A series of posts (HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) I did disproving atheism has been drawing a lot of conversation over at my Google+ page. Sadly, this has been the "more heat than light" variety so common to internet combox discussions. I've continued through, though, in the hopes that finally we'd get into actually discussing the argument we were supposed to be discussing rather than calling names and changing the topic endlessly. Finally, one commenter (Stan) stepped up to the plate and did just that.
His argument amounts to challenging one term in my argument, "meaning". Before showing why his challenge fails, I thought a quick review on how an argument (any argument) can be refuted. There is only three possible ways. If it can be shown that my original argument made one of these mistakes, I will amend the argument, or if that is not possible, raise the white flag and admit the argument fails. These three ways are:
1) The argument could have committed a formal logical fallacy and thus be invalid. An
invalid argument does not prove its conclusion. I dealt with the formal logic
(spoiler alert: the argument is valid) here: Life Has Meaning, therefore God Exists (a closer look at the logic).
2) The argument could equivocate on one, or more of its terms, and thus be ambiguous. This is the line of attack taken by Stan. However, Stan fails to
show how my argument equivocates. To defeat the argument it needs to be shown
which term equivocates and how. An example might help. Here is a text book example of an ambiguous argument:
Everything the has bark is a tree.
My dog has a bark.
Therefore my dog is a tree.
The logic is spot on, but the argument equivocates on the word "bark" making it both ambiguous and inconclusive.
To mount this kind of attack, the ambiguous term ("bark" in our example) must be identified and shown how it changes meaning in the course of the argument.
While Stan doesn't do this, he did ask me to define "meaning". Fair enough, requesting a clarification of a term (while not enough to refute an argument via the second way) is a fair part of rational discourse.
What do I mean by "meaning" or "purpose" in my argument? As you can see from the original post, HERE, "meaning" means any meaning whatsoever. Either life/ the universe is completely without all meaning or it has some meaning/ purpose. Again, any meaning will do, ANY. Either life is "sound and fury signifying nothing" and nothing we do or think has any point whatsoever (including this conversation) or God exists. To be clearer still, let's refer to an impartial source, dictionary.com, for a concise and precise definition of meaning: "the end, purpose, or significance of something". You'll note, this definition is stable (that is univocal) throughout the entirety of the original argument. There is no equivocation and none has been shown by Stan.
Everything the has bark is a tree.
My dog has a bark.
Therefore my dog is a tree.
The logic is spot on, but the argument equivocates on the word "bark" making it both ambiguous and inconclusive.
To mount this kind of attack, the ambiguous term ("bark" in our example) must be identified and shown how it changes meaning in the course of the argument.
While Stan doesn't do this, he did ask me to define "meaning". Fair enough, requesting a clarification of a term (while not enough to refute an argument via the second way) is a fair part of rational discourse.
What do I mean by "meaning" or "purpose" in my argument? As you can see from the original post, HERE, "meaning" means any meaning whatsoever. Either life/ the universe is completely without all meaning or it has some meaning/ purpose. Again, any meaning will do, ANY. Either life is "sound and fury signifying nothing" and nothing we do or think has any point whatsoever (including this conversation) or God exists. To be clearer still, let's refer to an impartial source, dictionary.com, for a concise and precise definition of meaning: "the end, purpose, or significance of something". You'll note, this definition is stable (that is univocal) throughout the entirety of the original argument. There is no equivocation and none has been shown by Stan.
3) Finally, my argument could still fail (even without a formal fallacy or an equivocation) if one of the two premises are false.
A false premise will lead to an unproven (although not necessarily false) conclusion.
The first premise in my argument is that the universe could only derive meaning from God, from a Supernatural (in the sense of "beyond natural") Creator (a Creator of the universe is what men commonly mean when they say "God"). Why this is was dealt with (and remains unchallenged) in my original argument. I won't rehash it here. Suffice it to say that establishing a Creator is enough to refute atheism, which denies such a being exists. Why must the Creator be supernatural? Because the Creator creates nature and nothing can create itself (for this would require it to act when it lacks existence, which is impossible).What characteristics this Creator has is beyond the scope of this argument, which only seeks to refute atheism not establish any particular religion (that is the job of other arguments). The second premise is that the universe / life has meaning. This is self-evidently true. With both of these premises in place and without equivocating in any terms, and with sound logic, the conclusion is proven.
The first premise in my argument is that the universe could only derive meaning from God, from a Supernatural (in the sense of "beyond natural") Creator (a Creator of the universe is what men commonly mean when they say "God"). Why this is was dealt with (and remains unchallenged) in my original argument. I won't rehash it here. Suffice it to say that establishing a Creator is enough to refute atheism, which denies such a being exists. Why must the Creator be supernatural? Because the Creator creates nature and nothing can create itself (for this would require it to act when it lacks existence, which is impossible).What characteristics this Creator has is beyond the scope of this argument, which only seeks to refute atheism not establish any particular religion (that is the job of other arguments). The second premise is that the universe / life has meaning. This is self-evidently true. With both of these premises in place and without equivocating in any terms, and with sound logic, the conclusion is proven.
At this point, Stan has a tough choice. Either accept the argument and abandon
atheism or don't accept it and abandon reason, continuing to accept atheism on
Faith alone. That is unless he can produce an equivocation, a false premise, or a formal logical
fallacy.
Your logic is flawed. The conclusion may only be correct if the premises are also correct.
ReplyDeleteYour premises have no evidence to support them, other than the assertion that nobody would be a nihilist. As I am a nihilist, your main piece of evidence directly contradicts your argument.
Formal logic cannot be useful without evidence outside of philosophy and mathematics courses.
I look forward to your next attempt.
Hi Elise,
DeleteThanks for the reply. You apparently didn't read the first four posts in this series. This argument is a dilemma. One which forces you to choose between three possible options for an atheist:
1. Abandon atheism and become a rational theist living a meaningful life
2. Abandon meaning and become a rational atheist living a meaningless life
3. Abandon reason and become an irrational, fideistic atheist living a meaningful life.
You've chosen option 2, which is rational as was admitted at the outset. Of course, your very comment belies your claim to nihilism. If there is no meaning to life then why are you even bothering to read or comment on this (or any) blog? Why bother doing anything? You can claim to be a nihilist. You cannot live it.
Pax tecum.
You first have to prove a creator exists in the first place. That is a positive statement on your end. All atheism says is that they don't believe in any god. The reasoning varies from atheist to atheist but that is the common view. Atheism is not a faith system.
ReplyDeleteYour argument on the universe/life has meaning varies from person to person. In life we make our own meaning. Not everyone will have the same meaning. As example my meaning in life is to help my friends smile and bring happiness where I can. My own pagan beliefs do not hold me to this it is all myself.
1. You misunderstand the argument. Go back and reread this post - http://adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2014/03/life-has-meaning-therefore-god-exists_25.html - I'm NOT saying the following:
DeleteGod exists
Meaning exists
Therefore God causes meaning.
Your critique of the above argument is sound. Unfortunately, that isn't the argument that I made. That, as you know, is called the "straw man" fallacy, creating and refuting a different argument from the one presented.
2. We can't give OBJECTIVE meaning to life ourselves. If there is no Objective meaning to life / the universe and we Subjectively think there is, that isn't a source of meaning, that is a sign of madness (failure to conform one's subjective thoughts to objective reality is the definition of madness.)
In your post you stated "If atheism is true then the universe has no meaning". The universe indeed has no meaning what so ever. Humans are the only bipedal mammals that have complex thinking. Humans are the ones that give meaning to their life. Actually the definition of madness is http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/madness
ReplyDeleteFirst, "a state of being mentally ill" is equivalent to what I wrote above,
Delete"failure to conform one's subjective thoughts to objective reality is the definition of madness"
Second, as I stated above, you have three options:
1. Abandon atheism and become a rational theist living a meaningful life
2. Abandon meaning and become a rational atheist living a meaningless life
3. Abandon reason and become an irrational, fideistic atheist living a meaningful life.
You are free to choose number 2. You can claim to have done this, but that begs the same question I proposed above,
If there is no meaning to life then why are you even bothering to read or comment on this (or any) blog? Why bother doing anything? You can claim to be a nihilist. You cannot live it.
I am reading and commenting because I find this interesting. Just because the universe has no meaning doesn't mean I can't make meaning for my life. The question for you is why does the universe need to have meaning? Your statement is the universe has meaning, well prove it. The burden of proof for the universe having meaning is on you.
ReplyDeleteI'm deliberately leaving the meaning question open with this argument. I'm leaving atheists a choice, they can:
Delete1. Abandon atheism and become a rational theist living a meaningful life
2. Abandon meaning and become a rational atheist living a meaningless life
3. Abandon reason and become an irrational, fideistic atheist living a meaningful life.
I'm not striving to prove the existence of meaning. I'm simply showing that IF there is meaning, then God's existence must follow. You are free to deny meaning and continue on as an atheist. I'm purposefully not seeking to close that door.
I've already explained (see comment above) why you can't give meaning to your own life. If there is no real objective meaning to life / the universe and you only think there is (subjective meaning) that isn't a font of meaning, but a sign of mental illness. It would be no different than knowing that there is, objectively, no money in your bank account, but still subjectively thinking there is. Such thoughts won't fill your bank account, but might be a sign you need psychotherapy.
I pick 2 because I make meaning for my own life. Why does the world not having meaning scare you so much? For it has to scare you else you would not offer choices that are so narrow.
DeleteYou first choice saying that a "rational theist" living a meaningful life, to me, is saying that should be the only logical point. Also you are saying "I'm simply showing that IF there is meaning, then God's existence must follow". You already have a conclusion in your mind and seem to be trying to reach it through circular reasoning.
No, circular reasoning is when you are using your conclusion as a premise, not when you have a conclusion in mind when constructing an argument. Whether an argument is valid or not has only to do with the argument, not with what may or may not have been in the author's mind when the argument was written. A circular argument for the existence of God would be:
DeleteThe Bible is the Word of God
The Bible says God exists
Therefore, God exists.
You can see that the existence of God is both a premise (the first one) and the conclusion. Thus it is circular. My argument does not presuppose the existence of God, it only concludes that He exists, thus it is not circular.
I won't bother readdressing why you can't make meaning for your own life. I've already explained that several times in these comments.
Fair enough but you didn't answer my question. Why are you so afraid of the universe and life having no meaning?
DeleteI'm not. I don't believe it lacks meaning, but I'm not afraid of the issue either way. Why are you so afraid of the existence of God?
DeleteI'm not. There is no proof of god. Can't be afraid of something that doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteI've given you a proof for God right on this page. You can dismiss it, but you haven't refuted it.
DeleteYour statements are saying life and the universe have purpose or meaning. Because they have meaning god must exist. You have shown no proof that life nor the universe have meaning. In my opinion you need god to be real so you can have meaning in your life. I make my own meaning and my own path.
ReplyDeleteYou can't make your own meaning, you can simply pretend there is meaning subjectively where there is none objectively. I've already demonstrated that several times. I've also already stated why I have declined to show that meaning exists. I think, though, that you know that meaning exists. If not, why are you having this conversation? If you life doesn't matter, if you are just a more complex ant, then why bother talking with me? If everything is meaningless, then so too is this conversation.
DeleteI am conversing with you over the medium of the Internet because I find you interesting. The actions we have at this moment have a finite end so why not make those actions be positive. I don't need some bearded sky con artist to tell me what is moral or has meaning. I do it myself.
ReplyDeleteThink about this. Since my actions carry finite consequences and can have immediate impact on the world around me why not have those actions be positive. I am not scared of death anymore because it is a natural part of life. Heck if possible I wish to be thrown into the deepest trench in the ocean and help feed the life in there.
The beauty of the world is much more clear as well as knowing there is still so much to learn. Hell man I haven't even become a drop in the bucket of what I can do. That is exciting to me. That is my meaning! Damn it feels good to figure that out.
Cheer up Nathan. The world is beautiful and you don't need a magical despot to tell you that. Cheers!
I've already covered (several times) why we can't be a real source of meaning for our lives. Insisting you can without dealing with that demonstration doesn't disprove it.
DeleteIf there is no objective meaning to anything, then nothing is really "positive" or "negative." Those words only have meaning in relation to some objective meaning that exists independently of our own minds.
I am happy to agree with you that the world is beautiful.