Back to the newest entries in Olli's Journal

previous entry | next entry

Philosophical daftness

Have a lack of something to do? Wish to spend all your spare time wondering about God's existence? Okay well then, non-existence, anyone?

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Take this test, don't cheat. After that, read the FAQ. After that, read the rest of this entry and read my reply (which I sent to the authors of the test). Then tell me how wrong I am by filling the "comments" -form.

Hello.

Okay FINE, I'm not quite sure whether this is the kind of daft error you vere looking for - but neither am I expecting to get an aswer from you (although I'll be happy if I get one =). So if this ain't a daft error to you _after_ reading the message, you can just press the 'rewind' -button back to the moment where you still hadn't read the message =P.

I've also published all this in my blog, http://pilpi.net/blog - if you're interested.

---


It is justifiable, on the basis of empirical proof, to assume that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. In a similar way it is justifiable to assume, again, on the basis of empirical proof (or the lack of it) that God doesn't exist. Nevertheless both of these assumptions are still /beliefs/, and as such, atheism can be considered a belief (as well as the empirical sciences that rigorously and insolently claim that Nessie ain't in that pond).

This has got nothing to do with the actual truth, which is, of course, that God does exist even though he doesn't bother to proof his existence to everyone who happens to demand it. (who's being insolent now ... ;)

I'll go halfway to meet you. Atheism is, in fact, both; a matter of rationality (empirically) /and/ a matter of faith. But that is the very point that makes the answering rightfully to this question impossible.

"So question 14 is: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality."

Yes, it is.

If these are the choices, I will, naturally, choose that atheism is a matter of faith instead of rationality, because now, I'm (forced to) understanding rationality as considering to have 100% certainty of something (which empirical proof does not grant).

"If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist."

Yes, it is. In an empirical sence, and that was the question, right?

I'm actually done here, but to make sure, I'll just go through a bit more of the FAQ.

"So returning to question 14 - if you answer "True" to question 10, to remain consistent you have to answer false to question 14. ..."

Not true. On the basis of empirical proof, it is justified to claim "no Nessie". Nevertheless, question 14 isn't talking about rationality in the same empirical sense as question 10 is (or furthermore, the sense of the question isn't specified). In empirical sense, it is rational to believe in the non-existence of God, but in pure philosophical sense it is no more rational to believe that God doesn't exist, that it is to believe that God, in fact, does exist.

"The point is that there are circumstances where it might be rational to believe in the non-existence of God, even in the absence of compelling arguments or evidence to show that God does not exist. These circumstances might include: where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God (which, of course, is not itself positive evidence for the non-existence of God)."

You're still talking about empirical rationality.

You would never (positively, non-empirically) know, would you. It can easily be imagined that when the judgement day comes, empirical sciences might have actually gone that far - "uncovering all the secrets of the universe". So the situation for a person believing in God would be that: on one hand you have strong empirical proof that God doesn't exist (in the way that, for example Christianism suggests, anyway). On the other, you have your Faith (which has probably been shown justified to you in some other - equally valid one - way if you still are a believer and realizing that this actually is the choice to make). At the end of the day, there isn't (and can not be) a way to positively know which is the actual Truth.

As a Christian (and less as a philosopher) my view is this: I see the aforementioned scenario as a potential future touchstone for lots of people that claim to want to be with Christ until the very end (since it is actually possible that the scenario mentioned would someday prevail).

You can never expect sciences to be capable of understanding all the secrets. As you said yourself, it is not positive evidence of the non-existence of God - so even though everything might seem clear in the field of science, everything would seem to have been solved, it would still be /atheist faith/ to claim that God does not exist in that situation. After all those people whose Faith was not real, would have been convinced by sciences, God would probably come and kick everyone's asses, showing that they ultimately were just... wrong.

I could go through the second point, as well, but indeed, I do agree with you in that one (the cases are similar), if you just had placed your question in a more exact way.

Yeah I know, I'm repeating myself a lot.

---

Sincerely,
Olli Savolainen

---

Translations...

justifiable...oikeutettu
rigorous......jyrkkäotteinen
insolent......röyhkeä
touchstone....koetinkivi
prevail.......vallita

July 20, 2002 14:42 in diary

Comments

No comments yet

Add comments

(Comments to entries older than 3 days are moderated. They will appear on this page once I approve their publishing. Sorry for the inconvenience.)

Your comment:

Name:
E-mail/HTTP:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture:
Remember Me