[continued]
>DM>One of the favourite arguments of a young-earth creationist of my
>>acquaintance is that evolution is wrong because scientists studying
>>evolution make mistakes, are forced to reinterpret evidence
>>frequently, and DON'T KNOW a lot of things (like specifically how
>>bats evolved). He expects that I will get defensive about this.
>>Presumably he thinks that I think that the scientific study of
>>evolution should have all of the answers, and that I should reject
>>it when I find out that it doesn't. In reality, all that I expect
>>of the scientific study of evolution, is that it continues to
>>generate reasonable questions.
SJ>I will not comment on the above "young-earth creationist" and
>"evolution is wrong because scientists studying evolution make
>mistakes" issues, lest it becomes a red herring :-), except to draw
>you out out your analogy that "atheism" (or is it "agnostism)
>"continues to generate reasonable questions." What are these
>"reasonable questions"?
A couple of "reasonable questions" generated by atheism:
If supernatural explanations for observed and inferred events are
unacceptable or unreasonable, what natural explanations can be discovered?
If there is no possible natural explanation for a claimed event, can it be
reasonably inferred that the claimed event never took place?
SJ>And more importantly, what *answers* does it/they "generate"?
A few examples off the top of my head:
The knowledge that diseases are caused by virii and bacteria rather than
evil spirits.
The knowledge that the universe and earth are billions of years old, rather
than thousands.
The knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than vice versa.
The knowledge that weather is a natural, rather than supernatural, phenomenon.
The knowledge that geological strata have been formed by natural processes
over billions of years, not 4,000 yars ago in a single global deluge.
>>SJ>That is why the agnostic does not feel lauded in this category
>>either but dresses up the concept, manufacturing a certain aura not
>>inherent in the word while smuggling in atheism for all functional
>>purposes.
>DM>Zacharias seems to think that I should be embarrased or ashamed
>>about my lack of knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.
>>To be blunt, I'd be more embarrased and ashamed to claim knowledge
>>of the existence of God that I do not have.
SJ>I do not defend Zacharias' "embarrased or ashamed" comments. But
>are you claiming that you have absolutely *no* "knowledge of the
>existence of God" or just no *logically provable* "knowledge of the
>existence of God"?
No direct knowledge of God at all. No indirect knowledge of God having a
veracity/validity that I find acceptable.
>>SJ>So I say to you, the charge is not against the apologists; that
>>is to dislocate the problem. The hat pin is in the heart of the
>>atheistic position, which could not live with itself.
>DM>Again, Zacharias has made an error by focussing on the "straw man"
>>of the strict atheist position, rather than atheism as a working
>>hypothesis. My personal experience is that atheism as a working
>>hypothesis lives quite well with itself.
SJ>Firstly, Zacharias is arguing against the "strict atheist position",
>ie. the claim that there is no God. By admitting it is a "straw
>man" you confirm his argument.
I do.
SJ>Secondly, your "atheism as a working hypothesis" is really
>*agnosticism*, as you yourself admit:
>
>"So, although I function as an atheist, by strict definition I am an
>agnostic".
Formally speaking, yes.
>>SJ>Let me add that an honest agnostic should be open to the
>>evidence."
>DM>Of course! That is WHY honest atheism and agnosticism are
>>reasonable working hypotheses.
>"[A]theism and agnosticism" are each mutually contradictory
>propositions and so cannot both be "reasonable working hypotheses"
>except to an exponent of fuzzy logic! :-) "[A]theism" holds there is
>no God and "agnosticism" holds that we don't know if there is a God
>or not. They cannot both be true, and indeed atheists and agnostics
>should, if they were consistent, be opposed to each other as much as
>they are to theists.
Agnosticism is a reasonable formal position, but IMO a useless functional
position. On has to decide whether to live as if there is a god or gods, or
whether to live as if there are no gods. Atheism is an unreasonable formal
position, but a useful functional position.
>>SJ>(Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word Publishing:
>>Dallas TX, 1994, p187)
>DM>"Can Man Live Without God"? I am living proof that the answer to
>>that question is YES.
SJ>I think you should read Zecharias' books, "Can Man Live Without God"
>and "A Shattered Visage". He of course is aware (as we all are) that
>man can *try* to live without God. He even acknowledges that there
>are what he calls "happy pagans".
There are more than just "happy pagans". There are communities and societies
of "happy pagans". And "sad pagans". Just as there are communities and
societies of happy and sad theists.
SJ>But his point is that atheism is a bankrupt philosophy to live by.
I'm sure it is his point, but it is not a convincing point. Atheism is only
a bankrupt philosophy if God really exists. If God does not exist, then all
philosophies that aren't atheistic are, in the final analysis, bankrupt,
regardless of the altruistic philosophies and behaviours they have
generated. And there is no way to determine whether God exists or not,
except by faith in unverified revelations.
>DM>The "atheist in the house" is just great, thanks.
SJ>Sorry Derek, you just proved Zecharias' point! :-) You are unable
>(or unwilling) to claim outright that you are an "atheist", in the
>sense of claiming that *there is no God*. All you do is claim that
>*you don't know* if there is a God or not. This makes you an
>*agnostic* not an *atheist*, as you yourself admit.
Strictly speaking, I should have said, "The formal agnostic but functional
'atheist in the house' is just great, thanks." But I did not count on your
pedantry! :-)
SJ>That an agnostic is for all practical purposes a "functional" atheist
>is besides the point, since we (you, me and Zecharias) would agree on
>that.
That's one argument (or non-argument) done, then!
SJ>At the end of the page I quoted from Zecharias says:
>
>"That is why the agnostic does not feel lauded in this category
>either but dresses up the concept, manufacturing a certain aura not
>inherent in the word WHILE SMUGGLING IN ATHEISM FOR ALL
>FUNCTIONAL PURPOSES." (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God",
>Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p187)
>
>So poor old atheism has no defender on this Reflector? :-)
I will continue to defend functional atheism as a reasonable functional
position deriving from less than certain knowledge of the existence of a god
or gods.
SJ>Even the
>atheists are unwilling to defend it *in the same way that theists
>defend theism*. That in itself is a strong practical argument for theism.
Are there any theists who claim and demonstrate an absolute proven certainty
that there is a god? Why, then, are atheists expected to claim and
demonstrate an absolute proven certainty that there is no god?
SJ>So without the second position:
>
> 2. Atheism = there is no God(s).
>
>there really are only two basic positions in the existence of God
>debate:
>
> 1. Theism = there is God(s)
> 3. Agnosticism = don't know if there is or isn't God(s).
No. We still have three possible belief positions:
1. Theism = belief that there is God(s)
2. Atheism = belief there is no God(s).
3. Agnosticism = don't know if there is or isn't God(s).
And two possible "fact" positions:
1. Theism = there is God(s)
2. Atheism = there is no God(s).
SJ>The question then resolves down into a test of the agnostics' claim
>that they don't know if there is or isn't God(s). Do you wan't to
>have a go logically defending that proposition? :-)
The question actually resolves down into the fact (recognised by theists,
agnostics and atheists alike) that there is no CONCLUSIVE or LOGICAL test of
any of the theists', atheists' or agnostics' claims.
All that theists have to support them is a history of theistic belief
systems. All that atheists have to support them is the trend that more and
more phenomena, previously believed subject to supernatural and
unpredictable causation, are being shown to have natural and generally
predictable causes.
As for testing agnostics' claims, I don't know if there is or isn't God(s).
How would my claim be testable? Truth serum, perhaps? :-)
I would also like you to read James Coram's reply to me on the Reflector
(also titled "Re: Challenge to Atheists"), and comment on it if you have time.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------