The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog

7/24/2019 The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog

1/54

10/29/2014 The Finest Argument Against Atheism | Eric Hyde's Blog

https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/ 1

Eric Hyde's BlogThoughts on Orthodox Christianity and Psychology

BLOG STATS

78,494 hits

FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL

Join 1,024 other followers

Enter your email address

Follow

BLOGS I FOLLOW

1. What Narrow Room

2. The Matt Walsh Blog

3. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

4. The Blog of Andrew Arndt

5. Energetic Procession

6. Roads from Emmaus

AB OU T

MU SINGS

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

MY JOURNEY WITH THE

ORTHODOX CHURCH

PSYCHOLOGY CORNER

AS K A QU E ST IO N

The Finest Argument Against AtheismOctober 28, 2012 by Eric Hyde

The finest argument I have ever heard

against atheism would have to be the

argument from reason. The typical

arguments one hears in atheist vs. theist

debates do not usually interest me. I

dont find many of them particularly

profound. However, the argument fromreason is one of those arguments that

would definitely cause me to struggle

with atheistic claims if I were an atheist.

Itshould be noted that this is not an

argument for Christianity, but rather

an argument against atheism, specifically atheism animatedby

philosophical materialism and/or naturalism. An argument for

Christianity would follow a very different set of rules.

Naturalism essentially states that nature is a closed system inwhich all

events within the system are explainable (or are explainable in principle) in

terms of the natural order. Thus, naturalism excludes any idea of god

since the divine does not lie within the total system. If one accepts these

presupposition then all events, including that of thought, must be

explainable in purely natural/material terms. In short, all events must be

the result of mechanical processes linked in a casual chain of events that

could be traced back to the very beginning of the universe, if one were so

inclined.

The trouble for the Naturalist comes into play when one considers the

event of human thought. Since thoughts are events, all of our thoughts

should be fully explainable in mechanistic terms, and not according to a

persons free-agency. But any thought which is not guided by what is true

but guided rather by mechanistic, physical necessity is not rational. Hence,

Naturalism, philosophically speaking, slits its own throat.

Again, if our thoughts are the inevitable play of firing neurons in our brain

set in motion by causal necessity then what we think would be the result of

whatever the total system delivered to us, and not because it accorded with

truth necessarily. If the claims of Naturalism are held with consistency,

one would have to concede that belief in Naturalism occurs only because

nature has determined it (sort of an atheists equivalent of Calvinism). And

if one arrives at his philosophy not because he chose it, but rather because

it was all the total system would allow, then Naturalism is, philosophically,

self-defeating.

Im spiritual, not

religious

Dying with

Dignity: thoughts

on Brittany

Maynard's

resignationfrom

cancer

The Finest

ArgumentAgainst

Christianity

Top 10 Most

Common Atheist

Arguments, and

Why They Fail

Is Grace the Gift of

Non-Discipleship?

The Finest

Argument Against

Atheism

The Tradition of

Hating Tradition

About

TOP POSTS & PAGES
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/author/ehyde/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/ask-a-question/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/psychology-corner/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/my-journey-with-the-orthodox-church/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/musings/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/about/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-grace-the-gift-of-non-discipleship/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/im-spiritual-not-religious/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/about/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/the-tradition-of-hating-tradition/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-grace-the-gift-of-non-discipleship/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/dying-with-dignity-thoughts-on-brittany-maynards-resignation-from-cancer/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/im-spiritual-not-religious/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/author/ehyde/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/ask-a-question/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/psychology-corner/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/my-journey-with-the-orthodox-church/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/orthodox-theology/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/musings/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/about/http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/roadsfromemmaus/http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/http://andrewarndt.wordpress.com/http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/http://themattwalshblog.com/http://thelastwordsyours.wordpress.com/http://discover.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/


2/54



I like what the late Professor Haldane of Oxford University said

concerning the logical conclusion of a strict naturalism: If my mental

processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I

have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no

reason to suppose that my brain to be composed of atoms.

Victor Reppert, piggy-backing off the ideas put forth in the book,

Miracles, by C.S. Lewis, which gave a well-articulated criticism of

naturalism, gave the following syllogism to help summarize the argument:

1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of

non-rational causes.

2. If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms

of non-rational causes.

3. Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally

inferred.

4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally

inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.

5. Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

Reppert continues, Explaining how a

person, as a matter of personal history,

came to believe something in a rational way

is critical to understanding that person as a

rational agent. Naturalism unwittingly

denies such an explanation. In essence,

naturalism is a philosophy of existence

which precludes human beings from being

truly free, rational agents. The very power

of reasoning which they use to levy

arguments against God is the very power

which gives witness to an intellectualsource for reason in general. Rational

inference is the ultimate elephant in the

room during most atheist debates.

According to a consistent Naturalism any notion of god must be excluded,

but its more than that: any notion of good and evil, right and wrong, love

and hate, etc., must also be treated as mythical. At best they are nothing

more than helpful categories of thought, but categories with no existence

(or ontology) of their own. Life would then be essentially meaningless

since its ultimate goal is mere survival, a goal wholly unattainable in a

world where death is guaranteed.

This is an extremely brief treatment of the argument and Ive tried my bestto summarize my understanding of its main elements. For the sake of time

Ill let whatever discussion ensues from this article help to ferret out those

finer points which were left untouched. Thanks for reading!

Share this:

Facebook Twitter Email

Like

18 bloggerslike this.
http://en.gravatar.com/illerohttp://en.gravatar.com/keithnobackhttp://en.gravatar.com/delightintruthhttp://en.gravatar.com/neox3dhttp://en.gravatar.com/jasonalanwriterhttp://en.gravatar.com/gianmetryhttp://en.gravatar.com/robstroudhttp://en.gravatar.com/theogeehttp://en.gravatar.com/humanity777http://en.gravatar.com/graphicsoflighthttp://en.gravatar.com/proteusiqhttp://en.gravatar.com/mariusdavidcruceruhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?share=email&nb=1https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?share=twitter&nb=1https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?share=facebook&nb=1


3/54



CHRISTIAN, GOOD WORKS ARE NOT

YOUR ENEMY

THE FINEST ARGUMENT

AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

This entry was posted in Musings and tagged atheism, c.s. lewis, God, materialism,

naturalism, reppert. Bookmark the permalink.

81 thoughts on The Finest Argument

Against Atheism

Jason Alansays:

October 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm

What it truly breaks down to is that there is no observable evidence for a creator of our

known universe. Since we have, through scientific means, so far explained many things

about the natural laws of the cosmos, we can safely say (but not with 100% certainty)

that what we have not yet found an answer to can be found. Another way to put it is

that if we can observe it, then given enough time, we can explain it. That being said, it

seems that the vast majority of people living today that do believe in a creator also

believe that this creator exists in a realm which we cannot observe, no matter how

technologically advanced we become. Personally, Im fine with that aspect, for the most

part. A supernatural being created the universe. If Im not completely ok with it, I can at

the very least understand it.

What I dont understand, however, is how people can base their whole life structure on

a book that was written thousands of years ago by grown people (I can only assume)

that knew less about the universe and how it works than the average 8 year old of

today. To look at religion objectively, you have to understand that there have been

thousands of religions, and e very be liever of those were just as sure they were right as

anyone else. What they also have in common is lack of solid proof. Testable, observable,

falsifiable evidence.

Thats what is so great about science. We dont merely take peoples word for it, even

when they are as smart as Einstein was. Other people look at their hypotheses, ideas

and/or theories and calculate, experiment, observe and d o it over and over again. If it

works out the same every time with many different independent researchers conducting

the experiments, then we accept it. Until then, it is just an idea, and not all ideas are

good.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


Hi Jason, thanks for your reply.

You bring up some good points with regards to putting theism on the

stand, but as I said in the opening of the article, if I were to perform a

Related

Sam Harris: Riding

the Philosophic Short

Bus

Top 10 Most

Common Atheist

Arguments, and Why

They Fail

Atheism on the

Ropes: Naturalism's

Failure to Provide an

Adequate Account for

Value
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/atheism-on-the-ropes-naturalisms-failure-to-provide-an-adequate-account-for-value/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/sam-harris-riding-the-philosophic-short-bus/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2323#respondhttp://jasonalanwriter.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/reppert/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/naturalism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/materialism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/god/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/c-s-lewis/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/tag/atheism/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/category/musings/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-finest-argument-against-christianity/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/christian-good-works-are-not-your-enemy/


4/54



Christian apologetic the argument would be profoundly different. The

aim of this article is to expose what is for me the most compelling

argument against atheism. Atheism and science are not coequals; they

should not be conflated. Atheism is a philosophy whereas science

attempts to remove philosophy as much as possible from its evaluation of

the natural world and its phenomenon (though such a goal is often

thwarted when science is removed from its proper context and used as a

philosophical tool against theism).

But as far as science rejecting God due to not having observable qualities

in the natural order (my words, not yours), I would argue that science

has no commentary on non-observable phenomenon, whether divine or

cosmological, as there are plenty of natural phenomenon that resist

scientific commentary the epitome of which would have to be the mere

existence of the natural world in the first place.

One point I would most like to comment on is your assumption that

ancient man was ignorant of cosmology due to the fact that they, knew

less about the universe and how it works than the average 8 year old of

today. I would argue that ancient man was far superior to we moderns

who spend half of our lives in front of computer and television screens

whereas the ancients spent 100% of their lives in full communion with

nature. These were men and women whose lives depended on theirclose association with nature, people who were perfectly subjected to

their world and subjects rather than mere observers of their world.

The sky they saw at night is a sky which none of us alive today have e ver

seen in all its brilliance due to our advanced technology of artificial

light. One has to get 500 miles out to sea before they can see the same

sky the ancients saw undefiled by city lights. We have an inferior

relationship to our world in that our relation to it is one of objectivity.

The ancients had a relationship of subjectivity. As Kierkegaard rightly

said, Truth is subjectivity. Thus, we may have more knowledge about

the cosmos, but they had more insight.

Lastly, your point about basing ones entire life on a book written by

these ancient men as being terribly flawed. I would agree. As an

Orthodox Christian my life is based not merely on a text but a Holy

Tradition which includes the text and the experience of 40 centuries of

spiritual refinement and wisdom that no science classroom in the world

would even jokingly pretend to replicate. But, there are many Christians

who do just as you claimed and I agree with your conclusion.

Cheers.

Reply

Jason Alansays:


I suppose I did get off the specific topic. I agree that there

were some advantages of living back then. Seeing the

beauty of the night sky unimpaired like you said, but

probably the most important being that many people

hunted and grew their own food so they likely had a

deeper appreciation for what ended up on their plates.

Our modern technology has afforded us many luxuries like

modern medicine, but we have done a fine job of

separating ourselves from the natural world that we claim

to know so much about.
http://jasonalanwriter.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2324#respond


5/54



As for Christianity, I think it would garner more respect

among nonbelievers or those of other faiths if there

werent so many denominations, different versions of the

bible, interpretations of the bible, etc. Ive said before,

maybe too hastily, that the world would be better off

without religion, but I think Ive come around to thinking

that if the religions werent so incredibly divided, that

would be a more suitable way to address the debate.

One of the problems Ive had with Christians blogs is that

many times, even when I am respectful, my comments

arent approved for the simple fact that I disagree. If they

are that afraid of differing opinions then that doesnt say

much about their faith, does it? Anyway, its nice to see

people like you who are open to discussion about it even

though we dont agree. We haven t advanced far enough

in technology to live on different planets, so we might as

well get along even if our viewpoints arent the same. One

thing I can be fairly sure of, though, is that most people

are good regardless of their beliefs. If you look around

youll see the the majority of society treats others like they

would like to be treated. At least most of the time. That

isnt called the golden rule for nothing, my friend. Peace

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


Jason, I share your frustration concerning the

attitude of many Christians when confronted

with challenges to their faith. The reactions

you describe are almost always set in a deep

discomfort and lack of integrity of their faith.

No person of real Christian insight would fear

any challenge to their faith, thats how I see it.

You aptly express why I became an Orthodox

Christian; our understanding of Scripture

and tradition hasnt required a Reformation

or division of thought in 20 centuries.

Indeed, denominationalism is the single

greatest witness against Christianity and the

unity of the Church its greatest witness for

Christianity, and theirs only one pre-

denominational Church that can claim the

latter.

Reply

thatcatkatie says:

November 16, 2012 at 7: 29 pm

I just read your post thats like this, put titled a fine

argument against Christianity, and I saw something you

said here that I think can relate back to the other post.

I found what you said here interesting, specifically, We

have an inferior relationship to our world in that our
http://thatcatkatie.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2328#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2325#respond


6/54



relation to it is one of objectivity. The ancients had a

relationship of subjectivity. As Kierkegaard rightly said,

Truth is subjectivity. Thus, we may have more

knowledge about the cosmos, but they had more

insight.

Youre right, the ancients saw things subjectively

meaning that had no real reason or logical thought

process, only personal experience. So they sparked the

beliefs that (at least, this is how I view it) eventually led to

your idea of God. They didnt understand objectivitybecause they didnt have any decent ways to test their

theories, just believe. So in a way, all ideas of God are the

result of disunity from the very first God or Gods, because

the idea of a God started with these ancients, likely as a

means to explain the world around them. Humanitys

ideas about God went on from there, and more religions

were created everything from Hinduism, to Paganism, to

the Gods of the Romans and Greeks which we regard now

as stories, to the Judeo-Christian beliefs of today in fact,

many of the teachings and mythology surrounding

Christianity appeared in many religions that came before

it.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

November 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Thanks for the reply, Katie. Let me make one

main response to your post and see what you

think. What Kierkegaard, and I by extension,

mean by subjectviity is that one is

personally involved with, or subjected to a

relationship with, something going beyond

mere objectification. Similar to the scientist

who studies marriage relationships, but is not

married vs. a married person with a

subjective relation with the notion of

marriage. Which would you say knows

about marriage? Well, they both do, in

entirely different ways. Kierkegaard would

say that the one who is actually engaged in a

marriage relationship has far more

knowledge about marriage than the mere

observer. The observer could give you stats

and fact about somethings, but would have no

idea what it means to be married like the

one who is married. Relate all this to the idea

of God and nature and youll see where I was

coming from in the article.

Reply

thatcatkatie says:

November 16, 2012 at

8:22 pm

Hm, Im not sure I m getting the
http://thatcatkatie.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2462#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2460#respond


7/54



analogy, because to me it doesnt

seem that its very equal. Maybe

Im being thick, but Im not sure

how this compares in a good way.

If you wouldnt mind explaining it

from a different angle? I dont

want to respond yet because I

dont think I fully understand

what you mean by this.

Reply

Eric Hyde

says:

November 16, 2012 at

9:18 pm

Well, in other words,

the ancients may have

experienced God as you

said, due to a lack of

scientific sophistication,

or they may have

been more in tune to

the reality of God

because they had an

immediate relationship

with nature and the

world. I dont know

about you, but I can

spend all day sometimes

in front of a computer

or in a book and barely

realize there is a world

outside my window.

This scenario has a

blinding effect on our

relationship to reality,

even though we may be

studying science in a

textbook. The ancients

had no such setbacks.

There science was

much more

sophisticated then you

may be giving it credit

for (read some of the

accounts of the level of

scientific development

in the ancient Roman

and Byzantine world

from which Christianity

sprung and you might

think the modern West

is actually behind in

many ways), but

besides science, per se,
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2463#respond


8/54



they had a living,

working relationship

with the world in ways

that we simply dont

have in modern society.

If anyone was going to

discover a real and

living God it would be

those most involved

with reality. That givesthe ancients the

advantage. But, thats

just my opinion.

savebyjsays:

June 25, 2013 at 12:06 am

I apologize for jumping into this conversation

late but just discovered this wonderful blog.

ThatCatKatie, you make some valid points

that can be addressed and I will try to do so.

1. You accuse the ancients of having no reason

or logical thought processes but only personal

experience. This is not true and what you

have done many people, including Christians,

is make the mistake of confusing the lack of

knowledge with lack of logic and reasoning. As

if logic and reasoning magically appeared

around the 16th Century.

Man has always been a logical being capable

of reasoning. The lack of knowledge may

cause one to arrive at the incorrect conclusion,

but Scientists are still doing that in this

century even with a vast amount of

knowledge available to them. The behavior of

light, the theory of relativity and quantum

physics upended all of their conclusions in the

mid 20th century and they are still struggling

to assimilate things they have learned in the

last twenty years.

I can give you an analogy. The ancients did

not have the knowledge that red blood cells

carried oxygen to your body in your blood but

they were fully aware that blood was vital toliving and if you lost enough of it you would

perish. The ancients did not know that a

mans sperm would fertilize a womans

embryo and thus produce a baby, but they

were fully aware that a mans semen was

needed to produce a child as this was one of

the first primitive forms of birth control (along

with the calendaring method as they

understood there were only certain times that

a woman was likely to get pregnant during

her cycle).
http://savebyj.wordpress.com/


9/54



All of these correct conclusions made by the

ancients came from observation, hypothesis

and testing. Signs of logic and reasoning. Yes

they came to the wrong conclusions on many

things, but so have scientists since the

Enlightenment. Scientists my know that a

sperm cell will fertilize an embryo but how

the cells understand when its the r ight time to

develop the brain, grow tissue, bone and

muscle and when to stop is still a mystery.Scientists still do not understand the

mechanism of how a baby is developed in a

female womb.

Scientists understand that there are forces in

physical world, but that doesnt mean they

actually understand them. Take gravity for

instance. They know its there. They can see

and measure the e ffects of gravity. But just as

the ancients knew if a man bled out he would

die and not know why scientists today know

gravity exists but have no idea how or why.

2. You stated that the ancients used the ideas

of God(s) to explain the world around them.

This is not true. They believed in the idea of

God(s) to explain philosophical questions.

Philosophical questions are questions that

Science cant and never will be able to

explain. The reason most people, including

Christians, do not understand this is because

they really dont understand Science. Most

people believe that Science is a way for

human beings to get Truth with a capital T

using reasoning and logic. But that is not whatScience is by a long shot.

Science is the methodology used to explain

how the mechanisms of nature around us

actually work. The methodology used is,

Observation, Hypothesis, Testing, Conclusion.

Rinse, repeat. I am simplifying a bit but in

reality Scientists would probably do better if

they stuck closer to this methodology.

Observation is the problem child for

Scientists. It is particularly problematic for

what I call the Historical Sciences. Scientists

can postulate how old the world is but in the

end nobody has a clue because they cannot

historically go back in time to see the Earth

form and know what the environment was

like during that time. Everyone is guessing.

Scientists can say there is no God, but they

cant get outside the system to prove it. You

can say there is nothing outside the system

but you cant prove that either because your

the fish in the aquarium. The fish in the

aquarium can deny there is anything outside


10/54


11/54



Reply

Allalltsays:

October 28, 2012 at 10:31 pm

There is no reason that non-rational causes necessarily

lead only to non-rational results.

Every e mergent property is testament to the

development of a new character, a character not present

in all the lead-up causes.

Every component of a plane is not a plane.

This fallacy has a name: the fallacy of composition.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

October 29, 2012 at 1: 36 am

Allallt, youre making some good points, but

skipping over the fundamental issue. Under a

strict natrualistic rubric, all events within the

closed physical system must be explicable in

mechanistic terms. Our thoughts are events.

The minute one poses that our thoughts are

explicable in mechanistic terms we can no

longer claim to have rational inference, and

rational inference is essential for anything

human to work, not the least of which are the

natural sciences.

If this is still not understood, perhaps we

could go a different route: In a purely

material universe where would our ideas of

good and evil, right and wrong, should and

should not, etc., fit in? As mere organisms,

evolutionary processes would endow us with

superior survival traits. If one attributes the

belief in good and evil to mere survival traits

then good and evil, right and wrong, are

wholly imaginary (and worse, completely

counterproductive since these ideas have

produced every war in history). The problem

is, theres never been a human being, outside

of those with an extreme psychopathology,

that has been able to live in harmony with

this conclusion.

But it could just be that you personally are

not a strict naturalist. Fine by me. But it

undercuts a thorough going atheism in my

estimation.

Reply

Allalltsays:

October 29, 2012 at 3:26

pm

Youre still defining naturalism
http://allallt.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2334#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2330#respondhttp://allallt.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2329#respond


12/54



under the fallacy of composition.

But I do have an interesting point

to make regarding good/evil and

should/should not. There is no

ultimate should/should not,

there is merely an e volved

priority.

And it seems we evolve a priority

in keeping with morality, which

ultimately is out there(approximately as Sam Harris

describes it).

Reply

Eric Hyde

says:

October 29, 2012 at 4:38

pm

Allallt, did you make

this observation on your

own agency or was it

the result of natural

determinism? Kidding.

Thanks for your input.

Ive enjoyed our

exchange.

keithnobacksays:

October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm

Id have to agree that #1 is the problem. It seems to rely on the implied premise:

rationality iff rationality. Question begging.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

October 29, 2012 at 1: 42 am

Hmmm, willing to entertain it, but failing to see the connection. Just

because rationality and non-rational are used in the same sentence

does not make it begging. If you follow the content and logic there is no

such fallacy.

Reply

keithnobacksays:

October 29, 2012 at 3:08 am

Its been a long time since logic class, but I think it fits the

bill. The set of rationally inferred beliefs wouldnt seem to

necessarily exclude the set of beliefs that can be fully

explained in terms of non-rational causes (some beliefs

might be overdetermined for example), unless one

implicitly assumes that one can hold a rational belief if and

only if it is rationally inferred. The question this would

avoid is what is rational?, a much more difficult and
http://dedicatedtothegame.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2335#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2331#respondhttp://dedicatedtothegame.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2340#respond


13/54



interesting question, I think. Is there truly a difference

between our notion of rationality and our basic notion of

causality as both include similar ideas about priority,

dependency, e tc. In that case, the non-rational cause

may be a much more slippery creature than this argument

implies.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


Keithnoback, Im not sure if Im

understanding you fully, but let me take a

shot at a reply. The statement is not setting

up multiple sets of beliefs: e.g. set 1, rationally

inferred beliefs, set 2, b eliefs with non-

rational causes. Instead it is simply stating

what naturalism explicitly states: that all

events can be explained in terms of

mechanical and/or non-rational (non-

thinking) automatic processes. Since thought

(and specifically for his syllogism rational

inference) is an event, according to

naturalism, all thought must be explainable in

mechanical terms. Once this bridge is crossed,

a thorough going naturalism must deny

rational inference since it denies humans

from having free agency.

Reply

keithnobacksays:

October 29, 2012 at 9:15pm

The statement does want to

discuss all beliefs, but it seeks to

characterize beliefs as either

rationally inferred or fully

explainable by non-rational

causes. It seeks to do so by

definition (the premise proves the

conclusion), which begs for an

explanation of the definition (of

rationality). Some would say that

rationality is what it is andtherefore cannot be reduced or

explained. In that case, they have

made their assertion and the rest

of the world can take it or leave it

as they feel fit.

I think you rightly conclude that

the whole argument is really

about determinism (lack of free

agency, another troublesome

phrase), and a particular take on

determinism at that. Not
http://dedicatedtothegame.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2345#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2336#respond


14/54



everybody who is a materialist or

physicalist or naturalist, or

whatever you want to call that

general territory of thought,

subscribes to that take on

determinism in the first place.

Non-reductive physicalists, for

instance, might be offended on

finding themselves lumped in with

the elimitivists.

Reply

Anonymoussays:

October 29, 2012 at

10:01 pm

Well done, Keith. I

mean that. Its good to

see the level of thought

you have contributed to

this post. I fear, though,

that if every argument

had to first define every

term and phrase we

would have no

arguments,

dissertations yes, but

regular old fashion

arguments no. The

syllogism, any syllogism,

should not have to

shoulder the burd en of

defining its every

element. Think of the

famous, All men are

mortal, Socrates is a

man, Socrates is

mortal. This argument

does not attempt to

define mortal. Under

your rules this

argument begs the

question. Indee d

probably every

syllogism ever conceived

would then beg the

question.

(Not sure why

WordPress is not

recognizing me even

though Im logged in,

but this response is

from Eric Hyde.)
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2346#respond


15/54



Ziasays:


Hi, Eric, nice blog you have here, it looks like I have some perusing to do. I was actually

doing some research on The Argument from Reason, and I plan on buying Repperts

book. This stems from a recent debate which is going on at Repperts blog concerning

the argument.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


Zia, its a great book. I know there are others out there, but Repperts is

pretty thorough. GK Chesterton had a lot to say on the matter as well

and injects his famous wit into the debate.

Reply

Pingback: On New Blogs and Not So Fine Arguments The Caveat Lector

Anonymoussays:

December 16, 2012 at 8:34 am

Your argument is that thought and clashing of neurons etc. are different. Please insert

the naturists description into your argument all the way through (replace thought

with clashing of neurons etc.) and magically the apparent logic to your argument falls

apartjust try it. It is the same old I think therefore i am. But this is not a necessary

proposition.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

December 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Actually no. Im stating that the Naturalists doctrine claims thoughts

ARE clashing neurons, nothing more. Is this not correct from your

vantage point? If not, I would be interested to hear your understanding

of what thoughts are within the Naturalist rubric.

Cheers.

Reply

Suzannesays:

December 17, 2012 at 3: 47 am

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his book The Phenomenon of Man, wrote:

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having

a human experience.

Imagine the multitude of experience there is to be had, e ven that of the human atheist.

Objectivity and subjectivity pared are blessed with understanding.

Reply
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=3052#respondhttp://suzanneburgos.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2999#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2992#respondhttp://thecaveatlector.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/on-new-blogs-and-not-so-fine-arguments/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2426#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=2421#respond


16/54



Ben Rydingsays:

January 7, 2013 at 3:13 pm

This is an argument against reductionist physicalism, not atheism. Be careful with your

equivocation here.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


Ben, can a thorough and honest atheist have a cosmology and and its

concomitant anthropology which differs in any serious way from a strict

naturalism? If so, what?

(Im choosing to stick with my chosen terms, until the definition of

physicalism you ascribe to is given).

Reply

Hollis P. Thorntonsays:

June 3, 2013 at 12:36 pm

Humans are not rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not,

depending on whether they apply, explicitly or implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and

practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform.

Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a

material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn

mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation. Mostern distinguishes between

involuntary and implicit belief, on the one hand, and voluntary and explicit acceptance,

on the other.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

June 3, 2013 at 3:23 pm

Hollis, thank you for your reply. Before responding in full Id be curious

to know what your definition of humans is.

Reply

Pingback:back to basics | jurnalrohaniku

Leonsays:August 13, 2013 at 4:57 am

Why trust your mind if there is a God who is perfectly capable of deceiving you without

your knowing it? God could have easily created the universe last Tuesday, and created

false memories in us all.

And you cant say, Oh, Hed never do that because your beliefs about Gods nature

could be part of the created deception. Besides, if theres a good reason for God to let

babies die of genetic diseases, there could very well be a good reason for him to deceive

us completely. (His ways are higher than ours, after all!)

Heres an analogy: if youre lost in the woods, you may not have any way to know if your

compass is working correctly. Thats naturalism. But theism is more like being lost in the
http://jurnalrohaniku.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/back-to-basics/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=7332#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=7327#respondhttp://lasart.es/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=3469#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=3468#respondhttp://seemsreasonable.wordpress.com/


17/54



woods following a stranger who swears hes honest, but wont show you the compass.

Now you not only have to worry about whether the compass is working correctly, you

also have to worry about whether the stranger is lying to you. Theism has two problems;

naturalism only has one.

Actually, I dont believe theres a philosophical problem at all, only a scientific one. Our

reasoning processes are faulty whether or not theism is true. Thats an observable fact

that everybody, not just the naturalist, has to account for. Theists also have to explain

why we can trust our reason even though its faulty. But if they managed to do that in a

way that ruled out naturalism, they would still have to explain why we can trust that

God is not deceiving us. Even if random collections of atoms can be wrong, at least they

cant actively deceive you. God could.

So how can the theist trust his own mind any more than the naturalist?

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

August 13, 2013 at 2:14 pm

Leon, thank you for your post.

Assuming philosophic naturalism is correct, your entire response was

simply what you must have said given the particular cause-and-effect

chain of mechanical processes leading up to your response. You did not

rationally infer your argument, it was given to you by clashing atoms

working within your brain without influence from you as a free-agent. I

am responding in a like manner. In short, we are only having a

conversation determined by natural mechanical processes. Neither of

us are right or wrong, for right and wrong in this paradigm do not

exist. Hence, it would be ridiculous to speak of a deceiving God. The fact

that you are able to conceive of such an alternative is demonstrative that

your premise of naturalism is false.

As to whether or not one can trust God, since He is able to deceive

without detection, is an interesting thought. My response is simple: If

God is a deceiver then He cannot be God He cannot be the way the

truth and the life. If one believes in truth and deception to begin with,

he must have some source of truth to which he establishes its existence.

If truth exists, God exists. And if God is truth He cannot also be

untruth. Ill just throw it out there and see if you want to take it

further. As I said in the original post, this argument is made against

atheism, not for Christianity. To begin an argument for Christianity I

would use a different dialectic. This argument is only meant to pull the

feet out from under a strict philosophical naturalism. Once that is

accomplished, an atheist is left with little else to cling to for a thorough-

going atheistic philosophy of life.

Cheers.

Reply

Leonsays:

August 13, 2013 at 8:52 pm

Thank you, Eric, for your speedy reply to a year-old post.

I dont think youre aware of the diversity within atheism,

or naturalism, for that matter. The Argument from Reason

is, properly speaking, an argument against hard

determinism, not against naturalists, and while there is
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8931#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8928#respond


18/54



significant overlap, the two are not the same. Its

somewhat like how some atheists attempt to refute biblical

inerrancy and think that theyve therefore shown

Christianity as a whole to be false.

I, for one, though a naturalist, am not a hard determinist.

In part it is because of a similar argument, though

presented in a slightly different form by the atheist

novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. She argues for the

existence of free will, and is commonly labeled a

compatibilist. So the Argument from Reason does nothing

to undercut naturalists/atheists who accept the concept of

free will. You have to do more than assert that such a

naturalism is incosistent, or quote naturalists who say so.

You have to positively argue that free will is impossible

unless there is a God. And considering that Christians

have been struggling for centuries to explain how free will

is possible with an omniscient God, thats a big hurdle to

leap.

In any case, I was not arguing for naturalism. I was

pointing out that the same argument applies to theists, so

they are no better off than naturalists, and possibly worseoff.

I do not find your reply persuasive. It seems that you are

defining God in such a way that is convenient for your

theology. Im sure you would object if I said, If God is a

killer then he cannot be God. But we ordinarily think that

murder is worse than deception. I do agree that there

must be truth of some kind, but I was arguing that God is

capable of systematically misrepresenting it without us

even suspecting it.

In any case, even if naturalism cannot account for

knowledge claims, that doesnt make it untrue. Maybe the

philosophical skeptics are right truth claims cannot be

verified. I sure hope theyre not right, but that doesnt

prove anything one way or the other. The same goes for

moral claims even if right and wrong make no sense

under naturalism, that doesnt make it untrue. At that

point, we would have to take nihilism seriously. Thats not

something most people want to do, but we cant just say,

If there were a God, Hed fix this philosophical problem.

Therefore there must be a God. The Argument from

Reason, even at its best, does not show naturalism to be

false, but only extremely undesirable.

Thanks again for your reply!

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

August 14, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Thank you, Eric, for your speedy reply to a

year-old post.

The pleasure is mine.

I dont think youre aware of the diversity

Follow

Follow Eric Hyde's

Blog

Get every new post delivered

to your Inbox.

Join 1,024 other followers

Enter your email address

Sign me up

Build a website with WordPress.com
https://wordpress.com/?ref=lofhttp://void%280%29/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8933#respond


19/54



within atheism, or naturalism, for that matter.

The Argument from Reason is, properly

speaking, an argument against hard

determinism, not against naturalists, and

while there is significant overlap, the two are

not the same.

Good point, and yes, I am aware of said

differences; however, when I imagine myself

holding an atheistic paradigm I think in terms

of strict philosophic naturalism (because for

me it is the most consistent and honest view

for a full-orbed atheism). Again, remember,

my article is not an argument that I believe is

most convincing for everyone; rather its the

one that would shake me up the most if I

were atheist.

I, for one, though a naturalist, am not a hard

determinist. In part it is because of a similar

argument, though presented in a slightly

different form by the atheist

novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. She arguesfor the existence of free will, and is commonly

labeled a compatibilist. So the Argument from

Reason does nothing to undercut

naturalists/atheists who accept the concept of

free will. You have to do more than assert that

such a naturalism is incosistent, or quote

naturalists who say so.

I will level with you, Im not a huge Ayn Rand

fan. Shes fantastic on many counts, but I

agree with one of her critics who calls her

philosophy stillborn. I think she makes a

calculated exception for reason to escape the

grasp of physical determinism because it is so

deadly for someone like her who needs to

believe her views are a result of her own

doing that she is a free agent. Hell, what

would she do with her political philosophy if

she didnt believe in freewill? It would be

comical. And, for me, she is.

You have to positively argue that free will is

impossible unless there is a God. And

considering that Chr istians have been

struggling for centuries to explain how free

will is possible with an omniscient God, thats

a big hurdle to leap.

Actually, this has been an issue for Latin

based Christianity. It has not been a hurdle

for the modern Eastern Church, nor for the

ancient Church, which history bears out.

I do not find your reply persuasive. It seems

that you are defining God in such a way that

is convenient for your theology. Im sure you

would object if I said, If God is a killer then


20/54



he cannot be God. But we ordinarily think

that murder is worse than deception. I d o

agree that there must be truth of some kind,

but I was arguing that God is capable of

systematically misrepresenting it without us

even suspecting it.

You may need to review the rest of that

paragraph where you quoted me. My

explanation is partly there. In short, if one

believes we must strive for truth, because

truth is real and not some imaginary,

deterministic, evolution fk up on a grand

scale which only the human race is cursed

with believing in, then one must hold a

teleological cosmology. More than that, they

must hold that there is an ultimate standard

from which truth is based. Christians believe

this truth is God Himself. Ultimate truth

cannot simultaneously be non-truth. The

atheist who holds a teleological cosmology

must answer for what exactly they mean by

truth, good, evil, false, etc without crossing

over into the divine. If I were atheist, I would

not be able to pull this off. Maybe you or

someone else can. If so, Id love to hear it.

Anyway, great discussion. Thanks again for

your posting.

Reply

Leonsays:

August 14, 2013 at 9:26

pmGood point, and yes, I am aware

of said differences; however,

when I imagine myself holding an

atheistic paradigm I think in terms

of strict philosophic naturalism

(because for me it is the most

consistent and honest view for a

full-orbed atheism). Again,

remember, my article is not an

argument that I believe is most

convincing for everyone; rather

its the one that would shake meup the most if I were atheist.

Why do you think that the most

consistent, honest naturalism is

the one which has such a fatal

flaw? Other brands of naturalism,

such as soft deterministic ones, or

compatibilist ones, are not

affected by the Argument from

Reason. What redeeming qualities

does hard de terminism have that

makes you prefer it over other


21/54



varieties of naturalism?

In my worldview, the Argument

from Reason only shows that hard

determinism is incoherent. I take

free will to be a natural, emergent

property of consciousness.

Animals have consciousness of

their surroundings, but only

humans have consciousness OF

their consciousness. Only we are

aware THAT we are aware. It is

this unique property that enables

us to make free choices, and to

direct our consciousness in ways

that make true knowledge

possible. Im still unclear on what

exactly that means or how it

comes about, but I dont find this

any more troubling than being

unclear on what a memory is or

how exactly we are able to form

them. And as with memories,

babies dont appear to possess

that self-reflective awareness,

which leads me to believe that it is

a natural phenomenon that

requires a certain critical mass of

neuronal activity, not a mysterious

property conferred by a god at

conception or birth. If we truly do

have free will in a naturalistic

universe, then the Argument from

Reason fails. Do you think there is

some even more serious fatal flaw

in my account of free will than the

flaws you see in hard

determinism? Are there any ways

in which it seems inconsistent with

a thoroughgoing atheism?

I will level with you, Im not a

huge Ayn Rand fan

I agree that Ayn Rand is not the

best, but in this case I found her

persuasive. Ive read a lot of her

work, and I couldnt resist the

comparison because the

arguments are so parallel, even

though one comes from an atheist

and another comes from a

Christian. I think she would be

well worth reading to clarify the

Argument from Reason, and Ive

yet to hear acknowledgment of

Rands argument, much less a

response, from any hard

determinist. Heres a quote to


22/54



illustrate:

Can one prove that mans

consciousness does not function

automatically, as determinists

would say? If mans consciousness

WERE automatic, if it did react

deterministically to outer or inner

forces acting upon it, then, by

definition, a man would have no

choice in regard to his mental

content; he would accept

whatever he had to accept,

whatever ideas the determining

forces engendered in him

Volition is inescapable. Even its

enemies have to accept and use it

in the process of any attempt to

deny it. (Objectivism: The

Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 69-

70).

Actually, this has been an issuefor Latin based Christianity. It has

not been a hurdle for the modern

Eastern Church, nor for the

ancient Church, which history

bears out.

I find Eastern Orthodoxy

fascinating, but I do not

understand what you mean here.

Could you please clarify why the

Eastern church has not had a

problem reconciling free will with

divine omniscience?

The atheist who holds a

teleological cosmology must

answer for what e xactly they

mean by truth, good, evil, false,

etc without crossing over into the

divine. If I were atheist, I would

not be able to pull this off. Maybe

you or someone else can. If so, Id

love to hear it.

I will leave off good and evil for

some other time, but I will try to

explain what I mean by truth. I

often say that I am a truth-seeker

first, a rationalist second, a

naturalist third, and an atheist

fourth. My definition of the truth

does not exclude the possibility of

the divine, but neither does it

assume that the divine must exist

in order to account for it or to be

its source. I reread your original

statement, but I still do not


23/54



understand why you think those

things are necessary. The way I

see it, truth is simply that which

really exists, whatever its nature

may be. It is the source of all else,

and cannot be accounted for,

because it must be used in order

to account for other things. Under

this definition, even a Christian

should place truth-seeking aboveserving God, because if God were

not real, He would not be worth

serving. The truth could very well

be that we are a deterministic,

evolutionary f-k up, and if so, we

should accept that, whatever

accept means in such a case. We

should accept the truth even if its

disappointing, depressing, or

downright scary, because if our

actions are based on untruth, if

they are not aligned with reality,they cannot bear good fruit.

I have not yet read Repperts

book, and Im a little bit suspicious

that it would not be worth my

time, as it does not appear to

challenge my own worldview. Is

there any reason you would

recommend it over a more

thoroughgoing Christian like Alvin

Plantinga, whose Evolutionary

Argument Against Naturalism

seems very similar to the

Argument from Reason?

Thanks again for your time..

cheers!

Reply

Eric Hyde

says:

August 15, 2013 at 1:29

am

Leon, great response!

Im responding here to

let you know I will

respond at a later time

below (at the very

bottom of the thread).

My time is crunched at

the moment and I do

not want to post a hasty

response. Youve been a

delight to banter with


24/54



and want to give it my

full attention when I

dont have a thousand

things going on. Till

later, cheers!

savebyjsays:

August 13, 2013 at 10:22 pm

Naturalism has two problems, not one. The second problem is the

assumption that there isnt anything outside the system. This is the

mother of all assumptions. There is no way to get outside the present

system so there is no way to prove that assumption. You can believe it,

but it has to be by faith.

If I cannot trust my mind then then all arguments are moot; including

naturalism. There is one truth we all live by: I exist. If that truth is a lie

then everything is damn nonsense. And we know everything is not damn

nonsense because of two truths; if everything was nonsense we wouldnt

know it and we dont live that way. This is like the Buddhist who says

that pain does not really exist if we really understood pain. My response

is to punch him.

I will have to disagree with Eric on the deceiving God question. This is

what C.S. Lewis called the invisible cat argument. That argument goes

like this; If there was an invisible cat on the chair I would not be able to

see him. Since I cannot see him then there must be an invisible cat on

the chair.

If God was a deceiving God then I would not know it therefore he

can/must be a deceiving God (or I cant trust my mind).

You can believe this Leon, and I cant argue against it but it is, in Vulcan,

completely illogical.

If your b eef with the existence of God is that he allows pain, that is a

valid point and debatable. But that we cant believe in him because he

could possibly be deceptive is not.

To answer your final challenge we need to understand the differences

between Science, Philosophy and Reasoning.

Human reasoning is unique and separates us from the animals and

computers. Reasoning is the ability to come to the correct answer

without all of the data. Example; man figured out long before Science

that it was his sperm that impregnated a woman. This was before we

knew of the biological process. Man knew that blood carried life in the

body long before they knew about red blood cells. In fact, man reasoned

that if there was a God then there would be order in nature and

therefore its mechanisms could be discovered. Hence Reason gave forth

to Science.

Science is simply the mechanical understanding of the forces around us.

Scientists do not, and have not ever discovered a new thing. (Engineers

take the mechanical understanding of how things work and do create

new things however). Using the Scientific methodology (Observe,

Hypothesis, Test, Rinse & Repeat) they are able to discover the

mechanisms of how things work. Therefore Scientists can never tell us

how old the Earth is; how the Universe was formed, how the forces of

Physics came to be and why the are they way they are. Historical Science
http://savebyj.wordpress.com/


25/54



does not exist as it violates the first tenant of Science which is

Observation. Historical events cannot be observed in their environment

so everything is a theory at that point. Some theories may be better than

others, but they are still just theories and will always be.

Philosophy uses human Reasoning where Science cannot go. Naturalism

is a Philosophical problem, not a Scientific one. Scientists are fish in the

aquarium, they can never get outside the aquarium to tell you how the

aquarium got there (they can, but they have to die so they cant come

back and tell the other fish). Assuming you cannot get outside the

Aquarium is just that; an assumption and not Science.

Reply

Leonsays:

August 14, 2013 at 6:07 am

Hi savebyj,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I actually agree

with a lot of what you said, but I was simply responding to

the Argument from Reason in a tit-for-tat fashion. I will try

to make it clear in this post what it is I do and do not

accept as true, rather than argue purely hypothetically.

You pointed out a problem with naturalism, as you see it,

that There is no way to get outside the present system so

there is no way to prove that [there isn't anything outside

the system]. I agree, but I d ont see this as much of a

problem, and for the same reasons as your invisible cat

argument. We can hypothetically imagine that theres

something outside or beyond the physical universe,

something that is completely undetectable, just as we can

imagine an invisible cat. But that doesnt mean there has

to be such a thing.

Further, the assumption that there is nothing outside the

physical world is bolstered by three observations most

people agree on: 1) The existence of the physical world has

been proven, but the existence of something outside it has

not yet been. 2) Increasingly intimate study of our

universe has not y ielded anything which is unexplainable

within a naturalistic framework. 3) Many phenomena that

were once thought to be obvious proof of supernaturalism

(such as weather and mental illnesses) are now known to

be natural. None of this amounts to a proof that

naturalism is true, but it does justify the assumption that

we should proceed as though the natural world is all there

is until proven otherwise. I would not call that faith. I

usually define faith as belief in something that is

disproportionate to the evidence for it, and I do not think

that qualifies, but if youre using the word in some other

sense, it might be an appropriate label.

You say, If I cannot trust my mind then then all

arguments are moot; including naturalism. And I

completely agree. This is why I do not regard the

Argument from Reason as persuasive. It undercuts itself

for the same reason it purports to undercut naturalism.

You could make the same argument against any belief


26/54



system, including theism, as I point out, so it just amounts

to selective philosophical skepticism.

You can believe this Leon, and I cant argue against it but

it is, in Vulcan, completely illogical. I agree that it is

completely illogical. I only meant it as a hypothetical

parallel to the Finest Argument Against Atheism. If this

argument rules out naturalism, it does so only by ruling

out knowledge claims under any philosophical system. But

I dont think it even rules out naturalism.

If your beef with the existence of God is that he allows

pain, that is a valid point and debatable. But that we cant

believe in him because he could possibly be deceptive is

not. Im sorry if I didnt make myself clear, but this was

not the point I was making. I was not directly talking about

the problem of pain here. I was merely using it to illustrate

that there is plenty of conceptual space within Christian

theology to permit a God who would deceive us in a

wholesale fashion.

For example, perhaps we are all in heaven right now, and

God has supernaturally created a perfect simulation of

earthly life, with our memories temporarily erased, so as to

build our moral character and empathy. This is very

similar to the soul-making theodicy of John Hicks. And

likewise, at some point, nearly every Christian will fall back

on the belief that God must have some unknown reason

for allowing the amount and kinds of evil we see in the

world, and that we simply cant understand it because His

ways are higher than ours. This same reasoning could be

used to explain why God is deceiving us. But I definitely

was not arguing that we should not believe in God because

God might possibly be deceptive. I agree with you that

that is nonsense.

I would, however, challenge strongly on this point you

make about science: Therefore Scientists can never tell us

how old the Earth is (etc.)Historical Science does not

exist as it violates the first tenant of Science which is

Observation. I dont think you realize how much sound

knowledge this principle undermines. For example, I

doubt you would say that forensic science is completely

illegitimate as a discipline simply because it deals with

things that happened in the (recent) past. If so, then there

are a lot of criminals who have been put behind bars on

flimsy historical science. But why should the scientific

method be any more illegitimate if it deals with things in

the distant past? Taken to its logical conclusion, your

reasoning would show that we can only have knowledge of

the present moment, because by the time the results have

been published in a scientific journal, its history, not

observation.

(Aside: When it comes to the age of the earth, it IS based

on things we currently observe. We can measure the

decay rate of different radioactive molecules based on ticks

on a Geiger counter, an instrument which has proven itself

reliable in many other contexts, and thus calculate for a

wide variety of molecules its half-life, the time it takes for


27/54



half of the original parent material to decay from one kind

of molecule to another. These range from a few seconds to

many months to several million years. We can (and have)

subjected those materials to a variety of temperatures,

pressures, radiation levels, and so forth, and observed that

those half-lives remain constant (which is unfortunate

because it would solve our nuclear waste problem if we

could speed it up). We can observe that certain kinds of

molecules do not appear under any conditions on Earth, to

the best of our knowledge, except following the decay ofthat particular radioactive molecule. And then we can

observe that there is a certain amount of that molecule

type in a rock or organism, and a certain amount of its

radioactive parent. If 50% of the parent molecule remains,

its undergone one half life; if 25%, then two half-lives,

and so on.

And even though the events happened in the past,

determining the age of the rocks produces real predictions

about the future, as well: If you find a rock formation that

dates to younger than 65 million years old, you can

confidently predict that you will find no dinosaur bones in

it. So far that prediction, and millions like it, have proven

true every single time. Knowing the ages of rocks has also

been crucial in finding new oil deposits. So these people

are on to something. And different dating methods have

been used to cross-check the accuracy of others, and they

converge on the same approximate ages. When it comes

down to it, determining the age of the earth is, in principle,

no different than determining the approximate time of

death of an individual based on the level of decomposition,

which is often crucial in solving murder cases. End of

aside.)

Science is not simply observation. Its making inferencesfrom that observation. And youre completely right that

those inferences can be faulty if the scientists background

assumptions are wrong. I, for one, think that more

scientists need to study philosophy and logic for that very

reason. But that doesnt mean that all science is just a ink

blot test, completely open to interpretation based on your

biases. Observation constrains what inferences we can

make.

Maybe there really is something outside the aq uarium as

you put it. I wont rule that out a priori. Science, at its best,

is not about dogmatizing, but about being willing to accept

the truth no matter where it may lie. But until some kind

of evidence points convincingly to a realm beyond the

natural world, it might as well be the invisible cat on my

chair.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to achieve with my

response to Eric. Thanks again for your insights!

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


28/54


29/54



of His estate to tend it and keep it. Or the parable of the Talents where the master gave

his servants a number of talents (money) to do business until he returned. In these

examples the servants are in full control of their decision making process of whether to

serve their master or despise him. Read the parables in full and you will see this is

definitely the attitude the master takes toward his servants. Thus, God is all-knowing

and all-powerful but has purposed to allow mankind to be rulers of the earth. The

primordial fall changed mankinds relationship to God. They fell from a position of

priests of creation, so to speak, to something slightly above the mere animal kingdom.

I know there was more to your post but this is all I have time for at the moment. Please

let me know if and where Ive misunderstood you. Thanks again for the wonderful

discussion.

Cheers!

Reply

Elainesays:

January 14, 2014 at 2:20 am

You guys are withholding a very difficult conversation to keep up with, since Im only in

the 8th grade, b ut I und erstand most of it and I agree with pretty much all of the points

made. But there is one that I have not heard and I would like to make it.

One of the main reasons I disagree with theism is because there are so many religions

and religous practices. Most of them contradict each other, believe in seperate gods,

different after lifes, different books and so on. My question is if one religion is supposed

to the one, right, and only way, then how come there are people within every religion

that believe their religion is the right way. How does one within a religion nor question

the high possibility that they are amongst the wrong faith. Snd why would a god allow so

many false faiths to drive people in the wrong direction.

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

January 14, 2014 at 3:07 am

Thanks for the post, Elaine. Congrats on diving into this stuff at such a

young age! In answer to your first question I would say that the

existence of many different religions is no reason to disbelieve theism

(not that all religions are theistic, but you get the point). It seems that it

would actually be evidence in the opposite direction, evidence that

something is going on here and humanity as a whole senses something

much bigger and more profound about existence than any form of

atheism is willing to give it.

Second it is not surprising that there would be many divergent paths.

Think of a beautiful painting, or song, or coin, or whatever. Anytime

something original and beautiful hits the scene, a thousand copycats popup everywhere. If there is one true path then it seems impossible that

there would not be copycat paths, mimicking the real one, or at least

trying to obtain what the real one has to offer without going through the

trouble of attaining it with effort.

And why would God allow so many false faiths? For the same reason

that death and sin exist in a world created by a good God. He gave the

progression of the human race in the hands of humans to either follow

him or follow their own ways. Most follow their own ways and the result

is total confusion.

Reply
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10138#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10137#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=8944#respond


30/54


31/54



Eric Hydesays:


Darn, you make me wish I could read Italian? or

Reply

Marius Davidsays:


It is Romanian

Reply

Eric Hydesays:


Haha, I literally pondered for 5 mins trying to

decide between Italian and Portuguese.

Reply

Marius David

says:


The comment is appreciative and

is, indeed, very interesting. A

friend of mine, Adrian Iosif, is the

author ot that short introductory

comment.

Reply

Eric Hyde

says:

January 23, 2014 at

10:16 pm

I plugged it into Google

translator. Great

comment!

Pavlos G Kanellakissays:

February 23, 2014 at 3:23 am

Eric, I appreciate the articulated argument; however, it is unsound. Let me begin by

using the exact same logic to formulate a different argument:

P1: Kinetic energy is produced from motion.

P2: Inert objects have no motion.

P3: Therefore, inert objects have no kinetic energy.

P4: If an object is inert it cannot cause motion.

P5: Cars are constructed from inert objects.

C: Therefore, cars cannot cause motion.

Im sure the problem with this argument is plainly obvious to you. This is exactly the

same problem inherent in the claim that natural determinism disqualifies our thoughts

from being our own and not being a result of rational inference. The natural forces
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1208868936https://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10256#respondhttp://mariuscruceru.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10255#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10254#respondhttp://mariuscruceru.wordpress.com/https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-finest-argument-against-atheism/?replytocom=10253#respondhttps://ehyde.wordpress.com/


32/54



create the conditions for, and the causally linked materials which form, the mechanism

which is capable of producing thoughts from natural inference. Much like metal (and the

rest of the materials used in constructing a car) is inherently inert, but once constructed

into a specific mechanism (the parts of a car) can produce motion.

The quote from Professor Haldane derives from a long ago dismissed Neo-Platonic

Hermeticism which is, comically, self-refuting. I have no reason to suppose that my

beliefs are true and hence I have no reason to suppose that my brain to be composed

of atoms. And by extension he would have no reason to have the belief that he has no

reason to suppose his brain is composed of atoms, thus he would have to re-establish

that belief and reasoning right before he rejects it again, and re-establishes it once more,

and so on.

Lastly, Victor Repperts argument has several problems, but most noteworthy is the

fallacy that follows that same error in reasoning that is pervasive in this entire line of

thought. Namely, that one cannot trust an internal source for reasoning because it

originates from an non-cognitive external source. This could best be described by the

wetness of water analogy. How can water be wet if Hydrogen is not wet and Oxygen is

not wet? The lack of wetness of the molecules individually does not prevent the effect

(and natural state) of the combination.

In simple terms, thought (and reason) is an emergent property of the complex biological

system we call a brain (which is in turn an emergent property of other natural systems).

Reply

Eric Hydesays:

February 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm

Pavlos, thanks for you post.

Your comparison is not a similar argument. I think sometimes people mistakenly

suppose that because two arguments are made using the same method (i.e. a syllogism)

that they are eo ipso the same argument. Your example demonstrates this faulty

reasoning.

If your argument was to truly mirror Repperts it would read something like this:

P1: The production of Kinetic energy can be fully explained in terms of inert objects in

motion.

P2: If anti-kineticism is true, then the production of kinetic energy can be fully

explained in terms of inert objects at rest.

P3: Therefore, if anti-kineticism is true, inert objects at rest can produce kinetic energy.

P4: If any thesis entails the conclusion that kinetic energy is produced by inert objects at

rest, then it sould be rejected and its denial accepted.

P5: Therefore anti-kineticism should be rejected and its denal accepted.

To your second point, of course Haldanes argument is ridiculous and self-defeating. I

Documents

The Finest Argument Against Atheism _ Eric Hyde's Blog