Sophisticated Religion
One of the arguments used against atheists is that they haven't studied religion. The theists maintain that there are very sophisticated arguments for the existence of God and that we atheists are just ignoring all those good argumnts in order to score points against the simplistic arguments of the hoi polloi.
I've been asking for examples of these "sophisticated" arguments for some time without success. Today, one of the Sandwalk readers posted an answer in the comments section. It's a talk given by Alvin Plantinga at Biola Unioversity [An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism].
This is old news [A Sophisticated Christian Philosopher Critiques The God Delusion]. If this is the best they can do then theism is in big trouble.
118 comments:
Oooooh, I prompted a blog post!
I'm an atheist and I've always thought that Plantigas argument was a load of daft old philosophising. Plus he uses Bayesian probability to argue for God, which strikes me as being amazingly weird.
In my defence, in the earlier thread, Martin asked for an example of a nuanced argument and I don't think this is too bad an example. Certainly, the responses to him from some Naturalists have taken the argument quite seriously (more so than Jason does). For example:
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/fitelsoon%20and%20sober%20on%20plantinga.pdf
Maybe this is just an example philosophers (irrespective of belief) taking themselves too seriously? But quite a few others have discussed the proposition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
BTW, should I assume you are equally unpersuaded by the NT Wright articles on the resurrection I provided! ;-)
I think much depends on whether one limits one's consideration of theologians to theists, most of whom are still working with traditional categories in many respects.
Many key Christian theologians of our time are panentheists or formulate their views in terms of process theology, and have a rather different outlook. Many of the latter would classify themselves as naturalists.
Most secular universities in the USA don't have departments of theology, but many do have departments of "religious studies" or some such. I've heard it can be hard to get a position in such a department if you take a rather skeptical approach to religion. See for example D. Michael Quinn, expert on Mormon studies.
James F. McGrath says,
I think much depends on whether one limits one's consideration of theologians to theists, most of whom are still working with traditional categories in many respects.
Many key Christian theologians of our time are panentheists or formulate their views in terms of process theology, and have a rather different outlook. Many of the latter would classify themselves as naturalists.
Thank-you for posting the link to your interesting article. It's nice to have someone here to defend the "sophisticated Christian" viewpoint.
Here's part of what you say in that article ....
For those interested in engaging stimulating thinkers on the side of either religion or atheism, there are plenty of heavyweights. If you prefer to poke fun, ridicule, and to never realize that you know not that of which you try to speak, then there are plenty of featherweights out there too, on every side of every debate, usually agreeing with their opponents that there are only two choices and that the matter is simple. If you tackle religion vs. atheism, you can not only fight each other, but also take turns pummeling or propping up the corpse of a concept of God that serious thinkers, whether theologians, philosophers or atheists, left behind for dead long ago.
I'm one of those simplistic atheists who think that the main issue is whether supernatural beings exist or not. Could you indulge my ignorance and explain what the "serious thinkers" are thinking?
You can start by giving us the best argument for the existence of supernatural beings from the perspective of heavyweights like yourself who think that modern atheists have missed the boat.
This would be an excellent opportunity for you to set me straight and explain your position instead of just making obtuse allusions to some mysterious proofs of God that I've missed.
I was engaged in a conversation about the existence of god by a faculty person I collaborate with (that's what I get for being president of the atheist and agnostic group on campus and having my name in the school paper as such). It was surreal - we agree that humans should investigate the world around us, but he seemed to think the reason for such investigation is to eventually learn more about some higher power. I asked why he thought there was one - he said there had to be something but couldn't explain further. I don't even know what to say to that. Challenging blind faith is near impossible for me - how would you do it?
Oh - I wanted to point out one exception to the idea that skeptics have a hard time getting hired as religious studies professors - Hector Avalos at Iowa State!
Well, Larry, start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect.
John Pieret says,
Well, Larry, start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect.
I'm confused. Is that supposed to be one of the sophisticated arguments for the existence of supernatural beings?
That don't impress me much.
That don't impress me much.
Well, you did say you were one of those simplistic atheists. It's pretty hard to discuss sophisticated ideas with someone who won't even try to understand. When you can answer the question without admitting that science doesn't work for the most basic phenomenon there is, you'll be on the right track.
You can lead a horse ...
Supernatural = metaphysical. Science is permeated with metaphysics.
Sophisticated Religion = the ultimate oxymoron?
There are 'religions' that are quite sophisticated in that they seem to embrace and express philosophy rather than dogma. Also they demand that the adherents think for themselves and always search for more knowledge through observation.
None of the Abrahamic ones are in this category, that is for sure. They are all dogma, superstition and down-right ignorance. Those who try to read more into these religions than really what is there are just deluded, - much in the same way that scientologists are creating a 'deeper' meaning in trivial stories.
If your main concern is the non-existence of "supernatural beings", then some of the classic existentialist theologians would be allies on this point. Paul Tillich is probably the most famous example, as he argued that what is meant by God is not a being but Being itself.
This doesn't make personal language obsolete, of course. Persons are the most transcendent things we've encountered in the universe, and so it is not inappropriate to use personal language as a metaphor for the ultimate reality that transcends us. The problem is that many individuals don't think of the language in which their religious beliefs are couched as metaphorical.
James F. McGrath says,
If your main concern is the non-existence of "supernatural beings", then some of the classic existentialist theologians would be allies on this point. Paul Tillich is probably the most famous example, as he argued that what is meant by God is not a being but Being itself.
This doesn't make personal language obsolete, of course. Persons are the most transcendent things we've encountered in the universe, and so it is not inappropriate to use personal language as a metaphor for the ultimate reality that transcends us. The problem is that many individuals don't think of the language in which their religious beliefs are couched as metaphorical.
Obfuscation noted.
In other words, you don't have any evidence/arguments for the existence of supernatural beings other than those already addressed by Dawkins and the other "featherweights" and non-serious thinkers.
At some point you're going to have to recognize that there's no substance to your argument and PZ's characterization of your argument [Courtier's Reply] is valid.
Obfuscation noted.
No, he was clarifying the distinction between "being" (which does not imply a "creature" in philosophy) and "person."
In essence, Larry, you are demanding sophisticated arguments for an unsophisticated notion of "God." This is the same as creationists who demand that we produce a transitional fossil with "half a wing." You, along with the rest of the "New Atheists," are demanding evidence of a God that sophisticated theists are not positing.
John Pieret says,
Well, you did say you were one of those simplistic atheists. It's pretty hard to discuss sophisticated ideas with someone who won't even try to understand. When you can answer the question without admitting that science doesn't work for the most basic phenomenon there is, you'll be on the right track.
John, I make the assumption that there is a real world and that it can be mostly explained by natural phenomena. I'm on the lookout for exceptions to naturalistic explanations but I haven't seen any evidence of these. This is a pragmatic metaphysics. I don't know anyone who operates under a different set of assumptions, do you?
I'm prepared to discuss whether the real world actually exists but only after drinking a few beers. The assumption that there is a real world is the only practical way to live and if the assumption is wrong we're in a lot more trouble than anything the creationists can come up with.
I have to admit, though, that there are times when I wish you really didn't exist! :-)
john Pieret says,
No, he was clarifying the distinction between "being" (which does not imply a "creature" in philosophy) and "person."
In essence, Larry, you are demanding sophisticated arguments for an unsophisticated notion of "God." This is the same as creationists who demand that we produce a transitional fossil with "half a wing." You, along with the rest of the "New Atheists," are demanding evidence of a God that sophisticated theists are not positing.
So, atheists do not accept the existences of supernatural entities (beings) but neither do sophisticated theists.
You give new meaning to the word sophism.
Well, John, start by using supernaturalism to explain why there is something exists that created something. Don't forget supernaturalism assumes that you can blather anything you like and have theologians nod at your wisdom without any consideration of fact checking (or reality for that matter).
Pah!
Effectively you end up in the same boat as us naturalists except you have one (or more) extra entity(ies) to explain away. Go to it laddie, the floor is yours.
Martin Hutton
P.S. Don't forget about "uncaused" quantum effects when telling us what naturalism assumes.
Incidentally the "sophisticated" argument presented here breaks down on exactly the same lines that the featherweights already espouse. What accounts for God's being? The assumption is that materialism doesn't account for being, and thus God is needed to be the be-er. As is, this is no "start" as materialism is not meant necessarily to espouse a complete picture. The edge of our worldview is not a picture frame...it's a question mark we will push into with science. The only distinction given currently is having a beginning. Do you, for instance, off hand, happen to know whether an infinite multiverse system doesn't exist or if it has a beginning? No? Neither do I. If the universe is a static 4D object, it can't really be said to "begin" any more than the length of a table "begins" in metaphysical terms. I would argue that anything that exists cannot metaphysically "begin" to exist. From the greatest frame of reference possible that would mean there wouldn't be x and then there would. You have to stick your God on a 5D extra time axis to get this to apparently happen, but then you have to pull back (to that greatest frame of reference again) and notice the 4D universe that gets created wholesale from start to finish always existed later on the 5D timeline. You can't escape the problem no matter how you cut the cake. It doesn't matter whether its "tensed" or not. There aren't special things that do get to begin to exist and less special things that don't. Everything that exists has to just exist and this is true in any worldview as I have just shown. Even if someone wants to pretend this is a debatable issue, you don't know a greater (naturalistic) multiverse system has a beginning and the enormous precedence of naturalistic explanations outweighs anything you could contrive to assert God as even a reasonable contender. Thus this is merely an unknown and hardly a place for theism to get off the ground. And all we've done is taken the scenic route right back to the supposed caricature and in my experience it is always that way. Meanwhile there are numerous more practical arguments to the better explanation against all the other places theology ought to infringe on existence and yet fails miserably. How many moral ills from the Bible get justified by some philosophical conjecture that we just "need" to have to justify x, y, or z? I wouldn't want to be on that team if there is a Judgment Day.
Larry:
I'm prepared to discuss whether the real world actually exists but only after drinking a few beers. The assumption that there is a real world is the only practical way to live and if the assumption is wrong we're in a lot more trouble than anything the creationists can come up with.
You're missing the point. The question is not whether the natural world exists but whether naturalism can, even conceptually, explain the existence of the natural world. Since "supernatural" simply means "the residue of that which exists but is not natural," the failure of philosophical naturalism (if that is the case) to be able to explain the existence of the natural world actually points to the existence of the non-natural (i.e. the supernatural).
I have to admit, though, that there are times when I wish you really didn't exist! :-)
Yeah, nobody likes their comfortable but unexamined assumptions challenged.
So, atheists do not accept the existences of supernatural entities (beings) but neither do sophisticated theists.
Exactly backwards! Theists accept the existence of supernatural beings, which may or may not be supernatural persons (as we understand the term). That was the sum and substance of James McGrath's comments.
You give new meaning to the word sophism.
"Sophism" is a term most often employed to describe arguments that we don't like but cannot refute.
Martin Hutton:
Well, John, start by using supernaturalism to explain why there is something exists that created something.
Unlike naturalism, supernaturalism does not rely on the notion of causation. Naturalism, by it's own terms, requires natural causation, supenaturalism, by its own terms, does not. You may find that unsatisfactory (as do I), but that does not mean it is not a problem for naturalism or that supernaturalism is unsophisticated.
@John Pieret
...the failure of philosophical naturalism (if that is the case) to be able to explain the existence of the natural world actually points to the existence of the non-natural (i.e. the supernatural).
That you propose such an argument points to a fundamental misunderstanding about science as a method of learning. The argument from first cause has been refuted time and time again; however, it's the argument from ignorance that I take issue with.
Consider the following:
In ancient Greece, before anything was known about fundamental particles or electricity, people sought to explain the existence of lightning. By your logic, given no evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable assumption was that the Gods were creating thunderbolts in er, anger.
However, as Karl Popper outlined in his book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, one cannot argue from lack of evidence. Subsequent discoveries eventually explained lightning bolts through naturalistic means. Ergo the 'reasonable' assumption was false.
All of these arguments seem to think that somehow God 'wins by default' - the God of the Gaps argument. Given that you have no positive evidence as to the existence of supernatural beings, why do you assume that an argument from negative evidence points to the existence of 'God'? There are an infinite number of possible explanations for the existence of something instead of nothing, and given the lack of evidence, they're all equally likely... Assuming of course that we ignore all of the work done in theoretical physics about the origins of the universe.
First, there IS a real world. Second, Platinga is right to say that if we are limited, biological structures, we have no true obectivity in accessing that outer wrold. Certainly, accepting naturalism is also accepting that we are "only human", that we can only construct our reality according to our structure. However this by no means leaves religion "better off" than naturalism, unless you think it a fact that humans have all-knowing, objective cognitive capacities (All that we know about cognitive neurobiology says no: we heavily "construct" realities).
I think the refutation by Sober pretty satisfactorily covers all of Platinga's mistakes. To me, Platinga is no true heavyweight. He can only resonate with the believers.
Dawkins is featherweight in evolutionary science. And of course he is featherweight in philosophy. He, and those that are foolish to think that non-belief in god is only a matter of "lack of evidence". This is hardly a good reason not to believe since it implies the oxymoron that scientific evidence for the supernatural may be someday available. Idiotic.
Non-belief is justified by many more profound, better, and yes, sophisticated reasons
Martin said:
Well, John, start by using supernaturalism to explain why there is something exists that created something.
John replied:
Unlike naturalism, supernaturalism does not rely on the notion of causation. Naturalism, by it's own terms, requires natural causation, supenaturalism, by its own terms, does not. You may find that unsatisfactory (as do I), but that does not mean it is not a problem for naturalism or that supernaturalism is unsophisticated.
It's all very well trying to claim the supernatural and natural worlds are different but as soon as any claim of the supernatural affecting (or even effecting) the natural is made you give up your assertions of "no causation" or "lack of evidence doesn't matter".
As far as I can see ALL claims for the supernatural boil down to the unsophisticated "'cos it must be so" (with a good and hearty dollop of "I can't show it, so don't ask").
Martin Hutton
PS re: Causation...think lack of causation (and probably lack of "Time's Arrow") at Planck scales.
Well, Larry, start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect.
I'm not sure this is in line with current models of QM.
Carlo:
I'm not arguing from a lack of scientific evidence, I'm arguing from the inability of naturalism, under its own terms, to be able conceptually explain the existence of the natural world without invoking an uncaused phenomena, thus violating naturalism's own precepts. This is often called the "infinite regress" and was adopted by Dawkins himself (in a small way) in his review of Expelled.
Martin:
It's all very well trying to claim the supernatural and natural worlds are different but as soon as any claim of the supernatural affecting (or even effecting) the natural is made you give up your assertions of "no causation" or "lack of evidence doesn't matter".
I make no such claims. I think you have me confused with someone else. The real issue here is whether you can show where those sophisticated theists James was talking about do what you claim I do. Care to give examples?
Bayesian Bouffant:
I'm, to say the least, no expert in quantum mechanics. But have scientists really given up the search for explanations of QM phenomenon? Wasn't string theory an attempt to explain those?
In any case, science is the attempt to 1) discover real phenomenon in the natural world and 2) (and perhaps more importantly) to discover naturalistic causes for those phenomenon.
If science has, in fact, confirmed that some phenomena do not have natural causes, then it has declared that those phenomenon are opaque to science (and, by extension, to naturalism). Such phenomenon would be, as they phrased it in Newton's time, "occult," (i.e. unable to be studied by science).
We have another word for phenomena without natural causes: miracles.
John,
I'm not arguing from a lack of scientific evidence, I'm arguing from the inability of naturalism, under its own terms, to be able conceptually explain the existence of the natural world without invoking an uncaused phenomena, thus violating naturalism's own precepts.
Would research like this address your argument:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344
Would research like this address your argument
From the site:
Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.
That is, to me, gobbledegook. ;-)
As something I'm in no position to evaluate, it's possible that it could answer the argument but the obvious observation is that, if you have to invoke something as arcane and counterintuitive and, I suspect, as difficult to empirically test as string theory is, in order to answer the infinite regress argument, the latter must be pretty sophisticated. That is the subject of this discussion, not whether the argument is, ultimately, true.
John, it seems ridiculous to say that an uncaused reality is “supernatural”, but a reality with a cause is “natural”. If the nature of reality is that it is uncaused, then of course it is natural! You are almost making a fetish of the idea that all things must have a cause. Looking for causes has been an extremely important part of the scientific toolbox for the last 350 years or so, and it should not be given up lightly anytime soon. But you forget that the goal of science is to model reality as closely as possible, not to slavishly hang on to tools which may sometimes stand in the way of the truth.
Perhaps order, logic, consistency and causation pertain inside of reality, but reality itself was not caused by anything. If that is the truth, then so be it. I find it not just acceptable, but delightful.
John, it seems ridiculous to say that an uncaused reality is "supernatural", but a reality with a cause is "natural".
So people who see ghosts are reporting "reality"? After all, if there is no need for a cause, any reported phenomenon can be real, with no way to tell otherwise.
Perhaps order, logic, consistency and causation pertain inside of reality, but reality itself was not caused by anything. If that is the truth, then so be it. I find it not just acceptable, but delightful.
But how could we ever tell? Without an ability to apply order, logic, consistency and causation, how could you possibly identify what was "reality" and what wasn't? Are you going to simply take on "faith" that reality itself was not caused by anything but everything else is? If so, how would that be any different that what the theists are doing?
I think this debate is a more epistemological debate concerning the infinity or not of space and time. Was there a TRUE beggining of everything? Big bang would suggest so (but is not definitive).
I think it also relates to whether we ever have anything genuinely NEW in nature, or if somehow basically everything is set up in the beggining (the "determinate" universe. Much the same problems some biologists get with genotype and phenotype!!!)
In this I am on the side that the universe is NOT determinate, and I think this implies genuine NOVELTY, new phenomena, do continue to emerge in this universe, allowing for different possible pathways.
And no, indeterminacy is NOT magic.
J.P. :
"We have another word for phenomena without natural causes: miracles."
You may have a word for it, but where's the beef?
Where is the fricken miracle? Show me de miracle!
Seriously, I will be the first in line at the Church door when I see a miracle with my own eyes.
BTW, why do I have to wait so long for the miracle? How come I don't see them every day, everywhere?
How come God doesn't make with the miracles anymore?
How come God doesn't make with the miracles anymore?
Hey! If you'd just made the universe (not to mention an infinite number of multiverses), wouldn't you take a little break?
John Pieret said...
So people who see ghosts are reporting "reality"? After all, if there is no need for a cause, any reported phenomenon can be real, with no way to tell otherwise.
I was talking about reality itself, not about things inside of reality. I don’t know what you’re getting at with a non sequitur like “..if there is no need for a cause, any reported phenomenon can be real, with no way to tell otherwise.” Are you saying that all things must have a cause, or that they don’t need a cause, or you don’t know, or that humans probably can’t know the answer? What is your position again?
Are you going to simply take on "faith" that reality itself was not caused by anything but everything else is? If so, how would that be any different that what the theists are doing?
No, I won’t be taking it on faith, because I don’t have enough information to take a definite position one way or the other. It would be interesting to know the answer, but that day may be thousands of years in the future, or perhaps never. But would it make a difference to our lives what the answer is anyway? I’m not sure how.
I do think that what one believes about "ultimate reality" makes a difference to how we live, to how we experience the universe, and in various ways impacts our existence.
There are plenty of disagreements among religious believers about details and doctrines. But underlying most forms of religious outlook is the conviction that meaning is embedded in and a characteristic of that which is ultimate - whether that be the universe, or a multiverse, or a personal God of a theistic sort.
The latter differences, however, are not ones that can be settled empirically. The distinctions between traditions have to do with the language that various people and groups find most helpful in expressing their particular perception of the universe and the ultimate. They also differ on other details. For instance, religious believers differ even within traditions such as Christianity over issues like whether there are "miracles", and if so whether they are things that occur in harmony with or as a rupture in the natural flow of the material world. But there is a more fundamental divide between theists, pantheists, panentheists and spiritual atheists on the one hand, and philisophical materialists and nihilists on the other.
James, I agree with you that ultimate reality does make a difference in our lives if you are speaking about whether there is a God or gods who require humans to do specific things, and will punish or reward us accordingly. I was talking about a more technical matter: is reality caused or uncaused? If God exists, he may have been caused by something else, or he may be uncaused. If he holds 99% of the power, does it matter in a practical sense if he was caused or uncaused?
I’m glad you mentioned the word meaning in your second paragraph. I’m not sure exactly how you’re using the word, but it seems to me that the requirement of an “inherent” meaning of the universe is ironically something that keeps some religious people (such as the Pope) from a more complete appreciation of reality. We should not value ourselves and our society just because a higher power values us and gives us “meaning”. Humans are meaning-and-value generators, so we will and should fill our world with meaning and joy. But who stands above God to tell him what his proper “meaning” is? Should God then be devalued by humans (assuming he exists)? Should he devalue himself? I realize this is just metaphysical speculation, but I feel that the greatest strength of reality, whether God exists or not, is its ability to stand independent of a specific meaning, which no one could have given it anyway. It never needed a specific meaning! It, and we, do splendidly without that. Notice I didn’t say that humans or reality are meaningless. Saying it like that can only cause confusion and unnecessary stress.
quoth John Pieret: "Well, Larry, start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect."
Right back at you, JP -- please use supernaturalism to explain why there is something rather than nothing. As best I can tell, "supernatural" is a null concept -- it's a noise which some people choose to make in certain contexts where a hardshell atheist would, instead, say "I dunno what's going on here". And if I'm right, this "supernaturalism" thingie cannot be an explanation for anything, because "there's no 'there' there", explanation-wise. But hey, I could be wrong about this; maybe "supernatural" is more than just an obfuscated synonym for "I don't know".
So if naturalism fails to explain existence, JP, how does supernaturalism explain existence?
James F. McGrath says,
For instance, religious believers differ even within traditions such as Christianity over issues like whether there are "miracles", and if so whether they are things that occur in harmony with or as a rupture in the natural flow of the material world.
Interesting. Tell me more about those people who call themselves Christians but don't believe in miracles. Do they believe that Jesus died on the cross on Friday and did not rise from the dead on the following Sunday? Do they believe that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were not telling the truth about Jesus and the stories of miracles?
Or is it that they have developed elaborate excuses about the meaning of the word miracle in order to avoid facing the real issue?
Incidentally, the distinction between atheists and theists is that atheists do not accept the existence of supernatural beings. I've asked you for the best sophisticated evidence that such beings exist and you have deliberately avoided the challenge. Instead, you talk about the fine cut of the Emperor's shirt and the subtle sheen of his cloak. Why is that?
Why are you so reluctant to present your best case for the existence of God? After all, you must be convinced that it's superior to anything that Dawkins has refuted, no?
jj:
I was talking about reality itself, not about things inside of reality.
What possible distinction can you make between the two? Or you just making stuff up, the way atheists accuse theists of doing?
I don't know what you're getting at with a non sequitur like "..if there is no need for a cause, any reported phenomenon can be real, with no way to tell otherwise." Are you saying that all things must have a cause, or that they don't need a cause, or you don't know, or that humans probably can't know the answer?
The non sequitur lies in exalting naturalism and, when it is unsatisfactory, declaring you don't have to address that, by simply declaring that there can be an unexplained exception to naturalism. Atheists rely on naturalism ... that natural phenomenon have natural causes. Deny that and you've uncoupled you beliefs from evidence, the way theists supposedly do.
What is your position again?
That atheists are disingenuous when they declare that theists have no sophisticated arguments, when, in fact, atheist arguments are often as unsophisticated as simply declaring an exception to their own fundamental positions.
It would be interesting to know the answer, but that day may be thousands of years in the future, or perhaps never. But would it make a difference to our lives what the answer is anyway? I'm not sure how.
In other words, you cannot support your own fundamental beliefs. Can you then call theists unsophisticated? The appeal to, as Larry put it, "a practical metaphysics," is a way of declaring that you don't care about sophisticated arguments ... which is fine ... but it is then unfair to pretend those arguments don't exist.
Cubist:
... please use supernaturalism to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Supernaturalim, unlike naturalism, does not claim to explain reality in ways fully comprehensible to human beings. But, if there is good reason to think that naturalism cannot explain the natural universe, what else is there? People here seem to be operating under some definition of "supernatural" that has not been defined. I've given my definition of the word as "the residue of that which exists but is not natural." If you have a different one, I'm listening.
Larry:
Tell me more about those people who call themselves Christians but don't believe in miracles.
Two words: Thomas Jefferson.
Well, Larry, start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect.
Your argument seems to be, "scientific knowledge must be complete, or else naturalism fails." I think you skipped a few steps in working up this argument.
You're missing the point. The question is not whether the natural world exists but whether naturalism can, even conceptually, explain the existence of the natural world. Since "supernatural" simply means "the residue of that which exists but is not natural," the failure of philosophical naturalism (if that is the case) to be able to explain the existence of the natural world actually points to the existence of the non-natural (i.e. the supernatural).
Ah yes, I see that I understood your argument correctly. And I still think you skipped a few steps.
Well, Larry, start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect.
I'm not sure this is in line with current models of QM.
I'm, to say the least, no expert in quantum mechanics. But have scientists really given up the search for explanations of QM phenomenon? Wasn't string theory an attempt to explain those?
An unfortunate misconstrual. Of course science, including QM, searches for explanations. It is the assumption of strict causality that is at issue.
I'm arguing from the inability of naturalism, under its own terms, to be able conceptually explain the existence of the natural world without invoking an uncaused phenomena, thus violating naturalism's own precepts.
As something I'm in no position to evaluate, it's possible that it could answer the argument but the obvious observation is that, if you have to invoke something as arcane and counterintuitive and, I suspect, as difficult to empirically test as string theory is, in order to answer the infinite regress argument, the latter must be pretty sophisticated. That is the subject of this discussion, not whether the argument is, ultimately, true.
It must be hard work moving those goal posts. You appear to have moved from "no conceptual explanation" to "arcane, counter-intuitive and difficult to empirically test."
John Peret said: It's pretty hard to discuss sophisticated ideas with someone who won't even try to understand.
John,
let me try to understand one more time. Done so the last 30-35 years without any success from theists to justify their position, maybe you are the one able to do so, who knows.
Before starting to discussion: please avoid the use of sophisms (you do use them a lot and not in the more subtle way) and consider that I'm not defending philosophical naturalism (PN), I'm not a philosopher, but rather methodological naturalism (MN). That means that whatever should be considered as relevant to the discussion otherwise than at the level of suppositions and/or hypotheses must be supported by evidence.
Lets put thing straight from the beginning: I don't have the slightest clue about what made the universe possible, or the multiverse, or megaverse, or as I like to put it, the exactly "pi" universes, the "fourth" one never finishing to be set-up (just because I like the idea :-) ).
All I can expect is that our species will survive long enough to know something about it.
On the other hand there are a whole bunch of hypotheses about the "why", that lay in the domain of philosophical "whatever" ; and all I can do is consider them according to the possibility to test them (MN, remember?)
So, the "god's hypothesis" is not rejected a priori, but remains at the lowest level of things to consider as there is not even the simplest test proposed to check it.
Our experience is relevant to natural elements and we seek causations, natural causation, for what we experience. Unfortunately, unfortunately for religious truth, it's quite frequent that naturalistic explanations destroy theistic views of the world, labeling them finally as myths. Not only the theistic truth fails to be self-consistent, but also fails to be consistent with common sense as the late becomes more and more sophisticated due to the accumulation of knowledge.
No testing proposed and a whole bunch of lies in support of the 'god's hypothesis". Nothing to make it attractive, isn't it?
As far as you (or anybody else) admit that there are no naturalistic means to give it the slightest credibility, I will go with you, reminding that theistic views was proven to be self-sufficient to destroy themselves.
I'm a fan of sophisticated theism and I'm not kidding you. The main sophistication I observe is the stripping of attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) earlier proposed by unsophisticated theists. Time will come that theist will become mere deists and deists' god be reduced to the description of a natural phenomenon :-)
Problems arise each time that scienligion is in play: efforts to use science (or MN) to bring credibility to the "god's hypothesis", and that's what I call scienligion.
Usually, dogmas require blind faith. When religious authorities feel the lack of blindness and its immediate consequence which is less and less people in the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples or whatever place of gathering a religion propose, they try to make it look not as blind faith but enlightenment to believe to hallucinations presented as revealed truth, and to be seeing as credible ; nowadays it's convenient to have the scientific look. That's quite convenient, as it leads to progressively prove that more and more of the religious claims are false (e.g. the JTF's financed studies on the (in)efficiency of prayer).
You say:
Well, [*insert name*], start by using naturalism to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Don't forget that naturalism and science assume that natural phenomena have natural causes and that cause precedes effect.
You forget, or ignore, or omit to consider, that the work is underway. People didn't waited for you, or anybody else, to start asking questions, and more importantly work to answer them. And first thing first, we must know what is here, and that we seek to know.
You may chose to stay at the fence and observe. Please, feel comfortable doing so, that's the best solution to avoid interferences from dull people, leave them at the fence.
Just don't fucking try the scienligious approach and keep in mind that all you propose as an alternative to actual hard work done by many, is just the expression of unsustainable hallucinations, that may look very much true for you, but not for everybody else.
But, if you come out with a test able to challenge the "god hypothesis", in a way that will be concluding, give me a call, I'll bring you in contact with people willing to put Big Money for such a Big Answer.
Bayesian Bouffant:
Your argument seems to be, "scientific knowledge must be complete, or else naturalism fails."
No, and since you immediately thereafter quote from the comment where I explained that, apparently without understanding it, I don't think there is much point in engaging you further one that issue.
Of course science, including QM, searches for explanations. It is the assumption of strict causality that is at issue.
Actually, it is the expectation of strict causality that makes scientists keep looking. Why bother otherwise?
You appear to have moved from "no conceptual explanation" to "arcane, counter-intuitive and difficult to empirically test."
On the issue of whether the infinite regress argument is sophisticated? Yes, I think that the fact that this postulate is the only proposed answer to it so far, after some 400 years of organized scientific inquiry and millennia before that of philosophical inquiry, qualifies the infinite regress argument sophisticated. As to whether this research actually answers the infinite regress is another matter. It seems to be claiming that the proposal is "not necessarily inconsistent" with conditions such as "vacuums for Misner space." Space is not "nothing" and vacuums imply empty space. Whether this is truly an explanation of the how "something" comes from "nothing" is beyond my competence to determine but as I said before, the discussion is not about whether the argument is true or not but whether it is proper to say that there are no sophisticated arguments.
oldcola:
... please avoid the use of sophisms (you do use them a lot and not in the more subtle way)
It's no accident that "sophisticated," "philosophy" and "sophistry" share the same root. You're entitled to your opinion as to which of us is mixing them up.
I'm not defending philosophical naturalism (PN), I'm not a philosopher, but rather methodological naturalism (MN).
Okay.
You forget, or ignore, or omit to consider, that the work is underway. People didn't waited for you, or anybody else, to start asking questions, and more importantly work to answer them. And first thing first, we must know what is here, and that we seek to know.
No, that's not what I'm doing. As long as anyone posits that the natural world is all there is, their position necessarily entails that there be natural causes for natural phenomenon (excluding weird mathematical propositions of the universe emanating out of its own ass). Such people are stuck with the issue of how we got the phenomenon of the natural world. If, as you say, you merely ignore issues that are not testable through MN, that is certainly your right. But ignoring arguments doesn't make them unsophisticated.
I suppose I should state what Larry knows already, since people here seem to keep mistaking me for a theist. I'm not. I'm just a person who doesn't think it is necessary to label theists' arguments "stupid" or "unsophisticated" in order to reject them.
sez me: "... please use supernaturalism to explain why there is something rather than nothing."
sez jp: "Supernaturalim, unlike naturalism, does not claim to explain reality in ways fully comprehensible to human beings."
Groovy. What, then, does this "supernaturalism" thingie claim to do? Given my position (which is, to repeat, that the word "supernatural" is nothing but an obfuscated synonym for "something I don't understand"), I rather think that "supernaturalism" doesn't do, or claim to do, anything at all. Am I wrong? And if I am wrong, how am I wrong?
jp again: "But, if there is good reason to think that naturalism cannot explain the natural universe, what else is there?"
That's one almighty big 'if' you got there, son. I see no reason to believe that said "if" is, in fact, true. If you do see such a reason, care to clue me in?
jp: "People here seem to be operating under some definition of 'supernatural' that has not been defined."
Again, my definition of "supernatural" is "obfuscated synonym for 'something I don't understand'".
jp: "I've given my definition of the word as 'the residue of that which exists but is not natural.' If you have a different one, I'm listening."
Hmmm. "[T]he residue of that which exists but is not natural". Okay... how can you tell when you're looking at a thingie which fits your "that which exists but is not natural" definition? And if you can't tell when you're looking at a thingie which fits said definition, how, exactly, does your "that which exists but is not natural" differ from my "obfuscated synonym for 'something I don't understand'"?
Larry, I'm assuming you've not read anything by John A. T. Robinson, John Shelby Spong, John Hick, Arthur Peacocke, Ian Barbour, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, David Ray Griffin...I don't think any of these theologians, scholars and church leaders would affirm miracles in the sense of God suspending the laws of nature or however one wishes to define "miracle".
As far as the Gospels are concerned, apart from a small handful of conservatives whose conclusions have been predetermined by their assumptions, Biblical scholars don't regard these works as inerrant, and emphatically doregard them as reflecting the assumptions of their time. The Gospel authors viewed the world as full of miracles and invisible supernatural personal beings. Newton took alchemy seriously. Why one earth would we dismiss the positive contributions of various writers, thinkers and other individuals simply because they shared elements of a worldview that we today cannot?
If "atheism" means denying the existence of personal deities in the way that most people in ancient Israel, Greece, and other societies conceived of them, then you'd be surprised how many theologians would fit this definition of "atheism". But most "atheists" say that what they are denying is anything that corresponds meaningfully to the term "God", and that broader brush excludes a whole range of other viewpoints and uses of the term.
James F. McGrath says,
Larry, I'm assuming you've not read anything by John A. T. Robinson, John Shelby Spong, John Hick, Arthur Peacocke, Ian Barbour, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, David Ray Griffin...I don't think any of these theologians, scholars and church leaders would affirm miracles in the sense of God suspending the laws of nature or however one wishes to define "miracle".
You are correct. None of those names mean anything to me.
Are you saying that none of them believe that Jesus rose from the dead or are you saying that they have developed "sophisticated" arguments that make "miracles" compatible with our view of the natural world?
Once again, I note that you are simply arguing from authority and refusing to present any real arguments for the existence of supernatural beings.
As far as the Gospels are concerned, apart from a small handful of conservatives whose conclusions have been predetermined by their assumptions, Biblical scholars don't regard these works as inerrant, and emphatically doregard them as reflecting the assumptions of their time. The Gospel authors viewed the world as full of miracles and invisible supernatural personal beings.
That's exactly the sort of view that I would expect of any intelligent person. My question related specifically to the view of Jesus as a special person of some kind or other. If you don't view Jesus as the Son of God and endowed with supernatural powers then what's the point of calling yourself a Christian?
Newton took alchemy seriously. Why one earth would we dismiss the positive contributions of various writers, thinkers and other individuals simply because they shared elements of a worldview that we today cannot?
Is this your best example of a sophisticated argument?
If "atheism" means denying the existence of personal deities in the way that most people in ancient Israel, Greece, and other societies conceived of them, then you'd be surprised how many theologians would fit this definition of "atheism". But most "atheists" say that what they are denying is anything that corresponds meaningfully to the term "God", and that broader brush excludes a whole range of other viewpoints and uses of the term.
What point are you trying to make?
I've already told you that in my view atheists do not accept the existence of any supernatural beings. If you are a theist then it means that you do accept the existence of supernatural beings (or persons, or whatever).
Deists also posit the existence of supernatural beings even though they don't believe in a personal god. Deists are not atheists in any meaningful sense of the word "atheist" and anyone who claims otherwise is just manipulating words in order to avoid the real issue. To me, that's exactly what you seem to be doing. You sound an awful lot like Allister McGrath—are you related?
Now, according to you and many other theists, there are some very sophisticated arguments for the existence of these supernatural beings. Arguments, that atheists such as me, or Dawkins, or PZ Myers, are ignoring because we we are ignorant of the work of the heavyweights in the field of apologetics.
Let's hear the best one of those arguments that you think we're ignoring.
Waiting ......
... but as I said before, the discussion is not about whether the argument is true or not but whether it is proper to say that there are no sophisticated arguments.
Your arguments have been revealed to be riddled with logical fallacies. You think that you can bull your way through with force. "Obstinate" is not "sophisticated."
I did not intend to appeal to authority - just to illustrate that most of what is going on in theology today, both at universities and among the mainline denominations and their seminaries, is not being reflected in the simple dichotomy between fundamentalism and atheism.
For many liberal Christians, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead in any bodily sense is either rejected, or at the very least regarded with skepticism. The problem is that reflecting liberal theology is, like organizing atheists, an exercise in "herding cats". Freethinkers' views are by definition hard to summarize since rational free thinking leads to a diversity of views on many topics.
As to why call oneself a Christian, this is like asking why someone who values key elements of the American tradition but disagrees with many, perhaps even the majority, in their country, should not simply leave and go elsewhere (perhaps Canada?) The fact is that people often do try to simply discard their whole heritage as a block, and in doing so fail to realize how much they continue to be shaped by it.
Liberal Christians like myself have found a meaningful (and in some cases life-changing) experience in Christianity. We want to shape it for a scientific age, not discard it.
I'm not related to Alister McGrath - at least, not more closely than to any other McGrath, as far as I know.
Your point about Deism is an interesting one. Many would say that if one is going to be a deist and not posit a God who does anything in the world, then one might as well be an atheist. Dawkins never bothers much with deism or any other view than theism in the classical sense.
Let's say that someone were to decide that the universe's "fine tuning" so as to be habitable and give rise to life persuades them to become a deist (something along these lines seems to have happened in the case of Antony Flew). It may be that the God of this system evolved in an earlier universe, or even our own universe and created it through some time-travel scenario. I'm not asking whether this is an attractive view of God, or whether this view of God is correct, or anything of that sort. My only question at this stage is what makes this viewpoint seem irrational to those involved in this conversation? Others would say that one shouldn't even use "God" for such a creator, since this God is not eternal. But that is a detail of doctrine. There are plenty of disagreements about those. But by dismissing "all notions of God", atheists seem to reject the need to even listen to and reject the arguments for a specific viewpoint, rather than lumping together everyone whose worldview is expressed using the same terminology.
For some liberals in Judaism and Christianity, "God" is simply a symbol for our highest values, our deepest feelings, and our experience that the universe and our life in it is meaningful because of such experiences. This isn't theism, but it is religion, and it is part of the worldview of enough intellectuals and people in general that it deserves to be considered on its own terms, and not dismissed as though it were simply one more form of irrational fundamentalism.
Hi everybody,
Seems that I'll be able to learn something new about greek stuff here, "sophia", "philosophia", "sophisms" etc.
It's no accident that "sophisticated," "philosophy" and "sophistry" share the same root.
And of the definition of the terms :-)
You're entitled to your opinion as to which of us is mixing them up.
Am I mixing them up? Let's see, if you are fluent in greek, maybe we should shift to it, that would be easier form me in fact, you know, mother tongue, several years of ancient greek including etymology, etc. Always feeling better talking about "σοφία", "φιλοσοφία", "σοφισμούς", κτλ. Used to do so at the spot my father was born, the Agora ;-)
Now, as english isn't my mother tongue let me check that I clearly understand your position :
"As long as anyone posits that the natural world is all there is", Per definition there isn't anything else there. So whatever element one would like to consider as not belonging to this set he have to prove so, before considering it unnatural, are you OK with that?
"their position necessarily entails that there be natural causes for natural phenomenon (excluding weird mathematical propositions of the universe emanating out of its own ass)" Yep, natural causes for natural phenomena thats the spirit, but I don't see why the universe shouldn't emanate by his own ass! Any particular reason except that this wouldn't fit with your idea of how things happened?
"Such people are stuck with the issue of how we got the phenomenon of the natural world."
I think "you" are stuck with it and impatient to get an explanation, even if the price is huge.
Un-natutalism was used without any success (up to now) to explain natural phenomena, say thunder: Thor or Διάς aren't successful explanations. I suspect that any unnatural explanation will be falsified sooner or later.
"If, as you say, you merely ignore issues that are not testable through MN, that is certainly your right. But ignoring arguments doesn't make them unsophisticated." I do have a serious problem with this part. What's your argument here that I'm ignoring? Something untestable? Unprovable? If so yes, it's unsophisticated from the "seeking explanation of nature" point of view. And I will ignore it, and you with it.
It may be a quite sophisticated piece of literature, you can go on and build a new mythology if you like, and maybe I will appreciate it as fiction or science-fiction (I'm a fan). But being sophisticated doesn't give you any credit for realism, right?
"I suppose I should state what Larry knows already, since people here seem to keep mistaking me for a theist. I'm not. I'm just a person who doesn't think it is necessary to label theists' arguments "stupid" or "unsophisticated" in order to reject them."
Granted: one don't have to say something is stupid or unsophisticated to reject it, but if it is stupid you ought to reject it. I don't recall to have considered your position otherwise as surnaturalistic, mostly unnaturalistic, if I may use this characterization. And irrational.
You don't see what would be the cause for the natural world, so you say that there might be something else, unnatural, surnatural, supernatural. Something about what you are as much as ignorant as anyone else. And you consider "that" to be an argument? OK, plain stupid, the Ζεύς kind of stupidity.
The most you could do out of it is some sect or religion or fiction. Make your choice JP.
@ james f. mcgrath
Great,
you represent the kind of people I described by "I'm a fan of sophisticated theism and I'm not kidding you. The main sophistication I observe is the stripping of attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) earlier proposed by unsophisticated theists. Time will come that theist will become mere deists and deists' god be reduced to the description of a natural phenomenon :-)"
Now, for some christian obediences saying things like:
"For many liberal Christians, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead in any bodily sense is either rejected, or at the very least regarded with skepticism"
Is just called heresy. Right? And defines a sect, no?
I'm just trying to understand the absurdity of one saying: "I'm a roman catholic christian but I don't believe to my beliefs (credo)", and I' not creationist...
Your position:
"As to why call oneself a Christian, this is like asking why someone who values key elements of the American tradition but disagrees with many, perhaps even the majority, in their country, should not simply leave and go elsewhere (perhaps Canada?)" is quite funny.
Done so, twice, personally. I call myself atheist and I'm living in a country (France) less governed by the religious authorities than Greece and I hope to make it to Canada in the near future (then there is Denyse out there :-( ).
Why don't you do so? At least find a brand new name for your religion?
And maybe for your teaching if it isn't about Theos (yes, I do propose to change psychology also to something else as psyche is an intellectual fossil as I understand it); theology doesn't fit.
James, you say:
"For some liberals in Judaism and Christianity, "God" is simply a symbol for our highest values, our deepest feelings, and our experience that the universe and our life in it is meaningful because of such experiences. This isn't theism, but it is religion [1], and it is part of the worldview of enough intellectuals and people in general that it deserves to be considered on its own terms [2], and not dismissed as though it were simply one more form of irrational fundamentalism [3]."
That's a set of questions for a theology teacher, rather simple and no sophisticated answers expected, simple ones will do:
[1] If you call it religion it implies supernatural something, isn't it?
[2] Do you really think that majority's opinion should be followed? If so, why not stick with the old fashion christians? Where does your sense of reality comes from? Polls? "Enough" is for how many? More or less than people accepting astrology?
[3] Don't you think that this is all about irrationality, in general, rather than irrational fundamentalism specifically?
I wish I had time to reply in detail, but until grades are in I can't, so for now I'll just point to my blog, where I've discussed these issues and addressed many of these questions before.
If Buddhism is a religion (and most consider it one), then religion doesn't have to be either about personal gods or about the supernatural.
Should the majority's view be followed? No. Science's validity and conclusions aren't determined by what popular opinion is (evolution being a case in point). But why should those educated in other areas treat uneducated religion as their main focus and dialogue partner?
I would hope that I'm on record as being in favor of rationality, even if the conclusions make one uncomfortable. The reason why I remain a Christian is simply that I don't feel that expressing my view of the world in terms of atheism does justice to the breadth and depth of that experience.
Sorry to post and run, but the deadline for submitting grades approaches!
James,
thank you for your answer.
I will avoid spending time searching your blog. I prefer short answers right here, whenever you got time to do it properly. The post is plugged in my RSS reader.
I really don't see why you mention buddhism. For the supernatural elements? Reincarnating souls? Or what?
Please, remember, you are not doing science, but theology. The comparison with how science works is irrelevant. And don't do me the "you discuss with uneducated religious people" thingy, except if you consider yourself uneducated, in which case the discussion should end right here.
I don't see what rational conclusions of you would make me uncomfortable. And I didn't asked you to express your views as atheist but clearly name your religion if it differs from the christian one, so it will be clear what are you talking about.
Run, respect your deadlines, and come back later to answer those questions.
James F. McGrath says,
I did not intend to appeal to authority - just to illustrate that most of what is going on in theology today, both at universities and among the mainline denominations and their seminaries, is not being reflected in the simple dichotomy between fundamentalism and atheism.
Very few people disagree with you, including Richard Dawkins. It's people like you who are trying the frame the debate in this way. We know why you're doing it. You aren't fooling anyone.
This is not just a debate between atheists and fundamentalists. It's a debate between atheists and anyone who believes in supernatural beings. That includes the "heavyweight" sophisticated theologians and the deists.
For many liberal Christians, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead in any bodily sense is either rejected, or at the very least regarded with skepticism.
I noticed the qualifier "in any bodily sense." You can hide a lot of "sophisticated" theology behind that phrase, can't you? Fact is, it's still a miracle if his soul or spirit rose from the dead and appeared before the apostles. Is that what you believe?
The problem is that reflecting liberal theology is, like organizing atheists, an exercise in "herding cats". Freethinkers' views are by definition hard to summarize since rational free thinking leads to a diversity of views on many topics.
All I'm asking for is your very best argument for the existence of supernatural beings. Why is that so hard?
As to why call oneself a Christian, this is like asking why someone who values key elements of the American tradition but disagrees with many, perhaps even the majority, in their country, should not simply leave and go elsewhere (perhaps Canada?) The fact is that people often do try to simply discard their whole heritage as a block, and in doing so fail to realize how much they continue to be shaped by it.
I notice that you still haven't answered the main question. I don't really care whether you call yourself a Christian or a heathen. All I want is to hear your best argument for the existence of supernatural beings.
Liberal Christians like myself have found a meaningful (and in some cases life-changing) experience in Christianity. We want to shape it for a scientific age, not discard it.
Fine. Why not start by giving me your best argument for the existence of supernatural beings (or persons or whatever)? Make it one that is worthy of a "heavyweight" thinker and one that is compatible with a scientific age. This can't be too hard for a sophisticated theologian, can it?
Your point about Deism is an interesting one. Many would say that if one is going to be a deist and not posit a God who does anything in the world, then one might as well be an atheist.
I don't say that and neither does Richard Dawkins. Here's what Dawkins says on page 38 of The God Delusion.
Personal qualities, whether pleasant or unpleasant, form no part of the deist god of Voltaire and Thomas Paine. Compared with the Old Testament's psychotic delinquent, the deist God of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions. The deist God is a physicist to end all physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians, the apotheosis of designers; a hyper-engineer who set up the laws and constants of the universe, fine-tuned them with exquisite precision and foreknowledge, detonated what we would not call the hot big bang, retired and was never heard from again.
In times of stronger faith, deists have been reviled as indistinguishable from atheists, Susan Jacoby, in Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, lists a choice selection of the epithets hurled at poor Tom Paine: 'Judas, reptile, hog, mad dog, souse, louse, archbeast, brute, liar, and of course infidel.' Paine died in penury, abandoned (with the honourable exception of Jefferson) by political former friends embarrassed by his anti-Christian views. Nowadays, the ground has shifted so far that deists are more likely to be contrasted with atheists and lumped with theists. They do, after all, believe in a supreme intelligence who created the universe.
I agree with Dawkins. While deists avoid most of the silliness of the theist position, they do, after all, still believe in supernatural beings. What is the "sophisticated" view of deists and why does it matter?
Dawkins never bothers much with deism or any other view than theism in the classical sense.
Dawkins lumps deists in with everyone else who believes in supernatural beings. They are all deluded. I agree. Please present your most sophisticated argument for the existence of the deist form of supernatural entity.
Let's say that someone were to decide that the universe's "fine tuning" so as to be habitable and give rise to life persuades them to become a deist (something along these lines seems to have happened in the case of Antony Flew). It may be that the God of this system evolved in an earlier universe, or even our own universe and created it through some time-travel scenario. I'm not asking whether this is an attractive view of God, or whether this view of God is correct, or anything of that sort. My only question at this stage is what makes this viewpoint seem irrational to those involved in this conversation?
Is that a rhetorical question or do you really think that view is perfectly rational? Do you have any evidence for the existence of a being who could create the universe? If so, I'd be delighted to hear about it and so would many others.
You've had four days to compose your answer. What's taking so long?
Others would say that one shouldn't even use "God" for such a creator, since this God is not eternal. But that is a detail of doctrine. There are plenty of disagreements about tho