Monday, August 13, 2012

The Unperceiving Fruit of the Pseudo Intellectuals Has Ripened


‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance; we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.’



Update: Looks like an honest naturalist, materialist, atheist has beat me to the punch on this.

Bravo! Must Read!


It feels useless to “debate” the existence of God online. It seems that 95% of the non-believers’ arguments boil down to, if they are not outright, ad-hominem, argument from authority, question begging, fallacy after fallacy — but almost never an attempt on the non-believer’s part to actually reason for themselves. It is very strange since it would appear that, otherwise, such posters are often actually smart, well educated, intelligent people.

Perhaps this should be no surprise, however, since the “high intellectual debates” that top scientists, professors, and philosophers take part in to defend naturalism, materialism, and atheism, also show clear signs of an intellectual breakdown occurring in this area. There is, for whatever reason (sin???), a serious disconnect.

I think a large amount of the disconnect for the layman can be linked to what I see as the main fallacy advanced as arguments by atheists — the argument from authority.

Although within any particular argument there may be other fallacies advanced, it seems that most are assured, finally, in the fact that they are able to cite that so-and-so teaches such and such. And this indicates a big problem indeed: a vast number of people, even very smart people, are not willing or not able to think through these questions for themselves and come to coherent conclusions, one’s they are confident enough about to advance “in the heat of battle” and have them subjected to scrutiny.

Time and time again arguments for the existence and coherence of God, as well as for the incoherence for the non-existence of God and atheism, are just shut down without argument whatsoever. Again, for whatever reason, people are unwilling or unable to formulate and articulate their own reasoning for their position.

But, neither, I think, should this be surprising. For decades now our society has been inundated with the philosophy that materialism has been scientifically established, as if material can account for itself apart from a cause; that naturalism explains everything, from the cosmos to our brain functions. In short, no appeal to God is necessary to answer the big questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?

What is very unfortunate, however, is that, because of this inundation, so many have simply shut-off from even contemplating these questions for themselves (I mean really contemplating them), as well as contemplating the far reaching implications of the materialistic, naturalistic answers they’ve already been spoon-fed.

This, I submit, is the ripened fruit that has come from the years of pseudo intellectualism advanced in the halls of “higher” education. Group think, at least in this area, has been deemed sufficient. The authorities have marked this ground out of bounds for any serious thought or contemplation by “normal” people.

How have they done this? I suspect a very big part has been accomplished quite easily enough. When we ship our kids off to college, professors have it as their aim quite often to ridicule any thought of God. Professors attack viciously those who show any belief in God, and in many cases dare Christians to defend themselves. And what kind of effect does this have on the bystanders? A quite profound one. After all, would a college professor be so aggressive toward religious belief without a good cause? Surely, they would think, the professors are simply being the leaders they are expected to be and using ruthless methods where need be. If God has been disproved, well, Christians should be ridiculed, shamed, and any other thing necessary to “help” them get over their delusion.

The only problem? Well, God has not been disproved; not even close. In fact, the “intellectuals” are often misled themselves. But the effect on the bystanders is on display everywhere it seems. Ridicule for any displayed belief in God is now the most common and “normal” reaction. Outright hostility toward religious belief hardly surprises anyone these days. In other words, what has been happening on college campuses for decades is now on our front lawns. And I suppose you can take that quite literally, too, since even our front lawns are subject to vandalism and lawsuits these days if there are any religious symbols displayed, even around Christmas for crying out loud!

It’s as if the whole notion of actually thinking about the question has been forgotten. It’s treated as a foregone conclusion by atheists nowadays that God has been disproven. Ask them to reason that out, however, and you’ll get some “facts” thrown at you — like the “fact” that there is no evidence for God — some ad-hominem attacks frequently, a sprinkling of Dawkins warmed over, and often enough vitriol directed at God, the ancient Jews, and the Bible. But when a believer actually engages these “arguments”, atheists don’t know where to begin to reason things through coherently using their own brains. Clearly, most have not seriously thought any of this out; not even the elementary things.

This is why I say the “unperceiving” fruit has ripened. The layman atheists have been content to adhere to arguments from authority for so long that they are in many cases just not able to perceive that the actual arguments for naturalism and materialism are self-refuting. In the end, all of the arguments cut off the branch they are trying to rest on. This may be a hard fact to bring oneself to consider, much less accept, for who would advance such arguments if they were not valid? But the question of the existence of God is one question where we ALL have a dog in the fight. It matters at the most personal level possible. It would be a great mistake to dismiss the emotional influences that otherwise upright people are swayed by in this debate.

A recent example of this came on a forum where the debate comes up often, but which threads are usually deleted by moderators. An obviously very smart and well educated fellow (“he” came across as a “fellow”, anyway) said that it was patently obvious that, since God didn’t exist and nature, produced from the Big Bang is all there was, that every event in the universe was predetermined by the events preceding them, all the way back to the initial bang. Well, I agree with him. IF God doesn’t exist, then, yes, all events can be explained by simple cause and effect. But, the topic (I don’t remember specifically) was about things we believed and why, and his argument was supposed to be taken as a disproof of the existence of God (which also makes it circular). Yes, it is an obvious and inevitable conclusion to think that all events in the universe are predetermined if naturalism is true, but that obviously includes our thoughts and “reasoning”. Yet, he was advocating this position as if he had real insight. But what insight can he claim to have if his own position is actually true? None! His “insight” was just the cause of certain particles of matter bouncing around in the right combination to produce the thoughts he had in his brain.

When I pointed this out to him, however, he cited the “authorities” who have written books on the matter, and it was therefore obviously correct, and that my “ass” (his word), on an internet forum, was in no way going to be able to refute it. Now, I still hold very strictly to my position, but it sure would have been nice to be able to actually dialogue with him and see if I may have overlooked something that would undermine my point. But he simply shut off and either would not, or could not, reason it out himself.

I’m reminded of the very well known classic, How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler. In it he said that, until you can take what you’ve read and put it in your own words, you don’t understand it. I’m strongly inclined to agree. And from the looks of it, many atheists don’t understand the arguments for their own declared position.

Now, I expect that last comment to be strongly taken issue with. But, what I said was that many atheists don’t UNDERSTAND the arguments! Not that they don’t confidently and very vocally boast in their position and belief in their arguments. There’s a big difference. It’s when they are challenged on those arguments that the lack of understanding and perception becomes evident.

12 comments:

  1. Agree 100% Brent. Thank you for a well written piece.

    Sadly I fear those who would most benefit from your article wouldn't survive the first paragraph.

    Cognitive dissonance would flare up and the confused atheist would no doubt revert to ad hominem attacks, without substance, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason,

      Thanks for your encouragement.

      Yes, I was hoping that those who are most in need of reading this would get to the bottom and be "thwarted" by the last bit of comment; i.e., they don't understand, as opposed to vociferously profess to believe. I suspect most will have clicked away, laughing derisively at the creationist imbecile, long before that, however.

      Delete
  2. "A recent example of this came on a forum where the debate comes up often, but which threads are usually deleted by moderators. An obviously very smart and well educated fellow (“he” came across as a “fellow”, anyway) said that it was patently obvious that, since God didn’t exist and nature, produced from the Big Bang is all there was, that every event in the universe was predetermined by the events preceding them, all the way back to the initial bang. Well, I agree with him. IF God doesn’t exist, then, yes, all events can be explained by simple cause and effect. But, the topic (I don’t remember specifically) was about things we believed and why, and his argument was supposed to be taken as a disproof of the existence of God (which also makes it circular). Yes, it is an obvious and inevitable conclusion to think that all events in the universe are predetermined if naturalism is true, but that obviously includes our thoughts and “reasoning”. Yet, he was advocating this position as if he had real insight. But what insight can he claim to have if his own position is actually true? None! His “insight” was just the cause of certain particles of matter bouncing around in the right combination to produce the thoughts he had in his brain."

    Exactly -- IF God is not, then (among other things) we cannot know truth, nor discover previously unknown truth, nor reason, nor understand. Yet, we can do all these things, and other things we could not do if God were not. Therefore, we know, via reason, that God is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks.

    Yes, it seems that simple to me. I'd love to have discussed it, however.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As my browser displays it, the word "Exactly" at the start of my response above doesn't appear as a link, though it is. It's a link to an outline of a "strong" version of the "Argument from Reason" that came to me in a flash several years ago, long before I'd heard the phrase "Argument from Reason".

    At the same time, there is no denying that my flash of insight was grounded in some of C.S.Lewis' thought and that of others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for pointing the link out. I'll have to override some code to make it stand out better.

      You explained it quite well. I, too, have a lot of help from my friends, Lewis and Plantinga, etc. Fine with me, as long as I can put it in my own words and not have to bail if I'm challenged on it.

      My original points to the "fellow" were along the lines of truth, actually. I mean, if his position were the actual case, then obviously this natural process of cause and effect is not interested in producing true thoughts, since it produces differing thoughts of reality from person to person. And if our thoughts of reality are different, there would be no way for him, or anyone else, to suggest that their thoughts were actually the right, or true, ones. To what would you appeal? Reason, as Lewis said, would be the very thing on trial (and in this case, denied by the poster anyway). The thing needed is a ground-consequent explanation, but we are afforded none in this model.

      Delete
  5. "Fine with me, as long as I can put it in my own words and not have to bail if I'm challenged on it."

    But, of course. And, if one cannot put an argument into one's own words, does one really understand it in th first place?

    "I mean, if his position were the actual case, then obviously this natural process of cause and effect is not interested in producing true thoughts, since it produces differing thoughts of reality from person to person. And if our thoughts of reality are different, there would be no way for him, or anyone else, to suggest that their thoughts were actually the right, or true, ones."

    Right. But, when one thinks about it some more, one sees that if atheism were the truth about the nature of reality, then what we call 'thoughts' are not *really* thoughts, not as we actually mean and understand the word. At the same time, if atheism were the truth about the nature of reality, then we could not 'mean' or 'understand' anything, anyway, either. For, as you mention later, there is no ground-consequent available under naturalism, but only material cause-and-effect.

    Thus, if atheism were the truth about the nature of reality, then this present dialogue, and all dialogues, signify nothing; for there is no actual dialogue taking place when the events occur that we label 'dialogue'. You say/write something; I say/write something in "response" (as we meaninglessly say). But, my "response" isn't a ground-consequent response to the meaning of what you said or wrote; rather, whatever I say or write (or do not say or write) following whatever you first said or wrote is simply the result of meaningless physical cause-and-effect, completely unrelated to the (non-existent) content-and-meaning of the prior verbalization or writing.

    Perhaps you "ask" me, "What is 3 plus 5?"

    In "response", pehaps I say, "8", or perhaps I say "2", or perhaps I say "orange marmelade". Or, perhaps I say nothing at all, but instead physically attack you. It's all the same, if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality.

    When "Nature" is defined in terms of 'naturalism' (or 'physicalism' or 'materialism'), then only the being who stands "outside" or "above" "Nature" can think and know and reason, intend and act, and so on.

    "To what would you appeal? Reason, as Lewis said, would be the very thing on trial (and in this case, denied by the poster anyway)."

    Yes; when pressed by this line of argument, the God-deniers -- who like to proclaim themselves The Incarnation Of Reason -- will always retreat into the outright denial of reason and logic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It sure looks like a link, now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup.

      Without a Governor we would expect nothing better than Alice In Wonderland. Alice In Wonderland would be a great achievement, in fact.

      Anyway, the God-deniers haven't realized yet that their only "real" argument against God is simply a presupposition of non-existence. I don't think there is an argument that cannot be reduced to circularity for the atheist. If you can, let me know (seriously).

      Delete
  7. Interesting piece. And really, I think it reflects my own experience.

    My standard for any internet conversation is this: there has to be mutual respect and common ground in play, and it has to be on both sides. When it comes to many atheists, that's not available. And at that point it's a fool's errand to try and reason with them, or engage them in dialogue. You literally have to talk at them, not with them.

    It's the case for others as well, but really, the Cult of Gnu is emblematic in this regard, since they really treat any conversation with a theist as a threat itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Crude.

      Yes, I have done a lot of talking at atheists. The fools errand was my specialty for the longest time, but I think I'm finally learning; hence this article.

      Of course, the fools errand can still have a positive effect on those lurkers, and they're the ones on the fence, knowing they don't know. So, there's always that, and I think we have got to remember that. Very hard sometimes.

      Delete