Plantinga: The God Delusion

[drogulus]

Yes, exactly.  That implies a decision has been made to create, or to not not create.

     It would if it implied a decision, which it does if you already believe it. Otherwise, a decision looks like something that requires a Decider to be built first, perhaps by evolution. Which, in turn.....

     

     My question is: How many "turtles all the way down" are enough for you? Wittgenstein said an explanation has to stop somewhere (so much for taking metaphysical explanations as truth!), so if you really want to stop the madness, start at the top with the first turtle, OK? Either you force the first one to reveal his secrets or you give up on turtles altogether.

     If you want to speculate, go ahead. But unless you can find a way to show how things are different if what you believe is true than if it's false, you aren't saying anything except what you believe.

[Al Moritz]

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

Of course not. The very instant you show me the multiverse I will seriously and honestly start to reevaluate my thinking.

[Al Moritz]

     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.

Yes, and you will wait and wait and wait for the evidence...

Your position reminds me of what Allan Sandage wrote, who according to Wikipedia was "throughout the 1950s and well into the 1970s regarded as the pre-eminent observational cosmologist" and who converted to Christianity at age 50:

"Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science."

(Emphasis mine.)

[drogulus]

     

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.

    I believe this is what we are discussing. You say "if the reason is a timeless God". What would count as confirmation of the source of this belief? What would be the falsification of it? What is the meaning of if in this context?

Yes, and you will wait and wait and wait for the evidence...

    I'll try and stay busy.

   

[Haffner]

     
    I believe this is what we are discussing. You say "if the reason is a timeless God". What would count as confirmation of the source of this belief? What would be the falsification of it? What is the meaning of if in this context?

   

I'm thinking of the old Hegelian argument involving "how can there be time unless there is considered a 'beyond time', anti-time, inverse time etc..."

How can there be a finite without at least conception of infinite, etc.

Not sure if that adds to the discussion, I just remember those questions having provoked alot of thought on my part.

[drogulus]

But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science."

(Emphasis mine.)

      An act of faith I don't share, by the way. As for the things of spirit, whether you conceive of them in material terms or not is based on what we can find out about them. It takes more dogmatism to refuse this simple observation than to accept it. I never understood how people could reject finding out how things work as a basis for knowledge while embracing the most defeatist alternative. Some people just give up, I guess. Religion preys on this weakness.

I'm thinking of the old Hegelian argument involving "how can there be time unless there is considered a 'beyond time', anti-time, inverse time etc..."

How can there be a finite without at least conception of infinite, etc.

Not sure if that adds to the discussion, I just remember those questions having provoked alot of thought on my part.

     I addressed this earlier, I don't know where. The idea is that nothing doesn't exist as an alternative to something. That's just a theory we have, which doesn't look all that good right now. One answer to the "why is there something rather than nothing" is that nothing is unstable . I know these are unsatisfying answers but I offer them in the spirit I'm known for. That is, they are junky ideas we have when we don't know enough about the subject, in the manner of "revealed truth". 

      Edit: One thing I must make clear, if I haven't yet done so.

      I don't believe it's an established fact that science will discover everything. I say instead that there's no reason to assume at the outset that what we are capable of knowing can't be understood in a scientific manner. The correct thing to do is let the results of investigations speak for themselves, and let what we learn inspire further investigation. There is no shortcut to building new knowledge on what is known, even if it never leads to heaven.

[Haffner]

   

     I addressed this earlier, I don't know where. The idea is that nothing doesn't exist as an alternative to something. That's just a theory we have, which doesn't look all that good right now. One answer to the "why is there something rather than nothing" is that nothing is unstable . I know these are unsatisfying answers but I offer them in the spirit I'm known for. That is, they are junky ideas we have when we don't know enough about the subject, in the manner of "revealed truth". 

[Al Moritz]

     
    I believe this is what we are discussing. You say "if the reason is a timeless God". What would count as confirmation of the source of this belief? What would be the falsification of it? What is the meaning of if in this context?

What is the meaning of if in this context? You read way too much into this. Think about it for a moment.

[Operahaven]

Here is my problem with this whole 'God' debate: We are all born with various abilities to reason. What omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god could allow us to flounder around over lifetimes trying to understand if he exists or does not exist? Where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in allowing the death, destruction, and suffering of children around the world (to pick only one example)?

I don't deny that there may be a god...it is just that no one has convinced me of that. But, I will accept the possibility of his existence. I have no other choice. In my moments of suffering and despair I certainly want a merciful and omnipotent god to intervene on my behalf. I pray as follows..."Dear god, you gave me the power to reason and so you must know that in my heart of hearts no mortal (especially myself) has been competent enough to guide me to knowing if you are real. You must know that my understanding of you is not motivate by bad intentions. You must know that I lead a compassionate life with malice towards none and doing the best I can within my power to apprehend you. If you are real, and all generous and all compassionate, help me through these dark and painful moments in my life that have clearly exceed my abilities to correct or prevent."

This is my personal "religion" if a name must be given to this approach. I have no use for the man made religions that claim to know more than I but are unable to prove they do.

[drogulus]

What is the meaning of if in this context? You read way too much into this. Think about it for a moment.

     So, what would cause you to abandon "your god did it" solution? This is your moment to shine! You can prove me wrong by telling me that "yes, if something disconfirmed the god hypothesis, I would give it up"!!

     All you got to do is say you're an open minded chap and give in to the 3 devils! _{(you thought I was going to say "dance, dance, dance...." )}.

     Edit: I'm getting tired. That's enough for one day. See y'all later. _{(their names are Huey, Dewie, and Louie..)}

[Wanderer]

Your position reminds me of what Allan Sandage wrote, who according to Wikipedia was "throughout the 1950s and well into the 1970s regarded as the pre-eminent observational cosmologist" and who converted to Christianity at age 50:

"Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science."

And he's not the only scientist sharing that view.

[Al Moritz]

     So, what would cause you to abandon "your god did it" solution? This is your moment to shine! You can prove me wrong by telling me that "yes, if something disconfirmed the god hypothesis, I would give it up"!!

     All you got to do is say you're an open minded chap and give in to the 3 devils! _{(you thought I was going to say "dance, dance, dance...." )}.

Hey, Drogulus, do you even pay attention to what other people say or do you just discuss for the heck of discussing?

I already gave the answer above:

Of course not [is my belief immune to disconfirmation]. The very instant you show me the multiverse I will seriously and honestly start to reevaluate my thinking.

This reevaluation of course implies that I might take the ultimate step that you demand.

My beliefs are rational, and thus also allow for a rational disconfirmation.

[Florestan]

The way I see it, from a purely scientific point of view, belief is not an act of knowledge, but an act of will, nay, of free will in the proper sense of both terms. Since science, i.e. the body of factual knowledge and accepted theories about the material world at a given time, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, to believe is a matter of choice. I choose to believe that God exists and this mine choice (i.e, will) is free, not bound by unconclusive scientific data. I am a human being, not a robot, and my thought is not bound by the limits of science. And the fact that in the course of history human beings have been able to transcend their physical, material limits is proof enough for me that there is more to man that a mere blind biological machine coming from nowhere and heading to nothingness.

So, the way I see it, theists have chosen freedom, while atheists have chosen bondage: bondage to the material world, bondage to sensorial data, bondage to the limits of human reason.

[Norbeone]

This is my personal "religion" if a name must be given to this approach. I have no use for the man made religions that claim to know more than I but are unable to prove they do.

And a rather moving description of it, too. I agree with everything you say, though I have strong doubts as to whether I would crack upon iminent death and start praying. Never know, however.


And concerning scientific reductionism: this may seem to some a rather bleak way to look at things, but what other convincing methods are available to us, ones convincing enough to lead to a strong belief (or claimed knowledge) of a universe-creating God?

Also, I don't believe science will know everything or can know everything. Maybe it will eventually, but I admit I reserve judgment on that one. On the other hand, science has discovered a lot of things; things that religion never has or could never hope to discover (relevant or not).

To Florestan:

I don't see how accepting bronze-age myths as a result of parental transmission (or whatever indoctrination method it is) as freedom. The whole point of science is to provide a method of showing whether or not things are really true. Any claims that God is beyond scientific validation or that such  methods shouldn't be employed when dealing with these 'metaphysical' things is 100% conjecture and seems like nothing more than an excuse, an easy way out of giving their beliefs credibility.

[drogulus]

Hey, Drogulus, do you even pay attention to what other people say or do you just discuss for the heck of discussing?

    Sometimes. I just like barking at passing cars. 

    I don't understand your position here. I don't think the multiverse is presently falsifiable, but it might be some day. If some form of disconfirmation becomes available, I think we both would accept it on the same grounds.

     Now the other part, where a god is pure being and creates (or in some manner brings about) the universe, has to be treated differently. Here there is no likelihood of disconfirmation. That is, no combination of future scientific discoveries about the nature of existence could ever amount to a refutation of these statements. When there is no set of facts to disconfirm a belief, why give it up? The mistake is to think that such a belief is a proposition which happens to be untestable.

     The untestabilty doesn't just happen, it is a chosen feature. Creator gods and untestable gods are the same thing, and their defenses can't be breached. What can be done is what I'm doing, launching probes about what beliefs accompany the main belief, like destroyers guarding the main battle fleet. I mean beliefs like materialists are dogmatic (in comparative terms they are undogmatic), people disbelieve for bad reasons, an authoritative vision or revelation is a form of confirmation, the devil (or even 3 of them) is tempting you into disbelief (my favorite).

     So if disconfirmation isn't possible how do people break the spell? Mostly, I think people get tired of the gamesmanship involved. All the double-bookkeeping, where you're as materialist as the next guy about everyday life but reserve the right to object for those special moments where nothing is at stake but an interpretation of something that can't be known anyway. This shows good judgment. Don't abandon materialism when it counts, only when it costs you nothing.

[Al Moritz]

The way I see it, from a purely scientific point of view, belief is not an act of knowledge, but an act of will, nay, of free will in the proper sense of both terms. Since science, i.e. the body of factual knowledge and accepted theories about the material world at a given time, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, to believe is a matter of choice.

Yes, my belief is also an act  of free will to accept divine revelation and a personal relationship with God, but I could not have belief if it would not be supported by rational reasons to do so. Interestingly, the Catholic church appears to think the same way, since it condemns fideism, which is belief without reason, "believing just to believe".

So, the way I see it, theists have chosen freedom, while atheists have chosen bondage: bondage to the material world, bondage to sensorial data, bondage to the limits of human reason.

Yes, and many of them are trapped in a sort of circular reasoning. As I had said before in this thread, the reasoning of many atheists seems to go as follows:

"I only accept observational evidence, which is only obtained from the material world. Science, which studies the material world, has had spectacular success in providing observationally verifiable evidence and in explaining how the natural world works. Hence, science has shown to be the only reliable source of human knowledge. Therefore, I don't accept the possibility that there is any other reality than what science studies, i.e. the material world."

This, however, is circular reasoning: the conclusion is basically the same as the premise from which it started.

***

Interestingly, after I had written this, I discovered that Allan Sandage also mentions the trap of circular reasoning:

"Q. Can the existence of God be proved?

"I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.

"Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality."

[drogulus]

The way I see it, from a purely scientific point of view, belief is not an act of knowledge, but an act of will, nay, of free will in the proper sense of both terms. Since science, i.e. the body of factual knowledge and accepted theories about the material world at a given time, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, to believe is a matter of choice.

So, the way I see it, theists have chosen freedom, while atheists have chosen bondage: bondage to the material world, bondage to sensorial data, bondage to the limits of human reason.

     This is rather odd. It sounds like everyone is choosing with equal freedom. Scientists (and finders of fact in general) are liberated by the rules they observe. In their absence human beings are truly in bondage to ignorance and superstition. Modern believers understand this and run both systems in parallel. It's kludgey but it imposes no great penalty in a secular democratic society where religion has been defanged. When you look at the rest of the world, though, our comparative safety seems more precarious.

   

[drogulus]

"Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality."

    If I wanted to commit circular reasoning, I hope I would have the chutzpah to accuse others of doing it at the same time! Al, do you read this stuff before you post it?

    "Those who deny God..."

    Here you see the parallel systems in action. Could Sandage even imagine himself saying anything this idiotic about a colleague who didn't accept some theory about the expansion of the early universe? No, but in his fanciful parallel world where things don't have to make sense he's free to take all the liberties he wants. He's free! It's the freedom of a child with a responsible parent nearby. In this case the parent is the other belief system he subscribes to, the one where reason and evidence do matter. In other parts of the world, it's common to find these systems only separately and at war with each other.

[karlhenning]

The catastrophic mistake is to use science as a medium to determine truths.

Saul, when you say things like this, you do make yourself appear absurd.

The entire purpose of science is to determine truths within the natural world, things like the boiling point of pepto-bismal, the rate of absorption into the water-table, the nature of the DNA chain.

Remarks like yours above, are a catastrophic mistake.

[karlhenning]

Here is my problem with this whole 'God' debate: We are all born with various abilities to reason. What omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god could allow us to flounder around over lifetimes trying to understand if he exists or does not exist? Where is the logic in that?

You don't really want an answer, do you?  I get the impression that you're just sort of tossing this onto the table as your personal reason for not bothering with it.  And, of course, you are at complete liberty.