Plantinga: The God Delusion

[Norbeone]

...but Dawkins' own fundamentalism & dogma - and make no mistake his position is every bit as much one of faith as any theists - is not a compelling refutation of theistic belief.

How could his position be one of faith?

He disbelieves in religious claims but there is NO evidence to support them. His scientific views are all based on testable evidence. These scientific views are therefore not faith-based.

Also, he isn't fundamentalist either. He has stated many times before that if good testable evidence supporting religious claims came to light, he would be more than willing to change his views. This is exactly what fundamentalism isn't.

I'm afraid your assertions made against Dawkins are unfounded and self-evidently incorrect.


....I like your views on Bach though.   

[greg]

Personally, I don't disbelieve in the existence of God, or any other supernatural being.  There is just, in my view, no evidence that such a being exists, therefore no reason to believe that it does.

well, if God revealed himself to the whole world at once and videotaped it, the whole game would be over 
(of course, the game can't be that easy  )

[Al Moritz]

How could his position be one of faith?

[...] His scientific views are all based on testable evidence. These scientific views are therefore not faith-based.

Wrong. The multiverse theory (to explain away the fine-tuning of natural laws) that he believes in is not based on testable evidence (scientific evidence is limited by the particle horizon and the visible horizon of the universe), but metaphysics dressed up in scientific language. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It is based on "scientific" faith.

Also, he isn't fundamentalist either. He has stated many times before that if good testable evidence supporting religious claims came to light, he would be more than willing to change his views. This is exactly what fundamentalism isn't.

If the universe was created by a God who creates through secondary causes, the natural causes that science studies, then God is undetectable by the scientific method, but still very much the originator and sustainer behind it all. So this misses the point.

Dawkins's argument that all religion is inherently dangerous, and his unwillingness to concede that terrible atrocities were committed in the name of atheism, are most certainly fundamentalist. He is just as fundamentalist as religious fundamentalists.

A little pointer: The more atheists take Dawkins seriously, the less they are taken seriously by theists. If atheism wants to be taken seriously as a cause, it has to distance itself from Dawkins. Dawkins is one of atheism's own worst enemies (his excellent and highly recommendable writing on evolutionary biology is another issue entirely).

[Saul]

Yes Saul, we don't know what it means to be a Jew but you don't have an idea what it means to be mentally free, an atheist. You don't understand how stupid old religions seem to us. 

I was not religious as a kid and I was raised in a secular/traditional neighborhood in Israel. We didn't keep the Sabbath and I didn't know what it means to live as an orthodox Jew. When I came to NY at age 12, my parents sent me to a public high school, we were not religious. But a year later, my parents have sent me to an orthodox Yeshiva and from there I began learning about my faith. This Yeshiva was modern and I still wasn't 'into it ' as they say. But at the age of 16 I decided that I wanted to study in a real orthodox Yeshiva, that concentrated on Talmud specifically without secular studies. So I enrolled in that Yeshiva and studied there a few years. I later on studied in a Yeshiva/college for high Talmudic studies, that was also about 2 years or so. In these Yeshivas I finally got the education that made me see what it means to be Jewish and what the Torah and the Talmud were all about.

No one had forced me to go and study in these yeshivas, it was my personal choice. So I perfectly know what it means to be secular, because as I explained , I was secular myself. But later, I decided by myself to go and study and learn what my faith is all about and what it means to belong to the Jewish people.

You on the other hand were always secular and had never seen or felt ' the other side', therefore you are the one who is missing information and exposure, not me.

[drogulus]

The thing about Dawkins & his book to be honest, is that he's not really saying anything new essentially....sure, it may not be all under one roof in a convenient best selling highly publicized book, but many of the things he's pointing out i've heard before for the most part. It's no big revelation really. Personally, having heard him speak on these issues...I've been so shocked by the lack of rigour in his elementary thought processes - and the antagonistic, condescending way he spouts half-baked "theories" ... OK so he's getting some attention to the ideas ... I 100% see the value of that ... and I'd be standing on his side against any religious fundamentalist drivel, but Dawkins' own fundamentalism & dogma - and make no mistake his position is every bit as much one of faith as any theists - is not a compelling refutation of theistic belief.

     Occasionally he loses styles points, and I suppose this is a big deal for theists. Maybe I wouldn't care for his condescending tone either.

     Some of us are just as interested in the substantive points he raises, which don't have to be new (in fact they had better not be, since the best arguments against theism are old).

     Dawkins main argument is that the complexity of the universe developed out of simple beginnings, so the argument that a creater god could be justified is undercut. The theists have always argued for a creater on the grounds that the creation was too splendid to be self-generating, and that very evident excellence and fitness argued for intelligence. Unfortunately for the theist view, this establishes as an initial cause the very complexity that Dawkins shows is a product. Recently theists have conceded the point (I'm telling them this in case they missed it) by reversing field and positing a simple god.

     My interpretaion goes like this:

     When Dawkins explains that complexity arises from simple beginnings he's referring to what has been observed about natural processes and theories about how they have produced what exists now. Whatever you think about the Big Bang (I don't like it) or any other particular scientific theory, you have to admit that he has a good naturalist case to make.

     When theologians posit a simple designer god, they have no obligation to make such a hypothesis conform to anything external to the argument they make (that's an example of theistic free will), they only have to save a premise they can't abandon without ceasing to be theists. This they do, and so their god becomes as simple or as complex as they need to counter the naturalist arguments. After all, their god is hardy likely to appear before us and correct their misapprehensions. 

     So, in a sense, both are arguing from within frameworks that do not permit defection. You have a choice between a framework that is defined by what can be observed and theories that are developed in the light of falsification by test, as well as further evidence and yet more tests. Or you save the initial prescientific framework at whatever cost and bend all evidence to conform to it (not as difficult as you might think, since only the minimal premise need be saved [god creates world], so you can incorporate what science says as your own). By this process of "epicycles" (simple gods, complex gods, what you will) you'll never have to say you're sorry.

    So the real point of the theistic counterargument is not, and has not been for a long time, to present a credible alternative to naturalism, but to stay in the game for the sake of appearances, and to uphold the honor of theism. This shows the remarkable conservatism of human culture as well as its gift for synthesis. The fact that the antagonists have such contradictory truth conditions for what they believe is less important than the cultural impact of the institutions that are built on these traditions.

[Don]

Yes Saul, we don't know what it means to be a Jew but you don't have an idea what it means to be mentally free, an atheist. You don't understand how stupid old religions seem to us. 

What are the relative advantages of "new" religions?

[drogulus]

    From the Onion:   

    Christ Announces Hiring Of Associate Christ

     He's a former Customer Service manager for Sears, so I guess he won't need much OTJ training. 





     

[Al Moritz]

      Dawkins main argument is that the complexity of the universe developed out of simple beginnings, so the argument that a creater god could be justified is undercut.

No, it is not undercut. Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.

The theists have always argued for a creater on the grounds that the creation was too splendid to be self-generating, and that very evident excellence and fitness argued for intelligence. Unfortunately for the theist view, this establishes as an initial cause the very complexity that Dawkins shows is a product. Recently theists have conceded the point (I'm telling them this in case they missed it) by reversing field and positing a simple god.

Recently? Utter rubbish. Theistic philosophy has posited a simple God since at least Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 13th century (talk about recent, hehe), and probably way before as well.

[drogulus]

No, it is not undercut. Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.

I don't think so. I don't understand what special means in this context. We have no very clear idea of how special the conditions are, since we don't know how freely they can be different from what they are.

Recently? Utter rubbish. Theistic philosophy has posited a simple God since at least Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 13th century (talk about recent, hehe), and probably way before as well.

     I don't understand this. Epicurus said there were atoms, but he didn't know anything about them. The recent invocation of simplicity is a response to the success of recent scientific arguments. Aquinas could advocate anything, just as Plantinga does today, without incurring the slightest penalty. Arguments that can't be wrong can't be right, either, since there's nothing to make them so. It doesn't matter, Al, if witches are made of wood unless there are witches.

     My point was that the intelligent god of the modern theologian has been reengineered to answer the current scientific model, so intelligence is now seen as compatible with simplicity. I understand that the theist doesn't want to be seen as conforming his ideas to what science says, but it must be done to some extent for appearences sake, since appearences are the point of arguments which can't lead to anything else.

     The whole argument against naturalism is (or was) that complexity can't arise from simplicity*. It required complexity in the form of a god to start it. No god can be an intellect and be simple except in the imagination of theists. Since an imagination unconstrained by anything other than the initial premise is what you have, you can say anything, which is why you do. When you want it simple, it's simple. When you want it complex, it's that, too. And when you want it transcending the categories our "feeble minds" can comprehend, it will also be that. What it can't be, therefore, is something that can be checked for accuracy.

     I also note that every such argument is equally good as an argument for whatever other idiocy that you, along with me, don't accept. There are no limiting conditions which constrain your position to the "one true God". These are all-purpose arguments, as your "devil" surely knows. Which is, of course, why he encourages you to propagate them, therefore undercutting the only standard that could save you.   

     *Edit: I made a mistake and said complexity when I meant simplicity, so I corrected it.

[Don]

I've never been able to understand how parents can agree to do it. Pure evil. The babies scream when it is done. That is because it is horrifying and painful, and we keep doing it generation after generation because of sexual taboo... Purely optional, with deadening of the member the only result.

This "deadening of the member" notion is nonsense.  Jewish men have no problem having great sex, getting it up or making babies. 

[Norbeone]

This "deadening of the member" notion is nonsense.  Jewish men have no problem having great sex, getting it up or making babies. 

Even so, Don, it is pretty horrible that it is done in the first place, i'm sure you'll agree.

[Norbeone]

No, it is not undercut. Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.

Atheism doesn't attempt to explain it away. Dawkins certainly doesn't. These highly specialised laws are something that most scientists agree are the case. And before you say, the multiverse theory isn't an attempt to explain it away either.

Furthermore, that fact that they are so special isn't evidence that there must be a God behind it. Why don't people allow science to progress even more before reverting to that old story?

[Shrunk]

Atheism doesn't attempt to explain it away. Dawkins certainly doesn't. These highly specialised laws are something that most scientists agree are the case. And before you say, the multiverse theory isn't an attempt to explain it away either.

Furthermore, that fact that they are so special isn't evidence that there must be a God behind it. Why don't people allow science to progress even more before reverting to that old story?

Maybe I'm missing something, but to me the "fine tuning" argument just seems like another instance of the anthropic fallacy.  First of all, there is the assumption that the primary purpose of the universe's existence is to allow life to arise.  The idea of the universe having a "purpose" at all is already presumptuous to begin with.  Secondly, even allowing for the existence of extraterrestrial life, living things make up an almost infinitely small portion of the universe.  If all living things were to be snuffed out tomorrow, the universe would be changed to a virtually unnoticeable extent.  To living things like ourselves, such an event seems cataclysmic, but in the big picture it would be meaningless.

It is also an assumption that the physical constants of the universe are independent of each other and need to each be individually fine tuned.  It might be that they are as interrelated as the radius and circumference of a circle; there is only one specific relationship they can have.   We just don't know. 

I also don't see why, even if we assign primacy to living entities, they can only occur in the universe as it is.  To be sure, life as we know it requires the universe as we know it.  But who is to say that life of a completely different sort could not arise in a universe entirely composed of red dwarves, say?  If we were to (absurdly, I admit) imagine some intelligent being observing our universe before life had arisen, would that being be able imagine life occuring in anything near the form it has, if it could conceive of the idea of life at all?  My suspicion is that such a being would be absolutely shocked by something as simple as a slug.  In a universe "tuned" to different constants, life could theoretically occur in ways we would never imagine, or would not even think of as life at all.  Could stars develop intelligence?  Why not?

These speculations are far out, I agree.  But if we are going to have a discussion that allows for the possibility of something as absurdly improbable as the theistic God, then I think all bets are off, and any other seeming absurdities are also fair game.

(Edited for grammar and sloppy wording.)

[drogulus]

    Can't we lighten up just a bit?

    I'm off to kill some imaginary beasts....._{(uh oh...)}

     

     At least you can see these guys coming and get off a few shots before you're overwhelmed by their utter simplicity. 

[Don]

Even so, Don, it is pretty horrible that it is done in the first place, i'm sure you'll agree.

Can't say that I do.  In the jewish faith, it's a custom that doesn't seem to do any harm.  Although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I have no problem with the practice.  I'm much more concerned with staying out of the reach of religious fanatics like Saul.

[Saul]

Can't say that I do.  In the jewish faith, it's a custom that doesn't seem to do any harm.  Although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I have no problem with the practice.  I'm much more concerned with staying out of the reach of religious fanatics like Saul.

Hiding from yourself ,Don?

[Norbeone]

Can't say that I do.  In the jewish faith, it's a custom that doesn't seem to do any harm.  Although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I have no problem with the practice.  I'm much more concerned with staying out of the reach of religious fanatics like Saul.

Fair enough.

Though, i'll take it as a safe bet that the less common practice performed on female children doesn't tickle your fancy too much.

[Don]

Hiding from yourself ,Don?

I've had it with the garbage you keep slinging at this site.  You're a pathetic role-model for an American jew.  But what really bothers me is that you continue to inititate and/or become confrontational in threads of a religious nature.  This is a place for music; if I want religious engagement, I'll head to the temple.  I sure don't want to hear what you have to say on the subject.

[Don]

Fair enough.

Though, i'll take it as a safe bet that the less common practice performed on female children doesn't tickle your fancy too much.

A very safe bet.  Frankly, nothing about God, religion or its customs/practices tickles my fancy.

[Ten thumbs]

Though, i'll take it as a safe bet that the less common practice performed on female children doesn't tickle your fancy too much.

This is in some dismal places practised as a custom. It is physical abuse amounting to mutilation with very serious affects on health. In any civilized country it is a criminal offense. I think it can only be blamed on man's wickedness, not on religion.