This is my response to a claim that agnosticism is self-contradictory. The author of that claim clearly doesn't understand agnosticism. The claim itself can be found at http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/05/an-informal-introduction-to-covenantal-apologetics-part-43-–-agnosticism/. I tried to comment within that page; however was unable to. It directs to a 404 error. My response follows here.
This argument is flawed as it assumes an incorrect premise. In addition, it necessarily yeilds an irrational conclusion (see last paragraph).
Agnostics do not assume that a god doesn't exist. To the contrary, they assume nothing. An agnostic witholds from forming a belief (one way or the other) until he finds satisfying evidence for either proposition. An agnostic will not hold out that there's no God until satisfied of evidence of that proposition. And an agnostic will not hold out that there is a God until satisfied of evidence of that proposition. And this doesn't just go for God. It goes for EVERY god. It goes for Roman gods and Egyptian gods and Greek gods and Hindu gods. In fact, this is a mindset that isn't even limited to the supernatural. Are there other intelligent beings on other planets in the Universe? I have no convincing evidence for "yes" or for "no". Hence, I withold from forming a view as I have no reasonable basis to hold one.
Is this atheism? Yes, it is. Agnosticism is a sub-branch of weak atheism ("I don't hold a belief that a god exists").
But whatever words we choose to define it, agnosticism (or weak atheism) is a rational approach. One might claim that it's more rational than strong atheism ("I believe there's no god") as the latter attracts a burden of proof (as it's a positive claim). This is arguable and this is not the time and place.
All that needs to be said here is that agnosticism is not self-contradictory and that it doesn't assume that a god doesn't exist. It simply refuses to assume either the existence or non-existence of a god. And as such, it is inevitably a non-theistic position as it lacks belief that a god exists.
Finally, if we are to take your view that an "I don't know one way or another" position is self-contradictory then humans would be forced to form a positive view about every unproven aspect of reality based on sheer arbitrary choice. And that would indeed be irrational.
Regards
@allocutus
Monday 23 January 2012
Response to a claim that the burden falls on atheists
Since I had a problem posting a comment in the blog (http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/11/extraordinary-claims-the-atheists-burden-of-proof-revisited/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=extraordinary-claims-the-atheists-burden-of-proof-revisited&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) itself, I post it here.
Defectiveabit,
Let me get this right. You refer to weak atheism (the "I lack a belief that a God exists" as opposed to "I have a belief that God doesn't exist) as agnosticism. That's fine, given a specific definition of agnosticism (there are a number).
I agree with you that a strong atheist position ("God does not exist") in itself attracts (at first glance) the burden of proof. This is because of the old maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
That said, that burden is only superficial indeed. There are in fact exceptions to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Namely, in a situation where, if a claim WERE TRUE, one WOULD EXPECT evidence to be available, lack of such evidence entitles us to conlude that the claim is not true.
Is there a giraffe in my kitchen? I look around, I see no evidence of a giraffe (absence of evidence). Equally, I don't see any evidence of a non-giraffe. At the same time, we know that if a giraffe were present in my kitchen, we would expect clear evidence of it, for instance, it would be seen. It would be smelled, it could be studied in a number of ways. This is an example of a situation where absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
The same goes for God. If a God who intervenes in human affairs existed, we would have clear evidence of it. We would see clear statistical data that prayers are answered, for example. We would see clear evidence of miracles, confirmed by objective observers and with the use of scientific method. And yet, no such evidence is known. What follows is that it's quite rational to say that God (one that intervenes in human affairs) probably doesn't exist.
When it comes to the Biblibcal God, there is even better evidence that He doesn't exist: The Bible itself. The Bible contradicts itself, knowledge, logic and morality. In other words, it has ALL THE MARKS of a myth: bunk.
The claim that agnosticism is self-contradictory is also incorrect and I will address that in the post that you linked.
Regards
@allocutus
Defectiveabit,
Let me get this right. You refer to weak atheism (the "I lack a belief that a God exists" as opposed to "I have a belief that God doesn't exist) as agnosticism. That's fine, given a specific definition of agnosticism (there are a number).
I agree with you that a strong atheist position ("God does not exist") in itself attracts (at first glance) the burden of proof. This is because of the old maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
That said, that burden is only superficial indeed. There are in fact exceptions to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Namely, in a situation where, if a claim WERE TRUE, one WOULD EXPECT evidence to be available, lack of such evidence entitles us to conlude that the claim is not true.
Is there a giraffe in my kitchen? I look around, I see no evidence of a giraffe (absence of evidence). Equally, I don't see any evidence of a non-giraffe. At the same time, we know that if a giraffe were present in my kitchen, we would expect clear evidence of it, for instance, it would be seen. It would be smelled, it could be studied in a number of ways. This is an example of a situation where absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
The same goes for God. If a God who intervenes in human affairs existed, we would have clear evidence of it. We would see clear statistical data that prayers are answered, for example. We would see clear evidence of miracles, confirmed by objective observers and with the use of scientific method. And yet, no such evidence is known. What follows is that it's quite rational to say that God (one that intervenes in human affairs) probably doesn't exist.
When it comes to the Biblibcal God, there is even better evidence that He doesn't exist: The Bible itself. The Bible contradicts itself, knowledge, logic and morality. In other words, it has ALL THE MARKS of a myth: bunk.
The claim that agnosticism is self-contradictory is also incorrect and I will address that in the post that you linked.
Regards
@allocutus
Sunday 15 January 2012
Logic as proof for God?
I have come across a paper written by James N. Anderson and Greg Welty and entitled "The Lord of Non-Contradiction:An Argument for God from Logic". The full paper can be found at http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf. It was also twitted on by a user named @ChoosingHats.
The paper provides a philosophical argument that seeks to conclude that a god exists. This is based on the very existence of logic. "God", in the paper, is defined as "necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being" (see p20 for example).
The flow of the argument is as follows (I will not be entering into details at this point):
1. The Laws of Logic are Truths
2. The Laws of Logic are Truths About Truths
3. The Laws of Logic are Necessary Truths
4. The Laws of Logic Really Exist
5. The Laws of Logic Necessarily Exist
6. The Laws of Logic are Non-Physical
7. The Laws of Logic are Thoughts
8. The Laws of Logic are Divine Thoughts (in other words, they are the product of a "necessary mind" - ie God).
I will not attack each premise in turn, althought I have to stress that they are very much open to attack on a number of grounds. To illustrate, the paper includes arguments such as "if we believe in the laws of logic existing then tney must exist". This of course is a non-argument. There are numerous other examples in the paper of similar (and occasionally worse) errors.
That said, I don't wish to focus on those. Suffice it to say that my attack below is by no means the only attack that can be made. Instead, I want to focus on a lethal flaw of the argument itself. The flaw is that the argument either contradicts its own premise or it DISPROVES (rather than proving) God, by making Him impossible. Let's move to the crunch.
A. The Laws of Logic as Necessary
The paper argues (under the heading "The Laws of Logic are Necessary") that a world where the laws of logic don't apply is an impossible world. In other words, the authors claim, it's impossible to have a world in which P (any entity) can exist and not exist at the same time, to give one example (see p7 of the paper). If we disagree with this premise (and claim that a world without logic is in fact possible), the paper fails in its entirety because it can no longer claim that logic is either necessary or universal. And, of course, if logic is neither necessary nor universal, it may simply be a human construct that only applies to the way we ourselves observe our world as we see it.
However, for the purposes of the argument, let's assume that the Laws of Logic are in fact necessary, as is claimed by the authors. Let's assume also that they are universal in the sense that no conceivable world can exist in which they do not apply. Such a world, the authors claim, is impossible. Let's keep in mind that the use of the term "world" in this context doesn't apply to any known physical world, such as a planet, galaxy or universe. It's a philosophical term that simply refers to an imaginable "state of affairs".
Now, having agreed with the paper's premise that a world without logic is impossible, let us consider the paper's conclusion.
B. The paper's conclusion. I will quote it verbatum (page 20 of the paper):
"Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person."
Now, here's the problem with this:
1. There is a claimed existence of a "necessary mind". It's called "God".
2. The Laws of Logic are (according to the paper's argument) a product of this mind. In other words, they only exist (as thoughts, so the authors say) because the mind (God) has thought them up.
3. Since The Laws of Logic were thought up by God, they do not exist independently. This is to be contrasted with their (claimed by the authors of the paper) existence that is independent of the human mind (this is part of their being "necessary"; they would exist even if no human ever walked the Earth).
4. When we say that God has thought up the Laws of Logic we can only mean one of two things; either God has invented them or God has discovered them. If God has discovered them then they exist independently of God and therefore are not His product at all. It's no different to humans discovering logic but not in fact creating it (as per the paper's claims). And if Laws of Logic exist independently of God (albeit He discovers them and thinks about them) then God is not a valid logical conclusion from the premise that the Laws of Logic are necessary. They are in fact necessary DESPITE God and would be necessary even had God not discovered them or had not Himself existed. What follows is that, for the paper's argument to make sense at all, it must be said that the authors claim that God INVENTED Laws of Logic.
5. If God invented laws of logic then God is not bound by them. They do not apply to God. From God's point of view, they are not necessary at all. To God, they are just one of His inventions. He could have, had He wanted to, created other (different) laws of logic. And this means that it's not necessary for God to CONFORM with the Laws of Logic.
6. From 5 above, we can conclude that God exists in a "world" (again, in the philosophical sense) in which the Laws of Logic do not apply. The law of Non-Contradition (as one of the Laws of Logic) also does not apply in God's world. If it did, it couldn't have been created by God and God wouldn't have the freedom to invent such Laws of Logic as He pleased (and we'd be back to point 4 above).
7. But a world in which the Laws of Logic do not apply is an impossible world (see point A above). This is a permise of the authors' own argument; a premise without which the argument would have no feet to start with; it could never get off the ground.
8. Since God is said to exist in an impossible world, God cannot exist in reality.
What follows is that either the Laws of Logic are not truly necessary (and the paper fails at its premises) or that they are truly necessary and a god who thought them up cannot exist.
One might attempt to counter this by special pleading. For example, one might say that the the laws of logic are only necessary in our world and not in God's (although that is not how the authors put it). But that doesn't help the authors' argument. Once we agree that a world in which the Laws of Logic are not necessary is possible, we refute any universality of the Laws of Logic. Put simply, our world is such that things in it can't exist and not exist at the same time (what does Quantum Theory say about that by the way?) and the creatures in it are conditioned to see it in that same way. But other worlds (whether it be "God's world" or just "another type of universe"), in which different Laws of Logic apply (or none at all) are equally possible (and may in fact be more numerous!). You just can't have your cake and eat it too.
Thanks,
@Allocutus
The paper provides a philosophical argument that seeks to conclude that a god exists. This is based on the very existence of logic. "God", in the paper, is defined as "necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being" (see p20 for example).
The flow of the argument is as follows (I will not be entering into details at this point):
1. The Laws of Logic are Truths
2. The Laws of Logic are Truths About Truths
3. The Laws of Logic are Necessary Truths
4. The Laws of Logic Really Exist
5. The Laws of Logic Necessarily Exist
6. The Laws of Logic are Non-Physical
7. The Laws of Logic are Thoughts
8. The Laws of Logic are Divine Thoughts (in other words, they are the product of a "necessary mind" - ie God).
I will not attack each premise in turn, althought I have to stress that they are very much open to attack on a number of grounds. To illustrate, the paper includes arguments such as "if we believe in the laws of logic existing then tney must exist". This of course is a non-argument. There are numerous other examples in the paper of similar (and occasionally worse) errors.
That said, I don't wish to focus on those. Suffice it to say that my attack below is by no means the only attack that can be made. Instead, I want to focus on a lethal flaw of the argument itself. The flaw is that the argument either contradicts its own premise or it DISPROVES (rather than proving) God, by making Him impossible. Let's move to the crunch.
A. The Laws of Logic as Necessary
The paper argues (under the heading "The Laws of Logic are Necessary") that a world where the laws of logic don't apply is an impossible world. In other words, the authors claim, it's impossible to have a world in which P (any entity) can exist and not exist at the same time, to give one example (see p7 of the paper). If we disagree with this premise (and claim that a world without logic is in fact possible), the paper fails in its entirety because it can no longer claim that logic is either necessary or universal. And, of course, if logic is neither necessary nor universal, it may simply be a human construct that only applies to the way we ourselves observe our world as we see it.
However, for the purposes of the argument, let's assume that the Laws of Logic are in fact necessary, as is claimed by the authors. Let's assume also that they are universal in the sense that no conceivable world can exist in which they do not apply. Such a world, the authors claim, is impossible. Let's keep in mind that the use of the term "world" in this context doesn't apply to any known physical world, such as a planet, galaxy or universe. It's a philosophical term that simply refers to an imaginable "state of affairs".
Now, having agreed with the paper's premise that a world without logic is impossible, let us consider the paper's conclusion.
B. The paper's conclusion. I will quote it verbatum (page 20 of the paper):
"Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person."
Now, here's the problem with this:
1. There is a claimed existence of a "necessary mind". It's called "God".
2. The Laws of Logic are (according to the paper's argument) a product of this mind. In other words, they only exist (as thoughts, so the authors say) because the mind (God) has thought them up.
3. Since The Laws of Logic were thought up by God, they do not exist independently. This is to be contrasted with their (claimed by the authors of the paper) existence that is independent of the human mind (this is part of their being "necessary"; they would exist even if no human ever walked the Earth).
4. When we say that God has thought up the Laws of Logic we can only mean one of two things; either God has invented them or God has discovered them. If God has discovered them then they exist independently of God and therefore are not His product at all. It's no different to humans discovering logic but not in fact creating it (as per the paper's claims). And if Laws of Logic exist independently of God (albeit He discovers them and thinks about them) then God is not a valid logical conclusion from the premise that the Laws of Logic are necessary. They are in fact necessary DESPITE God and would be necessary even had God not discovered them or had not Himself existed. What follows is that, for the paper's argument to make sense at all, it must be said that the authors claim that God INVENTED Laws of Logic.
5. If God invented laws of logic then God is not bound by them. They do not apply to God. From God's point of view, they are not necessary at all. To God, they are just one of His inventions. He could have, had He wanted to, created other (different) laws of logic. And this means that it's not necessary for God to CONFORM with the Laws of Logic.
6. From 5 above, we can conclude that God exists in a "world" (again, in the philosophical sense) in which the Laws of Logic do not apply. The law of Non-Contradition (as one of the Laws of Logic) also does not apply in God's world. If it did, it couldn't have been created by God and God wouldn't have the freedom to invent such Laws of Logic as He pleased (and we'd be back to point 4 above).
7. But a world in which the Laws of Logic do not apply is an impossible world (see point A above). This is a permise of the authors' own argument; a premise without which the argument would have no feet to start with; it could never get off the ground.
8. Since God is said to exist in an impossible world, God cannot exist in reality.
What follows is that either the Laws of Logic are not truly necessary (and the paper fails at its premises) or that they are truly necessary and a god who thought them up cannot exist.
One might attempt to counter this by special pleading. For example, one might say that the the laws of logic are only necessary in our world and not in God's (although that is not how the authors put it). But that doesn't help the authors' argument. Once we agree that a world in which the Laws of Logic are not necessary is possible, we refute any universality of the Laws of Logic. Put simply, our world is such that things in it can't exist and not exist at the same time (what does Quantum Theory say about that by the way?) and the creatures in it are conditioned to see it in that same way. But other worlds (whether it be "God's world" or just "another type of universe"), in which different Laws of Logic apply (or none at all) are equally possible (and may in fact be more numerous!). You just can't have your cake and eat it too.
Thanks,
@Allocutus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)