Here an atheist answered 5 questions my friend asked him and here are the results:

“Your questions seemed like contorted, flowery pseudo-intellectual word games crafted to trip up atheists. I feel like these ‘questions’ have been geared to a predetermined answer of, “Because God did it.’ But… I’ll bite.

1. “How do you know your epistemological standard is the correct standard to have? State what the standard is and prove its truthfulness.”

My epistemological standard is correct because it works, because the knowledge I gain from it is useful and leads me to new knowledge that also works and is useful. Science and the scientific method is that standard. All truths can be demonstrated by evidence to be the truth. If your truth disagrees with the facts, with reality, then it is not the truth, no matter how much you want it to be or believe it to be. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is also the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

My worldview is fluid and open to reassessment and revision. The standards I have are complex and under constant reassessment, and I don’t claim that any of it is necessarily true, only that I continue to do my best to have it approximate reality and truth as closely as I can muster. Can you prove that there are limitations on cognition in a non-Christian universe?

I do see a problem where the claim, “science/scientific method is the only reliable standard for knowledge” cannot be proven by science. Worse, this claim would engage in a fallacious circular reasoning (appealing to science to prove science). It’s the straw man that’s created to makes it look that way. Science is not a “claim”, it’s a system, a method. We don’t “prove science with science”. Rather we validate hypotheses (Predictions based on observation) as facts using the scientific method. And if a scientific outcome is wrong, guess which system you would employ to prove it is wrong and correct it? That would be science.
I think, personally, that having a willingness to say, “I don’t know for sure” on topics that can’t be proven, is a justified belief. It’s intellectually honest to say, “I don’t know” vs “I know”. As Aron Ra puts it, “If you know it, you can show it.” So, conversely, I would ask theists the same question. Science, itself, demonstrates the truthfulness of this standard. The fact that you are reading this over the internet on a phone or computer is proof enough of its truthfulness. To understand the Bible, even if we would grant that it is from god, you have to use your own mind and rational, just like any other human being, to understand it. The first step is to actually care if your beliefs are true. Then, use the most reliable method to test claims. Faith? No. It seems you can believe anything based on faith. Religions are never falsified, they only schism and evolve with culture. Empiricism has results. Basing beliefs off of actual observation and testing of reality has done more in four centuries in our search for knowing the true nature of reality than faith could in all its millennia.

2. “How do you ascertain such truths given a metaphysic of only matter in motion?”

Your question is nonsensical. You’ve misused the word “metaphysics.” Metaphysics relates to abstract theory or opinion having no basis in physical reality. You’re confusing metaphysics with physics. The prefix “meta” means “beyond”. So, “meta-physics” is “beyond physics” or “beyond the physical.”. Physics applies to the physical universe, to nature. Matter, motion, space, time… these are all physical properties of the physical universe, and are therefore subject to physics.
Metaphysics is the abstract study of the supernatural. (“super” is another prefix that also means “beyond.”)
Reality is matter and motion, space and time, and thus a matter of physics, not metaphysics. Religion is a kind of metaphysics, science is not. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality. Truth and true are different things. Truth is a conclusion from true statements, and thus truth is changing with new credible evidence. So what needs to be asked is not how we ascertain truths, but how we ascertain true statements. And they are ascertained through empirically studying and testing reality. I have little use for philosophy, as I don’t care what people sitting in armchairs waxing over philosophicals have to say on anything. Tests and evidences, or screw your thoughts.

Science is the most reliable path to truth that we have. It’s the only method that I am aware of that consistently shows its tests to be repeatable and observable with the same outcome. It, however, holds no absolutes, but offers a reasonable confidence that everything we have observed and explained by using this method has been natural in nature. There have been no scientific findings that point to a supernatural realm, so it’s reasonable to think that everything has a natural explanation for it, even if we don’t know what that explanation is. It, however, does not exclude outright for the possibility of the supernatural, it just simply says that, until we find a method in which to examine and observe the supernatural, we have no reason to believe it to be the case. It’s simply an unknown. Unknowns are not explanations, they’re assertions. So to place your confidence in a consistent methodology is far more reasonable.

3. “Is science itself material? Is reason itself material? Is experience itself material? Are they ontological in their statuses?”
These are nonsensical questions, meant to confuse and confound the person to whom it is asked. Ontology relates to metaphysics, and to the abstract, and not to reality. No, science isn’t material in the sense that science is an object. It is a process of thought. Science is a system and a methodology by which reality is known and understood. Reason is a logical process of deduction and induction. Experience is having a practical contact with and/or observation of objects or events. None of these things have anything to do with the metaphysical. Reason is the process of forming thoughts and understanding. This is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain, which we can observe and study and are coming close to being able to decipher with accuracy.

Experiences (and the memories of them) are stored as electrical impulses in the brain. We can observe those and are working on deciphering them as well. Science is about reality, explaining reality. Reason is also a flawed concept, see ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ by Immanuel Kant. Experience is really all anyone has to go off of when it comes to reality, even if a projection of mind. To argue that it being a projection, somehow, might undermine that reality is to expect that changing the process of our projection would change what our reality is, but if reality arises from our projection and experiencing that projection, then the process of projection changed, not reality. OUR perception then changes, NOT reality.

4. “What is your metaphysic? Is it strict materialism?”
Another question that is nonsensical. Materialism has nothing to do with metaphysics. Material things are physical things, and are thus of the realm of physics. I have no metaphysic. Only a theist, who deals in the supernatural, has a “metaphysic.” So, no, it isn’t and yours should not be either. Philosophical Naturalism/strict materialism excludes even the possibility of anything beyond what we can perceive. That is arrogant and intellectually dishonest.
Methodological Naturalism is aware that there is no METHOD that we know of to access and examine anything beyond our perception, even if we use tools to enhance this perception.

So, there is the possibility that there is something “supernatural”, but if someone claims to KNOW about it, they would have to present the method of how they accessed this, attained this knowledge, and how we would be able to verify it. Strict materialism is the only thing demonstrated to exist. If you have evidence of non-material events being real (and, no, arguments from incredulity isn’t evidence), I’ll be happy to see it, and, if it stands up to scrutiny, adjust my world view accordingly.

“Possibility” addresses the ability of something to exist or to happen given a set of laws and principles. What is “possible” then can only be addressed physically as part of nature, which is limited by the laws of physics. So, long as this something is allowed for by the laws of physics, it is within the realm of what is possible. A supernatural god, by definition, is not possible. It defies the laws of physics; the very definition of what is IMPOSSIBLE. So, a god is neither “possible nor “probable.”
Epistemologically, atheism is requirement of evidence to even consider a direction to take, either for or against. Metaphysically, I attribute no credit to a paranormal explanation to something I cannot logically evaluate. This is a leap into a gap. Science is a search for an answer that insists on searching for reason to prove itself incorrect. Faith, on the other hand, insists on fiat declaration of authority. My metaphysical foundation is not built by fiat claims. The immaterial aspects of love, happiness, joy, or sorrow is the amalgam of our experiences and personality, derived through the reciprocal altruism of the nature of humanity.

5. “How do you account for immaterial things in your worldview perspective?”

I don’t. Everything in the universe is material. Even gravity has a physical particle – a boson (the graviton) – that carries its effect in the physical universe. God is immaterial. How do you account for such an immaterial thing as god?

This question is also very ill composed, because IMMATERIAL things can have TWO meanings:

1) Concepts like “the laws of physics”, ‘”the logical absolutes.”

2) Feelings like love, empathy, or hate.
Concepts are ideas and and thoughts developed by a human mind that describe things that we observe. Obviously it can describe things that we just imagine. In any case, the only way I have access to them is from someone else if they tell me about them. But why would I have to ACCOUNT for THOUGHT when I know that humans have functioning brains and one function is THINKING? The mind is an emergent property of a working brain, and the brain is evolved, it is matter and needs no accounting. But, also, immaterial can actually, again, mean: something behind the material. Why would anyone have to account for it, because we have no access to these things if they exist. For now, they are indistinguishable from things that actually do exist. They are in human minds, ideas and concepts for which there is no evidence that they actually exist outside of the mind, and if they exist, they are indistinguishable from things that do not exist.

They are all interactions by our brain and hormonal responses in our body. If you mean immaterial like god or spirits, I say that you need to show evidence that they exist, and not just delusions inspired by epilepsy and/or schizophrenia :wink:.”

I’ll deal with some of the more interesting comments.

“My epistemological standard is correct because it works,”

My view works as well. In no way does that demarcate which position is correct. Nor do I know your position to see if it does “work”.

“because the knowledge I gain from it is useful and leads me to new knowledge that also works and is useful.”

That assumes it actually imparts knowledge.

” Science and the scientific method is that standard. “

That is just self-refuting scientism. Can your standard be proven scientifically? Do you know that there is no universal scientific method? Do you know that science means different things to different people?

“All truths can be demonstrated by evidence to be the truth. “

Where is your evidence for this statement? You know a lot for a limited being. Do you understand this leads into an infinite regress of beliefs and justifications?

“If your truth disagrees with the facts, with reality, then it is not the truth, no matter how much you want it to be or believe it to be.”

Are you aware of propositions like counterfactuals? They are not about the world as it is, but rather how it could be. Are they all false? Do you believe that all ethical conversation is meaningless?

“2. “How do you ascertain such truths given a metaphysic of only matter in motion?”

Your question is nonsensical. You’ve misused the word “metaphysics.” Metaphysics relates to abstract theory or opinion having no basis in physical reality. You’re confusing metaphysics with physics. The prefix “meta” means “beyond”. So, “meta-physics” is “beyond physics” or “beyond the physical.”.”

The issue is that is a rather naive view of what “metaphysics” is. Peter Van Inwagen defines it as “the study of ultimate reality”. It could also be defined:

“Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence, being and the world. Arguably, metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy: Aristotle calls it “first philosophy” (or sometimes just “wisdom”), and says it is the subject that deals with “first causes and the principles of things”.”
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_metaphysics.html

“Physics applies to the physical universe, to nature. Matter, motion, space, time… these are all physical properties of the physical universe, and are therefore subject to physics.”

These things are the ultimate reality to you. This physicalism is your metaphysic.

“Metaphysics is the abstract study of the supernatural. (“super” is another prefix that also means “beyond.”)
Reality is matter and motion, space and time, and thus a matter of physics, not metaphysics. Religion is a kind of metaphysics, science is not. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality. Truth and true are different things.”

The issue is that even empirical leaning thinkers still provide an idea of the fundamental nature of reality. That it isn’t some religious view beyond reality. It is precisely about that reality.

“Truth is a conclusion from true statements, and thus truth is changing with new credible evidence.”

Truth is just true propositions. You would only be deriving from those truth statements another truth statement. You also confuse knowledge with truth. Our knowledge changes and truth remains the same.

“So what needs to be asked is not how we ascertain truths, but how we ascertain true statements And they are ascertained through empirically studying and testing reality.”

The first statement says that the goal isn’t to ascertain truths, but true statements. The issue is truths are just true statements. They are propositions like “All men are mortal” or “2+2=4”. The end of your statement is that this statement hasn’t been verified by empirical inquiry and testing reality. It is thus a self-refuting statement.

“I have little use for philosophy, as I don’t care what people sitting in armchairs waxing over philosophicals have to say on anything. Tests and evidences, or screw your thoughts.”

Well, you clearly aren’t good at it. The ironic thing about this statement is it itself is a statement from your own armchair.

There have been no scientific findings that point to a supernatural realm, so it’s reasonable to think that everything has a natural explanation for it, even if we don’t know what that explanation is. It, however, does not exclude outright for the possibility of the supernatural, it just simply says that, until we find a method in which to examine and observe the supernatural, we have no reason to believe it to be the case. It’s simply an unknown. Unknowns are not explanations, they’re assertions. So to place your confidence in a consistent methodology is far more reasonable.

Why suppose that science was directed at finding a supernatural realm? Plus, many could argue that we have evidence by phenomenon such as “The Enfield Poltergeist”. The issue is that you already stack the deck by assuming methodological naturalism to prove metaphysical naturalism. Your view is self-defining and self-serving.

Science is a system and a methodology by which reality is known and understood. Reason is a logical process of deduction and induction. Experience is having a practical contact with and/or observation of objects or events. None of these things have anything to do with the metaphysical. Reason is the process of forming thoughts and understanding. This is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain, which we can observe and study and are coming close to being able to decipher with accuracy.

I doubt that your view answers the issue of demarcation, but I’ll skip over all these non-tested and non-empirical ideas. The issue is if all reasoning is just physical brain doing actions. The issue is that you are simply part of a deterministic process that doesn’t allow you to distinguish whether your mind is actually accurate or not. The same material nexus that produces geniuses produces retardation.

“Reason is also a flawed concept, see ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ by Immanuel Kant. Experience is really all anyone has to go off of when it comes to reality, even if a projection of mind. To argue that it being a projection, somehow, might undermine that reality is to expect that changing the process of our projection would change what our reality is, but if reality arises from our projection and experiencing that projection, then the process of projection changed, not reality. OUR perception then changes, NOT reality.”

Kant’s view reduces to the world being unknowable. You are just left to that which appears to you. You can’t know about the things in themselves. This means that you know nothing about the world. If the world or ultimate reality is unknowable, then how do we know that it actually exists? This reduced you to skepticism.

“Possibility” addresses the ability of something to exist or to happen given a set of laws and principles. What is “possible” then can only be addressed physically as part of nature, which is limited by the laws of physics. So, long as this something is allowed for by the laws of physics, it is within the realm of what is possible. A supernatural god, by definition, is not possible.

The laws of nature could have been otherwise as they are contingent. That means they can’t ground possibility because they themselves are dependant on the notion of possibility. The issue is that counterfactuals are about the world that COULD”VE been and not the world that is. The laws don’t deal with what could’ve been the case. The issue is if the world is just materials, then nothing can ground counterfactuals. Plus, I don’t grant that you have a basis for “laws of physics”. The issue is that knowing what is possible on this view requires that you have access to the world as it is and not merely your perception. That option is not viable for you because of your prior statement.

“How do you account for immaterial things in your worldview perspective?”
I don’t. Everything in the universe is material. Even gravity has a physical particle – a boson (the graviton) – that carries its effect in the physical universe. God is immaterial. How do you account for such an immaterial thing as god?

The issue is the existence of abstract objects(laws of logic, propositions, numbers) put a big hole in your theory that everything is material. We don’t have a problem with God existing because we aren’t materialists.