The contradiction screams to the skies (is that where God lives?). See, the entire premise of religion relies on a metaphysics that claims a soul: a metaphysical entity that is "attached" to our physical body and gives us our consciousness, desires, pleasures, agony and so on. In addition to that, religion claims that morality and the rules written in the scriptures were handed down to us from a metaphysical God.
Now, assuming your silicon-based model is conscious, the bundle of soul-spirit-consciousness falls apart at that very moment.
In general, religion, which is based on fabricated stories, is the last resort, if ever, for seeking morality.
Existence demands a metaphysical explanation. If you’re not a particularly thoughtful person then you’re not going to care.
“Religion” just means “set of beliefs”. Every person has some set of beliefs.
If you’re an athiest tech worker living in a major city, you still have a religion, it’s just a random mishmash of various things (like Marvel movies and Huberman podcasts) rather than based on something more intentional.
Yes I am saying the opposite of that, “atheism” is just a particular class of religions. Some religions posit many gods, some just 2 gods, some 1 god, atheism posits 0 gods.
Perhaps the only difference between atheism and the others is that atheists are so boorish and conceited that they think that they just believe what is true because they deny that assaying metaphysical truth is even a thing you need to do or can do at all.
This is related to the fact that in modernity atheism is the default class of religion for the masses. Before that for a thousand years the default class of religion was monotheism, and before that polytheism. With atheism unlike the other classes of religions, you get a natural tendency to deny metaphysics whereas metaphysics is inherent in the others. This matters a lot when we’re talking about how the masses engage with things.
> If you’re an athiest tech worker living in a major city, you still have a religion, it’s just a random mishmash of various things (like Marvel movies and Huberman podcasts) rather than based on something more intentional.
> atheists are so boorish and conceited that they think that they just believe what is true because they deny that assaying metaphysical truth is even a thing you need to do or can do at all.
What, all of them? You don't think it might be possible, e.g., that someone might grow up holding some sort of theistic beliefs, and be more intentional about those beliefs than the people around them and decide that actually there are probably no gods? That some people might arrive at an atheistic position precisely by "assaying metaphysical truth"?
(Or does something only count as "metaphysical truth" if it's not atheistic?)
> in modernity atheism is the default class of religion for the masses.
I'm not sure what you mean by "modernity" to make that true. Something like 60% of US adults describe themselves as Christian. Likewise for people in Europe. No doubt a lot of those people aren't very actively and enthusiastically Christian, but that doesn't seem to me to be what "atheism is the default class of religion" would look like. And the figures were much higher, say, 50 years ago, and if you're reckoning "modernity" to start after then then you've got a very eccentric definition of that term.
That there is G-d or at least Divinity (more than one god), is a direct logical consequence of existence. It can be reached and understood purely through logic, the essential “trick” being to recognize that when trying to understand the fact of existence, you always end up asking “ok so what came before that”, this is inherent to the structure of human reason. “Where does the world come from, it comes from the Big Bang, and where did that infinitely small point of matter come from? It came from universes in the multiverse colliding with one another (M-theory), ok and where did those multiple universes come from?” Etc
Aristotle’s Prime Mover is the first articulation of this, and there are others that take different tacts such as Thomas Aquinas and Descartes.
Note that this does not at all describe or inform or prove the particular nature of G-d I.e. that G-d is the god described in the Bible who wants particular things, has a particular relationship with existence and with Man. You cannot access that understanding or knowledge through pure reason, the only thing you can understand/know through pure reason is that there is G-d. This is the reason, by the way, that G-d created existence because G-d’s nature can only be understood/known by experience (as in experience is a necessary but not sufficient condition).
Notice that I am saying “that there is G-d”, not “that G-d exists”. G-d is “prior to” or “above” existence, existence “comes from” G-d. Understanding this and understanding Aristotle’s Prime Mover are the same phenomenon of understanding in the mind.
Also by modernity I basically mean post-Enlightenment, not just 50 years ago but post-Industrial Revolution/post-urbanization is another useful epoch to consider.
(I remark that my comment that's the grandparent of this one challenged a couple of specific claims you made about atheists, and that what you say here makes no attempt whatever to address those challenges, preferring instead to argue that atheists are wrong, which is entirely beside the point. What you claimed is that atheists are boorish, conceited, oblivious to metaphysics, and given to believing random things rather than "anything more intentional"; even if your first-cause argument for "Divinity" were perfectly valid it would not establish that any of those things are true about atheists.)
> That there is [...] at least Divinity [...] is a direct logical consequence of existence.
No it isn't.
The sort of infinite-regress argument you describe has, as you say, been around since the time of Aristotle. It's been a bad argument since the time of Aristotle too.
1. Obviously you can keep asking "OK, and what came before that?" or "why?" or whatever. Equally obviously this doesn't prove anything about the ultimate nature of reality, because the mere fact that one can keep asking such a question obviously isn't the kind of thing that could possibly prove anything about the ultimate nature of reality.
It might be a different matter if there were some guarantee that we could sensibly always keep asking such a question, but there isn't. At some point the answer might be "literally nothing came before that" or "for no reason". We might find that unsatisfying but reality is not obliged to satisfy us.
2. You haven't actually made your argument explicit, so let me try to do so. "We can always ask what came before. This can't really go on for ever, so at some point we will have to land on something about which we can no longer ask that, quod dicimus deum." There are several serious problems with this.
(a) It could, in fact, really go on for ever. Maybe there just is a neverending supply of predecessors when we ask "what was before that?" (including when we ask "what was before that whole chain of predecessors?" and "what was before that?" and so on). You might find that unsatisfying but, again, reality is not obliged to satisfy us.
(a') It could go on for ever without being infinite. Maybe everything is cyclic in some sense. Again, arguably unsatisfying but reality is not obliged to satisfy us.
(b) It isn't actually true that if we land on "God" as an answer then we can no longer ask "what came before that?". We might choose not to, but only because there's a tradition of not asking that question or of shutting it down as illegitimate when asked (as e.g. it commonly is by small children when they're told that God made everything). There are religious traditions in which gods were made by or born from earlier gods or earlier proto-gods. The "Abrahamic" tradition is very much not one of those, but just as you can ask "so where did the multiverse come from?" you can ask "so where did God come from?".
(c) There could be a point beyond which there is no answer to "so what came before that?" without that last (or rather first) thing being anything remotely like a god. For instance, maybe (i) when you keep asking "what came before that" literally, referring to time as we experience it, you eventually get to some point that's "earliest" in the same way as the south pole is "southernmost" and there is nothing "earlier" in the universe, and (ii) if you then say "so what came before the universe?" in some broader sense the answer is "nothing did". Then the universe plays the role of "first mover". Once again, you might find this less satisfying than putting a god in that role, but reality is not obliged to satisfy you. Or maybe you might say that in-some-sense-prior to the universe are the laws of physics but those are even less godlike than the universe. (But also less like the sort of thing that needs anything to have "come before". Yet again, you might find it unsatisfying for there to be laws without a lawgiver but yet again reality is not obliged to satisfy you.)
(d) No argument I've ever seen for why a god is a better candidate for "thing we stop asking 'what came before' about" than the universe has seemed any good to me. Maybe you've got a better one than I've seen, but that's not the way I would bet.
> Note that this does not at all describe or inform or prove the particular nature of G-d
(I remark that the paragraph beginning with what I've just quoted was edited into monideas's comment while I was writing this one, without any acknowledgement that anything had been changed. It's only by chance that I happened to see the change.)
That grotesquely understates how little any first-cause argument says about the nature of the thing it allegedly proves that there is. You can call your "first cause" by any name you please, "God" included, but calling something a god doesn't make it one.
(I reiterate that I don't actually think that any first-cause argument manages to establish the existence[1] of anything. But even if somehow it did, it would tell you far far too little about that thing to justify attaching a name like "God" to it.)
[1] I know that you prefer to use "exists" more narrowly and to say that "God is" rather than "God exists". Feel free to substitute "being" or some more complicated phrase; what I mean by "existence" here is "the thing that theistic first-cause arguments are claimed to establish about God".
> by modernity I basically mean post-Enlightenment
Then it is hilariously false to say that in modernity atheism is "the default class of religion for the masses". The great majority of the masses in the "Western" world were (at least in name) Christian at the time of the Enlightenment and at every time since until very recently.
> there is no answer to "so what came before that?"
Obviously, it's turtles all the way down! :-) GGP here, just checking in to say I enjoyed your thorough response. Nicely done. Reading it brought back good times I had back in the day on r/DebateAnAtheist (~15 yrs ago now!). I admit I'm weak. I just couldn't summon the will to run through the "First Mover" yet again with a traditionalist apologist - even for old times sake. Athough a classic, it's so, so very... tired. Thank you for picking up the gauntlet.
I'll never understand why traditionalist monotheists love their first-mover so much (and why does it always have to be monotheists? Polys are much more fun). Traditional apologists have obviously played through ALL the standard 'moves' and variants of the first mover dozens of times and know it inevitably ends in an unsatisfying stalemate with anyone who's seen it or, "in modernity", consults their LLM. Maybe apologists keep trotting it out because they must still ocassionally run into someone who hasn't seen it? Or perhaps they just enjoy it, like singing an old, comforting hymn. Anyway, you not only get to play through an old standard, it looks like you're also in for non-responsive tangents and not-at-all-subtle dismissive condescension. Enjoy!
You and the other reddit atheists are not more intelligent than Aristotle and Descartes (understatement). A bit of humility goes a long way. Fundamentally you don't understand what is being argued.
Words are used but they don't create the same meaning-phenomena in the mind. Basically when you read these arguments from Artistotle, Descartes, and others you read the words but you don't understand. You kind of have to first understand to understand (Nietzche talks about this). In Kabbalah this is described by the interaction between Chochma (Wisdom) -> Binah (Understanding) -> Daat (Knowledge). Chochma/Wisdom being the initial flash of insight which then gets transmitted/nurtured into conscious understanding by Binah, a sensation/phenomenon everyone who has studied math or anything difficult conceptually will understand.
I say this as a former "reddit atheist" who first encountered these arguments from Aristotle and Descartes in college in an introduction to philosophy course. I didn't actually understand what they were saying and I dismissed it out of hand (I read the words but didn't actually understand). It wasn't until years later that I came to an understanding of it.
You can read my response below/above which I think nudges closer to inducing the flash of insight needed.
Thanks for the kind words! Arguably I'm weaker than you are. "Couldn't be bothered" versus "couldn't resist". Yours is probably the wiser option.
tzury · · focus · HN ↗
Now, assuming your silicon-based model is conscious, the bundle of soul-spirit-consciousness falls apart at that very moment.
In general, religion, which is based on fabricated stories, is the last resort, if ever, for seeking morality.
monideas · · focus · HN ↗
“Religion” just means “set of beliefs”. Every person has some set of beliefs.
If you’re an athiest tech worker living in a major city, you still have a religion, it’s just a random mishmash of various things (like Marvel movies and Huberman podcasts) rather than based on something more intentional.
mrandish · · focus · HN ↗
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
monideas · · focus · HN ↗
Perhaps the only difference between atheism and the others is that atheists are so boorish and conceited that they think that they just believe what is true because they deny that assaying metaphysical truth is even a thing you need to do or can do at all.
This is related to the fact that in modernity atheism is the default class of religion for the masses. Before that for a thousand years the default class of religion was monotheism, and before that polytheism. With atheism unlike the other classes of religions, you get a natural tendency to deny metaphysics whereas metaphysics is inherent in the others. This matters a lot when we’re talking about how the masses engage with things.
gjm11 · · focus · HN ↗
> atheists are so boorish and conceited that they think that they just believe what is true because they deny that assaying metaphysical truth is even a thing you need to do or can do at all.
What, all of them? You don't think it might be possible, e.g., that someone might grow up holding some sort of theistic beliefs, and be more intentional about those beliefs than the people around them and decide that actually there are probably no gods? That some people might arrive at an atheistic position precisely by "assaying metaphysical truth"?
(Or does something only count as "metaphysical truth" if it's not atheistic?)
> in modernity atheism is the default class of religion for the masses.
I'm not sure what you mean by "modernity" to make that true. Something like 60% of US adults describe themselves as Christian. Likewise for people in Europe. No doubt a lot of those people aren't very actively and enthusiastically Christian, but that doesn't seem to me to be what "atheism is the default class of religion" would look like. And the figures were much higher, say, 50 years ago, and if you're reckoning "modernity" to start after then then you've got a very eccentric definition of that term.
monideas · · focus · HN ↗
Aristotle’s Prime Mover is the first articulation of this, and there are others that take different tacts such as Thomas Aquinas and Descartes.
Note that this does not at all describe or inform or prove the particular nature of G-d I.e. that G-d is the god described in the Bible who wants particular things, has a particular relationship with existence and with Man. You cannot access that understanding or knowledge through pure reason, the only thing you can understand/know through pure reason is that there is G-d. This is the reason, by the way, that G-d created existence because G-d’s nature can only be understood/known by experience (as in experience is a necessary but not sufficient condition).
Notice that I am saying “that there is G-d”, not “that G-d exists”. G-d is “prior to” or “above” existence, existence “comes from” G-d. Understanding this and understanding Aristotle’s Prime Mover are the same phenomenon of understanding in the mind.
Also by modernity I basically mean post-Enlightenment, not just 50 years ago but post-Industrial Revolution/post-urbanization is another useful epoch to consider.
gjm11 · · focus · HN ↗
> That there is [...] at least Divinity [...] is a direct logical consequence of existence.
No it isn't.
The sort of infinite-regress argument you describe has, as you say, been around since the time of Aristotle. It's been a bad argument since the time of Aristotle too.
1. Obviously you can keep asking "OK, and what came before that?" or "why?" or whatever. Equally obviously this doesn't prove anything about the ultimate nature of reality, because the mere fact that one can keep asking such a question obviously isn't the kind of thing that could possibly prove anything about the ultimate nature of reality.
It might be a different matter if there were some guarantee that we could sensibly always keep asking such a question, but there isn't. At some point the answer might be "literally nothing came before that" or "for no reason". We might find that unsatisfying but reality is not obliged to satisfy us.
2. You haven't actually made your argument explicit, so let me try to do so. "We can always ask what came before. This can't really go on for ever, so at some point we will have to land on something about which we can no longer ask that, quod dicimus deum." There are several serious problems with this.
(a) It could, in fact, really go on for ever. Maybe there just is a neverending supply of predecessors when we ask "what was before that?" (including when we ask "what was before that whole chain of predecessors?" and "what was before that?" and so on). You might find that unsatisfying but, again, reality is not obliged to satisfy us.
(a') It could go on for ever without being infinite. Maybe everything is cyclic in some sense. Again, arguably unsatisfying but reality is not obliged to satisfy us.
(b) It isn't actually true that if we land on "God" as an answer then we can no longer ask "what came before that?". We might choose not to, but only because there's a tradition of not asking that question or of shutting it down as illegitimate when asked (as e.g. it commonly is by small children when they're told that God made everything). There are religious traditions in which gods were made by or born from earlier gods or earlier proto-gods. The "Abrahamic" tradition is very much not one of those, but just as you can ask "so where did the multiverse come from?" you can ask "so where did God come from?".
(c) There could be a point beyond which there is no answer to "so what came before that?" without that last (or rather first) thing being anything remotely like a god. For instance, maybe (i) when you keep asking "what came before that" literally, referring to time as we experience it, you eventually get to some point that's "earliest" in the same way as the south pole is "southernmost" and there is nothing "earlier" in the universe, and (ii) if you then say "so what came before the universe?" in some broader sense the answer is "nothing did". Then the universe plays the role of "first mover". Once again, you might find this less satisfying than putting a god in that role, but reality is not obliged to satisfy you. Or maybe you might say that in-some-sense-prior to the universe are the laws of physics but those are even less godlike than the universe. (But also less like the sort of thing that needs anything to have "come before". Yet again, you might find it unsatisfying for there to be laws without a lawgiver but yet again reality is not obliged to satisfy you.)
(d) No argument I've ever seen for why a god is a better candidate for "thing we stop asking 'what came before' about" than the universe has seemed any good to me. Maybe you've got a better one than I've seen, but that's not the way I would bet.
> Note that this does not at all describe or inform or prove the particular nature of G-d
(I remark that the paragraph beginning with what I've just quoted was edited into monideas's comment while I was writing this one, without any acknowledgement that anything had been changed. It's only by chance that I happened to see the change.)
That grotesquely understates how little any first-cause argument says about the nature of the thing it allegedly proves that there is. You can call your "first cause" by any name you please, "God" included, but calling something a god doesn't make it one.
(I reiterate that I don't actually think that any first-cause argument manages to establish the existence[1] of anything. But even if somehow it did, it would tell you far far too little about that thing to justify attaching a name like "God" to it.)
[1] I know that you prefer to use "exists" more narrowly and to say that "God is" rather than "God exists". Feel free to substitute "being" or some more complicated phrase; what I mean by "existence" here is "the thing that theistic first-cause arguments are claimed to establish about God".
> by modernity I basically mean post-Enlightenment
Then it is hilariously false to say that in modernity atheism is "the default class of religion for the masses". The great majority of the masses in the "Western" world were (at least in name) Christian at the time of the Enlightenment and at every time since until very recently.
mrandish · · focus · HN ↗
Obviously, it's turtles all the way down! :-) GGP here, just checking in to say I enjoyed your thorough response. Nicely done. Reading it brought back good times I had back in the day on r/DebateAnAtheist (~15 yrs ago now!). I admit I'm weak. I just couldn't summon the will to run through the "First Mover" yet again with a traditionalist apologist - even for old times sake. Athough a classic, it's so, so very... tired. Thank you for picking up the gauntlet.
I'll never understand why traditionalist monotheists love their first-mover so much (and why does it always have to be monotheists? Polys are much more fun). Traditional apologists have obviously played through ALL the standard 'moves' and variants of the first mover dozens of times and know it inevitably ends in an unsatisfying stalemate with anyone who's seen it or, "in modernity", consults their LLM. Maybe apologists keep trotting it out because they must still ocassionally run into someone who hasn't seen it? Or perhaps they just enjoy it, like singing an old, comforting hymn. Anyway, you not only get to play through an old standard, it looks like you're also in for non-responsive tangents and not-at-all-subtle dismissive condescension. Enjoy!
monideas · · focus · HN ↗
Words are used but they don't create the same meaning-phenomena in the mind. Basically when you read these arguments from Artistotle, Descartes, and others you read the words but you don't understand. You kind of have to first understand to understand (Nietzche talks about this). In Kabbalah this is described by the interaction between Chochma (Wisdom) -> Binah (Understanding) -> Daat (Knowledge). Chochma/Wisdom being the initial flash of insight which then gets transmitted/nurtured into conscious understanding by Binah, a sensation/phenomenon everyone who has studied math or anything difficult conceptually will understand.
I say this as a former "reddit atheist" who first encountered these arguments from Aristotle and Descartes in college in an introduction to philosophy course. I didn't actually understand what they were saying and I dismissed it out of hand (I read the words but didn't actually understand). It wasn't until years later that I came to an understanding of it.
You can read my response below/above which I think nudges closer to inducing the flash of insight needed.
gjm11 · · focus · HN ↗
Physician, heal thyself.
gjm11 · · focus · HN ↗