He’s a theist, and for a variety of reasons - e.g., fossil rabbits in the Precambrian (aliens put them there to confuse us),…

and

He doesn’t mention natural selection, for example; he ignores allopatry and parapatry as explanations of speciation; he underplays the extent to which the fossil record supports common descent; and so on.

It looks like both sides are relying on the fossil record as their hard, empirical evidence for their respective views. Dick’s Precambrian bunnies, if verifiably genuine using the same methods as his opponents’ fossils, gets his foot in the door.

The evolutionists would have to be the ones claiming that aliens put the bunnies there (which is what I think you meant), in which case both sides have an outside agent capable of muddling things up to the point that it would be quite difficult to find a basis for what constitutes scientific evidence. There would then be two opposing theories built on the involvement of super-entities, with truly natural explanations being unidentifiable.

The important question would then become: who would win in a fight, God or the aliens? I’m betting on the aliens, since I find science fiction more entertaining than religion.

On second reading, I think what you might have wanted to do was leave out the part about aliens depositing the rabbit fossils in the Precambrian layer. Creationists usually say fossils that corealate with common descent were put there to fool us, or they say that they have found fossils that falsify evolutionary theory (the Precambrian bunny would represent this) that occured naturally (without supernatural intervention). At any rate, the first paragraph in my first response gives Dick a good foothold.

All that aside, scientific theories must, among other things, be comprehensive in their scope. So, is it fair for Dick to argue against evolution without being comprehensive in all his talking points? Maybe he thinks not; who needs more sophisticated arguments based on a faulty concept? For him, (verifiable) Precambrian rabbits are the deal breaker: common descent is incorrect. However, I think he owes it to his detractors to answer their criticisms. Real world evolutionists do this all the time against the creationists, and I think they should.

The scientific community’s silence in the early years of Intelligent Design lent credence to that movement’s claims. Scientists are now more active in educating the general public. Perhaps those theologians with the purportedly sophisticated arguments for God’s existence might want to speak up as well. I think it would be quite educational for believers and nonbelievers alike.

I think this whole controversy about the comprehensiveness of the The God Delusion might be moved forward if (the real) Dawkins wrote an epistle after the fashion of Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation.

The thing about rabbits in the Precambrian is that I think Dick Dawkins is wrong to leave out the more sophisticated stuff, even if in his world evolutionary theory is wrong.

I guess the thought experiment is neutral about whether evolution occurred in Dick’s world, but I don’t want Dick’s beliefs to be self-evidently absurd (because then the analogy doesn’t work). So we have the rabbits.

I actually suspect, contra Haldane, that if rabbits did turn out in the Precambrian, scientists would simply suspect a hoax (or aliens). There is too much other evidence in favour of evolution to give up on it because of rabbits!

Dick Dawkins in the thought experiment should deal with the evolutionary theory which includes natural election because this is the well supported theory and this fact marks the difference between the two. He has an intellectual responsibility to look at the better account.

This is why the thought experiment doesn’t work as a model of Richard Dawkins criticism : in real life case there is no substantive difference between sophisticated and unsophisticated religious postures.

Ie Richard doesnt have to take into consideration the more sophisticated beliefs but Dick does have to take a look at them because in his world there is a material difference between the sophisticated and the unsophisticated accounts.

This is what is glossed over in the thought experiment and that is why it fails. ( again it just beggs the question against Richard Dawkins ).

in real life case there is no substantive difference between sophisticated and unsophisticated religious postures.

That’s question begging. All you’re saying is that because there is no God there is no substantive difference between sophisticated and unsophisticated religious postures.

If you think there is no difference between sophisticated and unsophisticated theology tout court, then you’re just wrong. There’s a world of difference between the ‘God Hates Fags’ crowd and say Karl Barth.

Moreover, my view is that even in a world where evolutionary theory is wrong - which it might be in my thought experiment world - it is still arguable that Dick is required to deal with the more sophisticated versions of evolutionary theory.

“All you’re saying is that because there is no God there is no substantive difference between sophisticated and unsophisticated religious postures.”

No actually the argument ( if I understand Dawkins argument ) doesn’t need to be sceptical with respect to existence of God . A theist could hold this view.

Instead it relies on a certain view of what legitimate inquiry consists in.

That is why sophistication on its own does not add the right kind of property to the inquiry : you have crude and sophisticated witchcraft but adding more epicycles doesn’t alter it at the conceptual level.

Dick’s apologists are wrong: these ‘horrible things’ also have the support of the sophisticated evolutionists & Dick should attack each and every theoretical underpinning of that behavior, even if it’s just some general association.

In ZDENECK’s reconstrual there IS a substantive difference between vague believers & those who act on their beliefs to do ‘horrible things’ like using the schoolroom as a place for their propaganda.

You have to keep your eye on the behavior.

I’d return to Eagleton’s original claim and ask the question: Can we really juxtapose biology and theology in such a straight forward way?

In part this thought experiment goes along way to illustrate that in fact we can’t.

Sophistication, like many of the other words used to illustrate our understanding may have a radically different meaning when applied to these disparate areas of thought.

Wouldn’t it be easier just to point out what you regard as the sophisticated arguments for the existence of God (or for the truth of religious beliefs) that Dawkins is missing, rather than over labouring a question begging analogy?

I agree with “PM.” In a previous post on Dawkin’s I wrote the following:

“I guess the real question is…what are these “good” reasons that theology gives you to believe in God? Allan Orr critiqued Dawkins at length in “The New York Review of Books” because he didn’t address recondite theologians and their ideas but then…never really said what these great ideas were. Can anyone enlighten me as to what arguments are considered so spectacular (other then blind passion) to cause a rational person to believe in Yahweh?”

Unless I missed the response, I don’t think anyone ever answered that question. What are these “more sophisticated arguments?” And also, how does one make the leap from a “proof of god” to a “proof of a God” (from god to Zeus or from god to Yahweh, for example). The thought experiment would work if Mr. Stangroom would actually point out the sophisticated arguments.

Oh dear.

It isn’t about whether there are *good* reasons for believing in God. (Remember, I am an atheist - so obviously I don’t think there are good reasons.) It is (partly) about whether you can know whether belief in God is rationally defensible, if you don’t bother yourself with the best that can be said in its defence (which might not be very good). It is also (partly) about whether one should write a book called “The God Delusion”, and be content not to address the work of professional theologians.

This really isn’t very complicated.

The analogy is not question-begging. If people seriously think there are not less and more sophisticated justifications for belief in God - then… well, I’m not sure what really - I’m speechless, I guess.

This doesn’t mean that more sophisticated justifications work. It simply means that you haven’t gone very far down the road to demonstrating how belief in God is a delusion, if you don’t bother yourself with them.

Moreover, the point of the thought experiment here is that it is neutral about the veracity of evolutionary theory.

Even if in my thought experiment world, Dick Dawkins is right in this theism, it is still arguable that he should address the more sophisticated arguments for natural selection.

And do you really want me to provide you with a reading list of sophisticated philosophers of religion, etc?

Because I can. (I’ve just finished writing a book on religious thinkers.)

JS said: I actually suspect, contra Haldane, that if rabbits did turn out in the Precambrian, scientists would simply suspect a hoax (or aliens). There is too much other evidence in favour of evolution to give up on it because of rabbits!

Yes, scientists would suspect a hoax. Further, they would seek to thoroughly investigate such a claim, as they have sought to investigate the famed Shroud of Turin, and as they would Liberty University’s purported evolutionary theory smashing fossil evidence, if possible. To be fair, some believers do seek debate about the evidence for and against God, but the masses have already decided and just want to know how they’re supposed to follow Him correctly; they’re more concerned about living a lifestyle according to popular preaching, not deep philosphical explanations of why they should believe what they already believe.

I agree with what Automath said about “disparate areas of thought.” The problem here is that the debate is not just about natural religion, its about faith as well. This allows believers to retreat to an untouchable high ground whenever it appears reason has slain their particular version of God. Conversely, when the debate is about the gathering and interpretation of scientific evidence, there may be disagreement over points of uncertainty, but at least there’s a level playing field. Not so with God talk.

Yes, I would appreciate a list of what you think to be the best religious thinkers.

In defense of Dawkins, however, I would say two things:

1. Dawkin’s “God Delusion” attacks the lame notion of God that much of Christendom holds. (Dawkin’s himself, as I’ve mentioned before, admitted in Time that a god as some abstract entity of some-sort - a deist’s version of god I guess - is agreeable, but wholly unprovable and useless). So, as a screed against POPULAR theism, his arguments are sound.

2. Your thought experiment hinges on the existence of not only a theory of evolution (natural selection), but a GOOD ONE. Evolution by natural selection fits with the empirical facts, and has tons of scientific work to back it up. The very existence of “sophisticated” theistic arguments, then, really doesn’t matter. And, all I was saying, was if you don’t identify what those specific arguments are (remember, some of us here aren’t profession philosophers like yourself; I am just a lowly college freshman) then your thought experiment doesn’t make sense. You give two views of evolution: one false, one true (natural selection). The fallacy is that Dick Dawkins attacts the false view of evolution and not the consensus view. But I don’t see the two views of religion (in your writing or in all the reviews of The God Delusion I have read).

“This allows believers to retreat to an untouchable high ground whenever it appears reason has slain their particular version of God.”

But not all believers. Maimonides, for example, was absolutely clear that if there were a conflict between supposed religious truths and reason, then reason holds sway (though it must be said that this injunction was to do with a particular view of God!).

Plantinga talks about ‘defeaters’ doesn’t he? So he thinks that religious belief is “properly basic”, but this doesn’t mean that one should hold on to it in every circumstance or against all possible objections.

Also, you’re way too kind to scientists. I’m no fan of Thomas Kuhn, but the idea that all that scientists do is dispassionately look at evidence, well - it’s just not true. Just look at the history of the wars over evolutionary theory.

But I hasten to add that I’m perfectly well aware that science is a different kind of thing to religious belief, faith, etc.

professional*
attacks*

The fallacy is that Dick Dawkins attacts the false view of evolution and not the consensus view.

No, in my thought experiment the consensus view is the false or incomplete view.

Theologians - well for starters have a look at some of the great Islamic philosophers: Ibn Sina, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Ibn al-Arabi, etc (because it’ll give you the sense that the various arguments about God, etc., have been playing out for a long time).

But I don’t see the two views of religion

There are certainly very different views about the nature of religious truth. If you read the Islamic guys, for example, you’ll find that there is an on-going tension between those of them inclined towards philosophical analysis (e.g., Ibn Rushd) and those inclined towards mysticism (e.g., Al-Ghazali).

It’s the kind of dispute that people lost their lives over.

I’m not a philosopher, by the way. If I’m anything, I’m a sociologist.

To repeat: my argument here is not that there are good arguments for religious belief; simply that you cannot show that there are not good arguments for religious belief unless you deal with the best arguments for religious belief.

1. I’m sorry I called you a “philosopher,” although I certainly think you could pass for one.

2. I can see that I am way over my head. I’ll leave the criticism to people more able to have a reasoned debate.

Thank you for the quick replies, however.

I can see that I am way over my head. I’ll leave the criticism to people more able to have a reasoned debate.

You are not in the least bit in over your head. You were doing absolutely fine. Don’t forget, almost everybody who has commented here agrees with you - and thinks that I’m wrong!

Interesting thought experiment.

Something to bear in mind, though, about sophisticated theological arguments for the existence of God is that they are, in a sense, self-refuting. One only needs to provide such sophisticated arguments to prove God’s existence because God is so utterly silent and inert.

One needs sophisticated models and theories to describe nature, since nature is inscrutible. However, that God is seemingly also the same way argues for the non-existence of God as it is commonly conceived.

I would suggest reading the following essay -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

Nick - I’m not sure that God is silent for many believers. Certainly in the Sufi tradition there is this idea that you can have some kind of direct experience of God. Obviously, I don’t believe this to be true, but I kind of think that believers are (probably) genuine when they talk about this kind of thing. The physicist Russell Stannard, for example, claimed that in prayer he was aware of the presence of God (in my interview with him).

I ought to make that clearer: when I say believers are genuine, I mean that they genuinely think they have experience of God. Not that their experience is a genuine experience of God.

I’m afraid that I don’t take such religious experiences to count for much. See my post here -

http://freethinkingblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/religious-experiences.html

Furthermore, why should God choose to communicate with believers by such an indirect means, and one that is open to being ignored or misinterpreted? For example, many people have taken such apparent communication to be proof of the existence of a totally different god. Others have interpreted it as being ‘all in their mind’. Would the actual God allow that to happen? And why communicate with only some people, and not others?

Surely, God would give incontrevertable proof of His existence. For, by not doing so He is condemning millions of people to never reach Heaven. Is this compatible with God as He is commonly conceived?

Of course, to answer these criticisms, it is necessary once again for the theist to resort to more sophisticated reasoning. So, we’re back where we started.

Another point that I should mention is why would God create a universe that appears as we would expect it to if it is purely natural (vast, ancient, almost entirely lethal to life etc), but not at all what we would expect according to Biblical doctrine? Again, the theist must resort to some sophisticated reasoning to attempt an explanation.

Jeremy what the issue seems to turn on is the scope of the following principle :

P 1 : the more sophisticated the belief system, the more one needs to know in order to demonstrate that its beliefs are held irrationally.

This seems intuitively true when applied to rational belief systems but not to non-rational once. That is , if there are non rational belief systems than the following is true :

P2: not all belief systems are rational

If this is the case then you need an argument to show that P2 is false to block the claim that theology is not rational ( that Dawkins wants to make ).

But you have not really provided one and your thought experiment merely builds the assumption that P2 is false into the picture.

This might also explain why your position seems to beg the question i.e you assume without argument that P2 is false.

the more sophisticated the belief system, the more one needs to know in order to demonstrate that its beliefs are held irrationally. This seems intuitively true when applied to rational belief systems but not to non-rational once.

I think this claim about non-rational belief systems is fundamentally and profoundly wrong (with all due respect).

A set of beliefs can be non-rational in an extremely subtle way - one that will only become clear through a huge amount of analysis. This is much more likely to be the case if the belief system is sophisticated (by definition, in fact).

Nick - But I don’t think that arguments from religious experience are good grounds for supposing that God exists. I do however think that they appear to believers as good grounds for supposing that God is not inert. So - in terms of your original point - I’m not convinced that sophisticated theology exists because God is silent. I think it exists for other reasons (many of them contingent historical reasons).

The other thing, FWIW, I don’t find the idea of a silent God particularly counterintuitive (well, no more counterintuitive than a noisy God).

If I go silent on you guys, it isn’t because I’m not interested - just it’s hard to keep up.

Jeremy,

Here’s the crux of the issue.

1) If the Christian God exists (with the usually-attributed characteristic of omnibenevolence), then He would want all people to love Him, and to go to Heaven. Jesus talks about these matters at length.
2) However, many people do not believe in the existence of the Christian God. Either they believe in some other god, or in no god at all.
3) This is so because there is reasonable grounds for non-belief in the Christian God i.e.

a) The universe gives all the appearence of evolving and operating according to purely natural means (and the concept of God as the prime mover merely begs the question, and anyway could be used to justify the existence of a myriad of other gods).
b) The universe is not at all as we would expect it to be if the Christian God exists (far too big, far too old, far too lethal to life).
c) There is no strong evidence of God intervening in the running of the universe, to change the course of events, answer prayers etc.
d) There is no strong evidence that God communicates with us. Any such evidence is often to multiple interpretations - a different god is communicating with us, it’s all in the mind etc.

4) Attempts can be made by sophisticated theists to answer these points. However, if the Christian God exists, we should need no such sophisticated arguments, since He would want all humans to believe in and to love Him. He would therefore provide incontrevertable evidence of His existence. So, that we need to use such sophisticated arguments at all argues against the existence of the Christian God.

“I do however think that they appear to believers as good grounds for supposing that God is not inert.”

Yes, but only to those who believe. What about all of the others? See my argument above.

“The other thing, FWIW, I don’t find the idea of a silent God particularly counterintuitive ”

Yes, but that goes against the predictions that would be made for the Christian God, for the reasons that I have given. One can certainly conceive of any number of gods who would be silent, but that is highly counterintuitive if we are talking about the Christian God.

If we are to conceive of some god who set the universe in motion, and then disappeared completely, then it is much harder to argue against (although I have in my post here - http://freethinkingblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/considering-minimal-god-hypothesis.html). But, that is not the type of god that most theists are interested in anyway.

“I’m not convinced that sophisticated theology exists because God is silent. I think it exists for other reasons”

I agree that sophisticated theology exists for a number of reasons. However, I would say that sophisticated arguments for the existence of God exist because there is no strong evidence that God actually exists.

If God was present in our everyday lives - working miracles, flooding worlds, stopping the sun, parting seas, raising the dead etc - as He was supposed to be to the Hebrews, then there would be plenty of evidence for His existence.

However, and here’s the important point, He is not present in such ways. Therefore, sophisticated arguments need to be constructed to show that, contrary to all evidence and reason, He does actually exist. And, what’s more, He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. To believe this in the face of all the evidence requires some very intricate mental gymnastics.

He would want all humans to believe in and to love Him. He would therefore provide incontrevertable evidence of His existence.

Yes, but even relatively unsophisticated Christian theology has a response to this point.

A couple of general points:

1. Of course, I agree that there is no strong evidence that God exists - since I don’t believe in God. But I think you’re mixing up what atheists/agnostics would accept as strong evidence, and what (some) Christians take to be strong evidence. If I understood Russell Stannard correctly, for example, his position was that his experience of God was veridical. In other words, it was the kind of thing you couldn’t doubt if you’d had the experience. For someone like him, then, there isn’t any need for sophisticated theology in order to demonstrate God’s existence.

2. Theology isn’t just about showing that God exists; in fact, most of it isn’t, since it already takes that as a given (which is precisely a criticism that it is possible to level at theology - and also it is something to be said in favour of Dawkins’s dismissal of theology).

3. Even if I accept your argument, I’m not sure it does what you say it does (to show that the existence of theology is self-refuting). Sophisticated theology exists to explain why God is silent. Okay, but that isn’t self-refuting. It might be that there is a Christian God, she is silent, and it is for precisely the reasons specificed by sophisticated theology. Of course, neither you nor I believe such a thing - but if you want to show that this is not true, then you’ve got to address the arguments. And that’s the point!

“Yes, but even relatively unsophisticated Christian theology has a response to this point.”

Clearly, Christian theology has to attempt an answer to this. However, as in the case of theodicy, I would contend that they have no convincing answers. That is, they would not convince a dispassionate third party.

No matter how ridiculous or logically inconsistent a position is, one can always find some people who will believe and defend it. Human beings’ capacity for self-delusion is seemingly without limits.

“But I think you’re mixing up what atheists/agnostics would accept as strong evidence, and what (some) Christians take to be strong evidence.”

No, I’m not. That’s the whole point of my argument actually. The evidence, such as it is, is only sufficient to convince SOME people. Whereas, under the Christian hypothesis, all people should be convinced. Since, otherwise, an omnibenevolent (not to mention omniscient and omnipotent) God has created human beings, whom He has equipped with reason, and then given them insufficient (to some people) evidence to believe in His existence. Therefore, He has consigned these people to an eternity in Hell. But, this flatly contradicts the supposition that He is omnibenevolent. You can’t have it both ways.

“Theology isn’t just about showing that God exists”

True, but of no relevence to my argument.

“Sophisticated theology exists to explain why God is silent. Okay, but that isn’t self-refuting.”

That sophisticated arguments need to be produced to explain why God is silent directly refutes the Christian God hypothesis - since the Christian God SHOULD NOT BE SILENT. If this was to be expected, then no argument would be needed to explain it!

“It might be that there is a Christian God, she is silent, and it is for precisely the reasons specificed by sophisticated theology.”

Again, the Christian hypothesis predicts a god who is not silent. That is the only reason that sophisticated arguments are needed at all by theists to explain away the silence. They are merely trying to rescue their hypothesis, even though it is contradicted by the evidence. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t need such sophisticated arguments. And that’s the point!

By the way, I think that the sophisticated arguments should still be addressed by people arguing against theists. I am happy to do this, and have good counter-arguments for all of them. What do you consider to be these sophisticated arguments anyway?

Also, I am not defending Dawkins. Even though I think that he is a good consciousness raiser about the subject of atheism, I still find some of his reasoning to be lazy.

More formally -

Set P = the following three propositions:
(a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe.
(b) That being loves humanity.
(c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife.

Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
Using the above definitions, my argument may be expressed as follows:
(A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
(1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered;
(2) wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires;
(3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it;
(4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

(B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.
(C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
(D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).
(E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.

Now, this is not an easy argument for the theist to dispose of. That is, it requires a sophisticated argument from the theist. However, my argument implies that no such sophisticated argument should be needed, since many people would not be aware of, understand, or accept such an argument. In the case that such a sophisticated argument is needed, then this alone guarantees my point (C) above.

Of course, if one is willing to relax one’s definition of God, and drop the omnibenevolence clause, then things become much easier!

My argument above is disposed of, since God doesn’t care if many people will spend an eternity in Hell because they don’t believe in Him (by the way, I still use Him rather than Her to illustrate Christianity’s enschrined sexism).

Further, the Argument from Evil is disposed of too, since God will allow there to be suffering in the world (both natural and man-made).

However, despite these clear benefits to Christians when arguing for God’s existence, and despite all of the actual evidence of God’s lack of benevolence as listed in their own holy book, they still wish to cling to the omnibenevolence clause.

Of course, they then want to have their cake and eat it, by keeping this clause, but then trying to explain away all of the manifest inconsistencies with the actual evidence.

Nick

I know it is a cop-out, but I just don’t have time to get involved in a discussion at this level of detail.

But, for example:

1. This whole business of having to do with S. As you’ll know, there have been Christians who believed that there is nothing we can do to avoid hell. You know, Calvin’s reprobates stuff. Okay, this seemingly contradicts with omnibenevolence. So you get into a whole thing about original sin, God’s grace never being deserved, and so on.

2. You talk about God as if s/he has desires. Okay, fair enough, but then that will put you out of kilter with those theologians who reject this kind of anthopomorphising (is that a word) of God.

There’s other stuff too. If this thread stays where it is, I’ll get back to you.

Oh yes, I should say, of course, that I take this kind of discussion to prove my general point. It is necessary to know about this stuff, to know how Christian theologians have dealt with these issues, in order to know that it isn’t possible to reconcile the various tensions. :)

Jeremy,

“I know it is a cop-out, but I just don’t have time to get involved in a discussion at this level of detail.”

No problem.

Your point 1 is just an illustration of the endless attempts that Christians have made over the centuries to rescue their hypothesis. However, my points still stand. Such attempts should not be needed in the first place.

“You talk about God as if s/he has desires”

I’m merely following the precedent set by the Judeo-Christian religions. I agree that one can certainly take issue with this assumption and, of course, as an atheist I find it rather ridiculous. However, if one does so, it’s not at all clear what is left of Christian doctrine.

It’s my understanding that entry into heaven isn’t dependent on knowing the existence of God at all. Rather, it depends on the individual’s faith (their belief) in, and love of, God.
Incontrovertible evidence for God would facilitate neither of these, and in fact would be conceivably detrimental to both. If true, a benevolent God ought not give undeniable evidence for His existence.
If I have understood that correctly (I’m not religious, myself), then no sophisticated argument would strictly need to be given to the general populace, since entry to heaven would not depend on knowing it.

How (or if) that relates to the original thought experiment, I’ve no idea…

The thing is Daryl - it depends on which (Christian) theologians you listen to. If you’re a Calvinist, then it depends not upon faith or love of God, but rather on God’s grace. There is nothing we can do to be worthy of God’s mercy, since we are wicked to the core, we must simply hope that we are part of the Elect.

In a sense, this whole discussion encapsulates the point I’m trying to make. This stuff is complex and sophisticated. If you want to argue against it, you’ve got to know about it.

I understand, Jeremy.
Just to clarify, my post was just intended to address Nick’s comment:
“Now, this is not an easy argument for the theist to dispose of. That is, it requires a sophisticated argument from the theist. However, my argument implies that no such sophisticated argument should be needed, since many people would not be aware of, understand, or accept such an argument. In the case that such a sophisticated argument is needed, then this alone guarantees my point (C) above.”

The sophistication is there, but it can run ‘under the hood’ perfectly well without the average believer needing to understand it. That was the essence of my last post, and I think that that would hold equally well for a Calvinist. But perhaps I’m wrong.

But how this affects your stated argument, Jeremy:-
“To repeat: my argument here is not that there are good arguments for religious belief; simply that you cannot show that there are not good arguments for religious belief unless you deal with the best arguments for religious belief.”
-I’m not sure. Certainly on the surface I find it hard to disagree with you. That the average person may not need to understand the full nature of the argument in question, in no way detracts from needing to address that argument if you wish to show that there are no good arguments available to the religious believer.

Or am I going off the point?

“It’s my understanding that entry into heaven isn’t dependent on knowing the existence of God at all. Rather, it depends on the individual’s faith (their belief) in, and love of, God.”

I’m afraid that doesn’t refute my argument at all Daryl. What I am saying is that the Christian God created human beings with the power to reason, and then provided insufficient evidence of His existence to convince Billions of them that He does exist.

Therefore, some will still believe in God’s existence and ministry regardless (i.e. the Christians that have faith), but all the rest will not. These ones who do not will not be saved.

“Incontrovertible evidence for God would facilitate neither of these, and in fact would be conceivably detrimental to both. ”

Of course, faith would not be needed if there was evidence. However, I dispute your assertion that incontrovertible evidence of God’s existence would conceivably be detrimental to loving God. After all, I know that my wife exists, but that doesn’t reduce my love for her. Your argument is a non sequitur.

“If true, a benevolent God ought not give undeniable evidence for His existence.”

Why on Earth not? As, by not doing so, billions are condemned to not be saved. Basically, the God-ordained system is that one must believe in the absence of good evidence (faith), or one will be consigned to Hell. Does that sound to you like the work of an omnibenevolent god? This argument is also a non sequitur.

What is so good about such ‘free will’ to disbelieve that its existence should be worth such eternal suffering? Why should belief in the absence of evidence be seen as being so important? Of course, the only reason that it is seen as being important is that the Christian God hypothesis is such a poor one.

“If I have understood that correctly (I’m not religious, myself), then no sophisticated argument would strictly need to be given to the general populace, since entry to heaven would not depend on knowing it.”

That has no relevence to my point. I’m not arguing that the general populace needs to given sophisticated arguments. Rather, that the fact sophisticated arguments are needed argues against the very concept of the Christian God.

“In a sense, this whole discussion encapsulates the point I’m trying to make. This stuff is complex and sophisticated. If you want to argue against it, you’ve got to know about it.”

True in a sense. However, as you pointed out earlier on, much of Christian theology supposes the existence of God, rather than trying to prove it. In other words, the existence of God is taken as being an axiom, and much of theological doctrine derives from that. So, one only needs to show that this starting assumption is invalid, and the rest of theology crumbles like a house of cards.

So, it is not necessary for me to know every detail of every version of Christianity, and have read everything by every Christian theological scholar in order to say that I think the whole worldview to be fallacious.

Since much of it presupposes the existence of God, if I can show that this supposition is not a good one, then I do not need to address all of the derived premises and conclusions.

So, for me, that is the point on which to concentrate. I have analysed all of the well-known arguments for the existence of God, and have concluded that they are either logically incoherent, are contradicted by the evidence, or are not the most parsimonious explanation, nor the one with the greatest explanatory scope and power.

For example, if one person says that God has a long white beard, and somebody else says that He doesn’t, I don’t need to consider each of these arguments individually if I can show why I think that God does not exist at all.

The Christian moral framework, for example, presumes the existence of God (amongst other things). Once this existence is disputed, one has no need to follow such a system if one deems it to be cruel and misguided in many places, as I do.

“I’m afraid that doesn’t refute my argument at all Daryl. What I am saying is that the Christian God created human beings with the power to reason, and then provided insufficient evidence of His existence to convince Billions of them that He does exist.

Therefore, some will still believe in God’s existence and ministry regardless (i.e. the Christians that have faith), but all the rest will not. These ones who do not will not be saved.”

I’m aware of all this. I wasn’t attempting to refute your argument in the first place, but to suggest that as it stands it is flawed.
Speaking from the religious perspective I described, God’s giving us the capacity to reason, and God’s ‘failure’ to give us evidence of His existence is in no way an argument against His existence. God gave us the capacity to walk, but he didn’t give us the capacity to walk to heaven. Why? Because the issue is irrelevant. The point is that the capacity to reason is NOT the capacity that allows us into heaven AT ALL.

“Of course, faith would not be needed if there was evidence.”

This fails to appreciate that the important element here is not the evidence (and the knowledge behind it) but the faith itself. Faith would ALWAYS be needed, but with incontrovertible evidence, faith would be HARDER.

“However, I dispute your assertion that incontrovertible evidence of God’s existence would conceivably be detrimental to loving God. After all, I know that my wife exists, but that doesn’t reduce my love for her. Your argument is a non sequitur.”

It’s a weaker supposition, granted, but it’s not a non sequitur.. I assume your love for your wife is genuine, whereas if you were given incontrovertible evidence that God existed, and if you failed to love him, you’d go to hell, then I, personally, would question the sincerity of your devotion. More than that, I would question the sincerity of MY devotion.

“Why on Earth not? As, by not doing so, billions are condemned to not be saved.”
It was my suggestion that solid evidence would lead to a decrease in those elements that lead to people going to heaven; namely faith and love of God. To give solid evidence of His existence, which in turn leads to LESS people having faith and love of God, would be ‘irresponsible’. You can argue my initial suppositions, but given those suppositions, that conclusion is hardly contentious.

“What is so good about such ‘free will’ to disbelieve that its existence should be worth such eternal suffering?”
I’m sorry, I’m not sure I follow what you’re asking here. Are you asking what it is about ‘free will’ that makes its existence a greater good than the saving of billions of souls from hell? If so, then I’m sorry, but I don’t have the answer. But I suspect that you have nothing in the way of evidence to prove that the existence of free will is NOT more important, in which case the point is moot, no?
Similarly for your question “Why should belief in the absence of evidence be seen as being so important?” If God exists, that would be something you’d have to ask him. If He doesn’t, the question is empty. To put it another way, the fact that you don’t understand God’s motives isn’t evidence that He doesn’t exist. It shows only that EITHER God doesn’t exist, OR He does, but you don’t know what He’s thinking. Which ultimately leads us no further than we were before.
“Of course, the only reason that it is seen as being important is that the Christian God hypothesis is such a poor one.” Of course nothing. You’re begging the question.

“That has no relevence to my point. I’m not arguing that the general populace needs to given sophisticated arguments.”
I’m sorry, I thought that was what you were saying when you wrote:
“However, my argument implies that no such sophisticated argument should be needed, since many people would not be aware of, understand, or accept such an argument. ”

“Rather, that the fact sophisticated arguments are needed argues against the very concept of the Christian God.”

As I understood it, your reasoning behind this was that the Christian God should not, as you put it, be silent:
“Again, the Christian hypothesis predicts a god who is not silent. That is the only reason that sophisticated arguments are needed at all by theists to explain away the silence.”
But if the incontrovertible evidence was - as I’ve suggested - detrimental to the faith and love needed to reach heaven, then it is simply not true that the Christian hypothesis predicts a God who is not silent.

“I’m sorry if at any point I’ve come across as irritable, but my web browser ate my first version of this reply… ;) “

Is TGD intended to be a book about why there is no logical case for God anyway? I would have said (but perhaps I should re-read it) it is a book about why Dawkins himself is a 6 on his 1-7 scale, and why people at the other end of the scale shouldn’t be given a free pass not to have their views questioned and discussed, and some public policy points about children. It may be reasonable for those who disagree with him to say that they think that if he had read Duns Scotus or Swinburne he wouldn’t be a 6 anymore, but not so reasonable to say he should have written a different book.

Also, although some sophisticated theologians may believe in God because of sophisticated theology (although I doubt it, see below), and even some believers may believe because they are unreflectively following the authority of the sophisticated theologians, that still leaves an awful lot of people who believe in God but NOT because of sophisticated theology. So can Dawkins realy not say “well if you believe in God for any of these reasons, you’re wrong, and here’s why” (pointless thoughn the exercise may be).

Personally, I would say it is quite likely that Dawkins (the real one) is an atheist at least partly because there is an underlying genetic tendency to both attachment to rationality (particularly the inductive method) and attachment to supernatural explanations (”"spirituality”") and he is hi-rational and lo-spirituality (as am I). I recently tried to introduce the problem of induction to a thread full of scientists - an interesting experience.

“True in a sense. However ”

Just for the sake of balance, I agree with pretty much all that you say here. ;)

I mean, the whole post, not just the five words I quoted! :D

“Speaking from the religious perspective I described, God’s giving us the capacity to reason, and God’s ‘failure’ to give us evidence of His existence is in no way an argument against His existence.”

It is an argument against the Christian God, as commonly conceived. An omnibenevolent God would not organise things in such a way that billions of people would suffer an eternal damnation, if He could organise it otherwise. He can organise it otherwise since He is also omnipotent and omniscient. One of the things that He could have done otherwise is give good evidence of His existence.

In fact, an omnibenevolent God would not consign His own creations to eternal damnation for doing something that He must have known they would do anyway - being Omniscient and omnipotent too. Furthermore, such an entity would have no need for the material universe at all. Why are we not already in Heaven? He has no need to test us, since He already knows the outcome.

“Faith would ALWAYS be needed, but with incontrovertible evidence, faith would be HARDER”

Faith is only needed at all since the evidence is lacking. Explain to me why faith should be so important, and one’s entry to Heaven or Hell should depend upon it?

“It was my suggestion that solid evidence would lead to a decrease in those elements that lead to people going to heaven; namely faith and love of God. To give solid evidence of His existence, which in turn leads to LESS people having faith and love of God, would be ‘irresponsible’. You can argue my initial suppositions, but given those suppositions, that conclusion is hardly contentious.”

But, why would the Christian God organise things that way at all? You say that the important thing is to give little evidence so that people have the opportunity for faith, and it is this faith that will cause them to be saved. But, why should that be? Do you think that is the most loving, fairest, and best system that could ever be conceived of? It should be, since the Christian God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Do you think that the one most important thing for all humanity is to believe in the absence of evidence? Do you think that it is loving or fair to consign people to eternal damnation because they have too much reason, and too little faith (by refusing to believe in the absence of evidence)? Is that the way you think things should be organised by such a god?

“If so, then I’m sorry, but I don’t have the answer. But I suspect that you have nothing in the way of evidence to prove that the existence of free will is NOT more important, in which case the point is moot, no?”

The rest of you response seems to repeat that tired old canard about us not knowing God’s motives. Either God has the characteristics that Christians say that He has, or He doesn’t. It makes no sense to say that He has these characteristics (the 3 O’s), but that He acts in a mysterious way that seemingly contradicts these. If He is inscrutible, then we are not at liberty to assign any characteristics to him at all. If we choose to assign such characteristics, then he must by definition act according to these characteristics, and not be inscrutible. To argue otherwise is completely arbitrary.

I am not arguing that no god could exist. What I am saying is that the concept of an omnibenevolent Christian God is incompatible with a system in which millions of people are consigned to Hell for not having ‘faith’. If such a God exists, then by definition he is not omnibenevolent, or else can do nothing to change the system, in which case he is not omnipotent.

Furthermore, such a God would not allow so much suffering in the world through natural disasters. I can conceive of many gods that would allow such suffering, but they are by definition not omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. To play the mystery card is the last resort of the theist who has no more arguments left - ‘it’s all a mystery’. Any god who would allow these things to happen cannot BY DEFINITION satisfy the criteria for being the Christian God.

I would suggest that you read the article that I posted a link to earlier -

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

“But if the incontrovertible evidence was - as I’ve suggested - detrimental to the faith and love needed to reach heaven, then it is simply not true that the Christian hypothesis predicts a God who is not silent.”

Yes, it does I’m afraid. You have failed to understand what is implied by the Christian God hypothesis. One is quite entitled to say that god could arrange for the entry to Heaven to depend upon faith in the lack of evidence. That is coherent, and you rather labour this point.

However, the real point is that such a system cannot be consistent with the supposed omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience of the Christian God.

The only way out of that is to play the mystery card, as you do. However, it is incoherent to give god such characteristics, and then argue that his actions contradict these characteristics for mysterious reasons.

““Of course, the only reason that it is seen as being important is that the Christian God hypothesis is such a poor one.” Of course nothing. You’re begging the question.”

If you think I am begging the question, then you must think it a reasonable argument that God would create the universe in such a way that it gives all impressions of being purely natural, and would be largely silent and inert so as to give people little evidence of His existence, and therefore more opportunity for faith. However, such an argument is completely ad hoc, is not parsimonious, and is unfalsifiable. That is why I call it a poor hypothesis. So, I beg to differ with your conclusion that I am begging the question.

“I’m sorry, I thought that was what you were saying when you wrote:
“However, my argument implies that no such sophisticated argument should be needed, since many people would not be aware of, understand, or accept such an argument. ””

I’m afraid that you have misunderstood me completely on that point.

Yes, it does I’m afraid

Sorry Nick, but I think you’re miles away from demonstrating this. I promise I’ll try to find some time in the next couple of days to respond properly to this point!

In the meantime, carry on! :)

JS: Also, you’re way too kind to scientists. I’m no fan of Thomas Kuhn, but the idea that all that scientists do is dispassionately look at evidence, well - it’s just not true. Just look at the history of the wars over evolutionary theory.

When I said, “Conversely, when the debate is about the gathering and interpretation of scientific evidence, there may be disagreement over points of uncertainty, but at least there’s a level playing field,” I never meant to imply that those disagreements weren’t highly contentious, or that they were easily (or completely) resolved, just that the methods for resolving them were always naturalistic (the level playing field). No fair yelling “goddidit!” when the other guy goes off to gather more data.

A couple of quick examples of scientific disagreement:

Lynn Margulis recently started a “blog tour” at PZ Meyers’ Pharyngula. Her addition to the theory of evolution, symbiogenesis, caused her to be marginalized by the rest of the scientific community at first. Now it is accepted. Currently, she has been labeled an “HIV denialist” for her contention that HIV does not cause AIDS, and she has once again been marginalized (and taken to task in the comments on Pharyngula and other related blogs). Will her underdog ideas be accepted once again, or will she be lamentably labeled as “a scientist who once did great work” (as some have done on the blogs)? I don’t know.

On the presently less contentious side, geocentrists and flat earthers have been permanently marginalized (though they still exist, and even have web sites!). They still try to promote their disproved ideas, but gain traction, like Young Earth Creationists, only through religious backing.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/25/News/Flat_earth_society_s_.shtml

JS: But I hasten to add that I’m perfectly well aware that science is a different kind of thing to religious belief, faith, etc.

You also said something about more reason oriented theologians. Yes, they do exist, as well as a good number of people I’ve known whom I would call “thinking Christians.” Nice, non-fundamentalist (non-scary) folks. And there’s a point here regarding the various religious communities (with their uneven playing fields) vis a vis the scientific community: The flat earthers will never make a scientific comeback; evidence and logic forever prevent it. But no matter how reasonable Chistians (for instance) become, no matter how subtle and sophisticated their best theological arguements may be, those wrongheaded fundamentalists remain incredibly resistant to marginilization by others of their (basic) faith. How subtle and reasonable are the messages coming out of the Southern Baptist Convention or the autonomous megachurches? Not very.

What I’m trying to point out in the paragraph above is that confronting the best theological arguements out there is an intersting exercise for belivers and non-believers alike, but it often doesn’t really accomplish anything beyond comparitive metaphysics (if the participants are polite); those with the “strongest” faith (fundamentalists) can always pull the rug out from all other sides. Reason stands little chance against the bullwork of a simplistic, bruteforce theology that states “the Bible and the pastor are right, everyone and everything else is a tool of Satan.” Those types are cultish, glamorous, and, unfortunatley, quite popular with the people in the U.S. (including our government officials).

As for Dawkins, he stated at the beginning of TGD that he’s targeting fence-sitters with his conciousness raising effort. That’s all. Should he write a response to those sophisticated theological arguements, about which the vast majority of Christians are blissfully ignorant? Perhaps, just to be thorough. However, considering his stated aim, I think the investment of effort might be wasted due to vastly diminishing returns for the reasons stated above.

“Sorry Nick, but I think you’re miles away from demonstrating this.”

Perhaps. However, if you wish to, you may refute the following -

(A) Probably, if God were to exist, then there would not be many nonbelievers in the world.
(B) But there are many nonbelievers in the world.
(C) Therefore, probably God does not exist.

I think that if a loving God were to exist then he would not deprive us of the awareness of his existence. God could do much to prevent harm such as social conflict in the form of holy wars and religious persecution simply by revealing himself to humanity in a clear and unambiguous manner. That, then, is good reason to deny that an elusive or hidden deity might still love humanity greatly.

Another reason based on the assumption that God is omnibenevolent pertains to those religious doctrines that predict the damnation of all nonbelievers. It seems totally obvious that if God loves us and nonbelief would automatically get us damned, then God must want us to be believers rather than nonbelievers. There seems nothing clearer than that a God who loves us would provide us with a revelation of his existence if such revelation would keep us from being damned.

It should be noted here that the sort of divine revelation in question need not take the form of objective evidence. It could be brought about by private religious experiences provided by God to everyone on earth. If there is any defect in people here, it is a kind of ignorance, and the cure for such ignorance need not take the form of objective evidence. There are other ways by which God might make people aware of the truth, including even the possibility of direct implantation of the relevant beliefs. Thus, if God is perfectly loving, then he would want to eliminate humanity’s ignorance, but he need not accomplish that by providing good objective evidence.

Still further support for the premise appeals to the idea that God is a deity who desires something from humanity, which is an idea that is expressed in the Bible and widely accepted in Western religions. God is conceived of as wanting humanity to love him and to worship him. In the particular case of Christianity, it is said that God wants people to accept his son as their Lord and Savior. But all of this requires that people be believers, and so that is further reason to infer that God must want people to be believers rather than nonbelievers. Presumably if he were to exist, then he would have done something to prevent there from being as many nonbelievers in the world as there actually are.

You may have very good arguments against all of this. If so, I’d love to hear them.

Of course, there are well-worn rebuttals to this argument that are wheeled out by Christians, and I would expect you to produce some of those. However, I’ve heard it all before, so don’t feel that you need to bother. I could produce ‘proofs’ for God’s existence ad infinitum, and challenge people to show me why I am wrong. However, I don’t see the point, as they all have their corresponding rebuttals. For example:

For life as we know it to evolve, there must be an unlikely combination of just the right initial conditions and just the right values of a wide variety of physical constants (so-called anthropic coincidences). If any one of the values of several dozen physical constants weren’t “set” to a value extremely close to the actual value we find, then life would not be possible in our universe. The extreme unlikelihood of the universe forming with just the right conditions to allow life by chance strongly suggests that those conditions were actually set by God in order to produce life.

Please explain to me why that argument is wrong.

But, as I said many hours ago now, there is something interesting about my original argument though. The very fact that theists are forced to give sophisticated proofs for the existence of God lends further credence to my argument, since God has not given us clear evidence of his existence - which leads to more nonbelievers.

That doesn’t prove my argument of course, but it is an interesting point.

As you know, these arguments go backwards and forwards indefinitely, with each rebuttal requiring a re-think, followed by a refined argument. Ultimately, I think one has to make the most reasonable decision based upon the strength of the competing hypotheses available. And, in my view, the Christian God hypothesis is not the most parsimonious one, it does not have the greatest explanatory scope or power, and it does not have the best evidential fit. Therefore, I reject it.

That does not mean that I can disprove it, but once you leave the world of pure logic and mathematics, absolute proof is no longer possible. It is just not the most reasonable explanation of the data. Of course, it could still be true, but so could an infinity of other possibilities. To choose it purely because it can be made to fit the evidence by introducing ad hoc assumptions about God does not make sense, since one could do that with an infinity of other possible gods (or cartesian demons etc). That’s why we need to look at such things as parsimony, explanatory scope and power etc. in order to isolate the most promising hypotheses.

Jeremy,

It seems to me, given this, and one of the first items on this blog, that Dawkins really got under your skin. But I don’t think it could be said that he ignores the best *arguments* in the way that Dick Dawkins ignores the best *evidence* for evolution. Indeed, while Dawkins suggests that he doesn’t really need to respond to theologians any more than he needs to respond to fairy-ologiests, he does actually look with reasonable care at some of the arguments for the existence of God, as well as, more simplistically, perhaps, at a few theological points (such as the Christian doctrine of the atonement, for example, or the belief in the authority of scripture). So he hasn’t really ignored the reasoning of religious people. The question is how much weight, in a book of the sort he set out to produce, he needs to give to such arguments. Does he have to produce something as detailed as Martin’s book on Atheism? Or would something simpler do? Perhaps something along the lines of Flew’s classic God and Philosophy?

I’m not sure, without some clear indication of what you find missing in Richard Dawkins’ argument - by indicating where you feel he has been like Dick Dawkins, and has deliberately ignored the best that religion has to offer - what the problem is that you are addressing in your ‘though experiment.’ Regarding the thought experiment, I’m not sure I understand why you think this is a parallel (which it obviously is in your mind) to what Dawkins does in his book. After all, the anti-evolution argument doesn’t just ignore the best reasons, it ignores the evidence too. You may, quite justly, hold that scientists are not simply dispassionate observers, but the weight of evidence does tend to pile up, despite the faults and foibles of individual scientists. Do theological reasons pile up in the same way, and fill in the blanks in the crossword puzzle in the way that Susan Haack speaks of scientific processes of confirmation? There is no reason to think so. All you have to do is read some of the more liberal theologians (like Tillich, or like Richard Holloway today), and it is clear that the weight of theological reasoning does not at all operate in the way that the accumulation of evidence does in scientific contexts. So the question really is, how do we distinguish the best that theology has to offer? Why is Barth’s reasoning about the atonement better (in the way of reasoning) than, say, C.S. Lewis’s? I’ve read skedoodles of theology over the years, and, to tell the truth, it’s not at all clear to me that Calvin is more convincing than Hooker, or either of them more convincing than, say, Spinoza. Nor is it clear that reasons pile upon reasons to make a more and more convincing case in the way that evidence builds a better and better case for scientific theories.

Having just written a book about religious thinkers, clearly you have a bit of a bias towards - I’m not sure what you would want to call it, since you don’t think their reasons are good enough to support the existence of the being whose existence underwrites their undertaking - the discipline of religious or theological thinking, but I think you owe us more than just: Richard Dawkins is like Dick Dawkins in that he doesn’t think addressing himself to the best that religious thinkers have done is necessary to his task of defeating religious belief. I have some idea what it would mean to address myself to the best evidence available for evolution. I’m still not sure what it means to address myself to the best that religious thought has to offer. Nor, to be frank, does it seem to me that much philosophy of religion has concerned itself with this aspect of religion at all.

It’s true that Dawkins doesn’t answer point by point arguments like those of Plantinga. If he had, he’d have lost readership in a hurry! While I may think playing with Plantinga’s arguments is a lot of fun, I don’t think any of them particularly convincing, and some of his positions seem to me simply weird. I certainly don’t think Dawkins’ book would have been improved by working through some of the arcane logic of Platinga’s arguments.

As to theology, perhaps responding to Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo? might have added some historical depth to Dawkins’ discussion of the atonement, or perhaps he might have devled into some of the points raised in Rashdall’s Idea of the Atonement in Christian Theology, but would it have made a difference? These, no doubt, represent some of the best thinking on the atonement, but is Dawkins’ indictment less devastating because he doesn’t discuss them? I don’t think so. Of course, he might have dipped into Holloway’s Doubts and Loves, where he’d find a more figurative way of reading the atonement than even Rashdall manages, but would that really have done the trick? I don’t know, but I think you owe us an explanation of what you really do think is missing in Dawkins’ account, and why you think he is in any way similar to your Dick Dawkins.

Jeremy,

I take back what I said about you not needing to bother rebutting my argument. It is very easy to adopt a position of criticising other people’s arguments, without elucidating exactly why they are wrong. So, I would indeed like to hear your promised explanation.

I believe that you and Daryl fail to see why a silent God is a big problem for most interpretations of Christianity because you have failed to understand exactly why the argument is so powerful. Perhaps my distillation of it has been inadequate. In order to avoid this possibility, I will point you in the direction of a couple of original sources -

1) A more formal elucidation (ANB) -http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
2) An account aimed at the layperson -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html#silentgod

I will await with bated breath your explanation of exactly why these arguments are wrong.

Nick

It is quite reasonable for me to indicate that I don’t agree with you without there being a compulsion to show how your argument goes wrong (if it does). I have not engaged in an ad hominem. I haven’t suggested that my indicating that I don’t agree with you counts as an argument against you.

It just is the case that this stuff is very time-consuming, so…

I think there’s a whole problem here with comments on blogs. On the one hand, I think that I ought to reply to people who reply to stuff that I write. But, on the other hand, I don’t have time to engage in really long discussions. So… I’m kind of stuck.

It’s possible that I should just disable comments. But I’m disinclined to do this.

“It is quite reasonable for me to indicate that I don’t agree with you without there being a compulsion to show how your argument goes wrong (if it does).”

Quite true. However, I think that your stance of being rather dismissive of the Silent God argument, without actually explaining where is goes wrong (if it does) is a little disingenuous. If you are going to suggest that the argument is fallacious, then I think the onus is on you to show why.

After all, I might state that I have an unrebuttable argument that once and for all disproves the existence of God. However, I will decline to demonstrate my argument for the moment. The fact that I will not explain my argument does not prove that I have no such argument, as is the case with you and your argument. However, I feel that such a stance is nevertheless a little disingenuous, and not at all in keeping with the project of philosophical discussion.

However, I do agree that blog comments are not the place to engage in such detailed arguments. Therefore, if you ever do find the time, I would be happy to see a fuller treatment of your argument in any format - as a post on the blog, an article in the Philosophers’ magazine etc.

I shall not comment any further on this issue, as I think we have exhausted the topic.

Obviously this has all got a bit too involved since I last posted, but I’d just like to point out that your analogy is indeed question begging since, as other have pointed out above (e.g. Eric), your analogy assumes that sophisticated justifications for belief in God are more valid/convincing than less sophisticated ones - and let’s face it - that is exactly what Dawkins’s Fairy analogy denies. You claim that your example is neutral about the truth of evolutionary theory, but of course it isn’t, it gets its rhetorical force from our knowledge that natural selection is a powerful explanatory theory - if we were truly neutral we wouldn’t know whether or not this ‘natural selection’ of which you speak differed in any meaningful way from the Hoyle theory, and would thus not be particularly moved by your analogy. For instance, if you constructed a similar analogy based on astrology, would an appeal to some esoteric astrological justification strike your readers as any more worthy of consideration than the mainstream newspaper ones given the underlying flaws in the whole edifice?

Which is why I (and others e.g. Devin) want to know in what way these more sophisticated arguments differ from the less sophisticated ones to make them more convincing (i.e. answer the question I’m accusing you of begging, where is the theistic equivalent of natural selection?)

I’d like to apologise for dragging things off course somewhat yesterday. The point that I was trying to make was only ever intended as an aside to the main issue. The fact that Nick and I are in disagreement is clearly neither here nor there with regards to Jeremey’s original post.
I will just say that I had read the article, thank you, Nick, and my main reservation with both its claims and yours would be summarised by this quote from the conclusion:
“Christianity entails that God, like any other person, would say and do at least some things we would all see.”

It’s the phrase ‘like any other person’, that I distrust.
a) it suggests that God would be no different from that of a limitlessly knowing, kind, and powerful human being. Which may very well be true, but doesn’t strike me as something that can obviously be taken for granted. And
b)there is the suggestion (less in the quote above, but in the article as a whole) that a limitlessly kind, knowing, and powerful being would behave in exactly the same way as a human who was ‘only’ limitlessly powerful. Which again, I find suspect.

But as I say, all this is neither here nor there, and I’m going to take a step back now. Otherwise this thread may never end. ;) My apologies again.

“It’s the phrase ‘like any other person’, that I distrust.
a) it suggests that God would be no different from that of a limitlessly knowing, kind, and powerful human being. Which may very well be true, but doesn’t strike me as something that can obviously be taken for granted. And
b)there is the suggestion (less in the quote above, but in the article as a whole) that a limitlessly kind, knowing, and powerful being would behave in exactly the same way as a human who was ‘only’ limitlessly powerful. Which again, I find suspect.”

Daryl - did you also read the more formal version of the argument?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html

That’s a fair point. However, I think that the salient thing here is that Christians have anthropomorphized their God and His wishes and desires to a huge extent. They have imbued Him with all sorts of human characteristics and emotions (love, jealosy, anger etc.) Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable to analyse the God hypothesis on this basis.

Conversely, I think that it is not reasonable to attribute all sort of human characteristics to one’s God, but then to cry foul when the evidence is shown to be in disagreement with the predictions that such characteristics imply.

If the Christian God was a mysterious something that is inscrutible, then we would not be able to do such analysis. However, this is patently not the case, so I feel we are entitled to do the type of reasoning that Carrier does in his article.

Of course, one might still try to say that, even though God has these human characteristics, He acts in some way that is contrary to them, or in some mysterious way. However, I think that Carrier rebuts this point at length, so I won’t labour it here.

One could try to make a case that an infinitely good God might act in some way that seems to contradict what we understand by the concept of good. That is, there might be some explanation for why God’s actions are infinitely good but appear otherwise to us, so we don’t understand them. However, that really just conflates to the mystery argument, which is addressed by Carrier and Drange.

Also, it is not reasonable to say that God is omnibenevolent, but to then excuse the manifest examples of non-goodness on God’s part. In such a case, either omnibenevolence does not mean what it is usually is taken to mean, and so this is a case of equivocation. Or, if one is allowed to introduce ad hoc reasons why we can excuse God’s actions but still keep the omnibenevolence clause, then one could equally well do this for any other god (or any other hypothesis at all). This line of reasoning really gets us nowhere.

PM - It doesn’t assume that sophisticated theological stuff is more convincing than less sophisticated stuff. It simply assumes that more sophisticated stuff is harder to show to be wrong (if indeed it is wrong, which obviously I think it is, since I’m an atheist).

Nick - Well, much though it goes against the grain to engage in Christian apologetics, I’ll put together a blog post in the next couple of days, which deals with your argument.

Eric - Just for the record, Dawkins hasn’t got under my skin. To the extent that I have an intellectual hero, then it is him for his books The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. But I think there are genuine issues about his religion stuff (and also, incidentally, Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, which I thought was a terrible book).

And I have no bias towards religion thinking. I’m just interested in the history of ideas, that’s all.

“Nick - Well, much though it goes against the grain to engage in Christian apologetics, I’ll put together a blog post in the next couple of days, which deals with your argument.”

I will be genuinely interested to read it, as I would like to see how you would approach such an argument. By the way, as you identify yourself as an atheist, what is it that has convinced you that atheism should be your stance on this matter?

Well I’m atheist for a variety of reasons:

1. No evidence for God;

2. The kinds of conceptual difficulties that you’re flagging up in reconciling the various atttributes of God (i.e., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc);

3. The sophisticated justifications of religious belief don’t work (though they are sophisticated);

You know, the standard stuff. But I guess I just think it is a lot harder to show - you know, actually demonstrate in a way that makes belief in God irrational - that God doesn’t exist than some other atheists think.

But are you convinced that you are an atheist for wholly rational reasons, as opposed to not having an emotional inclination towards supernatural explanations i the first place? (see my comment miles up this thread, which seems to have got lost in the maelstroms of lengthy off-topic argument).

I loved Eric’s post above, so if you missed it, please go back and take a look.

In contrast to Jeremy, I also enjoyed Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, the central idea of which is that the truth claims and other features of religion can and should be subjected to science and not given a Mulligan on such issues as whether the church makes people more moral or better.

A nagging question for me throughout this conversation is why sophistication on the part of someone who doesn’t value the advancement of truth (because all the important stuff is in the Bible) should require a different approach. Aquinas was very sophisticated and unapologetic about using his Aristotelian analytics to justify and further the aims of the Inquisition. Calvin’s Institutes are not far off the Thomistic mark, and his followers have not surprisingly included many historic witch burners and current moral majority types (whether they have read him or just the Left Behind series). Before you say I am committing a fallacy in saying this, I would counter in advance that it may be so, but by their fruits we will judge them. Barth too was very sophisticated and didn’t think such sophistication counted for much. What mattered to him was whether or not the Gospels told the truth about Jesus’ place in history. He was first and foremost a pastor and preacher of the Word as he witnessed it, and not a rhetorician. On the whole, I would take Barth at his word and that would put him firmly in the camp of the fundamentalists. I don’t think he would want to be more respectable than they if it meant he had to abandon his beliefs.

It seems to me that reasonable dialogue is for reasonable people who are putting their cards on the table. I would not, for example, want to argue with Joe Stalin about whether his Socialism was scientific – he might have me shot. Likewise, I am more interested in helping other people not perish from the confrontation with religious fanatics than I am in arguing with either proto-literates or sophisticates over whether religion is irrational. Of course it is. An important question right now in the US is what philosophers can do to help the rest of us not have public policy dictated by people who want the apocalypse and think they will be leading the charge next to Jesus? This is pretty serious stuff.

Are there thinking Christians? Of course there are, though they seem to be a dying breed. It seems less urgent to argue with them than to deal with their more dangerous counterparts. I don’t feel the need to convince people who want to kill me because I don’t say their shibboleth correctly. They provide more than enough justification for self-defense, either public (including war) or private. However, scientific inquiry into the nature and effects of religion strikes me as both timely and necessary.

But I am also interested in Jeremy’s answer to PM’s post.

Also interested in the response to Nick.

Guys - Sorry, but I just can’t keep up with all this. I know that (some of) you think it a cop out, but I just have so many other commitments that it isn’t possible to answer every point (not least because I’m aware that every time I respond, it’s likely to generate responses and more comment).

I do, of course, read and appreciate all your comments, and I hope that I don’t appear rude if I don’t respond.

I’ve just done a word count on the comments. It’s at more than 14,000 words. Amazing!

Is it possible to enable the search feature on this Blog to help me find postings by name of poster? I was trying to find potentilla’s argument before and could only get there by scrolling. I would also like to be able to tag comments I find especially interesting. Can this be done?

Maybe you could prioritise your attention towards those of us who can compress what we want to say into (say) a maximum of three short parargraphs.

It’s normally considered poor blog ettiquette to make very long comments, especially when they are primarily addressed to another commenter and are not on the topic of the original post.

potentilla, does this answer my question?

Andrew, while this might not work on the whole blog, on each thread all you have to do is press control ‘f’ (in windows (or the equivalent on the Mac) and it will bring up a search dialogue. Type in the name, and hey presto!, you have the result. Click next, next, etc. to see other entries.

Thanks, Eric!

I’ll be brief this time.

1. The thought experiment doesn’t work. The reasons have been stated above. Jeremy has not answered his critics.
2. In answer to potentilla, posts & posters are interesting when they have something to say. Logic chopping is boring, short or long.
3. When asked if he could be more succinct, Einstein said he put things as simply as they could be put . . . and no more. I doubt that Einstein would be a blogger.

The thought experiment does work and I have answered my critics (well some of them, anyway - before it all became rather overwhelming).

There - how’s the for brief! :)

I think I get your argument Jeremy. The bottom line, as I see it is, that no matter what anyone says about a god
or gods, it is still only a belief. Perhaps Humans, as aware beings, have an awareness of a grander and/or transcendant essence…..but that would still be my own(or group) belief. Can one rationally prove or explain that belief. Perhaps in my mind I could. To others so inclined too. Does that make it a fact? Certainly not yet. The universe has very logical aspects to it. Our world is actually a swirling symphony of micro/macro electro-magnetic manifestions. Is this God? To Quantum Physicists all existence is analagous to a thought wave; flowing and manifesting. Sounds closer to a god like entity to me. Again, that would be my belief if I chose to accept the concept as rational. Even someone who claims to feel God when praying is still rationalizing his or her own belief. So I would conclude that as a presented argument , one cannot put forth a rational argument that there is a God(s). Whose concept of God(s) would take preference? Without irrationality seeping into it? As to your thought experiment, well I would say that one should try and hear as many angles (and/or read about them) as possible about any and all matters regarding these and other essential topics. If your character feels passionate about his ideas after disseminating this information he should feel free to express them and even argue for them. Rational or not…………..I think!?

Guys,why does the earth orbit the sun?Coz you can do the same in your heart,say it in your heart in an orbital path and you will see the ‘light’.In your heart guys and not in your mind and certainly not in reasoning.

Interesting as it is, much of the debate is based on athiestic points of view. It is largely presumed that a priori that religion is mistaken. I think that Jeremy’s point is correct - he is arguing simply that some facts are open to interpretations and intelligent people can interpret the facts in different ways.

His point is about belief systems. Dick Dawson listens to the ID arguments and believes that they hold water.

You can mock and insult and ridicule the belief’s and practices of the “fundie” religous - that is easy. However Richard Dawkins “who created the creator.” argument is over simplistic in his dismissal of God.

The Grand Unified theory is the “Holy Grail” of Richard Dawkins it is likely to remain forever elusive and in which case we are all thrown onto belief systems. Why do arguments persist - because the facts are not established to everyone’s satisfaction. Science will never have all the answers and as such “Godidit” arguments are no weaker than “well-I-don’t-know-what-did-it-but-I-know-it-wasn’t-god”

e.g. The fine tuned universe - God or the Multiverse - neither testable, besides if we pick multiverse then whence came the multiverse.

If anyone believes in evolution of intelligence - they must accept the strong possibility of the evolution of an (almost) godlike (small g) intelligence. Wow - if I could go back to 4 b.c. with an h-bomb, mobile phone - and masts. helicoptor, closed circuit TV, a couple vials of anthrax etc I could rain hell on them. We are pretty godlike already. Why is the existance of Superhuman intelligence irrational?

An articulate and well informed creationist debator will put forward RATIONAL arguments that will make it uncomfortable for an unprepared evolutionist.

One never knows what one is going to come across when one Googles the title of one’s recently-published book. As the actual author of “The Evolution Delusion”, I have to admit I never expected to be referred to as Dick Dawkins (Good grief…). Just one quick note: I don’t believe space aliens planted fossils in rock strata on planet Earth. They were pre-flood flora and fauna that were buried rapidly in the catastrophic Biblcal flood about 4300 years ago. That is why they are so well preserved, right down to soft tissue in dinosaur bones, which rules out the long geologic ages believed in by deluded evolutionists. Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution is the delusional paradigm of our time, just as the flat Earth theory was the delusional paradigm of an earlier time. Google my book title to find where to get it. As we say in Canada, enjoy! - Kenneth Lawrence

“They were pre-flood flora and fauna that were buried rapidly in the catastrophic Biblcal flood about 4300 years ago.”

Yeah, course they were…

I can’t believe you pinched my title! (Well actually I can.)

I don’t know anyone who’d willingly confess to writing a book as intellectually appalling as his is. Kenneth Lawrence must be incredibly brave — or ?

Hi Jeremy, honestly, I never came across your website until yesterday and had no knowlege of your article until then. I chose the title of my book from my own thoughts and on the basis of its content alone. As for the origin of fossils, I recommend you read my book and Google “In The Beginning” by Dr. Walt Brown. Thanks for posting my comments. - KL

Hi Norman, thanks for your kind comments and erudite review of my book (which I’m sure you’ve read, uh huh). It’s always good to get feedback. Best wishes and I look forward to your next review of my book after you have some knowlege of it contents. Of course, if you are a diehard evolutionist, I’m sure it will be the same review, but it will be fun to read it again. - KL