Friday, August 7, 2009

Letter From a Skeptical Friend: Part 1

Posted by Adam Parker
Josh and I received an email from a good friend of ours from college which caused us some alarm. In the email, this old friend of ours said that he was considering becoming an atheist and that he essentially wanted to see if his atheistic take on reality can stand up to the Christian approach. Since he desired to dialogue with us on this issue, we asked if he would be willing to discuss this issue publicly so that others could be edified by our exchange and he agreed. The only caveat is that, for various reasons, we will be addressing him under the pseudonym "Wizard." What follows is the first part of Wizard's argument which we received. Our responses to Wizard's arguments can be found in the comments section of this blog post.

When I consider everything that I regard to be real or true I do so upon certain standards of evidence. In regards to the physical universe we can use our senses and the scientific method in order to determine truth about the physical world. Truth claims of the physical world are reliable from our senses as well as the scientific method because they can be examined by multiple observers and are overall falsifiable. It is clear that for the most part people share the same senses which makes it easy to corroborate truth claims about the physical world if there is one point of reference e.g. if I see a cup on my dining room table I can have my wife confirm that she sees the same cup on the dining room table. In the case where the senses differ, then truth claims can be examined through demonstration. If I am with someone who is color blind, I can demonstrate color by placing different colored cups upside down with a marble under the blue cup. I can leave the room, have the color blind person move the cups around and find the marble 100% of the time no matter how many times the color blind person moves the cups. I think it should go without saying that in developing beliefs about the truth of reality differing truth claims demand differing amounts of evidence. If I were to tell someone my name is Moby Dick, they would be reasonable to accept that at face value because the actual truth of my name makes little impact one way or the other in that situation.

I came to realize that I was accepting different levels of evidence for my Christian worldview than I was for all of my other beliefs. Everyone reading this would agree that for something as simple as whether or not these words are on the Bring the Books is indisputable and that if someone in the same position as the reader were to dispute it we could conclude that there is something wrong with their thinking abilities. Yet, the existence of God (something at the core of reality) is very disputable. Christians cannot demonstrate God through the use of senses or the scientific method. Therefore Christians use reason, but in doing so they make logical leaps an unfounded assumptions. The arguments used by Christians to prove God are useless because they may be able to get to the point of what I call X but cannot connect the dots to the Christian God and X can generally be filled in with "Universe creating Pixies." I used to think that the transcendental argument (TAG) succeeded in showing that the christian God must exist but I have come to see that logic and morality are not dependent on the existence of the Christian God.

The X = Universe Creating Pixies problem. I do not have the time or the space to go through all of the so called classical arguments for the existence of God, but I will use the cosmological argument as an example of how the arguments in general fail. I will start with listing the premises with which I agree.

1.) Every effect has a cause
2.) The universe had a beginning and is therefore an effect.
3.) The cause the of the universe must be sufficient to bring about the universe (I think Christians would prefer "powerful enough" rather than sufficient)

At this point the Christian would bring in premises with which I disagree. I will list the premises and then explain why I disagree.

4.) The cause of the universe must be outside of time.

This would only be necessary if you assume time is something that exists as something in itself rather than something that only comes about in relation to other things (rotation of planets, degeneration of physical things).

5.) The cause must be personal

It seems obvious to me that premise five is an arbitrary jump. How could you possibly know that the cause of the universe was personal?

Even if 1-5 were true, it only gets you to an X from which one cannot connect to God without an arbitrary leap. Like I said, universe creating pixies could satisfy 1-5.

The Christian God is not the only explanation for logic and morality. Logic is a set of observations that is based upon the consistent physical laws that our universe operate under. Logical statements need minds, but the things logical statements describe would be true whether there were no minds at all. The Christian may argue that we would not be able to trust our minds if there were no creator. However Christians cannot know that the mind of God is trustworthy. If the mind of God is eternal without change, how do we know that the mind of God is not eternally misguided. Eternality does not guarantee trustworthiness. In fact it seems that an eternal mind like God's could not change or be modified, therefore if the eternal mind is flawed it is without hope of correction. Just because we do not know the exact workings of logic does not mean it is then reasonable to assert God.

The Christian God cannot be the foundation of morality. How can Christians claim that God is the foundation of morality when that God decrees that man sin against him. Am I to believe that this perfect God is righteous, demands righteousness from me, but is responsible for everything that I do which is unrighteous. This is not to mention all of the things that God does in the Bible that we would not tolerate from any other person or being i.e. send a bear to kill young men for making fun of somebody, Accepting a human sacrifice from a foolish judge etc.

Wizard's argument will continue after we have responded to the arguments he has here offered. As mentioned before, our response to Wizard follows in the comments section.
Labels: ,

49 comments:

  1. When I had heard you had been considering abandoning Christianity, I suppose my imagination gave flight and I immediately began to wonder what it was that you knew that I did not. After reading what you've written so far (and I mean nothing condescending by this), I realize that you are being beset by the same problems and questions that have troubled man for centuries; there is really nothing new in any of the arguments you have presented. The only difference is, now they seem compelling to you whereas they did not before. This confirms for me the first and most important fact: these old arguments suddenly seem forceful whereas previously they did not. This is ultimately a spiritual matter (I highly doubt you would debate this point).

    It is clear from reading your arguments that you now believe (or are at least toying with the idea) that materialistic presuppositions offer the strongest foundation from which to judge God, His existence, and his character ("Christians cannot demonstrate [God] through the use of senses or the scientific method"). Interestingly, I believe you are already aware of the inherent circular logic of believing that your senses are basically reliable based on the fact that they seem to have always been reliable before. Aside from that, you should know that we agree with everything you've said about the scientific method and how to gain knowledge. The objection we have is that, given our worldview, we can account for science, knowledge, logic, and all the things involved with gaining scientific knowledge. The point is, given an atheistic worldview, while you may enjoy using these things, you are utilizing OUR worldview. We can account for knowledge, for logic, and for morality (which I understand you contest; we'll get to that).

    I will avoid your discussion of the Cosmological argument as I agree with you that it is fraught with erroneous assumptions and leaps in logic. I became a believer based on what I felt was the strength of this argument. It met me where I was at and answered my own questions on my unbelieving foundations, but as your critical analysis shows, there is nothing airtight about it.

    I also agree that based on natural revelation, you cannot arrive at the Christian God. You may of course suspect that I would disagree with your analysis of the TAG. You would be right. I sort of thought you understood the TAG, but you may have simply been over-simplifying for the sake of brevity.
    So your first claim regarding the TAG is that the Christian worldview cannot account for logic. Your argument fails. Here is why. With respect to the laws of logic, the TAG says that the Christian worldview can coherently account for the laws of logic. The argument you are making breaks down because when you suggest a God who is evil or deceptive, you are talking about a different worldview. You immediately step away from the Christian worldview in order to demonstrate how the Christian worldview cannot account for the laws of logic when you attempt to throw a shadow of a doubt on the goodness and honesty of the Christian God. This is an important clarification, and if you get it then you officially understand the transcendental argument much better than you currently seem to.
    ReplyDelete
  2. You mention that "the Christian may argue that we would not be able to trust our minds if there were no creator." I would like to quote J.B.S. Haldane: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." Atheism is self-defeating. Alvin Plantinga argued this another way: The probability of one's having reliable faculties in light of Naturalism are either inscrutable or relatively low. The naturalist has a less than 50% chance of having reliable truth-knowing faculties. Thus, naturalism is its own defeater, whenever logic or truth is employed. This is because, given Naturalism, one is using their own admittedly flawed faculties in order to evaluate the reliability of one's own faculties. The problem here should be obvious. Here is another version of the argument put forth quite powerfully by C.S. Lewis in his book Miracles: If Naturalism is true, then any agent who is doing thoughtful cognitive reasoning has no reason to believe that his cognitive faculties function for any reason other than survival. Thus, cognitive faculties do not find truth: they facilitate survival.

    You assert that the Christian worldview cannot account for morality because God decrees the very things that he condemns. Your charge is more specific: "Am I to believe that this perfect God is righteous, demands righteousness from me, but is responsible for everything that I do which is unrighteous?" A high charge, to be sure. You were careful about your words. In order for God's decree to be immoral, we both agree, I think, that God must be responsible for a person's evil actions. But this isn't the case. In Christian terms, a person must directly cause something in order to be "responsible" for the event's occurrence. Historical Calvinistic theology is very clear that God does not DIRECTLY cause sin. This was the theological error of Nathaniel Emmons, and Calvinists all over New England viewed him as a heretic. This was because they all recognized the importance of the distinction between decree and direct causation. If you are simply not able to get over historic Calvinism's careful distinctions here, we can explore the relationship between God's decree and divine responsibility further. At the end of the day, however, when it comes right down to it, Christianity does not agree with your characterization of God as being responsible for sin. You are once again in your attempts to discredit the TAG, stepping away from the Christian worldview (though not as blatantly, I will admit, as before in your discussion of logic).

    While I find the distinction between Creator and creature to be crucial in this discussion, I'm going to go on the offensive here. While the Christian worldview is able to account for sin, evil, and suffering, the atheistic worldview, on its own terms either does not recognize sin and evil at all, or defines it in terms of physical harm. (We can discuss atheism's arbitrary definitions of good and evil if you want, but I'll just sidestep it for the sake of brevity at the moment.) The problem of sin and evil is a problem for atheism, as well.

    You offer two examples of God doing intolerable things. The first is the story where the bears maul the youths who mocked Elijah. The second example you offered was the acceptance of a human sacrifice by a foolish judge (I'm not sure where this story is found). I want to ask you a question with regard to each of these stories. Do you believe God's actions in these stories to be evil? If so, by what standard? By Christian standards, or by atheistic standards? I am interested in where you are getting your measure of morality that you are holding God to with these examples.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Adam did a fine job in responding to your thoughts. I just wanted to add a few thoughts of my own.

    First, I see no way for the atheistic worldview to account for the scientific method or the reliability of our senses. I, like you, do think these both are valid and right things to believe in and use. However, I have a foundation in my worldview that supports and allows me to believe in the scientific method and in the general reliability of my senses. Do you? If so, what is it? Thus far, if I read you rightly, your bases is, they just work. That is an insufficient explanation of their foundation. For the christian, we can believe our senses are reliable because we are created in the image of God. We can also hold to the scientific method because God controls and upholds the universe in a regular fashion that allows for his creation to be analyzed. What is your bases?

    The second point I want to make is a textual one. I am unclear of an account in the Bible where God accepts human sacrifice. I am aware of a foolish judge offering his daughter to keep a vow he wrongly made. But where does it say that God accepted this as worship? Mankind does many things that claim to be done in the worship of God that God does not accept. Where is this account you alluded to?

    My third and final point is appeal to you on the ground that you now are standing on, Christianity. After all you have not abandoned us yet (nor can anyone really leave this ground epistemologicaly). My exhortation to you is to return to your first love. I have no idea what is going on in your life that would cause this change, but it is nothing that God does not know about and nothing Jesus cannot fix. Turn back to the triune God of the Bible and he will accept you with open arms of love. This God will not only save your soul, but he will save your mind; save your mind for being bound to false and illogical suppositions.

    In the end, know that Adam and I will always be your friend (and I hope you will always be ours), but it is a sweeter friendship as brothers!
    ReplyDelete
  4. Josh said: "I am unclear of an account in the bible where God accepts human sacrifice."

    Would you not consider the crucifixion of Christ a human sacrifice? I realize that it's not particularly relevant to this discussion and that Christ's crucifixion can only be deemed a sacrifice strictly in the metaphorical sense, but it's just the first thing that came to mind when reading your statement.
    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know if this is open for comments, but I just wanted to share a couple thoughts.

    Truth claims of the physical world are reliable from our senses as well as the scientific method because they can be examined by multiple observers and are overall falsifiable.

    They are falsifiable, but are they "trueifiable"? Have you read anything the science philosopher Karl Popper? I would recommend doing so. In trying to answer Hume's argument against the validity of induction, Popper's solution was to say "the whole apparatus of induction becomes unnecessary once we admit the general fallibility of human knowledge... Once we fully realize the implications of the conjectural character of human knowledge, then the problem of induction changes its character completely: there is no need any longer to be disturbed by Hume's negative results, since tehre is no need any longer to ascribe to human knowledge a validity derived from repeated observations. Human knowledge possesses no such validity.

    -Originally taken from The Problem of Induction

    and some great commentary on that article: Karl Popper and the Emperor's Clothes

    In regards to TAG, I agree that it cannot prove the God of the Bible, but not exactly for the reasons you provided. It certainly proves the inconsistency and thus falsity of naturalism, but it does not make a positive argument for the God of the Bible.

    I would recommend that you read some of Gordon Clark's work, starting with Atheism and perhaps How Does Man Know God?

    (btw, the comment box on this site is not working properly. I'm unable to paste anything into it.)
    ReplyDelete
  6. Ryan,

    I would not consider the crucifixion a human sacrifice for at least two reasons. First, Jesus was the God/man and second, he went willingly to the cross.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Brandon,

    I would not recommend anything by Gordon Clark. It is Clark that got us into this mess.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Adam you are correct in that nothing I have said is new. I just came to realize that what I had been holding to has truth had some serious problems and that what I had previously discarded from atheistic thinking had more to it than I had previously given credit.

    First let me clarify the story of human sacrafice. I was referring to Jephthah (I believe it is Judges 11). Jepthah made a deal with God that if God provided him with victory that he would sacrafice the first thing that came out of his door. Jephthah's daughter was the first thing to come out of his door. I agree that the account does not say that God accepted the sacrafice as worship. However, God would have known (indeed would have decreed) that the first thing to come out of Jephthahs door would be his daughter. If God was not in favor of the sacrafice why:
    1.) not worn Jephthat that his daughter would be the first thing out the door?
    2.) tell Jephthah to sacrafice the first animal out of the door?
    3.) not give Jephthah victory based on the knowledge that it would be a human sacrafice?

    I want to address the claim that I do not have any foundation for science or the scientific method. The foundation is the laws of science which exist. Why can you claim that God is eternal and justs exist but I cannot claim that physical laws exist; especially since we know and all agree that physical laws exist. I agree that the notion of God does provide a sufficient grounds for science; my assertion is that God is superfluous.

    Adam, I do not agree that my reason in regards to my senses is circular. I must believe my senses are reliable if I am to have any hope of operating in this physical universe. The reliablity of our senses is not demonstrated by our senses but rather by the fact that if we do not rely on our senses than we might as well just walk off the edge of the Grand Canyon.

    When I critisize the Christian worldview as not being sufficient for morality, I am not trying to step outside of the Christian worldview to do so. The Christian worldview asserts that the Bible is God's revelation. The Bible contains moral contradictions. A worldview which holds that God has revealed moral contradictions cannot then claim to be the only worldview capable of supporting morality. The Bible in one breath says that all men are created in God's image and that God is not a respecter of persons, but then in the next breath says that slavery is a good system for the people of God to use. In one breath the Bible says to love your neighber as yourself and then in the next breath says to descimate your neighbors entire civilization.
    ReplyDelete
  9. I should have heeded the warining that you cannot paste in these boxes. I just lost half of my comment. I will try to retype the second half of my response by the end of tonight.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate what I already said in the post. It is a moral contradiction to say that God reveals what is right and that God decreed that man do what is wrong. I know the reformed philosophy of second causes, but I do not think that it changes anyting. If God as the first cause does what he does so as to bring abou the results from the second casue He is responsible. The second cause is aslo responsible, but the responsibility of the second cause does not negate teh responsibility of the firt cause.

    In regards to teh J.B.S Haldane quote. Our beliefs are determined by the movement of the atom in our brain, but those atoms do not move at random but in accordance with orderly physical laws. I could say that a computer is not reliable because its working is the result of the movement of atoms, but I would be missing the very nature of the computer and how those atoms operate according to orderly principles.

    As far as evil being a problem for atheism as well as theism. I find it much more satisfying to believe that evil is a label we put on things that does damage to humanity (and yes unlike most atheists I would say abortion is wrong) than to believe that it is:
    A.) an unavoidable result of God giving us free will.
    B.) something that has purpose due to God working history to his end.
    In the case of B, why do you guys want to believe that the hand of God is in all these terrible things? Evn if you do find comfort in the idea I would maintain that comfort is not a grounds for truth.

    I tried to respond to the haert of the arguments against my position. I have to go for now, but I will try to go back and see if I missed any major points an get to them either today or tomorrow.
    ReplyDelete
  11. I think this discussion of science is important for us to look at a little more closely. Remember that our claim is not that you can't be scientific, but rather, that given the truthfulness of atheism, you have no ACCOUNTING for science or knowledge.

    1. Your justification of using your senses is, in fact, circular. You assume the reliability of your senses when you evaluate whether your senses have been reliable in the past. You reason that if our senses are not reliable then we might as well jump into the grand canyon. Absolutely; you might as well. But you do not. Why? Because even though your worldview only sees perception as a function of survival, you actually believe more than your worldview can account for.

    2. "Why can you claim that God is eternal and just exists, but I cannot claim that physical laws exist?" Naturalism does not recognize non-physical universals, and it cannot account for them. Our worldview can account for an eternally existent being. The way you contrast the physical laws with our Christian God demonstrates that your worldview still needs something eternal and non-physical in order to make sense of the universe. Atheism still needs a god that it can't account for. After all, how do you go from atoms to the laws of logic and real propositions?

    3. In order for science to be possible, you must be able to use inductive reasoning. Are you familiar with David Hume's discussion of the problem of induction? Hume essentially argues that simply because the future has always been like the past before, we have no reason to assume that the laws of nature will always remain the same. But this is absolutely necessary in order for scientific observation to be possible. You might say that we believe the future will be like the past because it always has been before, but this is begging the question. It is circular reasoning. Now, under the Christian worldview we have grounds for inductive reasoning in the person and activity of God, and we can account for it without being circular. We can account for the world as we experience and interact with it. You experience and interact with the world, but you are using our coherent worldview in doing so.

    4. With reference to atheism being self-defeating, what do you think of C.S. Lewis' formulation that cognitive faculties do not find truth; they merely facilitate survival. From a Naturalistic perspective, this is absolutely right, is it not? Cognitive faculties were not designed by natural selection to find truth propositions, but rather to help the organism to avoid death.
    ReplyDelete
  12. With regard to the "problem" of evil:

    You are defining "evil" as "a label we put on things that do damage to humanity." Here is the problem you run into. Evil may be something that happens to us that we don't like, but what about the things that we do to others that we do like. For example; Jeffrey Dahmer ate people. Not only did he like it, but it nourished him and facilitated his survival. From an evolutionary perspective, he fulfilled his pleasure, he consumed a weaker creature, and became more likely to survive in the world because of what he did. In this case, it's Dahmer's rights versus Joey's spleen. It is arbitrary to declare Dahmer's actions evil in evolutionary terms. Therefore, you need a new way of defining evil. To define good and evil in terms of pleasure and pain is insufficient, because many things which are pleasurable are evil.

    "[W]hy do you guys want to believe that the hand of God is in all these terrible things?" I actually find no comfort in the evil things themselves, but I do comfort myself in knowing that "God causes all things to work together for good for those who are called according to His purposes." God's providence grants us the knowledge that everything matters in the big picture, and that all the horrible things that happen in this world WILL, GUARANTEED, be put right. It does not guarantee anyone freedom from pain or suffering, but it does tell us that it all matters, even if we ourselves cannot discern the event's significance.

    But the second part of the answer to your question, "why do you guys want to believe that the hand of God is in all these terrible things?" The answer is, because the Bible teaches it. We are not required to teach what we would LIKE to be true, but rather, we are required to believe and teach what we KNOW to be true. Preference does not figure into the equation of what we choose and choose not to believe about God.
    ReplyDelete
  13. "It is a moral contradiction to say that God reveals what is right and that God decreed that man do what is wrong."

    It is not a contradiction:

    1. God commands creatures not to sin.
    2. God sins.
    3. Therefore, God contradicts the first command.

    Now, I don't believe premise two for a SECOND, but for the sake of argument, even granting your belief that God is sinning when he decrees that humans sin, there is still no contradiction. But lets take a step backwards and look at the relationship between God's decree and human responsibility.

    "If God as the first cause does what he does so as to bring about the results from the second cause He is responsible. The second cause is also responsible, but the responsibility of the second cause does not negate the responsibility of the first cause." This seems like an arbitrary conclusion. I would argue that the only factor which really matters here is the will of the one who acts. If someone acts according to their strongest desire, then they are free and therefore responsible for their actions, REGARDLESS of what caused their desires. The person's desires are still their own, and they are not acting against their will, even if the first cause is the cause of the movement OF their will. I have had way too many arguments with Arminians about this to believe that there is a coherent defeater for this version of free will.
    ReplyDelete
  14. There are two things I want to point out. First, Wizard, you are missing the fact that whatever comes to pass is the will of God and is therefore something that is going to bring about good. Since we as humans are not omniscient we cannot see all the connection of every action. Let me illustrate using your example of the foolish judge. What if the judge's daughter was going to grow up to he worse than Hitlar. God could have intended the foolish act of her father to stop a would be monster. God would be doing something good while the father was going something bad (look at Genesis 50:20). We have no way of know the reason why God did what he did, but we can be curtain that God had a morally sufficient reason for doing what he did. Just because we do not know his reason does not mean it is not there. A child at the age of 2, who gets a shot from a doctor, does not understand the morally sufficient reason for the pain in their arm, but there is a reason.

    My second comment is in regard to you claim that the Bible has moral contradictions. You seem to think that if God commands us to do something, then he must be held to that standard. This is simply wrong, as any 7 year old can attest to. They must go to bed at a curtain hour that there parents do not have to. God is the creator and we are the created. When you lose sight of this you miss apply moral imperatives left and right. If I create a sand castle you have no right to knock it down, but I have every right to. I can do with it whatever I want. I created it. Please do not think that God must live up to the standard he holds us to. God is the creator. He is above us, he is not on our level. In order to wage our fingers in God's face, we must use the finger he created. You know this all to well.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Wizard said, "atoms do not move at random, but in accordance with orderly physical laws". I could be mistaken, but last I knew "scientific method" still could not give a satisfactory reason why atoms hold together in particular recognizable forms instead of colliding in sheer chaos. In fact, there is no satisfactory naturalistic answer for the existence of matter or life. So again, he borrows from the Christian worldview. I would agree that mere natural revelation does not explain God. But we are fools if we believe that it does not explain that there is something outside of ourselves that is the first cause. Further, God has revealed to us that first cause when He says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” And when He says, “In the beginning was the Word (logic) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. And all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” And finally, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Wizard could say that I’m arguing from the presupposition that the scripture is truth. However, as Adam has already so skillfully explained, no other worldview can give a logical explanation for the physical world other than the biblical one. As R.C. Sproul once said, “The atheist operates on borrowed capital.” And besides as Josh has stated, the issue is a spiritual one. Wizard knows the truth, but does not like it.
    ReplyDelete
  16. A quick note on Jephthah in Judges 11:

    I've heard before from the context of the passage it is not very likely that the daughter of Jephthah is killed by fire or killed at all. Rather there is something about the vow of Jephthah that requires her to keep her virginity for the rest of her life. Why else would she request to go out for two months to weep for her virginity?

    If your given two months before your offered up into fire, then why not nine months or two years to prdouce some offspring?
    ReplyDelete
  17. Faris, I'm glad you mentioned that; it was something I missed when I responded. I have heard the same interpretation of the story of Jephthah. Your explanation reminded me that I have, in fact, heard that story before. I'm thankful for you mentioning it.
    ReplyDelete
  18. Wizard has his hands full, now! LOL A lot of thoughts to respond to, I mean.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow, you said it Adam, I have definetely gotten my hands full. I will have a longer response tomorrow (barring death or some other serious event)but I would like to make a short response now to some of the things said.

    "Your justification of using your senses is, in fact, circular. You assume the reliability of your senses when you evaluate whether your senses have been reliable in the past." Actually, I believe that my logic for relying on the senses is very similar to your logic for God. You are telling me that God exists because if he did not, nothing would make sense. I am telling you that my senses are reliable because if they were not nothing would make sense. This is one of the main problem I have with the Christian position, it seems engage in special pleading over and over. You tell me that induction is only reliable if God exists, yet using the same reasoning against the reliability of induction I could tell you that you have no reason to believe that God will be the same tomorrow as he was today. My wife just called me to dinner, so I will respond in length tomorrow (Monday).
    ReplyDelete
  20. Wizard, you attempt to cast doubt on the Christian position by saying, "well things could just be different than you think." In this case, maybe God does change; maybe He isn't the same or consistent.

    But my claim is that the Christian belief in an unchanging, eternal, infinite God of the universe is the reason WHY I can account for induction. My claim is that this is a coherent, total worldview able to account for all the necessary facts of the universe, including logic, morality, and yes, induction. In fact, if God was changeable (which wouldn't be the Christian God), then induction wouldn't be possible. So here we have another argument in favor of the Christian worldview, albeit from a different angle: "If God were changeable, induction would not be possible." You, on the other hand, have no such appeal. You have no grounds for being able to account for induction. Hume is still right. And I know that you had to write quickly, but if you want to be scientific you should really have some sort of ground for your use of induction that is consistent with an atheistic universe.

    "In order to slap God in the face, you must first sit in his lap." -Van Til-
    ReplyDelete
  21. (okay, another short response). "But my claim is that the Christian belief in an unchanging, eternal, infinite God of the universe is the reason WHY I can account for induction. My claim is that this is a coherent, total worldview able to account for all the necessary facts of the universe, including logic, morality, and yes, induction. In fact, if God was changeable (which wouldn't be the Christian God), then induction wouldn't be possible." Again, how are you not engaged in special pleading. I will once again use the same logic you are using and say that the if the laws of science were not eternal/consistent then induction is impossible. My worldview which includes belief in eternal consistent physical laws (which is consistent with an atheistic worldview)provides a grounds for induction. I will not give up this line of reasoning until you can demonstrate why eternal consistant physical laws are not consistent with an atheistic worldview. The laws are not non-material in the sense that they exist somewhere out there. They are the consistent way that physical matter operates.
    ReplyDelete
  22. Wizard,

    Are these "eternal consistent physical law" material or immaterial?
    ReplyDelete
  23. "I will once again use the same logic you are using and say that the if the laws of science were not eternal/consistent then induction is impossible." This is not my argument, and it demonstrates that you aren't understanding the weight of my argument.

    You are making this claim just for the sake of argument, but it is a claim that is not consistent with your worldview. My claim is consistent with my worldview (and you can't even try to deny it). I can account for the laws of logic in a universe where my worldview is true. You cannot. Now I will explain more clearly why this is the case.

    In Greg Bahnsen's debate with Gordon Stein, one of the greatest moments happened during cross-examination. In this cross-examination, Bahnsen got Stein to admit that the laws of logic are immaterial. Stein's actual statement was, "How could a law be material?" Bahnsen responded, "That's what I'm about to ask you."

    You see, the laws of logic are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. Whether you are willing to acknowledge this fact or not, a universe that is matter and only matter has no room for universal, invariant, immaterial laws.

    The path you have chosen is to say that the laws of logic are physical laws. I hope you're willing to revise this, because it's an incoherent statement (no offense). This is why we teach logic in philosophy class and not in physics class. I know of no atheist who has ever claimed that the laws of logic are physical laws.

    In my opinion, your best explanation for the laws of logic is to say that they are conventions adopted by society. However, if this was the case, you would see different laws of logic being used by different cultures and societies. This simply not the case, however. Even in the Buddhist East, the law of identity and the law of noncontradiction still applies.

    So you cannot account for immaterial laws. You cannot claim that they are conventions of society. You cannot account for the laws of logic in strictly materialistic terms.
    ReplyDelete
  24. Josh, the physical laws are physical in the sense that they are not some self existent entity. Gravity for example is the way things with mass attract one another (my training is in theology not science but I believe I am right about this). Since physical laws are physical, they are completely consistent with an atheist worldview. The laws of logic are an extension of the physical laws or the consistent way that matter works.

    Adam you said that "In fact, if God was changeable (which wouldn't be the Christian God), then induction wouldn't be possible. So here we have another argument in favor of the Christian worldview..." If the physical laws of the universe were not consistent (which would not be the atheist worldview) induction would not be possible. So we have another argument in favor of the atheist worldview. I am not trying to say that the Christian worldview is inconsistent I am trying to say that the same logic could be used to show that the atheist worldview is consistent (remember I am arguing that the physical laws are physical). Therefore, since we can demonstrate the consistency of physical laws, but we cannot demonstrate the consistency of physical laws, but we cannot demostrate the existence or consistency of God and God is shown not to be needed for a consistent worldview, then the atheist position is the rational position.
    ReplyDelete
  25. "With reference to atheism being self-defeating, what do you think of C.S. Lewis' formulation that cognitive faculties do not find truth; they merely facilitate survival." It seems to me that the brain that evovled the best able to discern truth would be the most likely to survive.

    "I could be mistaken, but last I knew "scientific method" still could not give a satisfactory reason why atoms hold together in particular recognizable forms instead of colliding in sheer chaos. In fact, there is no satisfactory naturalistic answer for the existence of matter or life. So again, he borrows from the Christian worldview." Is your claim that God holds these together despite natural physical laws? If you believe that God holds these together using natural laws then you agree with me that natural law is sufficient to explain the phenomina. Why is there no satisfactory answer for the existence of matter in an atheistic worldview? You say God exists and has always existed, I saw matter exists and has always existed (granted the universe as we know it now had a beginning). If I do not have a satisfactory answer for why matter exists you do not have a satisfactory answer for why God exists.
    ReplyDelete
  26. "There are two things I want to point out. First, Wizard, you are missing the fact that whatever comes to pass is the will of God and is therefore something that is going to bring about good." Is what God reveals in his moral law good or evil? If what God reveals is good and is ordains evil (and therefore is responsible for evil) how is that not a moral contradiction. Your point in regards to the difference between God and humanity is moot since we are talking about what God himself says is good. This brings back the point of second causes and responsibility. Let us say that everything I wrote came into reality. If I write a book where one character kills his brother and rapes his sister who is responsible for that action. Yes,t he characters certainly are, but their responsibility does not negate my responsibility. I do not know how you guys can argue that point.
    ReplyDelete
  27. Wizard,

    If they are physical they must be extended in space, so where are they? Where can we find the law of gravity? Not, where can we see the law of gravity at work, but where is the law itself?
    ReplyDelete
  28. They are extended in space because they are inherrent in matter. The law of gravity is not something that is taking two objects that would not attract each other and making them attract each other, the law of gravity is the nature of mass to attract mass. That is what objects with mass do.
    ReplyDelete
  29. It seems to me that you missed the point of my comments. Let me try it again for another angel. If the law itself is physical, as you claim, where is the law itself to be found. For example, my car is physical and I can tell you where it can be found. All things that are physical are somewhere. Where are these laws? Where can we find the law of gravity?
    ReplyDelete
  30. We find the law of gravity wherever we find objects with mass. Are you claiming that the attraction of objects with mass to each other is not physical? Gravity can also be measured and felt hence it is in the physical realm. Are you saying that something which can be measured and experienced by the senses is not physical?
    ReplyDelete
  31. You ask, "Are you claiming that the attraction of objects with mass to each other is not physical?"

    No, but what I am asking is where is the law of gravity itself. You just told me where I can see the law at work. But what I want to see (since it is physical) is the law of gravity itself. Where can I go to see the piece of paper known as the law of gravity?
    ReplyDelete
  32. Wizard, these points you are arguing are not the same thing as what I am arguing. There is no parallel. The fact that you keep taking this approach just shows, as I have said many times, that you don't understand the argument I am offering up (or you are unable to deal with the meat of my argument and are therefore flailing). If you did, you would stop trying to sidestep my argument and instead deal with the very weighty point I have put forth.

    Point blank: I want to know how you can account for the non-material, universal, invariant laws of logic given the atheistic worldview. If you don't want to do this, just send me your next set of questions and we can move on. Orrr.... you could admit that given the atheistic worldview you have no idea how universal, non-material, invariant laws of any type could actually exist.

    But stop simply assuming that they exist and ask yourself if they could really exist if you were right about the nature of the universe.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Adam,

    Wizard has said that these laws are physical, thus they are not non-material. How these laws can be material, we have not seen yet. But at least he is arguing that they are material, which is consistent with a naturalistic worldview.
    ReplyDelete
  34. It seems that the universe operates according to a very complex set of laws; more complex than simply "big attracts small." It all seems easy enough to explain with something as simplistic as gravity, but when you look at the atomic behavior of protons and neutrons, what you find out is that you're getting into much deeper water. Can you really explain all of these laws in strictly materialistic terms?

    Would you grant that in another part of the universe, gravity may behave differently, given the fact that the big bang may have fused matter, protons, electrons, and other elements themselves in a wildly different configuration than in the part of the universe in which we live? Is it possible that the laws of physics are variant, depending on where in the universe one finds oneself? If you answer this question by saying, "yes, it is possible," then you find yourself destroying induction and the possibility of all knowledge. If no, then you are in a situation where you believe in extra-physical, transcendent laws which govern ALL of the universe, regardless of location.

    I'd still rather talk about the laws of logic, since - as I argued previously - they do not fit under the rubric of physical laws.
    ReplyDelete
  35. Josh, I am under the impression that Wizard has not yet interacted my comment from August 10, 2009 8:16 AM. If he has responded, then he has done so very poorly.
    ReplyDelete
  36. "If what God reveals is good and ordains is evil (and therefore is responsible for evil) how is that not a moral contradiction?"

    You have sidestepped my explanation for why it is not the case that "ordains" = "is responsible." I have taken pains to show that the classical Calvinistic definition of freedom of the will does not assign responsibility to every party to the movement of a person's will. You don't like this, because you think it's all the same in the end. In other words, you just don't prefer these distinctions. How can I argue with your preferences? The best I can do is to show you, plain as day, a coherent understanding of free will and responsibility that has stood up to hundreds of years of scrutiny. If you choose not to interact with it and instead simply say, "God's responsible for everything He ordains, I don't care how you try to explain it," then there's really no changing your mind, is there?

    You end up sounding just like all the other atheistic philosophers who don't have the advantage you have of understanding Reformed theology from the inside. You are making a caricature of the very position which you understand well enough not to have to caricature.
    ReplyDelete
  37. An interesting and relevant article from the Evangelical Philosophical Society: "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan.

    http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45
    ReplyDelete
  38. When you get down to the behavior of protons and neutrons and electrons you are then dealing with electrical charges. I am not a scientist so I cannot go into detail about the physical make up or actions of these things. However, I would ask if you believe that there is a natural explanation for the way those things work? If you believe that the way they work is natural then we both agree on that point.

    In regards to logic. I agree that logic is not physical in the sense that they are formulations of the mind. Is your claim that thinking itself is not compatible with an atheistic worldview? Now the reason that the laws of logic are universal is because they are a recognition of the orderly operation of the physical world. I argue that logic is therefore consistent with an atheistic worldview.
    ReplyDelete
  39. In regards to God being responsible for evil. I have to confess that my argument was wrong. The only way my argument could be correct is if the intention of God was evil as well as the intention of the second cause. You are right I was misrepresenting the reformed position which based on Gen 5o, Isaiah 10 and Acts 2 (I am not sure if Acts 2 is the right passage)clearly teaches that God's intentions were Holy and good but man's intentions were evil. I publically admit my error in that regard. I honestly do not even know how to defend the atheistic worldview from a moral stand point.
    ReplyDelete
  40. Wizard, we both agree that the behavior of protons and neutrons is natural. However, I believe they behave this way because God has so constituted atomic structure. The atheist, on the other hand, it seems to me, must recognize the potential for variations in the behavior of matter. If only I were a physicist, I could overwhelm you with facts and dominate the conversation by force. Alas, without sufficient expertise, perhaps this line of argument will always remain a theory for me. But I think it could be a very potent argument in the right hands.
    ReplyDelete
  41. I also wish that I could bring a better understanding to the table in this area, but as you know I did not major in any of the physical sciences.
    ReplyDelete
  42. "Is your claim that thinking itself is not compatible with an atheistic worldview?" No. Well, I should nuance that. I would be more specific and say that all of the elements necessary for the formation of coherent thought (aka the laws of logic) which are universal, non-material (is that still under discussion?), and invariant, are incompatible with a view of the universe which does not allow for universal, non-material and invariant laws or entities.

    Animals think; but they do not utilize the laws of logic. They operate by instincts of survival. So I guess my answer is, "Thoughts are compatible with the atheistic worldview, but the universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic aren't."
    ReplyDelete
  43. While I concede the moral argument to the Christians, I still feel there is a weakness in the transcendental argument when it comes to logic and consisent physical laws of the universe. Is anyone familiar with the Christian apologist Matt Slick? I would be interested to hear anyones take on the debate Matt slick had with Matt Dillahunty on the atheist experience show (www.atheist-experience.com) I believe it is episode #593 (The description of the episode talks about a model of logical fallacies). Actually, if any one has seen that particular show I would be interested in your take on the thought experiment the two hosts did on that same show using the "transcendental dice."
    ReplyDelete
  44. Adam, for the sake of argument assume that physcial laws of the universe exist physically. If they are part of the physical world and consistent would it be possible for logic to be a recognition of the mind of how the universe operates according to physical law? In that case couldn't logic be consistent in an atheistic worldview? The foundation for logic being universal would be based on the universality of the physical laws.
    ReplyDelete
  45. Wizard, I am going to be away for a few days, and I will be "off the grid," but while I'm gone I'll listen to that episode of the atheist experience and get back to you. I have heard of Matt Slick, so I'm interested in how in-depth they get on the show.
    ReplyDelete
  46. That's an interesting request. I have trouble assuming that "physical laws exist physically." Part of the reason for that is, I really don't know what that means.

    I mean, there appear to be a very complex set of laws which the universe operates according to. If you are right, then the universe literally doesn't operate according to a set of laws. Have you considered that? I think that would be the end result.

    It would just be matter. Matter without direction.

    Even the very act of describing matter as having an organizational structure to it seems problematic from an atheistic perspective, does it not?

    Here, lets get back to your question: "If they are part of the physical world and consistent would it be possible for logic to be a recognition of the mind of how the universe operates according to physical law?"

    Well, if I'm right about what I wrote above, then it comes to reason that there are no such things as laws of logic, given an atheistic worldview. There would be only observed facts of the universe. But the facts of the universe are interpreted variantly by scientists and philosophers all over the world, to one degree or another. I mean, there are some things that scientists agree on, but there are a lot of other things that are not agreed on.

    But when it comes to the laws of logic, well, the laws of logic are undeniable and can be demonstrated easily time and time again. In contrast to the constant and active studies in the field of science, there is no new research being done anymore in the field of logic. They simply aren't in question.

    I suppose the other way to go with that is that if the laws of logic are physically-based (again, I can't help mentioning I find this idea incoherent) then they would be mere social conventions. If this were the case, then you would find different types of logic, but this is hardly the case, either.

    I'm in uncharted territory here. For me, anyway.
    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm going off the grid until Sunday. So don't interpret my silence as ignorance, stage-fright, or anger. I just won't have access to the internet until I get back. Peace to all.

    Wizard, if you want, you should consider sending me your next set of arguments; then when I return we can get rolling on another set.
    ReplyDelete
  48. Wizard,

    After listening to the episode of The Atheist Experience that you pointed me to, I looked at Matt Slick's formulation of the TAG. I thought you might find his argument against what you're arguing to be interesting (this is all quoted from Slick):

    Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

    1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.

    2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.

    3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
    a. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.

    4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
    a. For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
    b. Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
    ReplyDelete
  49. Hello wizard,

    If you are looking through the eyes of an atheist (or rather, the eyes of a naturalist) could I borrow those eyes for a moment?

    What meaning does ecclesiastes hold for you now?

    thank you for your time
    ReplyDelete

Think hard about this: the world is watching!

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)