http://unitariansa.wordpress.com/

I’ve still got to link it up with the Youtube and itunes section (and populate it with coolness) but it’s a start. Sadly due to the positions I hold I don’t think I’ll be posting anything myself too often (except as comments). It’s really just a gateway for the church.

Ooh feel free to have it out with any foolishness you see there (I will). Especially when the sermons and podcasts start coming through. I’ll be maintaining it so you can post suggestions to the Email Address on the “Who are you anyway” page (if and when you feel like it).

Tanks,

Thor’Ungal.

To me, for an entity to be a “god,” that entity has to be consequential; there has to be a discernable positive effect if you believe in and worship that entity, and a discernable negative effect if you fail to do so. Theistic religions make this claim about the gods they posit, and these are testable claims. The problem is that, every time these claims have been put to the test, the evidence does not support them (in practice, nasty things happen just as often to the devout of any religion as they do to the non-devout), and this where anyone who describes himself as both a theist and a skeptic runs into trouble.

Deists are a different story, because the deist concept of “god” is much more malleable. My wife, for example, is a self-described deist in that she believes in a creator-entity that made the universe, but does not intervene in its subsequent running. I can’t argue with that notion in that, to paraphrase Mark Roberts as quoted in the post, such an entity is unfalsifiable, but because the existence (or lack thereof) of such an entity is inconsequential to our existences as human beings, I would argue that such an entity does not meet my definition of a “god.”

Thus, even though I acknowledge such an entity might exist, I refuse to shed the lable of “atheist” because “atheist” does not equal “adeist.” As it happens, I don’t believe in a deistic concept of a creator-entity either (though in good skeptical fashion, I’m prepared to change my mind on the basis of evidence regarding a deistic “god,” whereas I’m thoroughly convinced that any theistic concept of “god” is bunk), but if that’s what makes you happy, don’t let me stop you. At least you won’t be agitating for laws banning same-sex marriage because your god supposedly opposes it.

I thank you as well, Kylie.

sidfaiwu,

I haven’t much to say past this point, we mostly agree. Once you pull out the arrow of time from this question the whole thing unravels. I think we’ve got to nut out this word complexity a bit too since it I think this is really the only point we disagree on. I recon this might quickly colapse into a position where nothing needs explaining at all as long as we’re willing to classify it as a brute fact. A kind of solipsism for explainations (you know the argument “how do I even know you exist”, my Aunt infuriates me with it). But without outlying the kind of bootlaced structures that can determine what really does need to be contingent and what doesn’t I think we might hit an impass.

On this note can I recommend we pull this onto your blog (I think we can only deviate from the topic from here on). Maybe if you could leave a link here so people can follow our conversation if they’re really keen.

Thanks Kylie for tollerating our lengthy conversations ^_^ .

Thor’Ungal.

The purpose of my comment was really to highlight how one may be simultaneously skeptic and a deist. I wasn’t really fishing for a philosophical argument. But I always love a good discussion, especially if it hones skills.

Don’t worry about the level of philosophical skill – I only took a few courses in college. I just loved them so much that I’ve done amateur self-study since. I find that among skeptics and (or) atheists, my skills are near average in that area. Much of skepticism and the practice of philosophy is rooting out logical fallacies in arguments so there’s plenty of overlap. About the only advantage I may have is extensive training in formal logic thanks to graduate-level mathematics.

The modal version of the cosmological argument differs from the first cause argument in that the modal version is non-temporal (or at least not necessarily temporal). It deals with regressions of dependent things to at least one necessary thing instead of regressions of cause-and-effects to at least one first cause. But since you chose not to dispute the point for now, I’ll leave it at that.

It seems the version of the argument you looked up does present a false dichotomy at the outset. Here is the version I had in mind:

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

It’s worded so that it is generalized between the temporal and non-temporal versions for convenience.

You’ve granted for the purpose of discussion that we can take this argument as valid. Interestingly, we’ve come to the same conclusion, “it only establishes the ground of all being,” as you so eloquently put it. For years I made the mistake of presuming that the ultimately necessary thing need be complex (to the point of even having a personality). The universe itself could be the necessary thing (the ‘brute fact’ as it’s often called). But the universe itself is pretty damn complex. You might reply that it began simple and self-complexified over time. But remember that the modal version of the cosmological argument in non-temporal. There must be a necessary thing that all else is ultimately contingent upon now. Heck, time itself may very well be a contingent thing (I’ve actually heard this used as a counter-argument to the time-dependent cosmological argument). There may not be anything special about the direction we perceive time to flow… but I’m getting a little far afield there.

I’ve never heard of naturally occuring top down design (Ok bee hives, bridges, etc might be but that’s still a crane ultimately)

Actually, beehives, bridges, etc. were exactly what I had in mind when I made the statement. But things like super-novas, spontaneous turbulence of fluid flows and the like take ordered things and plunges them into chaos also work as well. I think you would reply that these things were first made complex from simple things. In the case of bees and humans, biological evolution came first, then the top down stuff. Likewise with stars and laminar flows. I would counter that there could be an oscillation between simplification and complexification. Indeed, simple went to complex via evolution and produced humans, which then down-designed polymers, which complexify when provided with the proper energy, which can simplify by melting in a fire, etc. Thus though the universe appears to have started simple, to the best of our knowledge, there’s no reason to assume that if it has a prior cause it must also be simpler. It could be a point at which a complex-to-simple cycle ended.

I also think we are playing with words, the level of agnosticism we both state puts us both in the same category as Richard

I think you are right. I was just trying to explain one reason why I might self-identify as deist. I am just as comfortable with atheist. Another reason is that when I call my self a deist in front of atheists, it often results in a really cool discussion with intelligent people.

I’d Agree with you here. As much as it gauls me to say I really must take some (alot) of things for granted just to get through the day.

The essentials:
1) Objective reality exists
2) Objective reality has a sense of cosmos to it (i.e. that there realy is a patern to it and it’s not just really massive coincidence that…say…gravity works)
3) My senses reflect some part of this world (I’m not just a brain in a vat)
4) Placeholder for the hundred or so things evolution has lumbered on me that I’m not even aware of

The practicals:
1) Authority within reason (I trust Science as long as it doesn’t trigger my baloney detection sense)
2) What I observe within reason (I trust my own senses under similar conditions to the first)
3) The truth of friends/family/trusted collegues within reason
4) placeholder for what I’ve missed

I think it is important to realise our assumtions thougheven if we can’t live effectively without them. Kind of Like free will (well I’m a compatiblist so it’s more complicated in my case).

Thanks for the compliment. I like arguing but please let me first be frank. I like Deists. I live in a comunity full of them and they are both reasonable, skeptical and often intellectually honest (I think they’d have to be to have rejected theism for it). Also I am not a philosopher, I am an engineer. If you are a philosopher then I will get crushed in any argument in that field and unfortunately not be able to put up much of a fight (sorry). I don’t concider the consequences of either of our views as bad and so argue only because it hones my skills in thinking and let’s face it thinking rocks.

I’d never heard of the “Libniz’s modal cosmological argument” and had to look it up (I am shamed). Thankfully it sounds similar to the first cause argument (well as much as the Kalam is a varient of the teliological argument). Instead of disagree with you I’ll say sure, I think the argument has a point. Unfortunately it only establishes the ground of all being. In other words some set of rules by which the universe opperates (kind of like Conways Life). A framework so to say. A brute fact. The argument states that it colapses to two options:

1) The universe just is
2) “God” exists and is therefore the ground of all being.

These really aren’t all that different. The Gigas mechanism still opperates as God. God is a brute fact, the universe is a brute fact, the Gigas mechanism is a brute fact, etc.

The greater concern with this argument is the objection to point 1. Aside from being a false dicotomy (for instance a fundimental geometry might be the brute fact or in my case the Gigas mechanism) why would it be absurd? And how does postulating a god solve this?

I’ve never heard of naturally occuring top down design (Ok bee hives, bridges, etc might be but that’s still a crane ultimately), could you give an example?

I also think we are playing with words, the level of agnosticism we both state puts us both in the same category as Richard who also thinks that the universe requires an explaination. He just thinks it is an extention of the natural laws rather than a deity, in fact the way you’ve defined a deity I think he’d agree with you (I’ve never met him and don’t really know him so he might not too).

Thanks for the chat, I better get back to work before people ask why I’m looking thoughtful and not stressed.

Regards,

Thor’Ungal.

As much as we’d like to have privileged views of our brains, they are constructed to work in a socialised, personal world. They also demand answers regardless of whether there is anything to base them on. So, faced with big questions, it’s natural to react with ‘something with a personality might be responsible’.

Skepticism is a philosophy that says before we form any such conclusions, we need objective, empirical reasons. If we rigidly adhered to this philosophy, we’d view a number of things in the universe as unanswerable for the moment (and some permanently so).

BUT…given this goes against how our brains evolved to work, obviously there are going to be large numbers of people who find it uncomfortable, or damn near impossible, to rigidly stick to a skeptical philosophy. To alleviate some of this personal discomfort, some relaxing of the philosophy will take place. I think we all do this from time to time with different things, given that the rewards of comfort or social cohesion will often outweigh the pragmatic benefits of rigid skepticism.

For those who argue ‘it’s not skeptical’, I might agree, but I’ll also ask ‘so what?’. If you wish to argue the benefits of skepticism, fine, but it does have its limits. I feel skepticism is a valuable tool where part of its strength is in determining where its benefits lie, and where applying it may instead make life more difficult.

As a skepitc and a deist of sorts, this interested me, of course. I wonder if the difference between atheist-skeptics who accept deists and those that don’t is the same difference that divides the incremental atheists and revolutionary atheists. The incrementalists want to improve the social acceptance of atheism while the revolutionists want the complete undoing of all religious belief. This is the main divide I’ve experienced in the atheist community.

RE: Thor’Ungal – That was a well written comment. I’ve made the very assumptions you discuss. Dawkins’ The God Delusion pointed out these assumptions and I’ve since abandoned them. I still think there is an argument for the existence of some sort of ultimate cause because of Leibniz’s modal cosmological argument (TGD only address the Kalam cosmological argument), but no longer believe that said ultimate cause need be complex (intelligent, etc.).

I also think TGD goes to far and assumes the ultimate cause need be simple. Extrapolating from one scientific concept, biological evolution, to the entire universe isn’t sufficiently justified based on our present knowledge. The universe contains examples of both top-down and bottom-up design. To prefer one over the other as it applies to the universe itself is problematic at best.

Since I admit that this ultimate cause may be simple, it also admits that it my not properly be called ‘god’. Thus I describe my theological position as deist-agnostic. This is almost purely a philosophical position based mostly on reason. Of course, such a philosophical position has absolutely no application to my life. The lack of evidence for an intelligent, intervening god means my default position is no god. Thus I function as an atheist.

Thanks for reading. These are just some thoughts from someone who’s comfortable identifying with both deists and atheists.

I think I would have written a profoundly different piece had I not already read the above comments.

To make matters clear:
1) I consider myself a Bright (noun not adjective).
2) I disagree with Deists at an intellectual level (in fact I’ll take a step back and say an intuitive level mediated by evidence, frankly just I don’t see the other side as stupid).
3) I have vast sympathy for skeptical Deists and surprisingly less for non-skeptical Atheists. I have had arguments with conspiracy theorists that have left me a little jaded. It also helps that I am a Unitarian Humanist and attend church with Unitarian Christians, Buddhists, Jews, etc (we’re all on big happy, occasionally argumentative family ).

Having laid my biases out for criticism I can begin.

When I hear the term deism I am reminded my some things Carl Sagan wrote on regarding the great demotions. Rarely our initial intuitive ideas on things turn out to be right. It is humbling to think that the geocentric model of the universe is in fact more intuitive until one looks at the evidence. On this I point out some typical assumptions we make on the nature of a deity.
Firstly that this deity is intelligent, something akin to our own intelligence just bigger and more perfect. Access to limitless information on any time and place and an infinite processing ability to cope with it. To illustrate why I think this might be I introduce a thought experiment called the Gigus Mechanism. This requires certain properties of it’s parts, these being universes must as part of their formation have a sufficiently large space time and a specific balance on condensed Energy or rocks, gass and liquid (also being conducive to life as a by-product). Additionally being outside space and time it has developed feedback mechanisms through a system of heritability of parts to ensure their genesis is consistent with this. This machine is not sentient, certainly not intelligent but is an entity outside of space-time that could have spawned a lithogenic (and therefore occasionally anthropogenic) universe. I think that this is not what the deist has in mind when they talk of god however.
So why then must God be cognisant? I think the reason is something of a shortcut. Like the idea of a soul comes complete with memory, vision, hearing, touch, emotions, cognition, etc. A God seems to come with intelligence, Emotion (love in particular) and a desire for Life (especially with our kind of minds). These two concepts (Dualism and Deism) are not necessarily connected but I think they do come from a common source, our intuition.
We cannot be certain that the flying spaghetti monster isn’t real. But it helps if you get Bobby Henderson to admit he just made it up. Isn’t this the same with God. If our minds are predisposed to believe in an intelligent cause isn’t this synonymous with nature “making up” God albeit by accident. If we are to be agnostic about a god, let’s be aware of just how agnostic we really are. A deity is an occupant of a truly vast realm of agnostic entities, few we tend to imagine, some we can’t imagine even as an approximation.

However,

this does not make it not true. In the end the question of a deist god isn’t a skeptical question. It makes no testable claims. Frankly it can even be put that Deism does have positive benefits. Something I have noticed about people in my own church (and these people if they are theists are almost to a person deists) is that a sense of spirit helps some people feel more connected to the universe in a way that being a bright finds it harder to do. It appeals to our intuitions and works hand in hand with our psychology. As I said I have vast sympathies with deists even if I couldn’t be one myself.

I apologize if I just Straw manned any positions people might hold (it’s devilishly hard to guess people’s minds)

Oh and to Kylie, sorry for such a long post

Thor’Ungal

I feel disappointed by the strength of anti-religious tone in some of the early comments. I think Gazza constructs something of a strawman in the implication that believers necessarily accept their religion “at face value”, but I agree in principle that religion shouldn’t be treated differently from other claims. What alienates people is dismissal of their beliefs without first seeking to understand them, and the trouble with many articles by atheist sceptics is that they seem ill informed about the diversity of perspectives on the other side. The right to criticise comes with the responsibility to listen.

Gazza wrote: ‘What about if someone was prepared to accept every single paranormal claim at face value except religious claims? Are they “in the club”?’
I’d say yes – but which religious claims do you mean?

Gazza wrote: “Why is it that professed Christian skeptics do not apply their skepticism to their religion?”

What evidence do you have that some don’t? I would quote Dr Henn, from another conversation about his early influences in a church which encouraged questioning one’s faith, but I can’t seem to find it at the moment. I will, however say that your comment reminds me of the classic example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy – nothing more than checking off a box.
Shamus: No true Scotsman puts sugar in ‘is porridge.
McTavish: But I’m a Scotsman, an’ I put sugar in me porridge.
Shamus: Then you’re nay a true Scotsman.
When you start suggesting a list of things that a skeptic must do before he can be called a skeptic, you are using the same fallacy, unless you can show that these things are required in order to be a skeptic, which I do not believe you have done. A skeptic can be described as a person who simply questions certain things, which is why I say we are all skeptics about some things and we are all non-skeptics about others.

I would not deem myself worthy of deciding who is and who isn’t a skeptic based upon checkboxes, but I would certainly say that we cannot discount the contributions of people of faith.

I do have a problem with Deism, much as I have a problem with “moderate” religious folk.
Both suckers give succour to the extremists.

(I feel much better now, thank you!…;)

@kylie: great piece! Even as an atheist I worry that organized skepticism is hostile to believers who can value and employ the tools of skepticism.

I’ve attended skeptic conferences where skeptical people happily discuss their faith (Christian, Judaism, etc) over dinner

This is a very different claim from deism (which is so similar to atheism as to be barely worthy of its own word, IMHO).

Why is it that professed Christian skeptics do not apply their skepticism to their religion? Would we be prepared to say that someone that believed in ghosts but not UFOs was a skeptic? Is it a matter of how many things you’re skeptical about? What about if someone was prepared to accept every single paranormal claim at face value except religious claims? Are they “in the club”?

Belief in the paranormal, whether that be a belief in ghosts, UFOs, psychics, invisible pink unicorns, or religion, is still a non-skeptical belief. I’m not saying such people should be ostracised or whatever, but I also don’t see any particular reason to view religious claims any differently than anything else – the motive of most people that want to do so seems to be that religious beliefs are so entrenched that you risk alienating a large number of people – but skepticism and the scientific method in general are not about populism. Weird beliefs are weird beliefs, no matter how popular they are – and the beliefs associated with everyone’s favourite desert death cult are definitely weird beliefs if viewed objectively.

That is, unless these religious skeptics are in possession of some evidence that they’re not sharing with us atheist skeptics?

1. I used to be an atheist, but now I’m a deist. Now that I know that there is a god, but that god does nothing now, how does this change how I interact with people and the world?

2. I used to be a deist, but now I’m an atheist. Now that I know that the god I once thought did nothing is now nonexistent, how does this change how I interact with people the world?

I found no practical difference. I have no problem with deism. It is meaningless.