bd-from-kg

Timetospend :

Obviously in saying that invisible attributes can be “understood and seen” Paul was using the term “seen” in a figurative sense, as when we say that we “see” that the Pythagorean Theorem is true when we understand the proof. In the same way, we “see” the existence of gravitation and electromagnetism by observing their effects and reasoning inferentially from them. Nothing “internal” is required, aside from the understanding – that is, the ability to perform the inferential reasoning involved.

To many of us the “God hypothesis” is incomparably more far-fetched. There are about a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and about a hundred billion galaxies in our universe. This can be reasonably inferred from direct observations. It’s a reasonable inference from this that there are probably billions of planets with intelligent life, and it doesn’t seem overly unlikely that some of them have reached Earth. Any that have done so must be far, far ahead of us technologically, so it seems reasonable that some of them are capable of doing the sort of thing I described. The only really unlikely part, therefore, is the idea that they might have implanted something like a sensus divinatus in some or all of us. But (as theists never tire of reminding us) how can we really even try to guess what beings far more advanced than we are, utterly alien in their thought processes, might choose to do, or why? By contrast, the “God hypothesis” postulates the existence of being which is not only utterly unlike anything that we have ever observed, but utterly unlike anything that we can even conceive; something that can create ex nihilo, which in fact can bring about absolutely any state of affairs which it is logically possible that it could bring about, which knows absolutely everything about everything in some utterly unimaginable way. Moreover, we are supposed to believe that it makes sense to talk about “objective right and wrong”, even though no one can offer the slightest hint as to what this might even mean, and that this being knows in some utterly inconceivable way what would be the “objectively right” thing to do in every possible situation, and always does the right thing in whatever situation it is in. Finally, in most versions of this hypothesis, this being is supposed to be “outside time”, and that nevertheless it makes sense to speak of it as deciding, acting, etc., even though no one can offer the slightest hint as to how such concepts can be intelligible as applied to a being outside of time. Then we’re supposed to believe that this being takes a personal interest in each and every one of us, cares whether we believe in its existence and whether we “love” it in our absurdly primitive, childlike way. Etc., etc.

So don’t talk to me about how the “aliens from Arcturus” explanation is far-fetched. Get that log out of your own eye before complaining about the mote in mine. That’s not to say, of course, that the AFA hypothesis isn’t far, far less plausible than more straightforward naturalistic explanations. (Assuming, of course that there’s really anything to explain – that is, that there really is something like a sensus divinatus. And I see little or no reason to think that there is. So the simplest and most plausible “explanation” of all is that the phenomenon in question doesn’t exist.) But the main point is that the “God hypothesis” is so far out of the running as to be not even worth considering.

Your meaning here is muddled, but Paul’s statement is about reasoning inferentially from “publicly available” evidence – i.e., the evidence of the external world – not about a sensus divinatus. In fact, there’s no evidence that I know of that Paul even had the concept of a sensus divinatus.

Not an expert on Calvin, but I gather that he would say that both the sensus divinatus and inferential reasoning from the external evidences lead independently to knowledge of God. And that the sensus divinatus has often been interpreted as the working of the Holy Spirit within us.

Not so. Paul is clearly speaking here about the conscience, which might be thought of as innate knowledge of right and wrong. A different thing altogether.

P.S.: Actually sensus divinitatis rather than sensus divinatus seems to be correct. My Latin is pretty rusty.

SophistiCat

There does seem to be a natural inclination in humans towards certain kind of superstitious and religious beliefs and behaviours, so in that sense our apologists aren't completely off. Of course, those inclinations aren't nearly as specific as to point to a particular Christian sect, or even a Judeo-Christian type of religion. Nonetheless, the phenomenon seems to be in evidence, so there is something to explain. However, as with any phenomenon, we look to a sound empirical investigation for an explanation, because "Magic Man dunnit" just doesn't cut it. And anthropologists, evolutionary psychologists, and neuroscientists have been busy at it for about a century now. In the last 20 years in particular there has been a crop of books and articles on the biological origins of religion and morality. Interesting stuff, I suggest doing some reading.

vovaciouslyveronic

I find that statement funny, because it seems every argument for the existence of god that holds any weight. You athiests seem to put in the "God of the Gaps" folder. Like the fine tuning argument or the arguments against abiogenical theories.

Vicious Love

And every time someone uses a dead cat as an argument, we rinse it off and put it in the "dead cat" folder. It's not our fault the cat-wielder finds his/her argument persuasive. Inferences are inferences, syllogisms are syllogisms, and dead cats are dead cats.

The Earth was fine-tuned by aliens. Aliens created by Anubis.

How is an argument against a given abiogenesis theory an argument for God, exactly? Do you know what "God of the gaps" means? Do you understand why it's a fallacy?

Monad

Well yes it has to be. Look at it this way. As you have stated you are a Christian (Calvinist). Suppose you're in your garden and suddenly in a bolt of lightening Zeus appears standing before you. Now are you going to straight away renounce your Christianity and go down on bended knee before this ancient Greek deity or are you going to ask a few questions. Like - "is this really Zeus or some guy in a robe with a flashy special fx show?" or even "OK so maybe this is the genuine Greek god - but even so is this a god I would want to worship - I mean look at his track record!" So lets say your default position is you're at the very least agnostic about the existence of the Greek gods, if not positively atheist. Certainly I suspect you would not see acceptance of the existence/worship of Zeus to be any sort of "default" position.

So if I was sat in my garden and in a flash of lightening some old guy in robes appeared before me and told me he was God - even then I would not simply bend my knee. I would want to find out who he really is first. Even if he demonstrated a "miracle" I would first look for a rational scientific explanation - maybe he's some alien with vastly superior technology? As AC Clark stated - any alien civilisation with superior technology could appear as Gods to a less advanced culture provided the gap was great enough. Why look to a supernatural explanation when a more logical one is more parsimonious? And even if I was provisionally persuaded to accept his deityhood as a working hypothesis, it would always be pending falsification and I would still question whether I wanted to worship him even if I accepted his deityhood - after all the God of the bible has such a horrendous track record.

So how could the existence and worship of a God ever be the default position? By the nature of your Christianity you already reject Zeus, Thor, Odin, Mithra, and hundreds of other deities - we just go one god further (to paraphrase Dawkins).

vovaciouslyveronic

The fallacy is that everytime we don't understand how something could of happened naturaly we point and say godidit. Its really just a huge excuse to use say that though. If we are to assume for example the fine tunning of the universe for life is a god of the gap argument. Then athiests are forced to admit that its been a god of the gap argument for hundreds of years. If naturalistic abiogenical theories can't explain how the simple building blocks of life came about then any other argument for how naturalistic evolution can account for complex biological structures dosen't matter. Even Richard Dawkins the great athiest Ethologist, admits that the world LOOKS designed. So if naturalistic theories continually fall short of explanations for the fine tuning of the universe and how chemical life gradually evolved into biological life. Then there is evidence for a god or maybe as you say an intelligent agent like an alien. Either way were both postulating things with a LOT of controversy. And if that evidence gets discarded so be it. The main point is, is that at the moment your just as dogmatic as any religous person is. And your afraid to admit it.

zorq

Why are you willing to give up on science so quickly? Humans are discovering things every day using science. It is true that the questions about origins are questions that have probably been investigated by man kind from the beginning of human consciousness as we know it. Science has only begun to be useful in the investigation of many of these questions during the past 100 years or so.

Unfortunately even with the advances in technology of the past century, most questions about origins are still shrouded in a far distant past. Is that a good reason to throw our hands up and stop searching for the truth? Is one century truly enough time to allow scientists to discover all of the mysteries of the universe? I personally don't think so.

Discoveries about origin questions continue to be made year by year. and I believe that they will continue to be made for quite a while as technology advances.

Eventually yes, there may come a time in the distant future when a reasonable person may look at the stagnant gaps in the map of scientific knowledge and then choose to slap a label that reads "Here be Dragons ... and God" But surely that time has not come yet. Surely we should wait until the gaps at least stop shrinking.

SophistiCat

Not sure I understand what you mean here.

Um, atheists can't possibly use the God of the Gaps argument, can they? Seeing as they don't believe in God...

Why? Does it have to be all or nothing? We should just give up science altogether then, since we'll probably never know everything. More importantly, you should understand that scientific progress is made piecemeal. The modern atomic theory has only been around for less than a century, but that didn't prevent Chemistry from making great progress long before that. Which is to say, even without being able to explain how the simple building blocks of chemical compounds (atoms) came about, we were still able to account for complex chemical structures (molecules) and their interactions. And much good it did for us, too! Without advances in chemistry, the late 19th century scientific and technological revolution would not be possible. If instead we were sitting around waiting for the atomic theory to take shape first, we would have gotten nowhere, neither with chemistry nor with atomic theory.

No, there isn't. Ignorance is not evidence of anything other than ignorance. This is your classic God of the Gaps right here. You are stuffing your God into the gaps of our knowledge. Problem is though, every time an explanatory gap is closed, your God is diminished. Do you really want to do that to Him?

You are throwing around a lot of empty accusations. What evidence are we discarding? If you had evidence, you wouldn't have to resort to God of the Gaps, would you? And how are we dogmatic?

vovaciouslyveronic

[QUOTE=zorq;4736937]
Who says anything about giving up on science, you and I both know even if the evidence for a god or an intelligent designer of some sort was even more amazing then it is now, there would be athiests still arguing against the existence of god trying to use science to prove him wrong. In fact thats exactly whats happening now. Besides the examples of god of the gaps are usually pathetic things like, "well before we had science we use to think thunder and lightning was created by god being angry". They almost never use anything that REALLY points to a designer. Fine Tuning, DNA, Molecular Machines beyond what we humans can build, etc.

vovaciouslyveronic

Again, incredibly naive of you. Look up the Anthropic principle and you will know what I'm saying about the world being designed or in least even if it wasn't literaly designed some supernatural guidance being involved with say the Big Bang. Strong Force is another interesting thing you might want to look into.