Questionable Sophistry

I ran across an example of sophistry recently in the form of questions that I suppose are meant to confound the issues related to a religious adherence to primitive superstitions and supernatural claims. So I thought I would answer them as best as I am currently able.
What follows are five questions that should be understood as coming from a religious fundamentalist who assumes that they know better the answers than, say, someone that doesn't share their world view. And therein lies the background for this Q & A. Questions are obviously numbered and italicized.

1. Is it possible that God could reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain? If not, why not, and how are you certain of that?

    First one must be making the presumption with this question that a god exists. And of course, this has never been verified. Throughout human history, far too many of those that have claimed they received a revelation from some supernatural authority ascribed the most heinous of atrocities to its commands. And at the same time, many of the most benevolent as well as the most despicable have claimed revelatory authority with equal veracity only with vastly different consequences. From this point of view, along with a comprehension of all the errors, contradictions, falsehoods, and redactions in works that were once claimed as divinely dictated, it is easy to see that revelation is indistinguishable from imagination as used in the act of a fabrication.

     From an anatomical standpoint, living organisms have no supernatural transceiver that has been found to date. Also, there is little structural difference between a human brain and any other mammalian brains. And concerning certainty, I'm as certain that no god could communicate with those that claim one has communicated with them as I am that supernatural claims have never been verified, ever. To begin with, there is no such thing as a supernatural realm from which to communicate. This is just the overly simplistic explanation for those unknown causes; until, we discover those mechanisms that actually cause the phenomena in question. The concept of a supernatural realm will be the mystical Orphic abyss of sophists and charlatans, until it is understood as nothing other than that of which we are ignorant. For the sake of argument, lets assume the impossible is now possible. Revelation is Descartes' dualism (c. 1641) which was debunked just after his own time by his peers on the grounds that evil exists. With all things considered, the existence of evil from a dualistic view puts the onus of every atrocity on that deity's self indulgent head. But in my view, the main nail in the coffin for the concept of Cartesian Dualism, and therefore revelation or divined knowledge, is our ability to be introspective while reaching all but an infinite number of different conclusions. So, no is the answer to the question. Furthermore...

    To know something "for certain" is a claim from the domain of ignorance. It is the deep thinker that realizes there may be unexplored alternatives, a refinement of accuracy, or a revision based on new evidence. To claim something "for certain" only shows that one's knowledge is based not on evidence but on dogma. The accumulation of knowledge is the assimilation of relationships and the elimination of alternatives; therefore, knowledge is best understood as in a constant state of melioration through the accumulation of facts.

    One brief point on the topic of seeing the evidence for god(s) all around us, as the assertion goes. All anyone actually sees is the evidence of procreation. Every tree had a seed; every creature had a mother or clone as the case may be. So, when someone claims that a god reveals itself through the surrounding ecosystem, they are actually ignoring the fact that in nature all living organisms have an antecedent. And, of course, this is better explained through evolution as well as other branches of natural science. As supernatural claims are unrealistic by association, I see appeals to the supernatural as nothing more than an admission of ignorance—pathetic actually.

2. How are you able to know anything for certain according to your worldview? 

    By world view in this case, I assume the author is referring to atheism. And by the qualifier, "for certain," I'm assuming they are not taking into consideration that atheism is an evidence based viewpoint. This must mean that they don't accept the human brain or the mind as an innately cognitive faculty. In light of the first question, it would seem that the author is holding to the Cartesian Dualism of René Descartes or some variation thereof. But if that were the case, how would one expect anyone to drive a car, write a play, rape young boys or be anything other than an automaton. One cannot have free will based on divined information. We would be nothing except puppets on a string. This would be the ultimate in control, and the most sinister of deceptions; especially, considering the suffering throughout human history for which this divine authority would be responsible.

The fact of the matter is that evidence is accepted by our judicial system for a very good reason. Evidence is the basis for the very successful scientific method for a very good reason, as well. The value of information as knowledge is directly proportional the amount of evidence supporting that information; while critically considering the weight of all contravening evidence. It is the only way we "know anything for certain."

    Again, your question is based on an intrinsically false assumption. You assume there is a god or gods that would alter human perception for their own enjoyment. This is one thing I know I would find despicable—for certain. Quite to the contrary, the human mind is quite capable of perceiving reality under nominal circumstances.

The question is actually an attempt to hide the fact that absolutely nothing is gleaned from appeals to the superstitious, supernatural, or religious dogmas.

3. Does our discussion have to comport with the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? If so, how do you account for them according to your worldview? 

    You obviously do not realize that an atheist view is the rational view, the logical stance as opposed to the supernatural stance of the theist which is not based on anything but faith. Faith, or denial in the face of over whelming evidence, is not logical. Faith is an emotional adherence to an evidentiarily unsupported claim.

    Furthermore, logical absolutes (ie. Law of non contradiction, Law of identity, Law of excluded middle, etc.) are the parameters (or framework) within which the physical universe operates. Like the principles of thermodynamics, these logical parameters of the natural universe are how relationships of physical entities occur as a consequence of the existence and interaction of these physical bodies. Logic, on the other hand, is a system, like mathematics or physics, that we use to conceptualize these parameters, so as to better understand and communicate that understanding. In fact, logic is a form of mathematics, and much like mathematics, logic, physics, and chemistry etc. are only our conceptualization, our understanding, of these parameters within which the natural universe operates. Logical parameters exist whether or not there is a universe, or inhabitants of that universe to observe those parameters. They are how physical entities will behave and have behaved in the universe as we now know it. Properties of a logical universe operate within these parameters just as these properties also operate within the confines of mathematical parameters as well as physical parameters, etc.

    Therefore, one's world view is irrelevant when considering what was termed above as "laws of logic." Also, don't make the mistake of conflating a concept with its mental abstract conceptualization. Nor can one honestly correlate any logical parameter (Logical Absolute as it has been termed) of the natural universe with its mental representation, its conceptualization. This is where the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, TAG failed miserably while being shown as another pathetic apologetic contrivance. No sane person would try to claim that gravity needs a mind to exist. The same is true for the principles of logical parameters, mathematical parameters and physical parameters, etc. within which the natural universe works. Sixteen of something exists whether someone is there to count them or not.

    Actually, this question misdirects attention away from the fact that claims of supernatural interaction with a logical universe are, in short, unsupportable and untenable.

4. On what basis do you expect the future to be like the past (i.e. the uniformity of nature, the basis for inductive reasoning).

    This is actually a minimal assumption of scientific inquiry but a favorite canard of the less scientifically inclined. Due to a lack of experience with statistics, religionists are less aware of the concept of probability. Based on substantiated historical facts, the probability of the future being exactly like the past is indistinguishable from 100 percent; though, while not being perfect, there is no evidence that physics has been anything other than what it is today. So, considering historical consistency along with the total absence of any contradictory or contravening evidence makes scientific testability and predictability consistent enough to warrant sound expectations with inductive reasoning.

    Also, along with the linear support for predictable expectations there is lateral support as well. The universe has shown itself to be bound by logical parameters, consistent with mathematical principles, and amenable to physical properties. The evidence suggests that this is consistent throughout the universe in both time and space, as any rational world view would suggest. This is also why the concept of a supernatural realm as well as a supernatural entity are logically impossible, physically unsupportable, even scientifically falsifiable per any given location.

    The reason religion and science have been at odds for centuries is because of this very problem. For as science investigates supernatural claims, one hundred percent have been shown to be either completely natural, indeterminable, or false. Furthermore, while almost every scientific advance (all of them concerned with the as yet unknown) contravenes the claims of the worlds religions as well as all supernatural claims along with greatly reducing the indeterminable category, there are always those that claim the impossible and hide it deep inside the Orphic abyss of the indeterminable or some sophistic rhetorical ploy.

    There is an obvious slide-of-hand in this question, as it attempts to coverup the fact that this historically substantiated predictability would have never been the case in a supernaturally amenable universe. It is this simple fact which is the main reason many people come to their senses in regards to religious claims. One of the main reasons why countries consumed by the Muslim faith went from a scientific world leader to a theocratic backwater of humanity is because of the concept of occasionalism (Allah can change the laws of nature at his whim). This ludicrous dogma convinced Muslims that studying nature was a waste of time; since, their deity could stop or alter its principles at any time. Hence, science and technology fell by the wayside in the Muslim mind.

5. How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

    Without restating answers to the first four questions, of which this overtly generalized inquiry is only a restatement, I will start with the fact that our reasoning works as evidenced by the computer with which I'm writing. Although, it is obvious that you are looking for something else. Assuming that these questions were written using a computer, I will move on to the idea that the reasoning may be invalidated if counterfeited by some Dualistic Cartesian Theater from some deity for its own sadistic entertainment. Only this would mean that every sadistic thought, every evil act by every despotic tyrant, pedophile, rapist, murderer, capitalist, etc. was under the explicit control of this narcissistic sadomasochist. And if one thinks that the devil made them do it, maybe worship of this deity is wasted; since, it is obviously not the most eminent power in the land.

    When the gods (especially the Abrahamic God) wielded great power in the ancient days of infantile man's philosophical development, humanity suffered greatly at the hands of nature while leading short brutish miserable lives in fear and servitude to those who knew that divine authority was an irrevocable, non-falsifiable, and irreproachable—if handled correctly—means of subjugating the masses. Now that man has gleaned a comprehension of nature, the natural universe and our place within it an enhanced understanding from science, of medicine, and nutrition etc, have greatly enhanced  man's lot in life. When God's revelations were claimed to be divine dictate of those in power, the pious servile man was the one to suffer the greatest. Since the Enlightenment and the rejection of divine dictate, freedom, freedom of inquiry, progress of individual civil rights, freedom of speech, and pursuit of happiness have replaced serfdom, slavery, servitude and capitulation of thought by force. The evidence supporting man's reasoning abilities is vast and incontrovertible, but one point will make it abundantly clear that our reasoning abilities are a direct result of our cognitive faculties as witnessed by brain damaged patients under the care of competent physicians with access to fMRI scanners.

This is also a question that attempts to hide from the interlocutor the inescapable antithesis that in the days when divine revelation reigned supreme substantially fewer ideas, arguments, or conclusions were even close to correctly reasoned. It tries to camouflage the fact that man's philosophical prowess evolved exactly as one would expect given a total lack of divine intervention. Though the question overlooks the fact that man's morality improved as a direct consequence of his own investigations into the natural world and the discovery of our place within it, authors of such a question invariably claim that morality is the prerogative of their imaginary friend.

Now, I have a question: When have supernatural claims ever been validated, verified or substantiated? A hint:—Never, not once.

No, the power of  god(s) is directly proportional to the ignorance of man as evidenced by the following: When man's ignorance was great, fear of the power of god(s) was greater still; but when man's knowledge overcame his fear and ignorance, the power of those mythical god(s) waned. And now that knowledge has brought humanity to the point where those that claim to wield the power of the gods are institutionalized, it is time to put childish things aside.

Thanks for taking the time to read this Q & A. Feel free to leave a comment if you wish.

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872 – 1970)

    It was my pleasure to learning about Bertrand Russell at a very young age. However, it was the worlds loss when he died in 1970. He was, in my personal opinion, one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He influenced many brilliant people through his philosophy. People of the highest cognitive caliber, such as, Albert Einstein or the nimblest of thinkers, Wittgenstein for instance, knew and worked with Bertrand Russell.

    One can find out about the details of his long career many places over the net, in books, especially his own copious corpus. I only wish to put a person to the work. Enjoy.

Here are the Taxes about which Tbaggers are complaining

Bet you didn't know this; that is, unless you had been paying attention.

My Lack of Belief

This latest video from Qualiasoup is very good at explaining the subtle difference between what some people think about beliefs, or the lack thereof.

Just Another Liar

August 20, 2010 on Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program via (Media Matters)

I'm doing a study on the liars that influence opinion in this country. And the best case I can display is this retard. But anyone who actually does any reading on Darwin will know that Beck is not presenting one word of truth. And more to the point, he doesn't present a word to back up any of his assertions. And this is the main problem in American media, they are not held to any level of honesty. Worse still is that most Americans are not in the habit of reading or even knowing anything more than their own opinion. So, a factually handicapped noise jockey like Beck can blurt out total falsehoods, and as long as it confirms the ignorant biases of the ill educated—it's going to pass as information. This clip is total garbage that can be totally debunked with a little investment in a book or a few minutes on Google. Beck's propaganda needs no more than to be ignored by those of us who know better and use critical thinking skills to flourish as accepted, relevant information. I, for one, feel this kind of garbage needs to be exposed, as does the perpetrator of these lies.