Plantinga: The God Delusion

[drogulus]

So in one way you admit that agnosticism might be a good way to go, but on the other hand you have already positively decided to reject the reasonable theist version of God. A "real god" has to do this and that, and his works should be open to evidence of the kind scientific evidence is. The theist God, however, has created the regularities of nature that science studies and only very rarely performs miracles. Since God is thus behind and in the regularities of nature He will be the reason of it all, but still be undetectable by science which thrives exactly on those regularities of nature, on reproducible observational events (which miracles are not). You reject this view, by the way also held by the founding fathers of science. And you have already decided that the Bible cannot be true since it is not open to scientific investigation.

You thus have already dogmatically decided against the possibility of the theist God, but on the other hand you claim that you are not dogmatic. But that is exactly what you are, a dogmatic atheist.

      I say a real god because only evidence of some kind can establish reality. It doesn't have to be of the kind that has appeared up to now. It can even be of a miraculous nature. Hume didn't say he wouldn't accept evidence of miracles, he said it would be very hard to overcome objections to such evidence. That's a practical and not a dogmatic criterion.

      The theist god you propose is an assumption. I reject the view that it can be established by assuming it. Once again, that's not dogmatic, it's just sound practice. If you merely proposed a god and said "this might be true, and I'd like it to be so" then there would be no problem. Instead you seem to take "liking it to be so" as evidence that it's true.

      The difference between atheist and agnostic shouldn't be oversold. Neither thinks a god is likely. One term expresses doubts about the supernatural, the other has no religion. Strictly speaking, they don't contradict each other, though in practice the terms are associated with different groups, sorted by degrees of "niceness", I suppose.

[Saul]

The entire universe is evidence to the existence of G-d.

Anyone who doesn't believe this, chose not to believe, and all the scientific motif is just a cover to this choice.

[Haffner]

A few folks on the Dawkins forum have read Plantinga. An interesting read. 

There's a Dawkins forum?






_^oh

[Al Moritz]

      I say a real god because only evidence of some kind can establish reality. It doesn't have to be of the kind that has appeared up to now. It can even be of a miraculous nature. Hume didn't say he wouldn't accept evidence of miracles, he said it would be very hard to overcome objections to such evidence. That's a practical and not a dogmatic criterion.

      The theist god you propose is an assumption. I reject the view that it can be established by assuming it. Once again, that's not dogmatic, it's just sound practice. If you merely proposed a god and said "this might be true, and I'd like it to be so" then there would be no problem. Instead you seem to take "liking it to be so" as evidence that it's true.

Your naturalism with respect to ultimate origins is also an assumption, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever. You claim to live by evidence only, but you don't.

Instead you seem to take "liking it to be so" as evidence that it's true.

This exactly holds for your naturalism.

My assumption, however, is suppported by evidence:

(Response to Norbeone)

I think I have explained sufficiently by now (maybe you want to read my posts again) why
a) the Designer hypothesis satisfies me most *)
b) the concept of eternal matter (fine-tuning of the laws of nature aside) does not satisfy me


*) in the context I find the evidence from divine revelation, i.e. declarative evidence, an additional satisfactory element. Whereas we have no evidence for the multiverse or other naturalistic explanations of ultimate origins whatsoever, neither scientific nor otherwise.

I say a real god because only evidence of some kind can establish reality.

Exactly, there is the declarative evidence of divine revelation. Certainly, you can reject it more easily than scientific evidence. But a personal choice of yours to reject it does not necessarily make it any less evidence.

That's a practical and not a dogmatic criterion.

Well, you have made a dogma out of your "pragmatism".

[drogulus]

The entire universe is evidence to the existence of G-d.

Anyone who doesn't believe this, chose not to believe, and all the scientific motif is just a cover to this choice.

     This is shooting your arrow and painting a bullseye around it. What is a god? Why it's......the universe! Now if you just stop there you're OK. What do we know about the universe? Well, quite a bit. We have physical constants, a fairly well fleshed-out history, and a good idea of how it will change over the next few billion years. There's a good deal of speculation about whether it means anything to say it could have been different from how it is, or whether it's one of a series or parallel multiverse complex. Right now, no one knows what meaning to attach to these concepts.

     If the universe is a god then it's not a product of god, so Spinoza would be right. It would also mean that our knowledge of the god/universe would be co-extensive, the right kind for knowledge for both. To the extent we know about one, we know about the other.

     If Al is right (in spite of himself ) and you're right, then you would have a simple god (one without parts) co-extensive with the universe (which has parts, so the god would be the universe in its gestalt aspect! ) I can go for that! No more hiding hole in the supernatural, no more obscurantism about Perfect this and Absolute that. Yes, I heartily endorse this naturalization!

     But that wouldn't make it true, would it? _{(what would make it true, I wonder?)}

     

[drogulus]

 

Your naturalism with respect to ultimate origins is also an assumption, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever. You claim to live by evidence only, but you don't.

     I don't know if the concept of ultimate origins can be made to mean something worth being dogmatic about. Why would I want to have a dogmatic as opposed to speculative opinion about such abstruse musings?

    The dogmatic position would be to take such a concept, posit an explanation you don't understand, and then hold it to be true and immune to disconfirmation.

     Al, are your beliefs about the origin of the universe immune to disconfirmation?

    Mine certainly aren't. If evidence arrives that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog, then I will (reluctantly? joyously?) admit that is the case.

[Haffner]

One time a young hip-hoppy kid caught me reading Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". After he asked about and I informed him what I was reading, he said to me "yo, big man, like I don't need no 'philosophy', I just live!" After I pointed out that this, too, could very well be considered a philosophy, he just laughed and said "yo, you lost me, big man!" and walked away shaking his head.

I seem to encounter similar viewpoints on these threads. I notice it requires more tact for me to just shake my head like the hip-hopster quoted above. However, on some of the above points:


In the broad definition of religion, one could see any set of beliefs that facilitate the individual's existence as being a "religion". Hegel made an unfortunately verbose (but stupefyingly brilliant) document concerning "truth" and the way the individual interacts with it. It's called the "Contrite Consciousness" from his classic, "Phenomenology of Spirit".

The "leaps of faith" (borrowing both Kierkegaard's saying and definition of such) that one makes every day, may actually define what "religion" a person follows. One could start with the most "obvious" (read: conditioned most) presumption: that other consciousnesses besides our own exist.

Pragmatism, analytical philopsophy, esotericism...all apply.

I'm ready for the assault.

[Ephemerid]

In the broad definition of religion, one could see any set of beliefs that facilitate the individual's existence as being a "religion". Hegel made an unfortunately verbose (but stupefyingly brilliant) document concerning "truth" and the way the individual interacts with it. It's called the "Contrite Consciousness" from his classic, "Phenomenology of Spirit".

The "leaps of faith" (borrowing both Kierkegaard's saying and definition of such) that one makes every day, may actually define what "religion" a person follows. One could start with the most "obvious" (read: conditioned most) presumption: that other consciousnesses besides our own exist.

As a broad term, I think I am cool with that, though I just call it "philosophy" myself.  I suppose that would fit more or less with what Tillich called "the ultimate concern."

[Haffner]

As a broad term, I think I am cool with that, though I just call it "philosophy" myself.  I suppose that would fit more or less with what Tillich called "the ultimate concern."

Good point about Tillich, you've done some reading!


Sometimes it's interesting to mentally contemplate exactly what resolutely "divides" philosophy, theology...science. I haven't been too convinced by anyone here on this point as to "resolute" differences. But again, whaddaIknow?

[drogulus]

The "leaps of faith" (borrowing both Kierkegaard's saying and definition of such) that one makes every day, may actually define what "religion" a person follows. One could start with the most "obvious" (read: conditioned most) presumption: that other consciousnesses besides our own exist.


I'm ready for the assault.

     Yes, all operating principles for humans require leaps of faith. We are all naturalists in everyday life, which requires a warranted leap of faith to get up in the morning. When it stops working I'll abandon it.

     Some are in addition supernaturalists for some purposes, but fall back on naturalism when the rent is due.

[Haffner]

     Yes, all operating principles for humans require leaps of faith. We are all naturalists in everyday life which requires a warranted leap of faith to get up in the morning. When it stops working I'll abandon it.

     Some are in addition supernaturalists for some purposes, but fall back on naturalism when the rent is due.

Well written! But please define "supernaturalism" and "naturalism".

[Saul]

The catastrophic mistake is to use science as a medium to determine truths.
Science doesn't have the tools to discredit the existence of G-d. Some stupid scientists adhere to Science as a Prophet, where they ask 'Science' whether a thing is right or wrong, but science is ran by humans who are not objective at all times, and can use science as a medium to validate their ideals and their world outlook.

Science ran by scientists can hardly be objective.

[Haffner]

Science ran by scientists can hardly be objective.

Ah.

[drogulus]

Science ran by scientists can hardly be objective.

     You're right. Because individuals have biases and all sorts of weaknesses, it would be better to have science run by robots with only the absolutely minimalist preconceptions. But such intelligent robots will have their own biases, gained as part of a program that's functionally useful. The advantage that a methodical approach has had is that biases are canceled by the process itself, not perfectly, but usefully. When we land an astronaut on the moon, a gigantic program of bias compensation is seen to operate well.

[Haffner]

     You're right. To the extent that individuals have biases and all sorts of weaknesses, it would be better to have science run by robots with only the absolutely minimalist preconceptions. But such intelligent robots will have their own biases, gained as part of a program that's functionally useful. The advantage that a methodical approach has had is that biases are canceled by the process itself, not perfectly, but usefully. When we land an astronaut on the moon, a gigantic program of bias compensation is seen to operate well.

It's commendable (and telling) how you included the word "usefully". That might have been the climax of your well thought out paragraph.

[drogulus]

It's commendable (and telling) how you included the word "usefully". That might have been the climax of your well thought out paragraph.

      Yeah, but what about the robots?
     
     
     

     Pragmatism arrives in Washington. _{(that'll be the day!)}
     

[Haffner]

      Yeah, but what about the robots?
     
     
     

     Pragmatism arrives in Washington. _{(that'll be the day!)}
     

Aw, G.W.'d open an economy size can o' whup a** on that mofo!

[drogulus]

     Spiney would nail his head to the floor!

[Haffner]

     Spiney would nail his head to the floor!

(laughing with supernatural fevor)

[Brian]

      Yeah, but what about the robots?
     
     
     

     Pragmatism arrives in Washington. _{(that'll be the day!)}
     

... D D D D Dinsdale!!