Are we contending that if God were to exist, it would have to be a default sceptic? Otherwise I'm not quite sure I get this one. As to me it appears it would favour a creationist over that of an atheist. It seems to be of the view of the likes of David Hume regarding knowledge and perception, or perhaps a Socratic paradox. In which case both the creationist and the atheist would be at a stalemate and have to concede that neither knows, and both positions are reliant on belief only, which is close to the standard position of a creationist anyway, no?
I think it has more to do with infinite regress. I don't think it favours either atheist or theist. It is most unlikely to favour creationism given that creationists dogmatically insist that they know the answer. Atheism seems less about insisting on what they know, rather that they do not believe in a deity.
I'd have to agree with you, if indeed that is the held position of both the atheist and the creationist as you say. In which case the creationist should then have to concede that they believe rather than know. Whether or not any of them would concede is another matter, I'm certainly aware that many of them would not. It still holds though that both positions are one of belief rather than knowing. As for the idea of infinite regress, it would certainly pose a question to many of the attributes some creationist attach to their own particular belief systems, but I don't see it as a particular problem specifically to the idea of a creator in itself.
There is a willingness on the part of many atheists to say they don't know and a lack of that willingness on the part of creationists. I'm distinguishing, as I presume you are, between creationists and theists. My own personal position is physicalism. The metaphysical I don't bother with. Infinite regress I think does pose a problem for the creator idea which is what seems to be suggested in the above meme. It seems the obvious question to ask and the answer is invariably arbitrary.
I'm not sure a distinction between theist and creationist is necessary, as whatever distinctions could be made between the two I don't think is relevant to the point that they should have to concede to not knowing. I agree the question regards the meme may seem an obvious one, and an answer can be invariably arbitrary, but I still don't see the problem. If it turned out to be true, the creationist could be content in their position of having a creator, and simply not care about anything beyond that. Regards my own personal position, perhaps you've gathered from my comments on other posts, with my familiar line of holding "I don't know" over "I believe". I find many philosophical musings to be of interest, and science too.
The theist can be more open to ideas without citing Scripture. They can be less insistent on claiming access to an inerrant truth. They strike me as coming closer to the 'I believe' rather than the 'I know' position. That is the problem - the creationist not just being content but dogmatic with their position, rejecting evolution and geology, and then demanding that young earth creationism and special human creation be taught in science classes. Infinite regress does not cause a problem for a creationist but it is likely to for anybody thinking about it. There are lots of things we don't know just as there are lots of things we believe. Where I believe I try to say it and where I don't know I try to say that too. I like both philosophy and science.
Haha, I suppose the very concepts of infinity and paradoxes can be rather difficult for humans to wrap their head around.
I certainly would have no problem opposing the teaching in schools of religious dogma as factual, I hope at the very least that much has been clear of me.
The position of the sceptic as mentioned in my initial comment might serve as a feedback loop or a bookend here. I do enjoy these little memes though, and I enjoyed the discussion too. Cheers the now Anthony.
Are we contending that if God were to exist, it would have to be a default sceptic? Otherwise I'm not quite sure I get this one. As to me it appears it would favour a creationist over that of an atheist. It seems to be of the view of the likes of David Hume regarding knowledge and perception, or perhaps a Socratic paradox. In which case both the creationist and the atheist would be at a stalemate and have to concede that neither knows, and both positions are reliant on belief only, which is close to the standard position of a creationist anyway, no?
ReplyDeleteI think it has more to do with infinite regress.
DeleteI don't think it favours either atheist or theist. It is most unlikely to favour creationism given that creationists dogmatically insist that they know the answer. Atheism seems less about insisting on what they know, rather that they do not believe in a deity.
I'd have to agree with you, if indeed that is the held position of both the atheist and the creationist as you say. In which case the creationist should then have to concede that they believe rather than know. Whether or not any of them would concede is another matter, I'm certainly aware that many of them would not. It still holds though that both positions are one of belief rather than knowing. As for the idea of infinite regress, it would certainly pose a question to many of the attributes some creationist attach to their own particular belief systems, but I don't see it as a particular problem specifically to the idea of a creator in itself.
DeleteThere is a willingness on the part of many atheists to say they don't know and a lack of that willingness on the part of creationists. I'm distinguishing, as I presume you are, between creationists and theists.
DeleteMy own personal position is physicalism. The metaphysical I don't bother with.
Infinite regress I think does pose a problem for the creator idea which is what seems to be suggested in the above meme. It seems the obvious question to ask and the answer is invariably arbitrary.
I'm not sure a distinction between theist and creationist is necessary, as whatever distinctions could be made between the two I don't think is relevant to the point that they should have to concede to not knowing. I agree the question regards the meme may seem an obvious one, and an answer can be invariably arbitrary, but I still don't see the problem. If it turned out to be true, the creationist could be content in their position of having a creator, and simply not care about anything beyond that. Regards my own personal position, perhaps you've gathered from my comments on other posts, with my familiar line of holding "I don't know" over "I believe". I find many philosophical musings to be of interest, and science too.
DeleteThe theist can be more open to ideas without citing Scripture. They can be less insistent on claiming access to an inerrant truth. They strike me as coming closer to the 'I believe' rather than the 'I know' position.
DeleteThat is the problem - the creationist not just being content but dogmatic with their position, rejecting evolution and geology, and then demanding that young earth creationism and special human creation be taught in science classes.
Infinite regress does not cause a problem for a creationist but it is likely to for anybody thinking about it.
There are lots of things we don't know just as there are lots of things we believe. Where I believe I try to say it and where I don't know I try to say that too.
I like both philosophy and science.
Haha, I suppose the very concepts of infinity and paradoxes can be rather difficult for humans to wrap their head around.
DeleteI certainly would have no problem opposing the teaching in schools of religious dogma as factual, I hope at the very least that much has been clear of me.
The position of the sceptic as mentioned in my initial comment might serve as a feedback loop or a bookend here. I do enjoy these little memes though, and I enjoyed the discussion too. Cheers the now Anthony.
I don't know Matt.
DeleteWe meet paradoxes throughout our lives.
Numbers are infinite, and physics is math.
The true believer can buy into an infinite being on the basis of faith. Others see no evidence of such a being.
You have never come across as a creationist otherwise there would be little point in discussing the matter with you!!!