Transcendental Blunder

Metacrock (Joe Hinman) has outdone himself with yet another philosophical argument for God that defies logic and reason.  This is nothing new.  Some time ago, he presented his Argument From God Corrolate [sic], which is the essential reasoning behind his book The Trace of God.  I dissected that argument (here), and showed that its conclusion is based on logical fallacy.  But since it forms what is basically the thesis of his book, the fact of his core argument being logically invalid is something that Joe is unwilling to accept.  It would reveal the whole book - his magnum opus - to be built upon logical fallacy, and that's something that Joe could never accept.  Nor will he ever directly answer the criticisms I made of his argument.  He prefers instead to simply ignore those criticisms, lest he be placed in a position of having to choose between his life's work and the rules of logic.  He finds it more comfortable to keep his head buried in the sand.

The Circularity of Aquinas' Fifth Way

In a discussion with the Quantum Thomist, I made a statement to the effect that the Fifth Way of Aquinas exhibits circular reasoning.  The Fifth Way is one of Thomas Aquinas' five famous arguments for the existence of God.  It is also known as his Teleological Argument, or his Argument From Design.  It is based on the presumption of teleology in nature.  Of course, my claim that this argument is circular is something that Thomists don't like to hear.  Most dedicated Thomists are convinced beyond any doubt that the logic of Thomas Aquinas is beyond reproach.  The impeccable logic of Aquinas is the basis of their Thomistic philosophy and the foundation of their theistic belief.  How can someone like me (who isn't even formally educated in philosophy beyond Phil 101) take issue with such a master of logic and philosophical thought?  I will attempt to explain.

The Pursuit of Bullshit

I've been thinking about this for some time now.  I think it's time to take a break.  There's too much to do, and too little time to do it.  I spend quite a lot of my time with this blog, and now other projects are pushing their way to the front.  Whereas another writer might whip out a blog post in an hour, it takes me more time than that.   Thinking about what topic to choose, gathering information about it, formulating the outline of a discussion or argument, and writing it up - these things typically take the better part of a day for me.  And that is a serious disruption to my other pursuits, which end up being delayed or set aside.

On Bunny Rabbits and Reason

As part of his response to cosmological arguments for the existence of God, Philosopher JL Mackie posed a question for theists in his book The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God:

There is a priori no good reason why a sheer organisation of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a God with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable': How is the explanation that there is no explanation as to why an organisation of things exists any less logical than the existence of a deity? - Mackie

To which Victor Reppert makes this devastating comeback:

I usually reply to this with my bunny rabbit argument. Suppose you and I are eating lunch. You look away, and then, you notice a bunny rabbit is munching on your salad. You ask me how it got there, and I reply, that, funny thing, it just popped into existence without a cause. Would you take that seriously? - Reppert

The Fine Tuning Fallacy

Fine tuning arguments are ubiquitous among proponents of theistic belief.  They are the ultimate "God Did It" argument.  That is to say, they appeal to ignorance.  It boils down to this:  How did the state of affairs in which we find ourselves come to be?  I don't know.  Therefore God Did It.  Now, of course, theists will object to that statement of the problem.  It's based on probability, they will tell you.  It's based on the fact that the probability (of physical laws and constants being what they are) is so small that we almost certainly wouldn't have found ourselves in this state of affairs without divine intervention.  So divine intervention is the most likely case.  But I'm here to tell you that this theistic argument based on probability is bogus.  And I'll explain why.

The Conversion of Leah Libresco

I wrote an article some time ago about ex-atheist converts to Christianity.  The main point of that article was to note that by reading their own accounts of their conversion experience, it is usually possible to discern that they had non-rational reasons for making the conversion.  There are two key factors in these stories.  First, they had never completely abandoned the religious beliefs that they grew up with, but retained some core elements of it somewhere in their psyche (such as the feeling that there must be an over-arching reason for our existence, for example).  Second, these core elements of belief re-emerged when they encountered a period of stress or emotional need, and became the real impetus for their fully embracing religious belief once again, often accompanied by a sense of relief that they no longer had to pretend that they were atheists. 

Ten Tips For Atheists

Christian apologist John Dickson wrote an article some time ago with the purported object of promoting productive dialog between Christians and atheists.  It contains ten pieces of advice for the atheist to follow that he feels will advance this objective.  I applaud him for his effort, but I have to take issue with him on a number of points.  I'll address them one by one.  At the same time, I think there are a number of things that he (as well as other Christians who want to engage in robust debate with atheists or skeptics) might want to think about.

Hinman's "Argument From TS"

Joe Hinman has made a rather obscure theistic argument based on philosopher Jacques Derrida's metaphysical concepts of the "Transcendental Signifier" (TS) and "Transcendental Signified" (TSed).  It is worth noting that Joe actually rejects the philosophical position of Derrida, which is basically that the existence of any Transcendental Signified is a myth.  But he accepts Derrida's metaphysical concept of the TS and the TSed as being valid, and he believes Derrida is wrong in positing that it doesn't exist.  I must admit that I am not familiar with Derrida's work, but I'll try to explain it from Joe's perspective, and walk through his argument, step by step.  So without further ado, let me state Joe's argument here:

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).

Why Should an Atheist Convert?

Victor Reppert ridicules the idea that a "real atheist" would never convert to Christianity.  He links to an article by Matt Nelson called Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors, that gives various arguments for belief in God.  When I read it, my first thought was that these are typical arguments for God, but they are not reasons for an atheist to change his mind.  While they may be convincing to some people (including some who call themselves atheists), they certainly aren't convincing to me.  And I'm sure that plenty of atheists who have a similar way of thinking, especially those who have a scientifically-oriented perspective, would also find these arguments lacking.  So that raises the question in my mind:  What does it mean to be a "real atheist"?

Does Evil Disprove Atheism?

Frank Turek presents a response to the Problem of Evil that attempts to turn the issue around, and make it an argument against atheism rather than an argument against God.  As you know, the Problem of Evil (POE) argues that the existence of evil in our world is logically inconsistent with the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence that are usually attributed to God.  Therefore God (if he exists) cannot have all three of those attributes, given the existence of evil.  The POE does not prove the non-existence of God, but it does present a strong logical argument that God cannot be what most Christians claim he is.  Most atheists find this argument quite compelling.  Theists, on the other hand, tend to explain away evil as something that God has no control over, not because he isn't omnipotent, but for other reasons that typically involve the free will of man.  I don't think Plantinga or any other religious philosopher has made a rebuttal of the argument that truly addresses the issue in a satisfying way.  That's why it is generally considered to be one of the most formidable arguments against God.  And that's why some theists, like Turek, prefer to duck the problem altogether.

Theistic Arguments: Essentially Ordered Series

I have been in a revived discussion with Martin, The author of the Thomistic philosophy blog known as Rocket Philosophy.  The discussion first began three years ago on my post where I was talking about infinite series, and WL Craig's illogical "proof" that such a thing can't exist.  Theists make claims of that sort to bolster their theistic arguments, assuming that there must be a first cause or a first mover.  For the record, while I agree that there cannot be an infinite set of physical things within the confines of our finite universe, there is no reason in logic or mathematics that an infinite set of things cannot exist in principle, and Craig's argument (based on mathematical logic) is both naive and incorrect.  But the comments following my article eventually led to the topic of "Essentially Ordered Series", and Martin entered the fray, trying to explain to me what that is, and that I am exasperatingly stupid because I couldn't understand the concept.  Martin later made comments to that effect on his own blog, like this:

Another time I was trying to get skeppy, again, to just UNDERSTAND what is meant by "essentially ordered series" and he refuse to allow his brain to go that far. Carrying on and on about "science!!!!" and how "science!!!!" has refuted essentially ordered series. Here is that thread: http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2014/09/theistic-arguments-series-on.html - Martin

It is my contention that Martin is so stuck on his medieval Thomistic philosophy that he refuses to take, or even to attempt to understand, a view that is more consistent with modern science.  Anyway, I stayed out of the discussion at his blog until just recently, and neither of us has budged in our position.  In light of that, I thought it would be worthwhile to provide a more complete explanation of my own understanding of the concept of essentially ordered series, and why it is shown to be meaningless in the context of modern science.

It Follows That Atheism Is False

I came across this article by Richard Bushey, called If Atheism Is True, It Follows That Atheism Is False.  On the chance that it might be a worthwhile argument, I thought I'd see what Bushey has to say, because I continue to hold open the possibility that I will someday find the elusive theistic argument that is convincing to someone who is not already convinced.  I must admit, though, that my expectations are low.  The most sophisticated theistic arguments by highly educated philosophers may be logically valid, and certainly seem to be unassailable in the eyes of other theists, but still fall short of the mark in changing the mind of someone who isn't already a theist.  The main reason for this is that they all seem to depend on premises (whether stated explicitly, or simply assumed) that cannot be accepted by a non-believer.  To accept premises of this type would be tantamount to conceding that God exists before the argument is made.

The A Priori Gambit

     "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses" - Thomas Aquinas

This statement from Thomas Aquinas, known as the peripatetic axiom, expresses the basis of empiricism, and was adopted from Aristotle's teachings.  It became part of his Thomistic philosophy.  But Aquinas had a religious agenda.  He needed to justify his belief in something (namely God) that doesn't present itself to the senses.  So as he did with other parts of Aristotle's teachings, he modified it to fit his religious purpose.  Aquinas said that the intellect extends beyond what is evident to the senses, to reach a higher realm of understanding that is yet justified on the basis of perception.  His five ways are said to be a posteriori arguments for the existence of God because they are based on observation (as well as a system of metaphysics that assumes God from the outset).  So at least Aquinas pays lip service to the idea that knowledge of God is something that is derived from from the evidence of the senses.

Theistic Causation: Abbreviated Reasoning

Theists have a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) that explains why everything exists and how everything works at the most fundamental level:  "God did it."  That doesn't mean they completely reject science and scientific methods.  It just means that when they reach the limits of their understanding through scientific means, they resort to the GUT.  Think of it like the interaction between an inquisitive child and her parent.  The child asks "Why?".  The parent responds with a brief explanation.  Probing further, the child again asks why, and the conversation proceeds in this manner until the exasperated parent no longer has an explanation, at which point he responds with a simple "Because."  That really doesn't answer the question, but at least it provides a stopping point, at which the child understands that no further explanations will be forthcoming, even if she isn't happy with the answer she got.  Likewise, the theists will happily cite scientific explanations until the limit of their scientific understanding is reached (or until the scientific explanation disagrees with their theistic beliefs), and they finally respond with "God did it."  At this point, the search for answers comes to an end.  No further explanation can be expected, even though there may still be many questions.

The Proof Is In the Pudding

I have been arguing with Joe Hinman (again) over his "warrant for belief".  This is an issue that crops up over and over again in any discussion with Joe, whenever the topic turns to evidence, or reasons for belief.  Joe invariably cites his supposed "200 empirical studies" that he claims provide a scientific basis for his thesis that belief in God is empirically warranted.  And this is the thrust of his book, The Trace of God.  Ever the salesman for his book, Joe rarely misses an opportunity to drum up a few sales by bringing those 200 studies into the discussion, even when that was not the topic.  In the latest round of discussion, he makes this juvenile claim: "I have 200 studies and you have none." My response to that is that those 200 studies don't prove what Joe thinks they do.  But that brings up a whole new issue:  Is Joe actually trying to prove something with his empirical studies?  If so, what is it?

Problem of Evil - the Nuclear Option

This is a topic that I addressed some time ago.  The Problem of Evil, or POE, is basically that the ubiquity of evil in our world is incompatible with a God who has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence.  The typical response from theists is that God has some good reason for allowing evil, and even that evil is necessary to fulfill God's plan.  People are evil by nature, and they must be granted free will so that they can rise above it and earn their place in heaven.  Bad things happen to teach us valuable lessons so that we will be worthy to abide with God, etc.  There are a number of such explanations, and they are called theodicies.

Bad Argument: Physicalism Can't Be True

Victor Reppert has come up with an argument that supposedly proves his contention that mind must precede the physical.  According to him, this argument does not rest on any assumption of the primacy of mind, which is the metaphysical notion that mental phenomena, such as rational thought or morality, can't possibly arise from any purely physical source, and therefore mind must exist at the most fundamental level of reality.  In fact, most people who hold this belief are theists who think that physical reality itself is the product of a mind.  This stands in stark contrast to physicalism, which is the metaphysical notion that physical reality is all there is in our world, and therefore any mental phenomena that exist must be a product of that physical reality.  While Victor's argument assumes neither of these metaphysical positions, it still contains a serious logical fallacy  Here it is, in its entirety:

The Soteriological Drama

It is interesting to see the stories people make up about why their supposedly maximally good and loving God would allow so much evil, pain, and suffering in the world.  These stories, known as "theodicies", are an attempt to explain away our observations of the world in the face of apparently contradictory assumptions about the qualities of God.  Most of them try to make the case that it's all for our own good - that we need all these bad things in our lives in order to build or prove our character, so that God can know we are worthy of spending eternity basking in his presence.  But every theodicy I have ever heard sounds like a just-so story   It provides an unlikely explanation that might be fascinating to a child, but doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny, either from an evidential or logical perspective.

Reppert Still Denying Science

Victor Reppert has made yet another attempt on his blog to justify his thinking in support of his defense of the Argument From Reason (AFR).  It follows basically the same line of reasoning that he has used again and again, this time put into a fairly concise summary.  The thing is, his argument and particularly this line of reasoning has been rebutted, and a number of people have offered their sage advice to Victor: learn some science before you state what can or can't happen in a naturalistic world.  That advice has gone unheeded.

Argument From Desire - Wishful Thinking

Ed Feser has made an interesting post on what he calls the "argument from desire", in which he rightly notes that there are different forms of the argument, and they aren't all successful.  Basically, the argument from desire, as commonly expressed by unsophisticated theists is not so much an argument for the existence of God as it is a reason for believing.  It is the acknowledgment that the idea of life coming to an end without any eternal reward or compensation for the pain endured while living in the physical world is depressing.  But according to Feser, if a more sophisticated form of the argument (ie, Thomistic) is considered, it may well be worthwhile.