Conversation - part 7

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

A few comments:

Now we are nearing the end of our conversation. This post from Derek reveals a continued shift in his attitude and openness. It was really encouraging to see this from him, though there is still some miscommunication at times. He also seems to be reading my posts more carefully, directly responding to my questions, clarifying ideas and noting the occasional shared perspectives. These are good signs! Again, it is not my primary intention to convince him of anything by proving him wrong. Rather the point of the conversation is to share our own perspectives, grow in our understanding and appreciation of each other and lay a basis for a real friendship. This now seems to be the direction in his post as well. These are both a bit long...

Derek wrote:

Hello Paul, thanks for keeping up the discussion. I really enjoy getting to share my views, and learn about how you see the world. Also, this gives me great practice articulating my thoughts clearly, which I have trouble doing with such complex topics.

I am not an atheist because I haven't seen or heard god. In fact, if I did see or hear god, as many people claim they have, then I would have to rule out the possibility of my experience being some type of delusion before I could begin to claim that my experience is evidence for god's existence.

Rather, I am an atheist because I haven’t yet discovered any objective evidence in support of any god’s existence or been exposed to any sort of logical argument with acceptable assumptions which proves that any sort of god must exist.

You say “even logic can’t give me life” but I’m confused as to what you mean by this. The entire process of childbirth is a logical process, down to the biochemical level. What leads you to believe god has anything to do with the process of childbirth? I mean, it just doesn’t make sense to me. There isn’t a great mystery, like there was when the bible was written, with respect to where children “come from”. Science has bridged the gap completely.

You also claim that science doesn’t explain consciousness, but this is another example of where I believe you would be right using “hasn’t yet” rather than “doesn’t”, since the latter is a rather bold affirmative statement about the limitations of science and reason.

You say “logic is not natural” but this confuses me, since the very definition of natural is existing in nature, uncaused by man. If you accept that logical cause-and-effect still holds true outside of your own experiences, which I hope you do, then logical reasoning exists independent of man - which makes it natural, by definition of the word “natural”.

You say “logic is completely dependent upon the existence of order and design” which is interesting to me, and it got me thinking pretty hard for a while until I thought of something. How can logic depend on anything, in any meaningful sense? This is philosophically problematic to me, since the claim that logical reasoning as a whole depends on “A” effectively presupposes a logical dependence of the entire system of logic upon “A”… which is self defeating, since then the entire system of logic is caused by itself, rather than having a completely removed cause. Sorry if this hurts your head to think about, this avenue of ontological discussion is incredibly rich and complex.

I have read of Nietzsche’s worries about the spread of atheism, specifically to his worries about declining morality, etc… and I have to say I believe it is demonstrated that morality historically predates religion, and I can argue that I have morals as an atheist, which don’t derive from the bible or from religion at all. So for me, these worries are based on a mistaken chain of causality, and historical ignorance.

With respect to Newton, he was absolutely an unbelievable genius. He was a pioneer in mathematics (although the common claim that he single handedly “discovered” calculus gives him WAY too much credit) and he essentially pioneered the field of physics, but this doesn’t mean that his views should be automatically considered brilliant just for his namesake. He was a major proponent of alchemy, which of course was nothing more than pseudoscience to begin with. In fact, it is conjectured by some historians that Isaac Newton spent more time trying to find “patterns” in the bible, or trying to transmute metals into gold, than he did doing work in mathematics or physics, and I have always wondered how much more he would have accomplished if he would have rejected religion and alchemy, and dedicated those thousands of hours to seeking real truth.

If you are interested in Newton's biblical studies, I believe at least some of it is archived online.

I am always searching very hard for truth, so if god is real and he wants to reveal himself to me I’m completely open to that. However, I won’t take anything less than what I can be sure is the truth.

Commentary: 

There are a few confusing ideas in his post and I am not completely sure how to address them. The comment about "nature as uncaused by man" is fine but doesn't address my real meaning or use of the word from my previous post. His comment that "logic must not presuppose a logical dependence on something else" is also adequate when we assume that logic is "natural" and uncaused by man. The problem with this is that we actually live in an ordered and logical universe that we can know and study. But why is this the case? Is this the guaranteed result of a random evolutionary process? Has this result ever happened at any level with any simplified environment without the intervention of intelligent design? If not, then how can logic be truly uncaused? Note that there are plenty of random and illogical tendencies all around us... Things get disorganized. I lose my car keys. The faucet begins to leak. The tornado wipes out a town. We get sick and die. Everything is given to decay and nothing ever "puts itself back together" without someone there to do the planning and get the job done. The "natural world" is moving from order to chaos, not the other way around. There is quite a bit of deep philosophy here and I'm nearing the limit of my cognitive abilities!! 

Once again, my response was an attempt to clarify a few things but also to move toward a deeper understanding of who Derek is. The questions I use here are ones I've developed over the last few years to investigate my own beliefs and the beliefs of others. They address some of the basic issues of the heart such as conviction of sin, forgiveness, faith, hope, identity, trust, surrender and purpose.

My response:

Yes, I’m really grateful for this discussion as well, Derek. It is not my primary intention to convince you of anything because I believe that the discussion has value in itself. This really helps us both think through the consistency of our ideas, learn to communicate them more clearly and also to benefit from the friendship that comes through respectful dialogue. It seems that many things I’m reading and listening to these days connect to aspects of this conversation, so I end up thinking about how to continue this discussion at least once a day. Let me respond to your post and then address a couple related issues.

What do I mean by “logic can’t give me life”? I understand very well the biological and mechanical aspects of life because I am both a husband and a father. This is not what I mean. My statement is addressing the quality and the meaning of life. What is the purpose of human life and my life in particular? What value do I have as an individual apart from what I know or can contribute to society? Is there something more to human existence than consuming and producing (the material or natural functions of biological life)? These questions, from a humanistic worldview, define the value of the person as being dependent on what they contribute to society.

So when I refer to “life”, I mean “How does my response to these questions reflect a deep and meaningful understanding of reality while shaping how I live and interact with others?” Here are the questions I would challenge you to address as well (which may take months or years…).

• What do you think is the primary cause of the problems in our world?
• What do you believe to be your greatest need of all time?
• Is there a solution to the problems you currently face? Describe the solution.
• How would you describe yourself and how does that make you valuable as a person?
• If you were to be the judge and jury for everyone, how would that transform our world into a happy, peaceful and productive society?
• How would you describe your purpose in life and how are you currently fulfilling that mission?

As I look back through our discussion, it seems that we have slightly different approaches to how logic is used and how it enables us to come to conclusions. I do appreciate your comments on the “origin of logic”, although I confess this is a bit beyond me and I don’t see how this argument is self defeating. But it seems that you want to force deductive logic into situations that really call for inductive logic with a ‘coefficient of accuracy’. Please correct me if I’m wrong. When I come to a conclusion in the area of philosophy or theology, I don’t believe that these can usually be addressed by deductive logic (I’m thinking out loud here). It seems that I depend more on inductive logic which allows me to draw probable conclusions from observations, history and personal experience while evaluating how accurately these conclusions describe reality. Does this make sense to you?

Thank you also for your very insightful comments on Nietzsche and Newton. But I’m not sure I understand how morality predates religion. For me, both morality and religion are completely integral to the human experience. Morality certainly predates Judaism and Christianity, but essentially religion can be defined as recognition of a spiritual reality (real or perceived) and the human response to that reality. Morality may be a sense of right and wrong and our responsibility to act, think and speak in alignment with what is right. For those who do not recognize a spiritual reality (absolute or eternal standards of right and wrong) those standards either come from within ourselves (heart/mind/spirit?) or as cultural and social expectations - either way, it ends up to be a type of religion either of “me as god” or “culture as god”. Maybe you have a better way of expressing this?

Questions for you:

What is the point of discussions like these in your experience? Have you been able to work beyond the tendency toward conflict and differing perspectives? How did you do that? What was the result? Do you think it is more important to focus on the relational aspect and potential in such conversations? Why or why not?