monkeys on typewriters

[kayaker4theking]

Jon, I apologize again for the delay in responding to you. There are many things that are keeping me busy, but I enjoy having this discussion with you even if it takes some time for us to go back and forth. I understand what you mean by appeals to faith and I would love to talk sometime about what faith actually is. I don't think that faith and reason oppose each other as you might think. However, I realize while that is important, it would also be a rabbit trail for us right now so I will stick to the discussion at hand. For the sake of helping keep the discussion brief and organized (as organized as I can be) I am okay with using the term TAG.

a) I see your logic here, but it should be continued. If reason cannot exist without God, then because we have reason (unless you would argue that we don't, which would be self-defeating) we have God. So I agree with you that in its simplest form, it is an argument against reason without God, but the logical conclusion is what I stated above. We have reason, so we have God.

b) I agree with your argument here. TAG could be used by some religions. It is an argument for higher intelligence, if you want to say that. We could talk about the differences between true Christianity and other religions, but I don't think it would be beneficial since you aren't a Muslim, Mormon, Jew (by religion), etc. of course I don't know this, and I apologize if I disagreeumptions are mistaken. I just assume from your earlier posts that you don't believe in any kind of God (or Higher Being, whatever you want to call Him.) Please correct me on where you stand if I disagreeumptions are wrong.

c) Yes, that is a good simple way to put my argument, but it is a little different. This is difficult to explain, so again, if you need me to clarify on anything let me know (and i'll get back to you 20 days later...jk). My argument here is that even if some sort of "reason" came from disorder, there would be no authority to make it objective. This "reason" that we think we have would only be subjective because what gives us this "reason" would be different chemical reactions (I'll use the abbreviation CR, scientifically I think it's something else, but high school chemistry is failing me at the moment) in our brains. You would have no place to say that your CR is more right than my CR because a CR isn't right or wrong, it just is. The differences in our beliefs, or anyone's, would only be different stimuli affecting our brains. So there might be some way that you interpret your world, which I guess might be called reason, but it would only be subjective because there is no God to give it objectivity.

d) I am glad to hear that you would not subscribe to this argument because it is not a good one. I think it's pointless to discuss though, because neither you nor I hold to it. One thing to remember is that philosophical debate does not change what the truth is. It shows us that people have different opinions and that there are many things we don't understand. Also, I hope that you do not base your worldview, life, and eternity on what the "experts" have to say about it. At the time, the "experts" said that the world was flat, and later there was debate as to whether the world was flat or round and none of that changed what the world was. I think it's great to learn from people who have thought about the issues before and done research and all that. However, the ultimate decision on how to live your life and where you spend eternity should be on you and not on what some smart guy somewhere says. I know you may say I sound preachy when talking about eternity. It is something that we should think about though because everyone will die eventually and we're gonna be dead for a long time. I John 5:11-13 says that we can know where we're going to spend eternity. I know I'm sounding really preachy right now, but I don't say this lightly or because it's the churchy Christian thing to say, I say it because it's not just security for eternity. It's given me a purpose for living life and a great joy in doing it. Fame, riches, glory, and everything else will pass away. I urge you to think about what you're spending your life pursuing. Okay I'm done preaching.

Thanks again for being patient for my response and continuing this discussion.

Paul

[jonadams]

I don't check this thread as regularly as I used to, thus my late response. Thank you for both your patience and your thoughtful post.

a) "If reason cannot exist without God, then because we have reason (unless you would argue that we don't, which would be self-defeating) we have God."

You're right that to argue that we do not have reason would be self-defeating, as any arguments employed against reason would themselves rely upon reason. But whether arguments can be made against reason seems to be a separate question from whether reason exists.

I fear our language is getting sloppy. The issue isn't really whether reason exists--I'm sure we can both agree that it does. Because if by reason all we mean is "thinking" or "forming judgments," then I don't see how reason presupposes God. So we aren't really discussing reason; rather, we are discussing whether reason can guaranteed without Gorized the debate.
d--or as you put it, "objective." No? I think you make this point in letter "c."

b) You are correct, I am an agnostic atheist. My only point here was that your argument, even if successful, does not uniquely justify Christianity. You more or less agree on this point, so we can move on.

c) I still don't quite get your argument, I guess. You haven't explained why it's impossible for reason to be objective without God. Maybe God could impose objectivity on reason, thus ensuring its validity, but it doesn't follow that objectivity is impossible without God. At most, all that follows is that without God, we must doubt our reason (which I do) because we have no guarantor of its validity.

I think the atheist can have confidence in reason, however. You say that reason (on atheism) would just be subjective--nothing but a byproduct of our chemical makeup and our experiences. But you're committing the genetic fallacy--just because the sources (our makeup and experiences) are subjective does not mean the product (reason) is subjective. Our collective, subjective experiences all testify to the same reality. Despite having different brains and experiences, you and I both see the same sights, hear the same sounds, smell the same smells. That's somewhat of a simplification, but we essentially share the same reality, despite experiencing that reality through different brains and understandings.

I also think that it's incoherent to say that God could impose objectivity on reason. A precondition for reason is objectivity, so objectivity cannot be imposed on reason, it must instead inhere in reason. If anything, God presupposes reason and not the reverse! In order for God to impose anything on reason, it must mean that God is "above" reason--that is, reason is contingent upon God. Wouldn't that then mean that God could change the principles of reason? Consider a fundamental rule of logic: the law of non contradiction. Would you really have me believe that God could have this not be a law? If the law of non contradiction were not true, then God could both exist and not exist at the same time. But this is of course absurd! So what this demonstrates is that God is not the arbiter of logic. Logic/reason--out of necessity--precede God, they do not follow from God. This is Michael Martin's argument, and upon reading into it more deeply, I find it very compelling.

d) I don't invest all my trust in "experts." Atheists in general are a skeptical bunch; and the more consistent atheists are even skeptical of their skepticism. But, to be frank, the "experts" in the scientific community have a far better track record than religion, so I'll place my bets with the scientific community. I disagree that experts ever thought that the earth was flat. The ancient Greeks in fact discovered that the world was round. That fact was just lost on Europe in the Dark Ages, because in Europe religious dogma reigned supreme and seriously biased science. Actually, "science" as we understand it today is a product of the Enlightenment Era, so its unfair to blame science for flat earthism.

About your "preaching": Thanks. Because I know you're sincere and well-intended, why should I care that you're preaching? You're just trying to help me out. And while your help is unneeded, it is nonetheless appreciated. But I should say that I hope your pitch for Christianity is not about the purpose or joy it gives you in this life or the fame, riches, or glory in the next. That actually seems like a rather unchristian perspective. You are making your faith about you, instead of about God.

A note in closing: I thought I understood this debate, but now I'm terribly confused ha ha. And it isn't your fault! These are difficult issues to articulate. We should've been clearer from the outset what our definitions of certain terms are. Perhaps I should not have written a rebuttal at 3 in the morning ha ha. I'm sure my articulation suffered considerably from my staying up so late.

[kayaker4theking]

Hey, sorry again for the (month) late response. I guess I could have made time at 3 a.m.....but yeah, my brain doesn't function that late, just ask some of my teachers who had to read some of those "all-nighter" papers. haha, anyway, it's good to get back on.

a) Yes, reason exists, we both agree and think it's obvious. I hope we haven't changed the definition of reason as was earlier talked about "Reason corresponds seamlessly to and is descriptive of what we perceive to be reality." My question is where does it come from and what gives it any authority? The only thing you've given me on this is that our "collective, subjective experiences all testify to the same reality." This by no means says anything about what the truth actually is. We all see reality through different "lenses" you might say, which is our worldview. Imagine everyone has tinted sunglasses on. Some are green, others are red, etc. Everything they see will be different shades of that color, but everyone will say that their own color is what it "actually" is. What's to say that your worldview is the right one? We need something outside to tell us what it actually is. This is God. I hope this makes sense. If you need me to expand on this idea, I will be happy too.

b) I'm not sure what you mean by agnostic atheist. From my understanding, an agnostic and an atheist hold two different beliefs. From earlier things you said, you sound more like an agnostic.

c) I think the bulk of the discussion moved from point c to a. but I think we're still on the same track, except for your last paragraph in c). Although I can answer that last paragraph, I see no point in it because I'm not talking to Michael Martin, I'm talking to Jon Adams, unless that's not your real name, but I'm talking to you. You say you find it compelling, but you won't accept it as your own and so I see no point in discussing it. If it is merely surface generalizations about the two opposing worldviews, then I believe there are many people who have written books and had more organized debates online that we could read (like the sources we have given each other.) I know of several of these debates between Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilson. But I don't think it is fair to put a label on someone and automatically think they believe the exact same things as other people with that label. I am interested in you, Jon Adams. What you believe, why you believe it, and how you can be sure that it is correct.

d) Flat earthism was merely an example that to show that experts of the time can be wrong. I haven't studied it enough to know about ancient Greeks or anything. You may be right. If so, I apologize for the faulty analogy, but I think you will agree that throughout history, the experts have made false conclusions or at least remained silent admitting that they don't know. It's all just to say that we can't put all our faith in experts.

It's true that many silly things have been done in religion or in the name of God. Like saying the earth is flat, or that we should take blood out of people to cure them, (Bible says otherwise). But this is no reason to reject the God who created science and gave us brains to understand His creation (whether we admit He gave us this or not). However, our science is limited and thus we need more than that. Science doesn't tell us what happens to us after we die or what our purpose is for living. So if you are relying on science, how do you answer these things for yourself. You said my help was unneeded, so I assume you know the answer to these. So then I am curious, again, where you get this belief and how you know it's true.

e) Your second to last paragraph. Again, since you said it seemed like a "rather unchristian perspective" I'm curious as to what you think a Christian perspective would be?

Thanks again for being patient and I'm sorry that it takes so long for me to respond. I'm impressed that you can even type at 3 a.m. I hope you don't have too many more of those this semester, but if you do, support your local coffee shop! haha, just kiddin. I just say that cause I work at one.

Paul