The trait we all have in common
Hello Rabbi.
I have constructed an argument that I find interesting and have posted it on an atheist forum, and the purpose of the argument is to show why relying on the scientific method as the only method for investigating the truth is fundamentally wrong. I would love to know what you think about the way I arrived at the question, and whether in your opinion this is an argument that is objective and rational enough to show an atheist something that is very difficult for him to see for himself.
Two major worldviews lead the atheist and the believer into endless debate.
1. The view that claims that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena.
2. The view that claims that the universe was created by a designer, who designed those natural phenomena.
I thought I would start a substantive and mature discussion on the subject – are babies born atheists?
If the definition of atheism is lack of belief in god(s), which is the accepted definition, there is no argument that proves that babies are born atheists.
Every claim on the subject falls into the logical fallacy of the requested assumption.
Because the law presupposes that babies are born without belief in God, and thus he gets the result he is trying to prove.
Of course, how we interpret the babies’ condition in this context may depend on our perceptions.
While there are atheists who would say that babies are born without religious belief, and there are believers who would say that babies are born with a soul that comes with some prior consciousness/memory of some kind or another, it can be argued that the most accurate way to describe the state of babies is epistemic neutrality (lack of knowledge and inability to develop an opinion).
Infants do not hold beliefs because they do not have the cognitive tools to develop such opinions.
In this way, can we really know which of the options is more correct?
Can we ever decide between the two ideas – that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena versus the universe created by a designer?
I invite you to share your thoughts on the question, and to examine the possibility that the epistemic neutrality of infants constitutes a starting point for a deeper understanding of the discussion taking place between the atheist and the believer.
So I’ll start:
The starting point that I think is right to consider right now is very clear – starting from a clean slate.
Why a blank page? Because the starting point of all humans ever born is essentially neutral, as I mentioned.
Although we cannot determine that this is the case in reality, we have nothing more fundamental and reasonable to hold onto than this – since the innate property of epistemic neutrality is attributed to all of us alike.
So, the question that arises is, which method would best suit us for investigating the truth?
Given the scientific method, its advantages, and its excellent way of working in our reality.
And given the fact that that scientific method is based on a fixed premise that says “there’s nothing wrong with doubting.”
Do you think it is possible to arrive at the truth using the scientific method?
When there is a method that advocates continuous doubt in a permanent manner?
And if so, how can one arrive at the investigation of the truth when truth is doubted as a fundamental premise according to the current definition?
In this thread, it is important to me that you try to give answers that come from a clean place on the subject, since the most appropriate proof for the initial state of all humans is “neutrality” as a starting state.
I, of course, assume that the pursuit of truth is equally important to all of us.
Good morning. I disagree or don’t understand. Here are my comments in brief in bold.
1. The view that claims that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena.
A more correct formulation: The world is a product of random natural phenomena. The product of random natural phenomena raises the question of who created the phenomena of which the world is the product.
2. The view that claims that the universe was created by a designer, who designed those natural phenomena.
I thought I would start a substantive and mature discussion on the subject – are babies born atheists?
Why is this interesting? Just a topic? They can be born X even though X is not true.
If the definition of atheism is lack of belief in god(s), which is the accepted definition, there is no argument that proves that babies are born atheists.
Every claim on the subject falls into the logical fallacy of the requested assumption.
Because the law presupposes that babies are born without belief in God, and thus he gets the result he is trying to prove.
I didn’t understand. I hope it will be clarified later. Nevertheless, I will clarify an important point. I have already explained several times that the desired assumption is not a fallacy. Every logical argument assumes the desired. Beyond that, even if there is indeed a desired assumption here, then what? At most, it is not possible to decide this uninteresting question. What is Avmer?
Of course, how we interpret the babies’ condition in this context may depend on our perceptions.
While there are atheists who would say that babies are born without religious belief, and there are believers who would say that babies are born with a soul that comes with some prior consciousness/memory of some kind or another, it can be argued that the most accurate way to describe the state of babies is epistemic neutrality (lack of knowledge and inability to develop an opinion).
Why is this the most correct? Just because both sides have bias doesn’t mean they’re both wrong.
Infants do not hold beliefs because they do not have the cognitive tools to develop such opinions.
When you’re born with something, it means I don’t develop it. It’s built into me. So why does it matter that they don’t have the tools to develop any beliefs? Did they develop the blank slate?
In this way, can we really know which of the options is more correct?
Can we ever decide between the two ideas – that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena versus the universe created by a designer?
I didn’t understand what the connection was between the question of how babies are born and the question of what the truth is?
I invite you to share your thoughts on the question, and to examine the possibility that the epistemic neutrality of infants constitutes a starting point for a deeper understanding of the discussion taking place between the atheist and the believer.
So I’ll start:
The starting point that I think is right to consider right now is very clear – starting from a clean slate.
Why a blank page? Because the starting point of all humans ever born is essentially neutral, as I mentioned.
As mentioned, this is not necessary for many reasons. You could perhaps say that it is methodologically better to start from this assumption, regardless of how babies are born.
Although we cannot determine that this is the case in reality, we have nothing more fundamental and reasonable to hold onto than this – since the innate property of epistemic neutrality is attributed to all of us alike.
This statement seems like what I suggested (to put it methodologically for discussion and not argue in favor of it because of biases on both sides as you did).
So, the question that arises is, which method would best suit us for investigating the truth?
Given the scientific method, its advantages, and its excellent way of working in our reality.
And given the fact that that scientific method is based on a fixed premise that says “there’s nothing wrong with doubting.”
Too general a claim. There’s nothing wrong with questioning what? The scientific method itself? Our initial intuitions? There are quite a few things that science doesn’t question.
Do you think it is possible to arrive at the truth using the scientific method?
When there is a method that advocates continuous doubt in a permanent manner?
And if so, how can one arrive at the investigation of the truth when truth is doubted as a fundamental premise according to the current definition?
So how does science itself arrive at the claims it adopts? The laws of nature.
In this thread, it is important to me that you try to give answers that come from a clean place on the subject, since the most appropriate proof for the initial state of all humans is “neutrality” as a starting state.
I, of course, assume that the pursuit of truth is equally important to all of us.
I'll try to clarify myself.
I agree with you on the subject of the requested assumption, the thing is that atheists don't accept it, and for the sake of discussion I have no problem playing the game with them and accepting the “requested assumption fallacy”.
And if we accept it, it is not possible to prove the claim that babies are born atheists.
Therefore, I am trying to find the most objective place to which one can reach, which is a lack of inclination to either side and a presentation of the most objective opinion that can be had on the subject of a newborn baby.
Simply because it is the most accurate explanation that a baby is born lacking knowledge and incapable of developing an opinion, and it sounds to me the fairest to present it that way because it is the only thing that does not fall into a logical fallacy if we want to define the point of origin of babies, and in fact of all humans.
So it's true that babies haven't developed the smooth surface, but because it's the most basic thing we can hold on to, because it's impossible to prove one way or the other without falling into a fallacy, I offer it as a starting point for a deeper understanding of the discussion, not that I agree with the “neutral” idea.
I got your comment about trying to take the argument in a methodological direction instead, and by and large it sounds more logical to me, but in my opinion if you choose to accept the desired assumption fallacy and have a discussion on their terms, you can get a message for them here, not necessarily a proof.
As for science, science doubts everything, every conclusion in fact.
Science believes that the world began with the Big Bang, but it still doubts that, for example.
Because it doesn't rule out the possibility that there is another, deeper explanation for the beginning of the universe.
And those atheists rely on this method as the only method for investigating the truth, and this is the problem I'm trying to present to them – That how can one arrive at the study of truth when truth is doubted as a basic premise in the same single method that they choose to accept?
They do not rely on feelings or rationality in a way similar to us when they formulate a worldview.
They accept the scientific explanation for the formation of the universe, claim that the explanation is sufficient, and therefore they do not deviate their thinking to the possibility that the world is intelligently designed because in their eyes adding additional information is an unnecessary and wrong action, and from there they invent that religion is a human invention, etc.
I hope you understand what I am trying to do to convey the desired message.
All my comments are in order.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
