Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 08-08-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Thomas,

Sure.

1-Philosophical...Prime Mover

No competent apologist uses this argument any more. It completely fails in its task because no one has successfully provided the additional stages necessary to show that the god of monotheism exists; all we can conclude is that a prime mover exists.

Quote:

2-Empirical...Fine Tuning

This one is slightly more popular, but I don't think many apologists take it seriously. It commits the Lottery Fallacy -- we do not assume someone cheated just because someone or other won the lottery.

Quote:

3-Moral...Objective Morality

Euthyphro dilemma. The only contemporary proponent I can think of is Bill Craig.

Quote:

4-Historical...the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Hume's miracles argument.

Quote:

5-Personal...my own experience of God.

This requires rather a strange criterion for one's perceptions. How could you possibly know it was a being with all of God's attributes producing your experience?

Thomas Metcalf · 08-08-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:
"But what reason have we to accept the principle "for every world w with perfection A to degree u, there is a world w1 with A to u + 1"? That seems to beg the question; it is, in itself, an assertion that there is no best possible world."

It is intended to make intelligible the idea that there can be no best possible world. The "best possible world," at first blush, seems perfectly plausible, and might, under these circumstances, seem silly to deny. My assertion is intended to show how it is plausible to think there is no best possible world. At worst, my argument shows that there is no possible way to decide whether or not a best possible world is metaphysically possible. In that case, the question of whether or not there is a best possible world becomes precisely the question of whether or not God exists (since there would seem to be no other ways of deciding between the two proposals); if this is so, then it becomes obvious that the argument from "this is not the best possible world" cannot do what it was intended to do, which is to answer the question of God's existence in the negative.

Well, the way possible worlds are verbalized suggests to me that it's possible for there to be a best possible world. Modal realism is essentially dead (R.I.P. David Lewis), so possible worlds are expressed as consistent maximal propositions P; that is, for every Q or -Q, (P --> Q) v (P --> -Q). So every possible proposition is accounted for, and it seems that either Q and -Q are equally good, or one is better than the other. Thus, there is considerable intuitive reason (I think) to believe that there is a best possible world or several worlds that are equally best.

If I were aware of every proposition in the universe, I doubt I could always find a way to make the universe slightly better.

Quote:

"Your position also seems to require that there is an infinity of possible worlds, which might entail other problems."

You would have to elaborate on this suggestion; I don't see any obvious modal problems from thinking there are infinitely many possible worlds independantly of the idea of whether or not there is a best possible world. It would seem highly unusual to suggest that the number of possible contingencies is somehow finite.

Well, first, do you understand why an infinity of possible worlds means that the actual world is infinitely complex?

One-eyed Jack · 08-08-2002, 09:37 PM

In the interests of readability I would like to post a short excerpt from the material linked earlier by the good Thomas Metcalf:

"Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious."
...
"Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations."

"A possible counter-argument is that intelligent people tend to be more successful than others. The lure of worldly success and materialism draws many of these intellectually gifted individuals away from God. After all, who needs God when you (apparently) are making it on your own?"

"However, this argument does not withstand closer scrutiny. Most of the studies outlined above describe the religious attitudes of students, who have yet to enter the working world, much less succeed in it. Some might then argue that the most intelligent students are nonetheless succeeding in school. But "success" in school (for those who may have forgotten!) is more measured in terms of popularity, sports, physical attractiveness, personality, clothes, etc. Grades are but one of many measures of success in a young person's life -- one that is increasingly becoming less important, as many social critics point out."

"The simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that religion is a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal are rejecting it largely on those grounds."
------

The author of the study (Steve Kangas, I believe...certainly he is copyright owner) quotes the results of 30-some studies carried out from 1927 through 1980 to support his conclusions.

I do believe SOMMS owes good Mr. Metcalf a thank you and an admission of defeat on this point.

One-eyed Jack · 08-08-2002, 10:14 PM

On the original topic: Thomas, I know of no argument which renders conventional Christianity rational. The UDP remains the best shot, I suppose, but even it is vulnerable. I recently read a good essay which puts forth an argument for the non-existence of God which seems to me more completely unaffected by the UDP than the Argument from Evil.

It goes something like this, expressed informally:

Premises:

1. Assume Jehovah has his proper Godly attributes: omnipotent, perfect, benevolent, compassionate, eternal, etc.

2. Assume that the Bible is God's word, and contains His truth.

3. Assume on the scriptural evidence that God's greatest wish is to lead as many people to His truth as possible.

4. Assume that God is rational, ie that He always acts to accomplish His greatest wish.

Evidence:

A. Many people in the world have not accepted God's word.

B. The Bible in all translations and copies extant contains mistakes.

C. Some of the people who have not accepted God's word have perceived these mistakes and turned away from God's word because of them.

Conclusion: It is in accord with God's greatest desire to provide a perfect and inerrant Bible in all copies and translations extant, for otherwise His goal of leading people to His truth is compromised. And of course God, being omnipotent, could easily prevent copyists' and translators' errors from degrading His word.

Since the Bible is not perfect we conclude that there is no omnipotent God who wishes to lead people to His truth.

What's interesting in this context is that one might imagine that God has some unknowable purpose for permitting evil, but it seems to me much harder to imagine that He has a reason not to give people good information about the choice of salvation versus damnation. A used-car salesman might hope to put one over on his customers by denying them good information about the lemon he's selling, but surely God is no used-car salesman!

And good information, ie a perfect Bible, in no way compromises freewill: in fact, the ability to use freewill effectively is enhanced by reliable and fair information.

It could be that God wants to reward irrational belief in a flawed scripture, but that seems as odious as the Used-Car Salesman God: a sheep may follow irrationally wherever it is led, but God did not give the Bible to sheep, he gave it to man.

This argument, along with the more familiar agrument from the existence of evil, is given by Theodore Drange at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html" target="_blank">this site.</a>

Thomas Metcalf · 08-08-2002, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by One-eyed Jack:
On the original topic: Thomas, I know of no argument which renders conventional Christianity rational. The UDP remains the best shot, I suppose, but even it is vulnerable. I recently read a good essay which puts forth an argument for the non-existence of God which seems to me more completely unaffected by the UDP than the Argument from Evil.

Thanks for the information. I'm a great admirer of Ted Drange's, but I hadn't read his argument from nonbelief that explicitly. Have you read his book?

UPD does seem slightly applicable to ANB, but if it is so applied, I think it only serves to reinforce the point that UPD undermines the project of natural theology completely. The proponent of UPD perniciously removes our ability to make predictions about what should exist in any way.

EvilTeuf · 08-09-2002, 02:53 AM

Coming in late on this one, but what the hell...

The UPD is a bit of a non-starter; the whole AE rests on the assumption that God is known to have a 'higher' morality. If said morality is unknown/unknowable... You get the picture.

Secular Pinoy · 08-09-2002, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:

1-Philosophical...Prime Mover
2-Empirical...Fine Tuning
3-Moral...Objective Morality
4-Historical...the resurrection of Jesus Christ
5-Personal...my own experience of God.

This seems to be a favorite list of theistic arguments, popularized by Bill Craig. If you read or watch Craig's debates, his opening seldom changes. He goes through these five arguments like a robot. And they have all been thoroughly debunked, see the SecWeb library.

Theli · 08-09-2002, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Theli,
Hmm...athiests represent a large mass of people.

Things that make you go 'hmm'.

Satan Oscillates My Metallic Sonatas

Why does that make you go "hmmm"?
If atheism was the mainstream then the grey mass of people would move towards atheism. Most of them would not have any strong philosophical reason to do so.
It doesn't really matter weither the mainstream is based on true beliefs or not. This is why Ad Populum doesn't work. Wich was my initial statement/intent.

Theli · 08-09-2002, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:


Atheists are, in general, smarter than theists. Study after study confirms the inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity. Would you like me to provide you some sources?

I've never heard about this.
Although I did see a chart that showed that most scientists were atheists (or possibly deists).

Philip Osborne · 08-09-2002, 06:14 AM

"So every possible proposition is accounted for, and it seems that either Q and -Q are equally good, or one is better than the other. Thus, there is considerable intuitive reason (I think) to believe that there is a best possible world or several worlds that are equally best."

This argument doesn't seem to do much in the way of establishing that a "best possible world" is possible; it is true that every possible proposition is accounted for, but this doesn't help your position if it is not assumed that at least one best possible world is counted among these propositions, which is just to say that the best possible world is possible.

"If I were aware of every proposition in the universe, I doubt I could always find a way to make the universe slightly better."

As a side note, there has been considerable argument that there is no set of all propositions. But consider Gaunilo's Lost Island, which is the Greatest Conceivable Island. Suppose that having a lot of fruit is a great-making property for an island. Thus, the Greatest Conceivable Island must have the greatest possible amount of fruit in order to be the Greatest Conceivable Island. But there is no such thing as the "greatest possible amount of fruit." Why couldn't the same considerations apply to possible worlds?

"Well, first, do you understand why an infinity of possible worlds means that the actual world is infinitely complex?"

I'm not convinced that this is so; your statement seems to presuppose a recombinationist view of possibility, according to which possible worlds are formed from maximal compossible combinations of properties instantiated in the actual world. If our account of the layout of logical space included alien properties (properties not instantiated in the actual world), it is not clear that the presence of these contingencies would add any complexity to the actual world.

Sincerely,

Philip

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2002, 09:37 PM	#53
One-eyed Jack Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 46	In the interests of readability I would like to post a short excerpt from the material linked earlier by the good Thomas Metcalf: "Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious." ... "Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations." "A possible counter-argument is that intelligent people tend to be more successful than others. The lure of worldly success and materialism draws many of these intellectually gifted individuals away from God. After all, who needs God when you (apparently) are making it on your own?" "However, this argument does not withstand closer scrutiny. Most of the studies outlined above describe the religious attitudes of students, who have yet to enter the working world, much less succeed in it. Some might then argue that the most intelligent students are nonetheless succeeding in school. But "success" in school (for those who may have forgotten!) is more measured in terms of popularity, sports, physical attractiveness, personality, clothes, etc. Grades are but one of many measures of success in a young person's life -- one that is increasingly becoming less important, as many social critics point out." "The simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that religion is a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal are rejecting it largely on those grounds." ------ The author of the study (Steve Kangas, I believe...certainly he is copyright owner) quotes the results of 30-some studies carried out from 1927 through 1980 to support his conclusions. I do believe SOMMS owes good Mr. Metcalf a thank you and an admission of defeat on this point.

08-08-2002, 10:14 PM	#54
One-eyed Jack Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 46	On the original topic: Thomas, I know of no argument which renders conventional Christianity rational. The UDP remains the best shot, I suppose, but even it is vulnerable. I recently read a good essay which puts forth an argument for the non-existence of God which seems to me more completely unaffected by the UDP than the Argument from Evil. It goes something like this, expressed informally: Premises: 1. Assume Jehovah has his proper Godly attributes: omnipotent, perfect, benevolent, compassionate, eternal, etc. 2. Assume that the Bible is God's word, and contains His truth. 3. Assume on the scriptural evidence that God's greatest wish is to lead as many people to His truth as possible. 4. Assume that God is rational, ie that He always acts to accomplish His greatest wish. Evidence: A. Many people in the world have not accepted God's word. B. The Bible in all translations and copies extant contains mistakes. C. Some of the people who have not accepted God's word have perceived these mistakes and turned away from God's word because of them. Conclusion: It is in accord with God's greatest desire to provide a perfect and inerrant Bible in all copies and translations extant, for otherwise His goal of leading people to His truth is compromised. And of course God, being omnipotent, could easily prevent copyists' and translators' errors from degrading His word. Since the Bible is not perfect we conclude that there is no omnipotent God who wishes to lead people to His truth. What's interesting in this context is that one might imagine that God has some unknowable purpose for permitting evil, but it seems to me much harder to imagine that He has a reason not to give people good information about the choice of salvation versus damnation. A used-car salesman might hope to put one over on his customers by denying them good information about the lemon he's selling, but surely God is no used-car salesman! And good information, ie a perfect Bible, in no way compromises freewill: in fact, the ability to use freewill effectively is enhanced by reliable and fair information. It could be that God wants to reward irrational belief in a flawed scripture, but that seems as odious as the Used-Car Salesman God: a sheep may follow irrationally wherever it is led, but God did not give the Bible to sheep, he gave it to man. This argument, along with the more familiar agrument from the existence of evil, is given by Theodore Drange at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html" target="_blank">this site.</a>

08-09-2002, 02:53 AM	#56
EvilTeuf Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Oxford Posts: 24	Coming in late on this one, but what the hell... The UPD is a bit of a non-starter; the whole AE rests on the assumption that God is known to have a 'higher' morality. If said morality is unknown/unknowable... You get the picture.

08-09-2002, 06:14 AM	#60
Philip Osborne Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 147	"So every possible proposition is accounted for, and it seems that either Q and -Q are equally good, or one is better than the other. Thus, there is considerable intuitive reason (I think) to believe that there is a best possible world or several worlds that are equally best." This argument doesn't seem to do much in the way of establishing that a "best possible world" is possible; it is true that every possible proposition is accounted for, but this doesn't help your position if it is not assumed that at least one best possible world is counted among these propositions, which is just to say that the best possible world is possible. "If I were aware of every proposition in the universe, I doubt I could always find a way to make the universe slightly better." As a side note, there has been considerable argument that there is no set of all propositions. But consider Gaunilo's Lost Island, which is the Greatest Conceivable Island. Suppose that having a lot of fruit is a great-making property for an island. Thus, the Greatest Conceivable Island must have the greatest possible amount of fruit in order to be the Greatest Conceivable Island. But there is no such thing as the "greatest possible amount of fruit." Why couldn't the same considerations apply to possible worlds? "Well, first, do you understand why an infinity of possible worlds means that the actual world is infinitely complex?" I'm not convinced that this is so; your statement seems to presuppose a recombinationist view of possibility, according to which possible worlds are formed from maximal compossible combinations of properties instantiated in the actual world. If our account of the layout of logical space included alien properties (properties not instantiated in the actual world), it is not clear that the presence of these contingencies would add any complexity to the actual world. Sincerely, Philip

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.