The Kodachi (The Argument From True Love)

[JasonPratt]

Maybe I do only react and counterreact. If so, and if someone tells me the Final Fact also only reacts and counterreacts, then I might as well conclude the FF is also a Person.

But an atheist will say that the structure of my thinking organ, my brain, is what makes the difference between me being a person, and the FF (usually Nature) not being a Person.

It is not that my brain is more complex than the total field of Nature–my brain certainly is not! But it does have certain arrangements that are complex, in specific ways, distinct from other portions of Nature (such as, for instance, this book you are reading).

Can that possibly make a difference?

One type of atheist will strenuously claim it makes all the difference between reaction and action.

The other type of atheist will strenuously claim it cannot possibly do any such thing–but it does make some other crucial kinds of difference.

You may notice this has parallels with the question of computer AI.

[JasonPratt]

One type of atheist believes that if we just get those reactions and counterreactions complex enough, in the right ways, intentive actions will be produced as a capability for the computer.

The other type of atheist believes that no amount or arrangement of reactions and counterreactions will ever produce a single action; although they readily agree that after a certain point we will be unable to keep track of the complexity and so it will look (to us) like the computer is acting. This is highly evident even in toys designed to amuse us. “My Furbee loves me!” my little cousin used to say–before she grew up and learned better. Flip a series of drawings at high enough speed, and they seem to move by themselves. The efficiency of the reactions, is the crucial difference–so such atheists think. (And so such atheists think they are thinking!)

Either way, a lot of atheists are quite sure that sooner or later they will be able to demonstrate, with AI (one way or the other), that human thinking only needs to be considered in reference to ultimate reactions.

And here comes the hole.

The human thinking they are hoping to explain in this way, is the human thinking they are using to make their explanation.

[JasonPratt]

So what if computers become complex to the point we cannot keep track, and it looks like actions? We’ve been in that situation ever since we invented computers! I can’t keep track of what is happening in my Macintosh already. I can’t keep track of what is happening in a game of Pong released in 1980. I doubt I could keep track of what was happening in the punchcard computer my mother helped operate, back in the 60s.

Nothing new (in this scenario) will ever be added to the mix–the illusion will only become more difficult to detect. And we already know what the implications of this illusion are. My cousin’s little Furbee is not a person. A much better illusion cannot really change that.

On the other hand, so what if it happens to be possible for reactions to produce actions inside a computer? The atheists who hope to prove it is possible by doing this, are already presuming it is possible–in their own thinking! They might as well have stopped with the flat assertion. Nothing at all will be accomplished if they did succeed–except to distract attention from the real question.

Does it matter whether we (not the computers) are persons, or not?

All of us say ‘yes’ to this–except those persons who understand the metaphysical implications of saying ‘yes’ to this, and so who then (temporarily) say ‘no’ to avoid those implications.

It isn’t wrong to try to use human thinking to explain human thinking. After all, I’m doing it myself right now!

It is wrong to try to presume a targeted conclusion, though.

This is why atheists, quite properly, do not accept Christians (or anyone else) saying: “If you will only start by presuming God exists, I will prove to you that God exists.”

Similarly, I do not accept atheists (or anyone else) saying: “If you will only start by presuming we can justify an argument, we will prove to you it is possible to justify an argument.”

Thanks, but no thanks.

Yet one way or the other, this is what atheism eventually requires.

[JasonPratt]

We know what reactions at least sometimes produce, in regard to human thinking.

At least sometimes, reactions produce total drivel.

I repeat: we know this quite well. We know it so well, that usually the first conclusion we draw when we think someone’s “conclusion” has been produced by knee-jerk automatic reactions…

…is to discount the conclusion.

And to discount the relevancy of that person.

It isn’t that the (merely reactive) conclusion must necessarily be false. We just don’t trust the source. We want to hear from a responsible thinker (even if he turns out to be wrong); not a driveller.

No atheist would intentionally accept Christianity (for instance) on the ground that Christians are knee-jerk mouth-breathers.

No atheist would accept Christianity as a belief on this ground, even if Christians were proved to be exceptionally efficient knee-jerkers!

But atheists propose (in effect) that the Final Fact is an automatic set of knee-jerks. And this automatic knee-jerking necessarily produces all of our thinking–including theirs.

So why should I believe there is a difference, in their case?

[JasonPratt]

“Because…!” says the type of atheist who believes there is a real difference in this case.

“Because…!” says the type of atheist who believes there is no difference but that the no-difference makes no difference and so can be trusty anyway.

This is a mutually exclusive option set. Either a difference can be made, in this set of ultimately automatic events–or not.

And either way: they are presuming their conclusion.

The details of their explanation attempt are irrelevant.

We cannot reliably prove that this time the proof can be considered reliable–because we will already be presuming that this time the proof can be considered reliable.

We cannot prove there really are such things as proofs.

And, we cannot prove we don’t have to have proofs.

But we will end up trying to do one or the other, for the sake of our own claims as thinking people–if we propose atheism.

If we propose atheism, we end up attempting one of two impossible tasks:

justifying the Golden Presumption.

denying the Golden Presumption.

Atheism must be false.

Not-atheism must be true.

Period.

[JasonPratt]

Maybe I do only react and counterreact. If so, and if someone tells me the Final Fact also only reacts and counterreacts, then I might as well believe the FF is also a Person.

But an atheist will say that the structure of my thinking organ, my brain, is what makes the difference between me being a person, and the FF (usually Nature) not being a Person.

It is not that my brain is more complex than the total field of Nature–my brain certainly is not! But it does have certain arrangements that are complex, in specific ways, distinct from other portions of Nature (such as, for instance, this book you are reading).

Can that possibly make a difference?

One type of atheist will strenuously claim it makes all the difference between reaction and action.

The other type of atheist will strenuously claim it cannot possibly do any such thing–but it does make some other crucial kinds of difference.

You may notice this has parallels with the question of computer AI.

[JasonPratt]

One type of atheist believes that if we just get those reactions and counterreactions complex enough, in the right ways, intentive actions will be produced as a capability for the computer.

The other type of atheist believes that no amount or arrangement of reactions and counterreactions will ever produce a single action; although they readily agree that after a certain point we will be unable to keep track of the complexity and so it will look (to us) like the computer is acting. This is highly evident even in toys designed to amuse us. “My Furbee loves me!” my little cousin used to say–before she grew up and learned better. Flip a series of drawings at high enough speed, and they seem to move by themselves. The efficiency of the reactions, is the crucial difference–so such atheists think. (And so such atheists think they are thinking!)

Either way, a lot of atheists are quite sure that sooner or later they will be able to demonstrate, with AI (one way or the other), that human thinking only needs to be considered in reference to ultimate reactions.

And here comes the hole.

The human thinking they are hoping to explain in this way, is the human thinking they are using to make their explanation.

[JasonPratt]

So what if computers become complex to the point we cannot keep track, and it looks like actions? We’ve been in that situation ever since we invented computers! I can’t keep track of what is happening in my Macintosh already. I can’t keep track of what is happening in a game of Pong released in 1980. I doubt I could keep track of what was happening in the punchcard computer my mother helped operate, back in the 60s.

Nothing new (in this scenario) will ever be added to the mix–the illusion will only become more difficult to detect. And we already know what the implications of this illusion are. My cousin’s little Furbee is not a person. A much better illusion cannot really change that.

On the other hand, so what if it happens to be possible for reactions to produce actions inside a computer? The atheists who hope to prove it is possible by doing this, are already presuming it is possible–in their own thinking! They might as well have stopped with the flat assertion. Nothing at all will be accomplished if they did succeed–except to distract attention from the real question.

Does it matter whether we (not the computers) are persons, or not?

All of us say ‘yes’ to this–except those persons who understand the metaphysical implications of saying ‘yes’ to this, and so who then (temporarily) say ‘no’ to avoid those implications.

It isn’t wrong to try to use human thinking to explain human thinking. After all, I’m doing it myself right now!

It is wrong to try to presume a targeted conclusion, though.

This is why atheists, quite properly, do not accept Christians (or anyone else) saying: “If you will only start by presuming God exists, I will prove to you that God exists.”

Similarly, I do not accept atheists (or anyone else) saying: “If you will only start by presuming we can justify an argument, we will prove to you it is possible to justify an argument.”

Thanks, but no thanks.

Yet one way or the other, this is what atheism eventually requires.

[JasonPratt]

We know what reactions at least sometimes produce, in regard to human thinking.

At least sometimes, reactions produce total drivel.

I repeat: we know this quite well. We know it so well, that usually the first conclusion we draw when we think someone’s “conclusion” has been produced by knee-jerk automatic reactions…

…is to discount the conclusion.

And to discount the relevancy of that person.

It isn’t that the (merely reactive) conclusion must necessarily be false. We just don’t trust the source. We want to hear from a responsible thinker (even if he turns out to be wrong); not a driveller.

No atheist would intentionally accept Christianity (for instance) on the ground that Christians are knee-jerk mouth-breathers.

No atheist would accept Christianity as a belief on this ground, even if Christians were proved to be exceptionally efficient knee-jerkers!

But atheists propose (in effect) that the Final Fact is an automatic set of knee-jerks. And this automatic knee-jerking necessarily produces all of our thinking–including theirs.

So why should I believe there is a difference, in their case?

[JasonPratt]

“Because…!” says the type of atheist who believes there is a real difference in this case.

“Because…!” says the type of atheist who believes there is no difference but that the no-difference makes no difference and so can be trusty anyway.

This is a mutually exclusive option set. Either a difference can be made, in this set of ultimately automatic events–or not.

And either way: they are presuming their conclusion.

The details of their explanation attempt are irrelevant.

We cannot reliably prove that this time the proof can be considered reliable–because we will already be presuming that this time the proof can be considered reliable.

We cannot prove there really are such things as proofs.

And, we cannot prove we don’t have to have proofs.

But we will end up trying to do one or the other, for the sake of our own claims as thinking people–if we propose atheism.

If we propose atheism, we end up attempting one of two impossible tasks:

justifying the Golden Presumption.

denying the Golden Presumption.

Atheism must be false.

Not-atheism must be true.

Period.

[JasonPratt]

Part 5 of 5: A Conclusion That Begins

Hey!–where did all that ‘true love’ stuff go??

It’s still around.

I believe God exists, because I believe in myself. And because I believe in her, whom I truly love. Whether or not she believes God exists, I still believe in her.

Admittedly, I knew this principle long before I met her. But still–you might manage to browbeat me somehow into believing I do not exist.

You will never succeed in convincing me that she does not exist!–that she is not a real person; that she does not make her own choices; that I should not treasure those choices, treasure her, for being her and being real.

I believe in God, because I refuse to disbelieve in her. Ever.

Even if she does not believe in God.

The same goes for you, my reader. I am writing this book for you to judge–not for you to knee-jerk react to.

I believe in God, because I refuse to disbelieve in you.

Even if you do not believe in God.

[JasonPratt]

Wait! Am I saying atheists don’t truly love people!?!

On the contrary–I am counting on the fact that they do!

I can put it this way: it is because I seriously believe that unbelievers can truly love people, that I believe God exists.

Do you disbelieve in God? Are you not sure whether God exists?

I am willing to accept that you exist. And I am willing to believe in you. Even if we discount the question of true love, I am willing to treat you as a responsibly thinking person. (Which is why I would prefer you didn’t think ir-responsibly.)

But being willing to treat you as a real person, has deductive implications for conclusion.

‘God exists’ is one of those deductive implications.

But wait! Am I saying there are no such things as reactions!?!

On the contrary–I robustly affirm that there are such things as reactions; and I robustly affirm that they contribute strongly to human behavior, including my own.

These are, in fact, very important observations–and they also have important deductive consequences. Which I will cover later.

But the existence of human reactions, even as part of our mental processes, doesn’t change the fact of human actions. Nor does it change the deductive consequences of human actions.

There are good reasons to scientifically study the reactive processes of the human mind (including mine). We can learn many useful truths in this way, about us as a species, and about us individually.

But there is a line that must be strenuously held.

And all researchers do in fact hold it, in practice, and in principle–except when they are trying to hold to a principle they would philosophically prefer. And even then they still always hold the line I am holding, in practice.

[JasonPratt]

A researcher must not claim that his own mental processes are intrinsically irresponsible.

The moment he does this, he is claiming his own claims are irresponsible.

No researcher wants to be treated as being intrinsically irresponsible. No researcher considers his own theories as being intrinsically irresponsible.

Therefore, I do not believe any researcher when he implies that human thinking is intrinsically irresponsible.

I think they shouldn’t believe those theories of theirs, either.

If a researcher or philosopher wants me to believe his theories about human mental reactions, then I will also believe in human actions–specifically, his.

And, consequently, I will believe in the implications of real human action.

And one deductive implication is: God exists.

…Unless: my argument against atheism also zorches not-atheism.

And that would have to be considered next.

[Which catches us up, topically, to the start of [url=http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1201]Series 216.]