absurd things. I imagined that at least people on here would be able to provide some arguments. I did actually honestly believed that skeptics/atheists were generally more intelligent than the general population. How naive I was.

OK, that's it. I'm not responding anymore in this thread.

 

[rocketdodger]

They just all express the modern western Weltanschauung and none of them really ever seriously question its underlying tenets. Nobody on here seems to have done any independent thinking. They have effectively been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of modern western intellectual fashion.

Actually, I arrived at the same conclusions on my own, and only later discovered that a number of philosophers throughout history had already written on the subject. I am sure many here share a similar experience.

 

[alfaniner]

No, it is a waste of time because no atheist, no skeptic ever seems to understand anything. ...

All absolutes are nothing but exaggerations.

Including this one.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Nobody on here seems to have done any independent thinking. They have effectively been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of modern western intellectual fashion.

Nah, I considered ancient eastern intellectual fashion and didn't accept it. Maybe I wasn't born in the right Buddhist country.

Hey, I could have been idealist, but apparently I don't masturbate to the perceived greatness of my own mind and call other people's minds that of gorillas. More physical data against idealism.

And Ian, now that I know how you feel about me, feel free to call me Ishmael.

 

[Z]

<snip>
I can't learn anything... <snip>

We've noticed.

But you've also done this rant, repeatedly, before. You've left, repeatedly, before. And you keep returning.

Obviously, you don't learn. You neither learn what is being presented to you here, nor do you learn to stop poking the hornets' nest.

But considering you already admitted that logic and reason, evidence and fact mean nothing to you, and cannot change your beliefs...

Buh-bye.

 

[scimystic]

I agree with you here. But my point is that this guy doesn't seem to be asserting anything other than the impossibility of ruling out a god, and to that extent he can't be defeated in an argument. We can say with certainty that 2 + 2 =|= 5, but not that a god doesn't exist.

You have hit the nail squarely. He cannot be defeated with the argument framed in this format. Hence my advice to Mark to cut his losses and move on.

What I'd like to be able to communicate to all on this site is that there is a format within which all theists can be compellingly defeated. It is more powerful and fundamental then the one normally chosen by either side. Its simplest challenge statement is as follows: "Your theistic proposals cannot be understood to qualify as knowledge upon any basis that can be understood to yield knowledge". The second part of this challenge sets up 'Phase 1' (agreeing a clear basis for knowledge). The first part sets up 'Phase 2' (functionally clarifying the theist's proposals). With these things attended to 'Phase 3' (actual execution of the intellectual checkmate) is pretty easy. I lack the time and space to re run a satisfactory explanation of all of the main points here. But they can be found at http://poppersinversion.blogspot.com . Check it out if you haven't yet, or haven't for a while (as I keep reworking it in pursuit of increased clarity).

BR,

K

 

[rocketdodger]

What I'd like to be able to communicate to all on this site is that there is a format within which all theists can be compellingly defeated.

I read your thing Keith. It makes sense to me. My criticism of your strategy would be that I don't see how it is in any way better (or very different, for that matter) from simply pointing out logical inconsistencies in theists arguments.

That is to say, as far as I can tell, there wouldn't be any instances where your strategy could win the argument that the traditional strategy could not.

Please respond further, because my interest has been piqued.

 

[scimystic]

I read your thing Keith. It makes sense to me. My criticism of your strategy would be that I don't see how it is in any way better (or very different, for that matter) from simply pointing out logical inconsistencies in theists arguments.

That is to say, as far as I can tell, there wouldn't be any instances where your strategy could win the argument that the traditional strategy could not.

Please respond further, because my interest has been piqued.

Thanks for reading, and I'm very pleased that it made some sense to you. You might be surprised at what a small minority this places you in. I'll see what I can do now to justify your interest.

I think that there are three problems with our traditional strategy, and that the first two stem directly from its being our traditional strategy:

1. That the theists are well versed in countering our arguments. The intellectually serious ones (like Plantinga) have already demonstrated their ability to field everything that we can throw at them. Not honestly, or fairly, but with enough high level obfustication to cloud the issue beyond anyone's ability to reclarify it. And this is all that they require. If they can hold us in deadlock at the rational/objective level, while continuing to kick our ass at the emotional/subjective level, then they will win, as they are now doing here in the US. ["See? Those silly atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist. And, let’s be honest, don't you want him to exist? Can’t you feel, in your heart, that He exists?"].

2. That it gives us no grounds for re-opening our case. We've been in the present deadlock for at least seventy years. Our opponents know our best arguments, and we theirs. They also know that the deadlock favors them. They will not willingly break it. They will not even respond to us, unless we can force the issue by attacking from a radically new direction.

3. That we know, empirically, that our present strategy cannot close off 'the faith escape'. We know that even if we could somehow overcome the previous two problems, and compellingly win, they would use the faith escape just as they have used it on countless previous occasions, to declare our victory a hollow draw.

Let’s look now at my strategy in regard to Point 2 (re-opening our case). This is what I want to do. But I seem to be having a hard time in getting the rest of you (my fellow atheists) to understand the level at which I want to do it. I don't want to go back to the Enlightenment, or even to Athens. I want to go back something like 80,000 years, to the intriguingly brief period during which our brains apparently 'exploded' (from an average cranial volume of around 900ml, to our modern volume of around 1,500ml). I want to agree with the common hunch that this expansion (which was, also intriguingly, concentrated in the areas - cerebral cortex and forebrain - that appear to be the sites of our higher reasoning and linguistic abilities) had something to do with our development of our first full/modern languages. But now the shocker. I also want to suggest that we blew it. That we screwed the pooch right then and there, in taking the powerful new divisions that we were so obviously imposing upon reality (through our limited and fallible lines of sensory perception, feeding into limited and fallible cognitive processors) as divisions of reality itself. This is where I want the re-trial. This is what Point #1 of my essay calls into question. When I say in Point #1 'all of our divisions', and 'a common interactive feedback process', I really mean the 'all' and the 'common'. I base Point #1 on nothing but observation (directly, and also indirectly in noting its appeal to reason, which I cannot see to be other than crystallized/extrapolated observation). I can't conceive of a rationally compelling contravention of Point #1. But it seems to me that if the theists cannot offer such (if they must, in other words, concede Point #1 to us) then their proposals are at last dead meat. If Point #1 holds, if the 'all' and the 'common' must be accepted, then truth/certainty has always been an illusion. No ifs, ands or buts. Karl Popper was/is right; not just about scientific knowledge but about all knowledge. We have only ever had one criterion (appeal, perceptible through human sensory and cognitive faculties) through which to distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge. Or to put it another way: That which is clearly not rational is finally also clearly not knowledge. My essay is about this realization. It’s about our knowledge basis being the only genuine/functional one that human beings have ever had. Its strategy is simply to propose this, at the deepest level, to all who have been propagating irrational knowledge. To say to them: “Here’s how knowledge can be seen to work, and can be understood to work. If you want to propose that it works in some other way then go ahead and do so; we’ll listen. … No? OK then, let’s now honestly consider your theistic proposals in the light of this realization. Can they be seen to be more reasonable – in the broadest conceivable objective and subjective senses of this word – then our logically exclusive naturalistic proposals?... No? OK then, they’re gone. They’re not ‘maybe’ gone, or ‘possibly’ gone. There is no appeal to faith. There is nothing to have faith in. We didn’t ask whether or not they were ‘true’. We asked whether or not they were knowledge.”

To reiterate: My proposal seems to me to give us what we need. Both the means to force a re-opening of our case, and, then, the means to win it. Has any of the above made this clearer? If not then please try to fire me some specific questions; and/or, try re-reading the essay. I know that it’s a tough read. Its 12 boring pages to try and get across one simple little realization. But everything turns on that realization. If/when it hits it should be like a light bulb going on. It was for me, about 12 years ago, and then more so in the days after 9/11, when it finally became obvious to me that we have no real option but to fight.

All the best,

Keith

 

[Starrman]

Oh for God's sake.

What a waste of time and space this discussion board is. It seems that scarcely anyone's intellect exceeds that of a gorilla's

Odd that you would devote over 7,500 seperate posts to the effort then. Why don't you go down to the zoo and throw 7,500 turds at the gorillas there?

 

[kieran]

Right that's it, I've had enough of people on here. People just ignore all my arguments and assert I'm wrong without ever justifying their stance.

When you've quite finished picking up your toys and putting them back in the pram ... you may want to ponder on the old phrase linking a "pot", a "kettle" and a particularly dark colour.

It's no good simply saying you disagree with me. You need to provide arguments. But there aren't any. What you're saying is simply absurd. If something with what appears to be a very low prior probability (eg 1 in a googolplex) occurs, then we effectively know that it cannot have actually had such a low probability. But I repeat myself. {shrugs}

You were challenged on this specific point - you had considered it important enough to repeat, and obvious enough to require a {shrug} ... but it is complete twaddle. (If your imagination is still struggling then here is another example - what is the probability of all the grains of sand in the world being precisely where they are at a particular moment in time?)

People did "provide arguments" - precisely what you accuse them of not doing. Rather than say - "Yep - I was talking out of my @r$e on that particular point" - and then cleaning up your argument to show if you do or don't rely on this fallacy, and possibly improving your argument as a result, you instead chose to spew general insults about the mental ability of the majority of the forum and go off to a corner to hide.

Grow up - you are entitled to your opinions, just as we are entitled to ours. Please don't think that holding a contrary opinion to someone else makes you in any way better than them.

Now come back and continue the thread ... we may all learn something ...

 

[rocketdodger]

Can they be seen to be more reasonable – in the broadest conceivable objective and subjective senses of this word – then our logically exclusive naturalistic proposals?... No? OK then, they’re gone. ”

I just don't think that viewing the problem in a different light, like you are suggesting, will remove the obstacles that the theists put up in front of their agreement with this statement.

It seems like for you to do that, you would still need to find contradictions in the theists argument and point these contradictions out to them. But this is pretty much the essence of the traditional route, no?

BTW, I do not consider Plantinga to have even come close to defeating the stronger arguments against theism. All he has been successful at (IMHO) is showing that theism makes sense for the average idiot on this planet.

 

[scimystic]

I just don't think that viewing the problem in a different light, like you are suggesting, will remove the obstacles that the theists put up in front of their agreement with this statement.

It seems like for you to do that, you would still need to find contradictions in the theists argument and point these contradictions out to them. But this is pretty much the essence of the traditional route, no?

BTW, I do not consider Plantinga to have even come close to defeating the stronger arguments against theism. All he has been successful at (IMHO) is showing that theism makes sense for the average idiot on this planet.

My apology for the delay. I've been out of 'email range' since Friday.

Pointing out contradictions in the theist's positions must remain a centerpiece of our strategy. But if we continue to do this without attending to the groundwork that I've described as Phase 1 and Phase 2 then we will continue to loose. It is essential for the theists to keep our debate focused on the pursuit of truth/certainty. In terms of this we can have ours, and they theirs, with no possibility of any clear resolution at the rational intellectual level. The present deadlock, of postmodernism/knowledge-relativism, will hold.

If we were to explicitly collectively renounce this silly idea (that some of our knowledge proposals are special, in being characteristic of the actual state of reality), and move to holding all of our proposals exactly upon the basis of the honestly human reasons that we can give for them, then the tide would turn. We can see that the extra step - of rigidification of some of our proposals as the actual state of reality, that we have been making in calling these 'truth' - has never been rationally justifiable. We have already officially recognized this in reference to scientific knowledge, in our acceptance of the central proposal of Karl Popper's 'Logic of Scientific Discovery'. As/when we begin to recognize it in reference to the rest of our knowledge we will become capable of making rapid progress against all of our ancient systems of institutionalized of irrationality.

For now I guess that you will have to continue to fight in your way, and I in mine, but I'll leave you with this question:

To your last observation (that Plantinga's arguments are only compelling to the average idiot on this planet): What do you think might be the effect of our ceasing to pass to our children the illusion of possession of an independent knowledge basis? What would happen if we started passing knowledge on nothing but the basis of our own honest reasons for holding it as such? No propagation of a special/privileged form. No propagation of irrational proposals as examples of this special form, in terms of which their further development of reason must then be constrained. Would they remain idiots? Or to put it another way: Are we necessarily/intrinsically idiots, or have we perhaps just been trying to run with a really nasty and deep level software glitch?

BR,

Keith

 

[rocketdodger]

To your last observation (that Plantinga's arguments are only compelling to the average idiot on this planet):

...snip...

Are we necessarily/intrinsically idiots, or have we perhaps just been trying to run with a really nasty and deep level software glitch?

No no, you misunderstood. I simply say that plantinga's arguments for why one should believe in god make sense when the person in question is an average idiot. As far as I know, his arguments are all geared towards explaining why it is as valid for the average idiot to believe in god as anything else.

I simply wanted to say that this doesn't matter to me, or you, or anyone else that isn't an idiot, because (well, at least I am) we are interested in the higher level battle between reason and theism in the minds of intelligent individuals, not growing children and plain fools.

Children and fools will believe whatever we teach them. I am more interested in how to convince myself and others like me, because eventually those arguments will trickle down to the children (once we win, of course...).

 

[rocketdodger]

For now I guess that you will have to continue to fight in your way, and I in mine, but I'll leave you with this question:

No, actually we are in agreement, I see now. For some time I have not argued on the basis of truth, but rather simply along the lines of "how much utility does it offer?" when it comes to ideas. If I understand you correctly, this is somewhat similar to the route you advocate taking.

I use this approach because (as you know) truth doesn't even come into play. It becomes a simple question of "what do you want?" and "do you see that what you now believe will not help you get what you really want?"

To answer you question -- I see now that it is probably a software glitch. This doesn't mean that children would automatically grow up into Einsteins (I don't think you meant this either), but certainly that there would be alot less dogmatic stupidity in the world if we could get rid of the bug.

 

[hammegk]

To answer you question -- I see now that it is probably a software glitch.

Feature, anyway, that sfaik has worked reasonably well for millenia, in the sense stable societies that define us vs them persist through many generations. Religion, per se, is a major contributor to stability, I think you'll agree.

This doesn't mean that children would automatically grow up into Einsteins (I don't think you meant this either), but certainly that there would be alot less dogmatic stupidity in the world if we could get rid of the bug.

As long as you recognize theists are not the only group prone to dogmatic stupidity. Does 'scientism' mean anything to you?

 

[rocketdodger]

Feature, anyway, that sfaik has worked reasonably well for millenia, in the sense stable societies that define us vs them persist through many generations. Religion, per se, is a major contributor to stability, I think you'll agree.

Are you talking about "worked" in a memetic sense? If so, then I agree. Religion is a nasty and clever organism, as shrewd as anything we have seen. Even its most vigilant opponents, like myself, must admire its ability to devour. If you mean "worked," however, as in "enabled us to fulfill our desires as well as possible," then I would have to say no way.

And yes, religion contributes to stability. The question I have (and would probably answer "no" to) is "is the blend of stability versus advancement that religion has created optimal in any sense of the word other than 'optimally oppressive'?"

As long as you recognize theists are not the only group prone to dogmatic stupidity. Does 'scientism' mean anything to you?

I recognize that. But I think that scientism couldn't cause any more damage than religion, and certainly if the masses embraced it instead of religion, I would be alot closer to being able to live out my fantasies on the holodeck.

 

[hammegk]

.... Religion is a nasty and clever organism, as shrewd as anything we have seen.

A survivor, anyway. Darwin should be proud!

And yes, religion contributes to stability. The question I have (and would probably answer "no" to) is "is the blend of stability versus advancement that religion has created optimal in any sense of the word other than 'optimally oppressive'?"

Here we disagree. The alternative to keeping the proles in line is clubs and armies making sure the Maximum Leader -- god-on-earth -- gets his desires, with remaining in power top-of-the-list. all earthly whims satisfied next.

I recognize that. But I think that scientism couldn't cause any more damage than religion, and certainly if the masses embraced it instead of religion, I would be alot closer to being able to live out my fantasies on the holodeck.

History to date is not in agreement as I read history. "gods-on-earth" tend to have short and brutish careers, with their death the beginning of the end for societal continuity.

 

[rocketdodger]

Here we disagree. The alternative to keeping the proles in line is clubs and armies making sure the Maximum Leader -- god-on-earth -- gets his desires, with remaining in power top-of-the-list. all earthly whims satisfied next.

Well, OK, yeah, religion might be the most ethical way to keep the proles in line, I can see that. But then you would have to show me why we need proles...

History to date is not in agreement as I read history. "gods-on-earth" tend to have short and brutish careers, with their death the beginning of the end for societal continuity.

Yes, but I think the all the "gods-on-earth" that have been bad (most of them) are the ones that get there via politics and deception rather than merit.

I am pretty convinced that combining the notion of reason based on utility rather than absolute truth with Randian objectivism could result in some sort of super-mega-blend of a worldview that would lead to a veritable utopia.

 

[scimystic]

No, actually we are in agreement, I see now. For some time I have not argued on the basis of truth, but rather simply along the lines of "how much utility does it offer?" when it comes to ideas. If I understand you correctly, this is somewhat similar to the route you advocate taking.

I use this approach because (as you know) truth doesn't even come into play. It becomes a simple question of "what do you want?" and "do you see that what you now believe will not help you get what you really want?"

To answer you question -- I see now that it is probably a software glitch. This doesn't mean that children would automatically grow up into Einsteins (I don't think you meant this either), but certainly that there would be alot less dogmatic stupidity in the world if we could get rid of the bug.

Rocket,

Yes, YES! You have indeed gotten to the bottom of it. My simple suggestion is that we stop pretending to have this thing that we can see that we have never had. We agree that kids thus educated would not necessarily become geniuses, but I'm pretty sure that they would be able to think a lot more clearly then any previous generation. They would at least have the potential -the possibility - to start sorting out the mess that we've made.

In regard to this, and in partial response to Hammegk, I will paste in here something that I posted a few months ago (on the Bright's board, I think) in response to a guy who had been really messed up through being raped by his 'Good Christian' scoutmaster. I will duck back in at lunchtime (have very limited time now) to say more to Hammegk. Basically, I understand very well where he's coming from, as I used to be there myself. I will try to show him why I no longer am.

For now:

Your troop leader was probably not, intrinsically, a bad human being. His problem was simply that his mind didn't work very well. This is what happens to human minds when they are initially programed with garbage. If you download into a young human mind the idea that there are two qualitatively different forms of knowledge - one that is based on observation/reason/logic (in essence, reality as it can be percieved to be), and another that is based on revelation/authority/truth (in essence, reality as it, supposedly, actually is) - then in terms of the second form you will be able to download all sorts of further irrational muck. This muck can be highly adaptive from a Darwinian perspective. It can be about the child's tribe being the only real people. About their being observably superior, through their possession of certain physical characteristics (white skin? Straight hair?) and through their being 'the chosen people of ……….’(pick your god), who, as they all know, is the only true God. Such stuff can be great for binding the child to the tribe, and willingly enlisting him into its heirarchial structure. And - because any several people who are collectively wrong, in their belief in something that is absurd but immotionally appealing, can always beat the the snot out of a single person who may happen to be right - openness to acceptence of this kind of muck really can provide a survival advantage. As long as the entire species is playing the same silly game then those who play it with the most commitment (i.e. those who develop the most ridiculous, emotionally appealing, and rigidly structuring systems of social insanity) will dominate. Their species history may end up looking like a prolonged train wreck. They may end up able to look back across thousands of years of war, famine, genocides, and local environmental disasters before they finally succeed in generating ‘the big one’, that rids their planet of their presence. But what they will not do is to figure out the underlying problem. It will remain too weird, too difficult, and too counterintuitive. Even when it is explained to them in twelve pages of excruciating rational redundancy they will find it too hard. They will return to watching their TVs, or to their churches or mosques.