Ep. 88: Objective meaning, value, and purpose

[JustJim]

I didn't start out with an aversion to the idea of God. And I've never been happy with ignorance, either. I also don't reject the possibility of God. I just think it's more intelligent to say, "I don't know", than it is to accept an extremely improbable answer to a possibly unanswerable question. You disagree. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant, stupid, or blinded by my "presuppositions", which, by the way, were fully Christian ones for the first 20 - 30 years of my life, and were well-fueled by many years of religious education, indoctrination, and training, including preparation for and some experience in the ministry. And, as you already are aware, Mitch grew up in an environment of experiences that probably gave him atheistic 'presuppositions', yet he was able to reason his way out of them based on his life experiences. And neither of us has come to the same conclusions you have, even though he and I disagree on many things related to God.

So much for your 'presuppositions' theory....

Everybody has presuppositions, it is impossible not to. But if you know what they are and understand how they influence your world view, then you can think outside the box and seek what is true from a broader perspective. I don't think it is out of line to point out that those who prefer "I don't Know" to God have a bias towards naturalism if they have understood all the evidence for design, purpose, personhood, morals, the big bang, the cosmological arguments and the testimony of others having trusted God.

So, IOW, if people have studied and understood all of your arguments and reasons for your belief in God and are still not convinced, then it must be because they have a bias toward naturalism? It couldn't possibly be because, like you, they've considered all those things and all their counter-arguments and evidence, but came to a different conclusion from yours? Do you have any understanding at all of how arrogant of you that is? Is the entire world that agrees with you absolutely right, and everyone else is absolutely wrong?

I can step fully into the materialist world view without any problem and I fully empathize with how they think.

No, you can't, and what you say next proves that.

The idea of God is considered "supernatural" and science is always better than supernatural. The whole "God-of-the-gaps" issue keeps materialist drinking the cool-aid (sic). It is a modern revelation that design is just an illusion, purpose is subjective, and morals are emergent properties from society. It is a whole connected theology without the "theo" part. Scientist in scientism congratulate each other for keeping the faith even against overwhelming odds in that intellectual integrity is displayed in being ignorant, (I don't know) and skeptical to the infinite degree. The more skeptical, the higher moral and intellectual you are.

Like I said, that proves you have no understanding whatsoever of the naturalist/materialist world view and are without question unable to "step fully into" that world view.

Now, obviously there are times when being skeptical is useful...

It is ALWAYS useful to be skeptical.

The discussion of God is a metaphysical truth that is a higher question than that of the scientific subject, yet science is a tool to determine metaphysical truth as is math a tool for scientific truth. Those members of the faith of scientism reject the question of metaphysical truth from the onset, as they claim it is meaningless. "Only scientific truth is meaningful".

The discussion of God is a DISCUSSION, not a metaphysical truth. But nevermind... I think Mitch could handle this pack of inaccuracies much better than I....

Yet there are a lot of things that cannot be determined by science.

And therefore God exists? Do you know what a non sequitur is?

At what point does skepticism become skeptical of itself?

Maybe at the same time people stop asking stupid questions like that?

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

Jim,

Tony wrote: Now, obviously there are times when being skeptical is useful...

Jim wrote: It is ALWAYS useful to be skeptical.

Since it is ALWAYS useful to be skeptical, are you skeptical of that objective statement? (see how self-refuting that is?)

[JustJim]

Tony,

Apparently you don't understand skepticism. It does NOT mean never making up your mind, never deciding, never being convinced of anything, or never having an opinion or belief. Skepticism is an initial mindset for approaching ideas, questions, and information. It carries on beyond that into keeping an open mind - being always flexible and ready to change your mind about things when presented with new or better information, or when offered new ways of understanding old information. So, NO, it is not self-refuting to say it is always useful to be skeptical, anymore than it would be self-refuting to say it's always a good idea to use your brain.

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

WARNING: The Surgeon general has determined that some of the following is in support of something that Tony said even though some is also critical. Proceed at ones own hazard.

The idea of God is considered "supernatural" and science is always better than supernatural. The whole "God-of-the-gaps" issue keeps materialist drinking the cool-aid (sic). It is a modern revelation that design is just an illusion, purpose is subjective, and morals are emergent properties from society. It is a whole connected theology without the "theo" part. Scientist in scientism congratulate each other for keeping the faith even against overwhelming odds in that intellectual integrity is displayed in being ignorant, (I don't know) and skeptical to the infinite degree. The more skeptical, the higher moral and intellectual you are.

Like I said, that proves you have no understanding whatsoever of the naturalist/materialist world view and are without question unable to "step fully into" that world view.

I have to agree with your assessment Jim. I have seen little ability or even desire on Tony's part to understand the thinking of other people beyond deciding which set of canned rhetoric to aim at it. The result is that you often see very little engagement with what you actually said.

Now, obviously there are times when being skeptical is useful...

It is ALWAYS useful to be skeptical.

At what point does skepticism become skeptical of itself?

Maybe at the same time people stop asking stupid questions like that?

Being trained at the art and habit of skeptical thought from childhood, it was indeed my experience that the mastery of skepticism does indeed ultimately lead to a skepticism of skepticism itself. That is exactly how you get to worldview like mine that understands just how little of what we know is or can be backed up by proof or evidence, so that to live ones life you just have to make choices and follow through on them with rational faith.

[JustJim]

Mitch,

I fully agree with your assessments above. I'm also sure that you would readily, smoothly, and confidently change your opinions and beliefs if presented with information you felt warranted a change. I think that fits well within a skeptical mindset, including being skeptical of skepticism itself. But I don't think Tony is ready to change his mind -- ever. It's like his mindset is, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch,

I'm also sure that you would readily, smoothly, and confidently change your opinions and beliefs if presented with information you felt warranted a change. I think that fits well within a skeptical mindset, including being skeptical of skepticism itself.

You are correct. That is an important part of what rational faith means.

[JustJim]

Mitch,

I'm also sure that you would readily, smoothly, and confidently change your opinions and beliefs if presented with information you felt warranted a change. I think that fits well within a skeptical mindset, including being skeptical of skepticism itself.

You are correct. That is an important part of what rational faith means.

The first thing that popped into my head was that "rational faith" is an oxymoron. But in the sense that I think you define it, I think I agree. For many others, though, I think it would still be a self-contradictory term (Glancing over toward the neighborhood where Tony and Mike live, but not mentionin' any names, of course...)



Jim

[NH Baritone]

My two cents on "skepticism of skepticism":

Skepticism is always directed toward conclusions, and skeptics always leave their conclusions open to review. What evidence led you to reach a particular finding on a matter? Does this verdict make logical sense and take account of all the available data (especially as new data become available)?

To be skeptical of skepticism, you would necessarily doubt the value of such questions and instead embrace ideas for no good reason whatsoever, all the while ignoring any contradictory evidence as meaningless.

Wait ... that sounds familiar.

[tonyenglish7]

Skeptics,

"Since reason already convinces me that I should abstain from the belief in things which are not entirely certain and indubitable...it will be enough to make me reject them all if I can find in each some ground for doubt." - Rene Descartes

I can understand why a naturalist would be skeptical, how could an unguided evolutionary process produce the ability to know the actual reality? How could one with this world view even trust what seems to be knowledge? Would we trust the knowledge of a Monkey? Of course, even to be skeptical you must know something? But how could you know the very minimum if you are always in favor of skepticism? Do you know that the external world exists? Is the past real? Are there other minds out there? How about your own mental life? Is that real?

If the brain is all there is (as opposed to non-physical mind) and it evolved out of chance circumstances and survival, then it is impossible to trust your brain for an accurate point of view of the actual reality out there. But, if the brain is designed for the capacity of knowledge, not just survival, then we can know some things in a real way. We can freely ponder the questions like why is there something rather than nothing? Is the universe here for a reason? Is life actually valuable?

I think of the skeptic in bed in the middle of the night, the smoke detector goes off. This is unusual, this never happens and every single time it has in the past it was because the alarm was going bad or someone over cooked toast. So, since it is "ALWAYS" better to be skeptical, it makes logical sense to ignore it and go back to bed. But really, the stakes are too high for that in this case as everyone could see. Since life is at stake, the most prudent thing to do is go see if there is a fire. If you smell smoke, the level of skepticism should decrease. If you feel heat through the door, it should drop substantially. And when your hair explodes into flames, the time for skepticism is over....

It is my opinion, that a false world view has been preached and believed in our modern society which has been accepted as a form of enlightened knowledge which is, only things that can be tested in the lab are things that are justified to be believed. Since that believe itself cannot be tested in the lab as so many other true beliefs cannot be, this is an absurd belief to hold, yet it is believed without any skepticism whatsoever.

When we see the big bang, the fine tuning, the case for morals being real, the complexity of life, the amazing power within the universe, the existence of other minds and so much more. The atheists always holds to the scientific method as the basis for saying, "we just don't know enough yet to postulate God". But if your brain was designed, you could use it to freely step above the article of faith which has you stuck in a double bind. But if it was not designed but arrived by chance, you are doomed to the dream world which doesn't reflect reality whatsoever. .. .

Get out of bed and lower your skepticism a few notches and see if there is a fire... You only have this one life....

[mitchellmckain]

Skepticism is always directed toward conclusions, and skeptics always leave their conclusions open to review. What evidence led you to reach a particular finding on a matter? Does this verdict make logical sense and take account of all the available data (especially as new data become available)?

To be skeptical of skepticism, you would necessarily doubt the value of such questions and instead embrace ideas for no good reason whatsoever, all the while ignoring any contradictory evidence as meaningless.

Incorrect. One can embrace skepticism without thinking it is the be all and end all, just as one can embrace other things like science while seeing their limitations. To be skeptical of skepticism is not to doubt the value of skepticism or value of questioning conclusions but to apply it consistently and thus applying it to the very process and application of skepticism itself. To be skeptical of skepticism is not to doubt the value of examining the evidence behind a conclusion but rather to likewise examine the conclusions that skepticism itself leads one to. Do we accept the conclusion of skepticism that only conclusions with sufficient evidence should be accepted or do we realize that this gets us nowhere and that it isn't even possible to live ones life under such restrictions? But even if we decide the answer is that we cannot live that way and that we can accept the conclusions without sufficient evidence, that does not mean that we do not still value the application of skepticism in so far as accepting the reality of that lack of evidence.

[NH Baritone]

Skepticism is always directed toward conclusions, and skeptics always leave their conclusions open to review. What evidence led you to reach a particular finding on a matter? Does this verdict make logical sense and take account of all the available data (especially as new data become available)?

To be skeptical of skepticism, you would necessarily doubt the value of such questions and instead embrace ideas for no good reason whatsoever, all the while ignoring any contradictory evidence as meaningless.

Incorrect. One can embrace skepticism without thinking it is the be all and end all, just as one can embrace other things like science while seeing their limitations. To be skeptical of skepticism is not to doubt the value of skepticism or questioning conclusions but to apply it consistently and thus applying it to the very process and application of skepticism itself. To be skeptical of skepticism is not to doubt the value of examining the evidence behind a conclusion but rather to likewise examine the conclusions that skepticism itself leads one to. Do we accept the conclusion of skepticism that only conclusions with sufficient evidence should be accepted or do we realize that this gets us nowhere and that it isn't even possible to live ones life under such restrictions? But even if we decide the answer is that we cannot live that way and that we can accept the conclusions without sufficient evidence, that does not mean that we do not still value the application of skepticism in so far as accepting the reality of that lack of evidence.

Mitch,

Some of us prefer to say, "I don't know," rather than pretend we do. I don't count you in that number.

[mitchellmckain]

Some of us prefer to say, "I don't know," rather than pretend we do. I don't count you in that number.

Well I certainly don't know about you "prefering to admit what you don't know", but I have observed your pretenses that you do know what you cannot. So I certainly don't count you in this supposed number that you talk about. As for me, I reject the hot air pretenses of a definition of knowledge as true belief to affirm that knowledge is nothing more than what you choose to live your life by. Yes I most certainly do choose to live by quite a number of things and I reject the absurd pretenses and delusions of those who insist that they only believe what is proven.

[scomsjw]

I can understand why a naturalist would be skeptical, how could an unguided evolutionary process produce the ability to know the actual reality?

You have to be careful when talking about "actual reality" our brains work with models and the models do fit with what is actually going on but that does not mean that we are apprehending "actual reality". This is very difficult to think about but consider the problem of whether what we see is actually real.

Here I am staring at a computer monitor. The light from the monitor is somehow entering my eye and being interpreted effortlessly by my brain. If I turn my head to the left I can look out of the window and see one of the cats sprawled out on the patio. It seems the light from the cat/patio assemblage is now entering my eye, but the light from my monitor must still be passing infront of my eyes on its way to the wall on my left. Somehow the light from the monitor doesn’t mess up the light coming through the window. My eye and brain are able to disentangle what must be a big mess of light travelling in all directions. I have this ability because sight has great survival value and evolution has been hard at work refining it for millions of years. But I am not seeing what is actually there. I am seeing something that is consistent with reality - a model of what is out there rather than the real thing.

I think this runs a lot deeper. We have models in our head that help us get around the world but the models don't allow us to visualise the universe as it actually is. That's why quantum theory and relativity seem to be somehow true but also incomprehensible.

[mitchellmckain]

I think this runs a lot deeper. We have models in our head that help us get around the world but the models don't allow us to visualise the universe as it actually is. That's why quantum theory and relativity seem to be somehow true but also incomprehensible.

I think you said that last statement a little backwards. Quantum physics and relativity IS true but also SEEM incomprehensible to most people because they don't fit the models that are typically used to visualize the universe.

[scomsjw]

I think you said that last statement a little backwards. Quantum physics and relativity IS true but also SEEM incomprehensible to most people because they don't fit the models that are typically used to visualize the universe.

Thanks that's clearer than what I wrote.

The fact that we use conceptual models to visualise the universe - rather than apprehend it directly - has profound implications for these arguments about "nothing can come from nothing", "mind is the only remaining category", "god exists outside of time" and so on. We have to be aware that "common sense" will not help us to understand how the universe began.