Defense of Hinman's Argument: Organizing Principles

Joe Hinman has posted a new article defending his "Transcendental Signifier Argument".  This is an argument for God that Joe has developed based on Jaques Derrida's philosophical concept of the "transcendent signified", and which I have criticized in a previous post of my own*.  In my review of Joe's argument, I pointed out that the argument is not logically valid, and that it is based on a gross misunderstanding of Derrida's philosophy.  I'm not going to rehash all that here.  But Joe has now provided more detail on what appears to be only the first two premises of his argument, and this alone is worthy of further discussion.  As I read through this article again, I realize that although he only discusses the first two premises, he actually is is defending the entire argument, because those two statements make his case in its entirety, and the rest are nothing more than intellectual fluffery.  I'll explain why.

Moral Conundrum

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert raises an interesting question about moral choices (here).  He describes a hypothetical situation where one is faced with a dilemma - to choose between allowing a man to be murdered, or stealing a million dollars to prevent the murder from happening. This is his post in its entirety (which contains a mistake that I have bracketed):

Here is an interesting ethical question. Suppose Smith knows for sure that if he steals $1.000,000, Jones will not murder Williams. But if he does not steal $1,000,000, then Jones will [not] murder Williams. If he steals, of course he's a thief, but if he doesn't steal, does that mean he's an accessory before the fact to murder? See what trouble you get into when you ask questions like this to a philosopher? - Reppert

It's interesting to Victor, presumably, because of the moral conundrum.  The unfortunate person presented with this choice has no way to escape the commission of a sin.  No matter what his choice is, he is doing something wrong in the eyes of God.  And you get yourself into trouble by asking a philosopher to pontificate on this question.  I think what Victor really means to say is that you get the philosopher into trouble by presenting a question he is not prepared to answer.

What Is Real Knowledge?

In my regular (though somewhat less frequent of late) perusal of internet blogs, I often find myself confronted with the smug attitudes of theists who not only think they have all the answers, but they know it with a level of certainty that gives them license (they suppose) to talk down to those who are skeptical of their "knowledge", and treat them with disdain, as if they are not only lacking in understanding, but willfully so, and thus deserving of incivility.  The expression of this attitude may be manifested as a stubborn refusal to give any consideration to what the skeptic has to say, or open hostility, including all the hatred and scorn that the theist wishes to heap upon the hapless skeptic.

This smug, cocksure attitude can be found in the Old Testament:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)

Poor Understanding, Bad Analogy

Joe Hinman has done it again.  Yet another example of his arrogant "We are better than you" attitude appears in his Christian Cadre blog under the title Christianity and falsifiability.  This article, at the outset, seems to promise an explanation of how Christianity is falsifiable, despite the fact that the existence of God may not be.  He says: "But even though God per se can't be falsified does that mean Christianity can't be falsified?"  But the article quickly retreats from that implied promise, abandoning any discussion of falsifiability as a legitimate epistemological tool, or how it can be applied to Christianity.  It focuses instead on phenomenology as justification for belief, and how it is superior to an empirical or scientific-based approach.  (Hint: by Joe's reckoning, if it doesn't give you the answer you want to hear, then it's the wrong approach.)

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 Falsification Challenge

The philosopher Antony Flew adopted the scientific falsification principle in thinking about religious belief.  That principle asserts that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be disprovable (or falsifiable), before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.  According to Flew, the same line of reasoning should apply to religious beliefs.  For any given statement of faith, one should not be expected to accept its truth unless that statement has a level of credence that is afforded by the ability to verify that it is consistent with observed reality.  Flew used a parable to illustrate his point:

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

Battling the Consensus

In my ongoing discussions with Tim O'Neill, I have observed that he adheres to historical consensus as if it were religious dogma, not to be questioned - ever.  Historical consensus is the bastion of Christians who insist that Jesus was a real person, and who want to tamp down any discussion that might suggest the possibility that they could be wrong.  Take, for example, this article by apologist Steven Bancarz: Did Jesus Exist? All Scholars Agree He “Certainly” Existed, which makes claims that are patently false.  In particular, the title of the article says that "all scholars agree", which is a lie.  (The article then goes on to denigrate and dismiss those scholars who don't agree.)  O'Neill isn't so brazen as to make this same claim, but he uses the same tactic in arguments supporting the consensus.  If you don't have a solid argument, you can always rely on ad  hominem as a tactic to win the battle, and this appears to be one of O'Neill's favorite tactics.