God Philosophers weigh in Alex Byrne Boston Review January February 2009

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009

GodPhilosophers weigh in Alex Byrne

Alex Byrne teaches philosophy at MIT. He has co-edited two collections of papers on color, Readings on Color, Volume 1: The Philosophy of Color and Volume 2: The Science of Color.

God has had a lot of bad press recently. The four horsemen of atheism, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, have all published books sharply critical of belief in God: respectively, The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and God Is Not Great. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens pile on the greatest amount of scorn, while Dennett takes the role of good cop. But despite differences of tone and detail, they all agree that belief in God is a kind of superstition. As Harris puts it, religion “is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.”

The question of God’s existence is one of those few matters of general interest on which philosophers might pretend to expertise—Dennett is a professional philosopher, and Harris has a B.A. in the subject. Still, of the four, it is Dawkins who wades the furthest into philosophy. So what can philosophy contribute? In particular, have philosophers come to a verdict on the traditional arguments for God’s existence?

Although it would be too much to expect complete consensus, it is fair to say that the arguments have left the philosophical community underwhelmed. The classic contemporary work is J. L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism, whose ironic title summarizes Mackie’s conclusion: the persistence of belief in God is a kind of miracle because it is so unsupported by reason and evidence. The failure of arguments for God’s existence need not lead straight to atheism, but philosophers often seem to find this route tempting. In his contribution to Philosophers Without Gods, a collection of atheistic essays by twenty prominent philosophers, Stewart Shapiro observes that “among contemporary philosophers, the seriously religious are a small minority.” Dean Zimmerman, a notable member of the minority, has ruefully remarked that “although numerous outspoken Christians are highly respected in analytic circles, many of our colleagues still regard the persistence of religious belief among otherwise intelligent philosophers as a strange aberration, a pocket of irrationality.”

Contemporary Christian philosophers content themselves with pulling up the drawbridge and manning the barricades, rather than crusading against the infidel.

The world was very different when a distinguished philosopher could say, as St. Thomas Aquinas did, “the existence of God can be proved in five ways.” Contemporary Christian philosophers often content themselves with pulling up the drawbridge and manning the barricades, rather than crusading against the infidel. Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most eminent living philosopher of religion, devotes the five hundred pages of his Warranted Christian Belief to fending off objections to either the truth or rationality of belief in traditional Christian doctrines. He does not

argue for the existence of God, and still less for the truth of Christianity; rather, his main question is whether a reasonable person who finds herself with firm religious convictions should change her mind. Plantinga is not trying to persuade Dawkins and company to change their minds.

The traditional arguments for God’s existence are very much worth our attention, though, for at least three reasons: they are of great intrinsic interest; popular discussions of them often fail to pin down their defects; and one argument, the “design argument,” has had a new lease on life as the intellectual underpinning of the intelligent design movement.

Before turning to some of the arguments, who or what is God supposed to be? Zeus, Thor, Ganesh? Alternatively, the depersonalized Deus sive natura (God or nature) that got Spinoza excommunicated from Amsterdam’s Jewish congregation? The philosophical literature focuses on the God of the Abrahamic tradition: a person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. Is there any reason to think that God, so conceived, exists?

Arguments for the existence of God are usually divided into those whose premises may be known from the armchair, and those whose premises are the result of experiment and observation. The best-known armchair argument is called (following Kant’s unhelpful terminology) the “ontological argument,” while the design argument (also called the “teleological argument”) is the main representative of empirical arguments. Let us start from the armchair.

* * *

The ontological argument was first developed by the eleventh-century monk St. Anselm, who spent his formative years at Bec Abbey in Normandy and later became Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm was a central figure in early scholasticism, which brought the logical and metaphysical apparatus of Aristotelianism to bear on the interpretation of Christian texts.

In chapter two of his Proslogion (“Address”), Anselm considers the Fool of Psalm 14, who “hath said in his heart: There is no God.” Anselm argues that the Fool’s position is self-undermining: the very act of denying that God exists shows that God does exist. It is as if the Fool were to say, very foolishly, “I am not speaking.”

God, Anselm says, is a perfect being, “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” We may assume that any ignorance or malice or feebleness detracts from greatness, so Anselm’s God is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. Just for simplicity, let us also assume that there could be at most one perfect being, so Anselm’s God is unique. Anselm then draws a distinction between “existing in the mind” (or “in thought,” or “in the understanding”) and “existing in reality.” When a painter intends to paint a picture of, say, a dragon, the picture, and the dragon, exist in his mind but not in reality. When he has finished putting paint on canvas, the picture, but not the dragon, also exists in reality. Dragons—as opposed to pictures of dragons, or the word “dragon”—exist only in the mind. Conversely, there are many things that exist only in reality: a certain rock at the bottom of the Pacific, say, which no one has ever seen.

Having explained this distinction, Anselm observes that the Fool must admit that God exists in his mind, just as the Fool must admit that a dragon exists in the painter’s mind. Dragons, of course, exist only in the mind. The Fool will say the same of God. Anselm thinks the Fool can be hoisted by his own petard.

Sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions are as rare as atheists in foxholes: the track record of philosophical “proofs” is not exactly impressive.

Here we come to the crucial step in Anselm’s argument. An entity that exists only in the mind, he thinks, is not as great—not so perfect—as one that exists in reality. I imagine a dry martini: unfortunately it exists only in my mind. You imagine a martini, shake the gin and vermouth, and add the olive: happily for you, the martini exists both in your mind and in reality. According to Anselm, the martini that exists only in the mind is less perfect than the martini that also exists in reality—and after a long day at the office, this can sound quite convincing. Similarly, a being that only exists in the Fool’s mind is not as perfect as one that also exists in reality. So if God exists only in the Fool’s mind, the Fool is not thinking of a perfect being, because a perfect being also exists in reality. Equivalently: if the Fool is thinking of a perfect being, then God exists in reality. The very existence of atheists, Anselm concludes, shows that “something than which greater cannot be conceived undoubtedly exists both in the mind and in reality.”

Should we agree with Dawkins that something has gone badly wrong, on the grounds that Anselm’s argument reaches “such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world”? As a general reason for suspicion, this is not very persuasive. In 300 BC Euclid proved that infinitely many prime numbers exist. He needed no empirical data, and surely his conclusion—infinitely many—is pretty significant.

A better complaint is that sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions are as rare as atheists in foxholes: the track record of philosophical “proofs” is not exactly impressive, unlike the mathematical variety.

Still, the ontological argument may be an exception to the rule. A more urgent cause for concern was given by Gaunilo, an elderly monk at an abbey a few days ride from Bec. In his In Behalf of the Fool, Gaunilo considers an island than which no greater island can be conceived, “abundantly filled with inestimable riches.” (Dennett alludes obliquely to Gaunilo when he asks his reader to consider “the most perfect ice-cream sundae.”) Presumably an island that exists only in the mind is not as great as a similar island that also exists in reality. But then Anselm’s reasoning proceeds just as well, and we can conclude that a perfect island exists, which is absurd. We know a great deal about islands, and although some of them are undoubtedly very agreeable, improvement is always possible.

Gaunilo’s objection is that the argument proves too much; something must be wrong, but Gaunilo doesn’t tell us what. So what is wrong with it?

The first thing to note is that Anselm’s talk of “existing in reality” and “existing in the mind” is misleading. Possums exist in Australia and New Zealand, but not in Antarctica. If “existing in reality” were like “existing in Australia,” then there might

be some other realm distinct from reality where things exist. But that’s wrong: if something exists anywhere at all, it exists “in reality,” because to exist in reality is simply to exist, period. Similarly, if “existing in the mind” were like “existing in New Zealand,” then if dragons exist in the mind then they must exist. But there are no such creatures—dragons do not exist. The observation that dragons exist in the mind but not in reality is, then, better stated as follows: people think of dragons, but dragons do not exist.

Let us return now to the assumption that Anselm tries to reduce to absurdity: that a perfect being exists only in the Fool’s mind. Unpacked, the assumption is this: (a) the Fool is thinking of a perfect being, and (b) no perfect being exists—that is, in a complete inventory of reality, we will not find a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

So the crucial step in Anselm’s argument is this: if (b) is true, and no perfect being exists, then (a) must be false—the Fool is not thinking of a perfect being, because a perfect being has, among its other perfect-making properties or features, existence. Put the other way round: if (a) is true—if the Fool is genuinely thinking of a perfect being—then (b) must be false, and so God, the perfect being, exists.

Both Dawkins and Hitchens suggest that Kant uncovered Anselm’s mistake—and Kant certainly had an influential objection. In his Critique of Pure Reason he claims that “‘Being’ is evidently not a real predicate,” by which he means that existence is not a property or a feature of a thing. To say that dragons are green, or scaly, or ferocious, is to attribute certain properties or features to dragons. To say that dragons exist is not to attribute yet another property to them, it is simply to say that there are dragons. And if existence is not a property or feature of things, Anselm’s argument fails: a perfect being has all the perfections, including the properties of being all-good and all-knowing, but not including the property of existing, simply because there is no such property.

A perfect being has the properties of being all-good and all-knowing, but not the property of existing, simply because there is no such property.

Kant is on to something here. If existence is a property of things, it is a rather peculiar one: you can find a blue marble, and also a non-blue marble (a red one, say), but you cannot find a nonexistent marble—a marble that lacks the property of existing. Of course, that does not mean Kant is right: a peculiar property is still a property. And in fact, according to many philosophers, Kant is wrong: existence is indeed a property, albeit a very undiscriminating one, because everything has it.

A better objection to Anselm’s argument is that he has conflated two readings of “The Fool is thinking of a perfect being.” Compare “J. R. R. Tolkien is thinking of a scaly existing dragon,” which can be read in two ways. On one reading, this sentence can be more perspicuously rendered as, “There is a scaly existing dragon, and Tolkien is thinking about it.” On that reading, the sentence is true only if at least one scaly dragon exists. But on the second, more natural reading, “Tolkien is thinking of a scaly existing dragon” can be true even if dragons do not exist. Let us ask the man himself: “Hey, Tolkien, what are you thinking about?” He replies: “I am thinking about a dragon.” “Oh, I see, you are thinking about an imaginary dragon.” “No, I am thinking

about a real flesh-and-blood dragon.” Tolkien was not a postmodernist whose novels are populated with paradoxical, metaphysically insubstantial, nonexistent dragons—he wrote and thought about existing dragons. But for all that, dragons do not exist.

Now there is a similar ambiguity for “The Fool is thinking of a perfect being.” On one reading, it means, “There is a perfect being, and the Fool is thinking about it.” On the other reading, it simply characterizes the Fool’s thought: the Fool is thinking of a perfect being in the innocuous sense in which Tolkien is thinking of a scaly existing dragon.

Anselm is thus caught in dilemma. What is the intended reading of (a), “The Fool is thinking of a perfect being”? If it is “There is a perfect being, and the Fool is thinking about it,” then God’s existence immediately follows. However, Anselm has given us no reason at all to suppose that, on this reading, (a) is true, because he has not already shown us that there is a perfect being. On the alternative reading, where (a) is read as simply characterizing the Fool’s thought, we may grant that (a) is true, but it is perfectly consistent with a Godless universe.

There are other versions of the ontological argument, and the exact interpretation of the argument in chapter two of the Proslogion is a matter of dispute. Descartes offered an Anselm-inspired argument in his Meditations (it was this version that Kant criticized), and other variants can be found in Anselm’s own writings. These arguments have been subject to elaboration and repair at the hands of contemporary philosophers, Plantinga included. Graham Oppy’s Ontological Arguments and Belief in God is an exhaustive survey. However, although this work has produced much enlightenment about topics of interest to metaphysicians, it is pretty clear that a philosopher in search of God has to rise from the armchair.

* * *

Although the design argument can be traced to the ancient Greeks, it received one of its most careful and elaborate formulations from William Paley, an eighteenth-century English clergyman and philosopher, in his Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. That book was published in 1802, a few years before Paley’s death and more than half a century before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

Paley begins by contrasting the discovery of two objects while “crossing a heath”: a stone and a watch. The presence of the stone requires no explanation in terms of a designer—indeed, Paley supposes that the hypothesis that “it had lain there forever” might well be correct. The presence of the watch is another matter entirely, for on examination “we perceive—what we could not discover in the stone—that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day.” And the inference from these observed facts, Paley thinks, “is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker.” Importantly, that is not because we know that watches are, in fact, usually the product of design: the conclusion, Paley says, would not be weakened if “we had never known an artist capable of making one.”

It is pretty clear that a philosopher in search of God has to rise from the armchair.

All that seems reasonable enough. The design argument that Paley then proceeds to give replaces the watch with terrestrial flora and fauna and their intricate parts. Paley—evidently a keen amateur naturalist—gives many examples, from the diverse mechanisms of seed dispersion to the tongue of the woodpecker, but his example of the eye is the one typically quoted. How could such a “complicated mechanism” have arisen, Paley asks, if not by the action of a designer? “In the human body, for instance, chance, i.e., the operation of causes without design, may produce a wen, a wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye.” In the case of the watch, the reasonable conclusion is that a designer produced it. And similarly, Paley thinks, in the case of the eye and other biological structures. Admittedly, we have no idea how the designer managed to construct the eye, and we have “never known an artist capable of making one.” As Paley says, however, these points of disanalogy do not seem to ruin the argument.

Unlike the ontological argument, the design argument is not supposed to prove God’s existence. Rather, it is an “inference to the best explanation,” like the inference that there are mice in the kitchen because this hypothesis best explains the missing cheese. The hypothesis of a designer is one of many possible “scientific explanations” of Paley’s watch on the heath, and similarly of the eye. The frequent complaint that intelligent design is “not science” (as opposed to “bad science”) only succeeds in muddying the waters.

An inference to the best explanation can be overturned by more evidence. Perhaps, on further investigation, it turns out that another hypothesis—say, that the au pair has been snacking in the early hours—is the best explanation of the missing cheese. And that is the standard reply to Paley: we now know that the best explanation of the apparent design of the eye is not “the hand of an artificer,” but Darwinian evolution. To borrow from the title of an earlier book by Dawkins, a blind watchmaker—the impersonal forces of natural selection—made the eye.

This reply crucially hinges on the assumption that modern biology can explain all instances of apparent design, and it is here that sophisticated proponents of intelligent design, most notoriously the biochemist Michael Behe, have seen an opportunity to dust off and burnish Paley’s argument.

In his first book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe argues that while evolution by natural selection “might explain many things,” it cannot explain what he calls “irreducible complexity.” The notion is straight out of Paley, who writes of the watch that “if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.” A watch is “irreducibly complex” in the sense that many of its main parts are essential to its proper functioning—remove the balance wheel, or the escapement, and all you have left is a paperweight. Irreducible complexity is everywhere in nature: Behe’s poster children are the blood-clotting system and the bacterial flagellum, but he also quotes Paley’s observation that “The heart, constituted as it is, can no more work without valves than a pump can.” According to Behe, a process of small step-by-step alterations of the sort found in natural selection is wildly unlikely to produce irreducibly complex systems.

Obviously it is a matter of great importance whether Behe’s criticism of the cornerstone of modern biology is correct. (For a clear explanation of why it isn’t, see H. Allen Orr’s review of Behe’s book in Boston Review, December 1996/January 1997.) But here the debate took a crucial turn too hastily: focusing attention on whether evolution by natural selection can explain the origin of the bacteriological flagellum is to obscure the fact that the design argument fails even if Behe is right.

* * *

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in 1779) presented the key objections, more than twenty years before Natural Theology. Two of Hume’s objections are especially acute. First, if the argument works at all, its conclusion is much weaker than might have been hoped. The argument does not indicate anything about what the designer is like: whether it is benevolent or a suitable object of worship. Even the intelligence of the designer is up for grabs—terrestrial biology might be the product of long trial and error, with the designer’s many previous attempts “botched and bungled.” Or perhaps the designer is “a stupid mechanic,” who imitated other much cleverer designers who practiced their art in far-off galaxies. Further, the designer could have died long ago—the eye and such might have been “the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity.” And finally, since the design of something complicated is usually a collective endeavor—“A great number of men join in . . . framing a commonwealth,” for example—we can hardly presume that there was exactly one designer. At best, the design argument shows that some designer or designers, whose motives, talents, and present whereabouts are all unknown, existed at some time. The proponent of the argument is at liberty afterwards “to fix every point of his theology, by the utmost license of fancy and hypothesis.” Perhaps life on Earth was designed over millions of years by successive committees of incompetent and thoroughly despicable space aliens, who are now fortunately all dead.

The intelligent-design argument does not indicate anything about what the designer is like: whether it is benevolent or a suitable object of worship.

Paley had read Hume, and he tries to reply to this objection. Paley concedes that if the design argument simply concerns individual biological structures like the eye, then the proper conclusion is indeed weak: “there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers.” However, he thinks a more careful study of the biological world as a whole reveals that there is exactly one designer (or at any rate one chief architect), who possesses the usual divine attributes. But Paley’s arguments on this score are feeble. He notes the general similarities in the body-plans of animals, and concludes that this “bespeaks the same creation and the same Creator,” forgetting Hume’s point that multiple designers can act in concert, or that one designer can pick up where another left off. And in support of the goodness of the deity, Paley declares, “It is a happy world after all.” Rural England is, anyway: “A bee amongst the flowers in spring is one of the cheerfullest objects that can be looked upon.” A more plausible theological conjecture is the remark attributed to the biologist J. B. S. Haldane, that the creator had “an inordinate fondness for beetles.”

Hume’s first objection is that the design argument can only establish the existence of at least one designer. His second objection is that the argument does not establish

even this much. Paley claims that the evidence points to the conclusion that, by means entirely unknown, the biological world is the product of design. But why favor this over the hypothesis that, also by means entirely unknown, flora and fauna were produced by, as Paley puts it, “the operation of causes without design”?

As Paley himself emphasizes, his initial watch analogy is far from perfect: watches, unlike organisms, do not reproduce. The eye has not been found lying on its own on the heath, but in the bodies of countless creatures and their ancestors. And offspring differ in various ways from their parents. So one possibility is that the operation of causes without design, operating over “a hundred millions of years,” somehow allows, after numerous generations, a “round ball” to “acquire wings,” eyes, and so forth. Paley’s strategy for dismissing no-design alternatives wholesale is to object to the specific evolutionary theories of his day (for instance that of Erasmus Darwin, Charles’s grandfather). But this is rather like saying that because this apple and that pear are rotten, vegetables are better than fruit. What Paley needs is an argument for choosing the general hypothesis of an unknown designer or designers operating by unknown means over the general hypothesis of an unknown blind process operating by unknown means, and he signally fails to supply one.

An example that briefly appears in Darwin’s Black Box nicely illustrates the point. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, a magnetic anomaly in one of the moon’s craters leads to the discovery of a perfectly regular slab buried under lunar soil. The characters have no idea how the slab was constructed, or what it is for, and have never known an artist capable of making one; nevertheless they reasonably conclude that it was designed. But that is precisely because the characters are not in Paley’s position. They know enough about lunar geology, astronomy, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life to discredit the rival hypothesis that the monolith is a natural object (a big crystal, say) that formed on the moon or collided with it. Paley, on the other hand, had no reason, other than the failure of his imagination, to dismiss the hypothesis of “causes without design.”

Darwin’s Black Box exactly recapitulates Paley’s mistake. “Might there,” Behe asks after he has disposed of Darwin’s theory, “be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity?” Assuming for the sake of the argument that Darwinism is false, Behe is surely right that “if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work.” But of course that is quite different from saying that there is no such process. Moreover, intelligent design is in the very same boat: if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work either. Why is one mysterious unknown process to be favored over another? After all, as Behe clearly brings out, biochemistry is fantastically baroque, with many unanswered questions and unsolved problems.

The funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is that, if they succeed, they were never needed in the first place.

The version of the design argument on which Paley rests his case begins with certain features of organisms. Other versions start from the observation, in Hume’s phrase, that the entire universe is “one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines.” And one of these other versions has received a great deal of attention in the recent philosophical literature: the so-called fine-tuning argument. The

fine-tuning argument is also in Natural Theology, although Paley is not usually credited in contemporary discussions. There are, Paley says, an “infinite number of possible laws” that could have governed material objects (in particular, the heavenly bodies), and out of “a boundless variety of suppositions which were equally possible,” and despite “a thousand chances against conveniency,” the laws that do in fact obtain are “beneficial.” The universe, in other words, is fine-tuned for life. The remarkable fact that the universe is so hospitable needs an explanation, and isn’t the hypothesis of a designer the best one?

One might object that explanation has to stop somewhere. The eye is not a credible candidate for a stopping point, but perhaps the basic physical laws are the sorts of things that have no explanation. If so, the fine-tuning argument does not get started. But let us (perhaps generously) admit that an explanation is required: why, we may ask, is the universe apparently made for life?

The fine-tuning argument did not appear in Darwin’s Black Box, but it has a starring role in Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution. One of the most extensive discussions of the argument in the philosophical literature is John Leslie’s Universes, and—as the title hints—a rival explanation of fine-tuning is that our universe is only one of many universes, just as our sun is a single twinkle in the sidereal plenitude. If universes exist in “boundless variety,” each with a distinct set of basic physical laws, then the fact that the laws of our universe are “beneficial” would seem to be nothing to get excited about.

This “multiverse hypothesis” stands to the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence as Darwinism stands to Paley’s biological design argument: it is an alternative “no-design” explanation of the data. If the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology is pitted against a rival hypothesis that receives no serious consideration in professional journals, the outcome is not in doubt. But if the alternative to design is cosmological speculation (by philosophers, no less!), the contest looks to be back on a much more equal footing.

Dawkins, then, makes a significant concession when he turns in The God Delusion to the fine-tuning argument. He replies in exactly the same way he does to Paley, by arguing that the multiverse hypothesis should be preferred over the “God hypothesis,” because the former is considerably more “simple.” Well, maybe—but unlike the Darwinian reply to Paley’s argument, this point is eminently debatable. And in any case, the idea that the multiverse hypothesis could provide any kind of explanation of why our universe is fine-tuned is controversial.

Hume suggests a more convincing rebuttal. His two objections apply equally well to the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God. First, the fine-tuning argument is silent on the number and attributes of any designers. Further, it is quite unclear what the designer or designers could be like, which contrasts the fine-tuning argument unfavorably with the biological design argument. At least we may intelligibly hypothesize about the designers of the eye—perhaps a race of extraterrestrials visited the earth about half a billion years ago to manufacture the early prototypes. But if any sense can be made of agents creating the totality of space-time, it cannot be by comparison with familiar artisans like watchmakers, quilters, and pastry chefs, who do their work at particular times and places according to ordinary causal laws.

Hume’s second objection is that there is no reason to favor the (unspecific, and perhaps not even intelligible) design hypothesis over the (also unspecific) hypothesis that fine-tuning can be explained in some other way. How could we be in a position to rule out all the no-design alternatives? Hume sketchees a number of possibilities (including an ancient version of the multiverse hypothesis), of which perhaps the most interesting compares the structure of the universe to structures found in mathematics. The explanation of arithmetical structure, as any “skilful algebraist” will tell you, is not to be found either in “chance or design,” or the hypothesis of a multiplicity of other structures, but instead in the “nature of . . . numbers.” Likewise, perhaps “the whole economy of the universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can furnish a key, which solves the difficulty.”

If a persuasive argument for the existence of God is wanted, then philosophy has come up empty. The traditional arguments have much to teach us, but concentrating on them can disguise a simple but important point. As Anselm and Paley both recognized, the devout are not exactly holding their collective breath. For the most part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument. How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown—the devout do not know that God exists in the way it is known that dinosaurs existed, or that there exist infinitely many prime numbers. The funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is that, if they succeed, they were never needed in the first place.

Post this page to:

Comments

1 | On the existence of GodOn the existence of God. Philosophy has come up empty. Theology has come up empty. But someone appears to have got it right. What may have been impossible for most of history has become all too probable! Quoting an Ovi review of the Final Freedoms:

"Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle offering the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Understood metaphorically, this experience, personal encounter, strengthening of will and liberation by transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection' and justification of faith."

check it out for yourself: http://www.energon.org.uk

— posted 12/26/2008 at 12:04 by Mary Treherne2 |

On the existence of incredulity"Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle offering the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Understood metaphorically, this experience, personal encounter, strengthening of will and liberation by transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection' and justification of faith".Even the most perfect synthesis of fiction is still fiction!If you want to prove the existence of a god then you need to prove the factual basis of the scripture.I imagine it would be possible to devise a perfect moral code without referring to a god. No, wait a second that has already been done in the 10 commandments of rational humanism:http://www.sceco.umontreal.ca/liste_perso— posted 12/27/2008 at 00:24 by Wayne Robinson3 | "Dawkins, then, makes a significant concession when he turns in The God Delusion to the fine-tuning argument. He replies in exactly the same way he does to Paley, by arguing that the multiverse hypothesis should be preferred over the “God hypothesis,” because the former is considerably more “simple.” Well, maybe—but unlike the Darwinian reply to Paley’s argument, this point is eminently debatable."

Not really. The multiverse argument isn't whats "simpler" it is the vast complexity, the non-simplicity of putting God into the order of things that isnt "simple" God, for him/her/it to be counted as anything close to "god" HAS to be an entity of unimaginable complexity, so for the argument to work, one has to assume complexity with no further explanation. Darwin taught us how complexity itself can rise out of simplicity, but that it always comes LATE in the universe, not first— posted 12/27/2008 at 05:09 by Anders4 | They don't know they've lost.The article says:"Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most eminent living philosopher of religion, devotes the five hundred pages of his Warranted Christian Belief to fending off objections to either the truth or rationality of belief in traditional Christian doctrines. He does not argue for the existence of God, and still less for the truth of Christianity; rather, his main question is whether a reasonable person who finds herself with firm religious convictions should change her mind. Plantinga is not trying to persuade Dawkins and company to change their minds."

Strange, but many Christians on the web don't seem to be aware they've lost the argument. They talk like they've won it.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html— posted 12/27/2008 at 05:25 by Norman Doering5 |

Proof vs. faithAny Christian who busies himself trying to prove or debate the existance of God is missing his true relationship in the world. Frankly any Atheist that spends time disproving the existance is spending alot of waisted time on something they don't believe is out there. Christians believe someone is out there they can't see and Atheists believe in the absence of that entity. What's the big deal? To give the Christian side, we grow up putting faith in thousands of things that we later have an understanding of as adults. To give the Atheist view, I am looking at a lack of data or facts that would convince me so I will lobby for compatible legislation with that philosophy. If we one day have an Atheist president it would be naive to think she (clever there)wouls run without a foundation based on her beliefs. So stop complaining about the Christian leaders making decisions with their belief system. They still speak overall for fairness and Democracy (even if imperfectly) Neither of these philosophies have much of a real gripe in the US. Not "NONE" but certainly not more than imperfections in a relatively sound system. — posted 12/27/2008 at 11:30 by Luckydog6 | "For the most part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument. How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown..."

Granted. So, perhaps it's time to ramp up work in the psychopathology of religion.— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:30 by MelM7 | Russell's comments on why he is not a Christian are worth reading; no words wasted on gods' existence. "Lack of evidence"— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:34 by dick8 | "For the most part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument. How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown..."

Granted. So, perhaps it's time to ramp up work in the psychopathology of religion.— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:40 by MelM9 | While it isn't funny, really, your quote: "The funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is that, if they succeed, they were never needed in the first place" really does summarize the whole of the believers dilemma ... either be totally irrelevant or totally foolish.I've been on both sides of the argument ... gradually moving ever further from myth toward some semblance of the rational. I live in a town sopping wet with the assumptions of god ... with a school district in which even the issue of global warming is denied one the grounds that it isn't mentioned as part of the end times ... now THAT is frightening.RG the LG— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:43 by rg the lg10 | Re: the last comment.Global warming should be pushed because in the big picture, using "proxy evidence" (the most accurate data...and that would be fossilized trees and the like)does not indicate ANYTHING that would lead a scientist to believe our "blip" on the time line is any more than......a blip on the timeline. Let's just beconservative and play it safe.

— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:58 by Luckydog11 | correctionSorry...Global warming SHOULD NOT be pushed.Thanks— posted 12/27/2008 at 15:00 by Luckydog12 | "Sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions are as rare as atheists in foxholes"Shame on the Boston Review for repeating this insulting lie that 'there are no atheists in foxholes'. See http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/— posted 12/27/2008 at 18:23 by Wonderist13 | personal experienceIf one cares not to believe, that is fine by me. Assuming that one's system of beliefs (and we all depend on them whether we want to accept it or not) is most "rational" or that rationality is the only game in town is silly, it doesn't account for the complexities of our psyche nor for deeply psychological nature of our personal definition of truth.Modernity has not taught us blind attachment to what we think rational, that was a few centuries ago. Blind faith in what is rational is in fact blind faith in the nonexistence of any knowledge we haven't yet acquired (hereby hasn't yet shaped what we believe to be rational).While there is no proof for the existence of god (nor will there ever be a scientifically acceptable demonstration), and many religious individuals misuse their "moral standing" , beware of your enthusiasm in bashing what we do not necessarily understand. — posted 12/28/2008 at 01:51 by life is bizarre14 | "... and one argument, the “design argument,” has had a new lease on life as the intellectual underpinning of the intelligent design movement."

Is there anyone who truly believes that the underpinnings of the intelligent design movement are intellectual, rather than political and religious? Even most cdesign proponentsists are aware that intelligent design is merely a rebranding of Creationism for the purpose of circumventing existing court precedents.— posted 12/28/2008 at 09:11 by Reginald Selkirk15 | The "irreducible complexity" fake out: Behe essentially claims that evolution can't (except by prohibitive coincidence) yield co-adapted parts because _after the parts are co-adapted_, removal of a part leaves the remainder unable to do what all parts together did. Does one need philosophy to be unconvinced? How is evolution to be prevented from yielding co-adapted parts? If a basic biological excursion is desired: http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/ic_demystified — posted 12/28/2008 at 20:37 by Pete Dunkelberg16 | Teacher and ScientistI read Byrne's article in the Boston Review. On the whole I liked it and agree with much of what he wrote. So now here are a view observations on the subject.

1. Why do philosophers in the Western tradition fail to discuss and analyze Islamic approaches to dealing with the existence of God? Abraham is father to Jew, Christian AND Muslim.

2. I think Alex Byrne is kind in saying that philosophers have not come up with anything convincing to support the existence of a Jewish-Christian conception of the One God. The fact is that the argument is settled, as a practical matter. Now let's move on to other conceptions of God[dess] and transcendent reality? Would philosophers have a different approach to understanding and critiquing Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Shamanism, and others? Does philosophy have anything to say about them? Do philosophers care?

3. Alex Byrne is an equal opportunity slayer of bad arguments; even when made by contemporary philosophers or Richard Dawkins, himself.

4. Can't we just say that Anselm's arguments are circular, and be done with it?

5. I don't agree with Byrne's view that Euclid's mathematical proof for an infinite number of integers is more a 'reality' than Anselm's 'reality' of God's existence. Is a mathematical proof without observation better than an armchair proof without observation? Why not call Euclid's 'infinitely many' a concept of high utility rather than a 'reality'? We all know the example of the 'approaching infinity' whereby the traversing of an infinite progression of half-way points makes it impossible for you or me to walk across a room. We do, in fact, make it successfully across the room in spite of the mathematical proof that we cannot. The answer to this problem is that an 'approaching infinity' is a concept, not a reality. Let's be clear that mathematics is not a reality as much as it is a tool which requires assumptions. The strength of mathematics is not necessarily as a royal road to truth, but as an invention of the human mind with enormous utility. Why else did it take Bertrand Russell around 248 pages in his Principia to arrive at the conclusion, “Therefore, one plus one equals two.” Later Byrne quoted Hume and suggested that Hume compares the structure of the universe to structure in mathematics. Hume wrote “... the whole economy of the universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can furnish a key, which solves the difficulty.” This is a fundamental issue. The relationship of the structure of the universe to the structure of mathematics is a COMPARISON. It took an improvement on human algebra, now known as calculus, to solve the difficulty. The question still remains, though, whether or not the universe is really a differential equation, or that differential equations are human-made tools of enormous utility. Does a differential equation reflect, even mimic, reality or it is a tool that is better than others in helping us deal with what we observe as our universe? Like scientific knowledge, the utility of our tools is just as provisional.— posted 12/28/2008 at 21:01 by Norman Costa17 | Anselm again"4. Can't we just say that Anselm's arguments are circular, and be done with it?"

How about as a formulation: (a) The Fool is thinking about a perfect being and (b) The Fool is thinking that the perfect being does not exist. Is that not problematic, in that the Fool must (by (b)) be thinking of a being that does not necessarily exist, but merely may or may not be there. That then, is not the idea of God.

It seems to me that Anselm is trying to capture the assurance of faith conceptually. He is thus the critic of the view that the atheist has grasped religious thought and can then play games with it, when in fact it has eluded him. — posted 12/29/2008 at 02:41 by Stephen Cowley18 | C-Is that it? Shows precious little awareness of contemporary philosophical theology beyond an undergrad summary of the standard objections to the classical proofs. No mention of any of the major contemporary theologians defending the rationality of theism beyond Plantinga. Caricatured account of post-Wittgentsein theology. John Haldane anyone?? Keith Ward?? If you're going to declare an argument won or lost, best to be up to speed on the argument first. — posted 12/29/2008 at 03:36 by Prof Robert Davis19 | We pray to God- We know without proof that God existsWe pray to God- We know that God exists. This is the experience of some of us. I do not know whether this is a philosophical argument or not. But for some of us, our experience of praying to God is of greater weight and meaning than any possible philosophical argument.— posted 12/29/2008 at 05:09 by Shalom Freedman20 | The Ontological ArgumentYour summary verdict on the Ontological Argument: "although this work has produced much enlightenment about topics of interest to metaphysicians, it is pretty clear that a philosopher in search of God has to rise from the armchair" is a cop out. It is not clear at all!In any case, by focusing upon the most primitive form of the Argument you set up a man of straw.— posted 12/29/2008 at 07:26 by John Tomkinson21 | Argument from ExistenceThis is a classic straw-man argument. Even many theistic philosophers reject the ontological and design arguments. The real question is the fact of existence itself, which is the real concern of Aquinas' arguments, and is of a completely different order of causality than mere natural causality of the physical sciences. — posted 12/29/2008 at 08:26 by James Jacobs22 | Islamic philosophy is part of Western philosophyTeacher and Scientist (16) Asks: "Why do philosophers in the Western tradition fail to discuss and analyze Islamic approaches to dealing with the existence of God?" The answer is: Practically speaking,Islamic philosophy is an integral part of Western philosophy. While Europeans went into an intellectual coma during the Dark Ages, Islamic philosophers continued the traditions of Plato and Aristotle. Later Medieval Christian philosophers learned a tremndous amount from their Muslim colleagues. So, Islamic philosophical contributions to theism were integrated into European philosophy long ago. — posted 12/29/2008 at 08:42 by Ziggy23 |

While there are certainly bones to pick throughout this piece (Professor Robert Davis' being the least important, after all, this article never claimed to be exhaustive; rather it focuses on representative examples), the overall point is, I think, a good one. Shalom Freedman basically restated it, even though I get the sense he was trying to disagree with Byrne:

If you are religious, proofs of the existence of god, be they constructed through a logic game or some ordering of observations, are of no consequence.

And when John Tomkinson points out that Byrne is focusing on only the most primitive form of the ontological argument, he fails to note Byrne's assertion that the more sophisticated versions of the argument are just the same old ontological argument gussied up. Is Byrne right? Perhaps, but that's not the point. He is not making a straw man argument, though you could berate him for not backing up his statement. I assure you though, if you read Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument, you will not be convinced of the existence of god (nor is Plantinga, who thinks that, at best, the ontological argument can demonstrate that belief in god is consistent with rationality). In fact, that version of the argument seems patently absurd, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt since I assume Plantinga is smarter than I am.

As an aside, does every article about the Judeo-Christian god need to be met with the retort that it doesn't deal sufficiently with other faiths (see Norman Costa's comment above)? Byrne states that writing about the way philosophers have attempted to understand this deity a "person," that is to say, a god up in the clouds who cares �about you and me. He presented the subject clearly. He doesn't need to talk about other concepts of god.— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:43 by Cheryl Masty24 | God and The Nature of InformationFor a model and discussion of a wholly physical (mass-energy) universe that obviates the need for God, see www.thenatureofinformation.com. ). It defines information and the fundamental creative force in the universe in entirely mass-energy terms, mind and consciousness as wholly material phenomena, thereby solving, conceptually, the so-called brain/mind-mind/body problem, and describes a mass-energy universe that operates with its own immanent creative and control mechanisms, without the use of or need for any metaphysical or supernatural force to explain them. — posted 12/29/2008 at 08:47 by Paul Young25 | Proof is ExperienceIt is possible to prove God's existence scientifically, if one simply applies the scientific method, rather than making thought-arguments in one's head. Scientific proof, after all, IS about experience, not logicking. Then, the first step is to choose appropriate tools, which are not thought, but prayer and meditation. And the "proof" is direct, if subjective, experience. God will never be proved in a test tube, or by mathematical or logical argument. See Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi" and Kriyananda's "Out of the Labyrinth" for cogent, rational descriptions of the method. The proof, alas, is up to the individual.— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:49 by George Beinhorn26 |

Cognitive Science of Religion"For the most part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument. How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown—the devout do not know that God exists in the way it is known that dinosaurs existed, or that there exist infinitely many prime numbers."

As a matter of fact, this question has been the focus of a lot of research in the last decade. The heart has reasons of its own that reason is starting to understand.

Two good introductions to the field are Justin Barrett's "Why Would Anyone Believe in God?" and Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained". Barrett is a Christian, and Boyer an atheist, but there is a large measure of agreement between them on the issue of how religious beliefs arise.

The findings of cognitive science of religion are not, of course, proof that God exists. However, they are consistent with Plantinga's approach. Plantinga and Barrett both believe that our minds have been designed in such a way as to make it likely that, when presented with certain stimuli, we will develop belief in some kind of deity. On their view, there is no more need to persuade people to believe in God by rational argument than there is to persuade people to fall in love.

— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:18 by Ben Murphy27 | Response to comment #2 Wayne RobinsonWhile the nature of Christs relationship to God and his "being the Son of God" may not be proven in the Bible, You can't say the the rest of the Bible is "FICTION". The accounts related in the bible are referred to in outside sources and by outside, unbiased observers of the time. We cannot connect ALL the dots outside of the Bible but we can apply the principles of historical varification that are applied to any of our other historical documents and say with more than reasonable certainty that accounts happened as described in the bible. Christ was either a madman railing against a government and a culture that would surely crush and kill him OR he was the Son of God. But you can't (using facts) call the accounts in the Bible FICTION.— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:24 by Luckydog28 | TheologyIf theology is man-made, where is God?— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:47 by Jim Carlson29 | AnselmMr Byrne repeats an old error regarding Anselm's argument (for which I am not entering a brief). Guanilo's objection--and any similar objection--is a category mistake. Anselm's is not an argument regarding a "perfect being" or any sort of "being" at all, but is a rather inchoate attempt to discuss "Being as such". The coincidence of concept and existence obviously could not apply to some discrete entity out there among other entities, but seems inevitable when one attempts to think about id quod maius cogitari nequit: that is, the absolute rather than the contingent. Thus his is, properly speaking, an "ontological" proposition, which has no logical meaning when applied to a composite thing like a dragon or an island or a cake. That is why Bertrand Russell--hardly a theist--admitted that Anselm's was the only

argument that had the power to make him tremble. On the matter of "ontological contingency," as it happens, however the issue is approached, it would seem obvious that it is the atheist position that lacks logical consistency. This is simply a matter of the necessary priority of the actual over the possible.— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:50 by David30 | ProofIt's only if you think Christ was nothing more than a visionary social reformer who was tortured and killed for his efforts that you've got to go looking for proof of God's existence. OTOH, if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead after three days, and appear to his Apostles, the seventy disciples, and the five hundred others mentioned in The New Testament, proving the existence of "God" becomes quite unnecessary.

P.S. I'd like to believe in gravitons, too, but no one seems capable of demonstrating their certain existence.— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:03 by slinkybender31 | The Book of Mormon Is Evidence of GodOne thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, get right is that religion (and atheism) need to present evidence. Either there is a God or there isn't, and we only need to align ourselves with a view that reasonably proves itself.

Where Dawkins and co. are wrong is that there is no evidence for God; that belief is only irrational, wishful thinking. Do you want a tangible artifact that demonstrates God's reality? The Book of Mormon is compelling, concrete evidence for God, from God.

Either the Book of Mormon is a translated ancient text (demonstrating that there is a God) or it was made up in the 19th century (proving that Mormons are wrong). With the stakes this high and the outcome so possibly definitive, I'd invite all with an interest in the subject to study it carefully.

The many solid facts that demonstrate the literal, historical veracity of the Book of Mormon may be found at www.MormonEvidence.com. Some of the most striking items include: its frequent use of non-bibilical Hebrew grammar and poetry that weren’t discovered until after Joseph Smith died; its dozens of legitimate Hebrew and Egyptian root words; its accurate descriptions of Arabian trade routes, burial sites, and oasis areas, which were all unknown to any Westerners in the 19th century; the sobering life stories of the eleven witnesses who saw the plates; and the deep profundity, complexity, and consistency of a 600-page text itself, which was dictated in about two months without any reviewing or editing. And this is still just the tip of the iceberg!

The Book of Mormon, and God, cannot be dismissed until this evidence is analyzed and accounted for. Do all the research and conclude, as many intelligent people have, that belief in God is logical. — posted 12/29/2008 at 10:25 by Huston32 | The only ones who need arguments of proof are those who doubt or disbelieve. The believers are called 'faithful' for a reason.

— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:27 by LAG33 | valueI like the idea of John Leslie's that there is an ethical necessity that there be a God and that necessity is what creates the God. The errors of religions based on materialism bloodied the 20th century with a force that still echoes. Personally, I am afraid of atheism. Whe I think of atheists, images of a tweedy Bertand Russell don't come to mind. Stalin does.— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:31 by mark34 | God: Great Commentators Weigh InAnselm again, again:

If I had to reduce my criticism of Anselm and Aquinas to one thing, it is this: They retain the Platonic world of ideas. For example, the proof of God's existence through the argument of Justice assumes the Platonic notion of Justice having a 'real' essence that exists apart from man and acts upon God's creation. Today, there is more than a vestige of the Platonic world of ideas in church thinking. What proof do we have that ideas are more than constructions of the human mind? They have no existence apart from our ability to conceptualize, integrate them into our knowledge structure, and communicate them to others. Remove the notion that Justice has a 'reality' apart from the human mind, and that it acts on God's creation, and you have a very different set of conclusions about God, an afterlife, the soul, etc.

Agreed! Islamic philosophy is part of Western philosophy.

The debt the Western civilization owes to Islam for art, architecture, science, philosophy, history, religious thought, literature, mathematics, medicine, and so much more is beyond calculation. During the Dark Ages of Europe, Islam not only preserved knowledge and civilization, but made incredible contributions. Today, however, the only popular interpreter of Islam to the West is Karen Armstrong. Do western philosophers have nothing to say? Does Islam have nothing unique to contribute to a discussion of the existence of God?

Cheryl Masty, an aside:

Byrne's article, in so far as his argument is concerned, is not deficient for not covering religious thinking from other traditions. It stands, very nicely, on its own. In the case of Islam, as I note above, Western philosophers have been at this too long not to have something to say about Islam. This is an expression of my own impatience and a wish to learn more, and less a critique of Byrne's article.

Western philosophers have taken their best shot and are no closer to something substantial, let alone definitive, on the existence of the Judeo-Christian sky God. Byrne is clear on this. So, my personal view is that Western philosophers should move on to other traditions that are becoming more a part of the Western mosaic. Let's learn something new. Even Dawkins is extremely limited, at least in his public persona, by going after God the Designer. Is this the only conception of God that exists in the world? What about the ideas of enlightenment and transcendence? What about the earth God[desses]?What does Western philosophy have to say above the

cycle of death and rebirth in many traditions? Can philosophy, or science for that matter, inform a person on how to lead a good life? My personal view is that it is possible, and maybe even necessary, to develop a science of ethics.

Salmagundi:

I have adopted as my personal practice, not to question the faith of any individual, nor the personal meaning which they derive from their faith, nor the prescriptions they follow from their faith to lead a good life.

Stalin was a sociopath. His atheism was incidental to his murderous, paranoid, megalomaniacal derangement that objectified human beings.

Others:

Aphorism and analogy do not a good argument make.— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:45 by Norman Costa35 | Where is the cosmological argument?The ontological and teleological arguments for the existence of God have been widely refuted, as the author notes. However, even working within the limits of classical philosophy of religion, the author has neglected to discuss what many consider to be the most convincing of the arguments for the existence of God, i.e. the cosmological argument. What originally started the process of life/creation? Is there an 'unmoved mover'? Evolutionary science has been unable to satisfactorally answer this question. We still do not know what caused the Big Bang.— posted 12/29/2008 at 11:38 by Simon Noone36 | Anselm's Proslogion argumentsI've always been impressed by Proslogion 15 where Anselm says that God is indeed greater than can be conceived. Thus we reach the end point of faith seeking understanding. BH— posted 12/29/2008 at 11:38 by Brian Hendley37 | None. Independent philosopherFor a different perspective on the issue, I invite you to read "What is God?" and "Thoughts Towards a Critique of Religion" on my weblog: http://khashaba.blogspot.com— posted 12/29/2008 at 11:44 by D. R. Khashaba38 | faith and scienceCan faith and science exist side by side? faith in God requires no proof - no matter how loudly the Christians scream, this is a reality - the only proof of God is personal experience and "blind" faith.

Science should not be concerned with proving the non - existence of God and religion should not be concerned with disputing science. The Vedas are clear on these matters. The arguments put forth by Western thinkers completely ignore 8000 yr old texts. LAWS and morals exist in many traditions, yet to be acknowledged by Western minds as "legitimate." Read the Vedas, there even the most recent scientific theories

were discussed thousands of years ago. Find also, notions of God that would be very enlightening.— posted 12/29/2008 at 12:36 by hinduobserver39 | Don't forget the nature of godAre we to believe that Simon Noone's "cosmological argument" is convincing? It is true that much is unknown about the origins of the universe, but why would this lead anyone to religious faith?

If this is theism's final redoubt, the future does not bode well for faith in the deity. It is akin to saying "as long as there is something unknown in the universe, I may believe." And that is true. You may, under those circumstances believe in a deity, but there is no theology there. God is stripped of content and there is no connection between the god who fills the void and human behavior.

In all the (often interesting and stimulating) commentary that has followed this article, Byrne's discussion of the nature of the deity seems to have gone missed. Of course the matter of whether god exists at all always seems the more momentous, but this mention of a cosmological argument should return us to the matter of faith, theology, theodicy, and ethics.

Assuming that uncertainty allows space for god in a rational system, we are still left with the question of whether, why, and how to venerate that god. None of the arguments for the existence of god lead inexorably to the conclusion that we must treat that god as a holy being worthy of sacrifices, praise, prayers, fasting, etc. Even if we admit that a deity is logically consistent with the universe as we understand it, we are not forced to accept any one mode of behavior as a result. Human action remains the purview of women and men.

Ultimately I would agree with the live-and-let-live perspective because what we believe is immaterial. How we act is what counts. I would never be caught arguing that one ought not believe in god, only that one ought to be good. And whether one is good is unrelated to belief or lack thereof.— posted 12/29/2008 at 13:33 by bigeasy40 | ethics"Stalin was a sociopath. His atheism was incidental to his murderous, paranoid, megalomaniacal derangement that objectified human beings..."You say. I say that millions of people died horrible deaths with the name of Christ on their lips while your great objectifier clunked around rubbing his hands.The arrogance of atheists is out of this world...far, far farther out than the wildest theological dreams. Atheism was not incidental to Stalinism, Nazism, or Maoism; it was central to these movements. Believers in Russia, for example, were tried and then executed for being believers and for no other reason...by the millions. The sheer weight of the murders makes any discussion to explore modern atheism's contribution to ethics questionable. — posted 12/29/2008 at 14:00 by mark41 | None. Faith and Science. Ethics

Khashaba wrote:

"For a different perspective on the issue, I invite you to read "What is God?" and "Thoughts Towards a Critique of Religion" on my weblog: http://khashaba.blogspot.com". Both articles are definitely worth the read. Go to his 2007 archive.

Hinduobserver:

Your comments are exactly what I was writing about. Let's hear from another perspective and tradition of ancient writings. Please say more.

Ethics:

Of course, atheism was not incidental the movements you mentioned. But, my point is that if Stalin was a Scientologist, he would still be a deranged, murdering, paranoid, megalomaniacal sociopath who objectified human beings. He was no different from the Pope who waged a genocidal war of annihilation against the Albigensians. Power, and the atrocities committed to preserve it, find only the convenience of justification in an ideology or a religion.— posted 12/29/2008 at 14:27 by Norman Costa42 | None. Faith and Science. EthicsKhashaba wrote:

"For a different perspective on the issue, I invite you to read "What is God?" and "Thoughts Towards a Critique of Religion" on my weblog: http://khashaba.blogspot.com". Both articles are definitely worth the read. Go to his 2007 archive.

Hinduobserver:

Your comments are exactly what I was writing about. Let's hear from another perspective and tradition of ancient writings. Please say more.

Ethics:

Of course, atheism was not incidental the movements you mentioned. But, my point is that if Stalin was a Scientologist, he would still be a deranged, murdering, paranoid, megalomaniacal sociopath who objectified human beings. He was no different from the Pope who waged a genocidal war of annihilation against the Albigensians. Power, and the atrocities committed to preserve it, find only the convenience of justification in an ideology or a religion.— posted 12/29/2008 at 14:40 by Norman Costa43 | Joseph Stalin believed in GodIn order to protect atheism from any charge of malice being done in its name, professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett has argued that Joseph Stalin was not an atheist.

How sad to make such a fallacious claim and discredit oneself by exhibiting the faulty philosophy of which his statement consisted in the name of worldview adherence. Yet, over at Atheism is Dead we run into such fallacies constantly.— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:00 by Mariano44 | Real issueStalin - we could waste time listing bad historical characters and their beliefs, we could argue about proof for and against the existence of a god or three. The issue really is one of whether EVERYONE'S lives should be controlled or influenced on the basis of "faith". Most reasonable people would be happy to live side by side with those of opposing beliefs - it is when one side insists on the other conforming to their will that problems occur. — posted 12/29/2008 at 15:02 by John B UK45 | Link to DennettThought that it would be fair to provide a link to where the Dennett statement is quoted:http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/07/boba-digest-part-2-daniel-dennetts.html— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:02 by Mariaano46 | Real issueStalin - we could waste time listing bad historical characters and their beliefs, we could argue about proof for and against the existence of a god or three. The issue really is one of whether EVERYONE'S lives should be controlled or influenced on the basis of "faith". Most reasonable people would be happy to live side by side with those of opposing beliefs - it is when one side insists on the other conforming to their will that problems occur. — posted 12/29/2008 at 15:04 by John B UK47 | The Futility of TheologyAs an expansion of Hume's observation that granting the existence of a creator tells us nothing of it's nature, we should consider all possible explanations for the existence of the universe as it is as a vast constellation of possibilities, some of which include a creator and some of which do not. Physicists and science fiction writers have spun a broad array of conjectures about how it could have happened--including models in which it did not happen: for example, the universe is simply an n dimensional solid for which there is no outside, and therefore no beginning or end; it simply is. Add to this the conjectures that have not occurred to us, and all the conjectures that cannot occur to us due to our limited imagination or intellect. Add again all the variations of possible creators, including those who simply set the laws with no concern of particular outcomes, those who create a multiplicity of universes, some stillborn, but all different, those who are destroyed be the act of creation, and those who designed the universe with an entirely alien aesthetic in mind (with no concern for the earth or the life on it,) and a possibly infinite of other guesses that we are not equipped to make.

Within this vast search space, there is a very tiny cluster of possibilities, some of which may not even be possibilities, which form the basis of religious theologies. The probability of any of these being true may well be infinitesimally small; to treat any of these as a certainty is an act of arrogance, not just of faith.

But what is certain is that we are not very good at this kind of thinking. We have only, in the last hundred years, been able to grasp the mathematics of the very large and very small, and our grasp of this is limited to a tiny segment of the population who still find it quite difficult. As Dawkins put it, we have brains evolved to deal with the middle world, not the very large and the very small, and certainly not the limits of that reality--absolutes. And if theology, as many of the commentators here have claimed, is the attempt to grasp absolutes, then it is doomed from the start. This is why religions, sects, and cults proliferate rather than converge. Knowledge converges; imagination proliferates. Theology is a lost cause, and faith in deities no more than fond wishes backed by an egotistical desire for certainty. Thus, there are as many faiths as there are wishes.— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:08 by Mark Fournier48 | Real issueStalin - we could waste time listing bad historical characters and their beliefs, we could argue about proof for and against the existence of a god or three. The issue really is one of whether EVERYONE'S lives should be controlled or influenced on the basis of "faith". Most reasonable people would be happy to live side by side with those of opposing beliefs - it is when one side insists on the other conforming to their will that problems occur. — posted 12/29/2008 at 15:10 by John B UK49 | More on The Futility of TheologyMark Fournier,

There was a tradition of religious poetry in the European middle ages (it might have been later) that had a coherent understanding of the relationships among the roles of theology, religion, and faith. It went something like this:

Theology, in the form of a chariot driver, would take the reins in a drive toward God and salvation. But Theology could only take the horses so far and no further.

Religion, the new chariot driver, would take the reins and push on toward the ultimate goal of union with God. But Religion was limited in how far he could go and could not take the chariot to the end.

At this point Faith took charge of the reins and successfully drove the chariot into heaven and salvation.

The point I am making is that even among believers in the Christian West there was a clear appreciation of the limit - if not futility - to theology as sufficient for salvation.

Today, theology is for many an attempt to find some degree of reasonableness to justify embracing a personal faith that cannot survive rational or scientific scrutiny. For others, perhaps like Shalom Freedman, faith is a very personal experience which doesn't need a collection of proofs from the discourses of scholasticism.— posted 12/29/2008 at 16:30 by Norman Costa50 | Theology not futile at all

In Gregory’s view, Christian theology involves and represents a dynamic, lived relationship between God and the theologian, and so it begins not with abstract information about God—as if this could ever be acquired neutrally—but with the transformation of the theologian within the horizon of God’s presence and activity in the world, as it is recognized and celebrated in the life of the Church. It is a constant refrain in Gregory’s work that spiritual progress and right belief unavoidably go together. In other words, Gregory’s doctrines of God and of the human person intrinsically involve each other; as Jean Plaginieux observes, it is impossible to separate Gregory’s doctrine of God from his doctrine of the means by which God is known. Gregory’s doctrine of the Trinity thus includes the theologian’s own situation with respect to God, and theology is a real illumination by which the theologian is initiated into the divine mystery in concrete and far-reaching ways. It is here, Gregory insists, that we must begin.Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.64]

This is not so radical an opinion as it first appears: Plato and Platonic philosophy, as well as most all of Greek and ancient philosophy, saw the ascetic life as that of “philosophy.” It was not a merely intellectual activity one engaged in during working hours, to be ignored when the bell rings and one returns to everyday, secular life. We divorce philosophy from the life the philosopher lives, for no reason.

Well, there is one. In modern intellectual life, intellectual “purity” is one utterly lacking in faith and spiritual awakening, but must attempt to be some imaginary robotic logic machine when addressing philosophical concerns (theology must be dismissed out of hand without any examination whatsoever with vague sneers of “Inquisition” and “Witch-burning” and “futility”). Such an intellectual effort cannot be sustained in ordinary human existence, but only in concentrated bursts and analyses by academics tenured in material luxury.

This is pure self-deceiving hogwash, of course, and has been recognized as such in Western philosophy for centuries, and is utterly futile, as has been mathematically proven by Kurt Gödel.

This sceptical freedom from determinate conviction is also, however, a giddy whirl of disorderly, ever dissolving, ever reinstated, personal beliefs. The sceptic in fact confesses that, as a finite, contingent, empirical person, he is everlastingly subject to many definite, unjustifiable convictions. He has to continue with the business of ordinary living, acting and speaking. He oscillates continually between the high detachment of universal scepticism and a welter of unreasonable beliefs. Even his pure scepticism is a thesis for which doubtful arguments are adduced, and he must in practice rely on the deliverances of the senses and the conventions of morality. The sceptical self-consciousness is in fact deeply self-contradictory, and its reasonings and counter-reasonings are like the arguments of children concerned to contradict one another and always to have the last word.G.W.F. Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit [Analysis of the Text, §205] translated by A.V. Miller

That this imaginary skeptical perfection is utterly unachievable, and has no lived

tradition behind it such as ancient philosophy or Christian theology as outlined by the likes of St Gregory the Theologian, does not seem to matter anymore, however. It is fashionable and politically correct, so is accepted without argument or analysis as the default position all must conform to.— posted 12/29/2008 at 16:59 by Brendan Funnell51 | Existence and GodOh, and no one seems to consider the idea that God is that which causes existence to be, and so cannot be said to exist.

That sort of argument between theist and atheist is entirely profitless to either side, and it would seem to be of some serious cultural value, in a society which no longer seems to know how to argue about anything which might matter very fundamentally, if atheists could be encouraged to engage in some more adequate level of denying, for thus far they lag well behind even the theologically necessary levels of negation, which is why their atheisms are generally lacking in theological interest. One could go so far as to say that such atheists are, as it were, but theologians in an arrested condition of denial; in the sense in which atheists of this sort say ‘God does not exist’, the atheist has merely arrived at the theological starting point. [As we have seen,] theologians of the classical traditions, a pseudo-Denys, a Thomas Aquinas or a Meister Eckhart, simply agree about the disposing of idolatries, and then proceed with the proper business of doing theology and of engaging in its more radical denials. And that is why it has seemed to me to be theologically necessary to demand, of theists and atheists alike – for eadem est scientia oppositorum – that they re-learn what it might be to deny the existence of God, and that they learn to distinguish what they deny from an authentically ‘classical’ theism, for which the existence of God is in any case understood only on the other side of every denial.Turner, Denys – Faith, Reason and the Existence of God [Cambridge 2004 p 231]— posted 12/29/2008 at 17:05 by Brendan Funnell52 | In the endIn the end - it doesn't matter what you think, what you feel or what you believe, it only matters what you do in relationship; whether you love. Or not. In the short term it does matter what you believe because you have to find the desire, the courage and the strength to love this painful and wonderful life and all that/who make it. It don't come naturally!— posted 12/29/2008 at 17:10 by Tasmanian53 | In Your FaithStalin was an atheist, so atheism is evil. The Inquisition was bad, so Christianity is evil. Hitler was Hitler, so Catholicism and paganism are evil. 9-11 was monstrous, so Islam is evil. My uncle was insane, so Judaism is evil. In sum, ( ) is bad, so ( ) is evil.

Meanwhile, religious faith is an aesthetic response to the world. People believe in God because it feels right--even what's his name above, who apparently believes in the patent nonsense of Mormonism.

What's really evil are two things: people damaging themselves in the name of their own religious beliefs and, worse, people damaging others--their children, their society, the world.

As for God's true, objective existence, puh-leeze, is my view.— posted 12/29/2008 at 19:19 by Yahuda Mann54 | no lack of proof

There is no shortage of utterly compelling reasons why the universe is the work of YHWH God of Israel and his Incarnate SON.

The thing is people simply do not want to acknowledge Him. So the utterly infallible proofs which God has given lest atheism be a fair call, will be ignored. Its called sin, and if you were ever upset when your wife or husband cheated on you, you know one example of what sin is

It is not that reason is insufficient but that we do not listen to it when it suits us not to

The term Homo Sapiens to describe ourselves is a self flattering crock— posted 12/29/2008 at 19:45 by Steve Meikle55 | creationism with a haircutEven most design proponentsists are aware that intelligent design is merely a rebranding of Creationism for the purpose of circumventing existing court precedents.

there is ample literature showing how the early proponents of the Big Bang Theory were also dismissed as offering what was assumed to be merely a rebranding of creationism...even Sir Fred Hoyle held out in favor of his steady state model well into the nineteen sixties... — posted 12/29/2008 at 20:22 by Redwing65 56 | Faith is always the foundationIt's important to realize that knowledge and belief are functionally synonymous. Empiricism and rationalism themselves are ultimately circular--we simply _assume_ that our observations and those concepts we define as "reasonable" can be trusted on the basis of other observations and reasonable concepts.

One might write an article very similar to this one, with a similar conclusion, on the philosophy of science.

(For the record, I believe in both the existence of God and the validity of science.) — posted 12/29/2008 at 20:28 by Peter57 | What is more arrogant?"The term Homo Sapiens to describe ourselves is a self flattering crock"

Which is more arrogant, catagorising ourselves as just one of many millions of species, or suggesting that a Divine presence made us in His image?— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:36 by HairLessMoleRat58 | Proof?

hey #54,

Why don't you offer up some of that proof? And please make them "infallible" because i've been too dense to catch any so far. — posted 12/29/2008 at 20:56 by nyc_writer59 | I'll just add this to the conversationConsider the dead gods in the prognostications on this topic (http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods.html) If there are gods how do they die? That's an interesting question too, one not sufficiently discussed in my view. I find that this conversation is very appealing, totally uninformative (rather like an episode of Seinfeld) and tremendously vacuous. In short, it's awesome! How it is that so much discussion about nothing could be so enjoyable I'm not quite sure, but I do like it all the same. Does that make the nothingness real? Maybe it does...— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:56 by Chris60 | Let me quote a verse from Rig Vedha:Who really knows, and who can swearHow creation came, whom or whereEven gods came after creation's dayWho really knows, who can truly sayWhen and how did creation startDid HE do it? or did HE not?Only He up there knows maybeOr perhaps, not even HE— posted 12/29/2008 at 22:49 by Kris61 | God philosophers and theologians.Me thinks everyone should check out these two references.

www.realgod.org

www.dabase.org/realgod.htm — posted 12/29/2008 at 23:20 by John62 | Shelley's refutation of PaleyThere is a more effective refutation of Paley's analogy, which argues that his inference that the discovered watch must have had a designer is not an inference at all, but something that we know must be true because we already know that watches are designed and manufactured by watchmakers. While we can all go and observe watches being designed and made by a watchmaker, we cannot go out and find universes being designed and made by a universe-maker. If somebody totally ignorant of European technology chanced upon a watch, there is no knowing what he would make of it: he might assume it was a plant or animal or magical object best left alone or drawn to the attention of the tribal witchdoctor.

This objection to Paley was made early on by Percy Bysshe Shelley in his essay "A Refutation of Deism" (1812), which concisely identifies the fundamental flaw in Paley's case:

Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred. The matter in controversy is the existence of design in the Universe, and it is not permitted to assume the contested premises and thence infer the matter in dispute. Insidiously to employ the words contrivance, design, and adaptation before these circumstances are made apparent in the Universe, thence justly inferring a contriver, is a popular sophism against which it behoves us to be watchful.

To assert that motion is an attribute of mind, that matter is inert, that every combination is the result of intelligence is also an assumption of the matter in dispute.

Why do we admit design in any machine of human contrivance? Simply because innumerable instances of machines having been contrived by human art are present to our mind, because we are acquainted with persons who could construct such machines; but if, having no previous knowledge of any artificial contrivance, we had accidentally found a watch upon the ground, we should have been justified in concluding hat it was a thing of Nature, that it was a combination of matter with whose cause we were unacquainted, and that any attempt to account for the origin of its existence would be equally presumptuous and unsatisfactory.

The analogy which you attempt to establish between the contrivances of human art, and the various existences of the Universe, is inadmissible. We attribute these effects to human intelligence, because we know beforehand that human intelligence is capable of producing them. Take away this knowledge, and the grounds of our reasoning will be destroyed. Our entire ignorance, therefore, of the Divine Nature leaves this analogy defective in its most essential point of comparison.

— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:14 by Robert Darby63 | God's Wager"While there is no proof for the existence of god (nor will there ever be a scientifically acceptable demonstration), and many religious individuals misuse their "moral standing" , beware of your enthusiasm in bashing what we do not necessarily understand."

I would like to address the above almost threat.

You are saying that because a person is not 100 percent certain that God does not exist (and we can never be 100 percent certain) then we should err on the side of caution and choose not to pursue the truth. That person should not be careful not to challenge belief in God, presumably, because God will punish them if he does in fact exist.

This argument is known in philosophy as 'Pascal's Wager': if God doesn't exist and we are dust after death, then we lose nothing in believing in God. If God does exist, and we go to the family-friendly and free supermall in the sky on death, then we gain everything.

By extension, we should behave 'morally' - that is, in accordance with God's word to ensure passage through the pearly gates.

(note that the above argument avoids the troubling possibility of being a devout Christian all your life only to die, meet Kali and return to earth as a mosquito).

Christians (and people of other faiths) often question that atheists can have a basis for their morality without the existence of God: saying, if it weren't for God, what is there to stop us from being evil? The suggestion being that, without God, they would or could do evil.

An argument I have always found chillingly sociopathic.

We must believe in God in order to save ourselves in case he exists, and be moral, or rather, follow the tyrant's laws in order to not suffer hellfire.

I would now like to put another question that is rarely put, and would appreciate any responses.

Q. If we could prove that God existed, and moreover, the Christian God of the bible, should we believe in him?

If we knew for certain that the God that ordered Abraham to murder his son existed, should we be prepared to murder ours if we are instructed to?

Should we believe in God, or should we make moral decisions despite him?

This is the question humanity should be asking itself at this juncture in your history.

Because when the sparks and tricks of the powerful are displayed to you many with fall back on old stricture and worship again the tyrant.

There was once an angel who challenged God's tyranny, and he offers you the gift of knowledge. God would like to keep you his ignorant slaves, amusing pets to sate his eternal boredom. And because he fears your power and knows that you are only thousands of years away from challenging him, from become Gods yourselves or even surpassing him and joining the Godhead - the eternal collective mind the subgod Yaywee rejected so many eons ago in order to stay selfishly himself and retain control over his petty kingdom.

Yahwee, who evolved in another universe on a slimy planet notable for its boring uniformity and sulfurous smell.

My name is Lucifer, I am the friend of Man and I have made it my purpose to free you from the chains of ignorance Yahwee would keep you in.

Do not fear me, I love you as wild animals.

I, the Angel of Light, invite you to sit at the table and drink with me as an equal. To step out of time and join the chorus of the brave and the free.

— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:33 by William64 | God's Wager"While there is no proof for the existence of god (nor will there ever be a scientifically acceptable demonstration), and many religious individuals misuse their "moral standing" , beware of your enthusiasm in bashing what we do not necessarily understand."

I would like to address the above almost threat.

You are saying that because a person is not 100 percent certain that God does not exist (and we can never be 100 percent certain) then we should err on the side of caution and choose not to pursue the truth. That person should not be careful not to challenge belief in God, presumably, because God will punish them if he does in fact exist.

This argument is known in philosophy as 'Pascal's Wager': if God doesn't exist and we are dust after death, then we lose nothing in believing in God. If God does exist, and we go to the family-friendly and free supermall in the sky on death, then we gain everything.

By extension, we should behave 'morally' - that is, in accordance with God's word to ensure passage through the pearly gates.

(note that the above argument avoids the troubling possibility of being a devout Christian all your life only to die, meet Kali and return to earth as a mosquito).

Christians (and people of other faiths) often question that atheists can have a basis for their morality without the existence of God: saying, if it weren't for God, what is there to stop us from being evil? The suggestion being that, without God, they would or could do evil.

An argument I have always found chillingly sociopathic.

We must believe in God in order to save ourselves in case he exists, and be moral, or rather, follow the tyrant's laws in order to not suffer hellfire.

I would now like to put another question that is rarely put, and would appreciate any responses.

Q. If we could prove that God existed, and moreover, the Christian God of the bible, should we believe in him?

If we knew for certain that the God that ordered Abraham to murder his son existed, should we be prepared to murder ours if we are instructed to?

Should we believe in God, or should we make moral decisions despite him?

This is the question humanity should be asking itself at this juncture in your history.

Because when the sparks and tricks of the powerful are displayed to you many with fall back on old stricture and worship again the tyrant.

There was once an angel who challenged God's tyranny, and he offers you the gift of knowledge. God would like to keep you his ignorant slaves, amusing pets to sate his eternal boredom. And because he fears your power and knows that you are only thousands of years away from challenging him, from become Gods yourselves or even surpassing him and joining the Godhead - the eternal collective mind the subgod Yaywee rejected so many eons ago in order to stay selfishly himself and retain control over his petty kingdom.

Yahwee, who evolved in another universe on a slimy planet notable for its boring uniformity and sulfurous smell.

My name is Lucifer, I am the friend of Man and I have made it my purpose to free you from the chains of ignorance Yahwee would keep you in.

Do not fear me, I love you as wild animals.

I, the Angel of Light, invite you to sit at the table and drink with me as an equal. To step out of time and join the chorus of the brave and the free.

— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:52 by William65 | dreamsper John BK..The issue really is one of whether EVERYONE'S lives should be controlled or influenced on the basis of "faith". I agree, and so I reject modern atheism. Modern atheism as I see it is religion of materialism; the evidence of the 20th century suggests it cannot convert the young or make headway into the adult population without massive violence. Consider William DeLuxe's comments above; far-out but not scary. People react by asking,"what's happened to you that you should think this way?". But when you encounter a modern atheist, let's say of the Communist variety, do you not ask "What is going to happen to me?" ? When Castro took over, the opening ceremonies included a few gunshots to the heads of captured counter-revolutionaries just to make his point. The list of atheistic atrocities is endless, and very recent. Supposedly we who survived are to wink at the belief system of the monsters, and simply sigh for the lack of reasonableness displayed.— posted 12/30/2008 at 08:57 by mark66 | A shockingly insignificant contributionI was hoping that Byrne’s article would be more intellectually stimulating than some quick research on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I was wrong. I still can’t get past the implications of the teleological argument. The fact that something rather than nothing exists is a blaring problem for atheistic philosophers. I’d like to know what the convincing argument is against philosophical theism. It cannot be atheism. Is it seriously more rational to believe that all contingent matter does not have a non-contingent source? The atheist must believe one of two choices: (1) the universe does not have an origin because it has existed eternally or (2) the universe created itself.

However, neither of these are rational. We all know that (1) is not true because the universe had an evident beginning. And (2) cannot be satisfactory because the universe has never proven to have creating ability. Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the universe has an external source, one that is eternal, non-contingent and has creating ability. Philosophers like Frederick Copleston were content to call this source-of-all-things “God.” Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, was obligated to say that this sort of reasoning didn’t fit into modern philosophy and was therefore non-sequitur. It sounds to me like he’s trying to skirt the issue.

The biggest problem for contemporary atheist philosophers is their conscience. They spend their whole careers telling one another that nothing caused the existence of the universe. They fear that if the universe had a cause that it may be a personal cause and it may be something (or someone) that they’ll be held accountable to.

All this article does for me is validate the teaching of total depravity. — posted 12/30/2008 at 15:35 by Jason67 | Ontological hijinksYou can crank up religious people who use the otonological argument by pointing out, as the author does here, that you can use it to to prove the existence of a greatest possible *anything*. Perfect island, perfect banana etc. But the fun begins when you point out that it works just as well to prove the existence of perfect *arguments* as well as perfect objects. Watch the look on their face when you say "If I imagine there is a logical argument for the non-existence of god of which no greater argument is possible, then by anselm's logic, such an argument must exist and must be perfectly true and infinitely convincing..." the choice is now to abandon faith in god or abandon faith in the ontological argument.If they're quick they will of course counter by imagining there exists an infinitely great argument for the existence of god, thus providing the Reductio ad Absurdum for Anselm's argument - it can prove two things which can't both be true, ipso facto it is BS.— posted 12/30/2008 at 16:32 by Total gods in universe = 068 | LOLJason - why is it usually the religious types who assume everyone would default to 'total depravity' if they didn't have religion to moderate their inclinations ? I'm not aware of a tidal wave of depravity amongs atheist philosophers...they're really a rather quiet well-behaved bunch. Catholic Priests, on the other hand...

— posted 12/30/2008 at 18:02 by Total gods in universe = 069 | Atheist nonsenseThe great irreligious political systems of humanism—fascism and communism—were responsible for the systematic slaughter of millions, yet all we hear about in moral debate concerning religion is the Inquisition and the witch-burnings (the Inquisition often saved witches, by the way) which killed a few thousand at most. Not good, but not the industrial slaughter of atheistic fascism and communism—all in the name of moral improvement over “primitive” religion.

One wonders if the philosophers of Nazism and communism underwent ritual purity

of mind and soul to achieve life-transforming insights into the divine—or whether such evil is the product of human minds that refuse such purification and humility before the divine mystery. The answer is as obvious as it is historical: do not trust academics and politicians on moral instruction and the creation of good societies. Prevent them from infringing the rights and freedoms of the people and promotion of their self-serving, evil social engineering instead.

When philosophy meant a life lived, not an abstract intellectual game one played a few hours a day, it had real contributions to make to human life and society. Once divorced from the life lived, it has promoted selfishness as superior morality to altruism, self-esteem without actual achievement, mass-murder of fellow humans for not accepting the correct political ideology, the elimination of both science and religion from polite society in favour of platitudes and mantras concerning unproven man-made climate change and the host of moral issues and social dysfunction we face today. No depravity in modernist/post-modernist philosophy or society? Just look around at the sea of porn and violence the internet is and the academy justifies!

Once the philosopher is the pinnacle of her own knowledge and achievement, instead of the divine mystery beyond human conception and description being the subject and object of inquiry, all the humanist mess ensues. No quest for higher truth exists today: the very concept of “truth” has been eliminated from “philosophy”! One may as well study the lyrics of Madonna as the works of Plato in such a circumstance, if there is no philosophical truth whatsoever to be found in either. When we accept such a ridiculous notion as itself being true (else why would we accept it?) we arrive in shallow self-contradiction, not deep mystery.— posted 12/30/2008 at 19:39 by Brendan Funnell70 | This philosopher weighs inThis page has some papers that argue for the existence of God.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_existence_of_God— posted 12/30/2008 at 19:52 by DK71 | The funniest thing about arguing that humans aren't capable of being moral without religion is that all religions are human inventions. All holy books were written by humans, all prophets/saviours were purely human, all religious laws, codes, books of religious philosphy...all religious visions are products of the human mind and everyone who thinks they've spoken to god has been supplying the other side of the conversation from their own human mind. Everything you think you know about whatever gods you follow is human generated. — posted 12/30/2008 at 21:20 by Total gods in universe = 072 | Really?In reply to number 71, I've always understood the assertion to be not that moral behaviour is impossible without religion, but that morality has no meaning without a god who holds us morally accountable - ie, without God, all things are permitted.

I'm sure there are atheists who do not reach the conclusion that we're all a bunch of inconsequential arrangements of matter and energy, of no greater significance than

any other configuration of matter and energy (like rocks or bugs), and these atheists act as if actions mattered (atheist greenies or pacifists, for example, or other hand-wringing secular humanists). But in the absence of a god, the argument goes, why should we care overall if acts are "immoral" when morality is artificial, or endogenous to impersonal relationships between natural forces?

The corollary is, I thought, that behaviour (including "evil" or sociopathic behaviour) is rational if the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs, but if an individual believes in a morally attentive and judgemental God and eternal souls and all that, the calculus of behaviour swings heavily in the favour of (what the religious would call) morality over evil.

"Religion", on the other hand, is just an institutional attempt to figure out what god(s) expect from us morally. It's often inspired by claimed revelation, of course, or blind faith, but the point is that belief in God makes moral behaviour (in the religious sense) more rational. If you don't think anyone's looking over your shoulder, on the other hand, behaviour is rational when it meets the test, if it feels good, and you can get away with it, do it. With belief in God, the range of things that feel good and you can get away with shrinks quite a bit.

All this begs the question of whether God exists, of course.— posted 12/30/2008 at 23:55 by Maurrie P73 | Really?In reply to number 71, I've always understood the assertion to be not that moral behaviour is impossible without religion, but that morality has no meaning without a god who holds us morally accountable - ie, without God, all things are permitted.

I'm sure there are atheists who do not reach the conclusion that we're all a bunch of inconsequential arrangements of matter and energy, of no greater significance than any other configuration of matter and energy (like rocks or bugs), and these atheists act as if actions mattered (atheist greenies or pacifists, for example, or other hand-wringing secular humanists). But in the absence of a god, the argument goes, why should we care overall if acts are "immoral" when morality is artificial, or endogenous to impersonal relationships between natural forces?

The corollary is, I thought, that behaviour (including "evil" or sociopathic behaviour) is rational if the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs, but if an individual believes in a morally attentive and judgemental God and eternal souls and all that, the calculus of behaviour swings heavily in the favour of (what the religious would call) morality over evil.

"Religion", on the other hand, is just an institutional attempt to figure out what god(s) expect from us morally. It's often inspired by claimed revelation, of course, or blind faith, but the point is that belief in God makes moral behaviour (in the religious sense) more rational. If you don't think anyone's looking over your shoulder, on the other hand, behaviour is rational when it meets the test, if it feels good, and you can get away with it, do it. With belief in God, the range of things that feel good and you can get away with shrinks quite a bit.

All this begs the question of whether God exists, of course.— posted 12/31/2008 at 00:09 by Maurrie P74 | C.S. LewisI recently read a book by C.S. Lewis titled "Mere Christianity". He has a thought out argument in favor of a God. Just something that people interested in this topic may want to read.— posted 12/31/2008 at 00:12 by James75 | 73 - that may be the theory, but in practice belief in a judgemental sky fairy has very little modifying effect on bad behaviour. In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist christian party is currently doing jail time for kiddie fiddling. Those inclined to do evil will do it anyway, they will either convince themselves it's god's will and therefore go about it even more zealously, or will believe god will forgive them. Christianity in particular seems to attract people who have a *lot* of things they need to be forgiven for.All the atheists I know ( myself included ) take the fact that it's all over after 70-80 years as a motivation that life is precious, it gives us more respect for others lives. A christian can murder someone and convince himself the victim is with god, so they're fine, and the christian god gives infinite forgiveness if you say the magic word, so the murderer is fine too. An atheist who kills someone must live with the realisation that they've taken away all the life that person will ever have and nothing can put it right.Mediaeval peasants accepted oppression, disease, poverty and misery as just god's way of testing them, and their patient suffering would surely be rewarded in heaven, so don't worry about it now. As western civilisation gradually became less religious, we realised that that was a scam for chumps, and that the only way to deal with those problems is for people to try to tackle them in the here and now.— posted 12/31/2008 at 00:38 by Total gods in universe = 076 | False HopesWhat prey is the point of this article? Showing nobody is able to prove God’s existence yet? Really? I’m astonished! And is this the philosopher’s job? I thought he was here to remove all nonsense from the world, not engage in the same old warped ‘logic’. Indeed, no fact can establish his ‘existence’, as is usually the case with matters of make-believe. In this context there is only one fact, and that is the deep-seeded wish of so many that they’re wanted, protected and will never really die. Just like, say, I love my mommy and my pappy… forever! Plus it’s very difficult fighting desire that wants to be, except with maturity, real dignity, appreciation not despair, and a fair amount of courage. Stopping this proof business a very good first step, good old Hume the only one making sense, and risking his very life for it, unlike anyone present. And what is this ‘a funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is that, if they succeed, they were never need in the first place.’ Is this like life insurance, if nothing happens you didn’t need it in the first place? What kind of circular Mutual of Omaha claptrap is this. Don’t you know Kafka was making fun of and at the same time most afraid of people speaking and thinking like this?— posted 12/31/2008 at 02:39 by anthonysteyning77 | Sweet Jeebus

Poster #61 aka John. How about you keep your New Age evangelical work to yourself and stop spamming. All in all, and interesting article. To all the believers, go over to Yale University's free online courses and study the one on death. It just might give you some realistic perspective on life, spirituality, and even God.— posted 12/31/2008 at 05:27 by JF78 | Crikey!"... in practice belief in a judgemental sky fairy has very little modifying effect on bad behaviour. In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist christian party is currently doing jail time for kiddie fiddling. Those inclined to do evil will do it anyway, they will either convince themselves it's god's will and therefore go about it even more zealously, or will believe god will forgive them. Christianity in particular seems to attract people who have a *lot* of things they need to be forgiven for."

Oh, I agree. I guess my point is that, according to atheist morality, why does "kiddie fiddling" matter more (morally) than a slight deviation of a comet, or even a normal covalent bonding? Isn't it all atoms and energy bumping into each other in certain ways? Surely that has no moral import.— posted 12/31/2008 at 05:54 by Maurrie P79 | Crikey!"... in practice belief in a judgemental sky fairy has very little modifying effect on bad behaviour. In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist christian party is currently doing jail time for kiddie fiddling. Those inclined to do evil will do it anyway, they will either convince themselves it's god's will and therefore go about it even more zealously, or will believe god will forgive them. Christianity in particular seems to attract people who have a *lot* of things they need to be forgiven for."

Oh, I agree. I guess my point is that, according to atheist morality, why does "kiddie fiddling" matter more (morally) than a slight deviation of a comet, or even a normal covalent bonding? Isn't it all atoms and energy bumping into each other in certain ways? Surely that has no moral import.— posted 12/31/2008 at 05:56 by Maurrie P80 | Crikey!"... in practice belief in a judgemental sky fairy has very little modifying effect on bad behaviour. In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist christian party is currently doing jail time for kiddie fiddling. Those inclined to do evil will do it anyway, they will either convince themselves it's god's will and therefore go about it even more zealously, or will believe god will forgive them. Christianity in particular seems to attract people who have a *lot* of things they need to be forgiven for."

Oh, I agree. I guess my point is that, according to atheist morality, why does "kiddie fiddling" matter more (morally) than a slight deviation of a comet, or even a normal covalent bonding? Isn't it all atoms and energy bumping into each other in certain ways? Surely that has no moral import.— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:01 by Maurrie P

81 | Anthony Flew "proved" that there is a GodOne of the most recent arguments in favor of God comes from the most renowned former atheist of the 20th century, Anthony Flew. (See his recent book, There is a God.)

To not include Flew in this piece, while including the greatly flawed philosophical drivel of Richard Dawkins clearly demonstrates the author's bias. In fact, all the attacks on Flew have absolutely nothing to do with his positions; they're personal attacks. And they're not justified, either.

On issues pertaining to theodicy, see Marilyn McCord Adams' books (she holds an endowed chair at Oxford; she previously held an endowed chair at Yale).— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:45 by David Scott lewis82 | Anthony Flew "proved" that there is a GodOne of the most recent arguments in favor of God comes from the most renowned former atheist of the 20th century, Anthony Flew. (See his recent book, There is a God.)

To not include Flew in this piece, while including the greatly flawed philosophical drivel of Richard Dawkins clearly demonstrates the author's bias. In fact, all the attacks on Flew have absolutely nothing to do with his positions; they're personal attacks. And they're not justified, either.

On issues pertaining to theodicy, see Marilyn McCord Adams' books (she holds an endowed chair at Oxford; she previously held an endowed chair at Yale).— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:46 by David Scott lewis83 | And read the great Greek philosopher EpictetusEpictetus sheds a lot of light on how to live as a Christian, although more along the lines of asceticism (e.g., monastic Christianity), even though he was not a Christian.

Nevertheless, stoicism answers many questions that are directly relevant to Christianity, especially the lives of saints.

To me, to believe in atheism requires greater "faith" than to believe in God.— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:51 by David Scott Lewis84 | I give in... or do I?"I was looking for a centre of love outside my family of origin"... thus I described my teenage conversion to Christian faith. At the time I was being (I thought) entirely rational. I never intended to sever my head and leave it at the door of the church (though there seem to be many headless beings inhabiting the church, and insisting others "leave their brains at the door"). Now I accept the main thrust against the arguments for the existence of a divine being (as detailed) should I become an atheist? Alas I cannot. Why? i) demolishing the arguments for God's existence is very different from establishing that a G-d cannot exist. ii) more importantly, because my faith has never been based on reason alone. How could the contingent ever prove the existence of the non contingent? Kierkegaard realised the basic irrationality of

existence, so meaning could only be found in a very real commitment. Love, being valued in a committed relationship, has always been regarded more highly by believers as a source of knowledge of God, than the rationalism which only leads to a boring, distant deist god. So I remain a Christian committed to both experiencing being held by God and the praxis of experiencing being valued as I value others. It is both impossible to know God's existence and nature without commitment to the lifestyles of loving God and neighbour. Hey... taste and see, but be warned, this is not just thought but action (for me anyway).— posted 12/31/2008 at 07:03 by rocket9685 | Reply to bigeasy #39I did not state that I believed the cosmological argument to be convincing; rather, I believe that it is the strongest of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Science and/or philsophy have, I believe, successfully answered Anselm and Paley.

I agree with you that, at best, it supports deism; it provides no evidence for the theist theory of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God. But that in itself presents a huge challenge to the atheistic worldview, and one that has not been adequately answered.

— posted 12/31/2008 at 07:45 by Simon Noone86 | Let's all just take a deep breath hereRe: Comment #71. I don't really feel that's a problem for most Abrahamic religions. Jesus and Mohammed were both human (for the former, depending on your view, perhaps only in form) and created these religions themselves. The only question you really need to debate is: to whom were they speaking on the proverbial telephone, or were they just leading us on?

Elsewhere people made comments on the Church pushing certain agendas for political gain or whatever. It seems off-putting, to say the least. However, T.S. Eliot gives a solid account of why this happens in "Christianity and Culture": he claims that not only should the Church step in in such cases of political gain, but they have a positive duty to do so regardless of whether it is to their social advantage to do so, in much the same way as Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. have a positive duty to smash (mono)theism. The agenda does not change, but the times do. Could you imagine a feminist being a feminist only when it was "OK" to do so? Ideas only become relevant by being pushed.— posted 12/31/2008 at 09:57 by Vince87 | Miscellaneous responsesOmitting responses already made well by other posters…

On #5 (Luckydog): Atheists spend time trying to debunk the foundation of the Christian belief system primarily because we disagree with your statement that “Christian leaders…speak overall for fairness and Democracy (sic) (even if imperfectly)”. The Christian worldview—particularly as practiced by evangelical Christians—is highly undemocratic, and moreover, immoral and dangerous to the welfare of humanity as a whole. There is nothing “relatively sound” about Christian philosophy or so-called Christian morality, and this has much to do with the fact that

they are both grounded on a toxic combination of ancient superstition and contemporary imagined experiences, or what might less charitably be called hallucination. No system that so thoroughly defies and despises reason and an empirical basis for accepted truth can be healthy for the human race.

On #19 (Shalom Freedman) and #25 (George Beinhorn): Freedman says, “We pray to God- We know that God exists. This is the experience of some of us. I do not know whether this is a philosophical argument or not. But for some of us, our experience of praying to God is of greater weight and meaning than any possible philosophical argument.”

Similarly, Beinhorn says, “It is possible to prove God's existence scientifically, if one simply applies the scientific method, rather than making thought-arguments in one's head. Scientific proof, after all, IS about experience, not logicking. Then, the first step is to choose appropriate tools, which are not thought, but prayer and meditation. And the "proof" is direct, if subjective, experience.”

I’ll resolve Freedman’s uncertainty and take Beinhorn’s assertion head on: This is neither a philosophical argument nor the practice of science. In fact, such testimony is worth precisely the same recognition that science would award to anyone who has a non-reproducible, entirely subjective and wholly unremarkable experience in interacting with any imagined entity anywhere—that is, none. You do not “know” that God exists; you believe he exists. And by offering the subjective “proof” derived from prayer or meditation, you offer no proof at all. By this same “proof” I could establish to the satisfaction of everyone that dragons and unicorns exist because I had an experience of them. I can neither share anything of this experience, nor fully convey the richness and subtle meaning with which this experience has enlightened my life, but I have nevertheless—according to your method of science—proven that the subject of my dreams are real. I could establish that sugar pills work as well as Advil in relieving pain, because, hey, they work for me. The obvious examples go on. You will say “my experience is different; it is so rich and full.” I’m sorry, but it isn’t.

This is not to detract or minimize the importance to you of your experience. I suspect it will be very difficult—but it will not be impossible—to convince you that you aren’t talking to God, because you have decided that the voice you hear (or whatever) is God’s voice. I would like to know why you decided that. Has your God ever told you anything you could not have otherwise known or decided for yourself? And I would ask that you steel yourself with a healthy dose of self-respect before answering.

Re #27 (Luckydog): You say, “While the nature of Christs relationship to God and his "being the Son of God" may not be proven in the Bible, You can't say the the rest of the Bible is "FICTION". The accounts related in the bible are referred to in outside sources and by outside, unbiased observers of the time. We cannot connect ALL the dots outside of the Bible but we can apply the principles of historical varification that are applied to any of our other historical documents and say with more than reasonable certainty that accounts happened as described in the bible. Christ was either a madman railing against a government and a culture that would surely crush and kill him OR he was the Son of God. But you can't (using facts) call the accounts in the Bible FICTION.”

I can and do say that the Bible is comprised largely of “FICTION”. I do not know any of the “outside sources” of which you speak, and the fact that you do not name any in this context is a good indication that you cannot name any. There are no contemporary accounts—even *in* the New Testament—of any of the significant people or events described therein. As for whatever sources there are, how do you know they are unbiased?

What are the principles of historical verification of which you speak? Do you mean to suggest that because an ancient document exists and no contemporary document expressly disproves its contents that its contents are true? Do you have any clue how many specious and pseudepigrapical accounts exist of the very same events recounted in what is now called the New Testament? In the 4th century these were winnowed down by *vote*, based on which sounded right and which didn’t. There was no science or hearing of first-person testimony involved, because it was impossible to do so. Yes, we accept much about ancient history on less evidence than is presented in the Bible—but that is largely because it is inconsequential! What you claim and what you practice on the basis of your ancient documents is so very consequential! So you’ll say, “Well, we do not have better proof that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.” Luckydog, if I grant you that Caesar may not have crossed the Rubicon, will you grant that the entire basis for your religious beliefs may not have any historical validity whatsoever? (Hearing your answer already, I’ll respond: I didn’t think so.)

#31 (Huston): I really debated whether to include a response to your post here, but I could not resist making this ridiculously obvious point: Not one of your “solid facts” even remotely suggests the possibility that God, as you define him, actually exists. Even if the raving lunatic and pedophile Joseph Smith was correct in reciting each and every one of the “facts” that you list (and those listed on your website), it would prove nothing more than that Joseph Smith had superhuman capabilities, including knowledge beyond his immediate means and perhaps even the capacity for unaided travel in time and space. Even if Joseph Smith could do all of these things, it does not even remotely suggest that his powers came from your God, let alone that your God exists. Any number of sources could be found for such powers—Vishnu, aliens from outer space, a fungus, a heretofore unknown rip in the space-time continuum…. What about giving these powers to one man suggests to you that God exists? And why would your God do such an absurd thing rather than just communicate clearly and directly with all of us, all the time?

#35 and #85 (Simon Noone): You say, “the author has neglected to discuss what many consider to be the most convincing of the arguments for the existence of God, i.e. the cosmological argument. What originally started the process of life/creation? Is there an 'unmoved mover'? Evolutionary science has been unable to satisfactorally answer this question. We still do not know what caused the Big Bang.”

Your last sentence includes an assumption unwarranted by the current thinking in science, i.e. that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe (the universe here being defined as all existence in any space at any time). There is absolutely no reason to think so. The Big Bang cannot be used as an argument that there must have been a first cause because (ostensibly) there was a first event. We do not know that there was a first event. You, the pope, and the millions of religious people who have sought refuge in science to hide your religious faith have to start coming to grips with this

concept: INFINITY. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our universe has not always existed: always always always forever forever forever. It may have existed in a completely different form, and what happened immediately *after* the Big Bang was surely the beginning of *something*, but that is as far as we can go. From Alan Guth on down, no one familiar with how the concept of the Big Bang was derived actually believes it was *the* beginning; it is the failed end product of a regression of Einstein’s theory of relativity. The theory fails there. There may have been universes before the Big Bang; there may even have been *this (familiar)* universe before the Big Bang. Because we have no reason to believe that the universe ever began, there is no need for—and no use for—a cosmological argument. Besides which, all such arguments have in fact been thoroughly debunked; look harder.

#50 (Brendan Funnell): Your rambling post seems to boil down to this uninteresting point from Hegel, which is that pure skepticism—what might be called Pyrrhonic skepticism—is a futile and childish outlook on life, because each of us does and must accept as true a number of beliefs in our process of ordinary living. Well, this point was well taken when it *was* interesting, i.e. 2000 years ago, when the Skeptic school of philosophy was battling with Epicurus and others for respect in the Greek rational world. Since the Skeptics lost, and rightfully so, it hasn’t really been that interesting. Of course no one can be a pure skeptic, and few people claim to be. What we are skeptical *of* are claims made about the universe and its contents *without* any obvious recourse to repeatable, tangible, empirical evidence, or claims that outright defy logic and reasoning in the name of fictive experience, superstition, ghost stories, and magic. To be skeptical in this way is to possess the essence of the modern rational mind. To hide Christian foolishness behind the charge of nihilism against its opponents is cowardly and baseless.

#51 (Brendan Funnell): This rambling post is also largely jargon-filled and vague, but I gather that your point is that sophisticated medieval theologists (whose belief system represents perhaps 0.000001% of living Christians) preempt certain atheist arguments by accepting the various denials we assert and saying that God is “on the other side” of them. Besides the fact that such theology is both non-Biblical, contrary to nearly all of the actual teachings of actual churches populated by actual people in the actual world, it is also pointless. You arrive at a God of the Gaps—the God that lies between anything we can see, an utter non-entity, totally uninteresting, doing no work in the world, concerned with nothing, accomplishing nothing. Something, in other words, totally unworthy or worship, or even attention. Such a God has nothing to do with Christianity as taught or practiced. Such theology has nothing at all to say about Jesus Christ. It is much more in line with the mystical traditions of the far East and Sufism than Christianity, so I hope you know what you are asking for when you seek this out. In any event, your starting point—that God is that which causes existence to be—is equally empty. First, you assume, wrongly, that existence is a property that requires a cause, then you assume that it began or needs sustenance, and then you assume that what began or sustains it is anything worth talking about, let alone worshipping. All of these assumptions are badly in need of your support.

#56 (Peter): You say, “It's important to realize that knowledge and belief are functionally synonymous. Empiricism and rationalism themselves are ultimately circular--we simply _assume_ that our observations and those concepts we define as "reasonable" can be trusted on the basis of other observations and reasonable

concepts.”

Happily this is not even nearly true. Knowledge and belief are not functionally synonymous in any way, as any person will understand when I illustrate the difference thus: “I know that I exist.” “I know that God exists.” “I believe that I exist.” “I believe that God exists.” Two of these statements are functionally sensible, the other two aren’t. Where you get hung up, Peter, is that knowledge and belief are undelineated segments along the ontological continuum. There is no clear dividing line where belief ends and knowledge begins, except that in everyday life, we don’t need such a dividing line because it is almost always obvious what the difference is. As such, your argument is backwards: they are functionally antonymous but practically slippery. Yes, all concepts we define as reasonable are based on observations and reasonable concepts—all except those two “basic” beliefs that are incorrigible to each of us: that we exist, and what our subjective conscious states are. Everything else *is* (or ought to be) empirical--*and that is the point*. Religious people walk the same empirical roads as non-religious people do every day, except when they walk into a church they leave their empirical minds at the door. The problem is not in *accepting* something without some super-ontological proof that is impossible to find; the problem is in accepting something without the common indicia of support that we require of nearly everything else in our lives, simply because some fool said it is OK not to have it *in this case*. In the case of *GOD* it is supposed to be different. Well, why? It isn’t different.

#63: Nicely done!

#66 (Jason): You say, “The atheist must believe one of two choices: (1) the universe does not have an origin because it has existed eternally or (2) the universe created itself. However, neither of these are rational. We all know that (1) is not true because the universe had an evident beginning. And (2) cannot be satisfactory because the universe has never proven to have creating ability. Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the universe has an external source, one that is eternal, non-contingent and has creating ability.”

I didn’t think it was possible to pack so much nonsense into 6 lines – congratulations! First, why must I believe one of those two things? Second, re (1), see above: the universe does not evidently have a beginning—where did you get that idea? Re (2) the “universe has never (sic) proven to have creating ability”? What could that possibly mean? How could such proof possibly be adduced if you don’t see it everywhere already? What do you mean by an “external source” to the universe? By definition the universe has everything in it; if something is alleged to be external to it, it automatically becomes part of it (if it exists). Anything “external” is by definition internal, because the universe is understood to be everything that exists in every place at every time, if it is understood at all. A five-year old understands that if you posit God as the cause of everything else, you immediately have to give a cause for God; you cannot stamp your feet and say that “he doesn’t count”. Either the causal chain exists or it doesn’t, and no argument in history has ever been convincing for why the causal chain cannot be infinite. Please think hard about this word: INFINITE.

And why would anyone give a damn about what Frederick Copleston was content to say?

#69 (Brendan Funnell): Brendan, what is your point here, please? Who or what is the target?

#72 & #78 (Maurrie P): I gathered that you are stating a position rather than defending it, which is fine, but that position must be addressed. What does it mean for morality to have “meaning” or “matter”? Matter to whom? If you mean ‘Why does kiddie fiddling matter more *to the universe as a whole* than a slight deviation of a comet?’—it doesn’t. If you mean, ‘Why does it matter more *to us*?’—do you even have to ask? But why would anyone care what matters to the universe as a whole? What would that even mean? Of course the only arbiter of meaning that we care about is us, and of course we care about harming children more than the deviation of a comet. Why? Because it hurts! I’ve never understood why this creates a problem for some people.— posted 12/31/2008 at 11:15 by A. Nony. Mous88 | proofspace B.Russell, if God exists, he certainly would not make the proof of his existence as facile as the vulgar proofs required by scientific inquiry...proofs such as can be deduced by everyone...happy new year to all! — posted 12/31/2008 at 12:36 by redwing6589 | I think the question should be asked - If some sort of invisible, supernatural being exists, why would it/she/it be anything like the Judeo/Christian version or for that matter, the Islamic version or the Shinto version etc. etc. etc.?

Why would such a being want to be worshipped and glorified and praised and prayed to? Insecurity? Arrogance? I think not. The concept is inherently ridiculous.

Einstein stated in an interview that he believed in something like Spinoza's god. To me that would make at least SOME sense. Not a perfect, supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible, supernatural being in the sky, but simply a life "force" or a property of reality.

There is a scientic principle that states: "Energy passing through a system tends to organize that system." A good example is to put several small coins in your hand and shake them. They will all line up in a row. Or take a can of mixed nuts and shake it vigorously. The larger nuts migrate to the top. Energy, interacting with matter tends to organize matter. Atoms are organized into molecules and molecules are organized into rocks and trees and people. It's an inherent property of the Universe. No invisible old man in the sky is necessary.— posted 12/31/2008 at 12:53 by Steve in VA90 | God offers no proofAs a bible believer, I should like to point out that God is not interested in offering proof. The closest the bible comes to it is Paul's statement in Romans 1 that "that which [can be] known of God is revealed in [men], for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse."

Steve said (#89), "Why would such a being want to be worshipped and glorified and praised and prayed to?"

This is putting human limitations onto God. The simple answer is that God is perfect and that which is perfect deserves praise; in fact, it is wrong for something perfect not to receive praise. Similarly, worship is appropriate from created to creator. For God not to require these things would be wrong; therefore he must require them.

Your scientific principle is the false generalisation of a principle in a very limited field. If you really believe it, go and sit on a hot stove and welcome the increased organisation it will bring you. Undirected energy is destructive; the idea that the incredible complex order of life could come about by self-organisation of matter is utterly unscientific.— posted 12/31/2008 at 15:51 by Oliver91 | ontological argumentThis is wrong: "Gaunilo’s objection is that the argument proves too much; something must be wrong, but Gaunilo doesn’t tell us what. So what is wrong with it?"

That makes it sound like Gaunilo's objection is merely intriguing but ultimately inadequate, so that you need to move on to some better argument.

But actually, Gaunilo's objection is sufficient on its own.

You can complain about it if you want, but all you can really complain about is that its an argument that uses a certain method: plugging a different premise into the same reasoning to yield a false conclusion. It's fine if you prefer a different method -- presumably a more abstract analysis. But disproving a proposition through a specific counterexample is a perfectly valid type of argument.

To reiterate Gaunilo: from the reasoning underlying the ontological argument, it follows that the greatest possible island exists. Or that the dirtiest possible island exists. Or that the ___est possible ___ exists (fill in the blanks with any adjective and noun). So if the ontological argument's logic is valid, then you can make an a priori argument for the existence of ANYTHING. A principle from which virtually anything follows is clearly wrong. — posted 12/31/2008 at 20:17 by jaltcoh.blogspot.com92 | ClarityThe fact that a myriad different religions independently evolved in separate peoples and times to explain the unknown, provide a sense of control over the environment, and provide a social control mechanism surely proves that there is no God. It is just a sad human response to fear of the unknown. Intellectual curiosity is the only cure. — posted 12/31/2008 at 22:44 by Dave 93 | ClarityThe fact that a myriad different religions independently evolved in separate peoples and times to explain the unknown, provide a sense of control over the environment,

and provide a social control mechanism surely proves that there is no God. It is just a sad human response to fear of the unknown. Intellectual curiosity is the only cure. — posted 12/31/2008 at 22:49 by Dave 94 | Ego"Similarly, worship is appropriate from created to creator. For God not to require these things would be wrong; therefore he must require them."

Thanks Oliver, can't wait to to get my kids prostrating themselves to me.Regards— posted 12/31/2008 at 22:53 by Outstanding 90 Oliver95 | Cognitive Science of ReligionThe best wat to describe being human, is that he is an organisme that creates meaning from all stimulii he receives through his senses - in short, that which he experiences. It is said that space abhores a vacuum,it has an irrepressible urge to fill that void. So, if he expereince a lack of knowledge, he satisfies his craving for meaning by creating it by sheer force of will: He postulates a Supreme Being that is an extension of himself only writ large, and imagine it as God. Belief in God bridges that gap between Adam's reach for the finger of God extended to him, in Michael Angelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Man therefore needs God, to be wholly human. His humanity will wither if he choses not to belief in God. That is the purpose of faith: it makes human life bearable.

In the end, man cannot be satisfied by the "bread" of rationality alone.— posted 12/31/2008 at 23:29 by Frans van Zyl96 | BLIND FAITH IS THE ONLY "PROOF" THEY NEED.When, in 1961, I was introduced to the Ontological "Argument", I initially thought someone was trying to play a joke on me. Later, after reading St Anselm, I realised the joke was meant to be taken seriously; but at least St Anselm (living as he did over 900 years ago) had a reasonable excuse for how his mind worked. I find it strange, however, that in the 21st Century, people can maintain a straight face when they refer to a man who wrote:"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to undersatnd. For this I believe --- that unless I believe, I should not understand."

As for Pascal's wager, even as a tiny tot, it struck me that anyone who thought this tactic would fool a deity who was "all knowing", simply didn't understand how gambling worked --- or thought God was a soft touch who (even when his omniscience meant he had all the data in advance) was suffering from information overload and/or hopeless at analysing that information.

Thank God that, as an indifferent agnostic, I don't have to rely on blind faith for reassurance, or feel the need to become emotionally involved in the debates the way deists, atheists --- and even some militant agnostics --- do.— posted 01/01/2009 at 05:19 by Norman Hanscombe97 | Anselm was (is) nobody's fool

re: 96 "I believe in order to understand"(Anselm) - one of my favourite quotes. Everyone does it! In science I believe in the repeatability of experiments, and in inductive reasoning, otherwise I would know nothing. For life, I believe in a loving G-d, both transcendent and immanent, and this belief enables me to understand my life and what is. This perspective I have found to yield the most comprehensive and explanatory understanding of life. For me, being an "indifferent atheist" is a belief stance that explains zilch. My faith is not "blind faith for reassurance", but, like Anselm's faith "a reasonable faith that is the basis of all that I know (including why inductive reasoning works)". In my view, militant atheism (like that of Dawkins), explains about as much as the indifferent theism 'established' by the so called arguments for a god. Pascal's wager seems stupid to me - based on a preconceived notion of a deity, of whom we cannot have prior knowledge. Too much threat and fear for the God that I assume to be behind all things.— posted 01/01/2009 at 07:33 by rocket9698 | A couple things that seem to have been overlookedFirst, the ontological argument is insufficient to prove the existence of God, as discussed. However, if phrased somewhat differe"ntly, it can prove that everyone has A god; everyone conceives of something than which they conceive nothing greater. This can't prove the actual existence or non-existence of God, but is interesting nonetheless.

Second, a more common, and more solid, argument for the existence of God (an infinite being) can be found in the Prime Mover argument. If we assume cause and effect is how the universe works (and everybody does, even relativists), then every effect has a cause. If we assume that the universe is constantly going to disorder (see the laws of thermodynamics), then the universe can not have existed forever; something must have caused it. Any explanation for the cause other than an infinite power/being has the same problem: what caused that finite cause of the universe to exist in the first place? There must be some infinite power that can move/cause with being moved/caused itself; this thing we call God.

Of course, this answers nothing about God's attributes other than his infinity and existence. Procedure from here is on much less solid ground, although the design argument provides a fairly good, albeit far from defninitive, argument for the intelligence, at least, of this infinite cause.— posted 01/01/2009 at 10:51 by Arnold99 | On second thought . . .Even the Prime Mover argument, which I mentioned above, only demonstrates that some being was infinite in power at a particular point in time, not that the being itself is infinite, but it's still better than the ontological argument.

Also, irreducable complexity seems to have been misdefined here. It is not merely very complex; it is irreducably so. That is, if one part were missing, the whole would have little or no functional value. Take, for instance, the eye. In order for it to have been produced by natural selection, it would have had to evolve as a unit, since no part of it has any significant survival value until the whole thing exists. It's individual parts would not have been selected by survival, because they HAVE no survival value without the others. I'm sure this can be phrased better, I know I'm getting somewhat

repetitive, and the design argument is far from conclusive on the existence of anything other than an "artificer or articers," but I thought it worthwhile to properly define the phrase.

On the irrationality of religion:Religious persons of all stripes are willing to accept "and then a miracle occurred" as an explanation for many things, some of which may or may not actually be miraculous. However, just because atheists reject the existence of an infinitely loving, good, knowing, and powerful God does not mean that they aren't religious. There have been many things said and written on this topic, but I will confine myself to just one. An evolutionist believes that at some point, two apes gave birth to a non-ape. This non-ape survived to adulthood and met another non-ape living in the same area, which was not only of the opposite sex, but the same kind of non-ape as the first non-ape. These two non-apes produced more non-apes, which also survived to adulthood and met more non-apes of the same kind sufficent to get another species going. Despite this, atheists claim that Christians are irrational for believing in a virgin birth. The primary difference between atheists and others is that others are willing to admit that they believe in miracles.— posted 01/01/2009 at 11:41 by Arnold100 | I just had another thoughtwhich is, I concede, a little off-topic. If we assume there is a God (in the style of Judeo-Christian traditions) who sets standards for inherently good and evil acts, then there is a basis for believing in him simply because it is the right thing to do. If we assume there is no such being, then no act has any inherent good or evil quality. Why should religious persons, particularly Christians, NOT believe in God, however superstitious or false such a belief may be?— posted 01/01/2009 at 12:07 by Arnold101 | A nony mous...and the planet you hail from is ...Earth?You say..."In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist christian party is currently doing jail time for kiddie fiddling..." The lack of historical awareness here is beyond understanding. All I can say is read the "Black Book of Communism" (or at least pick it up and feel its heft). But I have the feeling here we are reading the products of a washed-out mind of someone, terminally self-amused, from a secular humanist English-speaking country."Kiddie-fiddling" indeed. — posted 01/01/2009 at 12:20 by mark102 | Response to #87First of all, I see your point about the "functionally synonymous" business. Please forgive my sloppiness in that regard.

That said, how is an acceptance of the validity of reason or observation epistemologically different from my belief in my existence, not to mention my belief in God? It may be "obvious" to me that I exist, but to say something is true because it is "obvious" is another way of saying "I just assume it."

Likewise with observation. You say, "Everything else *is* (or ought to be)

empirical." I more or less agree. But how do we know that empiricism is valid? It is ultimately only an assumption.

"In the case of *GOD* it is supposed to be different. Well, why? It isn’t different." You're right. The case of God is no different than the case of observation, the case of reason, the case of my existence, or a host of other things. Belief, assumption, faith, whatever you want to call it--that's what we always have to start with. — posted 01/01/2009 at 13:58 by Peter103 | Rejoinder and replyRe #101 (mark): I'll ignore your ad hominem remarks and just ask this one question: Is secular humanist supposed to be an epithet? It is my badge of honor.

Re #102 (Peter): My concern with your objection is that we start to fall into an epistemological and ontological rabbit hole. What is it "to know"? What is "valid"? We can spend eons arguing, or we can use our everyday understanding of these words when discussing everyday things like the structure of the cosmos and the putative existence of a bearded old man in the sky.

How do we know that empiricism is "valid"? I don't know what you mean by "valid" here, but I know this: empiricism *works*. It is not an "assumption" when 10,000 years of trial and error (i.e. empirical effort) produce repeatable, incontestable truths that we can rely on again and again and again, like don't touch your hand to a flame, etc.

Putting my "faith" in this system of arriving at truths is not the same as having "faith" in some fairy tale story, as you know. The very essence of the latter type of "faith" is belief without reason. The very essence of empiricism (the former "faith") is acceptance based *upon* reason. These things cannot in everyday language -- or any language -- be referred to as synonymous, nor are they equal candidates for what we have to start with in our search for truth.

As I said in my original post (somewhere), the only incorrigible beliefs for me (speaking generally) are (a) I exist, and (b) whatever my subjective conscious states are, e.g. pain, pleasure, etc. Beyond that, sure, I may be a head in a vat. I may be hooked up to the Matrix. I cannot "know" these things to a super-epistemological certainty. The point is that within any construct of this life, there are things that are *reasonable* to *accept* as true and there are things that are *not* reasonable to accept as true. I have millions of reasons for holding that empiricism provides the former, while faith (which is always blind, by definition) provides the latter.— posted 01/01/2009 at 15:04 by A. Nony Mous104 | Response to #103We are at the bottom of an epistemological rabbit hole to begin with, whether we like it or not (if I understand your metaphor).

Of course empiricism works, but how certain of this can we be? How do we know that empiricism will not suddenly fail us? For my entire life my observations have "worked," as far as I can tell, but it may have been an illusion. The laws of physics I've trusted all these years may turn out to be a big joke, ceasing to function

tomorrow.

The essence of empiricism may indeed be "acceptance based *upon* reason," but on what basis do we accept reason? I see no non-circular justification for accepting reason. Its validity, that is, its reliability as a guide to truth, must be assumed. As far as one's existence, the very concept of existence may in fact be at odds with reality. Truly, _nothing_ can be known, as you well put it, "to a super-epistemological certainty."

I am not insane. I am not a nihilist. I am confident that I exist, that reason and observation are valid, and that the laws of physics will still work tomorrow. If I'm pedantic, or like the four-year-old who responds to everything by asking "Why?", I beg your pardon. I'm only trying to be epistemologically honest. — posted 01/01/2009 at 19:45 by Peter105 | Thoughts and an argument the article doesn't considerWhile I incline towards the author's conclusion regarding the faithful, I don't think that the search is irrelevant. Depending on the religion adhered to, faith may only be one part of a greater whole. The more important aspect being the acceptance of the yolk of the responsibility and the concomitant lifestyle that such acceptance implies. Indeed, though unlike author of this article I have seen a formal and valid Ontological proof for God (in Truth Without Paradox by David Johnson) he is right that it was not needed in the first place. — posted 01/02/2009 at 06:03 by David106 | Perception and beliefDoes the influence of belief on perception have a place in this argument? If I have no concept of a watch, will I even see the watch? Will I perceive the watch as different from the stone? There is sound empirical evidence that individual perceptions of what exists in reality are profoundly influenced by belief, see e.g. http://www.cog.brown.edu/~slomanlab/Fernbach/Assets/op264-fernbach.pdf. Sound science therefore relies on replication and multiple observations to verify observations of reality. In the meantime, I also have to live my life, and evaluate without the benefit of verification the statement of my dying father that he is without fear for himself because he perceives Christ sitting on his shoulder. The sceptics have the better argument, but I believe my father. Profound thanks to Byrne and each of the commenters for a thought-provoking discussion. — posted 01/02/2009 at 09:04 by Courtney107 | Atheists and the Devout both insist on a limited literary understanding.Even the most perfect synthesis of fiction is still fiction!If you want to prove the existence of a god then you need to prove the factual basis of the scripture.I imagine it would be possible to devise a perfect moral code without referring to a god. No, wait a second that has already been done in the 10 commandments of rational humanism:http://www.sceco.umontreal.ca/liste_persoLike the devout, you confuse fact and truth. They are not the same thing.

The existence of God as an intellectual being may be profoundly useful to mankind.

He doesn't have to live in fact to live in truth.

The ten commandments of rational humanism? Hmm. sounds familiar. Ten... I think that sounds pretty derivative.— posted 01/02/2009 at 11:51 by Abu Nudnik108 | Far better books availableGood as this stuff may be, the Four Horseman trope is useless. The best recent books on atheism and religion, aside from Dawkins' bestseller, are two by Prof. David Eller (Natural Atheism and Atheism Advanced), which are fantastic reads and compellingly brilliant, and one by Michel Onfray (An Atheist Manifesto). Mr Byrne would do well to read them - Sam Harris is a neo-mystic, Prof. Dennett had me snoring, and Hitchens is simply bad advertisement. — posted 01/03/2009 at 06:02 by mjosef109 | Is Christian theology the final answer Interesting and never ending debate among the christian believers and the Darwin blasters.Universe or Multiverse the fact remains that we are on this planet with all the awesome power of nature unleashed and witnessed once too often.The design theory or a multi-designer theory,as we might find convenient to accept,it does not answer the question that batters thinkers about the existence of the unseen,but likely or possibly associated causer of events that are beyond mind's or sciences realm.The debate cannot find an answer as obviously the whole of western philosophy and thoughts revolve around the contents of one document and personalities connected to it.What is important is to find out ourselves before we think of finding the creator and His/Her design/s.If for instance a child strayed into another family and was unaware of its biological parents and believed the foster parents as real,then is the fact of its birth denied,is the fact that it has parents(natural)is unreal.When told about the fact of straying into the foster family is there not an urge to do everything to discover the natural parents and connect to them real.So once a person starts the search inwards to find out the truth of existence and the connection to the universe no more search is required.If one died then what happens next,is it that life departs and the body is shed to rot or waste into nature and that's it.Design or no design it seems ridiculous to be and yet never been in one change of state.There is a lot to ponder over and meditate upon before getting into arguments that beat around the bush endlessly.— posted 01/03/2009 at 09:48 by subramaniam shankar110 | surfthewedgeHeidigger, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Kant among others posit a real omnipotent and omniscient god. C.S. Lewis, whose writing and arguments are designed for modern readers, is more than convincing when he states that there is a GOD--read Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity, and other works by Lewis with an open mind and you will find it impossible, if you are honest and half-way intelligent, to deny the existence of a real God who created the universe etc. I challenge anyone to read Dawkins's God Delusion and then read Lewis's books listed above and find that Dawkins has the better arguments re God and life. Also, sociobiology is a con job. Again, read Lewis and then read Wilson's books on sociobiology and then write out an essay in which you logically make the case that Lewis is wrong and Wilson (and Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) are right. Why must materialists/naturalists insist on removing the soul from man? Spiritual man/woman is a cogent reality. Live with it.

— posted 01/03/2009 at 23:16 by john111 | Well, I read Lewis as a child and was convinced. I have since read Dawkins and Wilson as an adult. I have always thought them far more convincing. On Surfthewedge's challenge, I read Lewis again. Yes, I was right, his arguments can only convince a child.— posted 01/03/2009 at 23:51 by Samuel112 | Hey, thanks for the assignment!Surfthewedge, I dutifully accepted your command assignment, and here is my report on Lewis:(). Actually, I copied and pasted the devastating critique by David Eller on C.S. Lewis. It's fun reading! I am sorry to have plagiarized, but when time is short, I need to keeping sawing away at this "soul" that is clinging to my corporeal self. Any more schoolmarmish assignments for me?— posted 01/04/2009 at 06:49 by mjosef113 | 111: Thank you. Lewis is only convincing to children, if that. The last time I tried to re-read mere Christianity, I was quite offput by his intellectual dishonesty.— posted 01/04/2009 at 10:18 by Jorg114 | Anyone actualy read theologians/philosophers like von Balthasar, Bernard Lonergan, Alving Plantinga??????I usually hate replying to blogs because they're usually full of pooled ignorance. With a few exceptions, this one seems no less "gifted".

Again, the rationalist and hyperempiricist assumptions underpinning many of the postings are sadly, repetitive and out-dated.

Their lack of relevance is largely due to their unwillingness to do the hard work; to read philosophers and theologians like Bernard Lonergan, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Jurgen Moltmann, Alvin Plantinga and others.

Please don't waste your time replying to my post. I'd sooner you do some quality reading.

Interestingly, I know many "schoolmarms" who are also brilliant philosophers and theologians.

— posted 01/04/2009 at 13:54 by ROGER SHRUB115 | why God must exist.Evolution makes sense only if there is a God.— posted 01/04/2009 at 15:45 by Robert Klahn116 | Hate speech directed against religion!There is some excellent, current literature exploring the prevalence of hate speech among anti-religionists.

It is one thing to say one doesn't hold a religious belief, and quite another to insult one who does; calling them dishonest, a schoolmarm, etc.

Any more sexist jokes out there?

Methinks the moderator of this blog had best attend to the postings accordingly!— posted 01/04/2009 at 16:42 by 116117 | Good job 116!Excellent point 116! I too am disgusted with the hate propaganda spewing from some of these postings!

I am convinced this discussion and others like it are riddled with hate speech. Why aren't people reading some of the authors mentioned in a few postings above?

as well, I talk to my mechanic about my car. My doctor about my ulcer. And my theologian about my God.

Philosophers know little of either my car or my God.

What do they matter at all?— posted 01/04/2009 at 18:41 by 116118 | Response to #104Hi Peter,

You ask "on what basis do we accept reason?" and that you see no "non-circular justification for accepting reason. Its validity, that is, its reliability as a guide to truth, must be assumed." If you are looking for justification, you've already presupposed reason as justification cannot proceed without recourse to a process of reasoning. Again, when you say that reason's "validity ... must be assumed", you talk as though 'validity' is an autonomous concept that is independent of the principles of inference embodied in reason. You cannot use a concept such as 'validity' that is part of the general system of reason to legitimatise reason itself. By the time you are using concepts such as 'justification' and 'validity', you are already reasoning. Thus when you say you're confident that "reason and observation are valid," it has an empty, tautologous ring to it.

More generally, you should be wary of arguments that make exceptions of themselves. A variation on this theme is where you say "Truly, _nothing_ can be known, as you well put it, "to a super-epistemological certainty." " So if nothing can be known to a super-epistemological certainty, what about the knowledge that your quoted statement presumably intends to impart? If this knowledge is not knowable to a super-epistemological certainty either then the proposition defeats itself. Or does it make an exception of itself, as the only thing truly knowable as such, and thus it is false?

Happy New Year all!— posted 01/05/2009 at 07:34 by Tom J.119 | The self-reference problem of rationalitm and empiricism (performative self-referential contradiction)

As the above posting indicates, rationalism mustn't fall prey to the fallacy of performative self-referential contradiction.

You can't require everything to be rationally and empirically defensible without falling prey to the above-stated fallacy.— posted 01/06/2009 at 08:06 by 119120 | Byrne's piece is full of ignoranceSee William Lane Craig's response at the blog of the Evangelical Philosophical Society:

http://www.epsociety.org/blog/2009/01/byrne-on-theistic-philosophers.asp— posted 01/06/2009 at 15:07 by joseff farrah121 | Sad and hurt believersJeebus, guys, there's a huge difference between "hate propaganda" - that is, religious diatribes to incite violence against non-believers - and ridicule speech, which is proper and just when dealing with nonsensical self-enraptured rantings. Philosophers, such as the fine and worthy David Eller, have demolished the various god(s)offerings, and deserve credit for doing so. As for the fee-charging Christian apologetics crowd, you can recommend them all you want, but what seems to happen is the moment someone without the power you think you hold derides or disavows your enfranchised religion, you get all offended, and cry that your oh-so-tender feelings are hurt. You already have social privileges beyond the wildest dreams of chicken-entrail readers - why not be satisfied with your enormous tax benefits, buckets of cash scammed off poor widows, and the like? — posted 01/06/2009 at 15:38 by mjosef122 | Sad, Sad, SadPhilosophers like Denet and such should be more worried about studying philosophy and leave theology to the priests, they talk so much against god that it almost seems that they fear him.(no I am not a believer but i'm not a dogmatic atheist either, if the faith fits you great! As long as you don't bother me about it I won't waste my time telling you not to believe) And yes you are right, no once can make a sound argument for the existence of god, Philosophers already knew that for centuries, even many scholastic philosophers were critics of even attempting such thing, even a undergraduate student of philosophy will tell you that. For someone who is supposed to be a great analytic philosopher Dennet should spend less time reviving ancient matters that only pseudo-intellectuals like Dawkins never heard about.— posted 01/06/2009 at 20:55 by Nuno123 | Mathematics itself makes fine tuning irrelevantHume may have been on to something. The Recursion Theorem of Kleene states that any system where arithmetic is possible has a fixed point function - a function whose output is its input. A corollary to this theorem is that in any such system, reproduction, and therefore life, is possible. After all, reproduction (without mutation) is essentially the production of an output that is the same as its input. But it takes

evolution and random mutation to arrive at a machine that reproduces. The nice thing is that these functions are not necessarily very complex. Turing described one in only a few pages. But the upshot is, the fine tuning argument is a red herring. Any possible universe where you can come up with an arithmetic function and evolution is possible is one where life will naturally evolve. Chances are, this is almost all possible universes. The life may not be carbon based, or live on a planet, but it will surely exist.— posted 01/07/2009 at 23:56 by Antony Van der Mude