should a true argument float to the top?

[_Bond James Bond]

I think often the best arguments take a backseat to the simple ones. Consider evolution. Many times you'll hear the argument, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This argument doesn't even make sense in terms of debunking evolution, but it still is repeated quite often.

I think liz was correct above when she said that the most sound arguments aren't particularly interesting and thus we don't hear them as often as the easily learned tropes like "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". To expound, I think the desire to speak in sound byte style arguments is relied upon many people because the truly compelling arguments are very hard to understand, especially the time frames of evolution or the age of the earth/universe.

An example:

I mean I consider myself a pretty smart person (some would disagree :P) but I was truly humbled by astronomy and biology undergrad courses. The sheer size of the universe is tough to come to grips with in the same manner that billions of years of evolution, a lot of it in a primordial soup bowl, is hard to come to grips with.

I think many people (not Internet posters but regular on the street theists) today aren't able to grasp the enormity of existence, so they assume a supernatural presence out of fear and ignorance at the universe's scope and. In that light it's much easier to repeat tropes and dismiss complex scientific theories like evolution, especially in protection of the world view that comforts them when they don't have the educational tools to grasp those same theories. It all combines to create a cycle of ignorance and superstition supported by an easy dismissal of science.

[_Blixa]

Erm ... it would seem to be an implication of the way you write here that you have some claim to a point of view above the 'rigged battle'. And you won't be 'mauling' anybody either, but just telling us how it is?

That's quite a claim. But if you are not making it, I'm not quite sure why what you say would have any particular claim on our attention, given the situation you describe.

And can the battle really be so 'rigged' that after all these centuries of looking, by people who start from so many points of view and are so highly motivated to find one, there really is a knock-down conclusive argument for the existence of a deity that just happens to have escaped people's notice entirely? It may be logically possible, but how likely is it?

Of course the best way of making that point would be to produce such an argument.

A record fast commute gave me time to have a cup of coffee and look online a bit before class, so I'll try to say a bit more.

Because I wrote my post so fast, Chap, I may not have made it clear that I wasn't specifically addressing "better ideas about god," but rather the larger point in the subject heading: that the "true and best" would always float to the top and thus 'spread among the population.'

In other words, I wanted to counter the trope of the "market place of ideas" with a theory of the ideological production and circulation of knowledge in order to explain not only why some concepts are more available than others, but also why some concepts don't even appear to be intelligible. That kind of framework may or may not be helpful for Seth's question about arguments for god, but I wanted to point out what I saw as a flaw in the basic assumptions he seemed to be starting from.

Now, whether or not one has to occupy a position "above the fray" to even construct such a framework for understanding the politics of intelligibility is a question that has a long history within the discourses of critique. But I'm not sure that you are still asking that question now that you know I'm not trying to advance a particular argument for belief. But, I will try to address what I think you could be asking (more generally) when I get time to get back to this.

Now I must go teach some Philip Larkin.

[_Blixa]

Hoops, it often occurs to me that you read a great deal of the general discussion of religion and atheism far too personally.

That probably would be how it appears. Not my intention though. I wonder when was the last time anyone on this board has attended a SBC service in the deep south, or a charismatic church in the upper midwest, or a Episcopal church in a very liberal city. I'm fortunate that I have and I think this gives me a perspective some might find valuable. Most probably not. That's the only reason I often weigh in on these topics.

Ah, well this IS interesting, at least to me. I think a very interesting thread could follow from this. More later...

[_Sethbag]

The question was asked in a general way, but I actually intended for it to be a little more closely focused on the idea of a true argument for the existence, and attributes, and will, etc. of God.

In other words, if there is in fact a true argument out there for the existence of God, a true argument out there for why we should think we know God's will, and so forth, would this argument necessarily gain currency amongst those actually seeking to answer these questions, or ask whether there even is such an answer?

Going back to the original context in which this question was formulated by me, I've explained that one of the reasons I use to justify not having to delve into literally every single rabbit hole that has ever been devised to explain God by someone in order to be justified in believing that God probably doesn't really exist, was the idea that I've been looking honestly, and open-mindedly for such an answer for a "long enough" period of time, that if such an argument or answer were in fact out there, I could expect already to have encountered it by now.

I'm looking for feedback on why that is, or isn't justifiable. I think that the alternative, if it's not justifiable, is that one must read and research literally every last argument ever made, just to make sure that one really has exhausted the well of possible arguments, before coming to any sort of likely conclusion. I simply cannot see that as correct.

[_Quasimodo]

But the question is, should we expect the good arguments to float to the top? If we accept the existence of a marketplace of ideas, is there something about good arguments that should inevitably cause them to gain marketshare, and become visible to those watching the market with some sufficient care?

I agree that in the end this is related to the argument from unbelief. Please, someone contradict that argument.

Sorry, Seth. I can't contradict you. I think your expectations are quite correct. If there were any really good proofs for God the apologists would have been all over them and we would have seen many irrefutable arguments by now.

None seen. There aren't any.

[_Chap]

Erm ... it would seem to be an implication of the way you write here that you have some claim to a point of view above the 'rigged battle'. And you won't be 'mauling' anybody either, but just telling us how it is?

That's quite a claim. But if you are not making it, I'm not quite sure why what you say would have any particular claim on our attention, given the situation you describe.

And can the battle really be so 'rigged' that after all these centuries of looking, by people who start from so many points of view and are so highly motivated to find one, there really is a knock-down conclusive argument for the existence of a deity that just happens to have escaped people's notice entirely? It may be logically possible, but how likely is it?

Of course the best way of making that point would be to produce such an argument.

A record fast commute gave me time to have a cup of coffee and look online a bit before class, so I'll try to say a bit more.

Because I wrote my post so fast, Chap, I may not have made it clear that I wasn't specifically addressing "better ideas about god," but rather the larger point in the subject heading: that the "true and best" would always float to the top and thus 'spread among the population.'

In other words, I wanted to counter the trope of the "market place of ideas" with a theory of the ideological production and circulation of knowledge in order to explain not only why some concepts are more available than others, but also why some concepts don't even appear to be intelligible. That kind of framework may or may not be helpful for Seth's question about arguments for god, but I wanted to point out what I saw as a flaw in the basic assumptions he seemed to be starting from.

Now, whether or not one has to occupy a position "above the fray" to even construct such a framework for understanding the politics of intelligibility is a question that has a long history within the discourses of critique. But I'm not sure that you are still asking that question now that you know I'm not trying to advance a particular argument for belief. But, I will try to address what I think you could be asking (more generally) when I get time to get back to this.

Now I must go teach some Philip Larkin.

Many thanks for this thoughtful reply. Your qualification makes me less concerned about the implications of what you wrote. I suppose I should have the politeness to wait a bit for your reply, so I'll just say ... nothing for the moment.

[_brade]

Just one little nitpick here...arguments aren't true or false. Arguments are valid/invalid and sound/unsound. Premises are true or false.

[_Nightlion]

Huh? whaaaaht! sorry I cannot concentrate on this thread because of Bond James Bond's new avatar. Perhaps, Sethbag, that is why you never hear a good argument for God. Too much else going on.

[_marg]

So, why am I wrong to assume that true knowledge, and valid, demonstrably correct proofs, or evidence of the existence of God, if they were really out there, would have "floated to the top" as it were, and been visible to me and others on this board already?

Of course the God argument has been around a long time, a convincing argument for skeptics would have floated to the top if one existed.

If Stak thinks he has a good ontological argument for God then it's up to him to present it. It's not as if for example you are completely ignorant of ontological arguments or have never looked at any.

He once criticized Dawkins book and I started questioning him on why. In particular besides questioning his criticism of Dawkins reasoning against the montheistic god, I questioned Stak's claim that all inductive reasoning requires form. In response to the later he gave mathematical induction as a warrant that induction requires form. I pointed out to him that mathematical induction was deductive math..not inductive. I was met with a slew of aggressive attacks..I was a dawfag, an idiot, a retard...etc. Yet I had not treated him disrespectfully...and I was truly attempting an honest dialogue. Tarski much later told him he was wrong with respect to mathematical induction being inductive.

So this is how Stak operates and I rarely read his posts. But If he wants to spend time studying and analyzing arguments for a God..that's his choice and life. The burden of proof is on him and I've yet to see him present a good argument for any God argument that he argues atheists should be respectful of.

And as an added note EA has encouraged his behavior, and Blixa is supportive of him, hence I now view them as the 3 amigos. EA and Blixa are his supportive board friends.

[_Yoda]

And as an added note EA has encouraged his behavior, and Blixa is supportive of him, hence I now view them as the 3 amigos. EA and Blixa are his supportive board friends.

When has Blixa encouraged Stak's behavior? I know they are friends, but I have seen Blixa chastise Stak for uncivil behavior in the past.

I know that I consider Stak a friend, but I do not approve of uncivil behavior from him, or anyone else.