I was wondering if anyone sees any holes in this. Its part of a debate transcript but I don't think the other guy really refuted this. In fact, I haven't seen this refuted at all. Its relatively uncommon though.

The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (Tag).
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/douglas_wilson/drange-wilson/wilson1.html

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

What's to refute? The fact that these two people had a debate? In the end, neither one of them made any headway. I found Douglas Wilson's tone arrogant and condescending and his arguments against atheism based largely on assumption. In fact, in his introduction he goes so far as to claim to know what's going on in the minds of atheists, as though our reasons for our beliefs can be summed up in one short paragraph.

Theodore Drange's argument is very limited and jumps to conclusions too readily, particularly in his insistence on the existence of Situation S. He fails to realize that modern Christianity is the result of the melding of several different belief systems as the Church made it's way around the world. Such adaptaions were necessary for the faith to survive. Ergo, any particular aspect of the faith can be reinterpretted to fit any situation. The salvation point that he bases his argument on has gone through so many variations that there is no way for anyone to know if they have the original one. Is penitence required for salvation? Does everybody have to go through purgatory? Does God just say "I love you anyway" and let you through the Pearly Gates without having explain yourself?

Until the original records of this faith are discovered and made public without adulteration, no side can hope to have a solid argument. As long as it's open to interpretation, the Christians can reuke the atheists with "That's not what that passage means...", and the atheists can rebuke the Christians with the near countless contradictions found in the bible.

In the end, neither man put forth a very convincing argument, and each man's viewpoint can only hope to reinforce the beliefs of those already in or leaning toward their respective camps.

That's my take on it.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Interesting.

Preliminarily - Just having read the introductions:

Drange argues that, since he sees no evidence of God behaving in the manner that Drange *believes* God should behave, there is no God. I've seen this argument before. (No comment)

Wilson argues from a position indicative of prior experience and interaction with atheistic thinking. (Comment - Wilson devoted many paragraphs to explain his assertions about atheistic thinking. He did not sum it up in one short paragraph as was previously suggested)

I hope to find the time to read the debate in its entirety soon.

Peace and Love,

Michael

Gee, and I was expecting some sort of a challenge. This Wilson guy is merely arguing from a position of ignorance in epistemology. He fails to grasp the connection between the inertia of reality, the ensuing inductive principle, and the resultant evolutionary construction of our minds. He claims that an atheist cannot defend their claim to reason because they have nothing to stand on (while the faithful, of course, stand with God). This complaint is nullified in the most elementary manner via a simple observation that our reason, knowledge, and indeed minds are direct derivatives of the universe, and therefore have the entirety of reality to back them up -- which eats the authority of the Bible for breakfast.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited April 12, 2000).]

_____________________________________
This complaint is nullified in the most elementary manner via a simple observation that our reason, knowledge, and indeed minds are direct derivatives of the universe, and therefore have the entirety of reality to back them up
_____________________________________

What do you mean by direct derivatives of the universe? and how does that nullify this:

__________________
Atheism requires, at the ultimate level, mindlessness or absence of intelligence. No one is manning the cosmic helm. If there were an ultimate mind, or ultimate intelligence, that ultimate mind would have to be called God. This is something the atheist is happy to grant, and because he denies the existence of God, he thereby cheerfully denies any ultimate intelligence or mind. Here we may have general agreement all round.

But at the same time, the atheist wants to maintain that we, small subsets of the universe, can exhibit non-ultimate -- but nevertheless genuine -- intelligence or mind. Our reasoning is assumed to have validity; our thinking about the world is supposed to be capable of genuine insight. And because we can exhibit these characteristics at the local level (despite the absence of such at the ultimate level), it is thought that we may then proceed with our debate.

But there is an insurmountable difficulty. Just as the Christian is frequently called to give reasons why he belives in the existence of his God, so the atheist should be called upon to provide an accounting for the existence of his rationality. He must give this account because of the foundational claims made about reality in his scheme of things. If the universe is what the atheist claims, then how can we account for the emergence of a non-material and authoritative rationality? And even if we could account for the bare existence of reason, upon what basis do we trust it? That is, we might think we can account for how we came to have thoughts in our heads, but how do account for the concept of true thoughts, thoughts which correspond in an orderly manner with the world outside?

If the universe is nothing more than time and chance acting on matter, then this universal process must include our brains. If this includes our brains, then we have no reason for believing our thoughts to be anything other than brain gas -- intracranial epiphenomena. The brain secretes thoughts the same way the liver secretes bile. But if this is the case, then we have no reason for supposing that our thoughts are even true, and hence no reason for believing that we even have any brains. And this means we have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking. The position is internally contradictory, and thereby self-refuting.

________________________________


Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Vinnie--

I think the deepest problem is that atheism, in the contemporary West, is seen as an opposition to Christianity. That atheists spend most of their public-debate time going rounds with Christianity is not necessarily the fault of atheism. After all, it's taken a while to earn the term atheism. Before, they were witches, pagans, infidels, savages, ad nauseum. Anything not of Christianity has been traditionally written to the Devil's accounts.

I would venture to say that if we target atheism and brand it antichristian specifically, then perhaps it would be because Christianity has leaned so heavily on atheism with its denunciations.

I'm also intrigued at the idea of a "Transcendentalist God". To place the "Argument for a Transcendentalist God" per se against arguments against the Christian god ... well, one might say that the F-1 racer isn't going fast enough because it needs a lower water line.

One might say that nobody fed the dog because it didn't meow loudly enough when it was hungry.

One might say that he punched a guy with his off-hand because his big toe hurt.

It's not quite a proper comparison. Christendom was not impressed by the idea of the transcendental force. In fact, transcendental philosophy in Christianity has led to the assignation of transcendentalist-devised potential of everything in the Universe except for God. Really ... our human potential has blossomed and seeded, and God is still the same angry, stuffy figurehead of dead, institutional faith.

I mean, the only reason I'm having trouble getting through the debate is that it seems to cover old ground (for me, personally). The arguments seem familiar, either resolved in the past or abandoned due to shortcomings in the constructions.

But a transcendental god exists. Just like a red balloon exists. An atheist might call that transcendental god something else, say, "Evolution," or "Universe", or anything they choose. The reason they don't call it "God" is that to call it "god" invites a bunch of secondary considerations that only cloud the issue of what the mystery actually is, much less its resolution. I could call a red balloon a "rouge-colored, lighter-than-air, flexible container."

Therefore, it is possible for me to use the word "God" and mean the same thing that Boris does when he says, "______" (pick a term, if you need). Insofar as I don't assign various, finite characteristics to this force, then Boris and I might be able to search cooperatively for the nature of the question and, ultimately, the answer.

Strip away redemption, timelessness, infinity, Names, authority ... all of it: Strip it away from the word God so that it simply represents a mystery whose only known relationship to us is that the mystery exists. Then we've got a workable plank to lay across the schism that religionists have driven between themselves and reality.

But proving a transcendentalist god against proofs denying the finite god of Christendom is kind of like the Portland paper that asserted it had the "Best Beer on the West Coast" when it compared Deschutes (a craft microbrew) against Rainier and Hamms (watered-down industrial brews that cost less than Budweiser); the writer didn't even sample Anchor brewery, out of California.

A different comparison? You like Chilean grapes better than California grapes because the "Pride of Chile" brand taste better than the Sun-Maid (raisins).

Welch's Grape Juice vs. Toasted Head Merlot?

Blue Mountain (Jamaica) coffee vs. Sanka?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(Edits: forgive me, but I couldn't seem to spell "balloon", and, frankly, it grated on my own nerves just to look at; speak nothing of my wounded ego.) :o
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)


[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited April 12, 2000).]

Vinnie,

I know, sometimes I'm too concise for my own good; I always fall for the lure of leaving some of the thinking to the audience, rather than pre-chewing and pre-digesting everything during presentation -- and I always keep going too far. So, I'll elaborate:


What do you mean by direct derivatives of the universe?


I mean exactly what it sounds like I mean. The sunlight that streams from our favorite star is a direct derivative of the matter-energy, spacetime, and the laws that govern them. In an exactly parallel fashion, the inception and evolution of life are direct derivatives of the nature and properties of the universe. We are an evolved lifeform; hence we are geared for survival. This makes our cognitive architectures non-arbitrary, as their very structure and function are optimized for correctly comprehending and interacting with the environment. Not only our existence, but our very form and function, are hence direct derivatives of the universe within which we evolved.


But there is an insurmountable difficulty. Just as the Christian is frequently called to give reasons why he belives in the existence of his God, so the atheist should be called upon to provide an accounting for the existence of his rationality...If the universe is what the atheist claims, then how can we account for the emergence of a non-material and authoritative rationality?


It's easy to account for existence of rationality. Rationality is none other than the sum total of cognitive processes that are geared to correctly represent and comprehend the environment. Rationality is a cognitive adaptation geared toward survival. Besides, it is wrong to describe rationality as either authoritative or non-material. Rationality (or any other aspect of cognition) is material because it is merely a property of a material process. Rationality is not authoritative because it is merely a set of heuristics and algorithms that presupposes only a proper operational paradigm but no apriori knowledge. Reality is the true authority; it is what we learn from; it is that from which we derive all of our skills, internal representations, associations, memories, etc.


And even if we could account for the bare existence of reason, upon what basis do we trust it? That is, we might think we can account for how we came to have thoughts in our heads, but how do account for the concept of true thoughts, thoughts which correspond in an orderly manner with the world outside?


We trust reason because of several fundamental observations. First and foremost, reason is all we have, and there is no other alternative. Everything hence on is, of course, arrived at through reason and therefore circular with the first observation. However, our reason cannot be completely off, since for one it tells us we exist, and indeed we do. Unless you are willing to completely invalidate everything you know and think, you will be forced to fall back on reason.

Secondly, reason has evolved to properly represent and model the world; hence it carries a certain amount of built-in credibility due to our very survival to this point. In fact, were reality to change at some point so that our evolved cognitive machinery is unable to cope, we would go extinct. Absense of such an event directly implies that at least as of the past 15 billion years, and as of today, reason copes with the universe extremely well. You could even say that reason is justified as long as we exist (which has a little something to do with my sig). This paragraph provides the primary answer to the second question posed in the quote (the first pargraph provides the ground upon which this one is built, while the next, third, paragraph, will provide a means of verification.)

Third, reason has consistently demonstrated its power on countless occasions by providing new insights into our universe, and it continues to do so, and will continue to do so in the future. Hence, any time you doubt the power of reason, you can easily test it with a simple application of reason to the world around you; if the outcome is positive, you know that reason still works. Note the striking similarity here, of the assertion that reason is a good adaptation to reality, to a concept of theory. In fact, the assertion that we can trust reason is nothing but a theory; it is a theory because it is indeed testable (if it weren't, it would be just an empty claim.) And actually, absolutely everything we know and are is a theory; life's adaptation to the environment is just another form of theory building -- when the theory fails, the lifeform dies, and the theory is tested every nanosecond of the lifeform's existence.


If the universe is nothing more than time and chance acting on matter, then this universal process must include our brains. If this includes our brains, then we have no reason for believing our thoughts to be anything other than brain gas -- intracranial epiphenomena. The brain secretes thoughts the same way the liver secretes bile. But if this is the case, then we have no reason for supposing that our thoughts are even true, and hence no reason for believing that we even have any brains. And this means we have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking.


First, as a computationalist I object to the stipulation of chance as a fundamental concept. Chance doesn't exist apart from observers; what we define as "chance" is merely a reflection of our ignorance (even if perpetual) of the underlying causes.

Second, the brain cannot be thought of as an isolated system; it is evolved to interact, and is indeed in constant interaction with, the environment. The brain is not a gland -- it is an information processor; it does not secrete thoughts -- it computes thoughts based on the information it gets from the environment. The thoughts cannot be intrinsically designated as true or false; they only become true or false when applied to, or viewed in the context of, the environment (later on, with memory of such prior trials, one can mentally evaluate thoughts based on past experience with no need to explicitly test them.)

Concerning the reason "for supposing that our thoughts are even true" -- I've brushed on that above.

As to the "basis for assuming that we are assuming" or the "reason to think we are thinking" -- I hope you don't need either a basis or a reason in these cases. You directly perceive such cognitive states within yourself -- and hence if you are to disbelieve such perceptions, you must then disbelieve all perceptions (including visual, auditory, tactile, etc.) -- which squarely makes you a solipsist and with that a total looser in my book.

And now that I'm finished with defending atheism, I'll cut the ground out from under Wilson's feet -- and all it takes is one deft little cut. Namely, an assumption of God gives Mr. Wilson absolutely no ground for avoiding the very same "transcendental" criticisms he leveled agains atheism -- but unlike atheists, Mr. Wilson has nothing to defend himself with other than the assumption that God exists and reveals itself in the Bible (which constitutes a defense that is pathetic beyond humorous, in my opinion.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited April 12, 2000).]

...sigh...stupid eastern philosophers...

anyway, i think this arguement is all about perception. the basic claim by wilson is that atheism cannot account for that which is not scientific. if we are a mass of atoms, why should we care at all what another mass of atoms thinks? his solution is that there must be a god. this is equally as flawed by his own arguements, but that isn't important.

the scientific solution is very complicated, but i don't think anyone here is really interested in a full blown analytical style explanation complete with equations on how the brain functions. the simple version starts when you point out chemicals which are attracted to other chemicals that they react with. could we say that these chemicals are aware of their environment and have desires? maybe, maybe not. we see that at a certain level, viruses are complex forms of chemicals which seek out the right materials to react with and create more of these chemicals. could we then say that viruses are aware of thier environment and have a desire to survive? maybe, maybe not, but at a certain point in complexity, we see that humans are simply VERY complex systems of chemical reactions. we can objectively say that for the most part through these chemical reactions, we are aware of our environment and have desires.

at this point, we can discuss things that we "know" as humans through our complex chemical reactions. this includes things which we would argue as fact, such as if i were to point out a rock and say "that's a rock." virtually all people would agree that it is a rock. those that seriously didn't, i would call an idiot, or at least severely mentally impared, and all of the people that did think it was a rock would agree with that assessment. where then lies the point that something is a fact? because the majority of people think it? humans are flawed beings, and it would not be unlike them to be flawed collectively about something. because of the conviction behind those beliefs? i think most of us can think back to at least one time in our lives that we were POSITIVE that something was so, only to find out that it wasn't.

the fact of the matter is that we can think of things in terms of relative certainty. for instance, i would be absolutely POSITIVE that i had pointed to a rock, and therefore would speak and act as if it existed. later on i might find out that it was simply a dried up sponge from the sea, and was not a rock, but i would not at all lose confidence in my ability to identify rocks. to take another example, i know for a fact that the country canada exists. i have never been there, and have no way of verifying that the pictures i have seen actually came from there. but i have seen a great deal of evidense that it does exist, and therefore i can safely act as if it does in every situation. if i am wrong, it is not because of my inability to verify countries. while you may argue at an existential level that we can never be absolutely certain that something is so, we can at least identify times in which it is safe to act as if it were.

to take this to another level, this is almost the old "i think therefore i am" arguement. a more acurate way of saying it is that "i think i am, therefore i am." as an incessantly open-minded person, i have to recognize that maybe i do not exist, but in every way i seem to, so why should i act as though i do not? what's more, if i do not exist, how would i know how to act instead? any different action i take assuming i don't exist is equally as likely to be as wrong as the actions i take assuming i do exist. i can safely say that i do exist, and that i am not wrong. maybe i don't exist, but then i'm not here telling you i do so i still am not wrong. what's more, if i don't exist, you probably don't either, therefore i shouldn't feel bad about misinforming you.

while wilson's discussion is interesting, his overall point is far from conclusive. when you can fill in the blanks with "because god said so," everything in the universe is automatically explained and you can't be wrong ever. such reasoning is far from impressive, and i think christians should be able to understand why this is not sufficient proof for a lot of people. as i have said before, i don't think it is possible to prove that there cannot be a god. even if you had the greatest proof ever, there could still be an all-powerful being that created that proof. however, i think the proof that one does exist is far from conclusive. any christian that claims that the existence of god has as much proof as canada only loses credibility. the proof isn't there, and you cannot expect me to act as if it were fact.

samus