In defense of fundamentalism

 

Makes sense to me.

Thats funny, if God is always right, then why would He install faulty sensors in His creatures?

Well apparently God would say your logic is flawed.

From a mini-book I'm working on in my spare time:

You Control You

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.
- Buddha

It is obviously true that only you control you. It is so obvious that it feels trite to say it. Nevertheless, ever-present bad ideas can undermine our conviction of its truth without realizing it. There are two corollaries to the fact that only you control you.

First, you cannot blame others for your failures and your pain, even when they are the agents of your suffering. Why does the spouse who has tragically lost a loved one to a crime of violence grieve differently than the spouse who has lost a loved one to a natural disaster? The actions of others feel personal because our brains are designed to “take it personally”. But even the most visceral feelings that others invoke in us are not completely outside of our own control. The person who chooses to think of their suffering as an act of Nature or Providence rather than the personal agency of the aggressor who is responsible has deprived the aggressor of that power over their soul, if not their body.

Second, no one else deserves credit for your accomplishments. It is common to hear people say things like, “We each have a duty to give back to society a portion of what we have earned from it.” On the surface, such statements may seem plausible but they are false. It is true that you have benefitted from the ideas and energies of others. But it is no less true that those who have benefitted you were also benefitted from the ideas and energies of yet others. Our proximate benefactors no more deserve credit for our accomplishments than their benefactors do for their accomplishments. It is simply a fact of the human condition that benefits accrue to others as the inevitable by-product of acting.

The Ultimate Starting Point

The fact that you control you can be applied to each part of the soul as I have divided it above. The consequences to every aspect of your being are far-reaching. You alone are responsible for what you believe to be true, for what you perceive to be real and what you value. As a matter of fact of the nature of reality, you cannot shrug this responsibility off onto someone else – not a priest, not a church, not a university, not a government, not a social leader.

Because you control you, the soul itself is the ultimate starting point. That is, the soul is the ultimate judge of reality, truth and value beyond which there is no higher court of appeal. Whatever its origin, every belief I may have about theology or neurology or mathematics or cosmology or quantum physics must stand judgment before the throne of my own cognition and my own perceptions. I cannot have certainty through proxy, which is the fallacy of any appeal to authority. Certainty or even confidence is a state of mind not a fact residing within a physical object or within an abstract idea or within the mind of someone else.

The soul as it relates to memory perception is ultimate. It is conceivable that I am misremembering the past and that the world has, as a matter of fact, unfolded differently than I remember it unfolding. However, even if this were the case, I have no means to perceive the mistake. Hence, I have no choice but to proceed as if my memories are, in fact, genuine.

The soul as it relates to sense perception is ultimate. The famous thought experiment of the “brain in a vat” illustrates this problem. What if you are not what you think you are but are, instead, a brain in a vat of warm saline water hooked up to some mad scientist’s supercomputer that is simulating the world around you? This is a conceivable situation. However, even if this were the case, I would have no means to perceive the mistake. Hence, I have no choice but to take my sense perceptions at face value. Descartes’ famous argument concluding “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore, I am) or any other argument cannot imbue me with any greater confidence because I could make such arguments even if I were a brain in a vat.

The soul as it relates to cognition is ultimate. It is conceivable that my brain is unreliable and deduces false conclusions from true premises or fails to perceive the glaring inconsistencies in the axioms with which it operates. However, even if this were the case, I could not perceive the mistake since the sole means I have to diagnose it – my reasoning – is the very thing that is compromised. Every argument by which I am convinced is cognized to be true only insofar as I comprehend it and I believe that its axioms are consistent and its deductions are valid. There is no external reference outside of myself to which I can appeal to perceive the faults in my own cognitive abilities.

Finally, the soul as it relates to valuation is ultimate. This is a sub-species of the brain-in-a-vat problem. It is conceivable that I am the subject of a grand hoax and that my values and desires come from a source external to myself or are really aligned against my own true interests. Nevertheless, I could never perceive the mistake since I only come to know my desires and appetites through their immediate effect on my state of mind. There is no external reference outside of myself to which I can appeal to perceive the mistakes in my valuations.

It is conceivable that I am expected or required by a deity or the Universe to act according to the desires and wishes of all mankind or all living things or the Universe or the deity himself, instead of acting according to my own desires. However, no matter how fervently I try to shrug off my appetites and adopt the desires and wishes of something or someone outside myself, I can only do so as a fulfillment of my desire or appetite of acting according to the wishes of that thing outside myself. That is, when I act on behalf of others, I act by virtue of my desire to fulfill the desires of others. Even if I obey God’s command to stop desiring some sinful experience, it is only because I more strongly desire the peace of mind that comes from being in good standing with God than I desire the forbidden pleasures of the sinful experience.

Fear

The vast majority of philosophy gives way to fear; fear of being incorrect, fear of having an incomplete understanding of life and the world, fear that we may be inadvertently doing wrong, and so on. Fear is one of the greatest impediments to the soul’s happiness. The burden does not rest on me to persuade you that your soul is its own highest court of appeal. Recognizing the fact that your own mind, your own senses and your own appetites are their own ultimate criterion whose judgments are not contingent upon any higher court of appeal is nothing but the abolition of fear from one’s mind and soul. Facing this fact is a matter of self-improvement not a question of logical debate.

Protagoras famously said, “Man is the measure of all things.” Slightly re-stated (to capture his meaning in modern language), no proposition can be more certain than that Self is the measure of all things. The truth of any other proposition can only be judged by virtue of the fact that this proposition is true. The compromise of conviction of belief in the truth of this proposition in your own mind cripples your ability to think about yourself, about your peers and about the natural world; it is always the result of fear.

Relativism is another form of fear. The relativist asserts that all truth is relative to each individual. Since you do not control what others believe, your soul cannot be the final arbiter of truth. The fallacy in this argument is that it confuses apprehension with persuasion. Your soul is the final court of appeal in apprehending that something is true. But your soul is not the final court of appeal in persuading others that something is true. Each individual must be persuaded of the truth within himself.

(end quote)

It is conceivable that God is right despite my reason. If so, then I am surely damned because I cannot hope to comprehend the truth. Even a leap of faith is merely a roll of the dice since if I leap to the wrong deity, I have damned myself by whichever other deity(ies) I ought to have had faith in, instead.

Clayton -

Protagoras famously said, “Man is the measure of all things.” Slightly re-stated (to capture his meaning in modern language), no proposition can be more certain than that Self is the measure of all things. The truth of any other proposition can only be judged by virtue of the fact that this proposition is true. The compromise of conviction of belief in the truth of this proposition in your own mind cripples your ability to think about yourself, about your peers and about the natural world; it is always the result of fear.

I'm struggling with this paragraph, can you expand on it?

@Clayton

As usual I quite like the essence of what you are saying but I believe the way you're addressing it might leave something to be desired. For instance the last paragraph, in which you attack relativism I believe you might actually be arguing in favor of the relativist argument and addressing a strawman. 

On a sidenote I think that both of us might benefit from a PM conversation, we seem to have a lot of similar opinions surrounding indiviual morality that are somewhat unorthodox even around here.

@OP

Fundamentalism is an exceedingly logical position if the following conditions are given:

1. God exists

2. One knows the exact will of god

Or

2. One knows enough of the will of god to act with impunity

That's why I find it totally disingenuous that modern christians who are bible truthers don't argue in favor of a strictly theocratic state and demand the scrapping of the constitution, violently so. If you believe that the bible is truth then anything that you do in accordance with this is justified. The fact is that they are authoritative conservatives, rather than good god fearing christians

With this said your simple aphorism doesn't prove either of those premises, which are indeed practically unprovable to one with intellectual rigor, condemning one to at most agnosticism. 

samr, fundamentalist position of what religion?  You assume a monotheistic path and a certain archetype of a god that must fit the Christian description.  Also, you may want to look into traditionalism, not fundamentalism.

That's why I find it totally disingenuous that modern christians who are bible truthers don't argue in favor of a strictly theocratic state and demand the scrapping of the constitution, violently so. If you believe that the bible is truth then anything that you do in accordance with this is justified. The fact is that they are authoritative conservatives, rather than good god fearing christians

While this is definitely true of some Christians, you're illictly moving from moral principles to legal rules. It may be true that everyone should remain chaste outside of marriage, for instance, but it does not follow that we think it right to forcefully impose it on others. The same does not go for other things, of course, like murder. Some sort of rule is needed to traverse the gap from morality to law. In this case, the Christian could easily opt for a libertarian conception of morality->law by rooting out the former in one's _philosophy of law_ (chastity), while keeping the latter (prohibitions against murder). Now the Christians you have in mind do, in fact, attempt to read universally applicable legal rules out of the text, but it should be clear that being a fundamentalist does not at all necessitate theocracy. The fundamentalist position doesn't come 'pre-stocked', as it were, with legal rules ready to unwrap and implement. One needs to go a little further as a Christian theocrat and make the textually implausible argument: "God says X is immoral, AND X ought to be strictly prohibited at all times in all places."

MrSchnapps, It depends on what notion of morality is used. 

If the basic notion of morality is what one    'ought to do', and 'ought' is an absolute concept, i.e. if one can't murder, one can never murder, then it seems to me there is no reason why a state cannot impose that. 

If one "ought" to keep chastity, then it is imposable by law.

As far as I understand, this is what the concept of "ought" implies. 

See, you're confusing the difference between theories of morality and theories of justice. The argument I offered is a kind of reductio ad absurdum. If justice is simply an exact mirror of morality, there in principle should be nothing wrong with having vigorous anti-defamation laws, or much more absurdly, laws against common vices like lying or any other relatively innocous (insofar as it affects others) immoral action.

As another example of this divide, Block wrote an entry on Lew Rockwell's site, stating that while he felt it was morally wrong for his colleagues to defame him, he nevertheles declined to sue on pain of consistency to the non-aggression principle, which doesn't seem to afford much slack to so-called 'anti-defamation laws'. 

I presented an argument that they are the same actually - theories of morality, and of justice. At least if you use "ought" as a moral criteria. 

 

I don't know what religious criteria of morality you can offer that doesn't imply that justice is the same as morality. 

 

Clayton:

The soul as it relates to sense perception is ultimate. The famous thought experiment of the “brain in a vat” illustrates this problem. What if you are not what you think you are but are, instead, a brain in a vat of warm saline water hooked up to some mad scientist’s supercomputer that is simulating the world around you? This is a conceivable situation. However, even if this were the case, I would have no means to perceive the mistake. Hence, I have no choice but to take my sense perceptions at face value. Descartes’ famous argument concluding “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore, I am) or any other argument cannot imbue me with any greater confidence because I could make such arguments even if I were a brain in a vat.

Not quite. What is required is a transcendental argument which allows the possibility of the accuracy of our sense perceptions otherwise skepticism is a real threat.

 

Can you offer a positive transcendental argument in favor of sense perception?

See, you're confusing the difference between theories of morality and theories of justice.

Maybe the distinction is clearer if you call "justice" punishment?

Some things are arguably wrong, but not worthy of a coercive response or retaliation, e.g adultery, which is a kind of betrayed confidence.

But then wouldn't God punish people for that, in theory?  Is morality like "God's justice"?

samr:

Can you offer a positive transcendental argument in favor of sense perception?

Our senses were designed to be truth seeking. This then begs the question by whom which I'd argue by God (trad monotheism- I hold that but with some substantial qualifications). When it comes to design of the man there's pretty much two options- evolution or God. As argued extensively here evolution cannot account fro truth seeking senses.

 

Physiocrat,

I disagree quite strongly with you on these issues.

Our senses have evolved to give us a map of the world that aims for truth, this is explained by the fact that an organism that can better orient itself to its environment has advantages over organisms which struggle between determining 'food' from 'violent predator

The very fact that we have senses with designs such that optical illusions are well documented seems to indicate that they were not designed by a beneficient creator with the idea of imbuing us with perfect knowledge of what physical objects surround us, but rather that the designs that evolution has favoured to align us with more effective-truthiness tends to be a weak strategy for determining sense-to-reality in obscure artificial conditions that dont tend to come up much in the lives of the struggling organisms being tooled for truth at the cost of expending energy.

But which fundamentalism?  Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish?

Unlike logic or ethics or metaphysics, the word 'fundamentalist' doesn't actually describe anything.  One could very well be a fundamentalist of anything.  

Even within the religions there is no agreement on what are the fundamentals.  For some Christians it means cherrypicking things mostly out of the Old Testament and following theological arguments made afterward.  While for others, it means following the spirit of law which is love.  It is not as if there are any Christians who say... okay I will follow Christ on Wednesday only, but be a heathen the rest of the time.  All of them are fundamentalists in what they themselves believe to be the truth of the text.  Some have only created a false distinction in order to elevate themselves.

I've heard it said that 'fundamentalist' means that all things are false if they do not come from the bible.  And that which doesn't come from the bible is 'occult'. This is why they reject other religions or modern science or something else (ironically because of hast-y rationalizations not in the Bible). This is very funny.  Because it is like saying that microwave instructions on a pizza box are occult.   This view ironically is less tenable, because it views the pizza box and the bible as equals.  But chooses one over the other based on no other reason than whim.  This is the logical outcome of saying that truth is impossible, if not for religion.   In fact whether religion is true or not is dependent on measuring truth.

A sensible Christian would reject that, because they know they must use reason to discern the meaning of the Bible.  Like they must understand other things, practical, philosophical, or otherwise.  Jesus also said that one must have a firm foundation -- a rock, instead of sand -- but that the foundation is for the building.  It seems that fundamentalists think the foundation is something unto itself; the finished project.  They are afraid to build something on top of it, for fear that it will collapse.  Which means it is crap to begin with, from a religious or philosophical perspective.

John Ess, that's what I'm thinking.  The term is being loosely applied, the assumption (or at least on the OP's part) that it must be some form of Christian fundamentalism, but if that's the case I can easily say the Christian god is not part of my "inner circle" and doesn't pertain to my set of gods, and if we can't agree on something like gods I must say it's no absolute, only to those who believe it or follow that particular path.

I'm a Heathen reconstructionist, essentially a "fundamentalist" to some in a way, but I feel that term is too objective, as if there is this die hard and rigid metaphysical system that pours out into a physical reality.  Ironically enough, I'm sure to some Christian fundamentalists the writings of traditionalists like Guenon and Schoun would probably be considered heresy and occult.

@Scrooge

]Protagoras famously said, “Man is the measure of all things.” Slightly re-stated (to capture his meaning in modern language), no proposition can be more certain than that Self is the measure of all things.

It is simply the case in fact that my mind is the measure of truth, beauty (morality), reality and history. Because everything which comprises my capacity to evaluate truth, beauty, reality and history is part of me, I am the ultimate judge of these things. If I discover some higher court of appeal, that court must be enfolded into the definition of me. For example, we might posit that the Law of Non-Contradiction stands higher than the individual because the individual may not deny LNC. But I think we're looking at it backwards, the Law of Non-Contradiction is not something that exists outside of any human brain... it is a concept that, once absorbed, becomes a part of the self and just another tool, useful in the evaluation of truth claims.

I believe this is just a statement of subjectivism.

The truth of any other proposition can only be judged by virtue of the fact that this proposition is true.

If I am not my own highest court of appeal in the evaluation of truth, beauty, etc. then what does it even mean for me to "believe" something to be true or to "know" something, or to act "morally"... such words speak of a completely internal process that occurs within the subjective experience of the individual.

One of the things you must sacrifice in order to understand this is the false belief that we have access to or potentially have access to Absolute Truth. We do not. Not even in principle, not even given an arbitrarily large amount of time and space. Since at least 1931 (Godel, incompleteness), we have known this. It is not conjecture. If we can be sure of anything, we can be sure that we do not have access to Absolute Truth. If we could somehow magically "know we know we know...." a transcendental truth (some truth which is too difficult for the human brain to work out on its own), then we could have access to Absolute Truth. But the fact is that hubris is no substitute for knowing something and to confuse the two is a malady, not some kind of highly privileged knowledge.

The compromise of conviction of belief in the truth of this proposition in your own mind cripples your ability to think about yourself, about your peers and about the natural world; it is always the result of fear.

 

People act like they know things that they don't actually know. To give up what you know to be true in the face of contrary claims by people who act confident is to be intimidated. It is no more significant than losing a staring contest.

Let's pick on Young Earth Creationism because it's an easy target. Those who assert the "literal truth" (whatever that means) of the Bible are implicitly making a large number of truth claims. The problem is that they don't know these claims are true in the same sense that they know, for example, that a rock falls downward when dropped or that 2+2=4, even if they act like they do.

Acting confident is just posturing. I know that rocks fall downward. I know that 2+2=4. I don't have to accept these truths on somebody's say-so. Even complicated facts about the physical world that I don't understand, such as the physics of aerodynamics, I can understand in principle how they were derived and are derivable by a human mind. If I can't, even in principle, retrace your steps (in ascertaining the truth of something), then the knowledge you claim to have is inaccessible to me and, I believe, to you as well - no matter much of a show you put on to the contrary.

bert are you actually odinist or do you just find it fascinating/ enjoy studying and participating in that mythos?

bert are you actually odinist or do you just find it fascinating/ enjoy studying and participating in that mythos?

Well, I don't like to use the term Odinist, for one it makes it seem there's allegiance to one god (which isn't out of question to have specific "god cults" in polytheistic systems), but someone also put it well as "Odinism: Asatru for prison gangs and white supremacists."  It's just a matter of semantics, and Heathen is the best fit.  To your question it's a bit of both.  As far as the beliefs, values, views, etc. go I find myself in tune with it, but studying it is a task, well, reconstruction on a whole is a task.  People who've spent 30 years involved in reconstructing it can tell you there's a lot of work, but it can pay off.  When you get deeper into people will reconstruct and follow more specific folk customs/traditions, I'm still on the broad line of it, especially since I'm not part of any kindred.  On a whole religion/myth interests me.  I also have an interest in Hinduism, the literature and gods are just as crazy as the Norse and it stands out to me, but I have no interest in practicing that on the exception of meditative yoga.  (Someone once referred to my interests as a "holy trinity" regarding the 3 H's: Heathen, Hellenic, and Hindu.)

@ Clayton

Thanks, that clarifies it more. I still don't "get" it, but I will reread. Some times it takes me a while to digest things like this. 

a transcendental argument which allows the possibility of the accuracy of our sense perceptions

Accuracy of our sense perceptions to what? The Matrix? People within the Matrix can construct trancendental arguments just as well as people outside of it. That means that my ability to construct a transcendental argument does not preclude the possibility that I am actually embedded in the Matrix.

Skepticism is the realm of the weak and puerile. If you can't handle the possibility that the world could, at root, be very different from what you perceive it to be, that's a personal problem. And the fact that some people can react in this manner doesn't prove we need to get more certain lest the same fate overtake us. It simply proves that mental fear, doubt and intimidation gets the better of some people.

I have no reason to doubt that the world is anything other than it appears to be. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the world is very different than it appears to be. But I don't need to be certain that the world is not something other than it appears to be. I have no use for such worry and I doubt that anyone else does, either.

Finally, I reject the idea that anyone - Pope, prophet, scholar, etc. - has any better idea about what the world really is than I have. Call it hubris if you like. Those who attempt to intimidate others with the insinuation that they have some kind of inside track on reality are just charlatans. If they have something useful to contribute to human knowledge, let them speak up. Otherwise, they should quit trying to instill fear into other people for whatever purpose.

Clayton -

For instance the last paragraph, in which you attack relativism I believe you might actually be arguing in favor of the relativist argument and addressing a strawman.

On a sidenote I think that both of us might benefit from a PM conversation, we seem to have a lot of similar opinions surrounding indiviual morality that are somewhat unorthodox even around here.

Fell free to email me: bknotyalc@gmail.com (reverse the part before the '@').

Relativism is a logical consequence of subjectivism, I affirm subjectivism so I affirm subjectivist-relativism.

However, I think it is safe to say that most academics deny subjectivism to one degree or another - at least, when you get to subjective valuation. Most people tend to deny this. Even smart, educated people deny it despite the fact that it entails logical contradictions to deny it. What they really mean when they speak of "relativism" is a kind of tyranny-of-the-consensus-opinion. Just look at the global warming debate, for example. Since all truth is relative, the individual has "just one vote" on what is true or false. But the collective represents "objective reality" and, therefore, should supersede the relative truth of the individual.

But you're right, I need to clean up that section to be more clear about this.

Clayton -

Maybe my opening post is not true, in case that Authority can't be a primary way of knowing, in the sense that we First know things by authority, and only then by reason and sense.

 

If the idea that Authority is a primary way of knowing is self contradictory, then fundamentalism makes no sense. Otherwise, it is even _reasonable_ to assert that if god orders killing, then it is morally right. Since god is the Authority.

nirgrahamUK:

Our senses have evolved to give us a map of the world that aims for truth, this is explained by the fact that an organism that can better orient itself to its environment has advantages over organisms which struggle between determining 'food' from 'violent predator

As I point out extensively in the linked discussion evolution can only lead to superior survival chances not superior knowledge unless you define knowledge in a purely pragmatic sense.

nirgrahamUK:

The very fact that we have senses with designs such that optical illusions are well documented seems to indicate that they were not designed by a beneficient creator with the idea of imbuing us with perfect knowledge of what physical objects surround us, but rather that the designs that evolution has favoured to align us with more effective-truthiness tends to be a weak strategy for determining sense-to-reality in obscure artificial conditions that dont tend to come up much in the lives of the struggling organisms being tooled for truth at the cost of expending energy.

It does not follow from saying that our senses were designed for true knowledge that they always work in the way in which they were designed. My argument only provides the grounds for the possibility of true knowledge, not necessarily the probability that we'll discover true knowledge. The doctrine of the Fall explains well that despite being designed well we are faulty and can come to incorrect conclusions about what is. However without the pre-fallen well designed state we have no canvas on which to paint are good, and even more so our bad, pictures.

'only lead to' , thats very greedy, its like saying that evolution could only lead to superior surival chances but not to superior music appreciate or ability to experience love

In the realm of domesticated dogs, evolution has lead not only to superior survival chances but also to superior 'cuteness','friendliness' etc, in those breeds which have been geared towards the production of pleasing family pets.

evolution does not exclude great achievement, it certainly does not preclude developing senses throughwhich increasingly better modes of perceiving the external world .

 

On your second point, you seem to have completely missed that the human visualisation system, has a design which if one was to impart a teleology to the designer (which is a false step) one would have to conclude that he was a deceiver. Do you know what a blind spot is ? You introduce the notion of 'the fall', are you saying that the devil monkeyed around with eyeball mechanics so as to introduce a systematically deceiving flaw ? interesting theology you have there.

Point 1- Naturalistic evolutionary theory can only lead to better survival chances which does not correspond with true knowledge. See my link above for extensive argumentation on this issue.

Point 2- Following Point 1, it is still the case evolution cannot provide the grounds for the possibility of true knowledge.

Regarding the fall- suppose that man is a car and he is running as designed. Then the car decides to cease refueling with unleaded petrol and instead refuels with cheap cider. One would expect problems to occur which are down to the responsibility of the car not the designer unless you argue that giving freedom of the will to the car was a wrong decision. Now also assume the car can reproduce these mechanical problems would be passed down through the ages. Even if the son of the original car began refuelling with unleaded there would still be mechanical damage which needs repairing- it needs an overhaul.

The Fall is cutting off our fuel supply from God causing physical problems whereas the overhaul is the new body in the resurrection.

NB. You still haven't established evolution giving grounds for true knowledge. The design by a good designer does irrespective of the issues that go with it.

>>Point 1- Naturalistic evolutionary theory can only lead to better survival chances which does not correspond with true knowledge. See my link above for >>extensive argumentation on this issue.

I don't know what you mean when you say 'true knowledge'. If you mean ability to know whether or not a tiger is in the room with you, then certainly you must be able to grant that an evelotionary designed system can achieve that. Do I need to give you a computer model of mice, and show you how evolutionary forces can dictate that over time the population of software mice have superior abilities at recognising where digital food is than their ancient forbears?

2)

Are you saying that adam and eve's eyeballs had a different construction before and after eve bit a magic apple. and that  their ancestors are persumably perfectly inerited copies of these defective post fall eyeballs ? I want to understand your position on this before I offer a critique.

Point 1. I don't want to repeat myself on this issue so please read my posts on this thread and respond based upon them.

Point 2. I dislike your wording of construction since it implies a re-design rather than a good design gone wrong but I think you ahve the jist of it.

I think this has turned fruitless, so I'll say to the gallery that I cant think of any excuse other than that there is a deficiency in the brain caused by the fall of man from perfection that could explain why anyone would pronounce 'As argued extensively here evolution cannot account fro truth seeking senses' when it should be quite obvious to those with a passing familiarity with evolutionary science that evolution does offer an account for how truth seeking sense develop. So obviously god exists.

Obviously evolutionary science offers an account for how 'truth seeking senses' develop, just as Marxists have provided rejoinders to the subjective theory of value. The question is whether or not these accounts are successful. Moreover, the argument is an inference to best the explanation, so it doesn't conclude with what you think it does. It just says given certain facts, the most plausible framework is a theistic one, so it's slightly more subtle than you might be making it out to be in all fairness.

Knowledge and accounting for knowledge are two separate problems. The quote in the OP of the thread Physiocrat linked to says it all:

The philosophical, epistemological, and metaphysical problems of causality and of imperfect induction are beyond the scope of praxeology. We must simply establish the fact that in order to act, man must know the causal relationship between events, processes, or states of affairs. And only as far as he knows this relationship, can his action attain the ends sought. We are fully aware that in asserting this we are moving in a circle. For the evidence that we have correctly perceived a causal relation is provided only by the fact that action guided by this knowledge results in the expected outcome.

It really doesn't matter how we know, all that matters is that we know. Now, the larger metaphysical question regards the exhaustivenes of our knowledge, that is, do we know absolutely or is our knowing susceptible to exception? Given a mild assumption about the nature of the human mind (that our minds can't solve uncomputable problems), we can prove that the human knowledge is necessarily susceptible to exception so the problem of our knowledge not being absolute is a red herring. Of course it's not absolute. Of course it's possible that we are deluded about the "real reality". The proper response to this is: so what? To tangle oneself in such metaphysical angst is simply to give up one's peace of mind for nothing in return. It is folly, at best, and those who push such metaphysical problems onto others are fear-mongers.

Clayton -

God is a sloppy designer (if he exists) and it took him billions of human years to develop the universe... that's just retardedly slow. It's easy to disprove theistic God, or at least, to show, how he/she is not different from other human beings - he makes errors, is quite retarded, psychotic, megalomaniac and probably a jew. But it's quite impossible to disprove deistic God. It changes its form once a science makes some break through towards the nature of the universe and how it was "born". However, that doesn't prove its existence either. Paraphrasing JuniorBacon, "define God, point to something that I can conceive what it is. Otherwise it is nonexistent."

God is a sloppy designer

what is your basis for comparison?

it took him billions of human years to develop the universe... that's just retardedly slow.

"retardedly slow" relative to what?

It's easy to disprove theistic God, or at least, to show, how he/she is not different from other human beings - he makes errors, is quite retarded, psychotic, megalomaniac and probably a jew.

funny how something "easy" still hasnt been performed, despite generations of attempts. also, I would like an example of God in error, an explanation of how God could be "quite retarded," and explanations of how He could be psychotic and of course megalomaniacal.

But it's quite impossible to disprove deistic God. It changes its form once a science makes some break through towards the nature of the universe and how it was "born".

this is also false, deistic God doesnt change form, ever. Deistic God is the initial first cause of the universe (that is not an effect of anything).

define God, point to something that I can conceive what it is. Otherwise it is nonexistent."

sounds like theological noncognitivism, which is the philosophical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "YOU CANNOT MAKE ME UNDERSTAND" over and over until people stop trying. The term "God" is easily defined, and has been for years.

God-ontologically supreme entity

God-creator of the universe, author of existence

God-initial first cause of the universe, the uncaused cause.

God-omniscient and omnipotent being that exists independently of the universe, and upon whose will the universe exists.

I also think its funny how you had all kinds of assumptions about something that supposedly couldnt even be defined. Looks like your two problems were related.

"what is your basis for comparison?"

Human technology.

 

""retardedly slow" relative to what?"

To producing something being quite high intelligent, like.. humans do, when they make computers, nano chips and discover the origins of their own species. The universe is as old as it would be if it came into existence though natural means (by itself and without supreme being intervention). One has to suspend his disbelief if one claimed that for supreme highly intelligent being it must have taken BILLIONS of years to produce the universe... that dosn't make sense. Unless you are fundamentalist, a walking contradiction, a crocoduck.

 

"funny how something "easy" still hasnt been performed, despite generations of attempts."

 

You mean, you weren't convinced, but the millions of people were convinced, that the Earth is not flat, we didn't came from Garden of Eden and the Earth is much older than bronze age nomads could have imagined while writing the Bible and Quaran. So I call you bullshiting. Just because you still believe in magic, that doesn't mean, that it is considered truth nowdays. Those stories are dying out.

"also, I would like an example of God in error, an explanation of how God could be "quite retarded," and explanations of how He could be psychotic and of course megalomaniacal."

Did you read any religious text? It's full of internal contradictions (despite being inspired by "supreme being") and are actually untrue on many things. Mass murder, demand for obedience, psychotic (demands human sacrifice etc.) but wait wait... he still LOVES people. Now I ask you: if this is not a sign of God's psychosis, I don't know what is. We are all probably comepletely healthy, and God is a rainbow.

 

"this is also false, deistic God doesnt change form, ever. Deistic God is the initial first cause of the universe (that is not an effect of anything)."

No, first it was the Egg, then the Turtle or whatever creature (will have to check ancient myths), after scientists discovered singularity etc, this deistic god became a singularity (big bang, whatever). I think that's perfect example of its form changing. Sorry, that you disagree. That just shows that you won't accept the new evidence and you can't be convinced by rational arguments - perfect example of fundamentalistic thinking.

"God-ontologically supreme entity"

You are not pointing to anything. What it means "supreme entity"? How is it supreme? What is the characteristics of supremacy? You are just wasting my time with such definitions, really. 

 

"God-creator of the universe, author of existence"

Again, it points to NOTHING, it's a world play. I could equally say, that Easter Bunny is the creator of the Universe. That doesn't make it more rational. That's just your imagination and willful thinking. I even would call it a lie.

 

"God-initial first cause of the universe, the uncaused cause."

See above. Empty words defining NOTHING. Switching between concepts and calling a bed a rock doesn't make it into the rock. Bed is bed, rock is rock.

 

"God-omniscient and omnipotent being that exists independently of the universe, and upon whose will the universe exists."

more magical thinking. That's pure assertion, a bold lie. If such being existed with such characteristics... don't you think it would be easier for him/her to create universe, than to make ERRORS time after time in human evolution for example... why do we need wisdom teeth? Apendix? Belly button? I could go on and on. It's sloppy desing, just like what you would expect if humans were evolved naturally without divine intervention.

If we are made by the image of God, then we are doomed. I'd rather have Bush as Creator of the Universe than God, which is described in the Bible or Quaran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also, I would like an example of God in error, an explanation of how God could be "quite retarded," and explanations of how He could be psychotic and of course megalomaniacal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Human technology.

So you claim that an bunch of grapes is sloppy but a bbq pork sandwich isnt?

To producing something being quite high intelligent, like.. humans do, when they make computers, nano chips and discover the origins of their own species.

I'm sorry, you arent being very clear here. "God producing the universe in billions of years is retardedly slow relative to producing something being quite high intelligent" just doesnt make any sense. Try again.

The universe is as old as it would be if it came into existence though natural means (by itself and without supreme being intervention).

this statement requires support. How do you purport to know how long it would have taken the universe to reach its current state in the absence of Divinity?

One has to suspend his disbelief if one claimed that for supreme highly intelligent being it must have taken BILLIONS of years to produce the universe... that dosn't make sense. Unless you are fundamentalist, a walking contradiction, a crocoduck.

your argument is what does not make sense. Among other things, you appear to assume that God must necessarily have been working as fast as He possibly could, rather than doing things solely according to His schedule. It is no concern to me whatsoever that God has been "working too slowly" for your liking.

You mean, you weren't convinced, but the millions of people were convinced

argumentum ad populum. Try again.

that the Earth is not flat

the Bible refers to a round Earth (proverbs 8:27). You need to go to sunday school.

we didn't came from Garden of Eden

actually the Garden of Eden is the period in human history where humans existed in harmony with creation in what we now refer to as aboriginal societies. So the science supports the Bible here too.

Earth is much older than bronze age nomads could have imagined while writing the Bible and Quaran.

do you think you could reference the scripture where the earth is dated? Or is it a matter of interpretation, and I am expected to take an atheist's interpretation of scripture as more authoritative than the interpretations of people who actually, you know, read the Bible?

So I call you bullshiting. Just because you still believe in magic, that doesn't mean, that it is considered truth nowdays. Those stories are dying out.

if it was easy, you would have done it instead of devolve to a series of non sequitur. So youre the one with the b.s. It seems.

Did you read any religious text? It's full of internal contradictions (despite being inspired by "supreme being")

I have a passing familiarity with some texts, and I cant seem to recall any meaningful internal contradictions. Regardless, you could find contradictions in every extant religious text on the planet, and it would not support your series of ridiculous claims.

actually untrue on many things.

I am still wondering why you seem to want to argue about "religious texts" when we were discussing God. If the book is untrue, then it isnt very good evidence for your claims about God.

Mass murder, demand for obedience, psychotic (demands human sacrifice etc.) but wait wait... he still LOVES people.

so I am wondering how God could murder someone, even theoretically. Wouldnt that require reference to a moral standard? From whence came these morals by which you claim to judge the divine? Right now it seems like an obfuscatory means of saying "I DONT LIKE IT!" your incomprehension of a deity that demands obedience would seem indicative of your own unfamiliarity with religious texts (its a common theme).

Mass murder, demand for obedience, psychotic (demands human sacrifice etc.) but wait wait... he still LOVES people. Now I ask you: if this is not a sign of God's psychosis, I don't know what is. We are all probably comepletely healthy, and God is a rainbow.

I couldnt find a question in there, but I know you said you were asking me something....perhaps you arent the best person to make accusations of mental illness.

No, first it was the Egg, then the Turtle or whatever creature (will have to check ancient myths), after scientists discovered singularity etc, this deistic god became a singularity (big bang, whatever).

Actually, it was philosophy and religion that postulated a beginning to the universe, scientists tended to adhere to the steady state theory until science discovered evidence to support the theology. As for your mention of ancient myths, I can find atheists who believe different things as well, we both know that discovery of contradicting opinions doesnt disprove another ideology. Try again.

Sorry, that you disagree. That just shows that you won't accept the new evidence and you can't be convinced by rational arguments - perfect example of fundamentalistic thinking.

I'm sorry, what was the evidence again? All I saw was your refusal to engage.

You are not pointing to anything. What it means "supreme entity"? How is it supreme? What is the characteristics of supremacy? You are just wasting my time with such definitions, really. 

well, "ontologically supreme" means that if one were to rank everything extant in ordinal fashion, the noun that is modified by this phrase would be at the top of the list. In this case, "entity" refers to a being. "How is it supreme?" in every way. "What are the characteristics of supremacy?" Precedence in every respect. You are wasting my time with your willful refusal to countenance entire portions of the English language. I cant be the only person who knows how to google a word and click on links.

Again, it points to NOTHING, it's a world play. I could equally say, that Easter Bunny is the creator of the Universe. That doesn't make it more rational. That's just your imagination and willful thinking. I even would call it a lie.

of course you would, because you are doing everything possible to avoid engaging my arguments. Clearly, we werent trying to define "the easter bunny" so your attempted noncognition is obvious. Your argument may be that there is no such being. Regardless, I have satisfactorily defined the term.

See above. Empty words defining NOTHING. Switching between concepts and calling a bed a rock doesn't make it into the rock. Bed is bed, rock is rock.

am I to understand, then, that you reject the causality axiom?

more magical thinking. That's pure assertion, a bold lie.

are you an austrian? Because if so, you should already be aware that definitions are assertions. You asked for a definition, and you got it. The fact that you immediately default to emotion-based denial, rather than reacting by attacking my arguments, is quite revealing.

If such being existed with such characteristics... don't you think it would be easier for him/her to create universe, than to make ERRORS time after time in human evolution

are you claiming that evolution is directed by God? Because I always thought it was automatic. Also, why would God be concerned with what is "easiest"? Are you defining God to be someone that is lazy?

why do we need wisdom teeth? Apendix? Belly button? I could go on and on. It's sloppy desing, just like what you would expect if humans were evolved naturally without divine intervention.

first of all, I dont claim that the existence of God necessarily depends on His intervention in evolutionary processes. Thats part of your theology/religion, not mine, please dont ask me to accept it. As for the biological necessity of human tissue, the wisdom teeth are there to chew food, the appendix is a reservoir for gut flora, and the belly button is where the umbilical cord is attached. The design seems fine to me. Your arguments are exceedingly sloppy, however.

If we are made by the image of God, then we are doomed. I'd rather have Bush as Creator of the Universe than God, which is described in the Bible or Quaran.

at least you finally came clean and admitted what is really the issue here. Your preferences.

Eh, to hell with it: 

Now, what is a myth? The dictionary definition of a myth would be stories about gods. So then you have to ask the next question: What is a god? A god is a personification of a motivating power or a value system that functions in human life and in the universe — the powers of your own body and of nature. The myths are metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being, and the same powers that animate our life animate the life of the world.

- Joseph Campbell

Maiku, if you look at the Norse, Greek, Roman, Hindu, etc., all the gods/goddesses are about as crazy and fallible as humans.  The projections/archetypes are more in line with representing human nature than that of an all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient first creator who's form is everything and nothing at once and is apparently vain enough to turn the title "god" into it's own name.  Sometimes I feel that it's almost pantheistic to have this line of thinking.  How I view deities isn't the monotheistic way, and sadly to a lot of people the monotheistic way has become the rule, not the exception.