Sunday, October 30, 2011

Dressing Up in God's Clothes

How do you even approach the question of atheism or God without using a system of assumptions whose status, if recognized or admitted, shows that they function as exact substitutes for features of God that were part of the basis for objecting to the very possibility of the existence or goodness of God in the first place?

Thursday, October 27, 2011

The Gods of Mind and the Mind of God

A universal is just a quantification of a term in a claim or statement or predication. Is the "denial" of universals saying that no one can use the word "no" and other universal quantifiers? If so someone's flat out of luck, in the nature of the case, because of what that statement itself asserts.

Moreover---and I'm following Grisez and Boyle very closely here---once communicated, that universal denial becomes performatively and empirically inconsistent---not "just theory", as the presets of loop guruism would say. Notice that I'm no longer distinguishing between atheists and theists, except of course concerning The Grand Conclusion itself.

Because the set of communications is itself quantified so as to affect the set of objects with that name, "communication" (data transfer, sends, etc., call it what you like, doesn't change a thing)---including that communication itself---that same communication is thereby itself neutralized because of a self-imposed impossibility.

Kordig, the "Man With No Name" of the philosophy of logic, turned this kind of analysis into a science, and---sure enough---he was a theist. He knew well that divine mindfulness was inherent and necessarily assumed in the mind-ruling authority of how we treat our most basic and irreducible assumptions.



Sunday, October 23, 2011

Hoisted by a Shared Petard

It's going to be funny to watch atheists and theists stumble all over themselves trying to explain why they've mutually ignored issues of criteria and the philosophy of logic for -decades- (centuries?), once the issues finally get traction in the media.

But first I'll make one point (there are many) about the Little Bo Peep "problem" of evil: An atheist can have an objective concept of good in the sense that any kind of reasoned approach to reality as a whole necessarily assumes a good in the notion of intellectual propriety. In other words, a good is already assumed in the logical/illogical distinction that prefers logicality. However, atheist thumpers still beg the question in assuming that an ultimate being must be good in order to exist, an assumption that remains unquestioned in the loop guru mentality among most atheists.

But the same type of thing is shared by both atheists and theists concerning background assumptions and meta-theoretic criteria. The longer they spar on a relatively adolescent level, philosophically speaking, the more explaining they'll eventually have to do.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Pathological Collectivism

"We are living in an age and in a culture increasingly antagonistic to individualism and to the ideal of personal autonomy. Many psychologists and psychiatrists share this antagonism and express their hostility through therapeutic practices that are subversive not only of the patient's autonomy but also of their self-esteem and mental health. Personal autonomy and self-esteem are essentials of the individual's well-being."

--Slightly redacted from a blurb on the dust jacket of Nathaniel Branden's The Disowned Self, 1970, from a paper delivered at the American Psychological Association annual convention. Why get the paperback when the used hardcovers are so cheap?

Monday, October 10, 2011

Moonstruck Bovinity 1980 - Critique of Marxism and the West

"If someone really wants to perform a service, he should make comfortable people uncomfortable, and calm people agitated. He should plant contradiction and conflict in stagnant people. By God, it would be a thousand times over a greater service to sow doubt among some of these people than to sow certainty, since that certainty is being injected into people at such a rate that it acts like a narcotic; it is worthless. We 700 million Muslims have a certainty that is not worth two bits. What comes into existence after doubt, anxiety, and agitation has value: "Belief after unbelief!"

. . . We see the other kind of certainty all through history, and it is worthless. . . . The prophets came essentially to produce controversy. Otherwise, the people would have gone right on grazing peacefully in their folly."


--Ali Shari'Ati, Marxism and Other Western Fallacies, Mizan, 1980, page 99. Just came across this today, and there is some kind of translation and or language issue in this English version, but I'm going to have to read it at some point.

Theistic Enthymeme

Just off the top of my head at this point in time, if asked why I believe in God, I say, "Because the principles necessary for me to evaluate any universal claims, including atheistic and skeptical claims, imply a personal mind which is the universally and ultimately referenced standard of all thought, including the recognition of mind."

Saturday, October 08, 2011

Vacation Entropics

Every problem is a market. That's the fascinating thing about recognizing a distinction between universal ideals and their mere approximation caused by defections from them. Suddenly it's a capitalism of arguments about possible alternatives. The fallibility of finite beings and their tendency to will self-contradiction in an entropic universe requires it.

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Epistemic Aspergers Syndrome

The questions and objections themselves always point in the right directions, they just aren't followed out as far as the questioners want to go. Instead there are dismissals and or loops. Of course there are necessary logical loops and existential loops. But they’re not the presets used by the loop gurus. They’re the loops discovered by following out the questions and objections, simply following the responses in the natural order of knowing through discussion. Moreover, either be up front and specific about it and capable of justifying it in some sense,  or expect to get accused of begging the question---in addition to looping presets. Consequently, an adequate philosophy of logic has to be called in as arbiter, when reason and logic themselves come under scrutiny. There's nothing else left.

Moreover, when logical sequence and existential reality are conflated as a means of determining truth, and a logical question about inferential sequence gets answered with something involving what was supposedly in question and now being argued for---that is frustrating and, for many, infuriating, regardless of belief or disbelief in God. Is -that- good news?

For the self-fulfilling martyrs out there, of course, it's a sign from God to commence personal judgments.