From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:00 PM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: The psychology of Atheism Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: The psychology of Atheism References: <418ab395.0201121341.64afa18c@posting.google.com> <29c16047.0201171241.5802eda2@posting.google.com> <29c16047.0201201116.2297b43b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201231200.18949507@posting.google.com> "Gurnemanz" wrote > > Meta-debates over > > the definition of "credible" or "persuasive" are just lame. > > > Not really. For example when you say 'not persuasive' you > are mentioning a highly subjective criterion: > what may be persuasive for one person > may not be for another Are you claiming that debating the definition of "credible" or "persuasive" is a productive way to begin the discussion over whether gods exist? > I presented a version of > the design argument recently. I do not > remember hearing from you on it. Since taking over from Excite@Home, AT&T's news server seems unable to post to Usenet. I've switched to Google, but some of my postings don't go through on the first try. I'll include the missing ones below. "Gurnemanz" wrote > I imagine that it would be possible to > argue that ghosts do exist ie such a belief does not > seem irrational. > [But] I have theological reasons for doubting the veracity > of such reports. And even better, we atheists have scientific and epistemological reasons for doubting the veracity of reports of religious experiences: * They make claims (about the efficacy of prayer, survival of the mind after death, etc.) that a) are inconsistent with the known laws of nature and b) have never been successfully verified. * They consist of feelings (awe, superstition, etc.) that have more-parsimonious naturalistic psychological explanations. * They fit a pattern of past failed supernatural explanations for * the daily cycle of the Sun; the motions of the Moon and planets; * the seasons; rivers, currents, winds, thunder, lightning, precipitation and drought; * the genesis, design, and diversity of life; success in farming and hunting; * the human mind; evil, misfortune, disease, pestilence, war, and death. "Gurnemanz" wrote elsewhere: > there is no evidence that all of the very many > millions of people who have had religious experiences > are mentally ill > [..] > Its absurd to suggest that all religious experiences > are 'hallucinations' or the result of hysteria. Can you identify the experience or class of experience that is least explicable as any of hallucination, delusion, hysteria, intoxication, wishful thinking, misinterpretation, misperception, misunderstanding, ignorance, gullibility, or deception? > I am definitely not claiming that all, or even most, religious > reports should be believed. Then give us what you think is the single most credible report or set of reports. If those reports have naturalistic explanations, why should we give any weight to the myriad of other less-credible reports? > Religion claims that those who resolutly reject the deity > ie most atheists , will not receive any sort of revelation. When they > make a genuine effort to seek out religion they can expect to receive > guidance. Many atheists (such as I) have described the empirical grounds by which we would readily accept a deity. Any god could trivially inscribe or authenticate its revealed message through supernatural patterns (in cosmological or quantum phenomena) or ongoing miracles (such as prophecy or communication with a spirit world). There is no credible evidence that any such revelation has been competently attempted by any god(s). "Gurnemanz" wrote > (b) The appearance of design is caused by > processes of organic and inorganic evolution. [..] > Concerning (b) it seems to me that evolutionary > processes are part of the pattern that a design theory > ought to explain., and one cannot explain a thing by appealing > to the thing which need explaining. As I noted in our discussion last year, your version of the Teleological Argument (the argument from design) reduces to the Cosmological Argument (the argument from first cause). So do you admit that, aside from the need for a first cause for the initial boundary conditions, all the other apparent design in the universe can be explained without an intelligent designer? If not, please identify the relevant apparent design. "Gurnemanz" wrote > Evolutionary > processes don't explain why there is a world which exhibits > those properties, and whose mechanisms lead to those effects > rather than a world which doesn't display those properties > or contain mechanisms leading to those effects. Theism > does. Again, your argument from design reduces to the Cosmological Argument. Cosmological Arguments for the necessity of God's existence are no better than anthropic arguments that our universe is logically possible and that its (perhaps illusory) existence would necessarily seem apparent to its (perhaps non-existent) inhabitants. And your Ontological Argument for the necessity of God's existence fails, as I showed in an unrebutted posting of 27 Jun 2001 in the "JH: Design Argument" thread. "Gurnemanz" wrote > theists can argue that design in the universe stems > from the mind of the designer conceiving it. > They can then suggest that it derives from an > order which does not qua order stand in need of > an ordering cause. An anthropic argument like the above similarly does not stand in need of an ordering cause. Of course, both arguments still need a necessary cause, but the one that omits God is more parsimonious. "Gurnemanz" wrote > The argument aims to establish that a designer is the > best explanation for the apparent design of the universe, > it does not attempt to explain from whence came the designer. > That is a separate argument. No, it's clearly not. Part of being the "best explanation" for something is being the most parsimonious explanation. If (an unexplained God creating the universe) is as consistent with the evidence as (an unexplained universe itself), then the "best explanation" omits any reference to God. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net