Plantinga: The God Delusion

[karlhenning]

    No, Don. You're evil, but in a respectful way. 

Ernie is, of course, at his drollest when he is projecting his hostility upon faceless Others.

[drogulus]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. - Martin Rees

    With unlikely things only evidence of presence matters. It's a question of burden of proof. There more unusual the claim, the higher to evidentiary hurdle to overcome. As Russell said, the teapot orbiting  in space may exist, and it would be hell to disprove, but the sound position to take is that there's no reason to think it's there. Affirmative evidence is what you need.

    Gods are not disproved. Instead, they lose a vote of confidence and are ignored out of existence. It's funny, I've been saying all along that things that have to be believed to be true aren't. Look at history, and you'll see confirmation. All the dead gods weren't disproved, they died of neglect.

[Florestan]

    With unlikely things only evidence of presence matters.

That's exactly the kind of argument made by the inhabitants of Plato's cave.

[karlhenning]

Unlikely things, the evidence of presence . . . we are talking about lack of civility on Ernie's part, aren't we? 

[Catison]

God does not come from anywhere, rather, He is the eternal basis where everything comes from.

But couldn't the same argument be made for the universe itself.  In other words, why not say the universe does not come from anywhere?  Why can't everything come from the universe itself?

[Catison]

    With unlikely things only evidence of presence matters. It's a question of burden of proof. There more unusual the claim, the higher to evidentiary hurdle to overcome. As Russell said, the teapot orbiting  in space may exist, and it would be hell to disprove, but the sound position to take is that there's no reason to think it's there. Affirmative evidence is what you need.

I don't think this line of reasoning is going to persuade anyone who is a believer in God.  They have their evidence in the ancient texts.

But of course these texts won't stand up to the evidence requirements of science, because the very thing these texts talk about is metaphysical.  It is outside scientific inquiry by definition.  The hard part is to think that there might have been something that has happened outside of physics and that us humans won't eventually figure everything out.  That opens up a lot of possibilities.

The fear is such line of reasoning leads to chaos.  If there is some world beyond physical understanding then anything could happen.  What good is studying the world and its laws if God could come along and change them for His purpose at any moment?  Or, how am I supposed to trust anything if it doesn't have to be accompanied by verifiable evidence?

These questions are moot to the believer, which may be a sign of weakness to the nonbeliever.  However, there is something humble in admitting you don't have the answers.  If you ever come to a point when you realize that you won't be able to figure out the meaning of the universe simply by reading and thinking a lot, you'll have to come to rely upon others.  For many, the reliability comes from the Church, which makes its business the meaning of the universe.  If you can accept it, it touches, historically and metaphysically, God himself, and it brings its own literature in support of its beliefs, available for examination by us mere humans.

Now perhaps what the Church feeds us is a bunch of made up junk for weak people.  But what if the biblical authors actually were telling the truth?  Wouldn't that be evidence?

[Al Moritz]

But couldn't the same argument be made for the universe itself.  In other words, why not say the universe does not come from anywhere?  Why can't everything come from the universe itself?

Sure it could. However, there we stumble onto some problems. As I had written elsewhere about a wider material background that might have produced our universe:

"Furthermore, the demand on eternal matter would also have to be that it does not have to obey the second law of thermodynamics (by the way, this demand also holds for the "re-set" of a potential cyclic universe upon each bounce). Otherwise, what use would be eternal matter if it had all run down into an undifferentiated mush that would not have the thermal/motional energy anymore to produce universes? In the ekpyrotic model (or one may think of equivalent other options if string theory, upon which it is based, will be refuted), for example, we have the birth of our universe from a collision of membranes (branes) in multi-dimensional space.

"Where does the energy of collision come from if the second law of thermodynamics holds in an eternal universe? It could never self-renew, and if it cannot, it would eventually run down into thermal randomness, and one would be forced to ask the question: where did it come from in its original "fresh" state?

"If the postulated eternal matter once had to be in an original "fresh" state, it cannot be self-sufficient and eternal after all, certainly not in a state that eternally can produce universes. Thus it would beg the question for an originator of this matter anyway."

***

Certainly, one may believe in the magic of a wider universe where the second law of thermodynamics does not hold, but I find this unlikely (we know how matter behaves *)) and we probably can never observe this, given the absolute observational limits in cosmology that I outlined above. Here, faith needs to replace observational evidence.

I personally find the concept of the immaterial Unmoved Mover (the Prime Mover) much more convincing.



*) Yes, we know that all matter moves at all times on the microscopic particle level, but this is different from eternal movement with always fresh kinetic energy on the macroscopic level.

[Al Moritz]

These questions are moot to the believer, which may be a sign of weakness to the nonbeliever.  However, there is something humble in admitting you don't have the answers.  If you ever come to a point when you realize that you won't be able to figure out the meaning of the universe simply by reading and thinking a lot, you'll have to come to rely upon others.  For many, the reliability comes from the Church, which makes its business the meaning of the universe.  If you can accept it, it touches, historically and metaphysically, God himself, and it brings its own literature in support of its beliefs, available for examination by us mere humans.

Now perhaps what the Church feeds us is a bunch of made up junk for weak people.  But what if the biblical authors actually were telling the truth?  Wouldn't that be evidence?

Exactly.

[Shrunk]

IThese questions are moot to the believer, which may be a sign of weakness to the nonbeliever.  However, there is something humble in admitting you don't have the answers.  If you ever come to a point when you realize that you won't be able to figure out the meaning of the universe simply by reading and thinking a lot, you'll have to come to rely upon others.  For many, the reliability comes from the Church, which makes its business the meaning of the universe.  If you can accept it, it touches, historically and metaphysically, God himself, and it brings its own literature in support of its beliefs, available for examination by us mere humans.

The irony, though, is that the religion is often used as a means of denying that one doesn't have the answers.  It proffers answers to questions, but those answers are unverifiable and of no material use.  Scientific answers, on the other hand, have immediate concrete benefits in terms of actually increasing our understanding of how the universe operates, and our ability to accomplish tasks and solve problems.  I fail to see any such benefits to religiously inspired ideas such as Al's concept of the "immaterial Unmoved Mover".  Even if such a thing exists, what new technology does it allow us to create, what disease does it allow us to cure, how does it increase our understanding of any other questions?

[Florestan]

Scientific answers, on the other hand, have immediate concrete benefits in terms of actually increasing our understanding of how the universe operates, and our ability to accomplish tasks and solve problems. 

Is that all that man is? A task-accomplisher and a problem-solver? A robot, in other words?

I fail to see any such benefits to religiously inspired ideas such as Al's concept of the "immaterial Unmoved Mover".  Even if such a thing exists, what new technology does it allow us to create, what disease does it allow us to cure, how does it increase our understanding of any other questions?

How does God impede us to create new technologies or to cure diseases?

You see, your main problem is that you think about science, God and humanity in purely utilitarian / instrumentalist terms.

[Shrunk]

Is that all that man is? A task-accomplisher and a problem-solver? A robot, in other words?

How does God impede us to create new technologies or to cure diseases?

You see, your main problem is that you think about science, God and humanity in purely utilitarian / instrumentalist terms.

No, I'm just saying that religion is of no use in answering scientific questions, such as "How did the universe originate?"  There are other questions, perhaps equally important, to which science offers no answers.   Whether relgion holds answers to those questions is a matter of debate.

[Florestan]

No, I'm just saying that religion is of no use in answering scientific questions, such as "How did the universe originate?"  There are other questions, perhaps equally important, to which science offers no answers.    

True. One of those questions is "Why did the Universe originate"

[Catison]

No, I'm just saying that religion is of no use in answering scientific questions, such as "How did the universe originate?"  There are other questions, perhaps equally important, to which science offers no answers.   Whether relgion holds answers to those questions is a matter of debate.

I would say that yes, religion is of no use here.  But only because science deals with the physical universe.  If there is such thing as an immaterial metaphysical reality, then we are limited in our understanding if we limit ourselves to science.  I could turn your original question around and ask, what use is science to tell us about the metaphysical?  Religion hopes to tell us why things are done and provide a purpose for the physical world; I don't think science can tell us this.  Each man must learn his own purpose.

[Al Moritz]

I had said:
"Silly how atheists always hammer on the ontological argument for God, which is hardly taken seriously by any theist."

Don responded:
"You seem to have some problems with atheists.  Why?  Most of them just mind their own business."

and:
"No, that was not my meaning.  I felt that Al was was lumping atheists together, saying that they do this or that, disparge the views of theists, etc.  So I just wanted to point out that most folks (believers and non-believers) don't disparage anyone but do respect the rights of others to hold and practice their own views.  Sorry that the way I phrased my comment did not come out clearly."

***

Ok, now I understand what you mean. I might have been more cautious with my wording, and might have said instead of "Silly how atheists always hammer on" (which may make the impression of lumping them all together),

"Silly how atheists frequently hammer on",  or: "Silly how some atheists always hammer on"

I am usually more cautious – sorry when I  wasn't here – by not saying "atheists" but "many atheists" or "some atheists".

And you may be right, Don, in that many atheists may respect the views of theists. However, today's most vocal public atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris) certainly do not – they hold that religious belief is inherently irrational – and the same holds for many "internet atheists", including some here.

[orbital]

True. One of those questions is "Why did the Universe originate"

Florestan, don't you think that this is one question that has no answer, and therefore it is not a question at all? Since we know that we have been in existence in the last 100,000 years -at most- out of the 14 billion years of universe, even if it has a reason, it is safe to say, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with us  and thus, hardly concerns us

Also, I don't think science should concern itself with the question "why" anyway. It's area of concern should be "how"

[karlhenning]

I would say that yes, religion is of no use here.  But only because science deals with the physical universe.  If there is such thing as an immaterial metaphysical reality, then we are limited in our understanding if we limit ourselves to science.  I could turn your original question around and ask, what use is science to tell us about the metaphysical?  Religion hopes to tell us why things are done and provide a purpose for the physical world; I don't think science can tell us this.  Each man must learn his own purpose.

Some of our neighbors pursue as an article of faith that everything that is, is material, and therefore within the purview of the natural sciences.

It is a peculiar religion, but they are welcome to it.  Especially if they can live peaceably with others.

[karlhenning]

Also, I don't think science should concern itself with the question "why" anyway. Its area of concern should be "how."

This is good sense;  and you are endorsing a traditional boundary to Science's field of inquiry.

Some people suppose that only that which is within Science's field of inquiry, is real, and therefore anything that won't fit onto that Procrustean bed, is without merit.

[Don]

And you may be right, Don, in that many atheists may respect the views of theists. However, today's most vocal public atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris) certainly do not – they hold that religious belief is inherently irrational – and the same holds for many "internet atheists", including some here.

Understood.  I don't really consider myself an atheist.  I haven't the slightest idea if God exists, and I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

[Florestan]

Florestan, don't you think that this is one question that has no answer, and therefore it is not a question at all?

No, I don't. It may have no answer for you as an atheist, but I am a theist and for me it is a very important question and an answerable one at that.

Besides, if someone in the 13th century asked "How can man fly?" or "How can tuberculosis be cured" he would have received exactly the reply you made.

Since we know that we have been in existence in the last 100,000 years -at most- out of the 14 billion years of universe, even if it has a reason, it is safe to say, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with us  and thus, hardly concerns us

In other words, there may be a reason, which you have no idea about, but you feel safe saying it has nothing to do with us. Your logic is seriously flawed.

Also, I don't think science should concern itself with the question "why" anyway. It's area of concern should be "how"

Quite correct. That's my point.

[Al Moritz]

Florestan, don't you think that this is one question that has no answer, and therefore it is not a question at all? Since we know that we have been in existence in the last 100,000 years -at most- out of the 14 billion years of universe, even if it has a reason, it is safe to say, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with us  and thus, hardly concerns us

Not if the reason is a timeless God, a God outside time, for whom everything can exist with the same actuality, be it 14 billion years ago or now or 14 billion years in the future. If there is a timeless God who created the universe, He already knew at the start of the Big Bang how all evolution -- physical and biological -- would eventually turn out. In that sense, time is irrelevant for God.

***

And no, the "timeless" notion is not something invented by theistic philosophy to come up with a "solution" to modern science and the vast time spans it puts before us, but classical philosophy from many centuries before the scientific revolution.