A Chat With Lifeguard
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Quickies, Religion, Skepticism on | 3 minutes | 11 Comments →
Over at Evo's blog, you said:
I've regularly commented over at cl's blog and, from what I've observed, I think his position essentially boils down to this:
"Given the present state of the evidence, neither theism nor (positive) atheism are logically compulsory positions. Therefore, atheist arguments that characterize theist positions as irrational, illogical, or not supported by evidence are often false."
I suspect he feels that this makes theism as warranted as atheism, and I have disagreed with him on that. He has meticulously avoided making a positive statement about his beliefs, religious or otherwise, but my guess is he's an open-minded liberal theist of some sort.
Bottom line? Sometimes I think he's right about certain arguments, and I don't have a problem admitting that. Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that. But I have found he can be pretty reasonable if you (1) don't overstate your case, (2) make concessions when you have, and (3) insist he do the same.
To date, neither of us has convinced the other, but, if that's the point, then… what's the point? Methinks challenging someone and being challenged is a lot more satisfying (and productive) than chasing after the illusion that somehow someone's going to convince a theist blogger to openly admit defeat in an argument about whether god exists.
That was a great comment, and I wanted to first say thanks for that. Bravo on your points 1-3, too. Also, I approve of your description of my position as well, if you'll allow me to note that your description is of course very general. Here are my questions:
1) You said, "Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that." Could you summarize what you'd offer as our primary disagreements? I recall us seeing eye-to-eye on quite a bit, up to and including POE arguments – which actually surprised me. After that, I realized similar sentiments existed elsewhere in the atheist community.
2) I disagree that I've "meticulously avoided making a positive statement about his beliefs, religious or otherwise." I've stated that I'm a believer, and not an atheist; I've stated that I believe prayer studies are not scientifically credible; I've stated my belief that reductionist materialism is incompatible with the data… These are just a few examples, and I could go on. Aren't each of those positive statements that anyone can engage?
Lifeguard
says...1) As far as I can tell, I’d say our primary, perhaps even sole disagreement is that theism is as warranted as atheism. Whenever I’ve felt that we’ve reached an impasse it’s almost always at the point where I’m thinking something along the lines of
a) Okay, we agree that X is as compatible with the existence of a god as it is with atheism. Given the failure of a clear reason for believing there’s a god, why should I? I the absence of clear evidence, doesn’t it make more sense to be a-theist, to live my life without reference to the possible existence of a god?
or
b) Given that we can’t say X or Y about god or his/her will, his or her benevolence/malevolence, what difference does god’s existence or lack of existence have on my life? As Sartre put it “Existentialism is not so atheist that it wears itself out trying to disprove god’s existence. Rather, it holds that even if god did exist, it would not matter.” We’re in the same boat either way– trying to figure out how we should live in the face of ambiguity. Me? I don’t see the point in belief under those circumstances.
That’s the best I can do as far as summarizing where you and I disagree. As I said in a comment elsewhere, one encounters the world and either intuits that there is a god or that there isn’t one. Apologetics, one way or the other, is just how we understand and defend our beliefs.
2) Fair enough. I think the better way to put it would have been to say you’ve avoided labels beyond generally identifying yourself as a theist. For all any of us know you’re a deist, Unitarian, Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, or are a follower of A Course in Miracles. CLEARLY, the positive statements you identify above are more than enough for anyone to engage, as this blog attests.
Arthur
says...“I’m not pretending to be a complete agnostic about anything. I do believe God exists. I blame all who assume.”
“I believe that information about God in the Bible and elsewhere is reliable – however – if I am to know at all, I won’t know whether it is or not until I die.”
“…we cannot know the Bible is reliable unless and until we meet God, and God turns out to be what the Bible claimed.”
“Even demons believe in God and the reliability of the Bible! All I said is that I think the information about God in the Bible is reliable. Does that entail that I believe it or live by it?”
“Now, if you’re asking me if I’m an agnostic, personally – my official position on God is that we are all agnostic – none of us can know this side of life, but any of us can choose to believe or disbelieve for a variety of reasons – some rational and reasonable – others not.”
“Yes, believing in God is compatible with being agnostic, because not knowing something doesn’t preclude believing it…”
“Why is it automatically my fault that you’re having trouble understanding? Seriously, what do you want to know? What do you contend I haven’t answered?”
cl
says...Seems to me that’s inevitably headed towards a discussion of what constitutes sufficient reason to believe.
I dispute the ‘failure of a clear reason’ part.
Don’t you think that question can only be answered by your own experiences? Secondly, for the sake of argument, let’s say God’s existence has no bearing on our lives here and now. Still, wouldn’t declaring God unnecessary based off this ‘no bearing’ argument amount to the genetic fallacy? That is to say, that God appears to have no bearing on our lives now does not entail that God will not have bearing on our lives at some future point. Some people respond to this argument by saying, “I’ll cross that bridge when I get there,” and I always respond by asking them to unpack the presuppositions.
All good with me and I’m not going to dispute that. I respect you and will always listen to you just the same, regardless of what you believe. Although I’d still like to pursue the discussion over whether or not (a)theism are equally tenable positions, it seems we disagree more on matters of personal preference than anything else.
Although in the future there’s going to be a dramatic shift in the style of argumentation here at TWIM – for now – what I personally believe has no bearing on any of the arguments we have, and that’s why I usually keep my personal beliefs out of the arguments we have. I realize that most people consider this highly deplorable, and all I can say is I’m glad I don’t live for their approval. I’ve stated before that for the purposes of these discussions, people can assume I answer Evo’s questions affirmatively.
Lifeguard
says...1)You wrote: “Seems to me that’s inevitably headed towards a discussion of what constitutes sufficient reason to believe.”
Yep.
2) Then you wrote: “I dispute the ‘failure of a clear reason’ part.”
I know… that’s why I cited it as one of the areas we disagree!
But I’ll refine the point a bit.
I’ll concede that someone who says something along the lines of “Something can’t come out of nothing, the universe is something, therefore God exists” has articulated a clear reason for why they believe in God. Perhaps the better way to put it would have been “the failure logically compulsory reason.”
3) “Don’t you think that question can only be answered by your own experiences?”
Not definitively. Our personal experiences are as open to our own limited interpretation as our personal judgement of our alleged God’s benevolence, malevolence, or amorality.
4) “Secondly, for the sake of argument, let’s say God’s existence has no bearing on our lives here and now. Still, wouldn’t declaring God unnecessary based off this ‘no bearing’ argument amount to the genetic fallacy? That is to say, that God appears to have no bearing on our lives now does not entail that God will not have bearing on our lives at some future point.”
Yes. God, if he exists, could have a huge impact on what happens to me during or after this life. But the fact that God “could” have a huge impact on what happens to me after this life doesn’t, in my book, amount to the conclusion that God does exist or that it necessarily behooves me to believe so.
5) “Some people respond to this argument by saying, ‘I’ll cross that bridge when I get there,’ and I always respond by asking them to unpack the presuppositions.”
I’m not sure what presuppositions you’re talking about.
6) “I’d still like to pursue the discussion over whether or not (a)theism are equally tenable positions, it seems we disagree more on matters of personal preference than anything else.”
I’m not really trained in philosophy or logic– I’m not even sure what the “genetic fallacy” is– so you’ll have to bear with me if we have such a discussion.
Here’s how I look at it:
To evaluate the relative merits of the two positions “God Exists” and “God Does Not Exist,” you’d have to stand in neutral territory between those two extremes. As far as I am concerned, that “neutral position” is, properly speaking, atheist (in the same way that mathematics can be called atheist).
Standing in that position, as I sincerely believe I do, I have yet to see a compelling reason to say “God Exists,” but I also don’t shout definitively “God is a logical impossibility and you’re a stone aged jackass for believing in him!” Therefore, I am atheist. The psychologist Albert Ellis used the term “probabilistic atheism” to describe his worldview, and that sounds just fine to me.
I don’t see how that’s untenable or less tenable than theism or any of it’s incarnations.
cl
says...Why doesn’t the logic advanced by your hypothetical believer in 2 apply to their own God? Either way we cut it, we end up with a state of things where some thing’s existence is taken for granted, right?
Your 3 sounds like a descent into solipsism: Are you saying we cannot definitively answer questions via personal experience?
In the context of whether or not God’s potential future import can rationally sustain belief, I may or may not agree with you that it cannot. However, do really not see any prudence whatsoever in the idea? If so, that confuses me – but then again – so does fear as a motivation for belief.
Well, some people say, “If God is important and I need to believe in Him I’ll find out when I die.” This presupposes that choices made on Earth are not binding. What if it’s too late at that point?
Genetic fallacy simply means that we can’t demand something must always be as it currently is.
What would constitute a compelling reason? Why suppose a compelling reason exists? I’ve never heard compelling answers to those questions. People usually just respond along the lines of, “I’ll know it when I see it.”
I wouldn’t say that it is.
Lifeguard
says...a) “Why doesn’t the logic advanced by your hypothetical believer in 2 apply to their own God? Either way we cut it, we end up with a state of things where some thing’s existence is taken for granted, right?”
I’m not sure what you’re asking me here.
b) “Your 3 sounds like a descent into solipsism: Are you saying we cannot definitively answer questions via personal experience?”
Not when it comes to the existence or qualities of God. In fact, when it comes to trying to use our personal experiences to figure out if God exists or learn something about God’s nature, it surprises me that more people aren’t concerned about solipsism.
c) “However, do really not see any prudence whatsoever in the idea… Well, some people say, “If God is important and I need to believe in Him I’ll find out when I die.” This presupposes that choices made on Earth are not binding. What if it’s too late at that point?”
If I only believe because it’s prudent, then aren’t I just professing an empty faith? Don’t I, in fact, NOT believe? Aren’t I just lying? How could that be satisfactory if BELIEF is important to God? I can’t believe out of prudence, because that would not be belief.
I do, however, for reasons independent of the existence of God, try to live a good life, ask forgiveness of those I hurt or offend, and do some good in the world.
If God does exist and after I die he tells me that I’m going to hell for the sole reason that I didn’t believe (as opposed to the kind of life I led), then the worst he could do to me is send me to heaven, because I can’t imagine a more horrible fate than being forced to spend eternity in the presence of an intellectual bully who would punish an otherwise good man simply because that man, using the intellectual talents God gave him, simply got the answer wrong.
d) “What would constitute a compelling reason? Why suppose a compelling reason exists? I’ve never heard compelling answers to those questions. ”
What would you consider a compelling answer to those questions? Why suppose a compelling answer to those questions exist?
I’m kidding… but only half kidding.
I’m not sure there is a compelling reason to say “God exists,” which is why it’s hard to say what one would look like. That’s why I don’t believe. All I know is that, right now, I have yet to hear or see one, and I don’t think that’s just obstinance on my part, because the fundamental question is:
WHY BELIEVE [OR DISBELIEVE]?
And that/those are questions we ask and answer for ourselves, not each other. This is why I don’t really see the value in TRYING to convince anyone of anything as opposed to simply explore and explain your own point of view and allow others to do the same in a dialogue. In the lengthy process of that kind of a conversation, you can learn a lot and perhaps slowly change someone’s mind or have your mind changed. THAT’S how you search for truth (as opposed to convincing someone you possess it).
Meanwhile, we all have to be honest with ourselves about where we stand at any given point in time. Me? I don’t believe.
e) “I wouldn’t say that it is.”
Is so!
cl
says...You seemed to imply that the first cause argument was successful when you said, “I’ll concede that someone who says something along the lines of “Something can’t come out of nothing, the universe is something, therefore God exists” has articulated a clear reason for why they believe in God.” It seems that either way we go, either God or matter has to have always existed – or something can come from nothing – or…?? To me, the person who claims their God always existed but denies that matter could have always existed pleads specially. See what I mean?
I think you answered in line for a skeptic. IOW, I don’t think your answer was contradictory at all. I frequently use this argument against atheists who claim they could be swayed by God’s manifestation. How would they know it was God manifesting?
That’s what I was getting at when I said, “..that confuses me – but then again – so does fear as a motivation for belief.”
I’m interesting in hearing those reasons.
I understand the argument, but I think God (as described in the Bible) would dispute the ‘otherwise good man’ part. According to the Bible, none of us can possibly earn our place in heaven by being good, so none of us would be able to mount a successful ‘otherwise good man’ argument – at least not against the God of the Bible.
I tend to agree.
Earlier, of probabilistic atheism, you said,
..and I replied that I didn’t think it was. Was the ‘is-so’ thing humor? Or did one of us misunderstand the other?
Lifeguard
says...1) “You seemed to imply that the first cause argument was successful”
“Successful” insofar as it’s an understandable and rational articulation of someone’s reason to believe in god. Unsuccessful insofar as you stated “the person who claims their God always existed but denies that matter could have always existed pleads specially.” In other words, it’s a perfectly rational justification for belief, but it doesn’t prove anything.
2) “I’m interesting in hearing those reasons.”
From a lifetime of observing and interacting with other human beings, I’ve concluded that they very likely experience emotions just like I do– pain, pleasure, fear, excitement, love, hate, kinship, isolation, hunger, and satisfaction. Recognizing that, I try to have relationships that engender those feelings and have actually found that it can be mutually beneficial.
Through no merit of my own, I was born into much better circumstances than other people who experience a lot of pain and suffering through no fault of their own. Recognizing that, I feel an obligation to give to charity.
That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about.
3) “I replied that I didn’t think it was. Was the ‘is-so’ thing humor? Or did one of us misunderstand the other?”
Apparently both!
Lifeguard
says...Cl:
Missed a spot.
You wrote: “I understand the argument, but I think God (as described in the Bible) would dispute the ‘otherwise good man’ part. According to the Bible, none of us can possibly earn our place in heaven by being good, so none of us would be able to mount a successful ‘otherwise good man’ argument – at least not against the God of the Bible.”
All I can say is that if that particular God of the Bible exists, I’m apparently screwed. Don’t forget that I’m a lawyer though, and plan to pull out all of the Good Samaritan type of stuff in my defense. I also trust you’ll put in a good word for me.
cl
says...Man, such a different and pleasant tone over here compared to DD’s….
Re 1, do you believe belief is rationally justifiable? If so, you might be the first atheist I’ve heard advance that position.
Re 2, it sounds like your beneficence is motivated by altruism.
Why? If all we all do is croak in the end, what does it matter that you helped a bunch of starving kids? Further, shouldn’t we just get rid of all the people who can’t support their own existence on this planet? (Realize I’m not being cold-hearted here either – just playing devil’s advocate – albeit only slightly)
Re 3, do you think “probabilistic atheism” is or is not “untenable or less tenable than theism or any of it’s incarnations?” That’s what I’m getting at.
Doesn’t that bother you in the least bit? I know that such bothers many, and I make no judgment on either group, but nonetheless I seek to understand all groups.
As good a lawyer as I believe you are, what argument do you suppose Satan hasn’t already tried?
Now we get to a situation where my personal beliefs actually do become relevant to our discussion: I certainly will, but remember – I’m only a man like you – and we’re all responsible for our own decisions.
Either way, I think our discussion here was extremely productive, and thanks as always.
Lifeguard
says...A) Do you believe belief is rationally justifiable? If so, you might be the first atheist I’ve heard advance that position.
I may catch a lot of shit for this, but… yeah. Taken alone, I don’t think there’s anything necessarily irrational about believing in a god of some sorts. I certainly don’t think deism is IRRATIONAL.
It’s some of the things people believe or claim to know about god or the world based on that belief that can be irrational and sometimes scary. But just saying that such a god EXISTS? Hey, I don’t believe that, but that belief taken alone is not irrational on its face.
B) “If all we all do is croak in the end, what does it matter that you helped a bunch of starving kids?
It doesn’t matter. But every time I think about the cosmic futility of my helping a bunch of starving kids, it only dramatizes to me the cosmic futility of the suffering itself, which strikes me as more worthy of my attention than living a life of pure self interest, especially in light of the relative plenty I have in my life.
Conversely, though, if we only give because an all powerful deity who can throw us in an eternal flaming jail says we should, then how “good” are we really being?
C)”Further, shouldn’t we just get rid of all the people who can’t support their own existence on this planet?”
That answer assumes we’ve already agreed that something should be done about suffering. If that’s the case, then it’s simply a matter of why we should choose the option of feeding such people as opposed to putting them out of their misery. Given the wealth of much of the First World nations, we could all tighten our belts a bit and give, and that could go a very long way towards improving peoples lives. I’d prefer that to killing them because most of these folks want to live and are asking the rest of us for money and food– not that we aim rockets at them.
D) “Doesn’t that bother you in the least bit?”
It only bothers me if I assume God exists, and, under those circumstances, yes, you better believe it bothers me! But it bothers me because of what it says about God that he would judge people that way. That why, even when I believed, I never believed in that kind of a god. I never saw how God could possibly be good or merciful if he would punish someone simply for not believing.
Incidentally, are Christians in a different boat if it turns out Islam is true? Under Islam aren’t Christians idolators? How is that different from my situation if God exists and doesn’t buy the “good man” argument?
E) “Either way, I think our discussion here was extremely productive, and thanks as always.”
Likewise.