I've listened on occasion to the Atheist Experience podcast. For me it's about as easy to listen to as I expect the Bible Answer Man is for an atheist (not that I'm a big BAM fan), only less well-produced and with (mercifully) far fewer commercials and requests to buy Hank's latest book. It can get a bit repetitive, but recently they took a turn for the entertaining when Matt Slick of CARM.org decided to give them a call. I've long considered giving them a call myself but have always been too lazy. Matt Slick's a decent pinch hitter. ;-)
He called their show twice, on 15Feb09 and then again on 22Feb to continue the conversation, and they discussed the 2nd time for a good 45 minutes with one of the hosts Matt Dillahunty. These two dialogues have made some hay in the blogosphere and I won't attempt to track it all down now, but the AthExp blog around that time is a good place to start.
The topic of each dialogue was the Transcendental Argument for God, Slick's version of which is found here.
Now, the way Slick typically (in live format) goes about laying out the TAG is a bit strange to me, given that he relies heavily on the concept->mind linkage, but perhaps he finds it successful and probably he's far more well-read and experienced in such things than I. At any rate, it seemed to come to a head in a more effective way with Dillahunty than it previously had with other atheists I'd heard, possibly b/c Dillahunty is sharp and was fair, and Slick didn't waste a bunch of time as he often does complaining about being interrupted all the time.
I recommend starting to listen to the 22Feb show around minute 57 or so, b/c they did go around in circles a bit, Slick having insisted they are conceptual, Dillahunty denying such. 59:04, Slick seizes upon Dillahunty's clear laying out of his idea the nature of logic's existence:
"Logic is purely conceptual and is contingent upon a mind to use...They (the laws of logic) don't depend on anything...Reality depends upon them."
Slick: "You said they're non-physical. So what other options are there?"
Dillahunty: "I don't know."
Slick (and me, in my mind): "[[snicker]] You don't *know*?"
Dillahunty: "They're abstract. They're abstract."
Dillahunty continued: "This is one of the things I find most laughable about apologists and I won't even ask for you to not take this personally. Once again you get to this point where "I don't know" is such a bafflingly unacceptable answer to you. This is the colossal arrogance of the theist position, that they're unable to say 'I don't know, maybe we'll find out someday'. And instead of accepting an 'I don't know', they just go ahead and leap to the first thing that seems most reasonable to them."
Dillahunty continues, saying that this would take us to the point of having to consider all the other possibilities and rule them out, but that's obviously not going to help.
Slick (and again, I in my mind) says: "I'd like that." Zing!
Dillahunty retreats to the "Well, prove to me God exists, without a fallacy."
Slick continues to ask for a 3rd option. Dillahunty won't even attempt it!
Anyway, I recommend you listen at least from minute 55 or so of that 22Feb show. It's well worth it to listen to Dillahunty squirm and then act like it's no big deal that he doesn't understand that a request for a 3rd option is perfectly legitimate if one rules out the physical and the conceptual. Dillahunty wants to keep it at "non-conceptual", but how is that very helpful? He's just hoping that his self-enforced agnosticism will let him off the hook with his listeners. Fail.
This brings me to an interesting realisation - often atheists will question me "What is God? Describe His nature." Gordon Stein did it (and was subsequently famously dissected) during the Bahnsen-Stein debate. Dan Barker loves to insist that "God is Spirit" is totally unacceptable, since we have no concept of what "spirit" is. TracieH of the AthExp, who was herself on the air during these same shows, recently raised similar questions.
Right back at you, I will now respond to my atheist interlocutor(s). The well-known Atheist Experience apparently thinks "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question of the nature of the laws of logic. But it's a big victory for atheism if you don't understand the concept when we tell you the nature of God? I mean, this is one of the things I find most laughable about atheists and I won't even ask for you to not take this personally. Once again you get to this point where "I don't know" is such a bafflingly unacceptable answer to you. This is the colossal arrogance of the atheist position, that they're unable to say 'I don't know, maybe we'll find out someday'. And instead of accepting an 'I don't know', they just go ahead and leap to the first thing that seems most reasonable to them. Cheers.
17 comments:
People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
If the human mind can understand Logical Absolutes, then the human mind can conceive Logical Absolutes.
Did you listen to the next episode where Slick himself is quoted as saying that God is neither physical nor conceptual ? Thus defeating his own argument.
The 22Feb episode of the AthExp? I might've missed that part.
But why would that matter to his argument? The part of the discussion is a critique of naturalism, showing its internal inconsistencies. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
I'm not sure of the episode. I think it was the week after the second appearance of Slick.
I'm not sure what you mean that naturalism is being critiqued. I missed that (apart from most of your other blog posts).
The fact that Slick himself readily admits there's things outside of the two options isn't relevant ? When it's the point of his argument you quoted ?
I'd think it's very relevant. The guy can't even get his arguments straight.
And, as it turns out, Dillahunty's answer of "non-conceptual" is a non-answer, true. But it's just as much a non-answer as "God", which was Slick's. Neither answer has meaning until additional attributes are added to describe the thing.
It would be relevant if Slick had claimed that FOR NATURALISM. Slick is showing an internal inconsistency in the naturalistic position, which does not admit any supernatural or spiritual category. That limitation is not present in Christianity.
And "God" is not a non-answer like "I don't know". "God" has a specific definition with specific characteristics. "I don't know" doesn't.
Besides, this is THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE. Aren't they supposed to have better answers, out of their mountains of evidence, than "I don't know"? Doesn't that bother you even a little? Do you have a better answer?
I've recently been trying to get my head around the trancendental argument, and I thought, "I know someone who'll know about that..." Lo and behold, a quick trip to Rhoblogy and I find a link to the best exposition of the TAG that I've found to date. Cheers, Rhology!
Thanks yunshui, happy to help.
You might also see this post for more info.
Slick wasn't showing an inconsistency with naturalism. He was showing an inconsistency with his own argument.
If part of his argument is that everything is either conceptual or physical, and then he breaks that by admitting that something exists which is neither, then that's a flaw is his argument.
It's possible I'm misremembering what Slick was getting at - but I don't think so.
Your definition of God might have particular characteristics, but the one that Slick was trying to introduce didn't. He hadn't given it any yet. He hadn't even shown its existence.
The lack of Dillahunty to give an alternative to some stuff that Slick was playing games with is not particularly worrying, particularly when Slick can't keep his own definitions.
Anyway, why do atheists need to know everything ? The position is not having a belief in a god. That's not much of a knowledge position. To go on TV like they do, you'd want to have a good grasp of the theists' position, and they do. But there are an infinite number of wrong arguments, and only a finite number of right ones. You can't be prepared for all the wrong ones.
My answer to Slick is "stop playing funny buggers".
Rhology, the Matt v Matt debate *wasn't* a critique on naturalism. TAG is supposed to be a "proof" for the existence of god (transcendental argument for god). So it has everything to do with god belief/christianity.
Also how is it "losing the talking points" to not speculate about unproven/unprovable third options? Even if we don't have all the answers yet (ya know, with proof and evidence) that's no justified reason to jump to "Magic man did it!" to explain the universe or logical absolutes.
Thanks for posting different views in the comments - I appreciate that.
Hi Angie!
You are welcome here.
BTW, I see your profile statement asks what evidence I have for my worldview. Quite a lot. Let me commend two links for your reading pleasure. One Two Basically, the impossibility of the contrary, and as an added bonus, the utter irrationality of atheism.
And also "Empiricism refuted". Always happy to help! :-)
Anyway, to your comment. True, TAG is not a critique of naturalism strictly speaking. But in a sense it is, b/c it points out how the Christian worldview accts for the laws of logic and nontheism doesn't. Naturalism is a nontheistic worldview, so there you go.
My biggest problem with Dillahunty was that he was reduced to a fundamentalist. He was almost flecking the mic with rhetorical mouth-froth in his insistence that he was just SURE that there was a 3rd option. Now, he didn't know what it was, but who cares about minor details like actually proposing substantive points? I don't think he'd accept that lame excuse for an answer if a Christian called the show, he cornered them with a challenge, and the Christian said, "Well, I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's not what you said!" No, Dillahunty would sneer and smirk, say thank you and hang up with a sense of victory, and then skewer them with mockery while tracieh laughed out some vapid "duh"s from the sideline.
This isn't just some question about bones dug up in the desert. Without a foundation for the laws of logic, we know NOTHING and can express NOTHING. Why doesn't that bother you, a lot?
And your alternative views are appreciated as well! I don't moderate my combox (well, except for the obvious like spam and flames), even when a commenter bests me, which I'd probably say has happened a couple of times, and I think that's what alot of my commenters find attractive - that and the interaction I can usually provide.
Well TAG might infer or claim that Christianity works for logical absolutes and naturalism doesn't, but nontheism and naturalism aren't entirely overlapping worldviews. And one of the most attractive qualities about the nontheistic worldview is that it DOESN'T claim to know everything. It can say "That answer is obviously ridiculous (talking snakes!) but I don't yet know what the real answer is." That's what makes science a reliable method for learning truth - once it rules out one particular option, it doesn't just grab at any other and say "Here, it must be this one."
Even if evolution wasn't true (which it is) and even naturalism is funadmentally flawed in some way, it doesn't make your religion or your god true. Even if you remove ONE alternate possibility, it doesn't remove all others. If Allah is the one true god and Mohammad is his prophet, you are surely as screwed as I am.
I found your depiction of Matt Dillahunty a gross misrepresentation and a very ad hominem statement. He wouldn't "sneer and smirk" if someone said in all honesty, "I don't know." When callers have admitted that ultimately it just comes down to a question of faith for them, he says goodbye and moves on to the next call, because you can't argue using facts and logic from a position of faith. There's no productive conversation that can occur at that point. When I saw the TAG debate, I saw Dillahunty getting frustrated because Matt Slick was playing semantical games and changing the definition of words midstream in order to fit his prosupposed, forced conclusion. It was sloppy arguing and, as you say, he wastes a lot of time complaining about being treated unfairly (on Dillahunty's show... that Dillahunty let Slick repeat his circular logic on for over 40 minutes).
You say, "Without a foundation for the laws of logic, we know NOTHING and can express NOTHING. Why doesn't that bother you, a lot?" Well, it probably would bother me if I thought it was true, so I can see why it concerns YOU. But I don't think your claim is true. We DO know things and we CAN express them. Your expressing yourself on this blog right now. You express the things you know or believe or think - we all do. So your statement really has no meaning in any real sense. So no, it doesn't concern me at all.
I'll look over the links you provided later this week, and if they provide good comic fodder full of logical fallacies, I'll even have some fun with them over on Angie the Anti-Theist. Take care - A
Well, OK, but naturalism is A nontheistic worldview. They don't overlap; rather, naturalism is a subset of nontheistic worldviews.
it DOESN'T claim to know everything.
Humility is attractive and all, but if you can't even account for the existence of the laws of logic...that's pretty bad! I mean, that is one of the two or three most basic and fundamental questions! You really have no idea? It's kind of pitiful when you think about it. You yourself said in this very comment - you can't argue using facts and logic from a position of faith.
"That answer is obviously ridiculous (talking snakes!)
You do realise that "snakes don't talk" is an inductive statement, and only one example is sufficient to overturn an induction, don't you? Speaking of logical fallacies...
it doesn't just grab at any other and say "Here, it must be this one."
Slick made it very clear that there were only two options. Dillahunty was desperately denying that there were only 2, but couldn't offer one. That's pretty important. You claim there are more than 2, OFFER ONE. You're expressing fidestic blind faith in your worldview's abilities. Anyone can do that! Again, to quote you: you can't argue using facts and logic from a position of faith.
it doesn't make your religion or your god true.
But as you quite correctly pointed out before, TAG isn't a "naturalism is false" argument. It's an argument FOR Christianity. Surely you're not so inexperienced as to think that Christians haven't engaged all other worldviews it encounters on an intellectual level, just like atheism? If you think Islam has something, bring fwd your argument.
I found your depiction of Matt Dillahunty a gross misrepresentation and a very ad hominem statement
Then you clearly haven't interacted with him at cross purposes like I have. It's very accurate, of all the AthExp bloggers. Some are worse than others.
Matt Slick was playing semantical games and changing the definition of words midstream in order to fit his prosupposed, forced conclusion
Let me suggest you read my post again, and be precise. Let's say I grant that Slick made the leap Dill thinks he made. How does that cripple Slick's argument?
And what do you think about Dan Barker's unintentional pwning of Dillahunty's point?
to fit his prosupposed, forced conclusion.
You mean, like Dillahunty retreating wildly into I-don't-know land in order to fit his presupposed, forced atheist conclusion? At least Slick had an argument!
We DO know things and we CAN express them.
Exactly. But if atheism were true, we couldn't. That's what you'll hopefully see when you read the posts I linked to earlier.
Do me a favor, btw - if you interact with (a) post(s) of mine, drop me a note either by email or in a comment on that post to let me know. I'd appreciate it that small courtesy.
See you!
Peace,
Rhology
"If you can't even account for the existence of the laws of logic...that is one of the two or three most basic and fundamental questions!"
Really? How did logical absolutes come to be (or have they always been) is one of the most basic fundamental questions? And answer me this dear Christian, can you account for the existence of your god? I can offer speculation but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with it. And since I'm not the one making a positive claim about logical absolutes, and Matt Slick is, clearly I'm not operating from a position of faith. (Faith is "I believe in God". Faith is not "I don't know if there is a god or not". Likewise, I'm not having faith IN anything when I say I don't know the "origin" if there is one of logical absolutes. So freaking what? If it's possible in your worldview that god has simply always existed - alpha and omega - then why can't it be possible in my worldview that logical absolutes have simply always existed, with or without a mind to contemplate them.
If there was any credible EVDIENCE of a snake talking, I'd love to see it. Even better, I'd love to have some scientists and other experts, people much more knowledgable in this than either you or I, look at it. But since we have no evidence of snakes talking, behaving as if snakes aren't going to talk is probably the saner route. I'm less concerned with 100% absolutes anyway. Even if 1 snake out of the BILLIONS of years snakes have been on this planet managed to talk one time, so what? Saying "snakes don't talk" is still a far more accurate statement than "snakes do talk".
These replies are getting longer than the average post on my blog, so let me try to condense to the most important points.
Re; Dan Barker. Okay, what do you think about the fact that the Pope and the Vatican say evolution is a fact? Not all atheists agree with all atheists on all things (only one thing).
TAG isn't an argument FOR Christianity. It's an argument FOR the existence of SOME kind of god. The whole "and he's loving and he has this character and these wishes and this Son and this list of Dos and Dont's?" That's not in TAG. So your "If TAG is true Christianity is true" is epic fail.
Right, SLICK CLAIMED there were only two options. But why? His claim that there are only two choices doesn't make it so. False dichotomy is a *favorite* logical fallacy of theists. It fits into the whole dualism of Judeo-Christian belief God vs. Satan, sin vs. perfection, angels vs. demons - it's all so exciting, so black and white, so simple any moron can follow the plot of the story.
You mean, like Dillahunty retreating wildly into I-don't-know land in order to fit his presupposed, forced atheist conclusion? At least Slick had an argument!
So having a dumb argument is better than having no argument? Better than being intellectually honest and saying "I don't know" or "We as a species haven't figured out that giant mystery yet"? Okay, then I'm the Queen of Pluto. You can't prove I'm NOT. At least I have an *argument* about the queen of Pluto. *sigh*
I'll absolutely comment to let you know if I ever site you or trackback. I do that for everyone. I invite you to check out Angie the Anti-Theist and raise your concerns over there as well.
Peace be with you. (And also with you.)
We DO know things and we CAN express them.
Exactly. But if atheism were true, we couldn't. That's what you'll hopefully see when you read the posts I linked to earlier.
Do me a favor, btw - if you interact with (a) post(s) of mine, drop me a note either by email or in a comment on that post to let me know. I'd appreciate it that small courtesy.
Angie,
Yes, if you can't acct for the LoL, how can you know that any statement makes any sense?
And answer me this dear Christian, can you account for the existence of your god?
?? Angie, read the links. Then get back to me.
Likewise, I'm not having faith IN anything when I say I don't know the "origin" if there is one of logical absolutes.
You have blind and unaccounted-for faith in the logic of any statement you make, if you can't explain where the LoL came from or their nature.
If it's possible in your worldview that god has simply always existed - alpha and omega - then why can't it be possible in my worldview that logical absolutes have simply always existed, with or without a mind to contemplate them.
So, why do you disagree with Dan Barker? How can concepts exist w/o a mind? Respond to his POINT, not the man.
I recommend you think these things thru before saying them, btw.
If there was any credible EVDIENCE of a snake talking, I'd love to see it.
Eyewitness testimony. And you have no good reason to doubt it; induction by its very nature is overturnable with ONE EXAMPLE.
Inductive reasoning. Read up, have fun.
Saying "snakes don't talk" is still a far more accurate statement than "snakes do talk".
The first isn't necessarily accurate, and to say it is begs the question at hand. MOST snakes don't, yes.
His claim that there are only two choices doesn't make it so.
So what's your alternative!!??!?!!?!?!? Sheesh, how many times do we have to ask?
Okay, then I'm the Queen of Pluto. You can't prove I'm NOT. At least I have an *argument* about the queen of Pluto.
Which is totally disanalogous - you as Q of P doesn't deal with the fundamental nature of intelligibility, thought, reason, and communication. Try again.
We DO know things and we CAN express them.
Your religion, stated by faith. Again.
In response, maybe I should just post the entire text of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and say it's an argument.
Peace,
Rhology
Well I don't know the third option. Let's find out more about its nature and traits before just guessing any old thing. (I'm more comfortable with uncertainty than I am with the blind guesses you suggest.)
Look, I'm wrapping this up. Clearly you are... not interested in actually expanding your mind. You're interested in reaffirming your faith at the cost of your cirtical thinking capacities. Go for it. Your sweeping assertion that it's "blind faith" to behave as if the logical agbsolutes will behave as they always have before shows a fundmanetal misunderstanding (or intentional distorting) of what "blind faith" means.
THe links made me crack up, once I realized you were just pointing to other posts of your own, as opposed to some credible third-party site. It wouldn't occur to me to just use my own words, over and over, to show that my viewpoint has merit.
"We DO know things and we CAN express them"
You called this both "religion" and "faith.". Now, I suspect that you're being intellectually dishonest or disingenuous. I don't think you're actually so uneducated and so ignorant as to think that any statement about the nature of the world is "religion". (I have no dogma, no observances, no rituals, no holy days, no deity, no tax-exmpetion, no clergy.... Those are all bigger deals in determining if something is a religion or not than just the presence of a strongly held view. Lots of people feel or think things strongly. Only some of those views are religious in nature and only some of those people are religious.
Your willful disregard for the English language has made you at least as useless to talk to as Matt Slick. My time matters to me as I'm sure yours matters to you.
I'm leaving because this is pointless and stupid, not because you've "won". But because this is a waste of time. I'm not an evangelist and I never have been. I just think it's damn whiny of you to bitch about being taught facts in school. If you wanna live in a theocracy where science has no respect, check out Saudi Arabia or Cambodia perhaps. This nation is secular, and our education system should reflect that.
It's very indicative of the nature of your religion, that you don't know how to account for the laws of logic and mathematics. Think about it. The laws of logic and mathematics. You don't know. Outside of total assumption and blind faith, you have no reason to think that anything you do or say is intelligible.
In this, you're acting like you CAN acct for them; you're acting like a Christian. Why can't you live consistently with your own worldview? B/c it's a terrible worldview. You have to borrow from Christianity to live and think and reason and communicate. And then you rip Christianity for being irrational, which is unintentionally very funny.
Your sweeping assertion that it's "blind faith" to behave as if the logical agbsolutes will behave as they always have before shows a fundmanetal misunderstanding
This is what I mean. If it's not blind faith, GIVE AN ARGUMENT. And you just finished saying you don't have any third option, so...you don't have an argument. You're a zealot, more of a fundamentalist than I could probably ever hope to be.
once I realized you were just pointing to other posts of your own, as opposed to some credible third-party site.
You are not participating in this in good faith, not at all. If you'd actually read them, you'd see that I was quoting someone else entirely in each post. Enjoy your zealotry.
I have no dogma
What's sad is that I think you actually believe this. Yet "the laws of logic are absolute" is one of your dogmas, but you can't account for them. Blind faith dogma.
If you wanna live in a theocracy where science has no respect, check out Saudi Arabia or Cambodia perhaps.
Or in earlier USA, when Congress' 1st official act was to fund Christian literature for schools going to Native American Indians.
Yeah, good talking to you. Let me suggest you do some more thinking and reading before you make any more embarrassing statements like you have here.
Peace,
Rhology
"Clearly you are... not interested in actually expanding your mind."
You have closed your mind to the possibility of a God and along with it, likely all of the teachings, writings, spiritual explorations etc. of a multitude of religions. Somehow I don't think the person you addressed that statement to has closed his mind to science.
So who has the more open mind?
dj
Post a Comment