The atheist that left me at a loss for words

Time and again in this blog we have circled back to the questions of rationality, belief and knowledge. Over that time I have been honored to have a number of atheists visiting my parlor (a noun which has a warmer resonance than "my blog") to debate these issues. A number of them, locked in a certain set of categories about belief, rationality, and knowledge, have genuinely been trying to understand a different way of cutting the epistemic pie.

And so we come to Conversational Atheist's comments of a couple weeks ago. Anxious to parse the differences between a hardnosed secularist like himself and a perplexing theologian like me, he offered an analysis of the differences between us in the thread for "Hell: Christianity's most burning issue." That was a couple weeks ago. I promised to respond. I sometimes keep my promises. This is one of those times.

Conversational Atheist begins by affirming knowledge of abstract mathematical truths. Yes, 1+1=2 really is knowledge: it is knowledge of abstract mathematical relationships. And he observes: "One of the features of abstract subjects, in my view, is that it is quite possible to make real progress in them without new inputs." Though he doesn't use the language, Conversational Atheist is clearly affirming a priori knowledge here. Or at least he is affirming a priori knowledge of abstract objects.

Next, he notes a second kind of knowledge he affirms, knowledge of "external reality" which includes knowledge of "how stars work, the rules that govern the motions of the planets, etc." In contrast to a priori knowledge, which is an arm chair exercise in thinking about the necessary connections between abstract objects, when it comes to this kind of knowledge - a posteriori knowledge (though he doesn't use the term) - you have to study the world to get it.

That's fine with me. But then Conversational Atheist says ominously: "That brings me to what I think is our main point of conflict between our approaches." The wind suddenly carries a chill. The birds have stopped chirping. Dark clouds have rolled in. I feel a hint of panic. Just what is this difference?

Here is what he says:

I fully acknowledge that progress can be made in all areas of mathematics and much of philosophy from internal reflection and argument without any new data coming into a person's head. When a person thinks that this abstract knowledge can tell us something specific about external reality, the existence of God for example, they are simply making a category error.

Can theology reason out the attributes of what would be a perfect being? Sure. Can abstract reasoning alone tell us something about external reality? Possibly... although I'm having a hard time thinking of an example where it's happened before.

I have colored red what seems to be that main difference. I am relieved. There is so much I would like to say here. Where to begin? Since this post is already getting long in the tooth, I'll limit myself to two comments and then we can see where, if anywhere, the conversation takes us.

First, so far as I can see, Conversational Atheist affirms a realm of abstracta composed of such things as numbers and their relationships. This realm of abstracta is apparently not merely the construction of human minds but a dimension of reality which is irreducible to and indeed independent of the physical, space time universe that is the object of formal scientific study and mundane experience.

I agree with Conversational Atheist that such a realm exists. However, I find it a bit inconsistent that he affirms it whilst expressing incredulity toward concepts like "supernature". After all, a supernature simply is a realm irreducible to and independent of the physical space time universe. Thus he already affirms a supernature, at least as far as the abstract realm is concerned.

This leads me to ask Conversational Atheist (and anybody else) two questions of this realm. First, an epistemological question. How do we gain knowledge of this realm? That appears very mysterious, indeed somewhat revelatory. (J. Oliver Buswell once commented: "I hold that when we say we "know" that five plus seven equals twelve, we are expressing a fathomless mystery.") Secular philosophers have puzzled over this. James Van Cleve describes intuition of this kind as "‘seeing'- by a kind of intellectual vision - that a proposition is true...." But how does this seeing work? Perhaps the mystery is not fathomless, but how does Conversational Atheist explain our ability to intuit a priori knowledge?

(If he has no satisfactory account, then how can he pillory others who purport to have other knowledge from this realm of the supernature, sans a clear account of how they gain it, without coming across as a hypocrite?)

Second, what is the ontological status of this realm? And if you accept the existence of abstract numbers and their relations which are irreducible to and independent of the physical world, what about other entities like souls, spirit beings, and God? What rational reason does Conversational Atheist have to believe the supernatural realm, like the natural realm, does not far transcend his limited experiences?

With that let's come back to our second major point concerning Conversational Atheist's pivotal issue of difference: "When a person thinks that this abstract knowledge can tell us something specific about external reality, the existence of God for example, they are simply making a category error."

I am struggling to be charitable here because over the months I have developed a certain fondness for Conversational Atheist and his cohorts. Nonetheless, I confess that I find this statement to be rather bizarre. Ask an engineer or the pilot of an aircraft: "do you use the abstract knowledge of mathematics in your work?" and they will answer "Of course" (if they are charitable) or "Well duh!" (if they are uncharitable). Press them with another question: "Do you believe that this abstract knowledge can tell us something specific about external reality?" and they will look at you like you're crazy (if they are charitable) or they will call over their friends to make fun of you (if they are uncharitable).

Of course abstract knowledge tells us something specific about external reality. How could anybody affirm science and avail themselves of even the most modest technologies whilst denying this?

At this point I find myself in a state that is for me quite unusual: I'm at a loss for words.