From nothing, Reason...

Originally posted by Nemesio
It sure seems like this thread died on the vine.

Freaky?

I concur. Let's see... where was I?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I concur. Let's see... where was I?

(echo echo echo)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The first phase of the argument involves establishing the mechanistic materialism which (I believe) encompasses the majority of atheistic positions. I ask any of the proclaimed atheists if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?

Looks like the entire premise of your belief was founded on bunk.

Thanks for playing, Freaky!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Looks like the entire premise of your belief was founded on bunk.

Thanks for playing, Freaky!

Sorry: things got a little hectic again up in here, leaving little time for a more involved debate such as this represents.

As no one has been able to offer an alternative view to mechanistic materialism, can we assume that the majority atheistic explanation for the physical universe is MM?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sorry: things got a little hectic again up in here, leaving little time for a more involved debate such as this represents.

As no one has been able to offer an alternative view to mechanistic materialism, can we assume that the majority atheistic explanation for the physical universe is MM?

No.

First, even if atheists believe in mechanistic materialism (MM), they need not hold that MM explains the physical universe. They may believe that universe has no explanation, or needs none. The may only believe that MM helps explain things within this universe, or is a correct description of this universe.

Second, people *have* offered coherent alternatives views to MM (e.g., bbarr). Even if these are minority views, they still exist in principle. So, it's not as if there is no alternative to MM, or even that there is reasonable alternative to MM. Historically, Schopenhauer is a prime example of a non-materialist atheist.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
No.

First, even if atheists believe in mechanistic materialism (MM), they need not hold that MM explains the physical universe. They may believe that universe has no explanation, or needs none. The may only believe that MM helps explain things within this universe, or is a correct description of this universe.

Second, people *have* offered coheren ...[text shortened]... alternative to MM. Historically, Schopenhauer is a prime example of a non-materialist atheist.

This really shouldn't be too hard to get your minds around, but you're making it so, nonetheless.

I have repeatedly asserted that the majority atheistic explanation for the existence of the physical realm is mechanistic materialism. No one has been able to refute this claim with anything remotely resembling a vaild contest.

By your own admission, what bbarr offered is a minority view. More importantly, however, bbarr's "coherent alternative view" doesn't speak to the reality of the physical realm: it calls it into (at least) agnostic uncertainty.

Schopenhauer was a philosopher, who's essential position is that reason does not exist. Citing him as an example supports the assertions this thread initiated, so your reference to him is baffling.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This really shouldn't be too hard to get your minds around, but you're making it so, nonetheless.

I have repeatedly asserted that the majority atheistic explanation for the existence of the physical realm is mechanistic materialism. No one has been able to refute this claim with anything remotely resembling a vaild contest.

By your own admiss ...[text shortened]... mple supports the assertions this thread initiated, so your reference to him is baffling.

If you are happy to remember when you present your argument that it applies only to a part of the views (be it a majority or otherwise) and as such can say nothing about the total picture thereof, then go ahead. Why do you need our agreement anyway?

Originally posted by Starrman
If you are happy to remember when you present your argument that it applies only to a part of the views (be it a majority or otherwise) and as such can say nothing about the total picture thereof, then go ahead. Why do you need our agreement anyway?

Needy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Schopenhauer was a philosopher, who's essential position is that reason does not exist.

Priceless.

Originally posted by bbarr
Priceless.

You're right: I should have written "whose," instead of "who's." My bad.

"Among 19th century philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're right: I should have written "whose," instead of "who's." My bad.

"Among 19th century philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

O.K., now go back and read the rest of the article. Claiming that the Universe, at its core, is not a rational place (meaning that the Universe outstrips human powers of rational understanding) is obviously different than claiming that "reason does not exist". It would certainly be strange for somebody who was skeptical about the very existence of reason to argue, at book length, about proper forms of reasoning.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Schopenhauer

Bizarrely, I've just been reading WaWR in the bath.

I mention this only because it shows I have been single for far, far too long.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., now go back and read the rest of the article. Claiming that the Universe, at its core, is not a rational place (meaning that the Universe outstrips human powers of rational understanding) is obviously different than claiming that "reason does not exist". It would certainly be strange for somebody who was skeptical about the very existence of reason to argue, at book length, about proper forms of reasoning.

He was probably just setting us up for the movie.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This really shouldn't be too hard to get your minds around, but you're making it so, nonetheless.

I have repeatedly asserted that the majority atheistic explanation for the existence of the physical realm is mechanistic materialism. No one has been able to refute this claim with anything remotely resembling a vaild contest.

By your own admiss ...[text shortened]... mple supports the assertions this thread initiated, so your reference to him is baffling.

There are your words:

"As no one has been able to offer an alternative view to mechanistic materialism..."

If you are going to make assertions you don't really mean, then there's no hope for a productive debate, is there?

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., now go back and read the rest of the article. Claiming that the Universe, at its core, is not a rational place (meaning that the Universe outstrips human powers of rational understanding) is obviously different than claiming that "reason does not exist". It would certainly be strange for somebody who was skeptical about the very existence of reason to argue, at book length, about proper forms of reasoning.

When you say 'the rest of the article,' I assume you mean passages such as this:

"It is also frightening and pandemonic: he maintains that the world as it is in itself (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view, devoid of knowledge, lawless, absolutely free, entirely self-determining and almighty. Within Schopenhauer's vision of the world as will, there is no God to be comprehended, and the world is conceived of as being utterly meaningless. When anthropomorphically considered, the world is represented as being in a condition of eternal frustration, as it endlessly strives for nothing in particular, and as it goes essentially nowhere. It is a world far beyond any ascriptions of good and evil."

I don't think it takes too much of a logic leap to ascertain the similarity of Schopenhauer's view and the characterization I have asserted. I'm just saying.