One of the things that is most commonly misunderstood in arguments between theists and atheists is the extent to which they go “all the way down”: the disagreement extends far into the question of what the disagreement IS and MEANS and INVOLVES.

Here’s Alasdair MacIntyre:
One striking instance of not appreciating this is Keith Parsons the noted (former) philosopher of religion’s remark here.

“Both theism and atheism begin with an uncaused brute fact.”

This is wrong. Atheism MUST include brute facts. Theism MUST exclude them. They are OPPOSED.
The atheist cannot conceptualize God as other than a brute fact. That is, the atheist cannot conceptualize God.
The theist cannot conceptualize a brute fact. Neither can the atheist. That is because brute facts are utterly unintelligible. They are repugnant to reason and are direct repudiations of the Principle of Reason.

This is what I mean when I say atheism entails rejecting reason.
To accept an ontology that allows “brute facts” just is to accept an ontology that allows things and events which exist or happen FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

And as I have often noted, this allowance cannot be CABINED, that is, it cannot be LIMITED to the “safe” fringes of being.
Once you allow that things and events can exist or happen FOR NO REASON AT ALL, you cannot ever, not once, rationally offer any reasoned account of anything without adding “unless of course it happened FOR NO REASON AT ALL.”

And you have to MEAN that.
The other day @AStratelates reminded me of this cartoon, which comedically shows the reason-destroying ramifications of this position.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

10 Dec
Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen epitomizes the scientific attitude (re: the Comedian’s murder):

“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
EVERY science begins with a number of foundational principles that are THEMSELVES non-scientific.

Physics begins from the idea that there is a material world, that it is uniform, that it is regular, etc.
Biology begins the the assumption that there are living beings.

This is of course not an irrational thing to believe. It is actually true.

But the point is that SCIENCE doesn’t know that it is true. Physics can’t tell a “living being” from any other being.
Read 8 tweets
10 Dec
”Can morality have a rational justification if atheism or naturalism is true?”

Let’s see how Ed Feser tackles this question and if it is (more or less) how I do.
Good so far

Morality understood as a system of rewards and punishments is JUST NOT morality.

Neither does the mere fact of God commanding something make it right, as if God were a cosmic dictator.

These ideas of the relation of morality to God get both God and morality wrong.
Also so far, so good.

The PROXIMATE ground of morality is NATURE, that is, the NATURES of things, and for beings with rational natures, as expressed in the NATURAL LAW.

This classical understanding of NATURE must be distinguished from the MODERN ONE, which has no moral force.
Read 25 tweets
10 Dec
I’m on the 2nd page (numbered 4), and I have already identified Sobel’s Πρῶτον ψεῦδος / Grundirrtum, i.e. the foundational error at the beginning whence everything that follows goes awry. As St. Thomas says, “A small error at the beginning can lead to great errors later." Image
I thought Sobel’s contention that “God” was a proper name was just a basic error, one I could overlook—although when one is writing a book about God, one really ought to know the grammar of the word—but I was mistaken.

It is a part of a RHETORICAL STRATEGY.
As you can see, Sobel is able, in calling “God” a proper name, to claim that in order to find out what “God exists” means, we’d need to know the KIND of thing “God” is a proper example of, and of course he picks “god.”

“God” is a proper name for a god, just like “Thor.” Image
Read 4 tweets
9 Dec
David Bentley Hart makes some very similar points. ImageImageImageImage
Here is Hart: Image
The experience of God is the BEST POSSIBLE evidence for the existence of God. Any good faith effort to find out whether there is God or not will necessarily involve the methods by means of which one most opens oneself up to the experience of God.
Read 9 tweets
9 Dec
Since we can know that God is perfect, we can know that God is (perfectly) wise and just.

So we know that all God’s acts are perfectly wise and just.

Some of God’s acts may not seem to we fallen & finite beings to be wise and just, but that is because we are fallen & finite.
My general argument in this territory is that we are simply NEVER in a sufficient epistemic position to JUDGE GOD.

This is the teaching of the book of Job.
1 No human being is ever in an epistemic position to justifiably judge God
2 Many atheistic arguments depend on human beings being justifiably able to judge God
3 ∴ any atheistic argument that requires this is necessarily unsound.
Read 11 tweets
22 Nov
Aristotle’s relationship to Plato on this point is misunderstood.

I there were a “Platonism” scale from 0-5, Plato would be a 3 and Aristotle a 2, whereas the members of the Academy against who Aristotle contended would be more of a 4.
Idealism would be a 5, and Nominalism a 0.

Assuming we equate “Platonism” (much too simply) as “realism regarding abstract entities.”

Plato did not, e.g. think artifacts like toasters or houses had an ἰδέα in the full sense.
Aristotle is ENTIRELY clear in the Metaphysics: YES, independent abstract primary substances do exist. In other words, Aristotle affirms the existence of PLATONICA.

He does seem to think these are FEWER than Plato did, but he in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM (pun intended) DENIES THEM.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!