Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[Davin]

I've repeatedly talked about materialism, and most versions of atheism are built on materialism. Obviously, not all are. There are some SBNR people who are atheistic but think that the universe as a whole is conscious. Obviously, this argument wouldn't apply to them. But to those atheists--to those people who lack belief in God or gods--who deny the supernatural, then there is no way around this argument.

Materialism is false if rational thought is possible. If rational thought is possible, the supernatural exists. Needless to say, the supernatural is one piece of evidence (not proof in and of itself) that God exists.

That is almost a good enough explanation for me, however I still think it would be better if you just addressed the philosophies themselves instead of attaching atheism onto them. From a lot of atheists I talk to, they discarded the things that have no/insufficient evidence for them then built their philosophies about reality from there, which is far different than taking a philosophy and coming to the idea of atheism. Without any reasonable data (my personal experience is limited to a sample that can be very prone to sampling bias), even though most of the atheists I know accepted concepts the way I described, I think it would be very bad form for me to say that most atheists had done things that way.

Your general disagreement is with the philosophical method. I can't help you there, shy of starting another thread about it. The method I employ is simple: "If these two facts are true, then that must necessarily be true."

Which is the problem with stating an "if" as a strong position. I don't expect nor am I attempting to require that you to adjust your method for me, I'm just stating my objections.

Let's take this very thread. Look at the argument again:

1. If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;
2. Rational thought is possible;
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

(1) is demonstrably true. I've taken pains to show it. You can, of course, challenge me on where it is wrong, but I've presented a case that it is true. I'm not assuming it. The second is clearly an assumption. I've taken no time to defend it. I've simply stated that IF rational thought is possible, then materialism is false. If you want to concede that rational thought is impossible, then I've no argument with you of any kind other than to press you on to the recognition that if rational thought is impossible then you have basis on which to judge any thought process inferior.

It has yet to be demonstrated as true. Your example doesn't account for the possibility that rational thought could be developed through a naturalistic process. Until we can describe even close to how a decision is made, we're still left with it remaining unknown.

Consider it giving you the benefit of the doubt. I could take that in one of two ways. Either you could be implying that I was not aware of the research and that it somehow challenges my argument--which would be appropriate in a thread in which I am presenting an argument and you challenge or accept it--or you could be using this to argue that rational thought is impossible.

I see, but I have a third way to take it: that this evidence relates to the discussion and whether you had already considered or not you could then discuss its implications to your concept.

My assumption is that you weren't using it in the latter sense, because if you are, and if you believe that rational thought is impossible, then there is no reason at all to be having this conversation. Actually, there is no reason for anything, because there is no reason.

If all my actions are predetermined then the reason would be because that is what I've been determined to do, to act as though there were a reason to do so. And if everything is determined then we might as well act as we are determined to do.

Now, that is evident in the second paragraph below, which you have separated. In the next paragraph, I consider the possibility that you are challenging (2), which would just be absurd.

Not if I'm determined to do so, then it makes sense that I would.

So, like I said, consider it me giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I suppose I can just ask you plainly: are you arguing that rational thought is impossible, especially given your citation of this research?

I think you're missing another option, that I'm not accepting either position as there isn't enough for me to accept either position and I'm discussion what relates to the discussion in order to gain other perspectives and reasoning in order to see if I can accept either position... even if this still remains something I don't accept, at least I tried.

As I said, if the second premise is false, then there is no reason to be having this discussion, because reason doesn't exist, which is the point of the argument.

In any case, it has nothing to do with (1). The research says nothing about whether or not rational thought can exist within materialism. If anything, it challenges the possibility of rational thought. The only way to challenge (1) is to show that materialism allows something to be intelligently self-determined--that is, that it allows something to act with disregard to the laws of physics.

Without having any bias one way or the other, the evidence could very much relate to 1) because it had shown that people had what appeared to be a power of veto over the decisions that had already been made by the brain, which could show that we could actually make certain kinds of decisions.

If materialism is true, you can advocate for rationality all you like. It wouldn't be a rational or irrational position. It would be arational, just like belief in God, unicorns, and invisible spaghetti monsters would be. If the laws of nature determine what you think, then you aren't thinking. Nature is. "You" don't exist. "You" are just an illusion.

Aye, but I would be determined to advocate for it.

There's no middle ground on this. You can't be a rational materialist, because materalism doesn't allow for rationality.

That has yet to be found out.

Like I said, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Do bear in mind that I made a very specific argument. You bring up research and don't mention how it relates to my argument, yet you expect me to respond to what you said? Shy of you making the connection to the argument, I'm forced to assume your connection. I try to make the most generous assumptions possible rather than assuming you just don't know what you are talking about. If you would like, I can stop responding to your statements out of concern of misreading you are start asking you to restate everything you say with direct reference to one of the premises in my argument . . .

There is a connection to the argument, if you would just respond to what I say instead of your assumptions, we could have a much more efficient conversation.

That's what I've spent most of the thread doing, arguing in favor of (1). Would you like to actually respond to anything I've said on the matter?

I brought up the evidence for discussion, if you don't want to discuss how you find the evidence lacking as it relates to rational thought, then that's your deal, however the evidence does relate to what you've been saying.

This is a clear false dichotomy (false dilemma, the "either or" fallacy): just because no one can yet bring another option doesn't mean that I must accept either of those positions. If determinism is false, it doesn't mean that I should accept supernaturalism, or vice versa.

If (1) is true, then it is not a false dichotomy. The whole argument, as I stated in the opening post, hinges on the truth of (1). Would you like to examine it or continue to ignore it as a mere assumption despite my reasons for why I take it to be true?

There are other options: Rational thought is possible in a naturalistic universe, rational thought is not possible in a supernatural universe. To say that I must accept either of the positions if the other is proven false is a false dichotomy and at least an argument from ignorance. The only reason to accept something as true is if that something has enough reasonable evidence for it, not because no one can yet think of a better idea or that something else has been proven false.

So that I can get on the same page of what you're discussing, can you provide a somewhat brief explanation of the process of a rational thought? This is to make sure my own definition doesn't interfere with my assessment of your reasoning which appears to use a different concept of rational thought.

[PoopShoot]

Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf

[Sophus]

Again, under materialism, which is the point in discussion, the universe is objective, and this universe would determine all interpretations. No interpretation would be more or less accurate than any other, any more than a rocks falling or not falling is accurate or not.

That is impossible. Determined for you or no there still must exist an interpretation capable of being accurate or off. If the objective truth of 2+a=5 is a=3, and one man comes to the conclusion of 3 while the other says 2, the first man is obviously more accurate. He's right regardless of whether or not he can fully know he is right. If there is an objective truth it can be still brushed up against regardless of whether or not we're all in the dark.
The univserse and everything within it determines all, but you are forgetting you yourself are an entity of the universe "We are a way for the universe to know itself." ~ Carl Sagan

Let's not personify reality. Under materialism, it doesn't care about anything.

I was merely countering what Christianity claims which is typically that we're so special the universe was made just for us. Everything which occurs in the universe is attributed to God, thus personified.

Under materialism, there is no smart or dumb way to build a bridge. People build bridges the way the do because physics directed them to.

This doesn't make any kind of sense. In order for the end goal of a bridge to be met one must operate under the objective laws of physics.

What goes on in your brain is just another physical effect; no more.

Precisely, and that rests on the fact that the physics is objective. This argument seems desperate.

[Sophus]

Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf

I don't know what he's trying to do with "logic" there but neuroscience is continuing to find that our brains are deterministic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Another fact which supports the idea of consciousness as a epiphenomenon reliant on a material substrate is the localization of function in the brain.

[humblesmurph]

Nice book

As far as my characterization of atheism, I've already said that not all forms of atheism are built of materialism. Most versions of atheism, however--most views that keep people from professing belief in God--are rooted in naturalism, and often even more specifically in verificationism. I'm sure you agree that most atheists also deny the existence of souls, angels, and demons for precisely the same reason that they deny the existence of God (and yes, I know you don't technically "deny God's existence," you just "lack belief." Whatever. I'm using "plain English" here). Evidence for belief in the supernatural is what is at stake here. So you have two logical choices:

1. There is no supernatural and no such thing as logic;
2. There is the supernatural and such a thing as logic.

You can't maintain that there is logic and no supernatural without there being a self-contradiction (because then you are asserting that which is externally determined is also self-determined).

[/quote]

Chris, It is never, ever, fair to compare a naturalist account of something to a supernatural account of something.  Naturalism, I'm guessing, because I'm not a naturalist, entails an adherence to rules or the observation of consistent and predictable variables--you know, sciencey type stuff.  Supernaturalists can literally make up whatever they want and the lack of proof doesn't count against them.   You have not presented proof of the supernatural.  Proof of something effecting the material world involves some sort of empiricism.  How can you say you have proved anything about the material world, if you can't test it? How is that science? Respectfully, we can't just make stuff up when we bump up against something we don't like.  

Chris, why do you keep professing yourdefinition of atheism?  Just look it up.  After you look it up, come back and explain why you have chosen to change the definition of the word. You said that atheism is an irrational position.  If gods presented themselves to me, I would freely acknowledge that there are gods.  I have given the criteria for me to change my rational choice.  What's yours?  What would have to happen for you to admit that your belief in gods is just a belief and has no connection to the actual existence of them?   Your position is not logical because there is no condition under which your position could be falsified.  Maybe if the spaghetti god presented herself you could be persuaded to switch from Yahweh to a more delicious deity, but it appears that nothing will shake your belief in some sort of divine power.  I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but you certainly aren't rational...at least not regarding this particular topic.

[humblesmurph]

Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf

huh?  Does anybody here understand this?

[Davin]

1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made.

In order to make a rational choice, one should consider all possible options they are aware of then make a value judgment for what they think is the best choice. I have only been able to effectively think four moves ahead while my father had proven that he could think at least ten moves ahead, but claims he can think more. The really good chess players can think a good amount more moves ahead than my father. Deep Blues opponent Kasparov, could play entire games of chess in his head and go through thousands of possibilities and then make a choice based on what he thought would be the most valuable move. So what is the difference between the decisions Deep Blue makes and the decisions Kasparov makes?

If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

This is also not true of Deep Blue as can be seen by looking over the matches, Kasparov started out two games making the same moves assuming that the computer would continue act predictably (this was how the previous chess program was defeated), however the computer did not continue making the same moves, it changed, not due to randomness, but to what it "learned" (collected data, processed the data and used that to redefined its values), from the first match. Now I'm sure that if I attempted the same moves every time with Deep Blue it would continue to make the same moves, but that would be because I have hardly a chance at beating it, and there's no reason (for a computer or human), to change a strategy that works.

[Davin]

Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf

huh?  Does anybody here understand this?

The quick and dirty version: Randomness (on the Quantum Mechanics level) could be a reason for not being able to determine exactly what a person would do, a particle not being able to be determined is a particle acting "freely," so there is self-determination because some things appear to be random.

Honestly, I don't think that randomness is any different than predetermined because it doesn't explain the ability to be fully in control, just whether randomness and/or determined causes are in control.

Edit: Sorry, I used "free will" when self-determined was more accurate.

[epepke]

Actually, I defined it pretty clearly. Let me quote myself: "The central idea [of materialism] is that everything that exists is strictly natural and obeys the laws of nature.

Not really, except for some weak definitions of the word "pretty."  What you have done is simply describe it in terms of another term, "strictly natural."  I could easily define what is "strictly natural" as encompassing all of what happens in nature, including humans, which would make your conclusion trivially false.  However, that would simply be begging the question and therefore uninteresting.

1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made. If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random),

As I mentioned, I have built devices out of material that are in the strictest sense random, but this is still not very interesting.

then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

That is, in the general case, false.  It is considered desirable in many cases to produce programs the result of which are predictable.  For example, if you have a program that manages your bank account, you want it to be predictable.  This is, however, not the nature of computing.  Given a completely specified program and input, it is impossible to decide what the program will do.  Even for fairly small linear bounded automata, it would not be possible to predict the behavior in less than such time as dwarfs the age of the universe.

This is not an esoteric result.  Most of the development of the science, engineering, and even art of computing consists of efforts at helping people avoid these unpredictable programs, because that's what we want the overwhelming majority of programmers to do.  But at the upper echelons, which include chess programs that are not simply based on the kid-stuff 1960s game tree partial enumeration that is what you seem to have read about, this unpredictability is used in creative and productive ways.

[Jac3510]

That is almost a good enough explanation for me, however I still think it would be better if you just addressed the philosophies themselves instead of attaching atheism onto them. From a lot of atheists I talk to, they discarded the things that have no/insufficient evidence for them then built their philosophies about reality from there, which is far different than taking a philosophy and coming to the idea of atheism. Without any reasonable data (my personal experience is limited to a sample that can be very prone to sampling bias), even though most of the atheists I know accepted concepts the way I described, I think it would be very bad form for me to say that most atheists had done things that way.

That's fair. As argument itself points out, the issue is with materialism strictly. I would note, however, I've not addressed atheists in this thread; only atheism(s). There are several versions of atheism, as you have pointed out in your conversation with Chris. I'm sure you would agree, however, that there are more and less popular versions. The particular version that is promoted by militant camp has a tendency to be naturalistic.

In any case, feel free to leave atheism out of it entirely. I'd hate to further distract from my central premise. My objection is to materialism, not atheism per se (especially in the weak sense advocated by most on this board). Materialism defines God out of existence a priori; it also renders evidence for His existence impossible. Just getting past it is a major accomplishment.

Which is the problem with stating an "if" as a strong position. I don't expect nor am I attempting to require that you to adjust your method for me, I'm just stating my objections.

I understand, but this is where discussion might prove futile. It seems to me you are just ignoring logically necessary truths. If a person is free to do that, then why talk about anything? There's no reason to even discuss the weather, because if it is raining, and you and I can both see it, and I say, "No it isn't," what is there to talk about? If I am free to ignore truth when I feel like it, then my construction of reality is absolutely arbitrary at worst and completely subjected to my feelings at best. I prefer a far more rigorous approach than that, personally.

It has yet to be demonstrated as true. Your example doesn't account for the possibility that rational thought could be developed through a naturalistic process. Until we can describe even close to how a decision is made, we're still left with it remaining unknown.

On the contrary, it accounts for that exactly. I've already distinguished between four terms that frame the discussion: self-determination, external-determination, description, and prescription.

A naturalistic (read: materialistic) process excludes, by definition, self-determination. Demonstration:

In materialism:
1. All processes are directed by natural laws
2. Thought is a process
3. Therefore, thought is directed by natural laws.

Thoughts, then, are externally determined in naturalism. It doesn't matter how complicated the biology, chemistry, and physics get in all of this, just as it doesn't matter how complicated the programming gets with AI. Just as in the latter, the computer is ultimately responding to a set of data in a pre-determined (if not dynamic, but still pre-determined) way, so also the human mind, in materialism, is just responding to a set of data in a pre-determined way. It is determined by the data already in the mind as existing values computed against new data . . . but all of that is strictly and totally a naturalistic process, determined by the laws of physics. It is a completely descriptive process. There is no prescription, and where there is no prescription, there is no rationality.

I see, but I have a third way to take it: that this evidence relates to the discussion and whether you had already considered or not you could then discuss its implications to your concept.

I don't know if you caught my edit in my previous reply. I actually took out this entire reply that you replied to because I thought that this section rendered the whole tone too snarky. My apologies for that. I only ask, for the sake of clarity, that if you bring up point of fact or research, that you suggest its implications for discussion. If you says, "Well what about elephants?" perhaps you would have something in mind, but the chances of me seeing it are pretty slim.

Implications are facts or inferences drawn out from other facts or inferences, yet people draw them out. You may draw different implications than I would. So if we are going to discuss implications of such things, I would only ask that you draw the implications out so we can discuss them as you see it. I do take it, after all, that you raised the issue precisely because you do see some implications.

If all my actions are predetermined then the reason would be because that is what I've been determined to do, to act as though there were a reason to do so. And if everything is determined then we might as well act as we are determined to do.

You are using "reason" in a different sense in the first part of your sentence from the second part. In the first, "reason" has the connotation of "cause." For example, the reason I woke up is that my alarm went off; the reason the rock fell is that its support was eroded by the river. In the second, "reason" implies a rational thought. For example, I set my alarm so that I wouldn't oversleep; the erosion was man-made to clear the path for a new structure. You do, of course, preface the second use with "as though," but in the interest of clarity, let me restate this sentence:

"If all my actions are predetermined then the [cause [of my actions]] would be . . . that is what I've been determined to do, to act as though there were [a rational process encouraging me to] to so."

Now, this is just trivial, in my own view. If nothing else, it is at least my point. We certainly do "act as though" there is a rational process, but just because we act that way doesn't justify us in declaring that there actually is a rational process going on. This is evident from your second sentence.

You say that if everything is determined, then we "might as well act" in our determined way. The problem with "might as well" is that it implies some sort of freedom or purpose ("might," in English, is a subjunctive, which is used, among other things, to indicate purpose; possibility is another usage). But that is just the point, isn't it? If my actions are predetermined, then there is no "might as well." There is only "therefore we do." There is no other option. Everything is externally determined. You "might as well" say "the rock might as well go ahead and fall." We don't talk that way about normal physics because it wouldn't make any sense. So why do we talk that way about thoughts and intentions? If materialism is true, it is nothing more than convention, which is fine by me. I'm not asking you to change your vocabulary. I am asking you, however, to recognize the truth behind it--under materialism, there is no such thing as "might as well." Rational thought doesn't exist.

Not if I'm determined to do so, then it makes sense that I would.

It wouldn't "make sense." That's the whole point. It would just be "what you do." To "make sense" presupposes rationality, which doesn't exist if everything is determined. On the flip side, if all this is determined, then I am externally determined to defend Christianity, Bush was externally determined to invade Iraq, and Muslim extremists are externally determined to blow themselves up. Under determinism, all of those actions "make sense," and it is useless to say anyone "ought not" do such things. They have no more freedom to do anything else than you have freedom to do other than what you are doing.

I think you're missing another option, that I'm not accepting either position as there isn't enough for me to accept either position and I'm discussion what relates to the discussion in order to gain other perspectives and reasoning in order to see if I can accept either position... even if this still remains something I don't accept, at least I tried.

Then the main point you need to address is the external vs. self-determination. Unless you can show how something can be both self- and externally-determined, then logic dictates we have an either/or. We have a dilemma out of which there is no escape. You can, of course, ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away. "I don't know how we can be rational and determined; we just can!" isn't a very good answer, anymore than if I were to say to you, "I don't know how morality can be objective and rooted in God; it just can!" would be a very good answer.

Without having any bias one way or the other, the evidence could very much relate to 1) because it had shown that people had what appeared to be a power of veto over the decisions that had already been made by the brain, which could show that we could actually make certain kinds of decisions.

Which would imply that there is a part of a person that "stands outside" of the laws of nature, which, by definition, would be supernatural. On the other hand, if they aren't standing outside the laws of nature, then further research will just reveal where the chemistry/biology/physics allows them to make such vetos; in other words, the determination still stands. So this still doesn't relate to (1). It still relates to (2), whether or not self-determined thought is possible.

Aye, but I would be determined to advocate for it.

Correct, just as those who advocate the existence of unicorns would be determined to advocate that. Your position would be no more rational than theirs.

That has yet to be found out.

It's been found. You've yet to accept it. Maybe nature just won't let you.

There is a connection to the argument, if you would just respond to what I say instead of your assumptions, we could have a much more efficient conversation.

Which is why I asked before to make the implications as you see them clear.

There are other options: Rational thought is possible in a naturalistic universe, rational thought is not possible in a supernatural universe. To say that I must accept either of the positions if the other is proven false is a false dichotomy and at least an argument from ignorance. The only reason to accept something as true is if that something has enough reasonable evidence for it, not because no one can yet think of a better idea or that something else has been proven false.

Again, I've not assumed that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic universe. That is the first premise of the argument, but I have gone on to defend it. If rational thought is not possible in a naturalistic universe, then we can't suggest the possibility that it is possible in a naturalistic universe (law of non-contradiction, and all that). Whether or not rationality is possible in a supernatural universe isn't under discussion, nor is it relevant.

If I am correct about (1), and I have repeatedly given my reason for stating as such, and you have yet to respond to it, then the entire question is simply whether or not rational thought is possible. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is false. There are only two ways to avoid this logically necessary conclusion:

1. Deny (1) and show where my argument for it is false;
2. Deny (2)

I can only assume you don't want to deny (2). If you do, then like I said, we may as well stop this conversation now. If, then, you want to maintain that my (3) is false, you must demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning for thinking (1) is true.

So that I can get on the same page of what you're discussing, can you provide a somewhat brief explanation of the process of a rational thought? This is to make sure my own definition doesn't interfere with my assessment of your reasoning which appears to use a different concept of rational thought.

I'll not try to explain the process of thought itself. However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason. Reason (not to be confused with reasons) is the intellectual faculty by which we gain knowledge. Whatever knowledge is in the particulars, it certainly requires at least the justification of a belief. Justification deals with what we ought to believe based, again, on the rules of logic, etc.

In sum, rational thought is the biological process by which our thoughts conform with reason, which is to say, our thoughts conform with what we ought to believe given certain data.

[humblesmurph]

Chris, arguments aside.  I take exception to your use of the word "militant".  What "militant" atheist camps are you referring to? How do you define "militant"?  Are you a "militant" Christian?

[Jac3510]

That is impossible. Determined for you or no there still must exist an interpretation capable of being accurate or off. If the objective truth of 2+a=5 is a=3, and one man comes to the conclusion of 3 while the other says 2, the first man is obviously more accurate. He's right regardless of whether or not he can fully know he is right. If there is an objective truth it can be still brushed up against regardless of whether or not we're all in the dark.
The univserse and everything within it determines all, but you are forgetting you yourself are an entity of the universe "We are a way for the universe to know itself." ~ Carl Sagan

You quote Sagan, I'll quote Darwin:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Why should there be any interpretation? If universe is strictly materialistic, then all interpretation is merely illusory. Besides, should we get back into what can be known? You seem pretty certain that my statement is impossible. Are you going to abandon your epistemological nihilism? Sophus, I don't expect you to agree with me. I do, however, expect you to be consistent.

I was merely countering what Christianity claims which is typically that we're so special the universe was made just for us. Everything which occurs in the universe is attributed to God, thus personified.

If Christianity is true, God cares. If materialism is true, it sure doesn't "care" about anything. My argument is why materialism is not true; not why Christianity is. You are certainly aware of the fact that disproving materialism does not prove Christianity. So it does neither one of us any good to bring up what Christianity does or does not teach. Let's be proper (if such a thing is possible) and deal with the argument as it stands, shall we?

Precisely, and that rests on the fact that the physics is objective. This argument seems desperate.

Hardly desperate; just the logically necessary conclusion of materialism. There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect way to do anything, because nothing is correct or incorrect. Everything just is what it is. There is no rationality in materialism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris, It is never, ever, fair to compare a naturalist account of something to a supernatural account of something.  Naturalism, I'm guessing, because I'm not a naturalist, entails an adherence to rules or the observation of consistent and predictable variables--you know, sciencey type stuff.  Supernaturalists can literally make up whatever they want and the lack of proof doesn't count against them.   You have not presented proof of the supernatural.  Proof of something effecting the material world involves some sort of empiricism.  How can you say you have proved anything about the material world, if you can't test it? How is that science? Respectfully, we can't just make stuff up when we bump up against something we don't like.

On the contrary, the very simple argument I've put forward is ample proof for the supernatural, which would be defined as that which operates without regard to natural laws (i.e., the laws of physics, etc.).

Rational thought can only be possible if there is a part of us that has, to use your word, free will. Free will necessitates that there is a part of us that does not work under the laws of nature (else our will would not be free). Thus, if rational thought exists, then so does the supernatural. That's a very simple proof. Not much technical language there, my friend.

Chris, why do you keep professing yourdefinition of atheism?  Just look it up.  After you look it up, come back and explain why you have chosen to change the definition of the word. You said that atheism is an irrational position.  If gods presented themselves to me, I would freely acknowledge that there are gods.  I have given the criteria for me to change my rational choice.  What's yours?  What would have to happen for you to admit that your belief in gods is just a belief and has no connection to the actual existence of them?   Your position is not logical because there is no condition under which your position could be falsified.  Maybe if the spaghetti god presented herself you could be persuaded to switch from Yahweh to a more delicious deity, but it appears that nothing will shake your belief in some sort of divine power.  I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but you certainly aren't rational...at least not regarding this particular topic.

I did not say that atheism was irrational. I say that versions of atheism that are built on materialism are irrational if rational thought is possible.

That's quite a few qualifiers.

If a spaghetti monster presented himself to me, I'd likely believe in it (shy of being sure I wasn't hallucinating, etc.). That wouldn't change my belief that God exists, as God is a necessary being if we posit that things like morality and rational thought are possible, and if we posit that things really are what they are and really are not what they are not.

I'm fully aware of you atheists have redefined the meaning of the term in the past generation (thank you, Anthony Flew) to be merely a lack of belief. You are what used to be called an agnostic. Now, frankly, I don't care what you call it. It's just a word. The important thing is the idea. What is important is the strategy behind the definition. If you don't positively assert God's non-existence, you don't think you have to justify your non-belief, and that only Christians and other theists have the burden of proof. Now, I have reasons for thinking that is wrong, but even accepting it for the moment, your atheism, defined as it is today, is simply a lack of belief in God and does not necessarily entail a lack of belief in anything else (i.e., morality, rationality, or that things are what they are). In fact, and get this because it is important, a  lack of belief in one thing cannot logically entail a lack of belief in another. You can't say, "Because I don't have any beliefs on this, I can't have any beliefs on that." You can, of course, say, "Because I don't believe in this, I don't believe in that." And you can say, "Because I don't have any reason to believe in this, I don't have any reason to believe in that." But you cannot say, "Because I don't have any beliefs on this, I do not therefore have any beliefs on that."

Which brings us to this thread.

You may, for the sake of argument, be justified in arguing that theists have the burden of proof for asserting their belief in God. It is an absurdity, however, to argue that you have a mere "lack of belief" with respect to the existence of rational thought, and that, even if you do, that I have the burden of proof to demonstrate its existence. The evidence for the existence of rational thought is so overpoweringly obvious--it is the way in which we view the world, it literally cannot be denied without being used--that anyone who denies it or even denies belief in it is required to justify their stance. This is because, primarily, the burden of proof presumes rationality. If you deny a belief in rationality, you cannot assume it to argue that others have the burden of proof in demonstrating the case.

To say, then, that belief in God is irrational, devoid of evidence, is hypocrisy. Rational thought may not necessarily culminate in God's existence, but it does necessarily culminate in the supernatural, and the supernatural is direct evidence of God's existence. Proof, no. Evidence, yes.  My challenge, then, in this thread, is exceedingly narrow: to prove materialism false. I'm presenting you with a simple dilemma:

Either
1. Accept that the supernatural exists at least insofar as there is a part of humanity that exists outside the laws of nature, or
2. Accept that all thoughts, no matter how absurd, are equally "rational" because there is actually no such thing as the rational.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made.

In order to make a rational choice, one should consider all possible options they are aware of then make a value judgment for what they think is the best choice. I have only been able to effectively think four moves ahead while my father had proven that he could think at least ten moves ahead, but claims he can think more. The really good chess players can think a good amount more moves ahead than my father. Deep Blues opponent Kasparov, could play entire games of chess in his head and go through thousands of possibilities and then make a choice based on what he thought would be the most valuable move. So what is the difference between the decisions Deep Blue makes and the decisions Kasparov makes?

Because Kasparov is free to see what the best move is after viewing those thousands of moves, knowing which is the best one, and intentionally making a bad one. Of course, he ought not do that, but that is what we mean by "ought." He "knew better." Deep Blue had no such capacity. It was able to determine the best move based on its value system, but then it, by nature, made the best move each time. There is no "ought." You cannot think of Deep Blue's moves in prescriptive terms; only descriptive.

If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

This is also not true of Deep Blue as can be seen by looking over the matches, Kasparov started out two games making the same moves assuming that the computer would continue act predictably (this was how the previous chess program was defeated), however the computer did not continue making the same moves, it changed, not due to randomness, but to what it "learned" (collected data, processed the data and used that to redefined its values), from the first match. Now I'm sure that if I attempted the same moves every time with Deep Blue it would continue to make the same moves, but that would be because I have hardly a chance at beating it, and there's no reason (for a computer or human), to change a strategy that works.

And again, given the above, we see that Deep Blue's moves were still determined. Had Kasparov been aware of the algorithms Deep Blue would employ, and had he been able to do all the same calculations Deep Blue would do (see the descriptive language; not ought to do, but would do), then Kasparov could have perfectly predicted what Deep Blue would do given its new dataset.

Deep Blue, then, is an outstanding example of this very debate. It did not make a single rational choice. It just was capable of very complex computations, and it always acted in accordance with what it was programmed to do. There is no ought. There is only "is." There is no prescription, only description. If we can speak of Kasparov being rational at all, then we must speak of his ability to act irrationally, a thing which we cannot speak of in terms of Deep Blue. One had free choice. The other didn't.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris, arguments aside.  I take exception to your use of the word "militant".  What "militant" atheist camps are you referring to? How do you define "militant"?  Are you a "militant" Christian?

Ah, and did you take exception to it when you said, "As for the militant atheists, they disagree about the burden of proof. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett offer no proof that there is no God. They hold the position that the burden of proof lies with the theist. They do seem to have a problem with religion though"?

Let's not put "arguments aside" and play rhetorical games, Mike. The issue is where the facts take us. Nothing more.

[humblesmurph]

Chris, first, you are the one diverting from your own argument.  Your beef is with materialism, something I had never heard of until now.  You were the one who mentioned atheism as equivalent to materialism.  You were the one who after being corrected about your general use of the word atheism, then used the qualifier "militant".  You then quote me from a thread in a Christian forum, seriously?  If I was able to engage anybody over there in a serious discussion, I would have shown them that their definition of militant was wrong.  I don't have to patronize you because you are better than that.  

Did you look up atheism?  I take the homework assignments you give me quite seriously.  All I asked you to do is look up one word.  Not on an atheist website.  A dictionary.  Any dictionary will do.  You didn't do that.  You can't just make up definitions of words for your own purposes.  You didn't define militant either.  You also stated that atheism, was an irrational position, but when I asked you what would falsify your "rational" position, you didn't give an answer.

If your argument is against materialism, then keep your arguments targeted towards materialism.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?r=75  this is atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant?r=75  this is militant

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?r=75  this is materialism

[Jac3510]

Chris, first, you are the one diverting from your own argument.  Your beef is with materialism, something I had never heard of until now.  You were the one who mentioned atheism as equivalent to materialism.  You were the one who after being corrected about your general use of the word atheism, then used the qualifier "militant".  You then quote me from a thread in a Christian forum, seriously?  If I was able to engage anybody over there in a serious discussion, I would have shown them that their definition of militant was wrong.  I don't have to patronize you because you are better than that.  

Did you look up atheism?  I take the homework assignments you give me quite seriously.  All I asked you to do is look up one word.  Not on an atheist website.  A dictionary.  Any dictionary will do.  You didn't do that.  You can't just make up definitions of words for your own purposes.  You didn't define militant either.  You also stated that atheism, was an irrational position, but when I asked you what would falsify your "rational" position, you didn't give an answer.

If your argument is against materialism, then keep your arguments targeted towards materialism.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?r=75  this is atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant?r=75  this is militant

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?r=75  this is materialism

Yes, Mike, if you must know I did look up the word. I've looked up the word multiple times in the past in multiple dictionaries. I've looked it up in Greek, English, and philosophical dictionaries. Would you care for me to make a bibliography for you?

My argument in this thread the entire time has been against materialism. I have never equated materialism with atheism. I said very specifically that most versions of atheism (not atheism itself) are based on materialism. That which a thing is based on is not the thing itself.

The qualification on "militant" is to point specifically to the issue of materialism. How much Dawkins, Hitchens, Ayer, Dennet, Mackie, or Flew (pre-conversion) have you read? Again, would you like me to make you a bibliography of the studies I've done?

The important issue here is ideas, not semantics. My "beef" is with materialism--the idea that all that is is natural, obeying the laws of nature. Materialism cannot be rational. It is, at best, arational, because if it is true, all thought is only arational. Since materialism is an intellectual position, and since under materialism all intellectual positions are arational, then materialism, if true, is arational. If materialism is false, then it is actually irrational, because it denies rational thought. It turns out to be self-defeating, because it tries to use rational thought to disprove rational thought. That is irrational.

Any atheism that is based on materialism, then, which is not every version, is irrational if and only if materialism is false. Any atheism that is based on materialism is arational if and only if materialism is true. Those versions of atheism that are not materialistic are not under discussion.