The PZ Myers Memorial Debate, Round One: And The Winner Is…
Posted in Logic, Philosophy, PZ Myers Memorial Debate, Science, Thinking Critically on | 22 minutes | 88 Comments →
You can download the four letters that comprise Round One as a single PDF file, here [131KB]. If you don’t want to download it, simply copy the URL and paste it into your address bar. Or go check it out at VoxWorld. Be forewarned: Dominic’s piece is a bit sloppy grammatically, making comprehension a challenging at times. Vox, on the other hand, is at least articulate enough that intelligibility is not an issue.
This debate concerns the evidence [E] and logic [L] for the existence or nonexistence of “gods,” which are unfortunately defined loosely as, “superhuman beings worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.” I’m disappointed that these guys didn’t nail down a specific God concept. By the current definition, ET’s, the traditional monotheist God and superintelligent AI are all fair game for “gods.” I consider it a waste of time to be discussing the mathematical probabilities for ET’s and other such distractions. Hell, why not Criss Angel? This debate should be about God, not some loosely-defined concept of “gods” that may or may not include Terminators and other carbon-based oddities produced by the very theory Vox dedicates so much energy to denigrating elsewhere. Oh well. I signed up for this sideshow, and I can’t back out of it now. For the record, I wrote this before reading the other judges’ pieces, or any of the commentary over at VoxWorld. I also rushed a little bit, but, real life takes priority.
Dominic argues that E/L ->no gods. Vox argues that E/L->gods. I’ll offer my summaries, followed by extended criticism. Bracketed strings indicated spelling corrections and paraphrases in the interest of brevity. By all means, please assume I’m a lying, deceitful snake, because if you don’t, you won’t fact-check to make sure I’ve accurately represented the arguments. Oh wait—that only applies to atheists! LOL!
Opening Argument Summary
It’s been said that a screenplay is underdeveloped if it cannot be distilled to a single sentence. I think the same is true of any good story or argument.
Hence, Dominic’s opening arguments can be summarized as, “E/L->no gods because a rogue study, deja vu and precognition provide sufficient grounds for rejecting the vast body of E/L suggesting that cause always precedes effect, and this undermines Prime Mover arguments, which I find too convenient and simple.”
Vox’s opening arguments can be summarized as, “E/L->gods because mathematical probability supports the notion, we have a plethora of E/L that no skeptic can summarily dismiss without committing egregious special pleading, and shadows require light.”
Extended Commentary: Dominic’s Opening Arguments
In the first half of his opening argument, Dominic expresses incredulity concerning the various “Prime Mover” arguments which he incorrectly lumps together as “all basically the same.” Seemingly sensing the strength of classic cosmological arguments, Dominic argues that, “the existence of the supernatural is necessary only by taking it as axiomatically true that cause [precedes] effect, and therefore space-time is causal and linear.” As Dominic himself concedes, “the majority of our experience confirms [that cause necessarily precedes effect] as self-evidently true, from daily living down to events only quantum physics can describe.” Given such a tacit concession, one would expect Dominic to give very strong reasons for overturning cross-disciplinary empirical consensus. He attempts to do so with a Matlockian appeal to four exhibits: Daryl Bem’s paper Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect, my post from 2009 titled A Precognitive Reality, the phenomenon of deja vu, and veridical dreaming. Dominic concludes, “Each exhibit presented here is [evidentiary] support to dissuade one from automatically accepting that either cause necessarily [precedes] effect or that time is linear in the strict sense, upon which the cosmological argument and the necessity of gods rests. Time is usually linear and cause almost always [precedes] effect, but not necessarily…”
LOL!
Dominic’s arguments fail for the following reasons:
1. In startling disrespect for scientific consensus and who-knows-how-many years of human observation, Dominic suggests that a rogue study, one which he admits lacks “rigorous replication,” is sufficient to overthrow the painstakingly-arrived-at conclusions of physics and everyday life. Big no-no. Even if it could be demonstrably proven that causality is not always linear, Dominic’s concession that causality is “almost always linear” is sufficient to leave the theist an out that is far more likely than not. After all, it only takes a single instance of linear causality to get a universe going, and if causality is “almost always” linear, then it’s “almost always” the case that any given causal sequence was linear. Promissory alinear causality is not sufficient grounds to doubt Prime Mover logic or the existence of the supernatural. Dominic would have to provide further argumentation demonstrating why this promissory alinear causality should trump Prime Mover logic, which seems to rest only the assumption that the initial causal sequence was linear [if anybody knows of Prime Mover logic which doesn’t require linear causality, speak up]. Dominic also seems to overlook the fact that a theist could use Bem’s paper in support of traditional theistic predestination and/or spiritual revelation. In short, Exhibit A is fraught with problems. Sans emendations, it deserves to be discarded.
2. That I had a precognitive experience amounts to little more than a hill of beans and doesn’t absolve Dominic’s argument of any of the problems mentioned above. Exhibit B is simply one of many anecdotes, none of which force the conclusion that time is not always linear. Exhibit B is also consistent with theistic predestination and/or spiritual revelation, and Dominic gives no reason to suppose that we ought to doubt linear causality on behalf of Exhibit B. To the round file it goes.
3. The most we can say with certainty is that deja vu is a subjective feeling of disorientation, hardly a phenomenon that favors alinear causality over, say, strictly materialist, spiritual or “parallel universe” conceptions of consciousness. Dominic asks, “If time was completely linear in all circumstances, then how is it that people can have two experiences of the same event bump into each other enough to disorient them?” Eh, I don’t know, but an unanswered question can hardly be sufficient to overthrow the painstakingly-arrived-at consensus of physics and everyday life. Pondering the plausibility of deja vu arising from purely materialistic means, Dominic digs his own grave: “While one explanation could be the processing delays in the brain that occur between a literal sensation and the [conscious] awareness of said event, such that at least two copies of the same sensory stimuli drift through the brain, this is, at best, idle speculation.” Unfortunately, the insinuation that deja vu *might* indicate alinear causality is also idle speculation. Six feet under, Exhibit C goes.
4. Exhibit D was basically a rehash of Exhibit B, and I grant Dominic that veridical dreaming and precognitive experiences have been provisionally demonstrated. Again, though, this bit of evidence simply isn’t strong enough to meet the objections raised in 1. Dominic needs to prove much more than “causality might not always be linear” to make his case.
In short, all four supporting arguments are laughable. Dominic begins the second half of his opening argument by alleging that, “…the cosmological argument itself is an attempt to eliminate the problem of inifinite regress that suffers from inifinite regress.” Since an eternally existent Prime Mover undeniably solves the problem of infinite regress, I was expecting something spectacular in support of this assertion. Dominic didn’t fail to disappoint. Here is his treatment of the issue, in full:
Now, rather than thinking I’m resorting to the “Then what created God? Ha, gotcha!” nonsense, it’s better to look at the original structure of the argument first put forth, since the summary version that most people are familiar with is vague enough to define God as an unstable particle. God is more than just a source of energy, since the observation is that everything that has a direction was pushed that way, yet an immediately observable exception to this is the phenomenon of conscious intent as a source of motion. A body, (literally, a human body) can be completely at rest, yet spurred to motion through conscious effort. This led to the concusion that God, being defined as the unmoved mover, is by necessity a conscious entity who chose to create the universe, since thought itself is the most readily observable phenomenon that bridges the gap between the purely abstract and the material. And the purest thought, then, would be thinking about thinking, the first act that led to the creation of the universe and needs no material source to give it a push. This, however, does not alleviate the problem of infinite regression that was sought to be solved, as it only addresses infinite regress of particle motion. This first thought, the one about thinking… Thinking about what, more thinking? Infinite regress. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
IMHO, Dominic failed to demonstrate that any given cosmological argument fails to solve the problem of infinite regress. His argument is not refined enough to sustain his claim. Aristotle stands.
Dominic’s closing assertion is simply that he finds the statement “truth is stranger than fiction” persuasive. Big whoop. Dominic then claims that he finds gods “too convenient” of an explanation, using geocentrism and quantum physics as examples of “simple explanation[s] that turned out to be quite wrong.” Again, big whoop. What about all the simple explanations that turned out to be quite right, for example the vast majority of murder convictions sustained by forensic evidence? Dominic gives no reliable criteria by which one might differentiate a true simple claim from a false simple claim. That Dominic finds gods “too convenient” is an indication only of Dominic’s subjective preference and has no bearing on the veracity of God or gods. Dominic’s approach also seems to disregard the general principle that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity. IOW, Ockham’s Razor actually favors the “simplest” explanation, provided that explanation can account for the pertinent evidence. I find it odd that Dominic would seemingly throw Ockham’s Razor to the wind, but, whatever.
Extended Commentary: Vox’s Opening Arguments
Vox begins by supplying clear definitions for the terms evidence and logic. He then alludes to “a vast quantity of extant documentary and testimonial evidence providing indications that gods exist,” while remaining honest enough to concede that “the quality of this evidence varies considerably.” Alluding to cases of confirmed fraud in published scientific papers as a corollary example, Vox argues that the skeptic cannot summarily dismiss the entire body of evidence: “…at least some science is not fraudulent. Therefore, if one is willing to accept the validity of published scientific papers that one has not been able to verify are not fraudulent, one must similarly accept the validity of documentary evidence for the existence of gods that one has not examined and determined to merit dismissal for one reason or another.” This strikes me as cogent and fair, and a great way to force accountability and consistency on the skeptic.
Vox makes quite a few claims without any citation to support them, but this is more a minor annoyance than a major problem. For example, Vox tells us, “Since eyewitness testimony has been variously determined to be somewhere between 12 percent and 50 percent inaccurate, this means that between 50 percent and 88 percent of the testimonial evidence for gods should be assumed accurate, at least concerning the correctly reported details of the divine encounter.” Of course, lack of citation aside, the underlying logic is airtight, and Vox is again fair enough to concede, “The correct interpretations of the specific details, of course, are a different matter.” So far, so good.
Shifting gears, Vox writes, “Science itself lends support to the idea of the material existence of gods in this universe when astronomical evidence taken into account. According to the latest scientific consensuses, the universe is 13.75 billion years old, the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and homo sapiens sapiens reached behavioral modernity 50,000 years ago. As there are a conservatively estimated 200 billion stars in the galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe, this indicates that there has been sufficient time for at least 7,891 billion alien races to appear, evolve, and reach a higher level of technological development than [man] given the current ratio of 1.18 planets discovered per star.” Unfortunately, we have no way to easily fact-check this, and Vox doesn’t supply any calculations. For all we know he might be pulling this out of his ass. Further, it seems odd for Vox to appeal to evolutionary probability here, as the string “sufficient time” clearly suggests. Again: are we counting “advanced, evolved beings” as gods? Is a highly revered, weather-controlling computer a “god” in this discussion? As I said in my opening paragraph, I’m not interested in debating the existence ET’s and Terminators. I think it is fair to assume the average person doesn’t mean “advanced, evolved beings” when they say “God” or “gods,” although, to his credit, Vox makes a distinction between “Creator Gods” and “gods” during his argument from moral evil. So, on we go.
Turning to the concept of moral evil, Vox writes, “I am not aware of a single individual who has denied ever experiencing any direct contact with evil. And by evil, I do not mean mere bad fortune, physical pain, or the application of the various principles of physics to suboptimal human action, but rather those self-aware, purposeful, and malicious forces which intend material harm and suffering to others and are capable of inflicting it.” Pure bluster. I know countless individuals who firmly deny that self-aware, evil forces exist. While I agree with Vox that “human evil is partly endogenous,” it’s a Saltarellian leap to go from there to God or gods. After all, many people disbelieve in “self-aware forces of evil,” most notably those people who believe “evil” is just a handy euphemism for desire-thwarting human behaviors like stealing, lying, murder, etc. Not a chance, Vox, not a chance. Your argument from moral evil requires emendations. Burn the dross and resubmit.
Still belaboring the point, Vox’s closing paragraph begins, “As a shadow requires the presence of a source of light in order to exist, evil requires the presence of a source of good.” LOL! Spare me. This is just fancy poetic metaphor designed to objectify what may in fact be purely subjective phenomena. It might be appropriate in one of Vox’s “cheesy sci-fi novels” [PZ’s words, not mine], but it is entirely inappropriate in an ostensibly serious debate. He needs to flesh this out quite a bit if he’s trying to make the WLC-esque claim that objective good exists, ergo one or more Creator Gods.
Extended Commentary: Dominic’s Response
The first half of Dominic’s response to Vox could be summarized as, “gods don’t exist, ET’s almost certainly do.” Disappointed? So was I.
In response to Vox’s “plethora of evidence” claim, Dominic rightly concedes that, “…no amount of handwaving theorizing that so many people throughout history have been merely dishonest, crazy, delusional, or suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy can stand up against the sheer volume of accounts made, so dismissal simply is not an option.” Damn straight, and I’m impressed Dominic didn’t take the denialist path there. He continues, “There is no denying that there is something, possibly of a distinctly external nature, imposing itself on people throughout history causing them to report visitations from gods, angels, demons.” Whoopee! Something, possibly of a distinctly external nature, probably exists!
Wisely, Dominic concedes Vox’s plethora of evidence and spends his next few paragraphs giving us a brief history of alleged extraterrestrial visitations, reminding us that some people see greys, others angels, others demons, etc. So, Dominic clearly accepts that “something is happening,” he just denies that it has anything to do with God or gods [then again, aren’t superhuman entities that can control nature “gods” by definition?]. After a bit of what basically amounts to mumbling, Dominic realizes, “Somehow, I doubt that proving other people exist, though, is the purpose of this discussion.” Exactly what I was thinking. This debate was supposed to be about God or gods, not ET’s, yet both Vox and Dominic spend at least a paragraph talking about ET’s. Oh well. Too bad we didn’t nail down a definition of “gods” or “God” like I suggested in the beginning.
Realizing the futility of arguing over ET’s, Dominic thankfully returns to the central issue, i.e., God. He then turns to Vox’s argument for moral evil, and, astonishingly for an atheist, he agrees with Vox on the existence of “objective” evil, but I think that’s only because Dominic uses objective unconventionally. He writes, “I believe we can all be in agreement that objective evil, as defined as a self-aware, purposeful, and malicious force which intends material harm and suffering to others and is capable of inflicting it, is quite real.” Really? On what grounds? I believe these forces exist, but that’s because I accept the existence of the traditional malevolent deities, i.e., Satan, demons and their offspring. What sort of “self-aware evil force” can an atheist possibly assent to?
Dominic then disagrees with Vox’s claim I dismissed as fanciful poetic metaphor, writing, “Objectively real evil is something we intuitively recognize by its qualities, and I don’t see how any of the qualities that defines evil requires a source of goodness to either enable or define it.” My thoughts exactly. As I said, Vox fails in his attempt to objectify what may in fact be purely subjective phenomena [human intuitions about “good” and “evil”]. Further, if Dominic is going to concede the existence of “self-aware forces of evil,” then, unless he means to imply that they are ET’s or Terminators, hasn’t he just conceded the existence of something like demons ala traditional Christian theology?
This is just a minor point, but Dominic writes, “Evil is always unpleasant for someone, that’s what makes it objective, but leaping to the conclusion that it couldn’t exist without the objective and definitive Good strikes me as awfully non-sequiteur, knocking the base out of the argument that our ability to recognize evil necessitates the existence of a custodian of the Good.” Mostly yes, partly no. Mostly yes, because the fact that we all dislike being stolen from doesn’t necessarily lead to God or gods, and this is an appropriate response to Vox’s argument. Partly no, because feelings of unpleasantry are always subjective in that they ultimately supervene on the mind of the subject [note that this does not negate the “mostly yes” logic]. Dominic seems to misunderstand the elementary difference between subjective and objective, as further evidenced by: “We all eat roughly the same things due to the fact we all need the same kinds of dietary input to survive due to the similiarity of our bodies (which is also why its safe so say we all see colors in roughly the same way, philosophers and their ‘what if my blue is your red?’ be damned). Sugar is sweet, 50 degree Farenheit water is cold, and someone who steals from someone else for purely personal gain is evil. The first two are readily accepted facts across the board (thus objective, the only thing subjective is “how sweet” or “how cold”) as being a consequence of our common biology, yet the third gets a free pass as a universal law that we know though our moral intuition, that would hold true even without us around. This makes no sense.” Indeed, Dominic, it doesn’t. Ever heard of Daltonism or any of the many other sense “disorders” in the literature? Farts don’t smell “bad” for everyone. Grass isn’t “green” for everyone. Mass murder isn’t “evil” for everyone. So I’m not sure what that latter bit was meant to accomplish, but it doesn’t matter because Vox didn’t make a strong enough case anyways.
Lest I be dismissed as too flippant, I agree with the meat of his claim. Dominic writes, “I’m not saying that our common biology is the definitive answer as to why we all perceive and recognize flavor, temperature, and evil, but it is just as good an explanation, if not better, than jumping to the conclusion that our recognition of evil is a window into some absolute moral law, much less saying that the very act of recognizing it requires some corresponding Goodness.” With the aforementioned minor reservations aside, I agree. Vox failed to make his case that “self-aware forces” of evil exist, much less that their existence proves the necessity of “self-aware forces” of good. Dominic concludes, “the existence of objective evil is not itself a definitive proof of a lawgiver, it could just as easily be a secondary consequence of our biological reliance on vitamin C or something equally unexpected.” Well-stated, Saltarelli. I concur.
Extended Commentary: Vox’s Response
In response to Dominic’s thoughts on cause and effect, Vox writes, “the assertion that the existence of the supernatural depends upon the axiom that cause precedes effect or that space-time is causal and linear is both incorrect and unsupported.” Yes and no. Yes, because the inference Dominic draws from the assertion remains vulnerable to the problems outlined in 1. No, because the Prime Mover arguments Dominic alludes to have typically been advanced using linear causality. So, Dominic correctly asserted that the traditional Prime Mover arguments require linear causality. There may be Prime Mover logic compatible with alinear causality, but that doesn’t seem to be what Dominic was talking about. Vox is also correct in another sense: although traditional Prime Mover logic seems to require linear causality, this does not necessarily hold for all things “supernatural” [whatever the hell that means, nobody explains]. Vox is justified in dismissing Dominic’s arguments in this regard.
WRT Dominic’s four exhibits, Vox continues, “although I find them intriguing, I have nothing to say here about the existence or non-existence of precognition, mystery butter, deja vu, or dreaming the future, because none of them are relevant to this debate given the nonexistent logical link between those four things and the existence of gods.” Well, not so fast. Dominic’s claim is that these phenomena justify doubt regarding the proposition, “cause and effect is always linear.” So, there is a link, but the connection just isn’t strong enough for all the reasons I described in 1.
Regarding Dominic’s persuasion by the axiom “truth is stranger than fiction,” Vox writes, “Nevertheless, convenience is not a serious argument against existence. 7-11 indubitably exists. Starbucks seemingly exists on every corner. Few things could possibly be considered more convenient than Internet porn, which is available 24-7 around the entire planet, and yet it too can be confirmed to exist.” Vox conveniently equivocates over Dominic’s intended usage of the word convenient. This is not the type of “convenience” Dominic is talking about, but this, too, is only a minor annoyance. Vox is correct to mention that Ockham’s Razor is “a useful rule of thumb and parsimony is usually considered to be a scientific positive when the relative likelihood of two competing theories is being compared.” Dominic failed to mention this. Vox writes, “While I can hardly question what is or is not obvious to Dominic, I can certainly point out that obviousness to Dominic is not [an] objective metric that is relevant in any way to anyone else.” Exactly. That Dominic finds gods “too convenient” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans logically.
Reiterating his previous appeal to possibility, Vox writes, “With the continued advance of technology and the concomitant changes in [man’s] future understanding of the universe that will come from that advance, it is entirely possible that a belief in the material limits of the universe which rejects the supernatural may well one day look as ignorant and crazy as a belief in Newtonian physics which rejects quantum physics.” Well sure, but you need something more than “X is entirely possible and may one day be discovered” to make your case. After all, the same could be said of unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, interstellar teapots and all the other silly objects proffered by flippant atheists. Plausibility is certainly an important fact to point out, but ultimately worthless in forcing a positive conclusion for gods. Luckily for Vox, the “plethora of evidence” stands in his favor.
In Conclusion
Overlooking his neglect for citations, Vox’s arguments respected scientific methodology, consistency and consensus, whereas Dominic’s arguments showed flagrant disregard for the same. I’m not being harsh, but Dominic didn’t make a single forceful argument for the non-existence of gods. On the other hand, Vox’s argument from mathematical probability established plausibility, but that isn’t sufficient to force the conclusion that gods exist. Vox’s argument from moral evil wasn’t sufficiently developed to be relevant. The clincher? Dominic conceded the forcefulness of Vox’s “plethora of evidence” argument, which clearly tips the scale in Vox’s favor, but it gets worse for Dominic: Vox’s “plethora of evidence” is also consistent with Dominic’s “alien hypothesis,” and aliens are acceptable given the definition of “gods” we’ve been supplied. So, unexpectedly, both Vox and Dominic seem to have agreed that E/L->gods! Since Dominic was supposed to argue that E/L->no gods, it seems he didn’t make his case and actually conceded Vox’s. Since our loosely-defined concept of “gods” allows for any superhuman being worshipped as able to control nature, I don’t see how Dominic could successfully argue that E/L->no gods, unless of course he attributes Vox’s “plethora of evidence” to an uncannily teleological “Northern lights” -type phenomena. Or mass delusion, but both these guys are levels above John Loftus.
I reluctantly declare Vox Day the winner of round one, but not by much. In fact, it’s almost by default.
Addendum
As this debate proceeds, I’d like to see a narrower focus on the traditional God concept. The definition of “gods” as any “superhuman being worshipped as able to control nature” is simply too wide a goalpost, one that diminishes this debate’s relevance to traditional (a)theist dialog.
Heuristics
says...” [if anybody knows of Prime Mover logic which doesn’t require linear causality, speak up]”
Throughout history prime mover arguments have often been about logical/ontological priority, not linear causality.
Prime mover arguments existed before we had evidence of background radiation in space and the red-shift of the wavelength of starlight that reaches us. That is, before we suspected that the universe had a beginning we still had prime mover arguments.
Aristotle did not believe that the universe had a temporal beginning, instead he thought the universe had a creator but was temporally beginningless (eternal in the past). Aquinas was not sure but operated under the Aristotelian framework (because if it can be shown that the universe was created even though it had no beginning it would be a very conclusive argument indeed). It was among christians thought that if the universe had a temporal beginning then the game was already won, no argument needed, it was just too good to be true (which is where we find ourselves today).
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
“Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all.”
Chris
says...On cause/effect linearity.
Wasn’t Theilard de Chardin (hopefully spelt correctly) arguing for God coming into existance at the end of time and making the universe then? Still a cause and effect but not linear and not circular because no repetition.
Some physicist also argued for something similar in a book some years ago.
wrf3
says...“Be forewarned: Dominic’s piece is a bit sloppy grammatically, making comprehension a challenging at times.”
Was this intentional?
In any case, Dominic’s “rogue study” has company, see Back From the Future. However, Chris’ comment (#2) would then apply.
Dominic is on the right track, however. Perhaps nature doesn’t abhor a vacuum, but our minds do. In the presence of overwhelming uncertainty, we make up stories to make the universe fit the way we conceive it to be. Whether God started everything, or is finishing everything (or both), it’s what some of us tell ourselves based on our common experience. As Dominic pointed out, our common experience doesn’t match the quantum world and we have no reason to believe it matches the universe, either.
You’re right that Vox won this round of the debate, but only because “gods” could refer to aliens. But this means winning this part of the debate is not unlike winning the special olympics. Other than that, Vox presented nothing new.
Dominic is on the right track that the source of morality is biological, but he isn’t quite to the point of crushing Vox’s argument. And it needs to be crushed. That’s one of the bad arguments that theists have been able to make for far too long (and I’m a theist).
Robert
says...Chris:
“Still a cause and effect but not linear and not circular because no repetition.
Some physicist also argued for something similar in a book some years ago.”
I believe you’d be referring to Frank Tipler, the Physics of Christianity. And yes, he posits that the Prime Mover could be in what we call the future and that the “end point” of this universe affects the present, if I understood him correctly.
Also, regrding precognition and related phenomena, consider the possibility that they’re probablistic happenings; that is, humans experience x-thousand mental events daily, through what I would contend is a stochastic process (we can debate that later).
Some will correspond to future events and presto! we experience precognition. Admittedly, the more detailed and lengthy the event, the less likely it would seem to be. The butter-shaving event was reportedly almost exact over a period of seconds, and myriad details. On the other hand, in a universe where a very large number of “events” (however defined) take place each second, events of a very low probability are not only possible, but inevitable.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...It’s all irrelevant anyways. Arguing against a Creator God was a huge mistake on my part. Vox specified from the get go that the debate was about “gods”, not “God”, and he’s specified just what he means by “gods” on his blog in the past.
As such, most of what I said, being not germane , is just going to get dropped. I want a debate that actually goes somewhere, something with substance. Consider causality and any references to “God” fat that’s getting trimmed.
Crude
says...Frank Tipler and David Deutsch both made arguments for the Omega Point, though I believe theirs was distinct from Teilhard’s. Deustch and Tipler also disagreed about whether or not the Omega Point qualified as God or not.
By the current definition, ET’s, the traditional monotheist God and superintelligent AI are all fair game for “gods.”
&
I think it is fair to assume the average person doesn’t mean “advanced, evolved beings” when they say “God” or “gods,” although, to his credit, Vox makes a distinction between “Creator Gods” and “gods” during his argument from moral evil. So, on we go.
I actually (no surprise, I guess) thought this was the most fascinating part of the debate. That ‘current definition’ is the definition typically in play anyway – the God of Christianity is constantly compared to Zeus, Thor, etc with next to no one batting an eye on the atheist side of the equation. And once you admit that Zeus and company are gods – pretty hard not to do, without either some fancy footwork and some severe intellectual consequences – I think it makes a valid point about atheism.
I want to stress – I’m a Catholic, so I can agree with a certain amount of cl’s disinterest in these other, lesser gods. At the same time, I’ve long been interested in faiths other than my own, and I don’t consider Christianity to have an utter lock on evidence – likewise, I recognize that an atheist is not supposed to merely reject the Christian God, but God and gods and goddesses, period, across the board. So I think the direction Vox was going here was not only entirely fair and worthwhile, but sorely needed.
joseph
says...“the most we can say with certainty is that deja vu is a subjective feeling of disorientation, hardly a phenomenon that favors alinear causality over, say, strictly materialist, spiritual or “parallel universe” conceptions of consciousness”
@CL
I agree, with this (and the large majority of this post), but isn’t this something that you argue against elsewhere? I.e. that if supernaturalism were true, but we interpreted it via physicalism, we’d end up wrongly ruling out supernatural explanations from the outset?
Matt DeStefano
says...“I believe we can all be in agreement that objective evil, as defined as a self-aware, purposeful, and malicious force which intends material harm and suffering to others and is capable of inflicting it, is quite real.”
What the hell is a “self-aware, purposeful force”? Vox is running circles around this poor guy.
joseph
says...Well we fought in a “War on Terror”, so abstract nouns have become more physical lately
Dominic Saltarelli
says...ok…
I made it pretty clear in my response. It’s people.
Matt DeStefano
says...People are forces now? Haha… oh boy.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Oh god, now you’re making *me* do it…. go go gadget copy paste.
force [fawrs, fohrs]
noun
1.
physical power or strength possessed by a living being: He used all his force in opening the window.
2.
strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person.
3.
strength; energy; power; intensity: a personality of great force.
4.
power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
Something that’s self aware, acts with purpose, and moves things. That’s called a ‘person’.
Matt DeStefano
says...Both forces and people move things… sure… but in a philosophical debate, these are a world apart. If you are advocating that evil is instantiated in the world through people, then say people, rather than “self-aware forces”, which could include, as cl pointed out, Terminators, ETs, or demons.
Then again, earlier in the debate you refer to “something external [in nature]” which causes people to see these things. *facepalm*
I’ve already wasted too much time reading this nonsense. PZ would have wiped the floor with Vox, I’m just upset Vox picked such an unworthy successor.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...And Terminators, ETs, and demons also happen to not be “children who lie”, which is the example Vox himself used to establish the context of what he was talking about when defining evil as a self aware force.
And children are people too, just little ones.
And yes, you are wasting your time reading the debate because you don’t understand any of it.
This is, verbatim, Vox’s own words when defining evil.
Vox said, “people have evil in them, that’s how we know its real”, to whit I responded “yeah, no shit, people can be dicks sometimes”.
People sit down, too. That’s objectively real. I’ll say it again, sitting down is objectively real.
objective [uhb-jek-tiv]
noun
-of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
But that doesn’t necessitate a God of Standing Upright any more than evil mandates a Creator God of Goodness.
Matt DeStefano
says...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory#Basic_concepts
Vox’s example is a member of the set “self-aware forces”, but his example doesn’t exclude ETs, Terminators, and demons from that set. Instead of defining terms explicitly, you sloppily agreed to a claim which most people would balk at.
Also… now you’re just committed to saying “being a dick” is an objective property of a person. That is, it exists apart from an observer. Good luck with that one.
cl
says...Dominic,
Surely you don’t mean to imply Vox was talking about people, too? If he was, that makes his argument so incredibly pathetic that I might even just drop out of this debate as a judge, much to the delight of all the little Voxsuckers who salivate over the guy at his blog. Let’s read Vox’s words in full context:
Vox begins citing “contact with God,” which is undeniably “contacting a spiritual entity.” Vox then contrasts that with “direct contact with evil,” which any reasonable person would take in the same context as “contact with God” was intended. Therefore, I took Vox as talking about “non-God spiritual entities” of some sort, which worked on the child “from within” their heart / mind / soul etc. [hence the “endogenous” part], as opposed to lying being purely learned.
If he was mapping “self-aware forces” to “people” then… he’s way worse at this stuff than I thought. I mean, then his argument reduces to, “Mean people exist, their mean-ness comes at least partly from within, ergo an external good, ergo God and/or gods.” That’s laughable.
Matt,
You can get off his nuts already. I don’t particularly care for either of them as far as debaters / writers are concerned, but I can tell you that PZ would not have “wiped the floor” with anything but his own teeth. Not the Vox’s is much better, but he is way more articulate and way more versatile in terms of general intelligence and knowledge is concerned. PZ’s “logic” is atrocious and his vision about myopic as a pinhole. He might have put on a better show, i.e. louder insults and a more belligerent commetariat, but let’s be real here. There’s a reason scientists denigrate philosophy. IME, most of them are horrible at it. The only area in which PZ and Vox are matched is the sorryness of the average sycophant at their blogs.
Why do you think it would need to? I ask in earnest.
I agree these guys were each sloppy in their own way — Dominic in general, and Vox WRT neglecting the distinction between ET’s and “gods.” Like I said, it’s as if “objective” really means “subjective” in Dominic’s world. Hell, in both their worlds.
Matt DeStefano
says...CL,
They certainly both attract the foaming-at-the-mouth type of atheist/theist.
Don’t confuse my assessment of PZ-Vox debate as a ringing endorsement of PZ, but rather truly realizing how much poetic sophistry goes into most of Vox’s diatribes. I respect PZ as a scientist, and I think he may be better at logic than warranting the title “atrocious”, but I’m certainly not ‘on his nuts”.
Aren’t all of your questions asked in earnest, cl? :)
I think you are asking “Why would it [Vox’s set] need to exclude ETs, terminators, and demons?”
I don’t have evidence for those things existing, and if I were Dominic, I’d be pressing the case to define what exactly “self-aware forces” are, and what an instantiation of evil might look like. I think it’s bad form, when arguing against someone who posits the existence of demons, to grant them such nebulous language as “forces”.
cl
says...Matt,
I know, that’s what I was getting at.
Denial.
No. I use rhetorical questions when I think it’s appropriate.
I agree with you about the “bad form” bit. We both agree they were sloppy. However, as far as “evidence” goes, here you are all but proving how much you’re on PZ’s nuts. And Loftus’. After all, you’re arguing just like them: pure denial, pure delusion. Evidence for these things existing abounds. If only you could pull your head out of the sand and open your eyes.
Stop being such a denialist. You’re better than them.
Chris
says...Robert,
Yes, it was Tipler I was thinking of, thank you
On precognition and similar events, I suspect you are correct as to their cause, dreams can come true.
Crude,
I had forgotten about David Deutsch. Yes Tipler’s and Deutsch’s Omega points are different from Teilhard’s. Their Omega points didn’t seem to have a choice in creating the universe.
———————–
It would have been more interesting if it was limited to creator Gods (Gods who create the universe from nothing, rather than just very powerful beings).
Odin’s grandfather, Buri, didn’t create the universe (he was licked from the ice by the cow Audmula). Zeus didn’t create the universe, neither did the gods of Japan (they formed it from existing material/chaos) nor China nor the Aztecs. For those reasons I would not include them along with ETs.
————————–
On the PZ comments; Vox isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and neither is PZ. Having read both occasionally I suspect that PZ would be likely to lose an argument/debate with Vox, be interesting to have such a match up, especially if it was a written debate.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...If Vox was making the argument that “self-aware forces” are self-evidently evil spirits, then I could have snipped his head off right away with his use of circular logic: “gods are real because gods are real.”
However, I know Vox better than that, and atrociously obvious logical flaws are not his MO.
cl
says...Yet, if he was talking about people, then his moral argument reduces to, “Mean people exist, their mean-ness comes at least partly from within, ergo an external good, ergo God and/or gods.” That strikes me as an atrociously obvious logical flaw. How about you?
Dominic Saltarelli
says...I said it was absurd in my response. Problem is, all he did was introduce the well known “laws -> lawgiver” argument without any elaboration whatsoever.
He presented a canned argument and I retorted with the canned response.
If that portion of debate could be compared to writing a novel, all Vox did was give us the title.
Crude
says...Chris,
I had forgotten about David Deutsch. Yes Tipler’s and Deutsch’s Omega points are different from Teilhard’s. Their Omega points didn’t seem to have a choice in creating the universe.
That actually depends on what you mean, I suppose. The Omega Point itself was, if I recall correctly, creating infinite numbers of universes via simulation. I never understood what explanation Tipler and Deutsch had for the origin of the universe itself, or of the origin of laws, etc. Maybe they didn’t have one.
It would have been more interesting if it was limited to creator Gods (Gods who create the universe from nothing, rather than just very powerful beings).
Odin’s grandfather, Buri, didn’t create the universe (he was licked from the ice by the cow Audmula). Zeus didn’t create the universe, neither did the gods of Japan (they formed it from existing material/chaos) nor China nor the Aztecs. For those reasons I would not include them along with ETs.
I’m the odd man out on this one around here, but I’m with Vox. Gods are gods, and atheists themselves routinely make comparisons to Zeus, Thor, etc as not only what they do not believe in, but what is ridiculous to believe in. It’s entirely fair game to bring them up, and doing so brings up a whole host of points and ideas that aren’t explored nearly as much as they should be.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...The logical flaw I identified was “non sequitur”. Which means he still has room to provide the missing middle, and that is what we’re all awaiting with bated breath.
cl
says...Dominic,
Isn’t that an atrociously obvious logical flaw?
Crude,
You’re not the odd man out. I agree with you here. My gripe is with “Terminators” and “ET’s,” not the Pantheon.
Crude
says...cl,
You’re not the odd man out. I agree with you here. My gripe is with “Terminators” and “ET’s,” not the Pantheon.
One problem is that Zeus, when you get right down to it, was pretty much an ET anyway. So were many, even most, of those other deities. Once it’s granted that a non-eternal, non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, “physical” being can qualify as a god such that a believer in such a being is a theist, not an atheist, you open a serious can of worms. I don’t think that gets appreciated, so I have to commend Vox for apparently going down that route intentionally. It’s a great point, and one no one is making.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...It’s a logical flaw until you provide the middle to fill the gap. I’m giving Vox the benefit of the doubt. Circular logic, on the other hand, there is no recovering from.
cl
says...Crude,
I beg to differ. You and I have already had this discussion on two different threads, here. Here’s the thing: even the stubbornest atheist is almost required to grant the plausibility and/or outright existence of ET’s. Right? Right. Per the same logic Vox threw out in his argument from mathematical probability. Okay, let’s run with that. The only can of worms we open is another definitional mess, and another wall for atheists to hide behind: “Oh, I believe in ET’s, I just don’t believe in God.”
Dominic,
Fair enough. “Logical flaws” are his MO, not necessarily “atrocious” ones. Although, that whole “lying snake” thing was pretty atrocious in my opinion. Oh wait! That’s because I’m not smart enough to understand it duh!
Dominic Saltarelli
says...That thread was epic.
It was just surprising to see you of all people get flustered and apparently angry. I’m used to cl being the guy who gets everyone else worked up into a frothing rage and walks away from the encounter as calm as when it started and smelling like roses.
Crude
says...cl,
I beg to differ. You and I have already had this discussion on two different threads, here. Here’s the thing: even the stubbornest atheist is almost required to grant the plausibility and/or outright existence of ET’s. Right? Right.
I remember bringing this up in the past, but I actually don’t recall you and I getting into it very deeply. Pardon if I’ve missed something there. When I say it’s a point no one is making, I mean in a popular sense. I certainly have banged on that particular drum here, but otherwise it’s off the radar as a topic in popular discourse.
In principle, an atheist can deny the existence of ETs. Maybe even the plausibility. “Life is a monumental freak accident that may have only happened once ever.” Or “Intelligent life is a monumental freak accident that may have only happened once ever.” Really, you see echoes of this in the recent past. Look up the entry for Jacques Monod on the wikipedia and you get this:
“He was also a proponent of the view that life on earth arose by freak chemical accident and was unlikely to be duplicated even in the vast universe. “Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance,” he wrote in 1971. He used this bleak assessment as a springboard to argue for atheism and the absurdity and pointlessness of existence. Monod believed we are merely chemical extras in a majestic but impersonal cosmic drama—an irrelevant, unintended sideshow.”
So, life only sprung up once in the universe? Clearly no God exists. Life sprung up repeatedly throughout the universe? Clearly no God exists.
Now if you mean nowadays and in a practical/popular sense most atheists accept the plausibility and existence of ETs, I agree. But I think that comes with a cost that isn’t appreciated – and it’s worth noting that it’s actually a fairly sizable shift in perspective.
Per the same logic Vox threw out in his argument from mathematical probability. Okay, let’s run with that. The only can of worms we open is another definitional mess, and another wall for atheists to hide behind: “Oh, I believe in ET’s, I just don’t believe in God.”
I’m of the mind that ‘definitional messes’ are unavoidable no matter which way you go. Some clarity can be had, but really, you’re going to get it no matter what. I think that one of the biggest problems in these discussions is pretending that the definitions are all clear-cut and obvious when they really aren’t.
And keep in mind the scope of ETs here. A Bostrom style simulator of our universe is an ET. A John Gribbin style creator of universes specifically to propagate life is an ET. A Zeus style being, creating life on a single planet is an ET. I think that, clearly, these ETs would have been called gods in any other age.
Put another way: I don’t care if a self-described atheist tells me “Yes, well, I don’t define those things to be gods. Therefore I don’t believe in gods.” I care about whether the label reasonably fits regardless of what he describes himself as. Just as I don’t care if an atheist describes himself as a devotee of reason and science – I’m more interested in what the evaluation of that atheist’s stances really adds up to.
cl
says...Crude,
That’s what I think Vox is up against. Even if he makes the case for ET’s, the atheist can just say “So what?”
Dominic,
That’s exactly what happened. Did you think I was angry? I was mocking them and laughing to myself that whole time! What made you think I was flustered? As opposed to, say, those hags who’s names will not be mentioned? Or, any of Vox’s sycophants who got sent running for cover?? Do tell.
Crude
says...cl,
That’s what I think Vox is up against. Even if he makes the case for ET’s, the atheist can just say “So what?”
I’m not sure what you’re saying with this reply. If Vox or anyone else can make the case for ETs, and make a case for those ETs being gods in a very reasonable sense of the term, that’s pretty significant. Sure, an atheist can dig in their heels and define away all their problems. Just like PZ Myers can dig in his heels and say that no evidence for God is possible even in principle. But I don’t think it’s a very effective reply.
Robert
says...This has been a pretty fun show, but it could have been better if the definitions of “gods” had been clear and identical for both parties. Maybe a do-over is in order.
At any rate, I will argue that God the Father and ETs are categorically equivalent for the purposes of this discussion. Both are “theories,” as Feyman said of the electron, have been “seen” or “remembered” by more that one person, and there is no widely accepted, incontrovertible physical evidence for either.
Vox’s argument from probability seems to me to work for either–quite different from ontological arguments for God, where the necessity of the Creator could be a pillar of the argument, and ETs and irrelevant side issue.
cl
says...Does Vox have a post where he clearly explains his own views on evolution, as opposed to railing against anyone and everyone who endorses views on evolution?
Crude,
That’s where we differ: I think it’s pretty insignificant, at least in terms of the “traditional” debate over God. In fact, it might be a significant move strengthening the “traditional” atheist position. For, now they can say, “See? There are no spirit beings, no Creator… just a bunch of ‘material’ alien beings springing forth from chance. Jesus was one of them…” Of course, this could be flipped on the atheist, too. The veracity of the Bible doesn’t go out the window if Jesus was an ET. If an atheist were to concede Vox’s line of argument, they might have to take the Bible more seriously than they would if they didn’t. Meaning, Vox could say, “You concede the plausibility of these beings, therefore you cannot dismiss the Bible out of hand.” Or, I could see it now: “You’re a theist, too… I just believe in one more God than you.”
Robert,
I don’t really see it that way. Any “probability of life arising” only makes sense once a physical universe is already under way. To speak of “probability” of a Creator God arising seems nonsensical, for, such a God allegedly created the universe in which the “probability of life arising” resides.
Crude
says...cl,
That’s where we differ: I think it’s pretty insignificant, at least in terms of the “traditional” debate over God. In fact, it might be a significant move strengthening the “traditional” atheist position. For, now they can say, “See? There are no spirit beings, no Creator… just a bunch of ‘material’ alien beings springing forth from chance. Jesus was one of them…”
How is that the “traditional” atheist position? Maybe it’s a prospective atheist position, but by then atheism has gone through an incredible transformation. (I mean, it already has, really. I think the atheism of today would be stunning to an atheist from Bertrand Russell’s time, to say nothing of earlier. They wouldn’t recognize it, other than the distaste of Christianity specifically.)
Don’t get me wrong. I think that clearly, if Christ was resurrected by way of mind-boggling technology, we’re pretty far afield from traditional Christian theism. But I think any atheist attempting to make the sort of move you describe here may as well be saying, “Alright, God/gods exist, but…” At which point the most reasonable reply would be, ‘Don’t bother finishing. Atheism is done. Some form of theism is true. I don’t care how esoteric it is.’
Of course, this could be flipped on the atheist, too. The veracity of the Bible doesn’t go out the window if Jesus was an ET. If an atheist were to concede Vox’s line of argument, they might have to take the Bible more seriously than they would if they didn’t. Meaning, Vox could say, “You concede the plausibility of these beings, therefore you cannot dismiss the Bible out of hand.” Or, I could see it now: “You’re a theist, too… I just believe in one more God than you.”
I think this may be another way we’re different, at least in terms of how we’re viewing the hypothetical conversation. I’m not really approaching this question in terms of ‘How to get an atheist to come around to Christianity.’ I’m pointing out what I think is a deep underlying problem with the assumptions and definitions that go into these debates.
I’m in much agreement on this one, though. At the very least, it shakes up the debate in a major way, and I think in a positive way. If nothing else, it adds a real interesting facet to the debate.
Robert
says...cl–“To speak of “probability” of a Creator God arising seems nonsensical, for, such a God allegedly created the universe in which the “probability of life arising” resides.”
But Vox was merely trying to “to make the case that the weight of the available evidence and logic is more supportive of the existence of gods than of their nonexistence.” Again, we got caught up in the defintion(s) of god(s) but let’s discuss only the Creator. I claim He’s in the category “theory,” like Feyman’s electron. We can, theoretically, use both reason and observation to state that the existence of the electron or Creator is “extremely likely” because every other explanation is so “unlikely.” So we concede an “uncertainty principle” while acknowledging that the reality is either 1, or 0. That is, in my view, the difference from the Argument from Necessity of whatever form.
Thinking Emotions
says...The reason atheists would grant the existence of aliens and terminators and not God’s is because of their physical/natural/material nature, no? At least, that’s how I would apprehend the phrase, “I believe in aliens, but not God.” The two may have similar capabilities, but their essence or makeup is just inherently different; metaphysically, there’s no comparing them.
So no, I don’t think it’s inconsistent or problematic to say, “I grant the existence of aliens but not the existence of God.” Why would it be?
At this point in my perusal of philosophy and science, I do agree that there is most likely something out there, but I’ll be damned if I know what it is yet, what it’s doing, how it relates to us, etc.
Anyway, this debate would interest me a lot more if the definitions weren’t completely retarded. I don’t know why they aren’t more confined in the sense of “the God everyone is referring to when referring to the existence of God,” as opposed to, “any strange, powerful being that is very likely to exist but we have no unequivocal, empirical evidence for, OR any strange, powerful being we could create.” Seriously… I understand the desire for precision, but this really just distorts the debate, IMO. Not that I’m alleging it’s unbalanced — I don’t think it is.
Crude
says...The reason atheists would grant the existence of aliens and terminators and not God’s is because of their physical/natural/material nature, no? At least, that’s how I would apprehend the phrase, “I believe in aliens, but not God.” The two may have similar capabilities, but their essence or makeup is just inherently different; metaphysically, there’s no comparing them.
Except gods don’t need to be “non-physical / non-natural”. Putting aside how radically “material” and “physical” and even “natural” have changed over the ages (to the point where I think they don’t have much meaning to them anymore), Zeus was clearly physical in some sense. He had a body and everything.
Again, go to examples like Bostrom and the simulation hypothesis, John Gribbin’s aliens making universes a la Starmaker. Bostrom concedes that whether such ETs would be Gods is an open question (I don’t think that’s true. Clearly they would be by far and away most historical examples.)
Likewise, the mormons are materialists – God’s matter is just kind of ‘special’. Are they atheists now?
I don’t know why they aren’t more confined in the sense of “the God everyone is referring to when referring to the existence of God,”
The “God everyone is referring to” is directly comparable to Zeus and company according to many atheists. And theists often argue that the sort of God atheists target tends to be a caricature rather than an accurate representation of the God they’re speaking of. Look at the whole “sky daddy” thing – God as some powerful being living in the sky, embodied and everything. Why, he even has a beard.
Thinking Emotions
says...Crude,
Sure… you’re just forgetting one minor technicality: he wasn’t actually a god. He was worshiped as one, but he does not meet the criteria for one in this debate.
I’ll totally concede that material/physical/natural have changed drastically over the years, but obviously they still retain some of their meaning since there’s no way to judge the incorporeal without the corporeal. The meanings of those words have little to do with the stuff they comprise. A rock is material, a ghost is spiritual. If existence isn’t bound by the material, then clearly there’s both matter and spirit. Even if my logic isn’t proper there, I think there’s better evidence for both than for only one. I don’t know how anyone would make a convincing case for there only existing spirit.
Again, the ET’s metaphysical nature is different. Any ET could have created the “Starmaker,” and the particular ETs that actually did were contingent beings. What or who was their source? And then we’re right back to square one. Can you see why this definition is irrelevant, misleading, and all around junk?
No, just fools. To say that some matter is merely matter but other matter is special is an extraordinary example of ad hoc reasoning — no need to bring up property dualism or emergent materialism by the way. If there was special matter that always existed, then the universe could have started from that special matter and we would never argue about God/gods.
I don’t think the God everyone refers to is comparable to Zeus in the slightest, which is why I don’t use that phrase or its despicable brother: if God is a valid idea, the flying spaghetti monster is too! Those responses are painfully stupid.
Crude
says...Sure… you’re just forgetting one minor technicality: he wasn’t actually a god. He was worshiped as one, but he does not meet the criteria for one in this debate.
Sure he was a god, and in the context of this debate he certainly seems to qualify. I don’t see anyone else disputing that. If anything the dispute is whether the context was wisely chosen.
I’ll totally concede that material/physical/natural have changed drastically over the years, but obviously they still retain some of their meaning since there’s no way to judge the incorporeal without the corporeal. The meanings of those words have little to do with the stuff they comprise. A rock is material, a ghost is spiritual.
I disagree on both counts. It’s “obvious” so long as we just go by common, unreflective renderings. Once we actually try to define it – especially in light of the revisions to material and physical – it’s not nearly so easy.
I don’t know how anyone would make a convincing case for there only existing spirit.
Berkeleyan idealism maybe?
Again, the ET’s metaphysical nature is different. Any ET could have created the “Starmaker,” and the particular ETs that actually did were contingent beings. What or who was their source? And then we’re right back to square one. Can you see why this definition is irrelevant, misleading, and all around junk?
Who was their source? Who cares? It was chaos. It was another being, unto infinity. It’s unknown.
We’re not “Back to square one”. Contingent beings can be gods and goddesses. You can believe in nothing but ‘contingent beings’ and still be a theist.
No, just fools. To say that some matter is merely matter but other matter is special is an extraordinary example of ad hoc reasoning — no need to bring up property dualism or emergent materialism by the way. If there was special matter that always existed, then the universe could have started from that special matter and we would never argue about God/gods.
Sure we could, because “matter always existed” does not rule out “God/gods have always existed” or “gods began to exist”.
I’m not the one who conceived of Zeus, or who treated them as gods, and their believers as theism. That’s a view with a long pedigree and – more to the point – one maintained by far and away most atheists to this day. And it has some repercussions for these discussions.
I don’t think the God everyone refers to is comparable to Zeus in the slightest, which is why I don’t use that phrase or its despicable brother: if God is a valid idea, the flying spaghetti monster is too! Those responses are painfully stupid.
I think there is a dramatic, vast gulf between the God of classical theism and Zeus. Clearly. At the same time, Zeus is a god. Just about everyone, particularly atheists, recognize Zeus as a god.
Here’s another way of putting my position: Not only is the comparison between the God of classical theism and Zeus wrong, but the arguments against the Zeus-like are pretty damn weak too.
cl
says...Robert,
He did. Could be a springboard to argue that evidence and logic are more supportive of the existence God. That’s what I was alluding to when I mentioned “laying the groundwork” elsewhere. We’ll see where it goes.
Crude,
I just don’t think that’s what would happen. I think they’d pull the same move people pull with materialism / physicalism. They’ll say, “Oh, that’s not a god,” in the same way it was, “Oh, that’s not physical.” Don’t’cha think? In fact, as I read Thinking Emotions’ first comment in this thread, that’s exactly what I see happening. In the same way materialism is never falsified in the materialist’s mind, atheism wouldn’t be falsified in the atheist’s mind.
Crude
says...cl,
I just don’t think that’s what would happen. I think they’d pull the same move people pull with materialism / physicalism. They’ll say, “Oh, that’s not a god,” in the same way it was, “Oh, that’s not physical.” Don’t’cha think? In fact, as I read Thinking Emotions’ first comment in this thread, that’s exactly what I see happening. In the same way materialism is never falsified in the materialist’s mind, atheism wouldn’t be falsified in the atheist’s mind.
I have no doubt many gnu-style atheists would. Possibly most. Hell, probably most. I’m well aware of what sort of hoops can be jumped through – it’s the PZ Myers situation redux.
But like I said, I’m not all that interested in trying to convince that sort of atheist. I think trying to come up with an approach or hypothetical evidence that would convince someone with that mentality is a waste of time.
So I agree with you about ‘what the (determined, resolute) atheist would say’. It’s just a non-issue for me.
Chris
says...Crude,
If I recall correctly (can’t check as I’m a lomg ay away from my library), the Omega points simulations/recreation of people was Tipler’s version of heaven/hell/rebirth. Tipler’s Omega point ended up creating the universe by default as the universe was required for it to come about, future cause of past event. But until I can check my library (in November hopefully) that is based on my memory.
My reason for wishing to exclude the in-universe gods is similar to your reason to want to include them. Having read your comments, I agree that it would cause some issues for certain atheists who rabbit on about Thor and Zeus.
From my perspective, those physical/contingent gods being of the material universe or close by universes shouldn’t affect a wholly materialistic viewpoint, so we would see sensible atheists having to build their arguments against anything being non-material (I’m including matter, energy, dark matter and dark energy under the term material) and that might be interesting.
joseph
says...@crude,
Briefly;
“Zeus was clearly physical in some sense. He had a body and everything”
Do you think there was any chance Yahweh was originally thought of as having a physical form? Including the option that such a means of interpreting God would have been easier on early Jews writing Genesis etc.
Why are you worried about physicalism? If you are right and there is no boundary between natural and supernatural, and God/Angels, Demons can be tested, and empirical data gathered, then physicalism is merely another path to understanding God.
Crude
says...Chris,
Tipler’s Omega point ended up creating the universe by default as the universe was required for it to come about, future cause of past event. But until I can check my library (in November hopefully) that is based on my memory.
Well, it’s Deutsch’s OP too I suppose (if I recall right, Deutsch was onboard with almost everything about the OP except calling it God?) Also, Tipler’s OP didn’t create just one universe. It created every universe – infinite universes, I think. All possible simulations, simulated. I think it was an open question then whether the OP was already achieved and we are in it.
From my perspective, those physical/contingent gods being of the material universe or close by universes shouldn’t affect a wholly materialistic viewpoint, so we would see sensible atheists having to build their arguments against anything being non-material (I’m including matter, energy, dark matter and dark energy under the term material) and that might be interesting.
Right, but my problem with this is that arguments ‘against anything being non-material’ is tremendously inconclusive. I’d assume mormon apologetics engage in similar, and part of the point I’m going for with this is not only that deities don’t need to be immaterial, but that a number of “ETs” and creations under discussion now would have clearly been viewed as deities in any other time. They are not the God of classical theism – they’re ridiculously far away from it – but gods are gods.
That’s putting aside the problems with the whole ‘material meaning these current definitions’ thing.
Joseph,
Do you think there was any chance Yahweh was originally thought of as having a physical form? Including the option that such a means of interpreting God would have been easier on early Jews writing Genesis etc.
‘Originally thought’? By who? In the space of wild logical possibility, sure. Just go to the mormons and (if I remember correctly) the JWs if you want examples of God with a ‘physical form’ nowadays.
Why are you worried about physicalism?
Worried? I hardly brought it up here. And my ‘worry’ in previous conversations mostly extended to pointing out the definitional funny-ness going on with it on multiple levels.
If you are right and there is no boundary between natural and supernatural, and God/Angels, Demons can be tested, and empirical data gathered, then physicalism is merely another path to understanding God.
That’s not only nowhere close to what I said previously, it’s pretty much the dead opposite. You seem to think that if something is natural – hell, if the distinction between the natural and supernatural cannot be sharply drawn – then this means “then it’s subject to empirical test!”/”everything can be tested empirically!” I’ve not only never said that, I’ve pointed out how problematic it is to take that tack.
joseph
says...@Crude,
Thanks, meant by the original writers. No, JWs think the bible is metaphorical when talking about physical attributes, but no worries.
As for using “worried” I apologise for misrepresenting you, thankyou for correcting me.
I seem to have trouble following you on this subject, I can’t believe how wrong I was.
joseph
says...So the supernatural would be like the axioms of mathematics, or the mind in classical dualism?
Sort of untouchable?
Crude
says...So the supernatural would be like the axioms of mathematics, or the mind in classical dualism?
Sort of untouchable?
Zeus was touchable. Thor was touchable. So they weren’t supernatural?
And axioms of mathematics are supernatural? So mathematics is the study of the supernatural now? What makes the mind in any dualism “supernatural” as opposed to natural?
You’re trying to get me to define supernatural, when what I’m contending is that ‘natural’ has changed so much (and apparently, so has ‘supernatural’) that these words hardly have any meaning to them anymore. They function less as descriptions of classes of things, more as shorthand for what some individual personally believes in, or doesn’t believe in, or thinks is ridiculous or reasonable.
joseph
says...“Like” in the context of not open to investigation by Scientific Methodology.
Correct, Thor and Zeus were touchable and Supernatural.
Not trying for a definition, gave up, too hard, but provoking new thoughts, just to get a feel whether you think they are open to investigation, or not.
Thinking Emotions
says...Crude,
Maybe in a mythological sense. Aren’t we trying to deal with reality here? I don’t deny the possibility of gods given the criteria of the debate, but you would have to demonstrate one existing. The logical possibility of something is not equivalent to its actual existence.
I was just trying to avoid another “Materialism is a Misnomer” round two. Anyway, I would never be content to accept only incorporeal; I’ll leave it at that for now. Also, Berkeley was an empiricist — how does that work? So basically, to be is to be perceived. It’s interesting. I’d have to look over it more to think whether or not it would satisfy my current qualms. Thanks for sharing, though!
I do think contingent beings could be gods and goddesses. I never said they couldn’t be. However, I disagree with that last part. I think being a theist entails belief in at least one necessary being. If not, whoever holds theism without a necessary being seems to be on weak soil.
Also, this is a bigger problem than you realize or are letting on. Given the notion of contingent gods, and let’s say a handful exist, they can’t cause a prior. We are back to square one. How would gods ever come into existence without a bigger, necessary one behind them? After all, gods are metaphysically different from humans. How do two humans beget a god? Tell me.
This debate is semantical bullshit that proves nothing.
You’re right. Matter always existing doesn’t logically entail that. I just think it makes a case based entirely around contingent gods weaker. Where are you going with this? Because, as you’re about to find out…
… I agree with you.
I just don’t think some esoteric or perhaps unknown form of polytheism makes a case for anything other than itself, especially since I already grant the possibility of gods, ETs, terminators, etc. God and gods may share more in common than gods and humans, but they’re still different kinds of beings — vastly different by your own admission, I should say.
Here’s what I’m pushing: even if this kind of polytheism turns out to be true, what is it doing for your belief other than falsifying it?
Crude
says...Maybe in a mythological sense. Aren’t we trying to deal with reality here? I don’t deny the possibility of gods given the criteria of the debate, but you would have to demonstrate one existing. The logical possibility of something is not equivalent to its actual existence.
Who’s trying to ‘demonstrate one existing’ even in the debate? My understanding was that the debate was about evidence for gods and goddesses existing, not demonstration. And if we’re going to talk about evidence for those things, we’re also going to have to discuss just what the scope of those things really is.
I do think contingent beings could be gods and goddesses. I never said they couldn’t be. However, I disagree with that last part. I think being a theist entails belief in at least one necessary being. If not, whoever holds theism without a necessary being seems to be on weak soil.
Right, and I get that this is a very popular view. And yet we have a far more diverse religious landscape than that, both in modern and historical terms, and we have atheists who repeatedly make the Zeus/Thor/etc comparisons. Call these ‘contingent gods/goddesses’ esoteric if you want. Say that, especially nowadays, their faiths would and could be pretty damn weird compared to most – I’ll probably agree.
But it’s still theism, it’s still relevant, and more than that I think a considerable number of ‘atheists’ have views and presuppositions which actually come close to committing them to this.
Also, this is a bigger problem than you realize or are letting on. Given the notion of contingent gods, and let’s say a handful exist, they can’t cause a prior. We are back to square one. How would gods ever come into existence without a bigger, necessary one behind them? After all, gods are metaphysically different from humans. How do two humans beget a god? Tell me.
Can’t cause a prior? You have an atheist in this debate – and he’s far from the only one to make this move – ditching causality anyway. (Yes, yes, ‘only rarely’ or something.) Maybe they evolved to Godhood, which I believe Vox suggests, and which guys like Bostrom and Gribbin harp on. Maybe there’s no explanation. Maybe there’s an explanation we’re not aware of yet.
And gods are ‘metaphysically different’ from humans? Okay. What does that cash out to? It can’t be due to eternally existing, or being non-material, or being omniscient, or being omnipotent, or not having parents. Back to Zeus and company.
I just don’t think some esoteric or perhaps unknown form of polytheism makes a case for anything other than itself, especially since I already grant the possibility of gods, ETs, terminators, etc. God and gods may share more in common than gods and humans, but they’re still different kinds of beings — vastly different by your own admission, I should say.
Here’s what I’m pushing: even if this kind of polytheism turns out to be true, what is it doing for your belief other than falsifying it?
A) What, I can only bring up evidence that’s 100% compatible with my religious beliefs? Sounds fishy. Worse, sounds like Cult of Gnu and wacky fundamentalist antics. Not interested.
B) How is ‘my belief’ falsified by this anyway? Catholicism can be entirely true, and still there can be other gods and goddesses. It would depend on particular claims.
C) In the broad sense, it could actually be supportive of my beliefs. An analogous case (though I don’t endorse it wholly) is intelligent design. If you can provide evidence that this or that pivotal natural thing was designed by an intelligent creator, by ID lights – and they say this outright – the possible beings in the running run the gamut from God to ETs.
D) Working off C, is evidence for angels evidence for, against, or neutral with respect to God?
E) I think that whatever challenges you could imagine this line of inquiry and thought posing for my beliefs are dwarfed by the severe headache it causes (or would cause, if it was more popularly taken) for contemporary atheists. Theism, even classical theism, can survive any number of contingent, lesser gods and goddesses. Atheism cannot survive a single one.
Crude
says...(Correction. “Atheism cannot survive a single one.” Well, it can, by redefining gods and goddesses, just like so many other things have been redefined after the fact. I can easily see Zeus being reconceived as a non-theistic proto-scientific theory held by greek atheists and naturalists. What can I say – if we hit that point, the cosmic comedy of it all will at least be something.)
joseph
says...On the flip side if God turned out to be some sort of giant intellect made of material parts that had no idea of it’s own origins, or tge after life, yet knew, and demonstrated how to produce a universe I think Atheusts would chuckle mightily as scripture after scripture was reinterpreted (“it was metaphorical!”).
cl
says...TE,
Polytheism doesn’t falsify Crude’s belief, or mine. The Bible doesn’t say there’s only one “god,” it says there’s only one God.
joseph
says...…which is why unitarians don’t mind Jesus being identified as god, what with the languages the scriptures were written in lacking the definitive article (as i understand it).
Slight tangent, sorry.
Crude
says...On the flip side if God turned out to be some sort of giant intellect made of material parts that had no idea of it’s own origins, or tge after life, yet knew, and demonstrated how to produce a universe I think Atheusts would chuckle mightily as scripture after scripture was reinterpreted (“it was metaphorical!”).
Really? You think atheists would be giddy to find out that some form of theism was true, so long as that form was unforeseen by popular theisms? “Ohoho, mormonism was true. This is a great day for atheism!”?
Maybe. I’d call it a pyrrhic victory, but since it’d be an explicit defeat for atheism and a victory for some form of theism, that doesn’t fit.
joseph
says...Yep really. Wouldn’t view it as a God I’d recognise, I suppose, just suitably advanced tech.
Crude
says...Yep really. Wouldn’t view it as a God I’d recognise, I suppose, just suitably advanced tech.
Great. So atheism at the end of the day, for you, hinges on whether or not an individual personally feels this or that ‘is goddish’.
And people accuse theism of being impenetrable.
joseph
says...Well,
1) I am just talking for myself
2) I am not sure I am an atheist, or if I have just rejected the atemporal, aspatial, omni-x THE GOD of most monotheistic religions.
3) I am not out to teach or convert
4) I am learning
That’s probably why I’m always on the wrong foot when it seems you’re ready to duel to the death with me Crude.
joseph
says...Put it another way I’d say in biblical terms the material, creator God, unaware of an afterlife I described would be ‘a god’ not ‘THE GOD/Jehovah/Yahweh”.
Crude
says...That’s probably why I’m always on the wrong foot when it seems you’re ready to duel to the death with me Crude.
It’s not about dueling to the death. It’s about pointing out problems with where and how these lines are drawn, and yes, I think if atheism at the end of the day is “Well I personally will/won’t call that god, by my personal subjective standard”, that makes the conversation pretty trivial.
joseph
says...As I’ve said before I was raised with a fairly literalist view of scripture, though if you believe scriptural metaphor is open enough to accomodate the kind of god I described “that’s interesting” is my sole remark.
A theist also needs to decide if sufficiently advanced aliens count as THE GOD of the bible, or a creator of “the matrix”, an evil God, etc.
I thought, aspatial, atemporal, omnimax, though subjective, are fairly standard, established by orthodox christian philsophers. I’ll listen to counter arguments.
Yes, it does feel like you are attempting to engage in a duel of some sort, I try to get whatever good I can from it.
joseph
says...Or if you like, they are Gods, yippee, theism wins!bm
Crude
says...As I’ve said before I was raised with a fairly literalist view of scripture, though if you believe scriptural metaphor is open enough to accomodate the kind of god I described “that’s interesting” is my sole remark.
Well, no. Where did I say that? I haven’t been attempting to square Christianity with Zeus such that ‘Maybe the God of orthodox Christianity = Something Zeuslike’. I’ve explicitly said that the gulf between the Zeus-like gods and goddesses and the God of classical theism is tremendous. But gods come in varieties historically – and an atheist is supposed to reject the existence of all of them. “Christianity is false” no more secures the truth of atheism than “Islam is false”.
Now, my faith can be compatible with the existence of these lesser gods, as cl said. “My God” and these gods can both exist, without necessarily making my faith untrue.
Part of the problem here is your apparently treating ‘Christianity’ as the only standard, such that if Christian God does not exist (or even if the Christian God lacks all those attributes you mention) then theism, period, is false. I’m pointing out that not only is this not the case historically, atheists don’t treat this as the case now. For whatever reason, though, this seems to get forgotten by a number of atheists once they stop interacting with Christian arguments.
joseph
says...Well the kind of atemporal, aspatial, omnimax God covers (from my limited understanding) Judaism, Christianity and Islam, (though not every single branch).
If that leaves advanced alien cultures, matrix programmers, etc, as Gods then your right I am not an atheist.
Your faith is compatible with lesser Gods, but not if these are the only Gods, I think we would agree.
As for polytheism, it’s interesting but many of the obstacles I have to believing monotheism stand in the way, once I am past those objectionI am left with case by case arguments against the various polytheistic religions.
cl
says...Crude,
I’ve always found that interesting. It seems to suggest that for most atheists, this isn’t really about atheism vs. theism per se, but more about how an atheist can convince themselves Christianity is false. IME, that’s where they stop. Rare is the deconvert who actually spends equal time investigating all theistic claims. Sure, they might complain that would take too long, but hell… I’ve never even seen a Western atheist treat the Abrahamic religions. They’re almost always “anti-Christianity” instead of “anti-theism.” It’s a strange sort of inverse of the situation Loftus and others bring attention to. On the one hand, we have myopic theists; on the other, myopic atheists. People fascinate me.
joseph
says...You’d be amazed at how hard it is to find a shintoist to debate with…Muslims and Jews are easy enough. Buddhism, just starting to learn about, seems not strictly theist.
Crude
says...cl,
I agree. And between that and personal experience, I can’t shake the strong feeling that a sizable number of ‘atheists’ aren’t really atheists. Maybe there was something to that pew poll where ~25% of the american atheists (not the irreligious, but the self-identified atheists, if I recall) apparently believed in God or a higher power.
As for the Christianity part, I’m dead certain that what animates a lot of these discussions is a dislike of Christianity in particular, and specifically perceived political and social influences of Christianity. In other words, this is less about ultimate truth and more about results.
joseph
says...Or perhaps it merely reflects that most people who visit these sites left christianity, and so feel more confident discussing christian theism than Amaterasu, Susanoo, etc. Also I’d guess the majority of commentators here live in countries where christianity is the most politically powerful of religions, so are more aware of perceived injustices etc.
I agree that many “atheists” are agnostics, or reacting against the religion they were bought up in.
Also be interesting how many anti-theists there are (just out of curiosity).
Thinking Emotions
says...cl,
Polytheism doesn’t falsify a monotheistic belief… will you explain how this is possible? It would not necessarily falsify the existence of God, but I think it makes His existence less likely. Why would we seek explanation from a monotheistic religion when a polytheistic one is apparently true in this hypothetical case?
How come it’s alright for you to revise your religious belief in light of new evidence, but for a materialist to change the definition of natural/physical in light of new evidence is squishy retreat?
I apologize for bombarding you with questions, but I am genuinely curious, cl. Do you not consider Christianity a monotheistic religion?
Crude,
Right on. I like your attitude. +1
Okay then, let’s back-peddle to the definition provided in the debate. A god is defined as superhuman beings worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. How do mere humans beget a superhuman? A god is obviously different from a human, so what’s the missing variable in this equation?
We never left Zeus and company. I don’t understand how gods could come from humans (no, this is not an argument from incredulity; my argument is above, this is clarification). They aren’t just special humans — that’s not the case. We’re not talking about X-Men**. They possess power that regular humans do not. How do they obtain this power? Not genetically, that’s for sure. Spiritually? But from whom? Not a necessary being, sayest thou in this scenario.
It’s one thing to admit ignorance, but it’s another to say the question doesn’t matter. The question does matter. If a being existed that was suspected of being a god long ago, and we’ve found a way to justify his abilities and acts in a natural, non-spiritual manner, this option should be open to us. It may not be that superhuman beings that exert force over nature or human fortune exist — it may suffice that we are naive enough to believe that they do.
Analyze the definition: worshiped as… It could be that mere beings were worshiped as superhumans, not the inverse i.e., mere beings worshiping superhumans. And which one is more likely? We know, actually know, of no gods. We know of many beings. Just saying.
I think you’re right. I am more accurately labeled as a weak agnostic. Demographically speaking, I am an atheist; polls could give a shit about intellectual openness.
** I fully submit that X-Men are possible. ;)
cl
says...TE,
Well, “gods” are spiritual entities. Christianity doesnt’s claim there’s only one spiritual entity. I mean, read the Bible. It talks about demons, Satan, etc. That there is more than one spiritual entity is exactly what Christianity claims.
Hogwash.
Because “polytheism” is only true in the sense of there being more than one spiritual entity. It isn’t true in the sense of, “We have a handful of Gods [as in capital G “Gods”].
What are you talking about? The Bible has been the same for thousands of years. There is no “new evidence” that suddenly made me “retreat” into “there is more than one spiritual entity.” It’s been the same since the ancients put pen to paper.
No need to apologize. Christianity is “monotheistic” in the sense that there is one God alone worthy of worship. It is not monotheistic in the sense of, “There is only one spiritual entity.”
Crude
says...TE,
Polytheism doesn’t falsify a monotheistic belief… will you explain how this is possible? It would not necessarily falsify the existence of God, but I think it makes His existence less likely.
Why? Especially since the God of classical theism, insofar as He is identified with the God of Christianity, is in a distinct class. The arguments for that CT God remain even if Thor or the Thor-like showed up tomorrow. The mere existence wouldn’t cut it – we’d need an actual conflict in belief.
How come it’s alright for you to revise your religious belief in light of new evidence, but for a materialist to change the definition of natural/physical in light of new evidence is squishy retreat?
A number of reasons, but here’s one problem: That the fundamental definitions of the material have changed greatly and more than once isn’t typically copped to, nor is the expectation that they will be fundamentally changed again highlighted. Instead it’s strongly implied, even outright stated, that this coherent, unchanging idea of the world has proceeded beautifully and without flaw since conception.
Okay then, let’s back-peddle to the definition provided in the debate. A god is defined as superhuman beings worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. How do mere humans beget a superhuman?
Ask the transhumanists, because many of them are pretty convinced that this is not only possible, but inevitable. “Power over nature” is so loose a definition – even I have some power over nature. “Supernatural powers” seems suggested in part 2 of the debate, but what makes any given power supernatural as opposed to natural? It’s a joke definition in this context – commonly used, but gives us nothing in terms of content.
They aren’t just special humans — that’s not the case. We’re not talking about X-Men**. They possess power that regular humans do not. How do they obtain this power? Not genetically, that’s for sure. Spiritually? But from whom? Not a necessary being, sayest thou in this scenario.
Not genetically? How? Zeus was what, generation 3-4 in the titans/gods chain? There damn sure was a role for genetics in his powers. Hercules was a half-deity, so genetics certainly played a role in that case too – and he went to full-blown deity at the end of his life, so sayeth the myths.
Maybe the powers were simply brute – they happened, no real explanation. Maybe a freak natural process. Maybe the power was ultimately technological. This is where many people say, ‘No, if your power or origin involved technology you can’t be a deity.’ I’d like to know who came up with this rule. A writer at Marvel? Part of the club by-laws on Olympus?
Analyze the definition: worshiped as… It could be that mere beings were worshiped as superhumans, not the inverse i.e., mere beings worshiping superhumans. And which one is more likely? We know, actually know, of no gods. We know of many beings. Just saying.
Considering that I’m arguing that how we conceive of gods outside of the Christian tradition is flawed, this doesn’t go far with me. Doubly so when we have people, even self-described ‘atheists’, talking about forecasts of Omega Points or simulated universes that are every bit as ‘real’ as our own in every conceivable way – along with worries about god-AIs so powerful and frightening that Luke over at Common Sense Atheism is trying to decide whether he should impregnate or kill Sarah Connor.
What I’m saying has particular relevance for the singularity / transhumanist crowd, but I think it’s an open question even for those outside of that group.
I think you’re right. I am more accurately labeled as a weak agnostic. Demographically speaking, I am an atheist; polls could give a shit about intellectual openness.
Demographically speaking? According to who? A weak agnostic is better classed as irreligious than atheist. Then again, those definition fights are a whole other thing.
joseph
says...@CL,
I got really pulled up earlier over my definition of God, and waa told it wasn’t fair of me to dismiss lesser Gods etc, but you seem to do the same, and I agree with you.
But paraphrasing crude’s words:
“I think if theism at the end of the day is “Well I personally will/won’t call that THE God, by my personal subjective standard”, that makes the conversation pretty trivial”
Please note I respectfully disagree.
If the distinction between supernatural and natural is meaningless, can the same be said for the terms “spiritual” and “non-spiritual”? Open question, I was taught that the Holy Spirit was merely God’s active invisible force (hence tge metaphor breath).
If so (here’s the bit I’m waiting for crude to clarify), testable or untestable?
The bible being the same for thousands of years bit, it is a little more complex, you have revisions in what is considered canonical (ranging from whole books to additional words), and you have the changing interpretation/understanding in light of changes to society, knowledge etc.
A brief comment on the monotheistic part as well, I am in a catholic country at the moment, seems as polytheistic as India. And on another note the concept of the trinity does befuddle Christianity’s claim to monotheism (at least, it is not simple monotheism, in it’s trinitarian forms).
Crude
says...If the distinction between supernatural and natural is meaningless, can the same be said for the terms “spiritual” and “non-spiritual”? Open question, I was taught that the Holy Spirit was merely God’s active invisible force (hence tge metaphor breath).
If so (here’s the bit I’m waiting for crude to clarify), testable or untestable?
Why would you think that the lack of a real distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ would imply that all things – God included – are ‘testable’? It’s open to investigation, but not all investigations are empirical tests.
joseph
says...@Crude
“No, if your power or origin involved technology you can’t be a deity.’ I’d like to know who came up with this rule. A writer at Marvel? Part of the club by-laws on Olympus?”
I feel that the distinction is there because it stops us from becoming “Gods” as our technology advances.
“A number of reasons, but here’s one problem: That the fundamental definitions of the material have changed greatly and more than once isn’t typically copped to, nor is the expectation that they will be fundamentally changed again highlighted”
Reading a book called Physicalism at the mo, by Daniel Stoljar (which seems to conclude that Physicalism, along with every metaphysical aystem is meaningless), it mentions Hempel’s dilemna, which deals with this very issue.
joseph
says...@Crude
1) I tried to phrase it as an open question because I am not making that assumption.
2) I ask simply because the term “supernatural” seems to have the built in get-out-clause of not being open to investigation, testing, empirical measurements, and wonder if you still want to preserve that. It seems you do, but I often misunderstand you (not your fault, mine).
cl
says...joseph,
Uh, I guess… if your definition of “dismiss” is something along the lines of “acknowledge the existence of yet fail to worship.” That seems like a pretty slippery definition of “dismiss” if you ask me.
It doesn’t seem that you do, because, it seems that so far, your definition of “god” is related to whether you recognize the entity as a god or not. So I see where Crude is coming from.
Sure. Ditch ’em all. Makes no difference to me. There is only one category of reality.
I was going to add my two cents but I thought it was hopeless. Anyone who says “spirits are testable” has departed from sanity too far for my liking. I mean, c’mon… demons are “testable” now because they’re “natural?” That shows complete disregard for the proffered nature of the entity in question. Think about it. What are you gonna do? Get a bunch of “scientists” huddled together in a haunted house ala The Ghost Hunters or some other such pseudoscientific nonsense? It’s as if people aren’t even thinking about the nature of the entities in question. A demon is something that can act of its own volition. Sure, you can set out your “demon trap,” but you can’t say anything reliable if nothing happens. It’s not like a rock which is forever vulnerable to the force of gravity. There’s a reason Descartes put science behind plate glass, and it was precisely to get away from demons, if you will.
That’s fine, we can talk about that. My only point is that the Bible mentions some of the gods in the pantheon. So, showing their existence, or probable existence, is to verify the Bible — not disprove it. “Polytheism” does not falsify Christianity; it lends to its credibility. That has always been my opinion.
Crude
says...I feel that the distinction is there because it stops us from becoming “Gods” as our technology advances.
Us, or anyone else. I don’t think the distinction is valid or helpful. In fact, it seems downright arbitrary even though it’s popular. I reject the distinction.
1) I tried to phrase it as an open question because I am not making that assumption.
Please don’t mistake my bluntness for hostility. Just a manner of speaking I tend to have when I’m taking questions seriously.
I ask simply because the term “supernatural” seems to have the built in get-out-clause of not being open to investigation, testing, empirical measurements, and wonder if you still want to preserve that. It seems you do, but I often misunderstand you (not your fault, mine).
Again, I don’t find these categories very useful – “natural” and “supernatural”. Sure, some things are not open to empirical testing – but it’s not a staple of the traditionally-claimed supernatural, and can just as well apply to the natural, with the point being driven home with modern “naturalists” toying with ideas about brute existence (How do you test a brute?), acausality (how do you test that something had no cause whatsoever?), multiverses (which some physicists are admitting explicitly brings us into metaphysics and philosophy), etc.
It’s not as if Aristotle and Aquinas, to give a pair of examples, decided that they’d add this “non-testability” thing to God as some kind of escape mechanism. It was a result of their arguments and reasoning. To go in a very different direction, the same goes for Nick Bostrom’s simulated universe. There’s no real way to empirically test the claim – but somehow, that idea is played off as entirely natural, “materialist”, and non-supernatural.
Put another way: Not every thing is, or must be, open to empirical testing. The world’s a bit more complicated than that, and we’ll just have to deal with it.
joseph
says...“because, it seems that so far, your definition of “god” is related to whether you recognize the entity as a god or not. So I see where Crude is coming from”
Meant the omnimax, aspatial, atemporal God of monotheistic religions, as opposed to a)very powerful being with advanced tech b) very powerful beings.
Your distinction seems to be based on “worthy of worship or not”.
Anyway, got to go and live life for a few hours….by for now fellow chatterers
joseph
says...@Crude
Ok, my brain is dying a jetlagged death right now, so please be patient, this may be drivel.
Thanks for being blunt rather than hostile, I wouldn’t have guessed you’d take my questions that seriously. Bit easier to understand.
OK, think you rejecting the distinction of sufficently advanced tech vs. Supernatural means we could now be considered Gods ourselves. Any idea of where to draw a line? Creation of universes? Creation of virtual universes? Creation of artificial life/intelligence?
Brute existence and Acausality – sounds philosophical.
Multiverse – if you think of a mechanism that generates a universe based on current scientific theory, and can’t think a prohibiting whatever (jetlag is baaadd), seems reasonable position.
If God, Demons, Angels, Kitsune, Baron Samedi etc (see, not just christian – yes i want a cookie) cannot be in anyway tested, it seems you are asking me to have faith/delude myself. Can’t think of anything I could claim not to believe in.
@CL
Testable supernatural.
My thoughts were Witch of Endor, Urim & Thulim, Prophets, Prayer, Astronomy (star guiding 3 magii). Spelling maybe going more horribly wrong than usual.
Accept many biblical interps of these events/accounts.
Demon Trap, why not? If they exist seems possible, very difficult.
Polytheism lends credibility to Christianity. Hmmm….surely not if you got a bunch of Asgard saying “Yahweh? No way?” (yeah lousy humour i know, the Queen will be disappointed with me).
Crude
says...joseph,
OK, think you rejecting the distinction of sufficently advanced tech vs. Supernatural means we could now be considered Gods ourselves. Any idea of where to draw a line? Creation of universes? Creation of virtual universes? Creation of artificial life/intelligence?
I think whatever line is drawn would be argued about – Zeus created no universes, but he did create quite a lot. (Protip: He screwed up repeatedly, by his own estimation.) I think any creation of a universe, simulated or “real”, populated by entities with conscious minds, would qualify as godhood. Can the bar be lower than that? Probably, given the historical case.
If God, Demons, Angels, Kitsune, Baron Samedi etc (see, not just christian – yes i want a cookie) cannot be in anyway tested, it seems you are asking me to have faith/delude myself. Can’t think of anything I could claim not to believe in.
If you think that being unable to test something empirically equates with delusion or faith, you’re already deluded/faithful by your own definition. You can’t empirically test the existence of an external world, the existence of other minds, along with many other things, last thursdayism, etc – you bring in axioms, like it or not.
Further, not all investigations are empirical, and I’ve said these things can be investigated.
Multiverse – if you think of a mechanism that generates a universe based on current scientific theory, and can’t think a prohibiting whatever (jetlag is baaadd), seems reasonable position.
Then gods are reasonable by your standard. In fact, they’re vastly more reasonable, since any idea of ‘generating a universe based on current scientific theory*’ involves tremendous amounts of assumption, along with a considerable lack of testability in principle. Creating virtual universes? That doesn’t require any new or speculative physics. It requires processing power. The only puzzle is how to know whether or not what we create is conscious. Surprise! It’s the Problem of Other Minds – we have that problem *now*, with other humans.
If you accept that beings creating universes, simulated or ‘real’, would qualify as gods, and if your standard for a reasonable position is knowing if it’s possible in principle according to what we know of science, you’ve established theism as either a reasonable position, or the most reasonable position available, based on your own standards.
(* What’s more, ‘based on current scientific theory’, we’re also going to be able to create ‘real’ universes someday, with finer and finer tuning. See John Gribbin’s and other’s speculation on this.)
joseph
says...“You can’t empirically test the existence of an external world, the existence of other minds, along with many other things, last thursdayism, etc”
Can’t i simply say I don’t know which, of the above, is true? Given the above cannot be falsified, they are all equally possible accounts. Indeed most deist, and pantheist explanations seem to me to fall into this category. As well as all (limited) metaphysics i has read so far…
As Christianity, and many religions, commit themselves to knowledge about the nature (or supernature ;-)) of the creator, thusly they are undone…
“If you accept that beings creating universes, simulated or ‘real’, would qualify as gods,”
I have trouble accepting that. Perhaps you would share CL’s reservation that such being would not be worthy of worship.
Crude
says...Can’t i simply say I don’t know which, of the above, is true? Given the above cannot be falsified, they are all equally possible accounts. Indeed most deist, and pantheist explanations seem to me to fall into this category. As well as all (limited) metaphysics i has read so far…
Sure, commit yourself to solipsism or being an agnostic on absolutely everything, including the existence of an external world, other minds, or any reality other than what you personally experience.
Don’t you think at this point you’re looking for some out, any out whatsoever?
As Christianity, and many religions, commit themselves to knowledge about the nature (or supernature ;-)) of the creator, thusly they are undone…
If you want to commit to that level of agnosticism, go right ahead. The conversation is over entirely then, though. If you’re willing to dive for solipsism or even agnosticism on solipsism to resist a particular conclusion or even treating it as a serious possibility, you’re welcome to the move.
I have trouble accepting that. Perhaps you would share CL’s reservation that such being would not be worthy of worship.
So? Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. A god is a god, and some form of theism obtains. I haven’t once maintained these possible gods are ‘worthy of worship’. OTOH, for a moral subjectivist, that claim is up in the air.
joseph
says...“Don’t you think at this point you’re looking for some out, any out whatsoever?”
It seems the only honest thing I can say, I cannot disprove last-thursdayism. I cannot prove physicalism, idealism etc. If I could prove anyone I could commit.
“god is a god”
Not sure, if a God is just a creator sure. If God is almighty, all good, all knowing, timeless, spaceless then no.
If I could accept the basis for weakening the definition of God to ‘creator of any reality” sure. I would be a God everytime I dream.
joseph
says...“If you’re willing to dive for solipsism or even agnosticism on solipsism to resist a particular conclusion or even treating it as a serious possibility”
Umm…agnosticism on solipsism…and not dive for but:
1/Not know how to avoid
2/Not sure it makes any difference
It really is not a strategic move, trick etc.
“Don’t you think at this point you’re looking for some out, any out whatsoever?”
Desperately not meaning this rudely but after allowing me tge possibility that humans are God/s, couldn’t i rightfully say:
Don’t you think at this point you’re looking for some in, any in whatsoever?
Crude
says...Don’t you think at this point you’re looking for some in, any in whatsoever?
Not at all. How could I be? And why would I? I’m Catholic – I’m copping to arguments for gods that are not my own here. Gods who even atheists cop to (probably unreflectively) being gods, when they’re attached to old religions. I think it’s one of the larger minefields left unexplored in these conversations, but you can’t rightly accuse me of entertaining the prospect in defense of my faith. Especially when, at this leg of the conversation, I was just noting what was entailed by accepting the standards of evidence you yourself were going by.
Like I said, if you’re at the position you’re apparently at, that’s it anyway. You’re willing to say “I’m agnostic on solipsism”. That’ll do.
joseph
says...@Crude
I’m worried that I seem to have upset you, not my intention. With all these non-falsifiable positions (which I naturally detest, discussing them seems pointless), is their anything more I can do to reject them other than say “that is not my intuition”?
“How could I be? And why would I?”
I didn’t make many assumptions, like you pointed out, so many different kinds of christians, let alone theists.
“noting what was entailed by accepting the standards of evidence you yourself were going by”
I will, in any case, keep thinking about this. I don’t know how to fairly accept some ideas and dismiss others without this standard.
In any case, thankyou for the conversation.
joseph
says...@Crude
A lingering doubt…if I’d have said I didn’t accept agnosticism towards solipsism, would you have said I had no logical basis to do so and ended the conversation on those grounds?
(a little confused, honestly)