Are atheists analogy impaired?

Great Debates
1

The evidence that I have for this is entirely anecdotal, and that’s the reason that I’m opening this thread. After many rounds with Gaudere, Czar, and others, and now the new people coming in, I’m beginning to see what might or might not be a pattern: atheists don’t seem to get analogies. This assumes that they are not disingenuous, but truly do not relate to whatever the point of a parable might be.

The latest case is from the ontology argument thread, where Nicky said this:

I responded:

And he replied:

Astounded, I answered:

I would appreciate a little bit of discussion about the matter of analogies in general, and get some idea of what atheists might think are good ones. I’m interested to know whether they can construct analogies that are airtight, or whether the nature of analogies is such that you can always find something about them to pick at.

It is more than a little curious that Jesus’ ministry was chock full of them, and while people of faith seem to grasp them easily, I don’t think I’ll ever forget my discussion with atheists here about the Prodigal Son. I’m still reeling from the whole notion of begrudging a returned and repentant brother.

So, what say the teeming millions?

2

is gravity a theory?

gravity is the name for an observed phenomenon. Newton did not explain gravity he figured out equations which corresponded to the observed phenomenon. Einstein further explained because Newton never knew that gravity affected time.

i have some doubts about how well people who claim to be christians understand the gospels. just look at christian history. the christians interpret the analogies the way they want.

Dal Timgar

3

I don’t think that atheists are “analogy impaired”. It’s just that not all analogies are valid. In this case your are attempting to draw an analogy between analytic and synthetic propositions. Apples and Oranges.

4

There’s a difference between not understanding an analogy, and simply not being convinced by it.

5

Not sure what you mean by that. “Atheist history” is hardly stellar. [sub]Stalin[/sub] [sub]Mao[/sub]

Jesus compared heaven to a field:

Are heaven and fields not synthetic and analytic? And isn’t that the whole point of an analogy, to illustrate certain similarities between dissimilar things?

Certainly. But where is the atheist who understands why the father told the brother at home that he should have been happy at his brother’s return in the Prodigal Son story?

6

Well, there’s a difference between not seeing an analogy in the same way and “being analogy impaired”. Re the prodigal son, I’m amazed that you cannot understand the (entirely understandable, IMO) irritation of the “good son” who did not run off a-whoring and never got any fatted calf killed for him.

Often in religious discussions, though, I seem to see analogies used which are fundamentally flawed…that is, they don’t actually explain what they purport to explain and thus are worse than no anology at all. For example, Poly’s recent analogy that appeared to draw a parallel between accpeting that Czar loved his wife due to his acts, and accepting that God existed because other people loved Him. Or the one that attempted to explain the trinity, and how you could have two perfect beings that were different by making an analogy to a perfect hamburger and a perfect hot dog, which fails because a hot dog and a hamburger are entirely different things, but Jesus and God are supposed to both be absolutely perfect beings possessing the same nature. Or the one that compared Jesus and God to an engine and a car, which doesn’t work because Jesus is not supposed to be part of God, He is supposed to be, well, God. Or comparing the trinity to ice, water and steam, which fails because a single molecule of water cannot be ice and water and steam all at the same time, but God is supposed to be God and Jesus and the HS all at the same time, and anyway, in that case the water just changes form, and God and JC and the HS are supposed to be actual different beings. Or when JC, God and the HS are described as different perceptions of one being, but then they simultaenously claim that they are three different beings.

Sometimes when encountering religious analogies, I am 'minded of a friend of mine, who used to say things like, “Ooh, I got this really cool pink wool cardigan. Except it’s not really pink, it’s sort of reddish-purple, and it’s not wool, it’s cotton-poly, and it’s actually not really a cardigan at all, it’s a pair of pants.” By the time you go through and figure out all the differences between the anology and the thing that the analogy is being used to explain, you realize the anology doesn’t do any good at all. I don’t mind analogies (use them myself a great deal!) as long as they can be applied to the situation, but I strongly object to analogies that cannot be accurately applied since they give a false sense of understandability and may bury the actual debate to the point that it cannot be recovered. For example, if a debate on the trinity evolves into a discussion of whether three different people can describe one person three different ways, and it is established that this can happen, has this actually described the workings of the trinity? No—but you could easily think that it had, by focussing on the analogy and forgetting about the original debate.

7

Looked over the ontology thread. I never took a Logic course, and I’m still waiting on my Dick Tracy decoder ring to translate the symbols. I had matt_mcl look it over, and he said there was a fallacy in the premise, but if he wants to deal with that, he can.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to assume it proves the existence of a perfect being.

I would still suggest that it is an enormous leap to suggest that this Perfect Being is the same Perfect Being described by the Christian tradition, complete with heaven and hell, faith in Christ, etc. The argument leaves out all those of us who are religious, just not Christian.

Human beings have conceived of a whole pantheon of Perfect Beings, and as I understand it, there’s nothing in your argument to indicate that anything yet imagined by the human race comes close to an accurate depiction of such a creature.

To rephrase, the gravity metaphor is reaching at best because there’s no indication, in evidence of a supreme being, of the exisence of, say, hell, and no requirement in and of itself to have faith. There is no indication that leaping off this cliff will result in injury.

I’m guessing the atheists you’ve been arguing with would put the existence of a Perfect Being (to use another science analogy) into the category of the possibility of other universes. An interesting intellectual argument in itself, but unproveable and unlikely to have practical applications of any kind.

Not being an atheist myself, I shouldn’t speak for them, but I know many who are not “analogy-impaired.” There’s often no way to describe some of the more arcane regions of physics without resorting to analogy.

8

I don’t think so, Lib.

I think you are still trying to prove the existence of God. You know it isn’t possible, yet still you pile logic up in great heaps, and try to lead logicians up your tower, hoping they will at least be able to seeGod from those Olympian heights.

Only a fool would believe what he cannot hold, or touch, or even see. You cannot teach people to see God, since you are as blind as they are, and God has not submitted Himself to analysis by wise men. Far better would you serve your atheist friends to wander with them, while they are lost, offering only human love, and tending to their worldly concerns. While one sheep might follow another, it is the Shepherd who leads them home.

If you follow my analogy, that is. :slight_smile:

Tris

9

Gaudere, could you provide an example of an analogy that you think is tight? And what do you think of Jesus’ heaven/field analogy — is it flawed in your view?

Well, Hamish, you certainly made a good selection of someone to read over the ontology argument for you. I disagree that either of the two axioms is flawed (they seem self-evident to me and to most other philosophers), but I certainly respect Matt’s opinion on the matter. And you’re right that the argument is in no way an endorsement of one particular “religion” over another.

I follow it, Tris, thanks. And I believe that the modern modal arguments neatly prove God’s existence logically. That which is necessary must exist, or else existence itself does not exist.

10

Righjt on, Gaudere! I also dismiss the idea of analogy-challenged atheists because at heart it strikes me as a theist who tries to explain his faith using metaphor and gets annoyed when the atheist doesn’t surrender his brain.

I’m also disturbed by biblical tales which on the surface seem to display some pretty petty behaviour from God. Moses can’t enter the promised land because he hit a rock? At that stage, I have to admit I don’t really care to hear that there is some great but subtle purpose in this. It just sounds like a royal screw job.

That said, we’re more than capable of appreciating subtlety. It’s just that the subtlety should have a point and not just end with “it’s God’s will so if you want to get into heaven, stop asking questions and just believe.”

11

The biggest problem with analogies is that they should only be used to make a statement clearer. They should never extend the argument. And they should never represent it.

Like all similies and metaphors, analogies necessarily can only form an achor with which to reference a point of an argument. But they cannot replace the argument.

I love analogies, but I constantly slip into the trap of seperating the analogy from the argument, both in writing, and in reading. I’m not sure how that could come as a result of my views on dieties.

12

I’m not an atheist (I’m an agnostic), and God (or whoever) only knows that I’m not a logician, but why is a Perfect Being necessary?

And if the “modern modal arguments neatly prove God’s existence logically”, why are there still atheists? The only way to get around this is to claim that all atheists are logic-impaired. Looking at some of the past posts in many, many threads by many, many on-board atheists, I find that hard to believe.

I’d like to point out that, as I said, I’m no logician (I often find myself losing my way trying to get from one end of an explanation of probability to another), and I have absolutely no understanding of what “modern modal arguments” or “ontology” are at all. This deficiency on my part used to make no sense to me until someone pointed out that logic is a branch of mathematics. As has been pointed out in another thread, I’m innumerate and probably dysnumeric. So type slowly. :smiley:

jayjay

13

Lib, This has nothing to do with atheism. It’s just a debating technique. Everybody tries to take apart analogies that they don’t like.

**

14

Well, first off, JC doesn’t appear to compare heaven to a field…he compares it to a treasure hidden in a field. I’m not sure if that was just careless phrasing or if you are reading JC’s words different than I am. If, by his analogy, Jesus is trying to say “heaven is so wonderful and valuable that people will (should) give up everything they have to ‘possess’ it” his analogy is not flawed. If he’s trying to say something else, it doesn’t appear to be working for me. :slight_smile:

An unflawed religious analogy…well, say when the fundamentalist Christians say “if you thought someone was doing something that hurt them, shouldn’t you try to warn them?” as a justification for why they tell homosexuals that they’re going to go to Hell unless they cease their “evil ways”. While I don’t agree with them, their analogy does explain adequately why they feel compelled to butt in. But they shouldn’t use an analogy that misguides as to the nature of the knowledge being discussed; for example, the favorite, “if someone’s building was on fire, shouldn’t you warn them?”, which creates a fundamentally flawed (IMO) analogy between immediate and objectively verifiable knowledge of a fire, and the often contradictory, personal, not-objectively-provable-at-this-time knowledge of a “practicing” homosexual’s damnation.

15

It is a poor sign of character indeed to turn into the frustration of a few people in a few arguments into a vicious slander of a whole category of people, even with an “anecdotal” modifier. I know that there are plenty of atheists would slander theists in much the same way (Bryan Ekers’s backhanded commment tempts that vein), but to give into such bigotry aids no ones cause, and hardly makes me any likely to think that you are a pushing truth and dignity. Would that actual argument seemed more profitable to people than nasty categorical rhetoric.

16

I guess I must agree with Gaudere that my recent analogy was poorly constructed, since what she got out of it bears only a remote resemblance to what I tried to put into it! :slight_smile:

However, it does seem that two things happen: in an effort to describe some concept relating to religious belief, a theist will construct an analogy or metaphor. Then either (1) he or she becomes enamored of his/her metaphor and is offended at any attempts to deconstruct it or (2) someone who does not agree pokes holes in the metaphor by drawing it to extremes it was not intended to be taken.

Jesus’s parable of the Kingdom of God being like a pearl of great price does not imply a Divine Oyster with a Holy Mantle Irritation. The parable of the Mustard Seed does not therefore suggest that the Kingdom of God is suitable for spreading on hot dogs or stirring into potato salad.

Because the religious concepts are not directly referrable to objects and actions which we hold in common experience, the theist attempts to structure a parallel to something that is common experience, showing that in some manner God, or the Kingdom of God, or the essential trinity, is like X in the same way as, say, an aardvark is like Y. It is inappropriate to “debunk” the analogy by saying that it therefore shows that God is toothless or the essential trinity eats ants and lives in Africa. But by the same token, if a theist says that God is like X in some particular way, then he must confront the idea that the implications of God being like X in that way lead to conclusion Z, and not be offended when someone else draws out Z and finds it less than edifying.

Needless to say, not all theists nor all non-theists commit the offenses against discourse suggested here. Gaudere, for example, will sincerely try to understand what is being meant by the drawing of a parallel between the Atonement and, say, an general amnesty, and not suggest that it therefore implies that all Christians were against the Vietnam War or cheated on their taxes. But enough of both groups do that it needs to be said.

17

Jayjay

No problem. A formal treatment here might likely be inappropriate anyway, so I’ll address the question informally.

The particular type of modal logic that we’re discussing in that thread divides existence into two kinds, one positive, the other negative: necessary things (positive) and possible things (negative).

Something that is neither necessary nor possible doesn’t exist in any world anywhere. An even prime number greater than 2, for example, is neither necessary nor possible. It isn’t impossible; it simply doesn’t exist. Impossible doesn’t mean categorical nonexistence; it just means nonexistence in particular worlds.

Other unlikely sounding things might be possible in some worlds. For example, a circle whose circumference is not pi times its diameter is possible in a world where space is shaped like, say, a saddle.

So, that breaks it down: necessary things exist in all possible worlds; possible things exist in some worlds (meaning at least one and possibly all); and things that are neither necessary nor possible do not exist in any world.

The Perfect Being is necessary because it is defined as the convergence (or meeting) of all necessary existence. Clearly, that which is necessary cannot be unnecessary. And because there is no world in which it does not exist, it cannot be impossible.

There. How’s that? :slight_smile:

Gaudere

Well, there you go. You just provided a counter-example. It cannot be said as a generality that atheists are analogy impaired.

18

:smiley: Vicious slander? Analogy impairment? Mercy, I shudder to think what you might have said had I asked them whether they eat their Oreo icing first.

That’s true. I’m really glad that Gaudere dropped in and responded. I knew that I could count on her to set me straight.

You’re certainly right, Truth.

19

Jayjay

Gah.

This:

should have said this:

Sorry.

20

Honestly, I’m not being deliberately difficult. But why is the Perfect Being defined this way? Who defined it? I have to say that I couldn’t intuitively come up with that definition given the name “The Perfect Being”.

Or I could just admit that I don’t have the necessary neural linkages to understand this subject, since I’m sitting here trying to make sense out of your explanation of necessary and possible and failing. It’s all just a vaguely-shaped cloud of concepts that I can’t even come close to finding the beginning or end of floating in logic-space to me. Really, I don’t think that’s your fault.

jayjay