-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
1/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 1
Eric Hyde's BlogThoughts on Orthodox Christianity and Psychology
BLOG STATS
78,494 hits
FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL
Join 1,024 other followers
Enter your email address
Follow
BLOGS I FOLLOW
1. What Narrow Room
2. The Matt Walsh Blog
3. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy
4. The Blog of Andrew Arndt
5. Energetic Procession
6. Roads from Emmaus
AB OU T
MU SINGS
ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
MY JOURNEY WITH THE
ORTHODOX CHURCH
PSYCHOLOGY CORNER
AS K A QU E ST IO N
The Finest Argument Against AtheismOctober 28, 2012 by Eric Hyde
The finest argument I have ever heard
against atheism would have to be the
argument from reason. The typical
arguments one hears in atheist vs. theist
debates do not usually interest me. I
dont find many of them particularly
profound. However, the argument fromreason is one of those arguments that
would definitely cause me to struggle
with atheistic claims if I were an atheist.
Itshould be noted that this is not an
argument for Christianity, but rather
an argument against atheism, specifically atheism animatedby
philosophical materialism and/or naturalism. An argument for
Christianity would follow a very different set of rules.
Naturalism essentially states that nature is a closed system inwhich all
events within the system are explainable (or are explainable in principle) in
terms of the natural order. Thus, naturalism excludes any idea of god
since the divine does not lie within the total system. If one accepts these
presupposition then all events, including that of thought, must be
explainable in purely natural/material terms. In short, all events must be
the result of mechanical processes linked in a casual chain of events that
could be traced back to the very beginning of the universe, if one were so
inclined.
The trouble for the Naturalist comes into play when one considers the
event of human thought. Since thoughts are events, all of our thoughts
should be fully explainable in mechanistic terms, and not according to a
persons free-agency. But any thought which is not guided by what is true
but guided rather by mechanistic, physical necessity is not rational. Hence,
Naturalism, philosophically speaking, slits its own throat.
Again, if our thoughts are the inevitable play of firing neurons in our brain
set in motion by causal necessity then what we think would be the result of
whatever the total system delivered to us, and not because it accorded with
truth necessarily. If the claims of Naturalism are held with consistency,
one would have to concede that belief in Naturalism occurs only because
nature has determined it (sort of an atheists equivalent of Calvinism). And
if one arrives at his philosophy not because he chose it, but rather because
it was all the total system would allow, then Naturalism is, philosophically,
self-defeating.
Im spiritual, not
religious
Dying with
Dignity: thoughts
on Brittany
Maynard's
resignationfrom
cancer
The Finest
ArgumentAgainst
Christianity
Top 10 Most
Common Atheist
Arguments, and
Why They Fail
Is Grace the Gift of
Non-Discipleship?
The Finest
Argument Against
Atheism
The Tradition of
Hating Tradition
About
TOP POSTS & PAGES
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/author/ehyde/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/ask-a-question/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/psychology-corner/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/my-journey-with-the-orthodox-church/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/musings/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/about/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-grace-the-gift-of-non-discipleship/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/im-spiritual-not-religious/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/about/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/the-tradition-of-hating-tradition/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-grace-the-gift-of-non-discipleship/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/im-spiritual-not-religious/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/author/ehyde/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/ask-a-question/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/psychology-corner/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/my-journey-with-the-orthodox-church/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/orthodox-theology/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/musings/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/about/http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/roadsfromemmaus/http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/http://andrewarndt.wordpress.com/http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/http://themattwalshblog.com/http://thelastwordsyours.wordpress.com/http://discover.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/ -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
2/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 2
I like what the late Professor Haldane of Oxford University said
concerning the logical conclusion of a strict naturalism: If my mental
processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I
have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no
reason to suppose that my brain to be composed of atoms.
Victor Reppert, piggy-backing off the ideas put forth in the book,
Miracles, by C.S. Lewis, which gave a well-articulated criticism of
naturalism, gave the following syllogism to help summarize the argument:
1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of
non-rational causes.
2. If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms
of non-rational causes.
3. Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally
inferred.
4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally
inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.
5. Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.
Reppert continues, Explaining how a
person, as a matter of personal history,
came to believe something in a rational way
is critical to understanding that person as a
rational agent. Naturalism unwittingly
denies such an explanation. In essence,
naturalism is a philosophy of existence
which precludes human beings from being
truly free, rational agents. The very power
of reasoning which they use to levy
arguments against God is the very power
which gives witness to an intellectualsource for reason in general. Rational
inference is the ultimate elephant in the
room during most atheist debates.
According to a consistent Naturalism any notion of god must be excluded,
but its more than that: any notion of good and evil, right and wrong, love
and hate, etc., must also be treated as mythical. At best they are nothing
more than helpful categories of thought, but categories with no existence
(or ontology) of their own. Life would then be essentially meaningless
since its ultimate goal is mere survival, a goal wholly unattainable in a
world where death is guaranteed.
This is an extremely brief treatment of the argument and Ive tried my bestto summarize my understanding of its main elements. For the sake of time
Ill let whatever discussion ensues from this article help to ferret out those
finer points which were left untouched. Thanks for reading!
Share this:
Facebook Twitter Email
Like
18 bloggerslike this.
http://en.gravatar.com/illerohttp://en.gravatar.com/keithnobackhttp://en.gravatar.com/delightintruthhttp://en.gravatar.com/neox3dhttp://en.gravatar.com/jasonalanwriterhttp://en.gravatar.com/gianmetryhttp://en.gravatar.com/robstroudhttp://en.gravatar.com/theogeehttp://en.gravatar.com/humanity777http://en.gravatar.com/graphicsoflighthttp://en.gravatar.com/proteusiqhttp://en.gravatar.com/mariusdavidcruceruhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?share=email&nb=1https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?share=twitter&nb=1https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?share=facebook&nb=1 -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
3/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 3
CHRISTIAN, GOOD WORKS ARE NOT
YOUR ENEMY
THE FINEST ARGUMENT
AGAINST CHRISTIANITY
This entry was posted in Musings and tagged atheism, c.s. lewis, God, materialism,
naturalism, reppert. Bookmark the permalink.
81 thoughts on The Finest Argument
Against Atheism
Jason Alansays:
October 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm
What it truly breaks down to is that there is no observable evidence for a creator of our
known universe. Since we have, through scientific means, so far explained many things
about the natural laws of the cosmos, we can safely say (but not with 100% certainty)
that what we have not yet found an answer to can be found. Another way to put it is
that if we can observe it, then given enough time, we can explain it. That being said, it
seems that the vast majority of people living today that do believe in a creator also
believe that this creator exists in a realm which we cannot observe, no matter how
technologically advanced we become. Personally, Im fine with that aspect, for the most
part. A supernatural being created the universe. If Im not completely ok with it, I can at
the very least understand it.
What I dont understand, however, is how people can base their whole life structure on
a book that was written thousands of years ago by grown people (I can only assume)
that knew less about the universe and how it works than the average 8 year old of
today. To look at religion objectively, you have to understand that there have been
thousands of religions, and e very be liever of those were just as sure they were right as
anyone else. What they also have in common is lack of solid proof. Testable, observable,
falsifiable evidence.
Thats what is so great about science. We dont merely take peoples word for it, even
when they are as smart as Einstein was. Other people look at their hypotheses, ideas
and/or theories and calculate, experiment, observe and d o it over and over again. If it
works out the same every time with many different independent researchers conducting
the experiments, then we accept it. Until then, it is just an idea, and not all ideas are
good.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
October 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Hi Jason, thanks for your reply.
You bring up some good points with regards to putting theism on the
stand, but as I said in the opening of the article, if I were to perform a
Related
Sam Harris: Riding
the Philosophic Short
Bus
Top 10 Most
Common Atheist
Arguments, and Why
They Fail
Atheism on the
Ropes: Naturalism's
Failure to Provide an
Adequate Account for
Value
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/atheism-on-the-ropes-naturalisms-failure-to-provide-an-adequate-account-for-value/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/sam-harris-riding-the-philosophic-short-bus/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2323#respondhttp://jasonalanwriter.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/reppert/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/naturalism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/materialism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/god/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/c-s-lewis/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/musings/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/christian-good-works-are-not-your-enemy/ -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
4/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 4
Christian apologetic the argument would be profoundly different. The
aim of this article is to expose what is for me the most compelling
argument against atheism. Atheism and science are not coequals; they
should not be conflated. Atheism is a philosophy whereas science
attempts to remove philosophy as much as possible from its evaluation of
the natural world and its phenomenon (though such a goal is often
thwarted when science is removed from its proper context and used as a
philosophical tool against theism).
But as far as science rejecting God due to not having observable qualities
in the natural order (my words, not yours), I would argue that science
has no commentary on non-observable phenomenon, whether divine or
cosmological, as there are plenty of natural phenomenon that resist
scientific commentary the epitome of which would have to be the mere
existence of the natural world in the first place.
One point I would most like to comment on is your assumption that
ancient man was ignorant of cosmology due to the fact that they, knew
less about the universe and how it works than the average 8 year old of
today. I would argue that ancient man was far superior to we moderns
who spend half of our lives in front of computer and television screens
whereas the ancients spent 100% of their lives in full communion with
nature. These were men and women whose lives depended on theirclose association with nature, people who were perfectly subjected to
their world and subjects rather than mere observers of their world.
The sky they saw at night is a sky which none of us alive today have e ver
seen in all its brilliance due to our advanced technology of artificial
light. One has to get 500 miles out to sea before they can see the same
sky the ancients saw undefiled by city lights. We have an inferior
relationship to our world in that our relation to it is one of objectivity.
The ancients had a relationship of subjectivity. As Kierkegaard rightly
said, Truth is subjectivity. Thus, we may have more knowledge about
the cosmos, but they had more insight.
Lastly, your point about basing ones entire life on a book written by
these ancient men as being terribly flawed. I would agree. As an
Orthodox Christian my life is based not merely on a text but a Holy
Tradition which includes the text and the experience of 40 centuries of
spiritual refinement and wisdom that no science classroom in the world
would even jokingly pretend to replicate. But, there are many Christians
who do just as you claimed and I agree with your conclusion.
Cheers.
Reply
Jason Alansays:
October 28, 2012 at 8:32 pm
I suppose I did get off the specific topic. I agree that there
were some advantages of living back then. Seeing the
beauty of the night sky unimpaired like you said, but
probably the most important being that many people
hunted and grew their own food so they likely had a
deeper appreciation for what ended up on their plates.
Our modern technology has afforded us many luxuries like
modern medicine, but we have done a fine job of
separating ourselves from the natural world that we claim
to know so much about.
http://jasonalanwriter.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2324#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
5/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 5
As for Christianity, I think it would garner more respect
among nonbelievers or those of other faiths if there
werent so many denominations, different versions of the
bible, interpretations of the bible, etc. Ive said before,
maybe too hastily, that the world would be better off
without religion, but I think Ive come around to thinking
that if the religions werent so incredibly divided, that
would be a more suitable way to address the debate.
One of the problems Ive had with Christians blogs is that
many times, even when I am respectful, my comments
arent approved for the simple fact that I disagree. If they
are that afraid of differing opinions then that doesnt say
much about their faith, does it? Anyway, its nice to see
people like you who are open to discussion about it even
though we dont agree. We haven t advanced far enough
in technology to live on different planets, so we might as
well get along even if our viewpoints arent the same. One
thing I can be fairly sure of, though, is that most people
are good regardless of their beliefs. If you look around
youll see the the majority of society treats others like they
would like to be treated. At least most of the time. That
isnt called the golden rule for nothing, my friend. Peace
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
October 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Jason, I share your frustration concerning the
attitude of many Christians when confronted
with challenges to their faith. The reactions
you describe are almost always set in a deep
discomfort and lack of integrity of their faith.
No person of real Christian insight would fear
any challenge to their faith, thats how I see it.
You aptly express why I became an Orthodox
Christian; our understanding of Scripture
and tradition hasnt required a Reformation
or division of thought in 20 centuries.
Indeed, denominationalism is the single
greatest witness against Christianity and the
unity of the Church its greatest witness for
Christianity, and theirs only one pre-
denominational Church that can claim the
latter.
Reply
thatcatkatie says:
November 16, 2012 at 7: 29 pm
I just read your post thats like this, put titled a fine
argument against Christianity, and I saw something you
said here that I think can relate back to the other post.
I found what you said here interesting, specifically, We
have an inferior relationship to our world in that our
http://thatcatkatie.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2328#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2325#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
6/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 6
relation to it is one of objectivity. The ancients had a
relationship of subjectivity. As Kierkegaard rightly said,
Truth is subjectivity. Thus, we may have more
knowledge about the cosmos, but they had more
insight.
Youre right, the ancients saw things subjectively
meaning that had no real reason or logical thought
process, only personal experience. So they sparked the
beliefs that (at least, this is how I view it) eventually led to
your idea of God. They didnt understand objectivitybecause they didnt have any decent ways to test their
theories, just believe. So in a way, all ideas of God are the
result of disunity from the very first God or Gods, because
the idea of a God started with these ancients, likely as a
means to explain the world around them. Humanitys
ideas about God went on from there, and more religions
were created everything from Hinduism, to Paganism, to
the Gods of the Romans and Greeks which we regard now
as stories, to the Judeo-Christian beliefs of today in fact,
many of the teachings and mythology surrounding
Christianity appeared in many religions that came before
it.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
November 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Thanks for the reply, Katie. Let me make one
main response to your post and see what you
think. What Kierkegaard, and I by extension,
mean by subjectviity is that one is
personally involved with, or subjected to a
relationship with, something going beyond
mere objectification. Similar to the scientist
who studies marriage relationships, but is not
married vs. a married person with a
subjective relation with the notion of
marriage. Which would you say knows
about marriage? Well, they both do, in
entirely different ways. Kierkegaard would
say that the one who is actually engaged in a
marriage relationship has far more
knowledge about marriage than the mere
observer. The observer could give you stats
and fact about somethings, but would have no
idea what it means to be married like the
one who is married. Relate all this to the idea
of God and nature and youll see where I was
coming from in the article.
Reply
thatcatkatie says:
November 16, 2012 at
8:22 pm
Hm, Im not sure I m getting the
http://thatcatkatie.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2462#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2460#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
7/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 7
analogy, because to me it doesnt
seem that its very equal. Maybe
Im being thick, but Im not sure
how this compares in a good way.
If you wouldnt mind explaining it
from a different angle? I dont
want to respond yet because I
dont think I fully understand
what you mean by this.
Reply
Eric Hyde
says:
November 16, 2012 at
9:18 pm
Well, in other words,
the ancients may have
experienced God as you
said, due to a lack of
scientific sophistication,
or they may have
been more in tune to
the reality of God
because they had an
immediate relationship
with nature and the
world. I dont know
about you, but I can
spend all day sometimes
in front of a computer
or in a book and barely
realize there is a world
outside my window.
This scenario has a
blinding effect on our
relationship to reality,
even though we may be
studying science in a
textbook. The ancients
had no such setbacks.
There science was
much more
sophisticated then you
may be giving it credit
for (read some of the
accounts of the level of
scientific development
in the ancient Roman
and Byzantine world
from which Christianity
sprung and you might
think the modern West
is actually behind in
many ways), but
besides science, per se,
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2463#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
8/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 8
they had a living,
working relationship
with the world in ways
that we simply dont
have in modern society.
If anyone was going to
discover a real and
living God it would be
those most involved
with reality. That givesthe ancients the
advantage. But, thats
just my opinion.
savebyjsays:
June 25, 2013 at 12:06 am
I apologize for jumping into this conversation
late but just discovered this wonderful blog.
ThatCatKatie, you make some valid points
that can be addressed and I will try to do so.
1. You accuse the ancients of having no reason
or logical thought processes but only personal
experience. This is not true and what you
have done many people, including Christians,
is make the mistake of confusing the lack of
knowledge with lack of logic and reasoning. As
if logic and reasoning magically appeared
around the 16th Century.
Man has always been a logical being capable
of reasoning. The lack of knowledge may
cause one to arrive at the incorrect conclusion,
but Scientists are still doing that in this
century even with a vast amount of
knowledge available to them. The behavior of
light, the theory of relativity and quantum
physics upended all of their conclusions in the
mid 20th century and they are still struggling
to assimilate things they have learned in the
last twenty years.
I can give you an analogy. The ancients did
not have the knowledge that red blood cells
carried oxygen to your body in your blood but
they were fully aware that blood was vital toliving and if you lost enough of it you would
perish. The ancients did not know that a
mans sperm would fertilize a womans
embryo and thus produce a baby, but they
were fully aware that a mans semen was
needed to produce a child as this was one of
the first primitive forms of birth control (along
with the calendaring method as they
understood there were only certain times that
a woman was likely to get pregnant during
her cycle).
http://savebyj.wordpress.com/ -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
9/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 9
All of these correct conclusions made by the
ancients came from observation, hypothesis
and testing. Signs of logic and reasoning. Yes
they came to the wrong conclusions on many
things, but so have scientists since the
Enlightenment. Scientists my know that a
sperm cell will fertilize an embryo but how
the cells understand when its the r ight time to
develop the brain, grow tissue, bone and
muscle and when to stop is still a mystery.Scientists still do not understand the
mechanism of how a baby is developed in a
female womb.
Scientists understand that there are forces in
physical world, but that doesnt mean they
actually understand them. Take gravity for
instance. They know its there. They can see
and measure the e ffects of gravity. But just as
the ancients knew if a man bled out he would
die and not know why scientists today know
gravity exists but have no idea how or why.
2. You stated that the ancients used the ideas
of God(s) to explain the world around them.
This is not true. They believed in the idea of
God(s) to explain philosophical questions.
Philosophical questions are questions that
Science cant and never will be able to
explain. The reason most people, including
Christians, do not understand this is because
they really dont understand Science. Most
people believe that Science is a way for
human beings to get Truth with a capital T
using reasoning and logic. But that is not whatScience is by a long shot.
Science is the methodology used to explain
how the mechanisms of nature around us
actually work. The methodology used is,
Observation, Hypothesis, Testing, Conclusion.
Rinse, repeat. I am simplifying a bit but in
reality Scientists would probably do better if
they stuck closer to this methodology.
Observation is the problem child for
Scientists. It is particularly problematic for
what I call the Historical Sciences. Scientists
can postulate how old the world is but in the
end nobody has a clue because they cannot
historically go back in time to see the Earth
form and know what the environment was
like during that time. Everyone is guessing.
Scientists can say there is no God, but they
cant get outside the system to prove it. You
can say there is nothing outside the system
but you cant prove that either because your
the fish in the aquarium. The fish in the
aquarium can deny there is anything outside
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
10/54
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
11/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 11
Reply
Allalltsays:
October 28, 2012 at 10:31 pm
There is no reason that non-rational causes necessarily
lead only to non-rational results.
Every e mergent property is testament to the
development of a new character, a character not present
in all the lead-up causes.
Every component of a plane is not a plane.
This fallacy has a name: the fallacy of composition.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
October 29, 2012 at 1: 36 am
Allallt, youre making some good points, but
skipping over the fundamental issue. Under a
strict natrualistic rubric, all events within the
closed physical system must be explicable in
mechanistic terms. Our thoughts are events.
The minute one poses that our thoughts are
explicable in mechanistic terms we can no
longer claim to have rational inference, and
rational inference is essential for anything
human to work, not the least of which are the
natural sciences.
If this is still not understood, perhaps we
could go a different route: In a purely
material universe where would our ideas of
good and evil, right and wrong, should and
should not, etc., fit in? As mere organisms,
evolutionary processes would endow us with
superior survival traits. If one attributes the
belief in good and evil to mere survival traits
then good and evil, right and wrong, are
wholly imaginary (and worse, completely
counterproductive since these ideas have
produced every war in history). The problem
is, theres never been a human being, outside
of those with an extreme psychopathology,
that has been able to live in harmony with
this conclusion.
But it could just be that you personally are
not a strict naturalist. Fine by me. But it
undercuts a thorough going atheism in my
estimation.
Reply
Allalltsays:
October 29, 2012 at 3:26
pm
Youre still defining naturalism
http://allallt.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2334#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2330#respondhttp://allallt.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2329#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
12/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 12
under the fallacy of composition.
But I do have an interesting point
to make regarding good/evil and
should/should not. There is no
ultimate should/should not,
there is merely an e volved
priority.
And it seems we evolve a priority
in keeping with morality, which
ultimately is out there(approximately as Sam Harris
describes it).
Reply
Eric Hyde
says:
October 29, 2012 at 4:38
pm
Allallt, did you make
this observation on your
own agency or was it
the result of natural
determinism? Kidding.
Thanks for your input.
Ive enjoyed our
exchange.
keithnobacksays:
October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Id have to agree that #1 is the problem. It seems to rely on the implied premise:
rationality iff rationality. Question begging.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
October 29, 2012 at 1: 42 am
Hmmm, willing to entertain it, but failing to see the connection. Just
because rationality and non-rational are used in the same sentence
does not make it begging. If you follow the content and logic there is no
such fallacy.
Reply
keithnobacksays:
October 29, 2012 at 3:08 am
Its been a long time since logic class, but I think it fits the
bill. The set of rationally inferred beliefs wouldnt seem to
necessarily exclude the set of beliefs that can be fully
explained in terms of non-rational causes (some beliefs
might be overdetermined for example), unless one
implicitly assumes that one can hold a rational belief if and
only if it is rationally inferred. The question this would
avoid is what is rational?, a much more difficult and
http://dedicatedtothegame.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2335#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2331#respondhttp://dedicatedtothegame.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2340#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
13/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 13
interesting question, I think. Is there truly a difference
between our notion of rationality and our basic notion of
causality as both include similar ideas about priority,
dependency, e tc. In that case, the non-rational cause
may be a much more slippery creature than this argument
implies.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
October 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Keithnoback, Im not sure if Im
understanding you fully, but let me take a
shot at a reply. The statement is not setting
up multiple sets of beliefs: e.g. set 1, rationally
inferred beliefs, set 2, b eliefs with non-
rational causes. Instead it is simply stating
what naturalism explicitly states: that all
events can be explained in terms of
mechanical and/or non-rational (non-
thinking) automatic processes. Since thought
(and specifically for his syllogism rational
inference) is an event, according to
naturalism, all thought must be explainable in
mechanical terms. Once this bridge is crossed,
a thorough going naturalism must deny
rational inference since it denies humans
from having free agency.
Reply
keithnobacksays:
October 29, 2012 at 9:15pm
The statement does want to
discuss all beliefs, but it seeks to
characterize beliefs as either
rationally inferred or fully
explainable by non-rational
causes. It seeks to do so by
definition (the premise proves the
conclusion), which begs for an
explanation of the definition (of
rationality). Some would say that
rationality is what it is andtherefore cannot be reduced or
explained. In that case, they have
made their assertion and the rest
of the world can take it or leave it
as they feel fit.
I think you rightly conclude that
the whole argument is really
about determinism (lack of free
agency, another troublesome
phrase), and a particular take on
determinism at that. Not
http://dedicatedtothegame.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2345#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2336#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
14/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 14
everybody who is a materialist or
physicalist or naturalist, or
whatever you want to call that
general territory of thought,
subscribes to that take on
determinism in the first place.
Non-reductive physicalists, for
instance, might be offended on
finding themselves lumped in with
the elimitivists.
Reply
Anonymoussays:
October 29, 2012 at
10:01 pm
Well done, Keith. I
mean that. Its good to
see the level of thought
you have contributed to
this post. I fear, though,
that if every argument
had to first define every
term and phrase we
would have no
arguments,
dissertations yes, but
regular old fashion
arguments no. The
syllogism, any syllogism,
should not have to
shoulder the burd en of
defining its every
element. Think of the
famous, All men are
mortal, Socrates is a
man, Socrates is
mortal. This argument
does not attempt to
define mortal. Under
your rules this
argument begs the
question. Indee d
probably every
syllogism ever conceived
would then beg the
question.
(Not sure why
WordPress is not
recognizing me even
though Im logged in,
but this response is
from Eric Hyde.)
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2346#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
15/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 15
Ziasays:
November 10, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Hi, Eric, nice blog you have here, it looks like I have some perusing to do. I was actually
doing some research on The Argument from Reason, and I plan on buying Repperts
book. This stems from a recent debate which is going on at Repperts blog concerning
the argument.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
November 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Zia, its a great book. I know there are others out there, but Repperts is
pretty thorough. GK Chesterton had a lot to say on the matter as well
and injects his famous wit into the debate.
Reply
Pingback: On New Blogs and Not So Fine Arguments The Caveat Lector
Anonymoussays:
December 16, 2012 at 8:34 am
Your argument is that thought and clashing of neurons etc. are different. Please insert
the naturists description into your argument all the way through (replace thought
with clashing of neurons etc.) and magically the apparent logic to your argument falls
apartjust try it. It is the same old I think therefore i am. But this is not a necessary
proposition.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
December 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Actually no. Im stating that the Naturalists doctrine claims thoughts
ARE clashing neurons, nothing more. Is this not correct from your
vantage point? If not, I would be interested to hear your understanding
of what thoughts are within the Naturalist rubric.
Cheers.
Reply
Suzannesays:
December 17, 2012 at 3: 47 am
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his book The Phenomenon of Man, wrote:
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having
a human experience.
Imagine the multitude of experience there is to be had, e ven that of the human atheist.
Objectivity and subjectivity pared are blessed with understanding.
Reply
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=3052#respondhttp://suzanneburgos.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2999#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2992#respondhttp://thecaveatlector.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/on-new-blogs-and-not-so-fine-arguments/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2426#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2421#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
16/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 16
Ben Rydingsays:
January 7, 2013 at 3:13 pm
This is an argument against reductionist physicalism, not atheism. Be careful with your
equivocation here.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
January 7, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Ben, can a thorough and honest atheist have a cosmology and and its
concomitant anthropology which differs in any serious way from a strict
naturalism? If so, what?
(Im choosing to stick with my chosen terms, until the definition of
physicalism you ascribe to is given).
Reply
Hollis P. Thorntonsays:
June 3, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Humans are not rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not,
depending on whether they apply, explicitly or implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and
practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform.
Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a
material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn
mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation. Mostern distinguishes between
involuntary and implicit belief, on the one hand, and voluntary and explicit acceptance,
on the other.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
June 3, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Hollis, thank you for your reply. Before responding in full Id be curious
to know what your definition of humans is.
Reply
Pingback:back to basics | jurnalrohaniku
Leonsays:August 13, 2013 at 4:57 am
Why trust your mind if there is a God who is perfectly capable of deceiving you without
your knowing it? God could have easily created the universe last Tuesday, and created
false memories in us all.
And you cant say, Oh, Hed never do that because your beliefs about Gods nature
could be part of the created deception. Besides, if theres a good reason for God to let
babies die of genetic diseases, there could very well be a good reason for him to deceive
us completely. (His ways are higher than ours, after all!)
Heres an analogy: if youre lost in the woods, you may not have any way to know if your
compass is working correctly. Thats naturalism. But theism is more like being lost in the
http://jurnalrohaniku.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/back-to-basics/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=7332#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=7327#respondhttp://lasart.es/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=3469#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=3468#respondhttp://seemsreasonable.wordpress.com/ -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
17/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 17
woods following a stranger who swears hes honest, but wont show you the compass.
Now you not only have to worry about whether the compass is working correctly, you
also have to worry about whether the stranger is lying to you. Theism has two problems;
naturalism only has one.
Actually, I dont believe theres a philosophical problem at all, only a scientific one. Our
reasoning processes are faulty whether or not theism is true. Thats an observable fact
that everybody, not just the naturalist, has to account for. Theists also have to explain
why we can trust our reason even though its faulty. But if they managed to do that in a
way that ruled out naturalism, they would still have to explain why we can trust that
God is not deceiving us. Even if random collections of atoms can be wrong, at least they
cant actively deceive you. God could.
So how can the theist trust his own mind any more than the naturalist?
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
August 13, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Leon, thank you for your post.
Assuming philosophic naturalism is correct, your entire response was
simply what you must have said given the particular cause-and-effect
chain of mechanical processes leading up to your response. You did not
rationally infer your argument, it was given to you by clashing atoms
working within your brain without influence from you as a free-agent. I
am responding in a like manner. In short, we are only having a
conversation determined by natural mechanical processes. Neither of
us are right or wrong, for right and wrong in this paradigm do not
exist. Hence, it would be ridiculous to speak of a deceiving God. The fact
that you are able to conceive of such an alternative is demonstrative that
your premise of naturalism is false.
As to whether or not one can trust God, since He is able to deceive
without detection, is an interesting thought. My response is simple: If
God is a deceiver then He cannot be God He cannot be the way the
truth and the life. If one believes in truth and deception to begin with,
he must have some source of truth to which he establishes its existence.
If truth exists, God exists. And if God is truth He cannot also be
untruth. Ill just throw it out there and see if you want to take it
further. As I said in the original post, this argument is made against
atheism, not for Christianity. To begin an argument for Christianity I
would use a different dialectic. This argument is only meant to pull the
feet out from under a strict philosophical naturalism. Once that is
accomplished, an atheist is left with little else to cling to for a thorough-
going atheistic philosophy of life.
Cheers.
Reply
Leonsays:
August 13, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Thank you, Eric, for your speedy reply to a year-old post.
I dont think youre aware of the diversity within atheism,
or naturalism, for that matter. The Argument from Reason
is, properly speaking, an argument against hard
determinism, not against naturalists, and while there is
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8931#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8928#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
18/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 18
significant overlap, the two are not the same. Its
somewhat like how some atheists attempt to refute biblical
inerrancy and think that theyve therefore shown
Christianity as a whole to be false.
I, for one, though a naturalist, am not a hard determinist.
In part it is because of a similar argument, though
presented in a slightly different form by the atheist
novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. She argues for the
existence of free will, and is commonly labeled a
compatibilist. So the Argument from Reason does nothing
to undercut naturalists/atheists who accept the concept of
free will. You have to do more than assert that such a
naturalism is incosistent, or quote naturalists who say so.
You have to positively argue that free will is impossible
unless there is a God. And considering that Christians
have been struggling for centuries to explain how free will
is possible with an omniscient God, thats a big hurdle to
leap.
In any case, I was not arguing for naturalism. I was
pointing out that the same argument applies to theists, so
they are no better off than naturalists, and possibly worseoff.
I do not find your reply persuasive. It seems that you are
defining God in such a way that is convenient for your
theology. Im sure you would object if I said, If God is a
killer then he cannot be God. But we ordinarily think that
murder is worse than deception. I do agree that there
must be truth of some kind, but I was arguing that God is
capable of systematically misrepresenting it without us
even suspecting it.
In any case, even if naturalism cannot account for
knowledge claims, that doesnt make it untrue. Maybe the
philosophical skeptics are right truth claims cannot be
verified. I sure hope theyre not right, but that doesnt
prove anything one way or the other. The same goes for
moral claims even if right and wrong make no sense
under naturalism, that doesnt make it untrue. At that
point, we would have to take nihilism seriously. Thats not
something most people want to do, but we cant just say,
If there were a God, Hed fix this philosophical problem.
Therefore there must be a God. The Argument from
Reason, even at its best, does not show naturalism to be
false, but only extremely undesirable.
Thanks again for your reply!
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
August 14, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Thank you, Eric, for your speedy reply to a
year-old post.
The pleasure is mine.
I dont think youre aware of the diversity
Follow
Follow Eric Hyde's
Blog
Get every new post delivered
to your Inbox.
Join 1,024 other followers
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
https://wordpress.com/?ref=lofhttp://void%280%29/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8933#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
19/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 19
within atheism, or naturalism, for that matter.
The Argument from Reason is, properly
speaking, an argument against hard
determinism, not against naturalists, and
while there is significant overlap, the two are
not the same.
Good point, and yes, I am aware of said
differences; however, when I imagine myself
holding an atheistic paradigm I think in terms
of strict philosophic naturalism (because for
me it is the most consistent and honest view
for a full-orbed atheism). Again, remember,
my article is not an argument that I believe is
most convincing for everyone; rather its the
one that would shake me up the most if I
were atheist.
I, for one, though a naturalist, am not a hard
determinist. In part it is because of a similar
argument, though presented in a slightly
different form by the atheist
novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. She arguesfor the existence of free will, and is commonly
labeled a compatibilist. So the Argument from
Reason does nothing to undercut
naturalists/atheists who accept the concept of
free will. You have to do more than assert that
such a naturalism is incosistent, or quote
naturalists who say so.
I will level with you, Im not a huge Ayn Rand
fan. Shes fantastic on many counts, but I
agree with one of her critics who calls her
philosophy stillborn. I think she makes a
calculated exception for reason to escape the
grasp of physical determinism because it is so
deadly for someone like her who needs to
believe her views are a result of her own
doing that she is a free agent. Hell, what
would she do with her political philosophy if
she didnt believe in freewill? It would be
comical. And, for me, she is.
You have to positively argue that free will is
impossible unless there is a God. And
considering that Chr istians have been
struggling for centuries to explain how free
will is possible with an omniscient God, thats
a big hurdle to leap.
Actually, this has been an issue for Latin
based Christianity. It has not been a hurdle
for the modern Eastern Church, nor for the
ancient Church, which history bears out.
I do not find your reply persuasive. It seems
that you are defining God in such a way that
is convenient for your theology. Im sure you
would object if I said, If God is a killer then
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
20/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 20
he cannot be God. But we ordinarily think
that murder is worse than deception. I d o
agree that there must be truth of some kind,
but I was arguing that God is capable of
systematically misrepresenting it without us
even suspecting it.
You may need to review the rest of that
paragraph where you quoted me. My
explanation is partly there. In short, if one
believes we must strive for truth, because
truth is real and not some imaginary,
deterministic, evolution fk up on a grand
scale which only the human race is cursed
with believing in, then one must hold a
teleological cosmology. More than that, they
must hold that there is an ultimate standard
from which truth is based. Christians believe
this truth is God Himself. Ultimate truth
cannot simultaneously be non-truth. The
atheist who holds a teleological cosmology
must answer for what exactly they mean by
truth, good, evil, false, etc without crossing
over into the divine. If I were atheist, I would
not be able to pull this off. Maybe you or
someone else can. If so, Id love to hear it.
Anyway, great discussion. Thanks again for
your posting.
Reply
Leonsays:
August 14, 2013 at 9:26
pmGood point, and yes, I am aware
of said differences; however,
when I imagine myself holding an
atheistic paradigm I think in terms
of strict philosophic naturalism
(because for me it is the most
consistent and honest view for a
full-orbed atheism). Again,
remember, my article is not an
argument that I believe is most
convincing for everyone; rather
its the one that would shake meup the most if I were atheist.
Why do you think that the most
consistent, honest naturalism is
the one which has such a fatal
flaw? Other brands of naturalism,
such as soft deterministic ones, or
compatibilist ones, are not
affected by the Argument from
Reason. What redeeming qualities
does hard de terminism have that
makes you prefer it over other
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8936#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
21/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 21
varieties of naturalism?
In my worldview, the Argument
from Reason only shows that hard
determinism is incoherent. I take
free will to be a natural, emergent
property of consciousness.
Animals have consciousness of
their surroundings, but only
humans have consciousness OF
their consciousness. Only we are
aware THAT we are aware. It is
this unique property that enables
us to make free choices, and to
direct our consciousness in ways
that make true knowledge
possible. Im still unclear on what
exactly that means or how it
comes about, but I dont find this
any more troubling than being
unclear on what a memory is or
how exactly we are able to form
them. And as with memories,
babies dont appear to possess
that self-reflective awareness,
which leads me to believe that it is
a natural phenomenon that
requires a certain critical mass of
neuronal activity, not a mysterious
property conferred by a god at
conception or birth. If we truly do
have free will in a naturalistic
universe, then the Argument from
Reason fails. Do you think there is
some even more serious fatal flaw
in my account of free will than the
flaws you see in hard
determinism? Are there any ways
in which it seems inconsistent with
a thoroughgoing atheism?
I will level with you, Im not a
huge Ayn Rand fan
I agree that Ayn Rand is not the
best, but in this case I found her
persuasive. Ive read a lot of her
work, and I couldnt resist the
comparison because the
arguments are so parallel, even
though one comes from an atheist
and another comes from a
Christian. I think she would be
well worth reading to clarify the
Argument from Reason, and Ive
yet to hear acknowledgment of
Rands argument, much less a
response, from any hard
determinist. Heres a quote to
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
22/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 22
illustrate:
Can one prove that mans
consciousness does not function
automatically, as determinists
would say? If mans consciousness
WERE automatic, if it did react
deterministically to outer or inner
forces acting upon it, then, by
definition, a man would have no
choice in regard to his mental
content; he would accept
whatever he had to accept,
whatever ideas the determining
forces engendered in him
Volition is inescapable. Even its
enemies have to accept and use it
in the process of any attempt to
deny it. (Objectivism: The
Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 69-
70).
Actually, this has been an issuefor Latin based Christianity. It has
not been a hurdle for the modern
Eastern Church, nor for the
ancient Church, which history
bears out.
I find Eastern Orthodoxy
fascinating, but I do not
understand what you mean here.
Could you please clarify why the
Eastern church has not had a
problem reconciling free will with
divine omniscience?
The atheist who holds a
teleological cosmology must
answer for what e xactly they
mean by truth, good, evil, false,
etc without crossing over into the
divine. If I were atheist, I would
not be able to pull this off. Maybe
you or someone else can. If so, Id
love to hear it.
I will leave off good and evil for
some other time, but I will try to
explain what I mean by truth. I
often say that I am a truth-seeker
first, a rationalist second, a
naturalist third, and an atheist
fourth. My definition of the truth
does not exclude the possibility of
the divine, but neither does it
assume that the divine must exist
in order to account for it or to be
its source. I reread your original
statement, but I still do not
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
23/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 23
understand why you think those
things are necessary. The way I
see it, truth is simply that which
really exists, whatever its nature
may be. It is the source of all else,
and cannot be accounted for,
because it must be used in order
to account for other things. Under
this definition, even a Christian
should place truth-seeking aboveserving God, because if God were
not real, He would not be worth
serving. The truth could very well
be that we are a deterministic,
evolutionary f-k up, and if so, we
should accept that, whatever
accept means in such a case. We
should accept the truth even if its
disappointing, depressing, or
downright scary, because if our
actions are based on untruth, if
they are not aligned with reality,they cannot bear good fruit.
I have not yet read Repperts
book, and Im a little bit suspicious
that it would not be worth my
time, as it does not appear to
challenge my own worldview. Is
there any reason you would
recommend it over a more
thoroughgoing Christian like Alvin
Plantinga, whose Evolutionary
Argument Against Naturalism
seems very similar to the
Argument from Reason?
Thanks again for your time..
cheers!
Reply
Eric Hyde
says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:29
am
Leon, great response!
Im responding here to
let you know I will
respond at a later time
below (at the very
bottom of the thread).
My time is crunched at
the moment and I do
not want to post a hasty
response. Youve been a
delight to banter with
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8937#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
24/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 24
and want to give it my
full attention when I
dont have a thousand
things going on. Till
later, cheers!
savebyjsays:
August 13, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Naturalism has two problems, not one. The second problem is the
assumption that there isnt anything outside the system. This is the
mother of all assumptions. There is no way to get outside the present
system so there is no way to prove that assumption. You can believe it,
but it has to be by faith.
If I cannot trust my mind then then all arguments are moot; including
naturalism. There is one truth we all live by: I exist. If that truth is a lie
then everything is damn nonsense. And we know everything is not damn
nonsense because of two truths; if everything was nonsense we wouldnt
know it and we dont live that way. This is like the Buddhist who says
that pain does not really exist if we really understood pain. My response
is to punch him.
I will have to disagree with Eric on the deceiving God question. This is
what C.S. Lewis called the invisible cat argument. That argument goes
like this; If there was an invisible cat on the chair I would not be able to
see him. Since I cannot see him then there must be an invisible cat on
the chair.
If God was a deceiving God then I would not know it therefore he
can/must be a deceiving God (or I cant trust my mind).
You can believe this Leon, and I cant argue against it but it is, in Vulcan,
completely illogical.
If your b eef with the existence of God is that he allows pain, that is a
valid point and debatable. But that we cant believe in him because he
could possibly be deceptive is not.
To answer your final challenge we need to understand the differences
between Science, Philosophy and Reasoning.
Human reasoning is unique and separates us from the animals and
computers. Reasoning is the ability to come to the correct answer
without all of the data. Example; man figured out long before Science
that it was his sperm that impregnated a woman. This was before we
knew of the biological process. Man knew that blood carried life in the
body long before they knew about red blood cells. In fact, man reasoned
that if there was a God then there would be order in nature and
therefore its mechanisms could be discovered. Hence Reason gave forth
to Science.
Science is simply the mechanical understanding of the forces around us.
Scientists do not, and have not ever discovered a new thing. (Engineers
take the mechanical understanding of how things work and do create
new things however). Using the Scientific methodology (Observe,
Hypothesis, Test, Rinse & Repeat) they are able to discover the
mechanisms of how things work. Therefore Scientists can never tell us
how old the Earth is; how the Universe was formed, how the forces of
Physics came to be and why the are they way they are. Historical Science
http://savebyj.wordpress.com/ -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
25/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 25
does not exist as it violates the first tenant of Science which is
Observation. Historical events cannot be observed in their environment
so everything is a theory at that point. Some theories may be better than
others, but they are still just theories and will always be.
Philosophy uses human Reasoning where Science cannot go. Naturalism
is a Philosophical problem, not a Scientific one. Scientists are fish in the
aquarium, they can never get outside the aquarium to tell you how the
aquarium got there (they can, but they have to die so they cant come
back and tell the other fish). Assuming you cannot get outside the
Aquarium is just that; an assumption and not Science.
Reply
Leonsays:
August 14, 2013 at 6:07 am
Hi savebyj,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I actually agree
with a lot of what you said, but I was simply responding to
the Argument from Reason in a tit-for-tat fashion. I will try
to make it clear in this post what it is I do and do not
accept as true, rather than argue purely hypothetically.
You pointed out a problem with naturalism, as you see it,
that There is no way to get outside the present system so
there is no way to prove that [there isn't anything outside
the system]. I agree, but I d ont see this as much of a
problem, and for the same reasons as your invisible cat
argument. We can hypothetically imagine that theres
something outside or beyond the physical universe,
something that is completely undetectable, just as we can
imagine an invisible cat. But that doesnt mean there has
to be such a thing.
Further, the assumption that there is nothing outside the
physical world is bolstered by three observations most
people agree on: 1) The existence of the physical world has
been proven, but the existence of something outside it has
not yet been. 2) Increasingly intimate study of our
universe has not y ielded anything which is unexplainable
within a naturalistic framework. 3) Many phenomena that
were once thought to be obvious proof of supernaturalism
(such as weather and mental illnesses) are now known to
be natural. None of this amounts to a proof that
naturalism is true, but it does justify the assumption that
we should proceed as though the natural world is all there
is until proven otherwise. I would not call that faith. I
usually define faith as belief in something that is
disproportionate to the evidence for it, and I do not think
that qualifies, but if youre using the word in some other
sense, it might be an appropriate label.
You say, If I cannot trust my mind then then all
arguments are moot; including naturalism. And I
completely agree. This is why I do not regard the
Argument from Reason as persuasive. It undercuts itself
for the same reason it purports to undercut naturalism.
You could make the same argument against any belief
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8934#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
26/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 26
system, including theism, as I point out, so it just amounts
to selective philosophical skepticism.
You can believe this Leon, and I cant argue against it but
it is, in Vulcan, completely illogical. I agree that it is
completely illogical. I only meant it as a hypothetical
parallel to the Finest Argument Against Atheism. If this
argument rules out naturalism, it does so only by ruling
out knowledge claims under any philosophical system. But
I dont think it even rules out naturalism.
If your beef with the existence of God is that he allows
pain, that is a valid point and debatable. But that we cant
believe in him because he could possibly be deceptive is
not. Im sorry if I didnt make myself clear, but this was
not the point I was making. I was not directly talking about
the problem of pain here. I was merely using it to illustrate
that there is plenty of conceptual space within Christian
theology to permit a God who would deceive us in a
wholesale fashion.
For example, perhaps we are all in heaven right now, and
God has supernaturally created a perfect simulation of
earthly life, with our memories temporarily erased, so as to
build our moral character and empathy. This is very
similar to the soul-making theodicy of John Hicks. And
likewise, at some point, nearly every Christian will fall back
on the belief that God must have some unknown reason
for allowing the amount and kinds of evil we see in the
world, and that we simply cant understand it because His
ways are higher than ours. This same reasoning could be
used to explain why God is deceiving us. But I definitely
was not arguing that we should not believe in God because
God might possibly be deceptive. I agree with you that
that is nonsense.
I would, however, challenge strongly on this point you
make about science: Therefore Scientists can never tell us
how old the Earth is (etc.)Historical Science does not
exist as it violates the first tenant of Science which is
Observation. I dont think you realize how much sound
knowledge this principle undermines. For example, I
doubt you would say that forensic science is completely
illegitimate as a discipline simply because it deals with
things that happened in the (recent) past. If so, then there
are a lot of criminals who have been put behind bars on
flimsy historical science. But why should the scientific
method be any more illegitimate if it deals with things in
the distant past? Taken to its logical conclusion, your
reasoning would show that we can only have knowledge of
the present moment, because by the time the results have
been published in a scientific journal, its history, not
observation.
(Aside: When it comes to the age of the earth, it IS based
on things we currently observe. We can measure the
decay rate of different radioactive molecules based on ticks
on a Geiger counter, an instrument which has proven itself
reliable in many other contexts, and thus calculate for a
wide variety of molecules its half-life, the time it takes for
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
27/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 27
half of the original parent material to decay from one kind
of molecule to another. These range from a few seconds to
many months to several million years. We can (and have)
subjected those materials to a variety of temperatures,
pressures, radiation levels, and so forth, and observed that
those half-lives remain constant (which is unfortunate
because it would solve our nuclear waste problem if we
could speed it up). We can observe that certain kinds of
molecules do not appear under any conditions on Earth, to
the best of our knowledge, except following the decay ofthat particular radioactive molecule. And then we can
observe that there is a certain amount of that molecule
type in a rock or organism, and a certain amount of its
radioactive parent. If 50% of the parent molecule remains,
its undergone one half life; if 25%, then two half-lives,
and so on.
And even though the events happened in the past,
determining the age of the rocks produces real predictions
about the future, as well: If you find a rock formation that
dates to younger than 65 million years old, you can
confidently predict that you will find no dinosaur bones in
it. So far that prediction, and millions like it, have proven
true every single time. Knowing the ages of rocks has also
been crucial in finding new oil deposits. So these people
are on to something. And different dating methods have
been used to cross-check the accuracy of others, and they
converge on the same approximate ages. When it comes
down to it, determining the age of the earth is, in principle,
no different than determining the approximate time of
death of an individual based on the level of decomposition,
which is often crucial in solving murder cases. End of
aside.)
Science is not simply observation. Its making inferencesfrom that observation. And youre completely right that
those inferences can be faulty if the scientists background
assumptions are wrong. I, for one, think that more
scientists need to study philosophy and logic for that very
reason. But that doesnt mean that all science is just a ink
blot test, completely open to interpretation based on your
biases. Observation constrains what inferences we can
make.
Maybe there really is something outside the aq uarium as
you put it. I wont rule that out a priori. Science, at its best,
is not about dogmatizing, but about being willing to accept
the truth no matter where it may lie. But until some kind
of evidence points convincingly to a realm beyond the
natural world, it might as well be the invisible cat on my
chair.
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to achieve with my
response to Eric. Thanks again for your insights!
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8935#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
28/54
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
29/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 29
of His estate to tend it and keep it. Or the parable of the Talents where the master gave
his servants a number of talents (money) to do business until he returned. In these
examples the servants are in full control of their decision making process of whether to
serve their master or despise him. Read the parables in full and you will see this is
definitely the attitude the master takes toward his servants. Thus, God is all-knowing
and all-powerful but has purposed to allow mankind to be rulers of the earth. The
primordial fall changed mankinds relationship to God. They fell from a position of
priests of creation, so to speak, to something slightly above the mere animal kingdom.
I know there was more to your post but this is all I have time for at the moment. Please
let me know if and where Ive misunderstood you. Thanks again for the wonderful
discussion.
Cheers!
Reply
Elainesays:
January 14, 2014 at 2:20 am
You guys are withholding a very difficult conversation to keep up with, since Im only in
the 8th grade, b ut I und erstand most of it and I agree with pretty much all of the points
made. But there is one that I have not heard and I would like to make it.
One of the main reasons I disagree with theism is because there are so many religions
and religous practices. Most of them contradict each other, believe in seperate gods,
different after lifes, different books and so on. My question is if one religion is supposed
to the one, right, and only way, then how come there are people within every religion
that believe their religion is the right way. How does one within a religion nor question
the high possibility that they are amongst the wrong faith. Snd why would a god allow so
many false faiths to drive people in the wrong direction.
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
January 14, 2014 at 3:07 am
Thanks for the post, Elaine. Congrats on diving into this stuff at such a
young age! In answer to your first question I would say that the
existence of many different religions is no reason to disbelieve theism
(not that all religions are theistic, but you get the point). It seems that it
would actually be evidence in the opposite direction, evidence that
something is going on here and humanity as a whole senses something
much bigger and more profound about existence than any form of
atheism is willing to give it.
Second it is not surprising that there would be many divergent paths.
Think of a beautiful painting, or song, or coin, or whatever. Anytime
something original and beautiful hits the scene, a thousand copycats popup everywhere. If there is one true path then it seems impossible that
there would not be copycat paths, mimicking the real one, or at least
trying to obtain what the real one has to offer without going through the
trouble of attaining it with effort.
And why would God allow so many false faiths? For the same reason
that death and sin exist in a world created by a good God. He gave the
progression of the human race in the hands of humans to either follow
him or follow their own ways. Most follow their own ways and the result
is total confusion.
Reply
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10138#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10137#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8944#respond -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
30/54
-
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
31/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 31
Eric Hydesays:
January 23, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Darn, you make me wish I could read Italian? or
Reply
Marius Davidsays:
January 23, 2014 at 9:09 pm
It is Romanian
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
January 23, 2014 at 9:42 pm
Haha, I literally pondered for 5 mins trying to
decide between Italian and Portuguese.
Reply
Marius David
says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:50 pm
The comment is appreciative and
is, indeed, very interesting. A
friend of mine, Adrian Iosif, is the
author ot that short introductory
comment.
Reply
Eric Hyde
says:
January 23, 2014 at
10:16 pm
I plugged it into Google
translator. Great
comment!
Pavlos G Kanellakissays:
February 23, 2014 at 3:23 am
Eric, I appreciate the articulated argument; however, it is unsound. Let me begin by
using the exact same logic to formulate a different argument:
P1: Kinetic energy is produced from motion.
P2: Inert objects have no motion.
P3: Therefore, inert objects have no kinetic energy.
P4: If an object is inert it cannot cause motion.
P5: Cars are constructed from inert objects.
C: Therefore, cars cannot cause motion.
Im sure the problem with this argument is plainly obvious to you. This is exactly the
same problem inherent in the claim that natural determinism disqualifies our thoughts
from being our own and not being a result of rational inference. The natural forces
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1208868936https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10256#respondhttp://mariuscruceru.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10255#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10254#respondhttp://mariuscruceru.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10253#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/ -
7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog
32/54
10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 32
create the conditions for, and the causally linked materials which form, the mechanism
which is capable of producing thoughts from natural inference. Much like metal (and the
rest of the materials used in constructing a car) is inherently inert, but once constructed
into a specific mechanism (the parts of a car) can produce motion.
The quote from Professor Haldane derives from a long ago dismissed Neo-Platonic
Hermeticism which is, comically, self-refuting. I have no reason to suppose that my
beliefs are true and hence I have no reason to suppose that my brain to be composed
of atoms. And by extension he would have no reason to have the belief that he has no
reason to suppose his brain is composed of atoms, thus he would have to re-establish
that belief and reasoning right before he rejects it again, and re-establishes it once more,
and so on.
Lastly, Victor Repperts argument has several problems, but most noteworthy is the
fallacy that follows that same error in reasoning that is pervasive in this entire line of
thought. Namely, that one cannot trust an internal source for reasoning because it
originates from an non-cognitive external source. This could best be described by the
wetness of water analogy. How can water be wet if Hydrogen is not wet and Oxygen is
not wet? The lack of wetness of the molecules individually does not prevent the effect
(and natural state) of the combination.
In simple terms, thought (and reason) is an emergent property of the complex biological
system we call a brain (which is in turn an emergent property of other natural systems).
Reply
Eric Hydesays:
February 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Pavlos, thanks for you post.
Your comparison is not a similar argument. I think sometimes people mistakenly
suppose that because two arguments are made using the same method (i.e. a syllogism)
that they are eo ipso the same argument. Your example demonstrates this faulty
reasoning.
If your argument was to truly mirror Repperts it would read something like this:
P1: The production of Kinetic energy can be fully explained in terms of inert objects in
motion.
P2: If anti-kineticism is true, then the production of kinetic energy can be fully
explained in terms of inert objects at rest.
P3: Therefore, if anti-kineticism is true, inert objects at rest can produce kinetic energy.
P4: If any thesis entails the conclusion that kinetic energy is produced by inert objects at
rest, then it sould be rejected and its denial accepted.
P5: Therefore anti-kineticism should be rejected and its denal accepted.
To your second point, of course Haldanes argument is ridiculous and self-defeating. I