A reader alerts me that Jerry Coyne, whose philosophical efforts we had occasion recently to evaluate, has been reading some theology – “under the tutelage of the estimable Eric MacDonald,” Coyne tells us. And who is Eric MacDonald? A neutral party to the debate between theologians and New Atheist types like Coyne, right? Well, not exactly. Turns out MacDonald is “an ex-Anglican priest” who has been “wean[ed]… from his faith,” and who claims that “religious beliefs and doctrines not only have no rational basis, but are, in fact, a danger to rational, evidence-based thinking.”
Give Coyne’s post a read, then come back. Now, you might recall my fanciful dialogue from a few months back between a scientist and a bigoted science-bashing skeptic. The point was to try, through analogy, to help New Atheist types see how they appear to others, and how irrational and ill-informed they really are. (If you haven’t seen the dialogue, go read that too, then come back.) To see what is wrong with Coyne’s latest remarks, we can imagine that that dialogue might continue as follows:
Skeptic: I’m trying to learn science so I can meet head-on the argument that we science critics are ignorant of the subject. So, under the tutelage of the estimable Bruno Latour, I have spent several weeks reading this stuff. And so far, I’ve learned only three things. First of all, I’m wasting my time reading drivel about beliefs that have no basis in fact when I could be learning about real things instead. Second, scientists can’t write. A lot of what they have to say is obscure bafflegab, and I’m starting to believe that this obscurantism is deliberate because of reason three (which I’ll get to in a minute). I have for example, just opened Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam by John Wheeler to a random chapter. And there I find this:
“On the other hand, when we see time symmetry marred in an elementary process, when we contemplate the writhings of spacetime in wormholes and quantum foam, when we see tiny deviations from Dirac’s predictions for the electron produced by quantum fluctuations, we realize that the “floor” of simplicity as we move to smaller and smaller domains is illusory. Beneath that floor, in still smaller domains, chaos and complexity reign again.”
“On the other hand, when we see time symmetry marred in an elementary process, when we contemplate the writhings of spacetime in wormholes and quantum foam, when we see tiny deviations from Dirac’s predictions for the electron produced by quantum fluctuations, we realize that the “floor” of simplicity as we move to smaller and smaller domains is illusory. Beneath that floor, in still smaller domains, chaos and complexity reign again.”
Believe me, the book contains paragraphs far more obscure and pretentious than this one. Can you imagine reading this stuff night after night? Do you see why my head feels about to explode? Bruno, why are you doing this to me?
Scientist: Well, it’s easy to make fun of serious ideas by ripping them out of context. Actually understanding them is a different story. Wheeler is an important thinker, and you quite obviously haven’t the faintest understanding of what he’s saying.
Skeptic: Oh brother, here we go again. “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” You always say that. Then comes the Courtier’s reply: “Learn the science before commenting on it!” But now that I have learned it, even that’s not enough for you. Why don’t you just finally admit that science is like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I mean, “geons” and “quantum foam” are only the beginning. This Wheeler guy goes on about tons of other crackpot stuff, like “black holes,” “muons,” “cosmic rays,””wave-particle duality,” and “It from Bit,” whatever the hell that means.
Scientist: But my point is that you haven’t “learned the science.” Just reading a book doesn’t mean anything if you’re not even trying to understand it. And you’ve more or less admitted that you’re not – you’re only interested in scoring a debating point against those who’ve exposed your lack of knowledge of science. There’s nothing obscure or crackpot about anything Wheeler said. He’s just using technical terminology. But the ideas are complicated and are the result of decades or even centuries of scientific developments. You can’t seriously expect to understand it all just by mining a couple of books over the weekend for passages you can make smart-ass remarks about.
Skeptic: But why waste time trying to understand it when these scientists never show how what they’re saying tells us anything about reality in the first place? Because that’s the third thing I’ve learned. There seems to be no “knowledge” behind science. One gets the strong sense when reading science that everyone is just making stuff up. There are few arguments for relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, etc. at all in what I read. People just assume these things are real and go from there.
Scientist: What are you talking about? Lots of scientists have argued for those things, at length!
Skeptic: Not in what I’ve read these last few weeks. For example, read a book like Gregory’s Eye and Brain and you’ll find he talks about how evolution did this or how photons do that. But he never gives us any argument for the existence of these “photon” thingies, and he never answers all the objections people have made to evolution. It’s all based on faith.
Scientist: He doesn’t address those things at length because the book is about vision, and not photons or evolution per se. He can take that stuff for granted because other people have argued for it elsewhere. He isn’t even trying to answer skeptics about evolution or modern physics in a book like that. Really, do you expect every science book to start from square one and recapitulate what others have already said about every issue that might be relevant to a subject, just to satisfy skeptics like you?
Skeptic: But their belief in these things is not based on argument. It’s based on peer pressure, groupthink, the fear of being ostracized. The so-called “arguments” you refer to are just rationalizations for what scientists were indoctrinated into believing while in school and what all their colleagues expect them to believe when they go to conferences, try to get tenure or funding or to get their papers accepted for publication, etc. It reflects the worship of science that dominates our society – its pop culture, its educational institutions, commerce and industry, you name it. It’s all socially constructed, not based in reality. As Latour says in Laboratory Life…
Scientist: That’s another thing. When the hell did Bruno Latour, of all people, become a neutral source in this debate?!
Skeptic: What do you mean? Latour is himself a scientist! In fact, he’s a recognized expert in no less than two sciences, anthropology and sociology. He also wrote a very influential study of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Scientist: This is surreal. I don’t think you’ll find a lot of physicists or biologists who would agree that what Latour does is “science.” I’ll bet even many anthropologists wouldn’t. And as to his article on relativity…
Skeptic: Ah, I see, so the scientists don’t even agree among themselves about what “science” is. It’s just a bunch of warring, faith-based sects that…
Scientist: No, there is certainly consensus among serious scientists about…
Skeptic: Oh, so when you cite some scientist, he’s a “serious” scientist or a “real” scientist, but when I cite some scientist in my favor, suddenly he’s not a “real” scientist or a “serious” one. How convenient! Do you have any idea how you sound?
Scientist: It only “sounds” suspicious if you’re hell-bent on finding something suspicious about it instead of trying to understand the reasons why I say what I do. Look, you’re so off-base about so many things that I’ve got to start from first principles even to make a dent, and it’s complicated further by…
Skeptic: Yeah, yeah, it’s “complicated,” I don’t understand the issues, Courtier’s reply, blah blah blah. Whatever. You tell me I need to learn about science before criticizing it, so – just to humor you, because I already know it’s a waste of time – I do. Then, because you don’t like what the evidence I’ve uncovered shows, you suddenly shift your ground and say that reading science books isn’t good enough after all, and that the scientists I cite are not “real” scientists. I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this conversation any further. And I don’t think there’s any point in reading any more science. I don’t want to waste months of my life reading this stuff if there’s nothing to be gained from it except the ability to say to my opponents, “Yes, I do know about scientific schools of thought X, Y, and Z.” Why bother to torture our brains if we can simply ask scientists to prove, using evidence and reason, that their viewpoint is correct, and better than that of either science critics like me, or other scientists? But they never do that – it’s all just making stuff up or at best rationalizing preconceived ideas.
Now, Coyne would be outraged by our Skeptic, and rightly so. But replace “Skeptic” with “Coyne,” “Scientist” with “Theologian,” and so forth, and I submit that you’ve got a dead-on summary of Coyne’s attitude toward theology. Of course, Coyne and his ilk will insist that the cases are different. But what you will never get from them is an actual argument for this claim, or at least not an argument that doesn’t beg the question.
If there were any doubt that Coyne’s reading project is unserious, it is dispelled by his jaw-dropping remark that he hasn’t come across any arguments for God’s existence “that aren’t taken up and refuted in The God Delusion.” If Coyne were to imagine his own reaction to a creationist who said he hadn’t seen any arguments for evolution “that aren’t taken up and refuted in Duane Gish’s Evolution: The Fossils Say No!,” he would have some idea of what a fool he is making of himself. Reasonable and well-informed people can disagree about whether a thinker like Aquinas (say) has proved the existence of God. Reasonable and well-informed people cannot disagree about whether Richard Dawkins knows what the hell he is talking about when he criticizes thinkers like Aquinas in The God Delusion. He does not, and to every Aquinas scholar it is cringe-makingly obvious that he does not. If Coyne does not know this – and his own clueless past remarks about Aquinas show that he doesn’t – then it is hard to believe that he has even tried to look for serious defenses of the arguments for God’s existence, and thus hard to see how he has any business complaining that he hasn’t found them.
Still, Coyne insists that he really wants to know what the best arguments are, that he is “dead serious here, and not looking for sarcastic answers,” and even that he is “hoping that some real theologians will read this and provide some answers.” Well, here is an answer. If Coyne really wants to know what the rational foundations of theology are, he should read works that aim to lay down those foundations, instead of works that presuppose them – just like someone skeptical about evolution should read a book like Coyne’s Why Evolution is True instead of complaining that books like Richard Gregory’s Eye and Brain do not argue for evolution.
Traditionally, the central argument for God’s existence is the cosmological argument, and (also traditionally) the most important versions of that argument are the ones summed up in the first three of Aquinas’s Five Ways. But the typical modern reader is simply not going to understand the Five Ways just by reading the usual two-page excerpt one finds in anthologies. For one thing, the arguments were never intended to be stand-alone, one-stop proofs that would convince even the most hardened skeptic. They are only meant to be brief sketches of arguments the more detailed versions of which the intended readers of Aquinas’s day would have found elsewhere. For another thing, the terminology and argumentative moves presuppose a number of metaphysical theses that Aquinas also develops and defends elsewhere.
So, to understand the Five Ways, the modern reader needs to read something that makes all this background clear, that explains how modern Thomists would reply to the stock objections to the arguments, and so forth. Naturally, I would recommend my own book Aquinas, since it was intended in part precisely as an up-to-date explanation and defense of these arguments, and will provide the reader with a useful survey of what not only Aquinas, but the Thomistic tradition more generally, has said about them. (I do some of this in The Last Superstition too, of course. But that book does not deal with the Third Way, as the Aquinas book does. Moreover, New Atheists – who have a sense of humor about everything but themselves – are likely to make the polemical tone of TLS an excuse for dismissing its arguments. This is unreasonable, of course, especially given their own excessive polemics – I’m only fighting fire with fire – but there it is.)
Another relatively recent book to look at on the Five Ways is Christopher F. J. Martin’s Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations. Unfortunately, this is an expensive book, but it looks like the University of Chicago library has a copy, so Coyne should have no trouble getting hold of it. If Coyne wants to dig even deeper into a broadly Thomistic approach informed by hard core analytic philosophy, I would recommend that he look at Barry Miller’s trilogy: From Existence to God, A Most Unlikely God, and The Fullness of Being. These are also expensive, but I see that Coyne is again in luck, since the University of Chicago library has all three. There are also some articles on Aquinas’s arguments worth checking out, such as David Oderberg’s recent piece on the first premise of the First Way. And then there is the question of how Aquinas would deal with the atheistic objection from evil, the best recent book on which is Brian Davies’ The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil.
After Aquinas’s versions of the cosmological argument, the next most important argument for God’s existence is the kalām cosmological argument. Here the things to read are William Lane Craig’s books The Kalām Cosmological Argument and Atheism, Theism, and Big Bang Cosmology (co-written with atheist Quentin Smith), and David Oderberg’s articles on the subject (available here, here, here, here, and here).
So, there’s your answer, Prof. Coyne. No need to thank me!
I don't think his comment had anything to do with mine. It was kind of a typical reply to the original post that didn't allow itself to be informed by the source material. I am embarrassed to admit how many times I did the same. There is much talk on WEIT on the evils of "framing" without an honest practice of understanding how atheist-empiricists might do the same. Confirmation bias is a human problem, not just a religious one.
ReplyDeleteIt's actually a fundamental presupposition in science that NO truth can be established by science. Science can only give you the probability that a proposition is true or false given one's background knowledge about the universe and the immediate evidence for or against the proposition.
ReplyDeleteOnly since Popper and his program of undermining scientific certainty and bringing scientists down a peg or two. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's true that there are mountains on the moon [Galileo], the heart pumps the blood [Harvey], light is composed of different frequencies [Newton], and bodies attract one another inversely to the square of their distances from one another [Newton, again].
Popper applies only against the level of physical theories. He once cited Darwinian natural selection as an example of a theory that was not falsifiable. It is entirely true that through any finite collection of facts one can draw innumerable theories. I can think of five different quantum theories off hand, and several theories of evolution. These of course are falsifiable; but then they are not facts, either.
"I can think of five different quantum theories off hand . . ."
ReplyDeleteMan, do I feel inferior. I can't think of any. But I do know that Scott Bakula starred in "Quantum Leap".
TOF, I think I saw a post at WEIT with your fingerprints on it. If that was yours it was very intelligent and I hope will shake up the group think there.
You can learn interesting things about things by looking at the concepts of things.
ReplyDeleteYou can learn interesting things about things by carefully and critically examining one's concepts of things paying special attention to ways in which the concepts might not map very well onto the things themselves. Aristotle had the wrong theory of causality because he wasn't critical enough of his intuition.
On the other hand, we can learn a whole lot about ourselves by carefully examining our concepts as well. Pinker's The Stuff of Thought makes a pretty good argument (IMO) that Aristotle and Kant were basically describing the view of the world from inside the mind (while under the mistaken impression they were describing the world itself).
The map/territory distinction is useful here. From my perspective, we all have maps but no clear view of the territory, and we produce better maps by comparing our maps to each other, copying over the common features and leaving the unique features in the individuals' maps. In this analogy, empiricism is simply the means of calibrating the map to the territory -- of making sure you're not lost.
Even Occam's Razor,
ReplyDeleteSo often misstated. William of Ockham stated (in modern terms) that you should not have so many variables in your models that you don't understand what your model is doing. He never said anything about simpler hypotheses being more likely true. In fact, he said that the natural world could be as complex as God willed.
It's worth comparing "truth" with "fact," also.
Is all evidence equally weighted?
ReplyDeleteOh, dear. More non-empirical criteria. Cf. the historical method.
Only since Popper and his program of undermining scientific certainty and bringing scientists down a peg or two.
ReplyDeleteThe trend didn't start with Popper. It started with Socrates. Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, and Hume all contributed along with many other figures. All these guys worked well before Popper did. Not to mention that Bayes' theorem predates Popperian falsification, and the latter is simply a special case of the former.
Also, I don't get the sense that Popper was trying to "take scientists down a peg or two." I'm pretty sure he was actually trying to find some sensible justification for why science works so well, and that his program was more or less meaningless to working scientists. Like Feynman said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." Which is not to say ornithology (or philosophy of science) is useful, it's just not useful to birds.
TheOFloinn:
ReplyDeleteRe: Occam's Razor.
So, do I believe you or the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
Fact. From factum est. Something that has the property of having been made. Sometimes by simple obervation, more often by mediation of some instrument, or actively produced by deliberate experiment.
ReplyDeleteTruth. Faithful to a standard. E.g., to be true to your spouse.
In natural science, a theory must be true to the facts. The theory is never itself a "fact" since it cannot be seen, weighed, measured, etc.
In mathematics, a theorem must be true to the body of postulates and derived theorems.
These are called respectively the correspondence definition of truth and the coherence definition of truth.
In fiction, a story ought to be true to life. There is a correspondence here, but not a direct one. No one expects that the account in Beauty and the Beast is factual; but the account is true. And the truth is that sometimes you must love someone before he becomes lovable.
Five different quantum theories
ReplyDelete1. Standard model (Copenhagen) interpretation
2. Everett-Wheeler's Many-worlds interpretation http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw03.html
3. John Cramer's transactional interpretation http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw16.html
4. David Bohm's standing wave interpretation
5. Wolfgang Smith's Aristotelian-Thomist interpretation http://brightmorningstar.blog.com/2008/02/10/a-review-of-wolfgangs-smiths-the-quantum-enigma/
TOF,
ReplyDeleteYou are a smarter man than I.
I look forward to engaging the ideas at your blog.
I'm very much enjoying getting to know you.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteOne response to my request for empirical hygiene vis a vis Professor Feser's actual vs. implied rejoinder to Dr. Coyne.
Sadly, it is an ad hominem towards Professor Feaser.
I hope Professor Feaser doesn't expect me to become a Roman Catholic once I've read his book. I have 14 years of Catholic education and don't find the religion very useful.
I would ironically agree about the Catholic Education part.
ReplyDeleteI didn't learn shit about doctrinal or philosophy growing up Catholic.
I learned a few rituals & was confirmed.
No around age 20 I took it upon myself to learn about the Catholic on my own.
I have no regrets. Learning Thomistic Philosophy late in life has saved my Faith.
A Catholic Education also gave me a deep resentment towards authority and a level of shame where Calvinism seemed a plausible alternative.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if faith in any god(s) will occur for me but, do think my character and intellect can be developed by engaging ideas apposite to my instincts.
BY, sort of off-topic, but do you think it would be a good idea for Thomistic philosophy and doctrinal stuff to be mandatory subjects of study in Catholic high schools and colleges?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't Catholic, but attended a Catholic HS where students "learned" out of a "religion picture book." No serious attention was given to the study of Christianity at all, let alone philosophical investigation into the topics, and the students' totally immoral/amoral/nonchalant behavior outside of school confirmed this. They were practical atheists.
I often feel that if serious study of philosophy and theology occurred within Catholic high schools and colleges (and Christian institutions in general), we'd see less immorality and indifference.
Heck yeh! I mean it's unrealistic to think it would guarantee automatic loyalty or belief but it would at least be a start in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI'm in love with the Classic View of God and as a result I love God more.
I often feel that if serious study of philosophy and theology occurred within Catholic high schools and colleges (and Christian institutions in general), we'd see less immorality and indifference.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen any reason to believe that belief in God or understanding of theology has anything to do with immorality or apathy. The most moral, passionate people I know are atheists who don't care very much about philosophy, secular or religious.
Also, this is the sort of comment that gets under atheists' skin. Even if you didn't mean it as part of the "all morality comes from God" trope it comes across that way. If you're interested in fostering any kind of understanding between atheists and believers I'd suggest trying to find alternate ways of phrasing what you're trying to say -- phrasings that don't imply atheists are amoral monsters.
"Is all evidence equally weighted?
ReplyDeleteOh, dear. More non-empirical criteria. Cf. the historical method."
TheOFloinn: Is that a yes, a no, a "doesn't matter," or "none of the above"?
Someone else mentioned that the evidence would have some impact on the likelihood of something being true. I simply want to know whether each scrap of evidence--however construed--is to be taken as having the same impact. And I want to know the justification behind the answer.
Your response was unhelpful.
@Anon 2:06 PM
ReplyDeleteSo Atheists as a whole in your experience believe in chastity and are repelled by Sex outside marriage?
;-)
Seriously?;-)
Well then what's the point....
Kidding!
No I think the other Anon was talking about sexual immorality which Christians of all stripes reject. Not immorality as in criminality or being unethical.
The most moral, passionate people I know are atheists who don't care very much about philosophy, secular or religious.
ReplyDeleteThe most immoral people I know are irreligious and/or atheists. Oh, there are some immoral theists too - we're sinners all - but should I take that experience to indicate that atheists are, in fact, immoral?
What if I look at statistical data showing atheists being far more likely to support things I find morally abhorrent, like abortion?
If you're interested in fostering any kind of understanding between atheists and believers I'd suggest trying to find alternate ways of phrasing what you're trying to say -- phrasings that don't imply atheists are amoral monsters.
New Atheists are expressly uninterested in 'fostering understanding'. Dawkins has outright said that he's happy to rely on ridicule and shame to get the results he wants.
Is it okay to say that atheism entails amorality, or immorality from the perspective of other views of morality - especially if there are considerable arguments to that effect? What do I do with the atheists who espouse moral relativism?
Really, this sort of complaint sounds to me like the old chestnut of the atheist complaining that theists are stupid, science-hating, dangerous to themselves and others, and that belief in God should be placed on the DSM - and then, a moment later, loudly complaining about how unfair it is that statistics show many theists have a low opinion of atheists.
By the way, as someone who went through 12 years of Catholic education...
ReplyDelete"Catholic education" was useless for me religiously. There were one or two bright spots in there, people who taught me valuable lessons - they had nothing to do with the curriculum. I had to learn what the immaculate conception was from George freaking Carlin.
Here's an exercise for anyone who thinks that commenting on Coyne's blog to explain or defend arguments of the sort Professor Feser elucidates in 'Aquinas' and 'The Last Superstition' is worth a moment's time: First, search the word 'Feser,' and read all the posts containing it. Second, search the word 'Aquinas,' and read all the posts containing it. Now, I presume you'll agree that aside from Chuck's and Ye Old Statistician's posts, they're all either (ineptly and unoriginally) insulting, or seriously stupid. If you doubt me, here's some evidence:
ReplyDeleteBen Goren: "The Cosmological Argument isn’t merely dumb; it’s an iron-clad proof that Aquinas’s God doesn’t exist.
Simplified, the claim is that everything that exists has a creator of some sort or another. If we take that to be true, then it is also true that nothing which exists lacks a creator. Or, in still other words, all things that lack a creator also don’t exist.
Aquinas’s god lacks a creator.
QED and all that."
Ray Moscow: "Frankly I came away very disppointed, suspecting that the 13th century must have been a rather bleak period if Aquinas is considered the great mind of his age."
Dominic: "I can forgive Aquinas for his crazy ideas – they made sense in a world without evolution, but these nincompoops are born into an age when they should know better. Ridiculous."
James Sweet: "If Fesser were pushing you to re-examine one of the purported evidential cases for theism, it would be harder to dismiss him so easily. (But of course, any intelligent theologian knows the evidential cases have all been thoroughly dismantled by the progress of science, so we know he won’t be doing that) But Aquinas’ arguments are based on pure reason. Therefore, like the relativity skeptic in the alternate reality where Einstein’s equations failed to predict anything, we can dismiss these arguments without even thoroughly tracing them to find the logical flaw. (Of course, from what I’ve seen the logical flaws are always glaring too…)"
Here's my personal favorite:
Steve Oberski: "Be sure to read the bit where Aquinas says:
Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet
(From The Confessions of Saint Augustine, which spanned 13 books !)"
Jhjeffery: "I wish you hadn’t made that pledge to read Tom. You will find him a blithering idiot–although his worst feature is that he is a boring writer. His job (I have entertained the notion that this project might have been assigned to him) was to take the newly rediscovered writings of Aristotle and pound those nice round thoughts into the square holes of Christianity."
Steve Smith: "It should be a theological rule, or at least an internet rule, that anyone invoking the cosmological argument must tell us who made god."
(continued)
Patrick: "Feser himself isn’t going to send you on an infinite journey of reading theology. He’s going to tell you to read Aquinas, and then he’s going to declare that he’s SURE you’re a Catholic now because Aquinas is self evidently true. And then when you’re not convinced because you don’t actually find Aquinas’ positions self evidently true, he’ll talk smack about you.
ReplyDeleteHe’s run a blog on that formula for… a long time now.
The infinite regress comes from the fact that Feser is just one moron amongst many, convinced that his small, unpopular bit of theology is the self evident Truth, and that everyone in the world is morally culpable for not reading and engaging with it."
Madscientist: "I’d say don’t waste time reading Aquinas – he was a bona fide imbecile of the worst kind. A typical argument by Aquinas would ‘prove’ the existence of god by making some statements (including unwarranted assumptions such as the existence of god), babbling nonsensically for 600 pages, then claiming that god must exist (presumably because of the previous assumption that he exists – Aquinas must have convinced himself that any reader would have forgotten the assumption of the existence of god somewhere along those 600 pages or so)."
Ben Goren (again -- he seems to have many quotables): "Perhaps you could enlighten us, then as to what the premise actually is, and how it does not logically reduce to “everything needs a cause except for Jesus”?"
Dominic: (again, though he's not as good as ol' Ben): "When I said “It becomes opaque unless you have the theological polarizing spectacles.” I meant the Feser argument."
Claimthehighground: "This pompous lecturing by the likes of Feser, Craig et al makes it all the more clear that we are observing the death throes of a 2000 year old meme. “Turning and turning in a (sic) widening gyre…”"
John Myerov: "He may think his Five Ways are super-duper. but they all have well-known problems. There’s overpowering reason to accept them or even be very much troubled by them. Interested readers can find plenty of “sophisticated theology” exposing the weaknesses and counter-arguments to any and all of the Five Ways. But even Dawkins’s points–which Feser’s acolytes consider cartoonish–do a decent job in capturing the surface level issues and questions involved."
GregFromCos: "It’s almost as if Feser is saying that in order to believe this, you must put your brain into the theological echo chamber. To me it just sounds like Feser is pushing the same brainwashing that all other religions push. It’s just unfortunate the religious have such a hard time seeing that."
Hempenstein: "Forcing 13th century theology into 21st century science is too big a leap. How about a two-step approach, Perfesser Feser? How does phlogiston fit in with pure actuality?"
Now I ask this in all seriousness: What is to be gained from engaging people like this in serious discussion? Any gains will be very small and hard won, and I doubt most of us have the patience for it. Further, in my experience, even if you get some concession -"Okay, no serious thinker has ever used the premise that "everything needs a cause" in any version of the cosmological argument" -- you'll find that, the very next time a discussion about the issue is raised, the very same person will repeat the original falsehood as if he never acknowledged that he was corrected. I'm sorry, but there's *far* too much bad faith on blogs like Coyne's and Myers's.
"I've never seen any reason to believe that belief in God or understanding of theology has anything to do with immorality or apathy."
ReplyDeleteWell, then, with all due respect, you need to converse with more theists, particularly those that are well-read and ideally those that shifted from atheism, agnosticism, or some other variety of non-theism to a religious form of theism. My own life story and the testimonies of others supply me with reason to believe that philosophy and theology can *sometimes* be cures for immorality and apathy. In my case, the study of philosophy and theology elevated me out of a state of apathy and moral complacency by making me take Christianity, and hence Christian moral teaching, much more seriously than I'd previously done.
"Also, this is the sort of comment that gets under atheists' skin. Even if you didn't mean it as part of the "all morality comes from God" trope it comes across that way. If you're interested in fostering any kind of understanding between atheists and believers I'd suggest trying to find alternate ways of phrasing what you're trying to say -- phrasings that don't imply atheists are amoral monsters."
I certainly don't think people who identify themselves as "atheists" are all amoral monsters. You should remember that, from a theist's perspective, everyone qua human being - IOW qua center of moral and spiritual gravity - has access to the objective moral truths revealed by God through nature.
I don't deny that atheists have a moral sense. The question is, how can you ground morality such that it can be said to be objective and true? That moral sentiments developed through some evolutionary process does not prove that you ought to follow those sentiments, or, indeed, that those sentiments are good or just, etc.
Again, I don't think that anyone who labels himself an "atheist" cannot have access to moral truths or behave morally, because it's my view that we all inhabit a theistic reality. I simply say straight out that, when they act as if there are such things as "objective moral facts" written into the fabric of reality, or flat-out state that there are, they are in fundamental contradiction with their atheism, since atheism - or rather metaphysical naturalism (after all this is the positive view that practically every atheist subscribes to) - does not have the ontological resources to ground an objective morality. It is a metaphysically impoverished worldview.
So they are, at least in some respects, "practical theists," even if in theory they subscribe to atheism, just as the Catholics I knew who on a daily basis engaged in sexual immorality and drunkenness were "practical atheists" - they consistently lived as if there was no Being to which they'd ultimately be accountable to, no such thing as an objective Moral Law that demanded their assent, no such thing as a sacred end or 'telos' towards which their human natures were directed, no such thing as "sin," etc.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteAs I said, cognitive bias is a human trait, not a religious one. I am going to be charitable towards my fellow atheists and assume they've read both Aquinas and Feser and have come away dissatisfied.
I haven't read either (hope to get a grasp on both with Feser's "Aquinas") and therefore, if I am going to be what I would wish to seem, which is a reasonable person who considers the actual data, not a second hand (and biased) representation of it, then I want to know these arguments.
I hope that you and I can exchange ideas as I wrestle with T-A ideas.
Anonymous (what number is this of our Anonymous clan? Can you guys maybe register a name so we know who we are speaking with). I find your argument for the existence of god form objective morality wanting. I always do. Within the argument you use "objective" when in fact you mean "transcendent" and I don't believe transcendent moral arguments exist. One only need a veil of ignorance towards their moral duties and a society to ascertain an objective morality. You also conflate atheism with naturalism and materialism when arguing for your moral account. They aren't the same. Lastly, if you are arguing for an objective moral by invoking a Christian God it seems you prove too much and undercut your argument either making god subject to the good (the Eurythpro dilemma) or gutting the possibility of a personal god due to the subjectivity of that person and therefore no "objective" moral.
I am an atheist and find no problem with many atheist arguments affirming solid ground towards an objective moral value.
I'd suggest a real good debate on the subject you can find on YouTube between WIlliam Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan. Kagan lays out a convincing case for objective moral value within an atheist worldview.
C'mon. Go take a look at that Coyne post and the shamefully stupid comments. And WE'RE the silly, superstitious ones? WTF?
ReplyDeleteHere's what is really happening, guys: a bunch of evangelical American Christians got a little smarter and found out that their "Christianity" was infantile and janky as ****. Instead of exploring the original, historic, orthodox, and more sophisticated forms of Christianity in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, they just totally jumped ship, taking with them their evangelical tendency towards fundyness. Instead of Sola Scriptura, we get empiricism, positivism, etc. etc. etc.
Different script, same story. The key is to talk to these American Protestants before they jump ship.
"I'd suggest a real good debate on the subject you can find on YouTube between WIlliam Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan. Kagan lays out a convincing case for objective moral value within an atheist worldview."
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Kagan doesn't even buy that case -- he's a consequentialist, not a contractualist. He seems to have defended a sketch of contractarianism, a position he doesn't hold, as a debate trick, since Craig would most likely have focused in his preparation on Kagan's work on consequentialism.
Now the strange thing is that Kagan employed what can only be judged to be a cheap debate trick in what was not, according to Craig, billed as a debate! Craig has said that he was told prior to the event that it would be a dialogue, not a debate. (If you doubt Craig's honesty about that, consider this: When Craig was asked, at the end of the dialogue, to deliver his closing remarks, he said before delivering them that he hadn't prepared any! Now could anyone imagine Craig not preparing closing remarks for what he was told would be a debate?)
Anyway, the point isn't that what Kagan said is false because Kagan himself doesn't buy it, but that anyone who listens to that discussion should at least be aware of the fact that even Kagan doesn't accept the moral theory he's outlining.
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteThe goal of my post was not to proffer a detailed case for the existence of God via the existence of moral facts, nor was it to argue precisely how atheism or specifically metaphysical naturalism lacks the ontological resources to ground morality. The goal was simply to explain my position to the anonymous who claimed I suggested that atheists were "amoral monsters." I thought that much was obvious.
"Within the argument you use 'objective' when in fact you mean 'transcendent'"
No, I meant what I said. "4+2=6" is objectively true. "Jupiter is comprised of gaseous elements" is objectively true. "Killing innocent children is wrong" is not objectively true in an atheistic universe - that phrase merely denotes a personal preference or taste. My position is that, without God, and consequently without human natures, there can be no such things as moral facts. (Dr. Feser explains how the reality of "human nature" is essential to morality in The Last Superstition)
"You also conflate atheism with naturalism and materialism"
What I said was that the preponderance of atheists today are metaphysical naturalists, which is undeniably true. So, from a practical point of view, to demonstrate the impoverishment of naturalism w.r.t. morality is to demonstrate the impoverishment of atheism w.r.t. morality. I was not saying that atheism and naturalism are equivalent at the level of philosophical theory. Of course they're not.
Anyway, my goal was not to argue for my position; it was merely to explain it so as to exonerate myself from the charge of smearing atheists as "amoral monsters." But if the former was my goal, I could argue extensively using any one of the following ideas:
-the nonexistence of God to the extent that it implies the nonexistence of "human natures" or "human essences"
-the nonexistence of "free will" --> the inability to look at the past and say coherently of any particular past event, such as the Holocaust, "That should not have happened!"
-the nonexistence of an enduring self that can be held morally accountable
There are probably a few I'm forgetting. To be sure, though, some of these ideas are more fruitful than others.
(Incidentally, I watched that debate between Craig and Kagan about a year ago. I didn't find either of their cases to be compelling. Neither of them argued the issue at a high level (which is why I usually prefer books and blogs over debates).)
By the way, I saw this on another thread and thought it was worth sharing.
ReplyDeleteNot totally relevant, but hey, relevant enough.
>I hope that you and I can exchange ideas as I wrestle with T-A ideas.
ReplyDeleteI'll do my best. Some here know more than I do but let see what happens.
Cheers!
That last post was directed at Chuck.
ReplyDeleteBTW
ReplyDeleteHere is what most of us think in regards to the Eurythpro dilemma.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-obligation-and-euthyphro-dilemma.html
We conceive of "Divine Command" Theory differently than the non-Thomists.
Oh, another gem from Coyne's blog:
ReplyDeletePatrick: "A first cause argument includes within it what is purported to be a demonstration that the universe cannot be eternal. It is necessary to give actual reasons why, if this reasoning holds for the universe, it doesn’t also hold for God.
Otherwise you end up in the same place I parodied above:
1. Only an invisible person could have stolen this priceless diamond without being seen.
2. But no man can be invisible.
3. Therefore the thief was a woman."
Now if anyone with a clue posted there, he'd be immediately hit with nonsense like this from about a dozen regulars. Even if you bothered to respond to a few of them, the others would accuse you of dodging their arguments, and the people to whom you did respond would charge you with the Courtier's Reply after you inform them that they are in serious need of some remedial reading on the issues being discussed. And if you did bother to try to explain it to them bit by bit, you'd be met, at each point, with objections as stupid as the one I quoted above (if you doubt this, see two posts above where I quote some of the New Atheism's greatest hits from over a dozen Coyne fans on the WEIT post, "O noes! I have to read Aquinas").
Eric, you sound as though you speak from experience, lol
ReplyDelete"Eric, you sound as though you speak from experience, lol"
ReplyDeleteAlas, in the past I spent far too much time commenting on blogs like Pharyngula. I still comment at DC, but that's because I like John a lot. He takes a lot of flak online -- some deserved, some not deserved -- but he's always treated me with respect, even though we disagree about nearly everything.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteBy using the qualifier of objective you imply a subject which in reality is predicated on personal relationships. Of course an atheist can say with objectivity that killing children is wrong. I can apply the veil of ignorance relative to the consideration and determine if I would prefer my son to be killed based on the policy. If you are invoking god as the seat of morality you aren't determining morality from an objective frame anyway. You might be determining it from a universal or transcendent frame but not objective one. It is predicated on the subjective will of god.
Chuck based on your response to Anon I think you once held a Theistic Personalist view of God.
ReplyDeleteWon't go over well here. We are mostly Classic Theists.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-man-and-classical-theism.html
God is not something that can coherently be described to have a subjective experience or state.
God is not a Person unequivocally comparable to us.
You will find out more in TLS.
Thanks Ben. I did hold that view. I am agnostic on the classical theistic interpretation BTW.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am unsure if I will read TLS. I'm kind of sick of polemics and by Feser's own admission it uses that to "fight fire with fire".
I am going to read and blog about his "Aquinas" however and have exchanged emails with Professor Feser in the hope that he will comment on my observations to assist in clarifying the Thomist view.
Speaking of God having a "subjective will" is about as coherent as claiming since God contains all
ReplyDeletePerfections He must have perfect muscle tone.
Which would be absurd since God is Purely Actual and His Essence is the same as His Existence thus He is Simple in substance & has no parts, passions or potency. In order to have perfect muscle tone God would have to have muscles. Which would mean He would be composite not simple. He would contain potency and not be purely actual.
Thus when we speak of God containing all perfections we don't mean the relative perfections of composite created things.
Well God has a Will but not a subjective one since God's will is the same as His nature and God is Being Itself thus he is more fundamental to reality then some super gay Theistic personalist God.
I am a strong Atheist when it comes to Theistic personalist views of God.
Go read the links for more info.
BTW don't cheat yourself.
ReplyDeleteAt minimum TLS will give you a good overview of Aristotelian philosophy. Even if you don't believe in God it will be worth it for that alone. As to the polemics they are not so bad.
Heck I suffered threw Eric Raitan's liberal theology and social politics to read his philosophical take down of Dawkins & I am better for it.
Don't cheat your intellect.
BTW when I call the Theistic Personalist concept of God "gay" I don't mean persons who practice sodomy with other person of the same gender.
ReplyDeleteRather I mean gay as in Notebook Computers having integrated graphics that suck bigtime for 3D gaming gay.
Or Ewoks defeat the Empire gay.
I don't believe homosexual sex is moral but I would never insult gay people by comparing them to a Theistic Personalist concept of God. That is just wrong!
Good grief, Ben! I never knew that you harbored such enmity in your heart towards the God of the Theistic Personalists!
ReplyDeleteI love the Theistic Personalists themselves. At best the majority of them are TP because they don't know any better.
ReplyDeleteBut the Theistic Personalist view of God itself is pure shit. All the crap Dawkins spews about God I believe truly applies in spades to that metaphysical abortion/heathen idiot known as the Theistic Personalist view of God.
The Classic Theistic God alone is the True God. B
Ha, so I suppose you wouldn't like Alvin Plantinga's attempt to jettison divine impassibility:
ReplyDelete"As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooly observing the suffering of His creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his son, the second person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. Some theologians claim that God cannot suffer. I believe they are wrong. God's capacity for suffering, I believe, is proportional to his greatness; it exceeds our capacity for suffering in the same measure as his capacity for knowledge exceeds ours. Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself; and God, the Lord of the universe, was prepared to endure the suffering consequent upon his son's humiliation and death. He was prepared to accept this suffering in order to overcome sin, and death, and the evils that afflict our world, and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. So we don't know why God permits evil; we do know, however, that He was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception"
Or WL Craig's:
"Divine impassibility was thought by medieval Christian theologians to be one of the attributes of God. So you would find many Christians historically who would agree with your view. But on the contemporary scene there are very few theologians who would defend such a doctrine. There seems to be no good reason for taking the biblical descriptions of God’s emotions non-literally. Far from seeing susceptibility to emotional pain as a weakness, most contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians would say quite the opposite: that it is a weakness for a person to be unmoved by human suffering and a strength to feel emotions, including pain, indignation, compassion, etc. In fact, think of the etymology of the word “compassion”: to suffer along with. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be compassionate and share our sorrows and joys. Impassibility is actually a weakness, whereas compassion redounds to God’s greatness."
Just read those recently, so I thought I'd share. Hope it doesn't make your blood boil too much.
With Craig and Plantinga I chew the meat but spit the bones.
ReplyDeleteSo does Dr Feser it appears.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html
My comment on the Kagan - Craig debate was not to assess the ethic of Kagan's debate agreements, but rather, to offer an illustration of how objective morality can be derived within an atheist's worldview.
ReplyDeleteKagan is smarter than me and offered a way towards that notion better than I could. Seems only responsible to defer to a better source than myself when suggesting on the expansion of the idea.
I didn't know that Craig felt side-swiped in the debate. It was the first time I really enjoyed him in a debate and found myself listening to him rather than reacting to his tone. His sense of humor and humanity came through and I finally better understood his POV. I loved the section where both men sat down and just talked. I learned so much. Too often I bring to a debate the expectation of dialogue and come away unsatisfied due to the competitive nature of the form. I wish there were fewer public debates and more moderated dialogues on philosophical issues. I podcast a program called "Apologia" that does this and really enjoy it.
"But the Theistic Personalist view of God itself is pure shit. All the crap Dawkins spews about God I believe truly applies in spades to that metaphysical abortion/heathen idiot known as the Theistic Personalist view of God."
ReplyDeleteOf course the Calvinist would use this comment to show how you aren't one of "The Elect".
: )
I of course am not convinced that Calvinism is realistic.
Didn't have time to read all the comments, so it's likely that someone else already said this:
ReplyDeleteThe difference between your hypothetical abjection to science and Coyne's objection to theology is that a scientist can show why he believes things. He can show that atoms and black holes and geologic formations and organisms and the like exist.
A theologian is just making stuff up about an entity that can't be shown to exist. There can be no way to show that one theologian is right and another one wrong, assuming that both have internally consistent arguments.
"A theologian is just making stuff up about an entity that can't be shown to exist."
ReplyDeleteOf course, the only way you could possibly know this is if you are familiar with the arguments for and against. My experience is that, when questioned on the arguments, most atheists don't understand them at all. And when further pressed for arguments for naturalism, they don't seem to have a case at all.
"Didn't have time to read all the comments"
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous. Even a passing glance at the combox discussion here would have disabused you of submitting such a hand-waving, hopelessly vacuous post.
I would bet real money baldape really thinks the cosmological argument says "Everything has a cause"( "Oh really what caused god?").
ReplyDeleteOr that Aquinas' First Cause argument means either the Universe had a beginning or Motion literally refers to physical motion and not a potency becoming actual.
This is your brain on Dawkins! Any questions?
Seriously, Quintin Smith, Sobel, Nagel, Graham Oppy etc there are a host of Atheist philosophers you could read that would be way way better than persons (like Coyne or the Dawk) who are nothing more than the Atheist version of Kirk Cammron & his banana argument for design.
Hi folks.
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't mind another atheist poking his nose in here. I appreciate the level of discussion happening in the comments section.
From the perspective of atheists (like myself) who have engaged in dialogue with religious people, Christians especially, there is a pattern that seems to repeat: We look at one set of claims made by a Christian, find the arguments poor, and then another Christian comes along and says "But you haven't looked at THIS argument for God/Christianity..."
And so we look the new Christian's claims...and find the same thing...bad reasoning. But another Christian is lined up behind, with another claim. You can take one Christian's theological claims verbatim and you'll have the next Christian telling you "Oh, see that's your problem, you don't really have an understanding of Christianity. Here, let me tell you what Christianity REALLY claims..."
And then we are treated to more bad arguments. And then contemplate that there are thousands upon thousands of Christian sects with their individual take on The Bible and Christianity, all ready to tell you how naive you are about "real" Christianity and how you haven't grappled with THEIR theology.
After being treated so many times to this it's no wonder people like Jerry Coyne (and me, and , many others) become wary of the next claim that some corner of Christianity actually has good evidence or arguments for their religious beliefs. And the very fact of this situation - the competing claims about God - argues against the claims of knowledge and revelation made by the religious.
This skepticism is actually reinforced by the general thrust of the Christian comments here. That is, by the odd spectacle of watching believers in a Revealed Religion feeling the need to dwell on old, a priori arguments for their God's existence!
Correct me if I'm wrong (and since there seems to be as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians, I'm expecting it from someone)...but Christians like yourselves believe that God has in fact revealed Himself directly to mankind, revealed His existence, revealed His specific characteristics, and revealed His will to mankind. As recorded in your ancient holy text, The Bible.
Yet, after God Himself has made this revelation, you apparently feel the need to go sifting through ancient natural theological/a priori arguments for His existence! It at least looks from the outside to rather undermine your confidence in His Special Revelation.
How odd it would be that The Creator Of The Universe's effort to reveal Himself to mankind leaves many of his most thoughtful followers scurrying to ancient (or even current) natural theological or a priori arguments for his existence and character!
Let alone that after His Special Revelation it still seems only SOME portion of his followers, let alone of mankind in general, are (purportedly) able to understand and convey the arguments for His existence/character.
This hardly bolsters any confidence in the powers of this God to inform mankind. To leave most of mankind so thoroughly confused! Rather, it only adds support to the inference that people are making this stuff up. (BTW, when faced with the argument from religious confusion, theists like to point out that "even given atheism and a scientific world view, you should know that just because there is disagreement it doesn't follow that someone isn't right." However, the existence of religious confusion is much more injurious to the case for an All Powerful/Good God's existence than it is for a secular view, in which such disagreements makes much more sense).
(Sorry, I have to break up this post into 2 parts...)
RH
(Cont'd...)
ReplyDeleteIt's also typical for atheists to be met with a scolding tone from "sophisticated theists" about our naivete. Offer the Euthyphro dilemma in a discussion about God and morality and, like clockwork, it will be greeted by rolling eyes and comments like "Oh, goodness, how naive must you be to think the Euthyphro Dilemma hasn't been dealt with long ago by our theologians. Move on, will you?"
Except that in every instance I've ever seen, when the case is pushed, the theistic "answers" to the dilemma don't hold up. I've never found an instance in which the Emperor actually remains clothed.
Same goes for the moves made from the KCA to a Personal Cause/God, which are typically neon-sign-bright special pleading (or have other problems), let alone the move from ontological arguments/cosmological arguments to the proposition that the character depicted in The Bible would be a good candidate for this God. (A proposition that leaves me with fresh, jaw-hanging open shock every time I open the Bible).
But, does there exist in some corner of the world an actual good argument for the existence of a Good God, especially the one of Christianity? At this point I think it's highly unlikely, but I'm still intrigued by the attempts made by smart people. So...
Can someone here at least indicate they have good reasons for your theistic beliefs by presenting some basic argument, or steps, for such arguments as:
1. The move from the Cause of the universe purportedly established by the Cosmological argument, to the proposition that a God, of the type worshipped by Christians, was the cause?
2. The move from the ontological argument to the same conclusion? (Christian God is the God of the ontological argument).
Perhaps my preferred:
3. The argument that God is the necessary foundation for morality.
Many thanks.
RH
RH,
ReplyDeleteAquinas' arguments argue for the classical omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. On this view, evil is a failure to reach some good, and so it is actually the absence of something. A sloppily drawn square, for example.
God, being "existence itself" is the ultimate perfection and would be, on that view, that perfect square that nobody could actually draw. So that's where the idea of perfect goodness comes from. Evil has no positive content; like cold. Cold has very real effects but it is actually just the absence of heat.
Reconciling this with the OT God is another story, but one route would be that the Bible is an anthropomorphization of God, seeing as he is totally Other and difficult to get a grip on through anything other than human language and emotions.
Thank you Martin!
ReplyDeleteAt least in this context I'm not that interested in what the view of any Christian is, so much as whether there are reasons I ought to accept that view as reasonable. So I'm always going to ask why I ought to accept the assertions made.
Aquinas' arguments argue for the classical omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. On this view, evil is a failure to reach some good, and so it is actually the absence of something. A sloppily drawn square, for example.
I can see the utility of framing the concept of "good" in that way if you are trying to support
certain theistic conclusions. But I see no necessity whatsoever for doing so, and hence no reason why I ought to accept such assertions. I can see evil as positive action (as opposed to it simply being the absence of good action) - for instance the deliberate torture for pleasure of another human being is an evil action, with evil intent.
God, being "existence itself" is the ultimate perfection and would be, on that view, that perfect square that nobody could actually draw. So that's where the idea of perfect goodness comes from.
I understand the word count limitations we are dealing with, but at this point the above is word salad to me. (Not that I haven't encountered it before; it's just that it's never been made sense of). To even begin to accept it, I'd be asking what you mean by "goodness" let alone "perfect goodness." This is one of the problems I find with, for instance, Ontological arguments: the premises as to what constitutes "perfection" are so ill-defined I see no reason to accept the premises.
Reconciling this with the OT God is another story, but one route would be that the Bible is an anthropomorphization of God, seeing as he is totally Other and difficult to get a grip on through anything other than human language and emotions.
Well there are so many problems with that concept it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, it casts extreme doubt on the quality of the Bible as actual revelation. For another it implies a common unreasonable move made so often by Christians: that is to blame mankind, our faults and limitations, for religious confusion. This seems to ignore that other party is purportedly Omniscient and Omnipotent. It's as if we were standing on one side of an ocean, before we had any ocean-fairing vehicles or planes, with God is on the other side, and we are to join with God. If someone says "Isn't' it obvious we are standing here apart from God due to our human limitations in getting across this ocean to Him?"
That would be ludicrous as it ignores God's powers. If God desired that we join Him on the other side of the ocean, then HE has the power to actualize that state of affairs and whisk us over there.
Similarly, to point to any deficiencies in humankind, epistemological or otherwise, to explain away religious confusion is to ignore God's omnipotence. If He so desired, an omnipotent God COULD make Himself known to all mankind, unambiguously. It's not dependent on our limitations once you have an omnipotent God. Then you have to start dredging up excuses for why a purportedly Good God would not do so...and every theological excuse I've ever encountered has been poor, to say the least.
Thanks again,
RH
>At least in this context I'm not that interested in what the view of any Christian is, so much as whether there are reasons I ought to accept that view as reasonable.
ReplyDeleteThen logically no dialog is possible between us. If you don't know what it is we believe (& you disbelieve) then how could you possibly understand any reasons we give for a belief you don't understand or care about understanding?
Understanding doesn't equal agreement if that is you problem.
Perhaps you should rethink what you just wrote. Perhaps you meant something else.
>The move from the ontological argument to the same conclusion? (Christian God is the God of the ontological argument).
ReplyDeleteFYI Thomists tend to reject the validity of the ontological argument.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/anselms-ontological-argument.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/plantingas-ontological-argument.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/descartes-trademark-argument.html
>From the perspective of atheists (like myself) who have engaged in dialogue with religious people, Christians especially, there is a pattern that seems to repeat: We look at one set of claims made by a Christian, find the arguments poor, and then another Christian comes along and says "But you haven't looked at THIS argument for God/Christianity..."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone who did Catholic Apologetics in my youth (and some evangelizing) there is no such thing as a one size fits all approach to converting non-believers.
Thus logically I can't fathom this Gnu'Atheist belief there is a one size fits all polemic against all religious belief.
Even Atheism is a family of philosophies not one homogeneous thought system.
You have to do your homework or do something else with your time.
There is no other rational way to have dialog.
BenYachov,
ReplyDeleteWhy the uncharitable reading of my post?
When I write:
"At least in this context I'm not that interested in what the view of any Christian is, so much as whether there are reasons I ought to accept that view as reasonable"
It logically presumes that the belief itself is presented to me, given that examining "reasons for the belief" would be meaningless without the belief itself being part of that conversation.
So I'm not sure why you'd take the step to presume utter incoherence on my part when no reasonable reading of my post would imply it.
The meaning of what I wrote should be obvious: I'm not interested in mere assertions or recitations of Christian beliefs, e.g. "As Christians we believe...."
I'm interested in why I ought to consider those beliefs reasonable.
Hope that clears things up.
Cheers,
RH
RH,
ReplyDeleteA lot of this stuff presupposes things such as (a light form of) Platonism, and essentialism. You can take issue with those if you want, but they are whole other topics.
Briefly, what makes a square a square and not a circle? Four straight sides. Whether those sides are blue or red is incidental. That is the basics of essentialism.
Platonism says that any physical square will not be perfect. It's lines will have some width (and thus be really skinny rectangles and not technically lines), not perfectly straight lines, imperfections on a microscopic level, etc. So the "real" square doesn't really exist and cannot exist. But each physical square points to that perfect square in one direction (one drawn with a ruler rather than by hand, etc), and towards... nothing in the other direction. Just sloppier and sloppier until at some arbitrary point it can no longer really be considered a square.
So the sloppy square is "evil", in that sense.
Apply the same idea to living things. The properties that make a human a human and not a dog or a rock. And then every human will have those properties to varying degrees. And those who have them less (like someone losing their leg in an accident) will be suffering from "evil."
To oppose this way of thinking, you would have to become a nominalist and an anti-essentialist. Far too big of topics for a comment box.
>Why the uncharitable reading of my post?
ReplyDeleteI read it at face value. If you meant something other than what I took it to mean then restate your position.
Maybe the fault is with me or maybe not.
If you agree you must try to understand(not believe) the view you are criticizing then we have no beef.
>The meaning of what I wrote should be obvious: I'm not interested in mere assertions or recitations of Christian beliefs, e.g. "As Christians we believe...."
ReplyDeleteI still don't see how that is helpful? I have no problem with Muslims reciting their beliefs otherwise how will I know what their content is suppose to be?
You can do that with science. You can state the conclusions of biologists on the nature of evolution with me being a dick and demanding I make you take me step by step to how he reached his conclusion before we continue with a topic.
That is just common sense.
Anyway I'll leave you to dialog with Martin. I said my piece take it for what it is worth.
Peace to you.
edit:You can state the conclusions of biologists on the nature of evolution without me being a dick and demanding I make you take me step by step to how he reached his conclusion before we continue with a topic.
ReplyDeleteBTW for the record you seem like a nice guy RH and not a dick. I hope I didn't imply I thought otherwise.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Ben wrote:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone who did Catholic Apologetics in my youth (and some evangelizing) there is no such thing as a one size fits all approach to converting non-believers.
Thus logically I can't fathom this Gnu'Atheist belief there is a one size fits all polemic against all religious belief.
Which falls right into the problems I've already pointed out, concerning religious confusion and the strange fact you are in a position where you have to even say such things to me.
I presume you are a Christian who believes in Special Revelation (e.g The Bible)? It's strange then that, after the efforts of an Omniscient, Omnipotent God to reveal Himself to mankind, that you even have to be talking about "converting" non-believers.
Why would a Good God with the power to resolve the issues of unbelief, moral disagreement and religious disagreement leave us in such an absurd scenario as you, a mere fallible human, having to find all sorts of polemical moves to show God exists?
It's Elephant-In-The-Room issues like these that continue to bolster my skepticism toward claims that reasonable arguments for Christianity await me. But I'm still all ears.
Thanks,
RH
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nice comments. I understand if you wish to leave this dialog for others.
Sincerely,
RH
Martin,
ReplyDeleteSo the sloppy square is "evil", in that sense.
Yes, I understand that is the assertion. But it seems a non-sequitur to even leap from the description of squares and their essence, to the concept that "evil" is merely the absence of Good. For instance, there are squares and circles. Apparently a circle isn't simply "the absence of the essence of squareness." A circle has an essence of it's own. Hence I see no reason why evil can not be reasonably thought of in a similar way: Evil not being the absence of Good, but
having it's own characteristics.
Underlying this of course is a theory of value and "good," and I have yet to encounter a theistic value theory that makes sense to me.
To oppose this way of thinking, you would have to become a nominalist and an anti-essentialist. Far too big of topics for a comment box.
If that is too unmanageable a discussion, perhaps you might wish to comment on another theme I have going: The oddness of Christian behavior here - resorting to a priori arguments - in there having been special revelation, and the problem of religious confusion in general in believing an All Powerful, All Wise/Good God is behind this reality.
Thanks,
RH
>Why would a Good God....
ReplyDeleteAs a Classic Theist I reject any suggestion that God's Goodness
is morally Good or more specifically a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent. Also given the nature of God as understood in the classic sense God's Goodness can't coherently be understood as having some sort obligation to the rest of us.
Your arguments might have meaning to a Theistic Personalist but they are irrelevant to a classic theist.
Like finding a mistake in the Koran and thinking a Baptist give a shit about that.
I'll explain more sometime in the near future.
Cheers.
Yuck I was distracted when I wrote the above.
ReplyDeleteI'll repose later if I feel like it.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteYour response implies major problems ahead in establishing warrant for your belief. (Those who assert God as a special moral case, outside the ken of human judgements or not beholden to the same moral rules, never seem able to sufficiently base this on any other accepted principles, hence special pleading. Not to mention the usual inconsistency in that Christians are always willing to judge God "good" by pointing to evidence of God's goodness, but suddenly deny we can judge God should the evidence point towards His wickedness or non-existence).
But since you presented no argument we'll have to leave it at that.
RH
RH,
ReplyDeleteYou're digging into essentialism there, which is too big a topic and something I know very little about.
"The oddness of Christian behavior here - resorting to a priori arguments - in there having been special revelation"
I believe the way classical theism frames it is that it has an intellectual foundation first, and then revelation comes second. Since, per Thomism, a single God and an immortal soul can be proven from the ground up, this narrows the field a bit to three religions. There are then defenses of the resurrection that are (supposedly) more plausible than defenses of the miracles of the Koran, which narrows it down further.
At that point, one could then say that pure reasoning has brought one to "mere" Christianity, and if so, then the revelation claims of that religion follow. The arguments come first because Christianity is supposed to have a firm intellectual foundation.
Something which, if you really allow them to make their case, does seem to be somewhat plausible. Especially when compared to the opposing side of naturalism, which from what I can tell doesn't seem to have a case at all.
>(Those who assert God as a special moral case)
ReplyDeleteRather no moral case. God's Goodness cannot be conceived of as moral goodness given his nature in the classic sense.
Only Theistic Personalist "deities" can be said to be morally good or bad.
The warrent of your argument presuposes a Theistic Personalist deity whose existence I reject on metaphysical grounds.
Don't presume you know what I am arguing about.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Yes that is a typical response to these questions. However, what you described ends up as no solution whatsoever to the dilemma as I've posed it.
Once you have Special Revelation, why would one need to go back to General Revelation and a priori arguments at all?
To do so speaks to the weakness of Special Revelation...Special Revelation of an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT God! It just doesn't float that the best God could do is leave us with such a limp revelation of Himself that in all the years afterward we are left relying on the cleverness of religious apologists to bolster the case for God's existence and for telling us God's will. None of this indicates all powerfulness, or all knowingness, let alone mere wisdom or even goodness on behalf of that God, which is why I can't take seriously the suggestion that the Bible represents contact with an actual God, nor the suggestion that the best inference from the world is that a Good God exists.
As to naturalism not having a case at all..hoo-boy! Maybe I'll give that a whirl soon.
Suffice it to say for now that in the absence of any demonstration of the supernatural, naturalism is what you have left :-)
RH
RH,
ReplyDelete"Offer the Euthyphro dilemma in a discussion about God and morality and, like clockwork, it will be greeted by rolling eyes and comments like "Oh, goodness, how naive must you be to think the Euthyphro Dilemma hasn't been dealt with long ago by our theologians. Move on, will you?" "
As someone who does tend to do exactly that, let me point out why I do that: I have an answer, but it's not proven true (I could be wrong, but there's room for debate). The dilemma that you mention -- "Are things good because God says they're good, or does God say that these things are good because they're good" -- is an invalid argument to make against the existence of God. It makes a claim that if there were rules of morality that determined what was or wasn't good, then there'd be something out there that was more powerful in some way than God, or it would be some limitation on God, and so that would be a problem for omnipotence. But there are two ways out of this:
1) Accept the first part of the dilemma, and say that whatever God says is good is good because He defines what's moral. Vox Day takes this tack.
2) Claim that moral rules -- ie what is good -- are epistemic rules; they are simply things that you discover and know. If moral rules are knowable things, then not only is there no restriction on God from knowing them, omniscience means that He will indeed know them. You can get there by arguing that moral rules specify what someone ought to do in a situation, and that's an epistemic situation (ie knowing what to do).
So just tossing out that dilemma really is worthy of rolling eyes; the dilemma in and of itself is a question, not a proof or even a challenge to the existence or definiton of God.
"But, does there exist in some corner of the world an actual good argument for the existence of a Good God, especially the one of Christianity?"
Well, what are your standards for "an actual good argument"? For me, you aren't going to be able to get to knowledge of God's existence, but for me there are arguments that are more or less interesting as they detail interesting concepts and considerations.
"1. The move from the Cause of the universe purportedly established by the Cosmological argument, to the proposition that a God, of the type worshipped by Christians, was the cause?
2. The move from the ontological argument to the same conclusion? (Christian God is the God of the ontological argument).
Perhaps my preferred:
3. The argument that God is the necessary foundation for morality."
For 1 and 2, I'd add an argument like the Argument from Design. 1 and 2, if they worked, would establish a creator object, and the next step is to establish it as intelligent. At that point, we're on our way.
For 3, I don't hold that argument myself -- another reason why you can't generalize to theists -- but the idea is that you can't get an objective morality without a basis that is at least outside your own mind. God is that basis. It's not an argument that gives a clear win, but it's worth considering.
RH,
ReplyDelete"Suffice it to say for now that in the absence of any demonstration of the supernatural, naturalism is what you have left :-)"
First, define natural in such a way that something could exist and not be natural. If you can do that, then I'll think about trying to demonstrate the supernatural [grin].
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI've seen many concepts floated concerning God being "Good" including similar to where you seem to be headed.
I need not presume precisely what you would argue to notice that what you've written so far indicates special pleading ahead. You are already applying the term "Good" to God. Hence you would have to establish why one ought to apply the term "good" to God if it does not mean what it means when we apply that epithet to our fellow creatures (to borrow J.S. Mill's line).
I've never seen it done without special pleading (or some other fallacy). But..hey..I'm here ready to be shown wrong.
RH
Verbose Stoic,
ReplyDeleteApologies: I'm running out of time so this is likely my last post for the moment.
You characterize the Euthyphro Dilemma as "an invalid argument to make against the existence of God."
I wouldn't offer it as such, since that's not what it's about per se. The dilemma is at bottom a question about the nature of morality, and in particular a specific version of morality - Theistic Morality. It says, if God's commands amount to our moral obligations, what does this imply about the nature of morality? The implications go to the two horns: Either it ends in arbitrariness or in the fact that morality is not dependent on God's commands but on some other standard. Both horns tend to cause discomfort for many theists who try to find a "middle way." And also either horn offers the atheist a reason to reject that particular theistic moral theory: If the commands are arbitrary, then there are no reasons to be moral (aside from fear etc). If there is a standard from which God must derive his commands, then it is that standard which is necessary, not God, and we can appeal to the standard itself. No God necessary.
Theists try to plug the wholes, but as with all apologetics the theology, a plugged ontological hole here springs an epistemological leak there, etc.
But there are two ways out of this:
1) Accept the first part of the dilemma, and say that whatever God says is good is good because He defines what's moral. Vox Day takes this tack.
And we have no reason to accept that assertion - hence the flimsiness of that theistic moral theory. The theist can take that route - he just doesn't give us good reasons to go with him.
(And you can usually find inconsistencies in anyone trying to take that route anyway, especially as they use "good" in the real world).
As to route #2, I've always felt this was the best possible route for the theist, and as you know, some take it.
However, it leaves God unnecessary for morality - it's only necessary that there be reasons for moral actions, not that there be a God. Which, again, lots of theists aren't happy with. But just as problematical is the epistemological problems that follow: How would we KNOW when we encounter The Good God who is reliably telling us these rules? When you break it down, we are left to our own moral devices. We are stuck deciding "Yes, this Being seems to be telling us Good Things" which means we are being the judge, not the purported God. The only way around this would be if God, if He existed, had given us all unambiguous moral knowledge.
Except there is no good argument I've seen that He has done so - the history of human moral disagreement appears to argue against it.
Cheers,
RH
Just quickly, remember I was asking about the move not to deism, but to a Personal God of Christianity who is purportedly "Good" as well as All Powerful:
ReplyDeleteFor 1 and 2, I'd add an argument like the Argument from Design.
Putting aside for the moment the problems with the AFD, given the number of natural horrors that have afflicted mankind, which make the work of any human psychopath pale in comparison, you do not get a Good God out of the AFD. At best you get a morally indifferent God - at worst a wicked God, none of which seem to fit the bill of being the Good God Christians want. Certainly not worthy of worship.
For 3, as I already acknowledged, there seems to be as many conceptions of God as there are theists. This, again, works against the claims of God made by those theists!
I agree that for objective morality there needs to be a component "outside" our subjective opinions. As it happens I think various secular moral theories point to such components - components that actually exist, vs a God whom no one can show exists.
RH.
(Ugh, ignore above post, forgot to format)
ReplyDeleteJust quickly, remember I was asking about the move not to deism, but to a Personal God of Christianity who is purportedly "Good" as well as All Powerful:
For 1 and 2, I'd add an argument like the Argument from Design.
Putting aside for the moment the problems with the AFD, given the number of natural horrors that have afflicted mankind, which make the work of any human psychopath pale in comparison, you do not get a Good God out of the AFD. At best you get a morally indifferent God - at worst a wicked God, none of which seem to fit the bill of being the Good God Christians want. Certainly not worthy of worship.
For 3, as I already acknowledged, there seems to be as many conceptions of God as there are theists. This, again, works against the claims of God made by those theists!
I agree that for objective morality there needs to be a component "outside" our subjective opinions. As it happens I think various secular moral theories point to such components - components that actually exist, vs a God whom no one can show exists.
RH.
RH,
ReplyDelete"As to naturalism not having a case at all..hoo-boy! Maybe I'll give that a whirl soon.
Suffice it to say for now that in the absence of any demonstration of the supernatural, naturalism is what you have left :-)"
Naturalism comes in many flavors, but in general it states that the physical universe (or multiverse) is all that exists. There is nothing but particles, energy, and the laws of physics. Since this is all we have an experience of, this is (probably) all that exists.
Naturalism has problems accounting for the following, which (generic) theism claims to be able to account for:
Abstract objects: Propositions, universals, and mathematical objects are all objectively true realities that are not made out of particles and not dependent on any human mind. An eternal, transcendent mind, however, could "hold" such things.
Ethics: If everything is just particles and energy, then there does not seem to be any basis for objective morality. Most ethicists agree that there is, however. Accounting for this on purely naturalistic terms is problematic. A transcendent source, however, would provide an objective source.
Intentionality: When something is about something else. Words on a page are just particles; we only apply meaning from the outside, so that they refer to something beyond themselves. But our minds, being just particles and energy, are no different than words on a page. How can they be about something other than themselves? When we have a thought, for example. If, however, reason is a fundamental constituent of the universe, then this could be accounted for.
Why physical laws, matter, energy, and spacetime even exist in the first place: Naturalism has to posit these as brute face: an inexplicable fact. However, our experience strongly suggests that there are no such things, lest we undermine reason itself. Existence demands an explanation; non-existence does not. The universe (multiverse) exists, therefore, it demands an explanation. That would have to involve something supernatural by definition, since it brought the laws of physics into existence.
Like a scientific hypothesis, theism claims to be able to parsimoniously explain these facts, and naturalism comes up way short and ad hoc.
Or so the argument goes. I am agnostic. ;)
>Hence you would have to establish why one ought to apply the term "good" to God if it does not mean what it means when we apply that epithet to our fellow creatures.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one with the special pleading here since you implicitly assume God is unequivocally compared to creatures instead of analogously & as such it does not mean what it means when applied to creatures at least not unequivocally.
Your real question is of course how can God be called good if He is not morally good?
ReplyDeleteOf course that assumes only morally good things are good. I might have a good root beer float tonight for a snake. But you can't say my Root beer float isn't really good just because it didn't prevent let's say the holocaust.
You need to look at the writings of Brian Davies.
"Suffice it to say for now that in the absence of any demonstration of the supernatural, naturalism is what you have left :-)"
ReplyDeleteIt is a well-known fallacy to claim that lack of evidence for the supernatural is somehow sufficient evidence for the truth of naturalism. At best, this leaves one with agnosticism w.r.t. the question of whether naturalism or supernaturalism is true. In this case (to use the cliched phrase), absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"So Dawkins was parroting Haldane. The demand for a pre-Cambrian rabbit is still silly, no matter who is channeling whom. Cite a realistic scenario in which an existing feature of an existing species cannot be accommodated with an adaptationist story. (This is why Popper himself cited Darwinism as an example of a non-falsifiable theory - until he was taken to the woodshed.)"
ReplyDeleteI see. Our esteemed host "quotes" but Dawkypoo "parrots". Lovely that.
"Rabbits in the precambrian" is an amusing and snappy example of what would be unexpected in terms of common descent. It's a nice reply to "golly gee whillikers, I don't understand, therefore God".
I'm not a biologist, so I'll leave it to them to them to give better examples of what could properly falsify the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection. Incidentally, most mutations are neutral and a great number of traits are thought to be so, too. Assuming that everything can be explained in terms of adaptation borders on teleology as I understand it.
Well, if you prefer then lets us take the other standard example: dogs giving birth to cats would falsify everything we understand about biology.
Simpler would be systematic deletions of endogenous retroviruses. If my kids were to not have the same ERVs I have in the same locations, common descent would be destroyed.
Even simpler, organisms living and reproducing in environments without access to nutrients.
Back in for a sec.
ReplyDeleteMartin I'll get back to you, sorry.
Ben,
Of course that assumes only morally good things are good.
Not at all. Of course what I was writing concerned the concept of a Morally Good God. But to talk of a Morally Good God does not presume or imply "Moral Good is the only use of the word 'Good.'" To narrow a topic in no way implies there is nothing beyond the topic.
I'm quite happy (as is any moral philosopher of course) to acknowledge various uses of the word "good," e.g. to express personal preference (and desire satisfaction etc.). As you seem to have done here:
I might have a good root beer float tonight for a snake. But you can't say my Root beer float isn't really good just because it didn't prevent let's say the holocaust.
Sure. If you want to abandon the concept of God being "good" in the moral sense, go wild.
You just forfeit the ability to argue for the God of much of Christianity (most Christians believe God is good in the moral sense - at least when it comes to praising God. Some smaller section suddenly do an about turn and start redefining terms when it comes to apologetics...but seem happy to slip back and forth between concepts of "good' as it suits them).
So right now we seem to be on the same page that a Morally Good God does not exist. You think some kind of "good" God exists, but I see no reasons to think so. Nor any reason to apply the term "good" beyond your subjective evaluation.
RH
It is a well-known fallacy to claim that lack of evidence for the supernatural is somehow sufficient evidence for the truth of naturalism. At best, this leaves one with agnosticism w.r.t. the question of whether naturalism or supernaturalism is true. In this case (to use the cliched phrase), absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
ReplyDeleteI meant my smiley to indicate I know I was being obviously facile with that reply.
Nonetheless, it's a touchstone for what I think is a reasonable argument for naturalism.
My quick response implies that it's already acknowledged that the "natural" exists - I presume you don't disagree - and that the disagreement is about whether there is also the supernatural.
Well, if we know the natural exists, and no good evidence or argument supports the existence of something else - including this "supernatural" - then it follows that it's reasonable to conclude there is only the Natural until there's reason to believe otherwise.
The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a very overused, and often improperly used retort. Many of the conclusions we hold to be reasonable are based on an absence of evidence, where one could reasonably expect evidence if the proposition were true. (We even get to use deductive modus tollens when we do so! Though I'm hardly a logician myself).
If someone claims that a God exists who is Good, then "good" carries with it certain expectations for the behavior of a moral agent, which implies what one ought to see.
(While we can get into deeper value theory comparisons, we can argue this at the level of consistency and semantics - that I would be using the term "good" as it is normally understood and applied in our society, whereas some Christians resort to re-defining terms like "good" to get out of inconsistencies, which undermines the strength of their position).
In a nutshell: The world does not show evidence of an Omnipotent, Moral Agent behind the scenes. There is a consistent onslaught of scenarios wherein we would reasonably expect a moral agent, with the power to help, to help the suffering, and we see no such action.
Further, we can extrapolate from daily observation and uses of the term "morality" and "good." When an aging or broken tree falls down on a person, we do not attribute morality to the tree. We don't imagine that, for instance, if we'd put a mass murderer in the way of the tree it would have fallen, but if we'd put an innocent baby in the way the tree would have "decided" not to fall, on some notion of morality or justice. That is a distinct characteristics of non-sentient, amoral entities and forces in action. Whereas we would look at a human judge as "good" if we saw that he distributed punishment that exhibited a sentient pattern, consistent with wisdom, justice, moral culpability of the accused etc.
Certainly WE seem to be moral agents, but does the world beyond us evince evidence of a moral agent behind reality?
No.
When we look at the world, it appears to operate in a non-sentient, amoral manner: good people suffer and die early, criminals and "bad" people get better lives, earthquakes swallow up the faithful and "good" just as readily as the "bad" people among us etc. There is no pattern of justice or moral considerations implied by the world outside human beings.
So it's entirely reasonable to infer that the world/universe so far as we experience it, has no Good Moral Agent who exists at it's helm, or who had designed it. It appears to be a conglomeration of non-sentient, amoral forces, so we are justified in inferring that is it's nature.
Cheers,
Prof.
Soooo sorry. Format issues again. Ignore previous post. I'll get the hang of it I promise!
ReplyDelete(Btw, consider choosing the "name" option guys...any name!)
It is a well-known fallacy to claim that lack of evidence for the supernatural is somehow sufficient evidence for the truth of naturalism. At best, this leaves one with agnosticism w.r.t. the question of whether naturalism or supernaturalism is true. In this case (to use the cliched phrase), absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I meant my smiley to indicate I know I was being obviously facile with that reply.
Nonetheless, it's a touchstone for what I think is a reasonable argument for naturalism.
My quick response implies that it's already acknowledged that the "natural" exists - I presume you don't disagree - and that the disagreement is about whether there is also the supernatural.
Well, if we know the natural exists, and no good evidence or argument supports the existence of something else - including this "supernatural" - then it follows that it's reasonable to conclude there is only the Natural until there's reason to believe otherwise.
The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a very overused, and often improperly used retort. Many of the conclusions we hold to be reasonable are based on an absence of evidence, where one could reasonably expect evidence if the proposition were true. (We even get to use deductive modus tollens when we do so! Though I'm hardly a logician myself).
If someone claims that a God exists who is Good, then "good" carries with it certain expectations for the behavior of a moral agent, which implies what one ought to see.
(While we can get into deeper value theory comparisons, we can argue this at the level of consistency and semantics - that I would be using the term "good" as it is normally understood and applied in our society, whereas some Christians resort to re-defining terms like "good" to get out of inconsistencies, which undermines the strength of their position).
In a nutshell: The world does not show evidence of an Omnipotent, Moral Agent behind the scenes. There is a consistent onslaught of scenarios wherein we would reasonably expect a moral agent to help the suffering, and we see no such action.
Further, we can extrapolate from daily observation and uses of the term "morality" and "good." When an aging or broken tree falls down on a person, we do not attribute morality to the tree. We don't imagine that, for instance, if we'd put a mass murderer in the way of the tree it would have fallen, but if we'd put an innocent baby in the way the tree would have "decided" not to fall, on some notion of morality or justice. That is a distinct characteristics of non-sentient, amoral entities and forces in action. Whereas we would look at a human judge as "good" if we saw that he distributed punishment that exhibited a sentient pattern, consistent with wisdom, justice, moral culpability of the accused etc.
Certainly WE seem to be moral agents, but does the world beyond us evince evidence of a moral agent behind reality?
No.
When we look at the world, it appears to operate in a non-sentient, amoral manner: good people suffer and die early, criminals and "bad" people get better lives, earthquakes swallow up the faithful and "good" just as readily as the "bad" people among us etc. There is no pattern of justice or moral considerations implied by the world outside human beings.
So it's entirely reasonable to infer that the world/universe so far as we experience it, has no Good Moral Agent who exists at it's helm, or who had designed it. It appears to be a conglomeration of non-sentient, amoral forces, so we are justified in inferring that is it's nature.
Cheers,
RH
TheOFloinn,
ReplyDeleteReeeeeeeeeallly enjoying your comments over at Coyne's blog. Very entertaining, though I haven't the slightest inkling about the physics you are sparring over.
>In a nutshell: The world does not show evidence of an Omnipotent, Moral Agent behind the scenes.
ReplyDeleteMost of the readers here thanks to Dr. Feser have read Brian Davies & don't believe God can be coherently described as either moral or immoral.
So your objection has no meaning.
We follow the Thomistic & Aristotelian definitions of good. You are keeping your own unstated definition ambiguous & as such I suspect are equivocating on it's meaning.
>If you want to abandon the concept of God being "good" in the moral sense, go wild.
Rather the idea God is a person unequivocally comparable to a human person (except incorporeal and without our limitations) is a late to modern concept as shown by Davies.
>You just forfeit the ability to argue for the God of much of Christianity...
Rather I wish to argue for the God of Catholic Christianity and Thomistic Christian tradition in particular. By definition I reject all non-Catholic Christian concepts that contradict Catholic orthodoxy.
You statement here is unremarkable. If I argue for Dawkins on neo-darwinism I automatically forfeit the right to speak for Stephen Jay Gould differing views.
Big deal? What is your point?
>most Christians believe God is good in the moral sense..
ReplyDeleteMost people believe Atoms are little super ultra tiny balls that have other little super ultra tiny balls orbiting them. Most people believe evolution means at some time in the past an Ape gave birth to a man.
What do the dumb illiterate opinions of the uneducated have to do with either science or a sophisticated understanding of philosophy? Not to mention the arguments and methods that get us to them?
>Some smaller section suddenly do an about turn and start redefining terms when it comes to apologetics...
I told you but you overacted and accused me of being uncharitable for telling you that there is no such thing as a one size fits all polemic against religion. You have to put in the effort to learn & understand the differences. Otherwise you are unsuited for anti-religious polemics. This is true regardless if you believe in God or not.
>Not at all. Of course what I was writing concerned the concept of a Morally Good God. But to talk of a Morally Good God does not presume or imply "Moral Good is the only use of the word 'Good.'
Except the objection has no meaning if God is not something that can coherently be conceived of as morally good.
It's like arguing over the color of God's car. Is it red? Is it blue? Well the question is moot if God doesn't own a car.
BTW this discussion has nothing to do with apologetics. I don't care if you believe in any type of God or not. But I do care you understand the difference between Theistic Personalism vs Classic Theism. Between Catholicism vs Neo-Evangelicalism. Classical Philosophy vs Post enlightenment philosophy. The brute fact that there are truths that clearly are not known by empiricism alone. Also the idea that empiricism alone is the best way to learn about reality can't be proven empirically.
ReplyDeleteI want you to learn philosophy and reject Scientism. This must be done before we can debate God.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteMost of the readers here thanks to Dr. Feser have read Brian Davies & don't believe God can be coherently described as either moral or immoral.
As I said: you want to believe in an amoral God, go wild. I'd agree that if God exists he could not be described as "moral," but obviously for different reasons than you. Further, in explaining how God could be "good" yet not "morally good" you used the example of your personal preference for Root Beer Floats as being "good." Which, as I pointed out, equates God "goodness" with mere personal, subjective appraisal. Hence, no reason in particular is given that I ought to share this appraisal. So even in that sense you've yet to establish God's goodness, let alone God's objective goodness (if that is what you think is the case).
I think there is a good chance that you can't coherently describe God as moral or immoral is that it's a symptom of not having a coherent concept of "God" in the first place.
If God is "personal" in the way that term is generally understood, then God would have beliefs, desires, the ability to rationalize about how to fulfill desires, rationalize about which desires to fulfill etc. And if that's the case, then God is a moral agent like we are. If not, then it does not make sense to call God a Personal Being. But perhaps you don't even want to attribute such things to God. Yet, you believe in the God of the Bible, and that character is depicted as a personal being in the way I described (with some admittedly incoherent sections mixed in).
I know you think you've got this all figured out "theologically" but I've yet to see a coherent theology and so I have little reason for confidence that THIS TIME I'm just naive and your side really has things down pat on the coherence and good warrant front.
So your objection has no meaning.
I already acknowledged that you don't believe in a Morally Good God.
My discussion about concluding there is no morally good God due to lack of evidence was simply to highlight that we can indeed draw conclusions of absence from a lack of evidence.
Also, this is to indicate that Atheists aren't merely being naive in rejecting some (popular) versions of the Christian God. And these aren't just versions of Joe Blow - this is the God of well regarded Christian philosophers as well. People like W.L. Craig and Plantinga - both parroted endlessly by Christians on and off the internet - defend God's goodness in the face of the problem of evil, asserting that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil/suffering (a position that would not need defending if God were presented as an amoral Being).
This is what I said about Christianity - how it's whack-a-mole-with-God. You take down one version, another version pops up on some other Christian sect's view.
And it is getting conspicuous that my point has been ignored about religious confusion and the need for your arguments in the first place. The fact that concepts of Christianity and God are so variable among Christians gives little confidence that Christianity actually imparts any "knowledge." It has all the earmarks of people making stuff up, rather than being on the receiving end of knowledge from an actual God.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteFinally...
BTW this discussion has nothing to do with apologetics. I don't care if you believe in any type of God or not. But I do care you understand the difference between Theistic Personalism vs Classic Theism. Between Catholicism vs Neo-Evangelicalism.
As I keep repeating: Christianity has thousands and thousands of sects. Few people are expert in every one of them. That's why I'm left to ask you to simply tell me some digestible version of what YOU believe and WHY. If you aren't interested, then you are right: we don't have much to talk about.
Classical Philosophy vs Post enlightenment philosophy. The brute fact that there are truths that clearly are not known by empiricism alone. Also the idea that empiricism alone is the best way to learn about reality can't be proven empirically.
Sorry..did I mention empiricism in my posts? Or any denial of non-empirical axioms?
As you recommend: best not to make assumptions. Especially ones that aren't even implied in someone's posts.
I want you to learn philosophy and reject Scientism. This must be done before we can debate God.
Love it. Much obliged for my daily smile!
Cheers,
RH
Martin,
ReplyDeleteI haven't forgotten about your post.
It's just that there are so many disputable assertions, both explicit and implicit, in that post it's hard to know where to begin. And I'm trying to resist the urge to tackle all of them because I know how unwieldy such conversations become, shooting off in so many directions.
I'll attempt as terse a reply as I can manage, soon. Thanks.
RH
RH: My quick response implies that it's already acknowledged that the "natural" exists - I presume you don't disagree - and that the disagreement is about whether there is also the supernatural.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, I do disagree. The word "nature" is used in various ways, and I'm sure we all agree that "nature" as in "all those places outside cities and towns" exists. But of course that's not the definition that applies here. In order for your dichotomy to make sense, you have be using some meaning of "natural" that refers to something that exists independently of supernatural entities; then you can ask, "Well, we've got this natural stuff, but is there any supernatural stuff alongside it?" The classical conception of God, however, is not some being made of "supernatural stuff" that exists "alongside" natural stuff. I deny, in fact, that "natural stuff", in such an independent sense, could exist at all; the very notion is incoherent. Conversely, we would disagree on the meaning of "supernatural" as well.
That's why we can't get very far simply by jumping around and picking on different points of different arguments here and there. To be able to offer any meaningful criticism of a philosophical system, you have to have a decent understanding of its foundations and fundamental concepts. You need to understand how the system builds on its framework, and what context it provides for discussing the relevant issues. You keep referring to "special pleading" and the like, when really what you are seeing is pieces of differing systems taken out of context. It's easy to make fun of scientists for using oxymoronic phrases like "invisible light", but physicists aren't going to be impressed by someone who doesn't know the jargon.
That's why people always recommend starting with a good philosophy book. You need to understand the boring bits about act and potency and form and matter if you are to get anywhere with the bigger questions; just as our physicists would direct you first to a physics textbook if you want to challenge them on quark colour and charm. For example, if you understood the Scholastic natural law foundation for morality, you wouldn't be raising Euthyphro. Not because there's anything wrong with those questions in themselves, but if you had even a basic knowledge of how natural law works, it would be almost immediately clear why Euthyphro doesn't apply. (I guess you can learn the basics from website comments, but in my experience, it's not terribly effective. However, sites like this are really good to get help and clarification when trying to figure out particular details of a system that you're studying.)
>I already acknowledged that you don't believe in a Morally Good God.
ReplyDeleteRather I don't believe morality can coherently be ascribed to a classic theistic God. But as Davies says that doesn't mean God isn't in some sense what morally good people are.
You don't understand the argument.
If you wish to learn I can tell you what to read. If not go in peace.
>As I keep repeating: Christianity has thousands and thousands of sects. Few people are expert in every one of them.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to be but if I am talking to Sunni Muslims I should take the time to learn something about them.
>That's why I'm left to ask you to simply tell me some digestible version of what YOU believe and WHY.
Rather you keep throwing out objections you have used against various versions of Christianity to see what sticks. It's been a pain since I am trying to explain the concepts and you want to jump right away into polemics and Atheist Apologetics.
It's tedious.
>Further, in explaining how God could be "good" yet not "morally good" you used the example of your personal preference for Root Beer Floats as being "good." Which, as I pointed out, equates God "goodness" with mere personal, subjective appraisal.
ReplyDeleteYou keep presuming you know what I mean yet you don't have the decency to ask how is that charitable? My example merely illustrates an example of something that is good but not morally good. Nothing more, my personal preference for root beer not withstanding?
It's that simple.
>That's why we can't get very far simply by jumping around and picking on different points of different arguments here and there. To be able to offer any meaningful criticism of a philosophical system,
ReplyDeleteFlawlessly logical.
Are you paying attention RH?
>Sorry..did I mention empiricism in my posts? Or any denial of non-empirical axioms?
ReplyDeleteAs you recommend: best not to make assumptions. Especially ones that aren't even implied in someone's posts.
Are you even reading my posts? Sorry but a plain reading of what I wrote clearly indicates I was making a list of things I wanted you to understand as a foundation for dialog. Stop trying to pick a fight.
>I think there is a good chance that you can't coherently describe God as moral or immoral is that it's a symptom of not having a coherent concept of "God" in the first place.
ReplyDeleteRather I think that is the conclusion you have already decided on in lewd of actual investigation and study of philosophy.
You aren't serious about having a dialog or wanting to learn some digestible version of what I believe. Since you seem to act as if you know what I believe more than I do.
You won't even define what you mean by good or look up Aristotle or Aquinas view.
>If God is "personal" in the way that term is generally understood....
ReplyDeleteHe is not. Accept it. Live with it. That would be a walking talking violation of Thomism and Catholic Orthodoxy in general.
Like I said if you hold a Theistic Personalist view of God then obviously God is a moral agent. But we are still Catholic Classic Theists here so the point is moot.
>If not, then it does not make sense to call God a Personal Being.
Not unequivocally yes but we call God personal in the analogous sense. Which means you need to learn Aquinas doctrine of analogy.
You understand God in unequivocal terms. That won't fly here.
>Yet, you believe in the God of the Bible,
I believe the Bible as interpreted by the Catholic Church. I reject the human doctrines of the so called reformers. I reject sola scriptura since it's not taught in the scripture(& thus false by it's own standards). I reject the Protestant doctrine of perpetuity.
Like I said one size fits all. Not working for ya.
>and that character is depicted as a personal being in the way I described (with some admittedly incoherent sections mixed in).
Even the Rabbis in the Talmud taught the Anthropomorphism in the Bible are not to be taken literally.
Brian Davies gives a Biblical argument in his writings.
It would help if you didn't treat me like a Protestant. Catholics tend to resent that. Like Atheists always being unfairly called Communists.
>I already acknowledged that you don't believe in a Morally Good God.
ReplyDeleteBut you don't know what it means to be good in the Thomistic Sense in the first place or morally good. So this is merely small progress.
You have more to learn.
>My discussion about concluding there is no morally good God due to lack of evidence was simply to highlight that we can indeed draw conclusions of absence from a lack of evidence.
I was merely telling you what I believed. Others here TOF, Crude, Eric are more suited to argue the validity of philosophical proofs and the inadequacy of the New Atheism's neo-Positivism and Scientism tendencies.
(BTW even Atheists can reject Scientism philosopher Dave Stove for example)
>People like W.L. Craig and Plantinga - both parroted endlessly by Christians on and off the internet - defend God's goodness in the face of the problem of evil.
ReplyDeleteYes I used to believe in the Free Will Defense too but Brian Davies had a chapter in his book THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL where he pointed out it major flaws.
We don't push that Theistic Personalist nonsense here. Classic Theists remember?
>This is what I said about Christianity - how it's whack-a-mole-with-God. You take down one version, another version pops up on some other Christian sect's view.
ReplyDeleteBoo f***ing hoo. Cry me a river. Anti-Protestant Polemics against Sola Scriptura don't work on non-Catholic High Church Christian types or Eastern Orthodox so either I don't pick a fight with them or I change my strategy.
It's not hard. Learn about Thomism and adapt or accept you are unsuited to do anti-religious polemics.
Even Atheism is the same. I feel more intimidated by non-"New" Atheist types who know a great deal about philosophy and philosophical argument
ReplyDeleteGnu's are a pain in the arse because it's near impossible to get them to accept mere common sense let alone religion.
>And it is getting conspicuous that my point has been ignored about religious confusion...
ReplyDeleteLargely because I reject belief in any God that has obligations to us or is a moral agent. Thus I can't conceive of a God who is obliged to clear up religious confusion or end evil right now.
Yeh it's a devastating argument to anyone who believes in a Theistic Personalist God. But Thomist in the house! Remember?
>The fact that concepts of Christianity and God are so variable among Christians gives little confidence that Christianity actually imparts any "knowledge."
That is not logical. The existence of many wrong answers doesn't negate the existence of a single right one.
>It has all the earmarks of people making stuff up, rather than being on the receiving end of knowledge from an actual God.
This isn't even an argument.
>>I want you to learn philosophy and reject Scientism. This must be done before we can debate God.
ReplyDelete>Love it. Much obliged for my daily smile!
>Cheers,
No problem I hope I haven't come across as too harsh.
But you need to learn philosophy.
So get on with it.
I will provide a reading list upon request.
BTW
ReplyDeleteRW does that stand for Reason's Whore?
I don't mean that as an insult. I only ask because I saw an Atheist post under that name over at Questioning Christianity under the Problem of evil entry.
I mention that because I posted a ruff summery of Brian Davies arguments there.
Just Curious.
I am re-posting what Mr. Green said & bold the fun parts.
ReplyDeleteMr. Green said...
RH: My quick response implies that it's already acknowledged that the "natural" exists - I presume you don't disagree - and that the disagreement is about whether there is also the supernatural.
MG: As a matter of fact, I do disagree. The word "nature" is used in various ways, and I'm sure we all agree that "nature" as in "all those places outside cities and towns" exists. But of course that's not the definition that applies here. In order for your dichotomy to make sense, you have be using some meaning of "natural" that refers to something that exists independently of supernatural entities; then you can ask, "Well, we've got this natural stuff, but is there any supernatural stuff alongside it?" The classical conception of God, however, is not some being made of "supernatural stuff" that exists "alongside" natural stuff. I deny, in fact, that "natural stuff", in such an independent sense, could exist at all; the very notion is incoherent. Conversely, we would disagree on the meaning of "supernatural" as well.
That's why we can't get very far simply by jumping around and picking on different points of different arguments here and there. To be able to offer any meaningful criticism of a philosophical system, you have to have a decent understanding of its foundations and fundamental concepts. You need to understand how the system builds on its framework, and what context it provides for discussing the relevant issues. You keep referring to "special pleading" and the like, when really what you are seeing is pieces of differing systems taken out of context. It's easy to make fun of scientists for using oxymoronic phrases like "invisible light", but physicists aren't going to be impressed by someone who doesn't know the jargon.
That's why people always recommend starting with a good philosophy book. You need to understand the boring bits about act and potency and form and matter if you are to get anywhere with the bigger questions; just as our physicists would direct you first to a physics textbook if you want to challenge them on quark colour and charm. For example, if you understood the Scholastic natural law foundation for morality, you wouldn't be raising Euthyphro. Not because there's anything wrong with those questions in themselves, but if you had even a basic knowledge of how natural law works, it would be almost immediately clear why Euthyphro doesn't apply. (I guess you can learn the basics from website comments, but in my experience, it's not terribly effective. However, sites like this are really good to get help and clarification when trying to figure out particular details of a system that you're studying.)
RH,
ReplyDeleteAnd you've proven why simply tossing out the Euthyphro Dilemma garners the rolling of the eyes.
Normally, it's tossed out to demonstrate a problem in the concept of God for a theist, because either horn supposedly causes an issue for their concept. But the concept has advanced past that so that it isn't really a problem. Vox Day accepts the first one and argues using a computer programmer example why you should accept that authority (basically, God's universe, God's rules). I accept the second and would argue theologically against the idea that we are not supposed to be capable of understanding morality without just listening to God. At this point, all you have left is a comment that this affects arguments about whether atheists can be moral or not. And in that case:
1) Vox Day and people who take his side will argue that you indeed can't, and that even though the rules may be "arbitrary" that's all that being moral is: following those rules. So if you want to be moral, you'll do it.
2) My side will say that you're right that atheists can be moral, but they haven't given any actual basis for any kind of morality merely by saying "I don't believe in God". At least theists of the first type will tell us where their morality comes from.
One big problem with your stance, it seems to me, is that you seem to think that an argument is bad if it doesn't necessarily work or can't get full agreement. It's insufficient, but that doesn't mean it can or should be dismissed. I think that Vox Day's argument in "The Irrational Atheist" is the best argument I've seen for the first horn of the dilemma and is well worth reading, even though I think it wrong.
RH,
ReplyDelete"For 3, as I already acknowledged, there seems to be as many conceptions of God as there are theists. This, again, works against the claims of God made by those theists!"
Why? All that means is that there's work to do in figuring out what conceptions are the right ones to use. Which is the entire role and purpose of philosophy.
Oh wait a minute it's RH not RW.
ReplyDeleteMy bad.
Folks,
ReplyDeleteEnough, please, with the supercilious "recommendations" that I read some philosophy. That includes gratuitous assumptions that I need to read up on Empiricism (following quickly behind these no doubt are the standard rhetoric "Don't you know, poor boy, that logical positivism is dead and buried?" and ..."Haven't you read Hume?" etc).
While I'm certainly no expert philosopher, I have had an interest in philosophy, the philosophy of science, and to some degree an interest in religion, for decades. I have a general knowledge of many of the central issues and debates within philosophy, philosophy of science, moral philosophy, and to some degree within Christianity. While my knowledge is hardly encyclopedic, it has served me well insofar as I believe I've been able to detect, and argue, the flaws in every theistic argument someone has presented to me. The obviousness of the problems in theistic arguments, once dragged into the light, are what keep me an atheist.
That I can not repeat to you exactly what YOU believe does not equate to my being utterly philosophically ignorant and incapable of dialogue on the issue. So, enough condescension please. I'm looking for actual statements with reasons to believe those statements. It's certainly not that I think comments sections are the best place to learn philosophy, or theology.
But it's quite possible to present premises with some support for the premises, even on forums and comment sections.
"Go read a book on philosophy" is unhelpful. I'm very familiar with this loop with some theists: Go become learned on this theistic subject before we talk. Except that, given the tendency for individual interpretation, when the atheist rejects the arguments he's inevitably accused of not understanding the arguments. So I will get: "Oh, the problem is you really haven't understood Aquinas, or Davies, on this subject."
At which point I will have to say: Ok, then TELL ME THE ARGUMENT AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Which brings me right back to the reason that these days I prefer to interact with theists and critics of atheism "personally" in dialogue. Davies isn't here to defend any criticism I might make, be it on or off target. YOU are. But of course we aren't going to go anywhere is no one is willing to start some train of reasoning as to why I ought to accept certain theistic propositions.
And BTW, I'm not wholly unfamiliar with the directions you are going. I'm quite aware that some versions of Christianity bit the bullet and do not posit God as a moral being, as we understand moral beings. Nor that God is "personal" in exactly the way we understand "personal." In fact, this has been central to many of the debates I've been in. As have been appeals to transcendental arguments, and appeals to transcendental notions of value/goodness, to the purported necessity of theistic assumptions in undergirding rationality etc. I am generally aware of Thomistic notions of "good" and "evil" and "forms," and I find them wholly unconvincing concepts of morality (and metaphysics). But, again, given the interpretative nature of these things I'm likely to be greeted with "no, you need to understand them THIS way"...which is why I cut to the chase and prod YOU to make statements which YOU support.
If you can to tell me why one ought to consider God "good," then please do so.
If you can give me ANY reason why one ought to take the Bible seriously as representing the record of a God (or however you'd characterise it), please do so.
If you can tell me how you get from a First Cause to concluding that cause is Personal or Agential (God), let alone the Biblical God...I'm here. Go ahead.
RH
>Enough, please, with the supercilious "recommendations" that I read some philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThen goodbye. We have better things to do than teach you from the ground up.
Or does Jerry Coyne take it upon himself to teach from the ground up every YEC who happens bye basic biology?
But Ben, unlike the YEC, the typical New Atheist prides himself on being the quintessential example of reason, free-thinking, rationality, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou are therefore insulting his pride - his very identity - when you charge him of ignorance and tell him to read a book!
BTW,
ReplyDeleteThis review:
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2010/02/aquinas-beginners-guide-1.html#0
Indicates to me that Feser, and and his devotees here, are indeed likely going toward the type of mistakes I have suspected.
Against Feser's support for Aristotelian Metaphysics, the reviewer makes this observation:
The human intellect seemed to be both capable of great achievements (e.g. Newton) and getting things very seriously wrong (Aristotelian physics) even when guided by Aristotelian thought: indeed, particularly when so guided.
To which I'd add: Damned straight!
That is one massive, glaring problem with theology, and our understanding of the world.
It's been a dismal failure. A virtual perfect batting average of "0."
If history has taught us anything about humankind's quest to understand the world and the universe, it's that we have had to get around our propensity to impute intelligent agency behind what we see in nature. There is likely no natural phenomenon that was not at one time "explained" by appeal to a God, or some type of non-human personal agent. Yet over, and over and over we have only gained wider and more reliable knowledge about a phenomenon so long as we have SHED the appeal to God-like agency, allowing us to uncover natural explanations.
How odd that one posits a God is behind what we see, let alone that a God would be necessary, (let alone the ludicrous God of the Bible), when the onward march of knowledge has continued only insofar as we've been able to DROP the concept of God as necessary in our explanations. This hardly is a history that indicates we are on a path of having to posit a God. (The fact that any particular great scientist was a theist is no argument for the necessity of theistic beliefs, just in case anyone feels compelled to bring up that canard. Also, positing no difference between the "natural" and "God," as if God is a necessary postulate, is a gratuitous assumption in getting us to knowledge about the world, in ultimately the same was as are intervening versions of God).
Instead of learning from human experience like this, humans still can't help themselves. The appeal to agency is too strong for many of us to stop making the same mistake, pushing it into whatever cracks they see are left.
Yes, btw, I know many theists will argue about the necessity of theistic assumptions for science. They are wrong :-)
Given that some of the smartest contemporary theistic thinkers have failed to square belief in Christian theism with what we know of the world, availed as they have been of all the current knowledge we have, the idea that a pre-scientific Christian theologian can enlighten us is worthy of the greatest skepticism.
RH
RH this is not the place to find simplistic answers to complex questions.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. Have a good life & I pray upon you whatever extra-ordinary Grace God might give you.
"If you can tell me how you get from a First Cause to concluding that cause is Personal or Agential (God)"
ReplyDeleteCraig offers three supplementary arguments for Kalam that argue for this. Not even NEARLY fleshed out enough to do them justice here, but the gist is:
1. Two types of causes: scientific, and personal (the water is boiling because heat is being applied to it, or the water is boiling because I want to make tea). The cause of the universe cannot be scientific because no physical laws existed yet.
2. The cause has to be spaceless, non-physical, etc because it brought those into existence. Only two types of things fit the bill: abstract objects, and minds. But abstract objects (like numbers), do not have any causal power.
3. A timeless state gave rise to a temporal effect. If the cause were an impersonal eternally existing cause, then the universe would exist eternally. But the universe began to exist from a timeless state a finite time ago.
As for Aquinas, the agency of the unmoved mover comes about because a thing of Pure Act must include all causal power, including all knowledge as well because it causes all knowledge "down the line". The unmoved mover doesn't have knowledge, but IS knowledge.
Per his second argument, the first cause is existence itself. Knowledge exists. Therefore, existence includes all knowledge.
Connection with the Bible is, in my opinion, the weaker part of all this.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThen goodbye. We have better things to do than teach you from the ground up.
Or does Jerry Coyne take it upon himself to teach from the ground up every YEC who happens bye basic biology?
Coyne WILL defend evolution theory if asked, and does so on his blog. As do dreaded folks like P.Z. Myers. These guys don't just say "Oh naive theist, it's all explained in a book, I've no time for you." Both have posted extensive defenses of evolution theory, against the charges of theistic critics, or simply to enlighten visitors. This has comprised both short, cogent easily digestible premises with some support, as well as more extensive explications. These have been in response to various queries and critics, including other bloggers, writers, emails, and even people in the comments section.
No one is asking for the complete set of arguments in support of evolution...or in this case your theology...for goodness sake. But if asked about evolution I, or Coyne, can indeed supply premises and support for why you ought to accept those premises!
But, since you find such demands beyond you at this point, I guess this is indeed goodbye.
Thanks for the dialogue.
RH
>Against Feser's support for Aristotelian Metaphysics, the reviewer makes this observation:
ReplyDelete>The human intellect seemed to be both capable of great achievements (e.g. Newton) and getting things very seriously wrong (Aristotelian physics) even when guided by Aristotelian thought: indeed, particularly when so guided.
>To which I'd add: Damned straight!
So neither you or the reviewer understand the difference between metaphysics vs physics?
Category mistake much? It's like saying I don't believe the Andromeda galaxy exists because I can see it under my microscope.
RH you have nothing to contribute here and you clearly refuse to learn.
edit:that is can't see it under my microscope etc...
ReplyDelete>Coyne WILL defend evolution theory if asked, and does so on his blog.
ReplyDeleteSo he never ever in his whole life recommends any YEC read a book? Not even the one he wrote?
Sure pal. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Good luck Martin and God's speed. I don't have the patience with such willful stupidity.
ReplyDelete>That I can not repeat to you exactly what YOU believe does not equate to my being utterly philosophically ignorant and incapable of dialogue on the issue. So, enough condescension please.
ReplyDeleteYou equate physics with metaphysics.......nuff said.
It's one of the first things Feser deals with in his book.
@Ben Yachov:
ReplyDeleteSchiller: "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
My favorite quote!
ReplyDeleteAbstract objects: Propositions, universals, and mathematical objects are all objectively true realities that are not made out of particles and not dependent on any human mind.
ReplyDeleteBeg to differ. Given that professional logicians themselves disagree over the nature of logic, I don't pretend to solve the issue for mankind. However, the assertion above is certainly not a given.
I would say that propositions, for instance, do indeed need a mind as a component (and if a human mind is the only type of mind that exists, then at the moment it's human minds that are necessary for propositions to exist). This is because propositions don't just float out in the ether; human minds, and in particular physical brains and bodies, create propositions, statements, beliefs. I defy you to make sense of the proposition "Susan is wearing red" or "The circumference of the moon is 6,790 miles" without necessarily implying the existence of a mind to make sense of the proposition. There are of course arguments to be had about this, but the point is that the assertions you wrote are by no means a given that I would have to accept.
An eternal, transcendent mind, however, could "hold" such things.
How so? Theism has so often assumed this, but whenever prodded for justification, incoherence and hand waving seem to result. As some philosophers/logicians would argue: for a proposition to be "true," it must be understood in two parts: a proposition (proposed by a mind) is a truth-bearer but it in itself is not the "truth-maker." The "truth-maker" are those circumstances which the proposition purports to describe. If the circumstances match the proposition, the proposition is "true." In this way a transcendental mind adds nothing to the cogency or ontology of propositions. All you need is a mind, at any time, to conjure a proposition. And for the proposition to be "true" we simply need a state of affairs that matches the proposition.
Ethics: If everything is just particles and energy, then there does not seem to be any basis for objective morality.
Non sequitur.
Particles and energy take on different characteristics depending on the arrangement. This is obvious. Imagine if a Nasa engineer said: "I'm going to replace this computer guiding the space shuttle with a banana because, after all, ultimately both computers and banana are particles and energy so there's not reason to discriminate between them." We'd immediately recognize it as insanity, because we understand just how consequential matter arranged in "X" form is from matter arranged in Y form. Depending on which form it takes, NEW CONSIDERATIONS arise.
Humans are physical, but crucially different in arrangement than say, a rock. We have a complex nervous system that allows us to think, feel, desire, rationalize about how to achieve our desires, predict results of actions, decide between actions, live with one another, consider the "best" ways of living with one another etc. So the appeal to "just particles and energy" is simple deflationary language, not an argument. (This goes for the argument concerning "intentionality" you gave as well).
As to objective morality, ironically given the historical assumptions carried forth by religion, you don't get it by positing a God (that just adds another opinion to the mix). But some secular value theories DO indicate how moral statements could be objective (have truth value). For instance, if certain moral theories are correct, then "ought" statements, moral or otherwise, are best understood as being claims about which states of affairs, or which actions, will fulfill goals and desires. If that's the case (and I believe it is) then moral claims necessarily entail propositions about the world, and hence have truth values, hence are objective claims.
That's all for now, many thanks.
RH
Ben,
ReplyDeleteSo neither you or the reviewer understand the difference between metaphysics vs physics?
I could explain how silly your inference is, but if I'm to take a page from your book I will simply say: Go back. Read it again. Try and learn what they/we are saying. When you do, come back and talk.
;-)
RH
Well, looks like folks here such as grodrigues and Ben have descended to dismissive insults ("stupidity") instead of arguments. Wasn't the tenor of discussion here supposed to be higher than those meanie atheist blogs? Apparently not...
ReplyDeletePeople are the same all over, huh?
So, thanks and so long to those fellas. I'll stick to those actually discuss issues, presenting actual content, in a civil manner.
Cheers,
RH
Hi Mr Green! (Sorry, trying to keep up with the posts, here).
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, I do disagree. The word "nature" is used in various ways, and I'm sure we all agree that "nature" as in "all those places outside cities and towns" exists. But of course that's not the definition that applies here. In order for your dichotomy to make sense, you have be using some meaning of "natural" that refers to something that exists independently of supernatural entities; then you can ask, "Well, we've got this natural stuff, but is there any supernatural stuff alongside it?"
Absolutely. This can be tricky because we get into "whose definition of natural/supernatural do we use? Theist or mine?"
I'm not firmly in a particular camp, but I am most won over by a sort of meta-naturalism. It's not a materialism insofar as I would dogmatically state "only the material exists." It's more an epistemological stance that filters in what I would accept "exists." The upshot is that it's not ultimately that ontologically useful to make some divide between "supernatural" and "natural" because anything that exists would be "natural" (in that it has a "nature"). Hence, we really end up talking about "does X exist" vs "does the supernatural X exist?" where "supernatural" doesn't seem to add anything to the question.
So if the THEIST wants to say his God is supernatural...whatever. I'm just going to point out there's no reason to think either that God, or a realm in which that God resides, "exists."
The classical conception of God, however, is not some being made of "supernatural stuff" that exists "alongside" natural stuff. I deny, in fact, that "natural stuff", in such an independent sense, could exist at all; the very notion is incoherent.
Sure. I just don't think you can justify those claims. :-)
Thanks,
RH
>I could explain how silly your inference is, but if I'm to take a page from your book I will simply say: Go back. Read it again. Try and learn what they/we are saying. When you do, come back and talk.
ReplyDeleteA simple "No we don't understand the difference between physics vs metaphysics" would suffice.
You may continue to pretend you know what you are talking about.
>Well, looks like folks here such as grodrigues and Ben have descended to dismissive insults ("stupidity") instead of arguments. Wasn't the tenor of discussion here supposed to be higher than those meanie atheist blogs? Apparently not...
ReplyDeletePeople are the same all over, huh?
Typical Gnu. Acts like a jerk then accuses his victims of being mean.
Silly....
"This is because propositions don't just float out in the ether; human minds, and in particular physical brains and bodies, create propositions, statements, beliefs. I defy you to make sense of the proposition 'Susan is wearing red' or 'The circumference of the moon is 6,790 miles' without necessarily implying the existence of a mind to make sense of the proposition."
ReplyDeleteBut in a way, abstract objects do indeed "float around in the ether". If everyone were brainwashed to think that your moon proposition is false, the proposition would carry on being true in spite of that. It is independent of any human mind. Or to take a better example, if every human were brainwashed to think the Pythagorean Theorem were false, it would still carry on being true in spite of that. But yet, it isn't made up of particles or energy.
"How so? Theism has so often assumed this, but whenever prodded for justification, incoherence and hand waving seem to result."
1. Logical laws are abstract and absolute
2. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind
3. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable
4. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging
Paraphrased from here: http://www.debate.org/debates/There-are-no-arguments-for-God-that-cannot-be-refuted./1/
I'm not saying this works, but I am saying that confidence in naturalism is often misplaced, were you aware of the full case for and against.
To others: Re Euthyphro Dilemma:
ReplyDeleteI've been criticised for talking about the Euthyphro dilemma, as if it were irrelevant.
This doesn't wash. Even Dr. Feser recognises it's pertinance to theism. He exorts that you should be aware of the "third way" through the dilemma, writing: As Eleonore Stump points out in her book on Aquinas, its role in resolving the Euthyphro dilemma is one reason theists should take seriously Aquinas’s doctrine of divine simplicity."
So please don't tell me raising the ED is irrelevant: Feser is even telling you that one reason to take Aquinas doctrine seriously is it's role in resolving the ED!
This is in line with what I've already pointed out: the Euthyphro Dilemma, while generally aimed at theism, essentially raises questions about the nature of morality (of the nature of "good," value etc). It prods the theist to look at his value theory - what is "good" and what does it mean "We ought to do X" in the context of theism? How is God relevant to these issues?
Obviously there are different moral theories within theism (ironically), and not all amount to Divine Command theory per se. But I haven't met a Christian yet who thinks God isn't in some way necessary for morality, or that God's commands were morally irrelevant. Hence the issues raised by the ED are inevitably relevant to theistic ethics.
Please realize that when presented with the ED it is a common response from virtually ANY Christian (or Christian sect/theologian) that the ED does not pose a problem.
That it's merely a misunderstanding or false dilemma, leaving their theistic moral theory untouched.
If the ED were directly relevant to ANYONE it would be to Christians like W.L. Craig, a Divine Command Theorist. But of course, Craig's response like any Christians is to tut-tut the atheist: How naive of you to raise the Euthyphro Dilemma. If you simply knew our theology, you'd understand how it's a false dilemma - our theology takes another path, a middle way, untouched by the dilemma."
Except that when you examine Craig's theological response to the ED, it's utter bullocks. It does not in fact avoid the horns, does not in fact do what Craig claims it does, does not in fact get Craig where Craig wants to go. It's pure special pleading and begging the question, and ends up in the very arbitrariness Craig claimed did not pertain to his Theistic Morality.
Given that this occurs over and over when the atheist raises these issues with theists, forgive me for not feeling chastened by assertions of my naivete and that, don't worry, we've got this all figured out. The question will always be: But do you REALLY avoid the problems of arbitrariness or God being unnecessary /gratuitous for morality? And if you say you end up on some other path, let's see if you do and how cogent is the value theory you end up with?
I've seen Mr. Feser's claims about the Euthyphro Dilemma, here:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-obligation-and-euthyphro-dilemma.html
Surprise, surprise, Feser claims the dilemma is a false one.
But Feser recognizes the pertinence of the dilemma - that you really don't want to end up on one of the horns. It's clear Feser doesn't like the idea of morality ending up as arbitrary, or that God is an unnecessary postulate for morality. So, like Craig, he tries to find that way - appealing to Aquinas etc - to have his cake and eat it too. "Don't worry folks! We avoid the horns! We get to say there are reasons for moral oughts, AND that God is necessary!"
Except...does he get that?
Not that I can see. I see assertions with little reason given for me to accept them.
(More...)
Feser writes:
ReplyDeleteThe actual situation, then, is this. What is good or bad for us is determined by the ends set for us by our nature
"Ends set for us by our nature?" That doesn't make sense. "Ends" are those things conscious decision/actions works toward. It is the nature of a psychopathic killer to kill without mercy. Does that mean it's "good?" (Of course you are going to say "No." And yes I know generally the direction you will take. And yes I am prodding people to defend these statements made by Feser).
Now God, given the perfection of His intellect, can in principle only ever command in accordance with reason, and thus God could never command us to do what is bad for us.
Ahh...so we must have reasons-to-do-X for X to be "good." That then implies that it's the existence of reasons-to-do-X which are the "good making" property, not the existence of God, making God superfluous. So long as there exist reasons-to-do-X...we have morality.
Whew! Don't worry folks. We've got reasons to do X. It's not all arbitrary.
Hence the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is ruled out:
Sure, at the expense of making God superfluous.
But wait, that won't do. We need God to be necessary. Let's try:
But the essences that determine the ends of things – our ends, and for that matter the end of reason too as inherently directed toward the true and the good – do not exist independently of God. Rather, given the Scholastic realist understanding of universals, they pre-exist in the divine intellect as the ideas or archetypes by reference to which God creates. Hence the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is also ruled out.
What I see here is common in theology: really statements of theology that are only compelling to someone already committed to Christianity, and most of them are about making moves to keep God of primary relevance: "oops...theologians agreeing with the many worlds view of universals have demoted God and we can't have that, so let's say uninstantiated universals require existence in the mind of God! Whew. God's back in the driver's seat!
Except there's no reason to accept these theological assertions to anyone not committed to being a Christian. Show me how this classical theistic view actually makes better sense of value than other theories. I read the various links and waited, waited to find any actual argument to accept Fesers theological assertions. Most of it was simply some version of: "This is what we Classical Thomists believe."
For instance, in understanding how value arises, I would argue that value arises from desires/goals, without which "value" is incoherent. In a universe devoid of persons with desires, what sense could it make to say "X is valuable?" Rather, X is valuable insofar as X is such as to fulfill some desire. (This is getting us to first notions of value, not yet moral value). This makes sense of how value seems to arise for us. A certain race car has value to the driver insofar as it is such as to fulfill his desire/goal to win a race (or appeal to some other desire of the driver). If someone says "X has value" it makes sense to ask "to Whom? and Why?"
THAT is what you need in order for value to arise: Beings who can have desires (and beliefs), and entities or states of affairs that are such as to fulfill desires. No God needed.
We fulfill the status of beings necessary for value to arise, not God.
RH.
BTW,
ReplyDeleteDo I consider that I'm delivering some all encompassing, devastating critique to your arguments. Of course not. It's just a comments section. Rather, I'm pretty sick of
mere haughty assertions that atheists are naive, incompetent meanie boobs who just don't get the fact you have actual good arguments.
I'm trying to at least get someone to step up and start actually giving an argument...defending an argument. If I continue to get mere dismissiveness, it would indicate that like the rest of the theists I've encountered, that you are bluffing :-)
BTW, I know that in my critique of Feser the likely reply will be "but you must understand that in classical theism, value equates to.."
Fine. The point is to draw this out and see if, in fact, there is any indication that there are any clothes on the emperor. Are there good reasons to accept your assertions.
(And I'm not ruling out that you might have some good arguments).
Naturally I can not engage every issue raised here in detail. But if some meat is thrown out, I can try my best.
BTW, would any Catholic here like to give a reason, or reasons, why one ought to accept the claims of the Christian Bible? (E.g. the ressurection, or that the best inference is that The Bible represents the wisdom of or contact with a God?)
Cheers,
RH
(Sorry, running out of computer time at this point...I hope to be back as soon as possible).
Martin,
ReplyDeleteYour response seems to ignore the claims I made regarding the break down of propositions (so far as they are "true") to truth-bearer and "truth-maker" components. Minds are necessary to generate the propositions (the truth-bearer).
Without a mind there would be no "propositions." And it begs the question against certain forms of naturalism/materialism to say propositions "do float in the ether" whereas it can be argued propositions "exist" only as states of a mind, in our case physical brain states that are our mental attitudes.
Cheers,
RH
Two questions for RH.
ReplyDeleteWhat the HELL have you been smoking?
.....and where can I score some? It looks like some potent shit.
@RH:
ReplyDelete"Except that when you examine Craig's theological response to the ED, it's utter bullocks. It does not in fact avoid the horns, does not in fact do what Craig claims it does, does not in fact get Craig where Craig wants to go. It's pure special pleading and begging the question, and ends up in the very arbitrariness Craig claimed did not pertain to his Theistic Morality."
Besides flat assertions can you provide any substantial argument? Nevermind, really.
"Ends set for us by our nature?" That doesn't make sense. "Ends" are those things conscious decision/actions works toward."
If you do not understand what the sentence means, wouldn't it be better to ask clarification before going on a tangent about psycopaths? At the risk of meeting your ire, at this point, don't you think you are better served by reading a book like E. Feser's "Aquinas"?
I will refrain from commenting on the rest of your post(s) as I am in a bad mood, with little patience, and would most probably end up resorting to name-calling. Just one question: do you think that people here are motivated to try to enlighten you, when outside of paying lip-service to a vague open-mindedness (as all Gnu atheists are wont to, if for nothing else, to reinforce the illusion that they are rational freethinkers free form bias -- and J. Swift would add sarcastically "without the least tincture of learning"), you do not show the least willingness to learn as evinced by your tone and language?
"I think that all of this -- and even what Eric MacDonald is suggesting -- is probably too much for Coyne's knowledge level. Since tends towards the philosophical as opposed to the scientific, the fact that Coyne really is philosophically naive will always get in the way; he simply won't be able to grasp what the arguments are meant to demonstrate and argue without retreating to "But is it true!" demands."
ReplyDeleteI completely agree! If only everyone be so knowledgeable as to fully study and understand theology before having an opinion on religion, much less participate in one. Why don't we make passing a test on Aquinas a prerequisite for baptism?
Seriously. If it's so important that atheists study and understand theology, why is the same not true for believers?
"Without a mind there would be no "propositions.""
ReplyDeleteHi RH
We could restate your claim here as,
(1) If propositions exist, then at least one mind exists.
Would you agree? If so, then we can try to run an interesting argument for the plausibility of the existence of god.
The proposition (1) posits the existence of a mind as a necessary condition for the existence of propositions. Hence, if we can show that even if the material world didn't exists, there would still be at least one proposition, it would follow that some mind must exist apart from the material world, which means this mind must be immaterial and eternal. Now obviously, such a mind would only resemble our minds by analogy. Hence, it seems that if we could formulate such an argument, we would have a case for a being that is a plausible candidate for god. The argument might look like this:
(1) If propositions exist, then at least one mind exists.
(2) If at least one proposition exists independently of the universe, then at least one mind exists independently of the universe.
(3) At least one proposition exists independently of the universe.
(4) Hence, at least one mind exists independently of the universe.
(5) Since space and time are properties of the universe, if a mind exists independently of the universe, that mind must be spaceless (immaterial) and timeless (eternal).
(6) God is a plausible candidate for an immaterial and eternal mind.
(7) God plausibly exists.
It seems to me as if, on your view, the whole argument would then hang on how well (3) could be defended.
Alternatively, we could run this argument a bit differently.
(1) If propositions exist, then at least one mind exists.
(2') If realism about propositions is true, then propositions do not depend for their existence on the existence of the material world.
(3') Realism about propositions is true.
(4a') Hence, propositions do not depend for their existence on the existence of the material world.
(4b') If (1) and (4), then at least one mind must exist independently of the material world.
(5) Since space and time are properties of the universe, if a mind exists independently of the universe, that mind must be spaceless (immaterial) and timeless (eternal).
(6) God is a plausible candidate for an immaterial and eternal mind.
(7) God plausibly exists.
In this argument, I take it that the premise you'd dispute is (3'). So, it seems to me that given your acceptance of (1), you'd have to agree that if a good case could be made for either (3) or (3'), then a plausible case can be made for the existence of god.
Would you agree so far?
(N.B. This isn't an argument I think is particularly strong; I only presented it because you already agreed with one of its two key premises.)
I want to study philosophy.
ReplyDeleteEric:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you are equivocating between the proposition and the propositional content, which is just the state of affairs that the proposition represents. The proposition is nothing but a mental construct that represents a state of affairs. The state of affairs is what can exist independent of a mind, but the proposition that represents that state of affairs requires a mind.
You can easily show the existence of states of affairs that do not require minds, but it does not follow that if there are states of affairs in the universe, then there must be propositions to represent them. Certainly, if there were no minds in the universe, then there would be no propositions, but there would still be truths about the universe despite this fact.
"The problem is that you are equivocating between the proposition and the propositional content, which is just the state of affairs that the proposition represents. The proposition is nothing but a mental construct that represents a state of affairs. The state of affairs is what can exist independent of a mind, but the proposition that represents that state of affairs requires a mind."
ReplyDeleteHi Dguller
I'm not aware of anyone who uses the phrase, "propositional content" as you're using it. Take the proposition, "Dguller believes that god does not exist" -- its propositional content is, "that god does not exist," not the state of affairs in which god does not exist. Or, we could take a number of different sentences all of which express the same proposition, and the content of that proposition would be the 'propositional content' of each of the sentences. You seem to mean something like the distinction between sense (roughly, the term or proposition) and reference (roughly, what the term refers to), though in that case I can't see how I'm equivocating.
"The state of affairs is what can exist independent of a mind, but the proposition that represents that state of affairs requires a mind."
Right, but this is just a restatement of (1). I guess I can't see the problem.
"You can easily show the existence of states of affairs that do not require minds, but it does not follow that if there are states of affairs in the universe, then there must be propositions to represent them."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I didn't make any moves like that.
"Certainly, if there were no minds in the universe, then there would be no propositions, but there would still be truths about the universe despite this fact."
Again, when you say if there were no minds, there'd be no propositions, you're just agreeing with (1), viz. a mind is a necessary condition for the existence of propositions. The point is to establish either (3) or (3'), which would then provide us with an argument (for whoever accepts (1)) for the existence of god.
But there is a problem with saying there could be no minds, no propositions, and still *truths*. Truth is a property of propositions (on one conception), so if there are no propositions, what is it that's true in this mindless world? It seems to me as if you must reject the notion that anything would be true in such a world, for it raises very serious problem, i.e. then you'd be committed to saying that in that world it's true that nothing is true. And this, it seems to me, is the beginning of a decent argument for existence of propositions in such a world, and hence, if you accept (1), which you seem to do, for the existence of at least one mind.
Eric:
ReplyDelete>> But there is a problem with saying there could be no minds, no propositions, and still *truths*. Truth is a property of propositions (on one conception), so if there are no propositions, what is it that's true in this mindless world? It seems to me as if you must reject the notion that anything would be true in such a world, for it raises very serious problem, i.e. then you'd be committed to saying that in that world it's true that nothing is true. And this, it seems to me, is the beginning of a decent argument for existence of propositions in such a world, and hence, if you accept (1), which you seem to do, for the existence of at least one mind.
The challenge here is that in the very act of discussing this subject, we necessarily use propositions, and thus no matter what we say, propositions will be involved. In a sense, we are trying to catapult outside of ourselves into a view from nowhere, which is difficult, if not impossible.
And “truth” can be ambiguous, as you mention above. Yes, there is the sense of truth, which is basically a Tarski-type relationship between propositions and states of affairs. But there is another sense of truth that a Thomist would appreciate, which is that which is real. In other words, if something is real, then it is also true, in a sense.
So, in the former sense (i.e. true1), you are correct that truth requires propositions and that without them there is no truth, but in the latter sense (i.e. true2), there can be truth as long as there is something real, even if there are no propositions or minds. And that is how I can say that it is true2 that nothing is true1, and without any contradiction at all.
grodrigues said...
ReplyDeleteBesides flat assertions can you provide any substantial argument? Nevermind, really.
Hold on. Please don't go asking for substance, and then tell me "nevermind" so you can keep accusing me of not providing substance.
In a nutshell: Craig has a lot riding on the Ontological Argument for God (really, it seems to form the bedrock underlying many of his other arguments). So on Craig's view God as a maximally great Being, necessarily exists. And part of being maximally great is to be maximally good. This of course faces a Euthyphro-type dilemma: How is it established that God is "maximally good?" If there is some standard of "good" that God must meet to be "good" then that standard seems primary over God. If there is no standard and God is the standard, then how is this not arbitrary - whatever God IS just IS good. Not to mention we get epistemological problems (how would we recognize a God if we had no standard by which to recognize a being of maximal goodness?).
Recognizing these problems Craig tries to avoid both an external standard AND arbitrariness.
Craig asserts that it is "greater" to be the Paradigm of Good, rather than to be measured against an outside standard, hence a maximal being would be The Paradigm Of Good. Great! No outside standard! Whew!
Except, what does this tell us about "good? or about the nature of God? Nothing. It just sets him as The Standard. A standard that tells us nothing about the standard. Again, how would we recognize such a maximally good being if there were no standard of "good" by which to discern. (I can claim to be the maximally good being...want to dispute it? Sorry....I'm the standard!). More important, it seems to put no constraints on God's behavior...whatever God "happens to be" seems to be the standard, and whatever God happens to do is moral, no matter how evil it may appear. Thus the problem of arbitrariness. No actual reasons for God's commands...just...whatever happens divinity happens.
This won't do, so Craig ALSO claims that, don't worry, God isn't a-rational - God has REASONS for his commands. As Craig writes:
God had morally sufficient reasons for what He commanded the Israelis to do,...
So in order for God to have good reasons for what He commanded, they must be morally sufficient.
But what are the standards of morality? As Craig writes:
reasons that are not contrary to His nature.
Oh...God's nature! As long as reasons aren't contrary to God's nature (what the hell can that even mean??!!!)...what God commands is moral.
But what are the constraints on God's nature?
Yep. It loops right back to all the problems we went through. If God is necessarily Good, and thus good is God's nature, and God's nature is the paradigm of good, then WHATEVER God's nature allows, WHATEVER God does is "moral." If God tomorrow starts roasting every newborn on a spit, lucky us - He's just revealed to us some more of his "Nature" and...it's gotta be GOOD, as the reasons will flow from this nature!
So it just loops back to arbitrariness again. Craig just can't have his cake and eat it too, as much as he tries. It's theological word salad, as usual.
RH
At the risk of meeting your ire, at this point, don't you think you are better served by reading a book like E. Feser's "Aquinas"?
ReplyDeleteDespite how many times I (and some of the "gnu atheists") have explained it, the point still seems to be missed by theistic critics. I'm not here saying "Hey folks, I'd like to spend my precious time on earth learning as much as I can about your theology. Can you please give me a reading list?"
Rather, I'm here asking: Can you provide me with ANY REASON why I ought to give consideration, or time, to your theology? You may try to dismiss this as laziness or unwillingness to learn but it's not - it's born of the very practicalities we all face in our short time on earth. Why aren't you (likely) spending your time mired in all the literature detailing your fate as detailed in Mayan (or other ancient) beliefs that might concern your fate? Or thinking that you really must immerse yourself in scientology before rejecting it's claims?
It's because for one reason, you likely find there is no indication that there is anything of substance or truth to such things.
That is your status with me and other atheists, and it's why I first ask for some basic, first step, or argument to indicate you've got something.
If someone asked the same type of request of me (or Coyne etc) this would be no problem. For instance, take Evolution Theory. The amount of evidence and arguments ultimately comprised underlying the theory today is obviously massive and far reaching. But if someone said "Give me some good indication that evolution theory is worth investigating...show me it has any value, such that it's worth my time..." damn straight I could do so (and I've done so many times at the request of theists). I wouldn't even have to give excuses like "it's too complicated, go read a bunch of books on biology and evolution first, then come back to me." Rather, I could present some basic propositions of the theory, with their justifications, and some lines of evidence, and show the pertinence of the theory's explanatory power etc.
What about something even tougher? Take one of the most abstruse realms of human reasoning: the theory of Quantum Mechanics. It would seem laughable for any of us here to even try to explain it, given we are all likely unqualified to do so, let alone in a comments section. And yet, if someone asked: "Give me some reason why I ought to take quantum mechanics seriously at all." Could I do so? Hell yes! Right here. In this comment section.
I could point to it's undeniable success, demonstrations of it's reliability, the pertinence of quantum mechanics to many realms of science and even daily life, and to the consensus of scientific experts etc. I can also appeal to the process from which it arose, and which vetted the reliability of quantum mechanics: science.
I could explain how science is the most epistemologically responsible method we have yet developed for helping us which explanations warrant our confidence. I can point to the incredible fruitfulness of this method of gaining knowledge, how so many different scientific pursuits have grown out of it, yet they are tied together by a method of vetting claims that has allowed more reliability in understanding the world than ever before, while at the same time producing a consilience - in general, a mutual support for a bigger picture.
cont'd...
In contrast, and this is what the gnus keep pointing out, theology has NO such track record to point to. There is NO indication of any reliable or responsible epistemological method within Christianity which is why there never seems anything that a theist can point to as "progress" in theology. Just...different opinions. Different theologies. In fact, you get ever more splintering. Take a single religion: Christianity. You start with (essentially) one version of the theology and do you see convergence? No! Over time you see divergence. There are now apparently up to around 38,000 different Christian denominations/sects. Unlike fields of science, which encapsulate ever wider ranges of observations, and which generally converge and support one another to get a clearer picture of the whole of nature, it's just the opposite with Christianity. These are COMPETING claims on the same subject!, Often contradictory or mutually exclusive claims and versions on many substantial areas. There is nothing that indicates actual knowledge is being found and converged upon, no indication of any mechanism coming any time soon that promise to do so.
ReplyDeleteAtheists note they can be moral without God belief. That they can have systems of ethics, get along and have healthy societies without resort to God belief. And that science can continue to give us knowledge about ourselves and the universe without God belief. In fact, as I pointed out, it works BETTER, more reliably, to the degree you avoid introducing a God.
So with the amount of religious confusion and lack of clear epistemological method of vetting religious claims, and the dismal record of resorting to God when explaining nature, there is a well justified inclination for an atheist to not only conclude theology has nothing to it, that it's just people making stuff up, but there are justified disinclinations to think we ought to AVOID adopting a belief in God.
If theists want to say we somehow need a belief in God, that it does some work that needs to be done, that they actually have an epistemological method of vetting their claims, and that they actually are getting at real knowledge....you have a hell of a lot of well justified skepticism to get over.
But sometimes when a fine fellow (I mean that, I'm sure he is) like Prof Feser wants to ring a prominant atheist's bell and imply atheists are being petty, silly or naive, then we can say "Ok, wacha got?" But that doesn't mean we are obligated to immediately take his theology seriously, or that we suddenly have to immerse ourselves in classical Thomism. No. First thing is: Give us SOME reason to think there is anything of value, anything worth pursuing, in your theology.
Which is what I've been trying to get at here.
Start with something. For instance, a good argument for why we ought to believe the claims of The Bible. If you don't have good arguments for that, and I find you are willing to settle for really weak evidence and reasoning, as is the case for every attempt I've seen, then I will have little confidence you have good arguments elsewhere. But maybe you've got something better on this subject than the rest of Christianity.
Or present some big problem, for instance one that bedevils non-theism, but which theism somehow solves. If you have a cogent argument, just like we would for evolution, then you ought to be able to inspire some confidence, that you aren't just blowing theological smoke.
RH
RH
ReplyDeletePeople are trying to debate philosophy here. Be quiet & maybe you will learn something.
Verbose Stoic,
ReplyDeleteNormally, it's tossed out to demonstrate a problem in the concept of God for a theist, because either horn supposedly causes an issue for their concept. But the concept has advanced past that so that it isn't really a problem.
See my previous post on the relevance of the ED to morality in general, theistic in particular, including that promulgated by Prof. Feser.
Whether you say you take one of the horns, or find a path that avoids the horns making them a "non-issue," it always gets us to the relevant questions: did you in fact avoid the horns? Or if you did, what are the consequences - how viable is your theory?
We see this issue in your replies:
Vox Day accepts the first one and argues using a computer programmer example why you should accept that authority (basically, God's universe, God's rules).
Yes, that's quite a common reply. Except that the consequences are it's not a viable theory.
I've yet to see a "God makes the rules" version of morality that avoided question begging and/or special pleading, hence an empty theory.
Remember that the ED asks us to consider the nature of morality if it is staked on a God.
Well, how does one actually give a good argument for a God-makes-the-rules version of morality? A reasoned argument will have to appeal to principles accepted elsewhere in support, since simply making up a new principle for convenience, and only for this case, is special pleading.
The question is: Is the nature of morality REALLY such that it is merely "whatever" rules are made up? It doesn't seem so. What are you going to appeal to? "The Creator of a game makes the rules. So if you are to play the game you "ought" to do so by the rules of the game. In the same way, if there is a creator of moral rules, morality is simply playing by those rules."
But this seems to be a gratuitous jump in "creator rights" that I can not see how to accept.
Imagine someone creates a game of chess, rules and all. You would get agreement from me and most people that to play chess, one "ought" to follow the rules laid out by the creator of the game.
That is...as long as those rules don't impinge on morality. For instance, if one of the rules the creator of chess introduced was "For each castle taken by the other side, throw a newborn baby into a fire."
Suddenly the assent that we "ought" to follow the rules of chess "because a creator of chess has laid them out for us" hits a rather insurmountable wall, doesn't it? No one would agree that we ought to do WHATEVER is instigated by a creator. It rather seems that we consider morality quite different from the mere making up of rules (either a game, or a by a computer programmer).
So this does not seem a principle that supports the appeal to the creation of games, or computer programs etc. as justifying that we ought to do WHATEVER a God came up with in making the rules.
After all, what is left to say? If the theists wants to say "But the reason you can't introduce murdering infants into the rules of chess is because those are moral rules...the ones made by God."
Because that's just begging the question. That is to presume precisely what is under dispute, and what the analogy was supposed to establish: that we ought to accept that morality amounts to "rule-making" by a creator in the first place!
That's not to even get into arguments that there are simply better value theories available, ones that establish that once God would have created beings like ourselves, moral considerations obtain that would mean God couldn't morally do "whatever" he wanted, or order us to do whatever He wanted.
If, however, you have a better version of the God-makes-the-rules morality, I'm all ears.
RH
Forgot to add:
ReplyDeleteMy side will say that you're right that atheists can be moral, but they haven't given any actual basis for any kind of morality merely by saying "I don't believe in God". At least theists of the first type will tell us where their morality comes from.
Well, I'd agree. Never would I (nor any other atheist I know) assert that "I don't believe in God" gave a basis for morality. That's what value/moral theories are for! (I've already given a glimpse of one such theory, earlier in my posts).
So, I find the Euthyphro Dilemma remains quite a useful tool in ferreting out the nature of theistic moral theories.
Cheers,
RH
Just one more dig........
ReplyDelete>Craig has a lot riding on the Ontological Argument for God
Aquinas & Thomists in general reject the Ontological Argument. I told you this already.
Really be quiet and let dguller or Chuck do the heavy lifting. They are better at it then you and they clearly know more than you.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteThank you! Great to see your contribution.
I want to put aside my quibbles with
the argument you are laying out. I'd be raising some of the flags Dguller is raising, and some others. But frankly I'm too intrigued to gum up the process, and I'm getting sick of my own over-presence in this thread...but more to the point and I want to see the "gotcha" at the end. (Which would be cool).
So take my assent-for-sake-of-argument, run your argument, and see where we go.
(Back tomorrow, I hope)
RH
@RH:
ReplyDelete"Hold on. Please don't go asking for substance, and then tell me "nevermind" so you can keep accusing me of not providing substance."
Did I "keep accusing" you of not providing arguments? So you jump to the conclusion that that is what I would do? Projection is a bitch. For your information the "Nevermind" was because I suspected that once you did provide your arguments I would be going down the rabbit hole. And lo and behold, it was precisely what happened.
First, as Ben Yachov has already informed you (more than once, I believe), in general, people here are Thomists and thus view the ontologically argument suspiciously and ultimately flawed. Prof. Feser has a blog post about it. So maybe this is not the best place to rant against it.
Second, why do you say that the Ontological argument "form(s) the bedrock underlying many of his (W. L. Craig's) other arguments"? This is highly puzzling to me, since he acknowledges that the argument is difficult and not the one with most impact. Perhaps you are confusing it with the moral argument? And by the way, he usually presents the Ontological argument as reformulated by Alvin Plantinga, so a proper understanding of it needs for example some knowledge of modal logic. Go read a book.
Third, you do not understand W. L. Craig's argument, that is, the reasons why Thomists disagree with the argument are not your reasons -- in fact, in the post alluded to by E. Feser, he responds to many of your objections (although that would probably not be W. L. Craig's response). How should I proceed? I ask you this honestly. I could try to disentangle your mistakes one by one and write a post an order of magnitude longer than yours. Do you think I have the time or the patience for that? A response, even longer than my response, would follow and by a sort of Malthusian repletion, the blog would implode on the weight of our words. Now, feel free to think that I am dodging your questions, but put yourself in my shoes: someone comes up with an argument over a difficult question, that is riddled with errors and betrays some fundamental misunderstandings. What would *you* do? I have had my share of long and protracted debates. Against atheists; against anti-Cantorian cranks, etc. It is not good for your health or even conducive of a good temper.
I will just give you one little morsel as food for thought, *NOT* as a direct response. Instead of "maximally good" let us use "maximally rational". Is there a standard to evaluate rationality? Plausibly yes, since (some) atheists have no problems in labeling religious people "Irrational". Do you think that it is, at least conceivable, that there are some beings more rational than others? On the face of it, this is also plausible. We call people stupid, retarded, moronic, etc. which, besides the pure pleasure of invective, seems to point that there are some people that act more rationally than others. Suppose now, we say of God that he is the maximally rational being existent. Let us leave aside for the moment whether arguments can be adduced to show that such a being actually exists, and concentrate on what an analogue of Eutyphro's dilemma. What could mean to say that God is the standard of rationality? Well, since he is the maximally rational being, evaluating a being's rationality could be gauged by comparing it to God's rationality. Does this make the standard arbitrary? Of course not. Is the fact that the standard of rationality external and prior to God any difficulty? Can you explain why? One way I could conceive where this could actually be a problem, was if the standard of rationality, or Logic, would be an actual *being*, e.g. existing in a Platonic realm. But why is Logic a being? If you say yes, you are commiting yourself to Platonism, if you say no, then what is the problem exactly? Think about it. Then go read a book (just joking).
Ben:
ReplyDeleteSeriously, man. What is with you and always telling people who disagree with you to shut up and be silent? The points being made may disagree with your conclusions, but they are not foolish or childish, as you always seem to imply. My God, but you can be incredibly condescending.
DH:
ReplyDeleteFair points, and thanks for contributing. I especially like your emphasis of the utter lack of consensus over time in theology, and that you simply get an increase in opinions without any convergence whatsoever. This does suspiciously look like there is no there, there, but the conversation must simply continue for it own sake.
I look forward to the replies of commenters here regarding your need for some tangible benefits that should be acquired through the study of this particular theology, and why these benefits are not also present in other theologies.
A fair question.
RH,
ReplyDeleteWhile I can understand your request for justification of the theist to show need in studying theology, I see it as a illegitimate epistemic move.
A foundational trait of our New Atheism is to move atheism from a place of "live and let live" silence, to occupy a position of cultural critic, where we weigh in on the proposed truth claims of religion.
How can we criticize something that we have admitted we haven't bothered to take the time to investigate? That seems like an act of willful ignorance not, intellectual honesty nor, moral good.
I would imagine that if Ed Feser or any of the other student's of philosophy were to challenge Mayan Sacrifice, or Scientology Auditing, they would first seek to understand the animating premises inside these practices.
Tarring them with the claim of "prove to me you aren't stupid", is not criticism, it is petulance.
And, it isn't what the New Atheists do. I think we've become confused between the personalities of the New Atheists and the tactics they employ. Re-read "Letter to a Christian Nation", Sam Harris provides a Biblical Literacy equivalent to the Fundamentalist Christians he is writing to, he doesn't write a single page criticism demanding proof but rather, invalidates the foundation of inerrancy by juxtaposing what Jesus says in the text with what we know modern morality to be. In short, he studied the Bible from the point of view of the Biblical Fundamentalist to criticize the argument of the Biblical Fundamentalist.
To understand a subject does not mean we endorse it but, rather, examine it from its own premises to see if we can ascertain if the truth claims it proposes correspond with reality. It is how science is practiced all the time.
I struggle to see the Atheist Jerry MaGuire provocation of "show me the evidence" a proper attitude when practicing cultural criticism.
If we wish to be New Atheists and debate within the arena of cultural ideas then we need to understand the arguments we wish to oppose. If we demand our opposition first prove their right to hold the beliefs they do as prerequisite for our cultural criticism then, we are simply being reactive, rather than activist.
It is an empty claim which can be a nice stunt but makes the New Atheist project towards cultural criticism an act of bullying, not intellectual debate.
Note: reposting, as it seems that some mischievous black hole has swallowed my post.
ReplyDelete@RH:
"Despite how many times I (and some of the "gnu atheists") have explained it, the point still seems to be missed by theistic critics. I'm not here saying "Hey folks, I'd like to spend my precious time on earth learning as much as I can about your theology. Can you please give me a reading list?"
For crying out lot, I recommended only *one* book, not a reading list. One lousy, freakin book, the reading of which trades countless hours of fairly useless internet argumentation for actual *learning*. Sheesh.
So you want a sound bite, a fortune-cookie sentence that will automagically defeat what you are already predisposed to believe? Are you serious? Let me guess, you are one of those people that berate Christians for taking everything on faith, not thinking things through, not taking the time to actually consider the atheist's case? The irony would be lovely. And you *have* already been given something: the arguments. You do not find them compelling (although it seems you have not understood them either), fine, but are they *reasonable*? If someone presents me with a reasonable argument, even if ultimately agree I do not with it, it is at least reasonable to assume that the person who offered the argument is intellectually serious -- so maybe, just maybe it is worth investigating more deeply? I mean, what exactly *are* you looking for? That Jesus himself descends from heaven and smacks you in the head? The Bible tells us of only one miraculous conversion, that of St. Paul.
Your analogy with science is wholly misguided (no surprise there). I won't go over how your supposed examples would somehow magically convert the skeptics; that they would convert *you*, the already-converted, is not a big surprise really. The problem is that the sort of evidence that you have listed as willing to accept, is by *definition* the evidence that supports science, so the whole argument is circular. But people here do not reject science, so what is the point of the comparison? This is not a religion vs. science contest. A more rigorous and exact analogy would be with other *philosophical* propositions. What evidence would count for you so as to make you accept a philosophical proposition? Can you tell me what is your positive evidence for atheism? Why should I consider atheism reasonable? Maybe you have some lab experiments that you have performed. Maybe you can point out to a consensus within humanity. Maybe you can point out the innumerable benefits of atheism. You know, the same sort of stuff you pointed out for science. Now, I am not asking for you to defend atheism, what I am asking, is if you actually realize what you are asking.
Theist philosophers (the ones I have read, at least) do not deny that atheists can be moral. St. Paul famously says that non-believers can be moral. They can have ethical systems -- the issue is what is the ground for accepting such ethical systems, their justification. So you have missed the point. Again. If on the naturalistic atheist conception we are nothing more than evolved primates why should I follow whatever ethical system you propose? Why is it objectively wrong for me to murder an innocent person? If all that stands between me and murder is some sort of unwritten contract to maintain the order of society, evolved under biological and societal pressures, if I can get away with it and it advances my interests, what is objectively wrong with it? Those are the type of questions that any ethical atheist system has to answer if it can be considered justified. From what I have read, they all fail utterly -- but, needless to say, I am biased and cannot say that I know all, or even a reasonable portion, of what has been advanced.
And I will stop here as the rest of your post just repeats the same arguments, so there is no need to go over them.
grodrigues,
ReplyDeleteMuch obliged (sincerely).
(Not to get more off-track, but as per Craig/Ontological argument, I've found that if you keep pressuring his other arguments to the core, including his a priori arguments, you can see he resorts to the Ontological Argument, which "necessarily" establishes God's existence a priori,
as a sort of bedrock to bolster the credibility of his other claims about God. Even his resurrection argument, when pushed, relies on earlier "proofs" of God to increase the "probabilities" or possibility of miracles. But enough of that for now).
Further, I'm well aware of the feeling that someone has just posted a lot of erroneous argumentation and assertion. It happens all the time. I've had that feeling continually here (and I have given good effort to actually address what people are writing). Yet, somehow, we manage :-) Of course you think I've made mistakes. That's a given. It's just that in my experience, theists can't back that up when we get down to it.
I've already explained that the reason I raised the issue of Craig/Ontological argument
is as an example showing how atheists are continually greeted with "Why are you raising the Euthyphro Dilemma? It doesn't touch our theology at all!" Which is what Craig does....JUST LIKE YOU FOLKS DO. But experience shows these turn out to be bluffs, and that the "other way" answers don't work. In other words: experience informs me to take your waving away of the ED as unimportant with skepticism. Not to mention, I've already quoted Dr. Feser noting the pertinence of the ED.
As it happens, when I finally wade through the sighing and eye-rolling to were you actually indicate an argument, to little surprise, it indicates my skepticism seems warranted.
Your "morsel" doesn't answer the question...doesn't even address it. Remember the ED concerns morality, whereas you were talking about rationality, without showing how the two are connected (and hence how it avoids the ED).
Even granting the dubious proposition of God being The Standard Of Rationality, we are left asking 'What is the nature of morality in this context?" Is doing X moral because of the reasons for being moral? Or is it moral because God commands it? I can only infer at this point that you might want to say (as Craig would) that doing X is moral because of the reasons that make it moral (hence, avoid arbitrariness). But then God is made unnecessary for morality.
For morality to obtain, it is instead necessary that we have "reasons to do X."
So you are left sitting on one horn of the ED.
But you may want to say "But I just pointed out GOD is the standard of rationality!"
Except there is no necessary reason to accept that assertion. It's quite possible for humans to have standards without a God. We do it all the time in many areas. Along these lines, we can argue it is NECESSARY for a standard to exist for morality, but it is not NECESSARY for a God to provide the standard, as we can provide a standard NECESSARY for morality.
Cont'd...
Eric,
ReplyDeleteMight I get your email address? I have a proposition for you. Thanks in advance.
You can send it to me at coconnor1017@mac.com
Further, as I mentioned, once you've made those moves of asserting that a God would BE the standard of rationality and morality, you face epistemological problems. HOW would you recognize this God? HOW would you choose between competing claims of God-hood without some outside standard by which to judge? My mailman can claim to be God. Now, BY WHAT STANDARD will you judge his claim. Certainly not your fallible grasp of logic or morality, right? After all, my mailman, being The Standard of reason and morality will necessarily entail whatever reasons he gives are TRUE. Whether they make sense to you or not...you can't say "Well, God would have to make sense on MY understanding of rationality and be moral on MY understanding of morality to be a God" because that would be putting your standards as primary in judging God.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, this is the criticism so often wielded toward atheists by Christians of many sects: Should we dare attempt to judge the moral or rational claims about a God, either in natural theology (problem of evil) or biblically, it is pointed out to us how absurd it is for us mere mortals to judge a God. (And the fact that saying it would be greatest scenario if God were the standard of rationality and morality causes this epistemological chaos argues against the very notion that it would, in fact, be the greatest scenario, hence good reason to reject it).
There are some more moves you may want to make here, and I've been watching these moves for a long time, so I highly doubt you can end up with a situation that really gets around these problems or that does not spring massive leaks all over the place, philosophically, theologically etc.
Think about it
I have. A lot. I've been debating this, and observing debates between philosophers/moral philosophers/theologians for many years. Once you see after a while that patterns repeat in the answers and that the moves are actually limited, you grow weary of accusations of naivete and claims that "this is not really a problem for us."
Thanks again,
RH
BTW,
ReplyDeletegrodrigues wrote:
Theist philosophers (the ones I have read, at least) do not deny that atheists can be moral. St. Paul famously says that non-believers can be moral. They can have ethical systems -- the issue is what is the ground for accepting such ethical systems, their justification. So you have missed the point.
Far from missing the point, that is THE point I've been debating for many years with theists (and atheists in terms of moral theory).
It was the point I presumed in what I wrote. Atheists have found God belief unecessary for morality. That's because people like myself have examined both the practical and metaphysical claims of theistic morality - which certainly includes theism's metaphysical claim that God is necessary to ground morality, the oldest one in the book - and found them obviously false, while finding some secular versions to be, if not perfect, at least not as obviously false as theistic versions.
Back later.
Cheers,
RH
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteWhile I can understand your request for justification of the theist to show need in studying theology, I see it as a illegitimate epistemic move.
If I claim that a council of twelve magic universe ruling elves have control of your eternal fate, and that they have provided us with a substantial book detailing the elve rules, and that I have many, many more books that will inform you of the labyrinthine scenario of the elves, do you feel it epistemologically necessary that you take this seriously and say "Well, I'd better start reading those books!"
I'm quite sure you would not. Rather, if you are rational, you'd first look to any reason as to why you should take the claims seriously in the first place, to even think reading about the elves is worth the bother. Consider the massive number of religious/supernatural and fringe claims that are lined up saying just the same thing and consider the epistemological implications of the stance "Well, I have no basis on which to dismiss these claims unless I have submerged myself in their literature."
Not terribly practical on an epistemological level, is it? Rather, it is more practical and rational that we are LED TOWARD deeper study in any subject by first encountering GOOD REASONS to do so. And as I said, you don't need a whole book of reasons to start this process. Nothing in the process denies the worth of ending up learning about another set of claims.
How can we criticize something that we have admitted we haven't bothered to take the time to investigate? That seems like an act of willful ignorance not, intellectual honesty nor, moral good.
Chuck, have you been reading my posts? Why would you first assume
an atheist, for instance myself, has not taken the time to investigate theism?
I have noted over and over that I HAVE bothered to investigate theism. For years and years!
I've read various Christian writers, philosophers, theologians etc. My mother is Christian and sent me to church. And a great many atheists were once committed Christians! (Very often atheists arguing with Christians know more about Christianity than the Christians).
It is my EXPERIENCE investigating the claims of theism which has led to my skepticism that the next Christian in line, in this case the Thomists here, have good arguments for theism.
(That said, as I've pointed out, there are also prima facie and rational reasons to be skeptical of the value of theism in general, before having to be immersed in the literature of any particular theology, and hence it's rational even for an atheist who hasn't spent years in Christian literature to first ask for initial reasons that there is something of worth pursuing there).
Tarring them with the claim of "prove to me you aren't stupid", is not criticism, it is petulance.
I have NEVER implied people were stupid here if they can't prove their beliefs to me. I have been quite civil, and have asserted instead that I haven't seen theism to be JUSTIFIED rationally by any theist to this point, and that I bring this skepticism to any new theistic claims (not that the claims here are new).
Despite the general sentiment of dismissiveness with which I've been greeted, I've been quite grateful for (many) of the thoughtful theists in this thread and have thanked them continually. And far from mere dismissiveness, I have done my best to actually answer posts with the reasons why I find them problematic.
I've enjoyed your posts too, but I'm just not sure why you are going off on this strawman.
RH
RH,
ReplyDeleteYour illusration of Elvish (Elven?) theology as analogy to the Thomist epistemology is the kind og illegitimate move I mean. It's like Kareoke Hitches or Harris without a recognition of the dialogue's context.
Also, your dismissal of the history of theology or POR realtive to those discipline's incremental impact on enlightened reason seems fale in it's reductionism.
RH:
ReplyDelete>> Should we dare attempt to judge the moral or rational claims about a God, either in natural theology (problem of evil) or biblically, it is pointed out to us how absurd it is for us mere mortals to judge a God.
And interestingly enough, the Bible actually contradicts itself on this score. Abraham is taken as the paradigmatic example of religious faith. He believed in the promises and claims of God to such an extent that he was willing to sacrifice his son to obey God’s command, even though this command contradicted the morality of his age, and ours. Hence, his silence to his wife, son and clansmen.
However, on another occasion, he saw fit to debate and argue with God when he disagreed with God’s intentions. If you read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, he argued with God about the number of innocents that he should be allowed to find in order to spare the cities. So, what does a person of faith do? Should one blindly follow the commands of God, or should one apply one’s reason and debate which commands to follow? Father Abraham seems to have done both!
Even the Prophet Muhammad argued with God regarding the number of prayers that should be performed by Muslims on a daily basis, and so this is not just a Judeo-Christian matter.
Chuck asserts that if one makes a point of positioning oneself in opposition to a particular viewpoint, then it is epistemically irresponsible to avoid understanding that viewpoint on its strongest terms before rejecting it. This is a fair point, because it does not imply that one must study every alternative viewpoint before rejecting it, but only those viewpoints that you consciously make the effort to oppose or reject. So, those atheists who reject Judeo-Christian religion should understand it on its strongest terms before they are be justified in rejecting it and not a straw man version. This does not mean that they must equally study Mayan theology or Scientology, unless of course they consciously oppose them, as well.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to RH’s assertion that due to limited time constraints, one cannot be expected to master every alternative perspective before rejecting them, this is also true. It would be completely unfair to put such a burden upon each thinking human being. That said, there are always reasons why individuals hold their beliefs, despite the fact that they are often wrong, and unless one can examine those reasons, especially the best ones, one actually cannot conclude that they are wrong to hold their beliefs. At best, if their beliefs are similar to a different belief system that one has studied closely and rejected on its strongest terms, then one can conclude that it is unlikely that their beliefs are true, but not categorically reject them out of hand.
Perhaps a resolution would be to limit oneself to alternative viewpoints that happen to be exerting the most influence over one’s life, and attempt to understand those viewpoints on their strongest terms to see if there is truth or falsify therein. There are obviously many other viewpoints out there, but they likely make no discernible impact upon one’s life, and so should be ignored altogether. I would put Scientology and Mayan religion in this category. But having failed to study them closely, one cannot reject them as false, especially since one is ignorant of them. The best that one can do is to see if there are analogous features – and arguments – of these groups that are similar to studied groups, and if there are sufficient similarities, then a probability can be estimated regarding their likelihood of being true.
Any thoughts?
@dguller
ReplyDelete>Seriously, man. What is with you and always telling people who disagree with you to shut up and be silent?
I don't do that. Rather I have been trying to tell RH to learn some philosophy. He has strongly refused since I last checked. He asks questions we answer them then he complains because he doesn't like the answer or because we Catholics are not like the YEC Fundamentalist Protestants he is used to arguing with. Further more he changes the topic, demands we answer him but doesn't answer our questions.
For example I still want to hear him tell me Jerry Coyne has never told any YEC who has visited his blog to read a book on Evolution.
>The points being made may disagree with your conclusions, but they are not foolish or childish, as you always seem to imply.
I'm not the only one who has complained. Didn't you notice? Did you even read the whole thread or are you making snap judgement because you are jumping in the middle here?
>My God, but you can be incredibly condescending.
I have no patience for willful ignorance and I refuse to apologize for it. That extends to Gnu'Atheist trolls who refuse to argue in good faith.
I have already been arguing with RH so I know what I am taking about. You are a late comer & thus your rebuke is misplaced.
With all due respect.
Good grief we where originally discussing the Problem of Evil. That didn't work out for RH so now he wants answers to a long list of tangent topics out of the blue.
How is that fair dguller? You tell me?
@dguller
ReplyDeleteChuck gets it. He it seems to be trying to get RH to argue fairly, from an informed position, and logically. You should be doing the same. Last time we had a very nasty exchange. But I admire how you have taken a rational approach to the topics and did some soul searching.
That I value more right now then merely agreeing with me on metaphysics or religion.
"In a sense, we are trying to catapult outside of ourselves into a view from nowhere, which is difficult, if not impossible."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. We're just asking, (1) do propositions exist, (2) if they do, then do they depend on minds for their existence, and (3) are propositions the sorts of things that could exist independently of the material world? This doesn't require a 'view from nowhere,' it just requires us to think about the nature of propositions. The fact that we will be using propositions to do so no more invalidates the process than the fact that we use light to analyze light invalidates that sort of process.
"But there is another sense of truth that a Thomist would appreciate, which is that which is real. In other words, if something is real, then it is also true, in a sense. So, in the former sense (i.e. true1), you are correct that truth requires propositions and that without them there is no truth, but in the latter sense (i.e. true2), there can be truth as long as there is something real, even if there are no propositions or minds. "
I don't see this notion of truth in Aquinas. When it comes to human intellects, he seems to hold to a type of correspondence theory, where a proposition is true if the form of what is known is the same as the form we grasp with our minds. And when Aquinas speaks about truth and being, he has God's being in mind, where the notion of divine simplicity leads to the conclusion that god is his act of knowing, and hence is the truth. In both cases, truth necessarily involves a mind of sorts. (Even though Aquinas speaks about a sort of secondary truth "in things," he means a *relational* truth vis-a-vis a mind.)So I disagree that the idea of there being truths in a mindless world can be made sense of on Thomistic grounds.
"I want to put aside my quibbles with the argument you are laying out. I'd be raising some of the flags Dguller is raising, and some others."
ReplyDeleteI'm loath to continue a line of reasoning when someone claims to have problems with it at the beginning (especially when I think I've more or less responded to those criticisms already), but says he's willing to grant his assent 'for the sake of argument' to those disputed issues, for they *always* rear their heads later on, after I've wasted a lot of time moving on to other things.
"but more to the point and I want to see the "gotcha" at the end."
There is no "gotcha" at the ends, for I've made then end clear, viz. a defense of (3) or (3') (which in some sense amounts to the same thing.) I just wanted to see if we could at least agree that the reasoning of the arguments is valid, and that all the premises other than (1), which you accept, and (3) or (3'), on which the determination of the issue hangs, are minimally more plausibly true than false (which I take to be the minimum standard a premise must meet to be counted as a good premise in an argument).
"If I claim that a council of twelve magic universe ruling elves have control of your eternal fate, and that they have provided us with a substantial book detailing the elve rules, and that I have many, many more books that will inform you of the labyrinthine scenario of the elves, do you feel it epistemologically necessary that you take this seriously and say "Well, I'd better start reading those books!"
I'm quite sure you would not."
Hmm, Rh, I have to say that I find it difficult to believe that someone who has read as much philosophy and theology as you claim to have read could make this sort of comparison in good faith. How in the world is what you've said remotely analogous to the sort of god Merton was discussing in the quote I posted on the "Tom and Jerry" thread? (If you haven't read it, check it out!) This sort of comment stands out as bad as the following:
"Oh yeah, don't assume I'm not familiar with evolution or biology. My knowledge isn't encyclopedic, but I've read my fair share of books on these subjects, and have learned enough to see the obvious flaws in evolutionary theory. For example, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
I suspect you'd (rightly) conclude that this person didn't know as much about evolution as he thought he did. But I want you to know that when you compare the god of classical theism, and to reasoning about such a being, to reasoning about elves and the like, you sound just like the monkey guy! (Just a heads up -- I mean no offense.)
>With regards to RH’s assertion that due to limited time constraints, one cannot be expected to master every alternative perspective before rejecting them, this is also true.
ReplyDeleteBut if he wants to come to a blog populated by Roman Catholic Thomists then he needs to take the time to learn both Catholicism and Thomism & not condescendingly treat the lot of us as YEC Fundamentalist Protestants or Evangelicals.
He clearly doesn't want to do that. Which is fine. He doesn't have too but then when he launches into attacks on the Ontological Argument(which most of us reject based on Thomistic principles) or insists God has to be "personal" in the Theistic Personalist sense or brings up the Euthyphro Dilemma(when we already informed him via Brian Davies that God is not a moral agent and God's Goodness is not moral goodness) he just makes a fool of himself.
More then that it shows he is not really listening to us nor is he open to learn.
Now being uniformed is not a crime. But refusing to be informed and then making a fool out of yourself due to your own ignorance when you try and fake it that is self-defeating.
I've done it myself. But if RH refuses to learn this lesson he need to shut up and let people who know what they are talking about speak.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChuck,
ReplyDeleteYour illusration of Elvish (Elven?) theology as analogy to the Thomist epistemology is the kind og illegitimate move I mean. It's like Kareoke Hitches or Harris without a recognition of the dialogue's context.
On what grounds do you say this?
When I read the bible I am utterly shocked that anyone could take the stories seriously, especially that the absurd, bumbling, naive character God in that book could actually represent a
real deity. It is as jaw-dropping and absurd as any other mythical belief, and other fantasies I could make up. I'd be no less shocked by someone proclaiming the Harry Potter books to represent a supernatural reality. So your assertion that my analogy is illegitimate begs the question against this: Why ought I not consider Christianity, which proclaims the bible to represent an actual deity, to be utterly absurd? Do you think there are actually good reasons
for their belief?
In fact Sam Harris makes many an excellent point. As Sam says, if when pouring your maple syrup over your pancakes in the morning you think they have turned into the body of a magical Elvis, this would be seen as nuts. Yet if you think roughly the same about a cracker given to you in Church, turning into the body of a magical, dead carpenter who claimed to be a God, you are simply called a "Catholic." (At least some portion of Catholics).
That centuries of dogma and theology have accrued around such beliefs in no way renders them less absurd. If anything, it renders them more absurd.
RH
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteFinally....
Also, your dismissal of the history of theology or POR realtive to those discipline's incremental impact on enlightened reason seems fale in it's reductionism.
Where did I make such a dismissal? The history of science is virtually de facto going to come out of some group of religious people because for most of history there was no one else to do the job! Almost everyone was religious for most of history. Even if you take the Catholic Church, Aristotelianism was originally met with outrage and controversy...from of course Catholics! (And how odd that a revealed religion - even far closer to the original "revelation" than we are today, felt the need to go appealing to the philosophy of ancient Greek philosopher to underwrite their religion!). Once Aristotelianism was finally argued into the Church's dogma/metaphysics etc, guess who opposed it's encroachment by newer enlightenment values? That's right...Catholics, again. And we continue to have to drag Catholics into modernism as we go.
The same goes for protestant Christianity. You get warring factions and arguments: some portion of Christians arguing from theology against progress, others arguing from theology for progress.
This is one reason why the crowing by some religious about their church's role in science and enlightenment is so bogus, like the Christians who try to take credit for the abolition of slavery. It's not like the bible itself, or some element of Christianity leads necessarily to enlightenment-like progress. The bible is simply too meandering, contradictory, naive and often backward looking to support this, and Christian history shows it.
Rather, you have religious people, even within the same churches, taking DIFFERENT approaches simultaneously or over time, seeing what works in terms of uncovering reliable knowledge, with some methods winning out. And since some of the early great discoveries
were by scientists who were Christian, you get crowing about "Look how Christianity led these men to a rational investigation and discovery!" Ignoring all the Christian theological approaches that FAILED and which OPPOSED the route those men were taking.
And, to re-iterate what I mentioned before, it is a rather large elephant in the room that the approach shown to be most conducive to understanding the world, and getting us reliable knowledge, has been that which DROPS the idea of a Deity as unnecessary.
So do I deny the historical entanglement of science with religion? Of course not!
Rather at this point we have to question: does theology actually contain any truths? Is God actually a necessary postulate to explain anything or undergird science? Answer: No.
Sam Harris is right. Religion has lost the argument on this. Will people here protest that assertion? Of course. Can they demonstrate otherwise? Not that I've seen.
Again, you seem to be making some dubious assertions to start with, followed by dubious inferences - assuming I have dismissed major issues without investigation - which it should be clear by now is not the case.
Cheers,
RH
Note: reposting. There must be a secret committee of twelve magic gibberlings (NOT elves; elves have bad breath), conspiring maliciously to silence my posts. I just know it.
ReplyDelete@RH:
You leave me in the *very* awkward position of defending W. L. Craig's view in a Thomist blog owned by E. Feser...
W. L. Craig defends a form of divine command theory as formulated by Philip Quinn, William Alston and others (not to be confused with voluntarism). Thomists will give you a different (and in my view, better) answer. To be fair, your objections have no force against W. L. Craig's arguments, either. So what do you want to hear?
W. L. Craig defends his position for example in, "Reasonable Faith". His response to the Eutyphro Dilemma is mixed in with his defense of the Moral argument. As E. Feser, well, I have already pointed you to his book. If you do not want to read books, E. Feser has blogged about this: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-obligation-and-euthyphro-dilemma.html. May I suggest you read this post and then return with your questions? I should warn you that there are people here, infinitely more knowledgeable and smart than me; I am just the counterfeit product, not the real deal.
Just a few comments.
1. In your first post-response you say and I quote:
"It's quite possible for humans to have standards without a God. We do it all the time in many areas."
and then in the continuation-post, you say:
"Now, BY WHAT STANDARD will you judge his claim. Certainly not your fallible grasp of logic or morality, right?"
So in your first post, human beings have standards for moral judgment so we do not need God to furnish them, while in the second post, very conveniently, humans do not have standards after all and if some random person claimed he was God we would suddenly be at a loss as to how to evaluate his moral commands. So which is it?
2. As for the mailman, if he claims that he is God, whack him in the head; that is all the proof you need (but be prepared to go to jail). Yes, your example is *that* stupid.
3. You do realize that many of the questions that supposedly afflict theists, have equal force against atheists, don't you? Why exactly on your naturalistic atheist view (please, correct me if I am wrong) are there objective -- meaning independent of personal, societal or cultural vagaries -- moral values? Even if there are such values, why should I abide by them? How do we come to know them? Presumably, you will answer by reason. But this assumes that two rational men will come to the same moral conclusions, which is patently false. So who gets to decide under competing claims? And why should I even care about moral values? And according to Prof. Jerry Coyne there is no Free Will (please correct me, if I am wrong), so it is all irrelevant anyway.
4. You say:
"There are some more moves you may want to make here, and I've been watching these moves for a long time"
Now you are creeping me out. Are you a stalker? A Peeping Tom?
Ben,
ReplyDeleteBut if he wants to come to a blog populated by Roman Catholic Thomists then he needs to take the time to learn both Catholicism and Thomism & not condescendingly treat the lot of us as YEC Fundamentalist Protestants or Evangelicals.
When I arrived, simply to start the ball rolling with suggested topics, I brought up the ontological argument, cosmological/teleological argument, and God as a foundation for morality.
To say this is "treating you as YEC fundy protestants or evangelicals" is absurd. It was a Catholic Saint, Anselm, who is famous for proposing the ontological argument, for goodness sake. It's listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia of arguments for God and I've seen many Catholics defend it today. So you are a particular brand of Thomist who rejects the argument? Fine! But please, don't pretend that the argument is simply associated with Evangelical Fundies and not Catholicism. Have I since accused you of needing to defend the OA? No. It only came up again because grodrigues made a post implying that I was blowing smoke, asking if I could provide anything other than "mere assertions" in criticizing Craig's argument. So I showed my argument, which necessarily critiques Craig's use of the ontological argument to get around the Euthyphro dilemma.
So your accusations that I'm treating you as if you are a YEC seem based on almost deliberate ignorance of the context in which these are being raised, simply in order to bolster an attitude of dismissiveness.
I also brought up the cosmological/teleological argument and wanted to know how you move from an initial cause to the Christian God. Aquinas himself offered a cosmological argument.
Don't tell me this is YEC fundy stuff.
I brought up the Euthyphro Dilemma, but was met with the typical "Don't you know it's not pertinent? Our theology avoids it entirely."
Yet I explained that this is the claim of virtually every Christian theologian, including Divine Command Theorists themselves. The problem is that claims by Christians that a certain problem really isn't a problem for their theology don't hold up when you look at them. Which is why I don't just take your word for it: I say "Ok, show me."
I also noted that Feser himself has acknowledged the pertinence of the ED to your theology: He has said that one reason you should take Aquinas's doctrine of divine simplicity seriously is it's role in resolving the Euthyphro Dilemma! Which clearly DOES make it pertinent. A fact you've chosen to ignore. Interesting how when Feser says your Thomism is pertinent to the ED you won't object, but if I say the ED is a pertinent you take the route of eye-rolling and insults, rather than discuss it.
I've also explained why the ED is useful in uncovering the nature of theistic morality, whichever version is given. Conversation here has shown this. Also, Feser's look at how Thomism handles the ED only re-enforces my suspicions that it does not solve the issue.
Nor do the suggestions by grodrigues work, thus far, to show the dilemma can be dismissed.
As to God being "personal" or "moral" I've already acknowledged your position on this. But the point I keep making is that the question is: Does your position make sense? I ask you to explain how I ought to call "good," in what sense. You give an analogy to your root beer float being "good" and then call ME shallow for trying to draw any inferences from your analogy...without bothering to further explain what you meant.
Will further dialogue be fruitful? I hope.
Cheers,
RH
RH,
ReplyDeleteNothing in my understanding of the Roman Church's theology relies on Sola Scriptura so your appeal to Biblical Literalism or inerrancy as absurd is not germane to the discussion of Thomist Philosophy.
This is the illegitimate move of which I speak. It's a shot-gun approach to debate that employs ridicule, and by doing so, exposes the lack of intellectual discipline of the supposed New Atheist. I say supposed because New Atheism is predicated on reason and to equate a Thomist who observes Catholic theology is for a Sola Scriptura Christian is to fail to understand what you are opposing.
I don't think either one expresses the level of warrant necessary for me to trust their version of justified belief but, by equating them, I'd show that I have no clue what I'm talking about.
And don't quote-mine Harris to give yourself permission to ridicule. What was the context of that quote? What was the move he was responding to? To invoke the ridiculousness of the transubstantiation in a discussion regarding the veracity of the Cosmological argument is akin to bringing a baseball glove to a boxing match. Silly.
Transubstantiation should be able to be defeated from within its own theology but, I don't think anyone has brought it up in this string. So, why do you?
RH's revisionist history is noted:
ReplyDelete>When I arrived, simply to start the all rolling with suggested topics,
Rather you have been jumping from topic to topic throwing whatever you think sticks and you still ignore questions put to you. You are all over the map & you seem to be the only one here who does not notice that.
Your tactic misdirection is not convincing and a waste of Time.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question Doesn't Coyne ever recommends YEC that visit his blog read any science books on evolution?
>To say this is "treating you as YEC fundy protestants or evangelicals" is absurd. It was a Catholic Saint, Anselm, who is famous for proposing the ontological argument, for goodness sake.
Your sophistry is tedious. I never said OA was not Catholic I said Thomists reject it. I said this was a Catholic and Thomist blog. You are either thick or dishonest.
>So you are a particular brand of Thomist who rejects the argument? Fine! But please, don't pretend that the argument is simply associated with Evangelical Fundies and not Catholicism.
I never said it was. You need to stop with the sophistry. I said Thomists reject it & I linked to posts where Feser rejects it.
Putting words in my mouth only reinforces my belief you are not acting either rationally or in good faith.
@Chuck
ReplyDeleteActually we do believe in inerrancy but not in perspicuity. We don't believe the Bible is clear so there are parts we can take as symbolic or admit are obscure without Tradition (2 The 2:14) or Church (Matt 16:18) to interpret for us.
Maybe someday in the future we can discuss it in more detail. But the substance of your response to RH is correct.
>I also noted that Feser himself has acknowledged the pertinence of the ED to your theology: He has said that one reason you should take Aquinas's doctrine of divine simplicity seriously is it's role in resolving the Euthyphro Dilemma!
ReplyDeleteSomeone who refuses to read the TLS is tell someone who has about Feser view? Comical! Idiot it was from Feser I learned "The Problem of Evil is a non-problem". That's a quote from memory from TLS. You can look it up in the index.
>I've also explained why the ED is useful in uncovering the nature of theistic morality,
That is the ED is a meaningless objection if I don't believe God is a moral agent. So you change topics and you keep moving the goals post and multiplying tangents.
Plus you still refuse to do any reading or learn any philosophy.
What is the point of you?
Really this is troll behavior.
I was considering inerrancy in the Reformed tradition that holds to Sola Scriptura which, if I understand it, is not consonant with Catholic theology but, that's why I started the new blog -- to promote reason by understanding belief. I admit what I don't know and no longer wish to argue from what I assume as a knock-down against religious commitments I imagine.
ReplyDelete@RH
ReplyDeleteI agree with what virtually everything Chuck as said to you & he identifies himself as a "New Atheist"(as class of people until I encountered him I had nothing but naked contempt for as a bunch of bigoted morons).
He is proud of the title & I think wishes to redeem it in light of how irrational persons like you sully it.
Sort of how JI Packer tried to redeem the term "Fundamentalist".
So really go & read some philosophy and learn something about Thomism & Catholicism otherwise you are wasting your breath.
Plus your deathless defense of your tedious invalid performance is not helping you either.
That is why Chuck I cannot help but respect the shit out of you.
ReplyDeleteYou rule.
RH go do some homework & then come back and play.
>You give an analogy to your root beer float being "good" and then call ME shallow for trying to draw any inferences from your analogy...
ReplyDeleteYeh you concluded because I must personally like root beer that I must also choose my moral according to my personal preferences or some incoherent shit you spouted.....
It was simply an example of something by nature good that was not a moral good.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar as an Atheist Psychologist once said.
>Yet I explained that this is the claim of virtually every Christian theologian, including Divine Command Theorists themselves.
ReplyDeleteHow do I know this is so? Prove it oh and btw I refuse to read anything you recommend that might inform me of this so called fact.
Well I've had my fun. I'm off to clean the house some more.
@Chuck don't despair arguing with the likes of RH.
ReplyDeleteIf it's any consolation my innocence as a young Catholic Apologist was long ago destroyed when my favorate Catholic Apologist started posting Holocaust denial material on his webstite.
Every movement has irrational idiots. Realizing this fact and taking steps towards solving the problem strikes a blow for REASON.
I'm all for that. As a Thomist I am after all a big fan of Reason.
Cheers!
grodriguous,
ReplyDeleteYou say my objections have no force, but I'll have to wait for evidence you understood my argument before I agree. At this time, it's clear you didn't understand what I argued.
So in your first post, human beings have standards for moral judgment so we do not need God to furnish them, while in the second post, very conveniently, humans do not have standards after all and if some random person claimed he was God we would suddenly be at a loss as to how to evaluate his moral commands. So which is it?
The first post concerns the fact you don't need a God to exist as The Standard, since human beings can have standards.
The second post says BUT IF YOU ASSUME YOU NEED GOD TO BE THE STANDARD...then these are the epistemological consequences.
One reasons IF you haven't needed to assume a God. The other talks about the consequences IF you assume God as the standard.
See the difference? Not a contradiction. Obviously, my position is the first: God is not necessary as The Standard, and that to assume He is has unacceptable epistemological consequences.
2. As for the mailman, if he claims that he is God, whack him in the head; that is all the proof you need (but be prepared to go to jail). Yes, your example is *that* stupid.
Well I've lost count of the theists who reacted that way to such an example, but who found it rather much more difficult to argue when pressed on the issue. :-)
But should be easy for you then: Explain how whacking my mailman on the head would be proof he is not God.
Keep in mind: God is The Standard. You have the perspective of a mere mortal :-)
3. You do realize that many of the questions that supposedly afflict theists, have equal force against atheists, don't you? Why exactly on your naturalistic atheist view (please, correct me if I am wrong) are there objective -- meaning independent of personal, societal or cultural vagaries -- moral values?
While I wouldn't claim I know I've found the perfect moral theory - it's obviously a difficult subject, I at least find secular moral theories to generally start on better footing, as at least they do not immediately appeal to a non-existent God. As for objective/moral realist theories, I find my self most compelled by those that identify desires/goals as fundamental for value statements to arise and make sense. I've already made mention of some of the propositions in an earlier post in case you missed it.
Some of the premises of such a theory are:
The concept of "value" makes no sense, absent a desire, so it is necessary to appeal to a desire whenever one claims something has "value." Value exists as the relationship between desires and those states of affairs that are such as to fulfill the desires in question. Given this interrelationship, value statements are objective because they necessarily entail claims about real world states of affairs (or predictions about them).
Morality in general concerns recommendations for actions. Desires supply the only reasons-for-actions that exist. (Try coherently recommending an action that does not entail a desire explicitly or implicitly to make sense). Therefore recommendations for moral actions, as with any action, will have to appeal to desires in order to make sense. And since we act in the real world, any recommendation for action, any "ought" statement, will entail claims about real world states of affairs, hence "ought" statements will have truth values and therefore be "objective" statements.
Those are some of the propositions, anyway.
(I frankly think moral theory is, in a way, everyone's weak spot :-)....)
Cheers,
RH.
grodriguous,
ReplyDeleteBTW, there are now quite a number of disputes flying around so it's getting harder to address every comment. But I wanted to mention about what you wrote here concerning the analogy to the epistemological responsibility and consilience of science against the "knowledge" claimed by the religious:
Your analogy with science is wholly misguided (no surprise there).
...snip....
The problem is that the sort of evidence that you have listed as willing to accept, is by *definition* the evidence that supports science, so the whole argument is circular.
Nope.
Many of the features of science as it pursues knowledge - e.g. control for variables, controls to for subjective bias etc - are based on fundamental epistemological concerns - they type of concerns that face ANYONE trying to develop epistemological justifications.
A comparison between the epistemological justifications for science, vs theology or theism, will show science to be more epistemologically responsible. This does NOT simply assume the scientific method...in a comparison of epistemological considerations, it JUSTIFIES the scientific method over those offered by theism. And what you get out of the method is not only greater epistemological rigor than in theism, but in viewing it's actual results, you get that which much more resembles what one would expect of "knowledge" about the world (that amazing consilience) than you get with theism (the incredible divergence).
BTW, this is also why many atheists point out the incompatibility of theism, especially in forms like Christianity, with science. If the decisions for why science operates as it does are sound on epistemological grounds, then you can't go dropping them to absorb absurdities such as belief in the bible, or in many cases emphasizing religious "faith." It's like cheating on your wife, epistemologically.
RH
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteNothing in my understanding of the Roman Church's theology relies on Sola Scriptura so your appeal to Biblical Literalism or inerrancy as absurd is not germane to the discussion of Thomist Philosophy.
My comment did not pertain simply to "biblical literalism" nor did it imply Catholicism relies on "Sola Scriptura" so what are you talking about?
I spoke of the fact I can not believe anyone opens the bible and concludes it represents a Deity. That is in any way or form! So long as you dignify the Bible as even representing some divine truth, or the wisdom or depiction of a God, and along with essentially all of christianity, the vast majority of Catholics do this, you get absurdity. Even when you get to those Catholic and liberal protestants who reject much of the bible as myth, scientific inaccuracies and religious propaganda, they tend to STILL try to say that the God therein represents some sort of divine reality. To even dignify the bible as in any way informative of a God, I hold to be ridiculous.
And of course you DO have folks right here on this blog who actually are picking up the bible and agreeing "Yup...it's inherent!" Which I find absurd, whether you add caveats like "not in perspicuity" or the like. And certainly the Catholic Church views the Bible as "God's Word" (even if through fallible man).
Not every argument for the existence of a God is clearly absurd. I think they all fail, but I have not once proclaimed them all absurd. Whereas I have yet to encounter ANY argument for the divinity of the Bible that was not rendered absurd by the contents of it's pages.
Even IF some of the a priori arguments within Catholicism, including the version of Thomism here, are not immediately absurd, they do nothing to establish the divinity of The Bible. The very fact that the people here place confidence in The Bible as representative of a real God is a
giant red flag that they are going off the rails somewhere in their reasoning, and it indicates they are willing to allow themselves some really tenuous reasoning...hence, reason for great skepticism that they've got really good arguments for God somewhere in their pocket.
Chuck...to finish...
ReplyDeleteTo invoke the ridiculousness of the transubstantiation in a discussion regarding the veracity of the Cosmological argument is akin to bringing a baseball glove to a boxing match. Silly.
There you go making bizarre connections again!
You and I weren't talking about the cosmological argument!! I brought up Sam Harris' point because I was talking about the absurdity of certain Christian beliefs - one being that the Bible represents (in any way) a real Deity, and off-shoots like the absurdity of transubstantiation, which exist in a tradition that, apparently, you think I need to take very soberly.
Transubstantiation should be able to be defeated from within its own theology
You've got to be kidding. It's "own theology" is what leads to belief (for that portion of Catholics) in the first place! It's WHY they believe it! That's like saying the concept of engrams ought to be defeated from within Scientology's own theology. No. It's the theology that is the problem in the first place! What you do is show it's absurd by using a better system of reasoning!
but, I don't think anyone has brought it up in this string. So, why do you?
You keep implying I'm being unfair, not considering the intellectual gravitas of Catholicism.
However, that absurdities still abound in Catholicism, transubstantiation being one, undermines this implication. As does the acceptance of the Bible as inerrant, or God's word in any way, by the Thomists here.
I don't think theists are "stupid" in the least. I'd lose count of the number of theists who are smarter than I am. (Same would go for non-theists as well). I just think that smart people can believe absurdities. And not all theistic arguments are on their face absurd, but many are, especially pertaining to dignifying the Bible as representing the divine.
You want me to understand the Thomists claims? I've explained why I sometimes prefer to ask theists directly to state beliefs - so I am sure to interact with what THEY believe. I keep asking for them but it's like pulling teeth. Meanwhile, you seem at pains to misunderstand me at every opportunity and draw the most naive and negative inferences. Why? You also write like I have not considered the claims of Christianity, when I keep telling you I have looked into them for many years, given them lots of consideration. You just ignore this.
You also made a strange strawman about me "dismissing" the relevance of early theology on the enlightenment, which I'd never done. But since you brought it up I addressed that issue too, which you seem to have ignored (?).
RH
>Even IF some of the a priori arguments within Catholicism, including the version of Thomism here, are not immediately absurd, they do nothing to establish the divinity of The Bible.
ReplyDeleteThis is a Thomistic Philosophy Blog. Not an apologetics blog. If you want a defense of the Bible go to a message board of Craig fans or go to Matt and Madeleine Flannagan's blog.
This is a Catholic Thomistic Philosophy blog not a Bible apologetics board. We specialize here with the Praeambula Fidei your challenges about the Bible involve the Mysterium Fidei.
If you are looking for God and a reason to believe the best we can do is pray for you. Since you are 100% resistance to all the rational advice both Theists and Atheists have given here.
>I keep asking for them but it's like pulling teeth.
Funny it seems here we are the dentists & you are the patience who insists we work without Novocain.
Take the hint. Learn Thomistic Philosophy or go bug someone else.
Why is such a simple concept beyond your grasp?
Your sophistry is tedious. I never said OA was not Catholic I said Thomists reject it. I said this was a Catholic and Thomist blog. You are either thick or dishonest.
ReplyDeletePlease. The object of my response to you concerned what you actually wrote, here:
But if he wants to come to a blog populated by Roman Catholic Thomists then he needs to take the time to learn both Catholicism and Thomism & not condescendingly treat the lot of us as YEC Fundamentalist Protestants or Evangelicals.
It was THIS claim that I treated YOU as if you were Fundy Protestants/Evangelicals, that I addressed. And I showed how that accusation is false. You may want to change your tune now to "You didn't treat me like the Thomist I am" but don't pretend your claim wasn't, instead, that I was treating you like a fundy protestant, which is false, since I never once pretended you were a protestant and the issues I brought up were pertinent to Catholicism.
(And when I assert that if God is "personal" it only makes sense He is personal in the way we understand other persons, to reply "That's not what we believe, you don't get it" misses the point: The point is I would wish to CHALLENGE you to make sense of what you believe about God, which I doubt you can. I've seen various attempts that try to drop some substantial analogues between God and humans, but still retain Personhood, and I've yet to see a coherent version).
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question Doesn't Coyne ever recommends YEC that visit his blog read any science books on evolution?
Sure Coyne will no doubt recommend certain books. Of course there is nothing wrong with that. However, what YOU did was jump to ridiculous assumptions and demands. First saying "I want you to learn philosophy" which presumed I was unfamiliar with philosophy, that I needed to learn about Empiricism, where nothing I wrote could have indicated I was ignorant about Empiricism...and I've read on the history of science/philosophy for years as it is so I hardly need tutoring advice from you, thank you. Then you said I had to "reject Scientism," which is inevitably a strawman. So when you take a tactic like that to recommending what I ought to read, you've undermined my ability to take you seriously.
In terms of your religious beliefs, all I asked was wether you would present any portion, with some justification, indicating Thomism may have something to it.
And as I pointed out, Coyne, or P.Z. Myers, or even a lowly shlub like myself could do just that if you made the same request of me of propositions we believe, for instance certain scientific theories or philosophical stances. (You may not buy the argument, but I would do so, and have done so here).
But alas I see from your recent comments you've descended again. One learns to recognize conversations that are headed only in a toxic direction, so I don't think our interactions will get us anywhere.
S'long.
RH
Folks,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I showed up here concerns the fact that there seemed to be yet again a sort of gauntlet thrown down at the atheist's feet, most recently by Prof. Feser, which casts "new atheists" as naive, and ineffectual in the face of the "real" arguments for Christianity.
As Feser writes: "The point was to try, through analogy, to help New Atheist types see how they appear to others, and how irrational and ill-informed they really are."
I think Feser's posts were a combination of reasonable assertions, mixed with devices (e.g. his purportedly analogous "conversation") that really miss the mark. (See Jason Rosenhouses blog responses for some of the reasons why).
I figured I could show up at the source - Feser's blog, and be a sort of sacrificial lamb as it were. I wanted to see someone here defend his belief, or provide a good attack on mine. (It irks me how often I've seen theists cast stones of aspersion from a book or blog at Atheists, but show themselves unable to back up their stance when pressed into conversation).
However, if the general attitude here is more in the vein described by Ben - this is just Feser's comment section, you don't bother giving defenses of the faith here -
I'm fine with that and I understand.
If that's the case, it has been nice meeting (most of) you! Best wishes!
(My fingers are getting tired anyway).
Cheers,
RH
What a load of crap. You never told us your beliefs beyond that you where an Atheist. You spent the whole time complaining how you really didn't have to learn Thomist to contribute here.
ReplyDeleteWhen we tried to explain our beliefs in light of your pablum attacks & you then complained about Christianity being a Wack A Mole.
You are a real piece of work buddy.
Grow up.
RH,
ReplyDeleteThe explanation you give after denying you were arguing against a specific form of biblical literalism, exposes you for arguing against a specific form of biblical literalism.
Might I suggest a book by a non-Thomist Christian of the Stone-Campbell tradition which defeats your assertion that all Christians crack open the bible to find the measurements for God? It is by Thom Stark, entitled, "The Faces of God".
It seems to me that you enjoy the fallacy of hasty generalization. To me that is the biggest problem with the popularization of New Atheism and the move which kept me locked into righteous indignation rather than philosophical inquiry.
Every post you make here comes with a conclusion embedded into it and, therefore, mistakes being argumentative for argumentation. It weakens the coherency towards any move to falsify the theistic argument.
Remember, given a a closed questionnaire poll, I'd tick the same box as you when offered the choice for religious affiliation and, despite that conclusion, still see your tactics as defeating themselves due to their lack of reason.
One need not endorse any view to practice charity towards that view and represent it for what it is suggesting that it is, rather than distorting it to meet our desired ends.
Your technique reminds me of D'Nesh D'Souza when he claims that Stalin's Pogroms were animated by his atheism.
@RH:
ReplyDelete"You say my objections have no force, but I'll have to wait for evidence you understood my argument before I agree."
Can you read? I started by saying that this was a Thomist blog, so defending W. L. Craig's here is awkward. I said I think the Thomist defense is better. I said that as far as I can see (this is probably not on the original), your objections using ED have no force even against W. L. Craig's arguments. I gave you some pointers. I asked you what do you want to hear? Apparently, you do not want to hear.
"See the difference? Not a contradiction. Obviously, my position is the first: God is not necessary as The Standard, and that to assume He is has unacceptable epistemological consequences."
I never claimed that you were in contradiction. I wanted to know your position.
"But should be easy for you then: Explain how whacking my mailman on the head would be proof he is not God."
If I whack him in the head hard enough, he dies. End of story. Are you suggesting that the mailman is a-temporal, a-spatial, changeless, the necessary ground of all being, omnipotent, etc.? Yes your example is stupid. It is even more stupid than the stupid comparisons with Thor, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or what have you. That you continue to peddle it does not exactly recommend you as an intellectually honest person.
"I at least find secular moral theories to generally start on better footing, as at least they do not immediately appeal to a non-existent God."
This is begging the question. Of course, basing a theory on a non-existent being isn't the smartest of moves, but His existence is what is in question in the first place.
"Some of the premises of such a theory are:"
Your moral theory has more holes than I have the time to point out. If you think this is a serious advancement over a morality grounded on God? Well, what can I say, you are sorely mistaken. Feel free to disagree with me, I am not going to try to "convert" you.
"Many of the features of science as it pursues knowledge - e.g. control for variables, controls to for subjective bias etc - are based on fundamental epistemological concerns - they type of concerns that face ANYONE trying to develop epistemological justifications."
And you failed to respond to my objections, preferring instead to peddle out the usual rot about the epistemological superiority of science. I specifically told you this is a not theology vs. science issue but a *philosophical* one. Atheists do not own science. Heck, I do not even need to bring in philosophy; as a mathematician your "epistemological responsibility" makes me laugh. I await with baited breath your empirical justification for the truthfulness of say, Fermat's last theorem. Maybe you want to consign mathematics to the dust bin? Go on and kill science with your irrationality once and for all.
"Every movement has irrational idiots. Realizing this fact and taking steps towards solving the problem strikes a blow for REASON."
ReplyDeleteI agree. The error we make is that we think our thinking has evolved to provide reason as a product of instinct. Practicing reason is like playing a musical instrument. It takes discipline. There is a difference between banging on a piano and playing scales. But, that reflects my aesthetic philosophy where art should conform to reality in a way that lends insight into the heroic possibility (or deficit) found in the human condition.
I'd rather listen to Metallica's St. Anger than anything Philip Glass has ever done, if you catch my drift.
Also, I think RH is trying his best to promote his point of view and I don't think he is an idiot.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that he is playing a specific tactic which has become a well worn heuristic in the NA community, mistaking the personality potential within the New Atheist stance for a practical argument against theism.
To me, it is like the guy who does a great job of singing Karaoke, dubbing himself a musician.
In this analogy, the risibility and discipline practiced by the New Atheist arguments is forgotten for the conclusion that religious assertions can be criticized.
What RH seems to continually fail to see is that his criticisms are not addressing the theistic argument being made.
Another analogy would be that he is arguing against supply-side economics to a Keynesian. The only thing I come away as an observer is that the supply-side interlocutor has no idea who his audience is, and how that audience understands the meaning of public goods.