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.

For There to be a Dinner, Does There Need to Be a Cook?

This is so overly simplistic that I can't even see why I would respond to the assertion made by one Jessica, as well as many others like her, throughout history. The claim is no more than a, "The creation needs a creator" fallacy. And as such, is simply dismissed with the Epicurean vintage response of; who created your creator? But it is more than that at this point in time. It is time to stop this multi-millennia display of arrogance from ignorance - only I am not so arrogant as to think for a moment I will over come this wanton ignorance.  But, I will take this as a teaching opportunity, with the hopes that some will be awakened to the sheer absurdity of this simplistic creation analogy. All I ask, is that one stops asking their particular superstition's interpreter (priest) questions better left to a qualified scientist in the related field.

Now, as to the cooking analogy, it is so lame that it generates a chuckle every time I read or hear it asserted in polite company. For it shows an extreme lack of investigative skills as well as an ignorance of evidentiarily verified hypotheses. And it also shows an educational deficiency in history, science and philosophy by someone asserting a scientific claim that has previously been refuted philosophically. Which shows that arrogance is indeed a property of ignorance.

If this Jessica and I were to walk up to a table covered with prepared food we would both be correct in presuming that the meal had been prepared. But that is the end of the intellectual honesty within this analogy. For starters, just like our origins and subsequent evolution into the primate that we are today, there is evidence, clues as to our place in a continuum. We can trace our ancestry back to amino acids in the primal soup of the early Earth. Our DNA has constituent parts represented in many species related to those from which we evolved down through Homo, hominid, primates, mammals, tetrapods and Chordates etc. In a similar sense, I am sure I could find the constituent parts, even fossils, of a prepared meal in the vicinity of Jessica's illusive culinary creator. But even this, is too simplistic for Jessica's analogy of a 'Creator' of this "dinner" of which she alludes.

If we take a critical look at this analogy with creator myths of many cultures, all of which are vastly different, in an attempt to maintain intellectual integrity, we find that it is totally inaccurate. For Jessica's analogy to be representative of the Judaeo-Christian creation myth, she and I would have to had known of a table that had been covered with this prepared meal since before recorded history. And of course every Moses, Paul, and Mary would have put their two cents into an explanation of its origin. Some with the motive of interpreting its relationship to the species to which they belonged, thinking it was a meal intended for human consumption while making excuses for the parts that were poisonous to humans with anthropocentric apologetics that created more questions than were answered. Still others are invoked into defending long held beliefs about the origins of this creation because it's key to myths they profess to be the bed rock of their faith in this superstition's power. While still others notice particular regularities that are measurable even evidentiarily predictable based on what they have discovered and changes they have observed and continue to observe. In the mean time, I notice that only 3% of the meal is even suitable for human consumption (of the living space on Earth humans can only avail ourselves to about 3%) which means that the anthropocentric explanations of a cook having us in mind as the recipients are fallacious at best. This invigorates me to postulate, then investigate alternative origins of this meal. Thus begins an inquiry into the actual properties of this supposed creation with other people checking my work for accuracy through repeatability and falsifiability of our claims.

At the same time Jessica scrambles to overcome the one property her superstition has, which, until now, had served her and those who believed as she did quite well. The fact that they could descend into the supernatural realm at the first hint that evidence would conflict with, or contradict, their pseudo-scientific claims as to the origins, and method of creation of this "meal." Unfortunately this only worked with claims and methodologies that were as poorly postulated or contrived as their superstitions. Furthermore, it left Jessica and her ilk with no evidence to support their assertions, which left a bad taste in their mouth in regard to the scientific method. Which they only subscribe to when it supports some detail that they think leads to their "cook" being the "chef." So Jessica et al. fell back on the fuzzy logic of their theology, while at the same time making pseudo-scientific claims in an attempt to obfuscate valid theories that have insurmountable evidence currently compiled, verified and integral to the continuation of medical advancements as well as many other fields of human endeavor. The problem is, theology is a subject many scientists, such as myself, indulge in as a hobby and, as such, have become quite skilled in the deconstruction of theological absurdities with the very evidence that Jessica and friends strive to obtain. Only, they have been handicapped by the very beliefs they are failing to defend.

Science has not only shown insurmountable evidence supporting biological evolution through natural selection, but physics is also inclined to evolve with an attraction of dissimilar charges being high among the forces involved. We now understand that this "meal" came about in incremental steps as opposed to all at once, as postulated through the "cook did it" theory. In fact, the solar system, life on this planet, and as it turns out, the whole universe came about in much the same way; small incremental accumulations of simple building blocks adding up to ever more complex bodies and relationships. Much as if our analogy was grown through the accumulation of simpler foodstuffs, in fact we have noted primitive vestigial versions of similar "meals" on other planets and in other systems. Meanwhile, Jessica and those motivated to maintain their failed god hypothesis, diligently write and rewrite their myths in an attempt to find gaps where science has not, as of yet, shown the light of discovery. But in so doing, have relinquished much to science and belittled themselves and their "cook" to the point of embarrassment and hypocrisy. And all this in an effort to defend a religion that has produced the Dark Ages, Inquisitions, witch hunts, Nazism, justification for racism, slavery, bigotry, misogyny and genocide, stifled higher learning for more than a thousand years and an endless list of other evils that continues even to this day.

Isn't it time to realize that no "cook" would have prepared a "meal" so wasteful that in relation to the universe we don't even amount to a billion trillion trillionth of its mass, nor is anyone implying that the "meal" was the intelligent agent that built itself, but is the result of a natural propensity for systems to find an equilibrium, a natural balance, if you will. And besides, the first cause argument has been refuted since Occam's Razor postulated that the universe did start without a creator and Stephen Hawking's theory of quantum fluctuations as the beginning of the universe.

And as for the "cook" itself, if one is proposing that the god of the Bible is the cook, then where is the evidence that it, ever did anything? The accounts in the old testament have been totally refuted, it has been shown to be anything but a historical document, and laughable as in any way scientific. All the books related to the canonized collection have been redacted endlessly, as well as fallaciously. Even the Bible itself is its own contradictory evidence. But, why would those who are so sure of their god bother to actually read the books from which their superstition is derived. Is it because anyone can see from the evolution of this deity, while following the Bible itself, that it is a concoction of a primitive waring goat herder tribe of bronze age desert dwellers? Even this Jesus construct in the the New Testament is the amalgamation of many post hoc old testament prophecies and Near Eastern pagan beliefs, Platonic ideologies, political treatise, and rhetorical theatrics. Such as the Pauline idea that Jesus was a theological idea not historical. Or the author of Mark using the Roman "Triumphal March" as a visual rhetorical device in the passion narrative, that is, the description of the crucifixion. The fact that there is nothing in the Bible that would not be known to anyone living at the turn of the era. It seems your cook didn't relay any of the important information about making calendars, personal hygiene, where babies come from, Australia - oh, and kangaroos. Who could make kangaroos and not want to tell everyone about them.

I know people such as Jessica and those of a similar persuasion, will never do the work it takes to actually learn anything about the religion they adhere to. Or for that matter, show any consideration for the sciences that have made their lives so much better than those who wrote the tomes upon which their superstitions are based. I have been a theologian for more than 45 years, so can say with some confidence that fundamentalism is a form of ignorance, and as a military man, can back it up with my understanding of those "by the book" types in that career field.

As two of my heroes have said:


Albert Einstein ~ "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


And Thomas Jefferson said, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."


When you are ready to stop "availing" yourself to the "lowest grade of ignorance" and free yourself to think for yourself, you'll find a beautiful world of discovery out there.