"Is Atheism Irrational?" -- NYT Interview of Alvin Plantinga

[indosthetic]

atheism isnt irrational, its lazy and its a copout.

[MaximosJ]

Trying to address a few people here in one post... Hopefully that won't turn out to be a bad idea.

Right, but only because he thinks his belief in God is properly basic. He agrees his modal proof isn't an argument for a Christian God...

Well, he does think it's a good argument. He just doesn't think every rational person will (must?) accept its conclusion (his position on this is a bit unclear to me).

Plus you have to also agree even the Theist who believes in materialism/evolution has problems, although most metaphysical materialists semm to be atheists...

I'm not sure that a theist could be a materialist. Such a theist would have to think that God Himself is a material being, which is at least not a traditional theistic view. (There are some theists who are materialists about human persons/human minds, but I don't think I know of any who are wholesale materialists.)

You see this is what the problem is. You (I know not really you) say probabilities would remain the same, only a small range of values is likely etc. This doesn't really make sense. The narrow range of fundamental values that can support life only applies when there is no god. They are mathematically demonstrable "facts".

Once a deity comes into the picture, all of that goes out the window. If there was a god, why would there be a limit to the range of values that can support life? That implies the deity has to work within some sort of parameters separate and not under control of them. If there were a god, the set of values that could support life is any set, should the god wish it. Indeed if there is a god, they set up the universe and decided on these values as the rules of the universe. Not the other way round. God doesn't get to the drawing board of the universe and think: "right...these are the fundamental values of the universe, let's see what I can create within these"

Ah, okay! Earlier, I thought your problem was just that you weren't understanding the basic probability issues. What you've said here clarifies the issue.

So your idea is something like this... If atheism is true, then the number of states of affairs where the fundamental constants of the universe are fit for life is indeed limited -- only a few states of affairs are fit for life. If theism is true, however, then there would be an unlimited number of states of affairs where the fundamental constants of the universe are fit for life, since God could change the laws to work with those constants in a different way, so that life is supported anyway. So, you object that the fact that fundamental constants are what they are is not predicted by theism (since any values would work!). Is that right?

If so, doesn't the objection just change the target slightly? Theism still seems to predict that the universe will be one that is fit for life. Atheism doesn't seem to predict this. Plantinga might reply in that way.

Wouldn't the law of averages predict the same values arising? Given enough time and random factors like, oh say billions of years and the aftermath of the big bang, enough things would coincide to produce the factors that would make life conducive? Something being improbably doesn't make it impossible. Not to mention we still don't have enough data to know what life on exoplanets look like, but we do have an idea that life can exist in not so conducive conditions, just like the arsenic bacteria experiment.

The last sentence is a good point. I don't know how exactly people determine which conditions would allow life and which would not. In some of the scenarios where the fundamental constants are different, though, the universe simply collapses, so it's clear enough that life in those cases could not exist (similarly, I think, in scenarios where the only element that would exist is hydrogen).

About the first part of your comment (the "law of averages" bit), Plantinga's fine-tuning argument as we've considered it so far focuses on the fundamental constants of the universe, things like the strong nuclear force and the force of gravity. These things aren't things that come into existence after "billions of years." They are established at (or extremely, extremely near to) the beginning of the universe. Now, it is possible that there are multiple universes (so that the "random trial" that establishes the constants has been run multiple times) or a history of expanding and contracting prior universes with their own fundamental constants, but whether this can resolve the issue is complicated. I don't have time to say more than that right now.

Indeed, already addressed this. Life has no intrinsic value, it is not separate to anything else. The concept of fine tuning assumes the opposite. This set of values is no "better" than any other set.

Fine tuning says that the universe and its fundamental values are such that they are one of a very small range of values that would allow human life. As such it seems a deity "fine tuned" them to allow intelligent life to prosper. That is at least what the fellow interviewed in the OP seemed to be suggesting.

But how does this assume that life is valuable? It just says that life as we know it requires certain conditions, conditions which would not exist except under a very specific set of circumstances.

[homicidal_misc]

It's interesting you feel that way. I've taken the policy of responding to baseless assertions in kind out of curiosity for the reaction it gets.



A universe that can only support life in .000000000000000000001% of its volume obviously isn't engineered for life. But if we assume an omnipotent god these values can be set anywhere, including the values necessary for life. If the universe is fine tuned, it seems to be fine tuned for sterilization, which means god must hate us.

[Stizzel]

If you ever have surgery, the knife you are cut with will be less sterile than the universe as a whole. It would make more sense to argue that the power ball is designed to make you a multi millionaire.

[homicidal_misc]

If you ever have surgery, the knife you are cut with will be less sterile than the universe as a whole. It would make more sense to argue that the power ball is designed to make you a multi millionaire.

someone always wins.

[Stizzel]

someone always wins.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya

[homicidal_misc]

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya

you must be talking to yourself since I was saying that as a joke. Here. I got something for your analogies.

[tuk22]

So...

Have any of you given up their belief in metaphysical materialism? It seems to me that methodological materialism is more consistent in that it has no epistemological issues. That is, if consistency matters to you... You probably should abandon it... Scientific beliefs would still be considered "rational"...

Or are there greater arguments to support the claim that only material reality exists?

[GreatOldOne]

So...

Have any of you given up their belief in metaphysical materialism? It seems to me that methodological materialism is more consistent in that it has no epistemological issues. That is, if consistency matters to you... You probably should abandon it... Scientific beliefs would still be considered "rational"...

Or are there greater arguments to support the claim that only material reality exists?

I did that back when I was a Christian.

Next question? lol...

[tuk22]

I did that back when I was a Christian.

Next question? lol...

But seriously, if it's your philosophical goal to reduce unnecessary assumptions as much as possible, believing in metaphysical naturalism/materialism actually creates more uncertainty I.e tension... It should be abandoned... Right?

[Stizzel]

you must be talking to yourself since I was saying that as a joke. Here. I got something for your analogies.

Congratulations, you managed to lie on the internet. I have something for you as well.



Congrats bro

[homicidal_misc]

Congratulations, you managed to lie on the internet. I have something for you as well.

[img]http://www.boredportal.net/files/pictures/BoredPortal.com_You-win-the-Prize.jpg[img]

Congrats bro

pretty sure my responses were better. I win. You lose.

[GreatOldOne]

But seriously, if it's your philosophical goal to reduce unnecessary assumptions as much as possible, believing in metaphysical naturalism/materialism actually creates more uncertainty I.e tension... It should be abandoned... Right?

Could be time to become a functionalist.

Fancy name for...'Buddhist'ish', with the science.

I don't see materialism getting over the 'qualia' hump. It just gets identified with a function of existence and then you move on. 'This is how things are'.

^^^ Still compatible with many 'religions' or none, IMO. Just, stopping at description of mind when there is apparently nowhere else to go.

IMO it's the most accurate and explanatory view, with the least issues regarding mind per se....but they all have problems, and serious ones.

[Stizzel]

pretty sure my responses were better. I win. You lose.

That's why you get the prize brah

[Myriad88]

So...

Have any of you given up their belief in metaphysical materialism? It seems to me that methodological materialism is more consistent in that it has no epistemological issues. That is, if consistency matters to you... You probably should abandon it... Scientific beliefs would still be considered "rational"...

Or are there greater arguments to support the claim that only material reality exists?

I used to be somewhat of a metaphysical naturalist, eventually gave it up.


I was always intrigued by consciousness and self-organisation though. Not once did i ever buy into boo-hoo depressing nihilism--I always thought the fact the universe engendered its own consciousness and understanding was deeply significant.

[Myriad88]

Maximos, have you read this?




Quite controversial apparently, but the arguments are interesting--Evolution can select for certain traits, but cannot control other traits "free-riding" e.g

-Heart pumps blood-selected for

-Heart makes 'boomp-boomp' sound- selected (the free rider)

Raises interesting issues for mind/belief

[GreatOldOne]

I used to be somewhat of a metaphysical naturalist, eventually gave it up.

And what problems got solved, not knowing how God solves them? Something more than, 'God did it?'.

I was always intrigued by consciousness and self-organisation though. Not once did i ever buy into boo-hoo depressing nihilism--I always thought the fact the universe engendered its own consciousness and understanding was deeply significant.

Yeah, it's neat chit. I'll admit I'm biased, being conscious at the moment.

[Myriad88]

And what problems got solved, not knowing how God solves them? Something more than, 'God did it?'.




Yeah, it's neat chit. I'll admit I'm biased, being conscious at the moment.

I have never made a GOTG argument, and have never said "hurr durr dat dere Gawd dun do it"

Plenty of problems solved (if i write down them here an argument will ensue, so might not do that)

[MaximosJ]

Maximos, have you read this?

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WBzVmOyoL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[img]


Quite controversial apparently, but the arguments are interesting--Evolution can select for certain traits, but cannot control other traits "free-riding" e.g

-Heart pumps blood-selected for

-Heart makes 'boomp-boomp' sound- selected (the free rider)

Raises interesting issues for mind/belief

Nope, haven't read it, but I'd like to at some point (together with Nagel's book on a related topic).

[Myriad88]

I still havent read Nagels book.


Alot of scientists and philosophers hate it, but I'm not sure if its because its poorly argued or their jimmies are still rustling.

[GreatOldOne]

I have never made a GOTG argument, and have never said "hurr durr dat dere Gawd dun do it"

Plenty of problems solved (if i write down them here an argument will ensue, so might not do that)

In a reverse of your attack on 'computers can't do X' that humans can, I would say any problems you feel you know God solves either aren't solved (because you don't know how God does it, leaving God as merely the sum of...'the answer to your question, the answer which we cannot actually read') or else are solved by re-framing language in another way which shows the theist/atheist stance to be equivalent.

^^^ in that case, you, with God's illumination perhaps, are the computer supposedly solving the unanswerable problem. How did you do it? If you could explain it, it would be the same way atheists did the same thing.

GOTG is sneaky, and atheists/theists cannot escape it IMO...because there are gaps apparently in human awareness/attempts for knowledge.

That's either a problem or 'feature' of skepticism. You'll never know if these images are related somehow (pattern matching):

[Myriad88]

cool story.

[SonnyBIlly]

Wouldn't the law of averages predict the same values arising? Given enough time and random factors like, oh say billions of years and the aftermath of the big bang, enough things would coincide to produce the factors that would make life conducive? Something being improbably doesn't make it impossible. Not to mention we still don't have enough data to know what life on exoplanets look like, but we do have an idea that life can exist in not so conducive conditions, just like the arsenic bacteria experiment.

Have a more in depth read into what the fine tuning argument is. I don't think you understand just how fine tuned the universe is to life, and how the values of fundamental constants were even slightly different, then life itself would be impossible, as would a universe that looks anything like the one we are in.

It's not merely that parts of the universe could or couldn't evolve to be conductive to life, its whether a universe anything like ours (that is, one capable of sustaining life) could even evolve at all. Whether stars could form and undergo nuclear synthesis to produce heavier metals, whether the universe would collapse back in on itself in a big crunch very quickly after the big bang, whether it would expand so quickly that no structures could form etc.

Furthermore, the fine-tuning is an ad-hoc addition. There's no inherent reason for the particular values arising from a physics theory itself. In constructing a theory that accurately describes the universe we live in, you need to arbitrarily pick the fundamental constants to achieve the result, that is, you need to fine tune them to create a universe capable of sustaining life.

Also the probability of those all those values just occurring in those very small ranges is not just improbable, it's absurdly improbable, all but beyond statistical possibility.

There are solutions to the problem of fine tuning, theistic and not. It's fine tuned because it was created fine-tuned, or we live in a multiverse where there are infinite, or incredible large, numbers of possible universes so that our "fine tuned" universe isn't so absurdly improbable.

The Wikipedia article isn't a bad introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

[Myriad88]

Anthropic selection cannot escape of the constants e.g The big bang phase space

[GreatOldOne]

I still havent read Nagels book.


Alot of scientists and philosophers hate it, but I'm not sure if its because its poorly argued or their jimmies are still rustling.

Lycan had his issues with Nagel...how is this for a 'jimmy got rustled chapter title',...."what is it like to be an unsound argument..."?...lol

Still, this is a great book IMO.



In its favor is a decently unbiased review of, at least at that time...like 15 years ago or more now (lol when i was in school), the state of affairs in phil of mind...and also a detailed treatment of humoncular functionalism which I would have guessed you'd be on like white on rice with your machine elves experiences/ideas (each one being a humoncular passing along meaning to a higher level). With functionalism...materialism/mind...means something different, much more similar to what you'd think of as 'process'...although it is weilded as a baseball bat for physicalism to beat at specific religious viewpoints...in turn, 'function' and 'physical' do take on a confusing and ambiguous meaning simply beyond...well, reduction. It recommends nothing further, but IMO, just stops at the limit of awareness which can be articulated and leaves the rest for....well, whatever can't be, which is either religious in nature, natural, supernatural, or nothing

IMO...a serious attempt to provide a westernized description of mind, which also happens to be nondual in nature.

[SonnyBIlly]

So...

Have any of you given up their belief in metaphysical materialism? It seems to me that methodological materialism is more consistent in that it has no epistemological issues. That is, if consistency matters to you... You probably should abandon it... Scientific beliefs would still be considered "rational"...

Or are there greater arguments to support the claim that only material reality exists?

I lean towards a philosophy of information that supersedes a materialist vs immaterial (idealist?) divide, that is, everything that exists is information.

It's materialist in the sense that information is physically real, and physically stored, retrieved and exchanged. But its immaterial in the sense that mere information, like a series of 0s and 1s on a piece of paper, are of the same nature as something physically real, whose information is instead in the form of a real physical object that interacts with the fundamental forces, so we can see and touch it etc.

[Myriad88]

I lean towards a philosophy of information that supersedes a materialist vs immaterial (idealist?) divide, that is, everything that exists is information.

It's materialist in the sense that information is physically real, and physically stored, retrieved and exchanged. But its immaterial in the sense that mere information, like a series of 0s and 1s on a piece of paper, are of the same nature as something physically real, whose information is instead in the form of a real physical object that interacts with the fundamental forces, so we can see and touch it etc.

What is matter but integrated information?

[A-GAME]

What is matter but integrated information?

What does the matter appear on?

[BobisMighty]

Have a more in depth read into what the fine tuning argument is. I don't think you understand just how fine tuned the universe is to life, and how the values of fundamental constants were even slightly different, then life itself would be impossible, as would a universe that looks anything like the one we are in.

It's not merely that parts of the universe could or couldn't evolve to be conductive to life, its whether a universe anything like ours (that is, one capable of sustaining life) could even evolve at all. Whether stars could form and undergo nuclear synthesis to produce heavier metals, whether the universe would collapse back in on itself in a big crunch very quickly after the big bang, whether it would expand so quickly that no structures could form etc.

Furthermore, the fine-tuning is an ad-hoc addition. There's no inherent reason for the particular values arising from a physics theory itself. In constructing a theory that accurately describes the universe we live in, you need to arbitrarily pick the fundamental constants to achieve the result, that is, you need to fine tune them to create a universe capable of sustaining life.

Also the probability of those all those values just occurring in those very small ranges is not just improbable, it's absurdly improbable, all but beyond statistical possibility.

There are solutions to the problem of fine tuning, theistic and not. It's fine tuned because it was created fine-tuned, or we live in a multiverse where there are infinite, or incredible large, numbers of possible universes so that our "fine tuned" universe isn't so absurdly improbable.

The Wikipedia article isn't a bad introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

improbable, even absurdly improbable, is not impossible. Given enough time or enough chances, the elements that make life conducive will fall into place. If the universe is infinite then it is inevitable it will happen at some point provided it contains individual elements that, when properly configured, can support life.

[Myriad88]

What does the matter appear on?

Matter is just an informational statement about integrated information.