There were a series of interesting questions posed on the Richard Dawkins blog over the last couple of days. These are some of the more philosophical questions asked by the religious in an attempt to prove their god, Or at least prove that not all things are provable.While i think these kinds of questions are facile in nature it's a good idea to have an answer ready, Because they will be asked and as you know, Any question that doesn't have an answer is seen as "evidence" of god by religious folks.
Anyway, I'll post some of the questions here along with my answers and i would be interested in hearing what answers you guys would give to these questions.
Q: You can't prove you love someone, So don't expect proof of god!
A: No i can't prove that i love someone because love is a feeling, A feeling is a neurological impulse that exists only in my brain. Is god unprovable because it's nothing more than a neurological impulse that exists only in your brain? If so, I would agree with you completely.
Q: Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, Including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, Every argument employed by the atheist is, According to his own assertions, Incoherent and meaningless.
A: The universe came about by an inanimate force. Neither rational nor non-rational. Evolution however dictated that rationality, Logic and reason be beneficial to a species and as such is something we now, Through natural selection, Posses (well, some of us).
Q: Religionists like caricature non-believers as being unhappy, Depressed, Loveless, Indifferent, etc. If you don't believe in God, Then you must hate music, Art, Poetry, etc.
A: This has to be the biggest non sequitur argument I have ever heard, Though this very assertion was made to me only a few days ago. I pointed out an enormous list of composers who were atheists and moved on.
Q: Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives.
A: This question assumes that we have a purpose or that we are here for a reason, Until this assertion can be proven true it's unreasonable to ask for a scientific answer regarding that purpose. But i would say were are here for the same "reason" as any other animal, Try to stay alive and have some babies.
Q: Why is there something rather than nothing? What about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe?
A: Someone on the Richard Dawkins blog gave a good answer: Have you ever noticed that most cities are built near a river or permanent water supply? it's almost as if the river was put there for the city. Of course, We know that the river wasn't put there for the city, The city is there because there is a river. The universe is the same, If it wasn't a place where we could exist, We wouldn't exist. There may be other universes where physics doesn't allow life, Even matter to exist, But nobody will know that because it's impossible to exist there. We happen to be in this one.
Q: Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists.
A: Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour and health is a sickness.
These are my responses to some of the more common questions. If you would like to give your own responses to these questions or any of the other questions please feel free to post them in a reply. It's a good idea to arm yourself with answers no matter how facile the question be. I would advise against giving a too detailed answer or defining yourself into a corner, The more you say the more opportunities they have to refute it.
Q: Religionists like (to) caricature non-believers as being unhappy, Depressed, Loveless, Indifferent, etc. If you don't believe in God, Then you must hate music, Art, Poetry, etc.
ReplyDeleteA: This is an subunit of the disillusion that Theists have a monopoly on goodness. I do not believe in painting a demographic with the same brush, as such will only state what I personally know. Most of my childhood friends have matured into atheists/agnostics, yet many are in art programs and a handful actually create their own music. Depression has nothing to do with religion, I have been raised Atheist and had the childhood nick-name of Tyler-Smiler (as I am predisposed for happiness, still am too). My girlfriend can attest that I probably have too much love to give, not counting the NFSW kind. I care deeply about my family, friends and the environment; though I may not care as much as I want to about major disasters across the globe - a result of the Monkeysphere I suppose. I am not perfect, nor do I pretend to be.
It’s an interesting comment - ‘Our reason and purpose for being here is to “Try to stay alive and have some babies.”
ReplyDeleteIf that’s true, how then would one explain in evolutionary terms, the human organisms behaviour of killing 10,000,000 humans though abortions each year and preventing who knows how many times that number through artificial birth control?
One answer that I could think of is that we are trying to preserve ourselves by making sure there aren’t too many of us. On the other hand, no one is so stupid as to believe that is what’s going through teenagers minds while they’re lying naked and drunk on a cot in the basement.
But what kind of organism would try to preserve it’s species by having no offspring, all the while allowing others of the same species to overpopulate with their own genes?
Any thoughts?
Erm, one thing I've never understood, please. I'd appreciate any (serious) answers if anyone has any.
ReplyDeleteThere's always the "you can't prove God doesn't exist" comment / claim. And even Richard Dawkins is quoted (as far as memory serves) as never claiming any such thing.
... but why shouldn't it be enough (or at least something) to point out impossible or contradictory things in the Christian Bible and say "maybe I can't prove SOME god exists, but THIS shows that YOUR God hangs out with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Bunny"...?
I mean, if they're gonna make claims that can be shot out of the sky to land screaming into a blazing furrow of re-ploughed land, why can't we do the service of pointing this out?
... I've been pondering that one on and off for a while now. I fear there must be SOME missing point or logical flaw I've not yet spotted. Anyone who could enlighten me, I'd be very grateful, please.
Makarios, I wouldn't take the satement of "survive and reproduce" ad literam. It doesn't mean every person should reproduce, and it doesn't mean only the smart, or only the religious, etc should reproduce. As long as some of a biological group reproduce there will be a continuation of the species and evolution will happen. Biology doesn't care who you are when you have babies. Biology also doesn't care about the babies that might have been. These concerns are human concerns.
ReplyDelete"The universe came about by an inanimate force." And later...
ReplyDelete"Q: Why is there something rather than nothing? What about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe?
A: Someone on the Richard Dawkins blog gave a good answer: Have you ever noticed that most cities are built near a river or permanent water supply? it's almost as if the river was put there for the city. Of course, We know that the river wasn't put there for the city, The city is there because there is a river. The universe is the same, If it wasn't a place where we could exist, We wouldn't exist. There may be other universes where physics doesn't allow life, Even matter to exist, But nobody will know that because it's impossible to exist there. We happen to be in this one."
The difference is (according to your answers) that the city was put there by intelligent beings while the universe was apparently not. Why can't this same analogy & line of thinking be used with a religious point of view that instead of the "city" (universe) being put there by inanimate force that a god put it next to the "river"? The river certainly didn't move to the city, and the city certainly didn't put itself there. :)
You are missing the point of the analogy. The point is nothing to do with intelligent beings making a decision. The point is simply we are here because the universe in a place where we can exist, If it wasn't, We wouldn't be here.
ReplyDeleteThe multi-verse theory gives us an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of variations in the laws of physics. We just happen to be in one that can support life.
"The multi-verse theory gives us an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of variations in the laws of physics. We just happen to be in one that can support life."
ReplyDeleteI like how despite the fact that you say there is no physical proof of God, you believe something else that has no physical proof. Also, if you believe the infinite universe theory, you could also that that infinite universes give a God-like being and infinite number of chances to exist. So there must 'happen' to be one where some form of all-powerful God exists.
QED
Your response to the last question (re: atheism as a religion) is awesome.
ReplyDeleteQ: You can't prove you love someone, So don't expect proof of god!
A: Likewise, that person I say I love cannot disprove my love for them - it is as ludicrous an endeavor as disproving god. The only logical next step is to shatter the basis of your beliefs (i.e. the Bible); which, when you really get down to it, is very easy if you take the book literally.
Hello, I recently got sent your link; I have a question about this statement:
ReplyDeleteQ: You can't prove you love someone, So don't expect proof of god!
A: No i can't prove that i love someone because love is a feeling, A feeling is a neurological impulse that exists only in my brain. Is god unprovable because it's nothing more than a neurological impulse that exists only in your brain? If so, I would agree with you completely.
If love is a neurological impulse, what is sight? Or feeling? (any of the 5 senses) Would they also just be neurological impulses? I presume yes, because all of the senses are processed by way of the nervous system and brain. And if that's the case, could one also make the argument that the very basises (or is it basi?) for how we understand the world around us (i.e. the scientific method of observation regarding physics, biology, etc.) are also merely subject to our neurological impulses?
D since you insist on littering my blog with cross posting i figured i'd come answer your facile question in the hope that it will stop you shitting on my floor.
ReplyDeletethe multiverse theory was an example of an alternative reason why the universe may have physics that appear to be finely tuned. The physics of our universe is used as evidence of a designer, Dinesh D'souza (moronically) said "fine tuning suggests a tuner", The point is there are other ways that something that appears tuned or designed can come about naturally, Not matter how unlikely it is statistically.
Hello Anonymous. that's a good point you raise. Sight and the other senses are neurological impulses in the brain, but they can be used to provide evidence because we all experience the same thing.
ReplyDeleteWhile an argument that one persons sensation of heat, Seeing an apple fall or hearing a bang could be argued as being not evidence, if more than one person experiences the same thing, that in it's self is evidence that what they are experiencing is not constructed by the brain and is instead an accurate observation of reality.
The more times the same thing is observed by different instruments (either the brain and scientific equipment) the more solid it becomes as evidence and less likely it is to be a fabrication of the brain or malfunction of the equipment.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteHey, it anon re: the neurological impulses.
"While an argument that one persons sensation of heat, Seeing an apple fall or hearing a bang could be argued as being not evidence, if more than one person experiences the same thing, that in it's self is evidence that what they are experiencing is not constructed by the brain and is instead an accurate observation of reality."
Couldn't christians could use this same argument to support natural revelation?
But moving on, I do hear what you're saying, and at the risk of getting too philosophical, I have some more thoughts...
I can't remember which 18th century philosopher it is right now, but the main thrust of his argument is that the act of observing something must mean that there is something to be observed. Meaning, all things have some sort of origin in and of themselves, that exist independent of our mere ability to sense them. I look up at the sky, and my "eye sensor" collects data from something and translates that into blue. The "sky," in and of itself isn't blue, and in whatever abstract material form it does exist in, it has to exist for me to be able to sense it with my eyesight.
But what about someone who is born blind? Try explaining the concept of "blue" to him. You can't. He never had the ability to look up at the sky and recognize it as "blue." It would be indescribeable to him. So, does that mean that "blue" ceases to exist? Well no, right, because enough people did see the sky to give "evidence" to it's blueness. But certainly for this blind guy, it does cease to exist. But then what if everybody was blind, and no one could recognize the sky as blue? Would the entire concept of "blue" then cease to exist? By all scientific means (i.e. observation), you'd have to say yes.
Now, when it comes to emotion or concepts like morality, justice, etc., can you name one observable material thing in the world (like a tree, rock, or puppy) that in and of itself causes these neurological impulses to occur in our brain? Meaning, when you look at the sky, your brain creates a neurological impulse that tells you it's blue, with white clouds and that's it, right? Or, do our 5 senses also ascribe abstract concepts like beauty to the data they collect as well? Well, if our senses are merely data collectors, scientific in nature, then no.
So then, what physical object is out there to be observed, have data collected, and translate into emotion? What makes you feel the emotion of beauty when you observe a blue sky? Well unless you believe that the physical world does somehow have the abstract concepts of justice, mercy, and love somehow interwoven into it's molecules and biological constructs, you would have to say, probably nothing. Then, is it merely just a social context? That, because it's deemed socially "good" to help the poor, one is moved to emotions of grace by seeing pictures starving children? But what made society as a whole have the same neurological impulses of mercy in the first place to form that social context? Or more directly, what is the origin of emotion and morality and other abstract concepts? My assumption is that, in following the same logic of how we understand the concept of "blue," there either must be something physically out there that we somehow "sense" and translate into the abstract (like a happy rock, or an angry tree), or the nature of our ability to sense and create the neurological concepts of justice, mercy, anger, and love comes from a different type of subject or "sensing", one that can't be measured by conventional science.
What do you think?