Defeating Atheism's "Difficult Questions"

[Mal12345]

Dinesh D'Souza is a name I've known for some years, even decades. I had probably seen one of his articles in Objectivist literature when I was much younger, or seen him cited somewhere. But I had never really checked into his beliefs until someone here mentioned a new movie ("2016") which is based on one of his books.

In this video, D'Souza defends Christianity against its "new atheist" opponents. But his is a rational faith-based view that is rarely seen. One example of what I mean by "rational" comes from another youtube video in which he explains that it is rational for a cab driver to drive past a black male looking for a cab based on the driver's bad experiences with blacks. It is rational because he desires to be safe and make it back home to his family every day after work. Or, to use an example of my own, it is irrational to hire a lesser candidate for a job based solely on skin color. (By the same token, it is irrational to hire anyone based on anything but ability to fulfill the duties of the job.)

The question of religion is an interesting one, because its opponents only point out the bad features of religion. D'Souza mentions religious wars. But getting rid of religion would not make the world a safer place. After all, the vast majority of simple crimes committed in the world are not religious-based. They in fact fly in the face of the Ten Commandments.

D'Souza also teaches me something about the two church-goers I work with. One (the ISTJ) is a more intellectual Christian. He likes to listen to deep religious broadcasts from really good speakers. The other (INTJ) practices a more baby-Si form of religious belief, what D'Souza calls in the video below "crayon religion." This is the religion most of us are taught by the time we are 5 years old. In the INTJ's case, he simply has not grown beyond the 5 year old level of religion, and his defenses of crayon religion are completely based in rationalizations and in some cases outright lies or exaggerations. When worse comes to worse for him in a debate, he simply closes his mind. D'Souza has helped me see this distinction in how a religion intellectually develops or fails to develop in an individual Christian.

That however is not even the point. I got this from only a few minutes of this excellent video!

 

[RaptorWizard]

Atheism is for people who do not believe in a supreme power in the Universe which is so senseless when you look at the splendors of all of creation and then to realize that this delicate fabric woven by nature was indeed woven by God!

 

[Mal12345]

Atheism is for people who do not believe in a supreme power in the Universe which is so senseless when you look at the splendors of all of creation and then to realize that this delicate fabric woven by nature was indeed woven by God!

Are you asking for the new atheists to simply demolish an argument that came out of the Middle Ages? The technique would be to make your own view appear senseless, subjective, and arbitrary.

 

[sprinkles]

 

[Lark]

An objectivist Christian?

Seriously? I struggle to think to two more incompatible creedos.

 

[Lark]

Also in terms of rational Christianity I would recommend that you instead consider Roman Catholicism, especially Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus and Moore.

If you read Erasmus and Luther's discourse on free will you will see the rational vs. the dogmatic mindset which has been reproduced ever since and probably was channelling a more fundamental timeless dichotomy, despite many, many protestants believing they are the modern, new, progressive and heirs in ascendency of rationality the discourse itself portrays the exact opposite. I've actually read more recent material which suggests that the present establishment and even the papacy have more in common with Luther's dogmatics than Erasmus's scholastics.

 

[Lark]

Johnathan Sacks and the Jews are better at countering the new athiests than anything from within Christianity.

Although I'm more and more thinking that a wrong turn was taken in Christianity back when James and Mathew lost out to Paul.

 

[Mal12345]

[video]

This seems pretty hopeless. But the bald guy doesn't make very many good points. He believes there is only truth 1 (God) or truth 2 (no God). I call that a false alternative, and that he has not justified this view despite the fact that everything he states is based on the "god" of justification.

 

[reason]

Atheism is for people who do not believe in a supreme power in the Universe which is so senseless when you look at the splendors of all of creation and then to realize that this delicate fabric woven by nature was indeed woven by God!

Repeat these words after me: 'non-sequitur, non-sequitur, non-sequitur', and say it again every time you feel tempted to make this comment.

 

[Lark]

This seems pretty hopeless. But the bald guy doesn't make very many good points. He believes there is only truth 1 (God) or truth 2 (no God). I call that a false alternative, and that he has not justified this view despite the fact that everything he states is based on the "god" of justification.

I could be with you on this point, I think the question is not whether or not there is a God, what is the nature of God and why to believe are much better questions. I mean what if God at a time had a very active role in human affairs and has since abandoned humanity altogether? There are so many other conclusions about God which historically have hinged on belief in the existence of God which I do not believe actually automatically follow from that first premise, for instance the existence of an afterlife, eternal life etc. etc. Perhaps God has animated beings for a time and when they are extinct that is it, its not what I believe and I have other reasons for that but its one example of the mistaken automatic conclusions thinking I'm talking about.

 

[sprinkles]

This seems pretty hopeless. But the bald guy doesn't make very many good points. He believes there is only truth 1 (God) or truth 2 (no God). I call that a false alternative, and that he has not justified this view despite the fact that everything he states is based on the "god" of justification.

He didn't say that in the way you think he did, and actually ALL of his points are spot on if you actually understand what he is saying and why he is saying it.

When he said that there either is or isn't a God, he was referring to the caller's specific God.

If you were paying attention you would have also caught the fact that he said that a god is not necessarily unfalsifiable under every definition, and also pretty much implies that one shouldn't limit themselves to accepting something as true irrationally because at some point there might be an actual truth to find.

 

[reason]

I watched half of the D'Souza video before getting bored. He didn't mention any difficult problems and nor did he offer any satisfying answers.

 

[Lark]

He didn't say that in the way you think he did, and actually ALL of his points are spot on if you actually understand what he is saying and why he is saying it.

When he said that there either is or isn't a God, he was referring to the caller's specific God.

If you were paying attention you would have also caught the fact that he said that a god is not necessarily unfalsifiable under every definition, and also pretty much implies that one shouldn't limit themselves to accepting something as true irrationally because at some point there might be an actual truth to find.

I've already said that there are a number of hypothesis which correspond to God rather than one, I do think that these are falsifiable in the Popperian scientific sense, for instance anthropomorphic versions of divinity, I would hope that they have been falsified and new hypothesis have had to replace them.

In relation to belief in God Hans Kung has written some good material suggesting that while you can not apply falsifiability to God you can to the various proofs of his existence or evidence, I believe that the old scriptural literalist and solo-scriptural proofs or evidence were falsifiable and have been proven false, I know a lot of people will not accept that if they profess those believes but scientific research, which is proven, falsifies the creation narrative. The higher criticism has exposed other flaws in scripture.

 

[sprinkles]

I've already said that there are a number of hypothesis which correspond to God rather than one, I do think that these are falsifiable in the Popperian scientific sense, for instance anthropomorphic versions of divinity, I would hope that they have been falsified and new hypothesis have had to replace them.

In relation to belief in God Hans Kung has written some good material suggesting that while you can not apply falsifiability to God you can to the various proofs of his existence or evidence, I believe that the old scriptural literalist and solo-scriptural proofs or evidence were falsifiable and have been proven false, I know a lot of people will not accept that if they profess those believes but scientific research, which is proven, falsifies the creation narrative. The higher criticism has exposed other flaws in scripture.

Yeah.

In that video they aren't actually approaching other kinds of God and/or gods though. They're simply addressing the callers argument that he believes in an unfalsifiable God, and that he isn't a deist, but actually believes in a specific God that he will meet when he dies.

They address this from the callers own given perspective of essentially acknowledging that something can't be given a truth value, yet still giving it a truth value, which is indeed a conflict.

 

[reason]

I'm practically an expert on issues concerning falsifiability. The idea that a proposition 'can't be given a truth value' because it's unfalsifiable is just wrong on so many levels. The lady in the video who said she would not believe anything that is not falsifiable is either lying or ignorant.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm practically an expert on issues concerning falsifiability. The idea that a proposition 'can't be given a truth value' because it's unfalsifiable is just wrong on so many levels. The lady in the video who said she would not believe anything that is not falsifiable is either lying or ignorant.

In the context of determining an objective truth value, they are not wrong.

It is true that being unfalsifiable does not determine truth or validity, and she even says that claiming to know that God is unfalsifiable is a knowledge claim.

However, they are not talking about unfalsifiable in the sense of "This cake is delicious." or even "I saw some guy cross the street." They are talking to a man who admits that he essentially does not know but believes anyway because it can't be proven wrong and it makes him happy.

In his context it can't be given a truth value. At least not in that point in time. That is not to say that no unfalsifiable thing can be given a truth value.

 

[Mal12345]

I could be with you on this point, I think the question is not whether or not there is a God, what is the nature of God and why to believe are much better questions. I mean what if God at a time had a very active role in human affairs and has since abandoned humanity altogether? There are so many other conclusions about God which historically have hinged on belief in the existence of God which I do not believe actually automatically follow from that first premise, for instance the existence of an afterlife, eternal life etc. etc. Perhaps God has animated beings for a time and when they are extinct that is it, its not what I believe and I have other reasons for that but its one example of the mistaken automatic conclusions thinking I'm talking about.

You strayed into fantasy at the end. It reminds me of the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, in which the Creator has (apparently) abandoned his Creation and is willing to allow the forces of evil to eventually triumph. Because what you're implying is that Satan has bested God. This scenario seems rather implausible.

The metaphysical questions (nature of God and all that) are more interesting. Because they lead to a further question: what purpose does it serve mankind to somehow divine these holy properties? Then there's the question which you mentioned: why believe in a being that possesses holy properties?

I don't know that D'Souza has accurately characterized the atheist position in declaring that without God anything goes. Because God is only the personification of these holy properties. He gives something upon which to attach these properties. But even in the absence of holy being, there is still a question as to whether even an atheist believes in those properties as ideals for humans to strive toward. And in this sense, the atheist believes as a Christian believes.

 

[Mal12345]

He didn't say that in the way you think he did, and actually ALL of his points are spot on if you actually understand what he is saying and why he is saying it.

When he said that there either is or isn't a God, he was referring to the caller's specific God.

If you were paying attention you would have also caught the fact that he said that a god is not necessarily unfalsifiable under every definition, and also pretty much implies that one shouldn't limit themselves to accepting something as true irrationally because at some point there might be an actual truth to find.

Consider your "delicious cake" example, but instead think of it as a difference between an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud, vs. a being who can violate the laws of nature and thus produce miracles at will. In order to falsify the former it would be necessary to check all the clouds thoroughly, and while this may take a long time it is still possible. But the latter is what we mean by unfalsifiable truth. Would you apply the laws of nature as a scientist? A being who is beyond those laws, and is indeed the very source of those laws, cannot be discerned this way unless he chooses to reveal himself. And even then, you still can't know for certain.

 

[sprinkles]

Consider your "delicious cake" example, but instead think of it as a difference between an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud, vs. a being who can violate the laws of nature and thus produce miracles at will. In order to falsify the former it would be necessary to check all the clouds thoroughly, and while this may take a long time it is still possible. But the latter is what we mean by unfalsifiable truth. Would you apply the laws of nature as a scientist? A being who is beyond those laws, and is indeed the very source of those laws, cannot be discerned this way unless he chooses to reveal himself. And even then, you still can't know for certain.

Yes, exactly. This is pretty much what they are talking about in a lot more words.

Unfalsifiable doesn't mean false. There very well could be such a god. What they are saying is that if you claim to know, and you stop looking, you close the door on further knowledge.

It's basically saying "I've got it right and I don't have to seek anymore" when you can't actually know if you've got it right. Nowhere does this say that it's actually false. It might still be true. Then again it might not.

Edit: also note that if one claims esoteric knowledge, that's a whole other story entirely, and is up to an individual to deal with on their own.

 

[Eric B]

In this video, D'Souza defends Christianity against its "new atheist" opponents. But his is a rational faith-based view that is rarely seen. One example of what I mean by "rational" comes from another youtube video in which he explains that it is rational for a cab driver to drive past a black male looking for a cab based on the driver's bad experiences with blacks. It is rational because he desires to be safe and make it back home to his family every day after work. Or, to use an example of my own, it is irrational to hire a lesser candidate for a job based solely on skin color. (By the same token, it is irrational to hire anyone based on anything but ability to fulfill the duties of the job.)

I don't know that D'Souza has accurately characterized the atheist position in declaring that without God anything goes. Because God is only the personification of these holy properties. He gives something upon which to attach these properties. But even in the absence of holy being, there is still a question as to whether even an atheist believes in those properties as ideals for humans to strive toward. And in this sense, the atheist believes as a Christian believes.

Aye! and does he ever give a rational reason for why black people do what they do, or what other racial groups do wrong? Doesn't look like it. Ever since The End of Racism, his "rational" views have been very lopsided. (Blacks use "victim rhetoric" to get special treatment; while conservatives had been the loudest "victims" in the very act of pointing at others using victim rhetoric, to take something from them!) But people buy it up; and he's become a "darling" of conservativism.

He basically fuses Western jingoism with Christianity, and it looks so good for this dark skinned foreigner to be advancing the "truth" of capitalistic and Western cultural superiority, but if you search the blogosphere on him, you can see him likely accurately portrayed as just an upper caste member in his country's own discriminatory system; so of course he will favor the powerful in the West.

So as the second quote shows, even his arguments for religion are basically shallow and inaccurate. Since it's all about cultural superiority, it doesn't matter; you just have the "bad guys" on one side (the atheists and communists), and the "good guys" on the other (Westerns and Christians, even if only culturally Christian, because it's the culture that determines "truth"), so you can say anything you want about the other side.