A Metaphysical Train Wreck is Music to Skeptical Ears
Chris — no philosophical slouch he — writes:
It’s interesting that Joe brings out the “no true atheists” trope in his first post, claiming that atheism is ultimately “incoherent” (at least as much as it implies the lack of a “non-dependent reality”). Charity bids me to assume that, instead of simply dismissing his opponents’ beliefs out of hand, as it might appear to anyone who’s been around these sorts of discussions long enough, Joe has in fact solved one of the most difficult and persistent antimonies, as Kant called them (this was actually one of his antimonies of pure reason), of western philosophy, namely whether the world (universe, reality, whatever) has its origin in something non-contingent (uncaused, etc.), or is in fact eternal and without a first cause. I look forward to his description of his solution. If he is simply denying the existence of his opponents’ position, well, I guess we all know how much is likely to come from this debate.
By the way, you know you’re in for a fruitless debate on religion when one of the debaters uses the phrase “unconditionally non-dependent” (which is sort of like saying “obesely fat”), the other doesn’t recognize the idea of “non-dependence,” which is pretty much central to Christian philosophy (it’s usually described as non-contingent these days, though, and it’s at the heart of both the ontological and one of the two major versions of the cosmological argument), and the comments begin with a debate about whether modus tollens is true (with one of the deniers of modus tollens, a lawyer no less, confusing it with “affirming the consequent”), though I guess this last bit is not surprising. Seriously, this is a mess.
I get in a few somewhat inept punches myself. Do they strike the mark? Well, I think they do. But they’re not worth talking about at the moment, and anyway, I’ve tried in the past never to comment in threads with more than a hundred responses.
Oddly, while everyone in this trainwreck of a thread somehow manages to make themselves look foolish at the same time and to the same degree to everyone else, somehow we all pass for non-fools in our ordinary lives. I’d even venture to say that every last person there is well above average intelligence, fairly well-read, and generally counted either a scholar or at least a gentleman.
How on earth do we manage? As Voltaire made one of the wiser characters say in Candide:
I find that all in this world is set the wrong end uppermost. No one knows what is his rank, his office, nor what he does, nor what he should do. With the exception of our evenings, which we generally pass tolerably merrily, the rest of our time is spent in idle disputes and quarrels, Jansenists against Molinists, the Parliament against the Church, and one armed body of men against another; courtier against courtier, husband against wife, and relations against relations. In short, this world is nothing but one continued scene of civil war.
It’s long been a favorite sentiment of mine. Short of some hope for another world, metaphysics has very little to offer except folly. Taking it too seriously is one of the traps in the life of the mind. Better that it be in words alone, I suppose, rather than with fire and the sword like in the good old days.
Conflict is inevitable. If it were all milk&honey, we’d (a) get really bored of that diet and go hunt something & (b) keep having kids until the m&h ran low
I’m woefully undereducated about conflict resolution strategies elsewhere in the animal kingdom, but every single last living thing has them at some level, even bacteria so I’m told. (if you spend all your energy fighting and feeding there’s none left for f*cking.)Report
It is a shame that Carter was so strongly opposed on the point of atheism being a religious belief; we were on the verge of qualifying for tax exemption.Report
> Short of some hope for another world, metaphysics has
> very little to offer except folly. Taking it too seriously is
> one of the traps in the life of the mind.
I wouldn’t say that metaphysics has very little to offer. Metaphysical constructs are often fascinating intellectual constructs. But yeah, they can definitely turn into a Chinese finger puzzle if you can’t pull your brain out of the construct you so meticulously built.
The comparison of metaphysical constructs usually is regarded as a zero sum game, which is unfortunate.Report
Oh, come on. World weary poses don’t win you any blogging style points, and some of us (read: those who aren’t intimately familiar with centuries-old philosophical and theological debates) might actually enjoy the Brown-Carter throw-down.Report
@Will,
Don’t imagine that I’m not enjoying it. But I’ve got this big bucket of popcorn here, and it’s rude to talk with your mouth full.
Seriously though, the idea that one could win converts to Christianity via the metaphysical proofs of god. Does anyone believe that?Report
@Jason Kuznicki, Converts to Christianity, no, but surely it is helpful for keeping thoughtful philosophical Christians in the fold?Report
@North, ‘Apologetics’: Stories we tell ourselves to feel good about our doubts.Report
@Jason Kuznicki,
I’d be there if only Joe could prove that God weighs the same as a duck..Report
@Jason Kuznicki,
Even if the metaphysical proofs for God work, they don’t tell us much of anything about God, and certainly don’t result in knowledge of a personal divine Trinity, so the move from them to Christianity is nothing short of a leap – a leap of faith.Report
@Jason Kuznicki,
Ray Comfort might be dumb enough, but Joe seems smarter. Though I’m pretty sure ray couldn’t understand them well enough to repeat them.Report
@Jason Kuznicki,
“Seriously though, the idea that one could win converts to Christianity via the metaphysical proofs of god. Does anyone believe that?”
Lee Strobel is one of the more influential Christian apologists, using “science” to prove the existence of God.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3473983875617762630#docid=688111496234161611Report
Kant’s Antinomies might be read as… therapeutic in a sense, instead of dogmatic (ie, affirming judeo-christian tradition). He attempts to show that the non-contingent First Cause argument, beloved by thomistic tradition, is not necessary. An infinite series of events might hold. Apart from the metaphysical puzzles he presents, one senses Kant was sort of saying ..don’t worry your pretty heads about it (ie, the metaphysical therapy, if you will, had political implications as well). Modern astronomy was in its infancy and Kant knew enough to realize it would not likely be very comforting to dogmatists (or those who had not accepted Copernicus, Galilleo, Newton, etc–and that was the case in much of the RCC and with jew and muslim clerics as well). While Kantian idealism may be a bit antiquated, the cosmologists still at least hint at issues related to the First Antinomy disputing the exact details of the Big Bang…(which Einstein was not altogether …sympathetic to)Report
I can’t speak for anyone else. Responding to the “atheism is a religion” coupled with heavy pile of re-defining apparently ordinary words brought out teh stoopid in me and I’ve only myself to blame for it.Report
I gotta paper that may be published in December assuming it passes ‘referee’ muster, titled: “Gnosticism and Christian Theophany,” but we’ll see.
The point is what I’ve seen, and I’ve not paid much attention ’cause I’m busy with Part duo of my examination of the true Gnostic element, is that most of the anti-Carter stuff is Enlightment mind ejaculations. Speciifially a metaxical derailment where the interlocutors can’t even define the poles of existence.
So, as always, the question we ask is, is it the “Good” or the “true” that came forward outta the chaotic cosmos? A great concern for both the classical Greeks and the German Idealists and those dudes forgot more than we know.
The Good has a certain equivalence that is related to Freedom, it lacks any mechanistic characteristics, and that’s a clue my closed system positivistic friends that your philosophy sucks!Report
@Robert Cheeks, What inspired you enough to perform an act of civil disobenience large enough to cause jail time?Report
@dexter45, What prompted you to ask the question? Did I mention that event? At my age things begin to slip or malfunction.Report
@Robert Cheeks, FPRReport
@dexter45, Bob, I am sorry if I mentioned something you would rather forget. I was looking up your vocabulary words and ran across an old blog from FPR from last year. One must remember that google knows all and nothing is lost in the electronic age.Report
@dexter45, ;Dex, I’d been involved with a group of citizens in East Liverpool, Ohio in resisting the efforts of a corporation, Waste Technologies INdustries, and various gummint EPA’s in building an incinerator in my hometown since 1980. I was arrested in front of the incinerator for violating a court order, fined $500 big ones and served, I think, a couple of days in the county facilities. I don’t do orange. My pals, during the resistance, were arrested at Ohio EPA hdqrters in Columbus, in front of USEPA hdqrts, and in the Clinton White House. Eventually we lost. The facility has only cost the life, so far, of one man, and the injury to several due to mishandling of some very dangerous chemicals, as well as quite a few fires. So far it hasn’t blown up.
The wife and I were among just a few conservatives, most were liberals including the kids from Greenpeace. I teased them endlessly and had great fun singing ‘kumbayaya’ at our meetings. No big deal.Report
Short of some hope for another world, metaphysics has very little to offer except folly.
Depends on what you mean by “metaphysics.” There really is no escaping the thinking of being, unless one wishes to escape thought itself. The best one can achieve is to keep metaphysics to a minimum.Report
Just to be clear, that wasn’t meant as an attack on anyone’s intelligence. It’s just that atheists vs. evangelicals always seems to bring out the stupid in otherwise smart people. Witness P.Z. Myers.
I didn’t bring up Kant to endorse his resolutions to the antimonies or his counters to the ontological and cosmological arguments, but to point out that, when Kant picked the four most persistent and unsolvable problems in philosophy, one of them, perhaps the main one, was the very problem that Joe not only treats as solved once and for all, but as so clearly solved that it renders atheism impossible without the need for any argument. It’s symptomatic of this sort of debate, in which everyone is so convinced of their position that the other side’s arguments can’t have even the slightest merit, and their own is self-evident and incapable of even the smallest flaws. It’s inevitably a train wreck.
By the way, has anyone ever proposed a Bob Cheeks drinking game?Report
@Chris,
They don’t post here any more. Not since the intervention.Report
@Chris, Yes, I proposed one a while back, but nobody took me up on it.Report
@Rufus F.,
Before I agree to drink a shot every time Bob says “commie-Dem”, one of you has to find me a spare liver.Report
@Chris,
Hell, I’m not convinced of my own position. Or rather, I like my position just fine, but I find other people’s insistence that their position is unassailable to be odd. My position works fine for me, iff’n it doesn’t for you that’s no skin off my nose.
In and of itself, it’s not so odd I guess, but it’s clear that at least some of these people have some passing familiarity with argumentation, and they can’t (or won’t) differentiate between an proposition and an axiom.
The most interesting bit of the commentary thread (to me) came from Koz. I’d really like to see the thinking behind his comment that he finds agnosticism to be more intellectually defensible than atheism.
The league seriously needs to get together and have a drink sometime.Report
@Pat Cahalan, that agnosticism canard is almost as common as “atheists don’t exist.” The idea is that you can’t prove or disprove God’s existence, either logically or empirically, so agnosticism is the only valid position. Even if the impossibility of proof and disproof were true, it’s not clear why absolute proof is necessary for belief or disbelief. If it is, then just about all knowledge outside of math is in trouble.Report
@Chris, Why does math get an exemption?Report
Math gets absolute proof, Chris.
We cheat. We declare our axioms to be true. Everyone else apparently feels the need to *believe* that their axioms are true, as well.Report
By the way, has anyone ever proposed a Bob Cheeks drinking game?
Good path to liver failure. Bob is like pre-adventure Bilbo Baggins: “you can tell what [he] will say on any question without the bother” of waiting for a reply.Report
@Katherine, et tu, Katy?
BTW, Bilbo merely demanded order…remember order?Report
@Chris,
I hadn’t thought you were attacking anyone’s intelligence. I was just observing that intelligence doesn’t help much here. Possibly knowing the intellectual history a bit does help, but then, possibly not. Most people seem to think I made a hash of Aquinas, yet I have a hard time understanding him any other way than I have.
In any event, what makes for a good metaphysician seems to have little to do with intelligence, and what makes for a good human being seems to have even less. That’s all I meant.Report
@Chris,
And as to a Bob Cheeks drinking game, I am afraid. I am very afraid.Report
@Jason Kuznicki, To be an officially sanctioned game, Mr. Cheeks must approve the adult beverage to be consumed. I’ll be providing an address where to submit liter samples.Report