Monday 6 July 2009

Response to a Comment


On my recent post on whether assumptions of god are rational a commenter named "mdeltoro" has brought up quite a few questions. I figured that I could not fully answer them all and do the answers justice in a blog comment, so I've promoted the answers to a full blog post. Below is a response to those comments.

mdeltoro's first complaint to my argument is this:
You secularists stake everthing on your ability to observe emperical evidence...But this assumes that the information conveyed to our brains by our senses is an accurate representation of the things "out there" in the world, which our senses are supposed to be observing. This is undemonstrable other than by . . . empirical evidence.

On first blush, one might think that this poses a significant problem, although wouldn't it pose a problem for both atheist and theist alike? Except that it's not an assumption of naturalists to assume that our senses are accurate. We sense that the sun moves around the Earth, but this is not accurate. The idea of using empirical study and the scientific method is to remove the inaccuracies that can come from our senses. And, of course, it's highly pragmatic - simply put, it works. It's not an assumption, but a conclusion that empirical results, once verified and tested over and over, and held provisionally until new data comes along and overturns our conclusions in favor of new, better ones, is simply superior to any method that has yet been devised, especially any religious method.

Next, mdeltoro has argued that it's an assumption to believe that other humans can understand my blog. I argued that this is a demonstrated reality, in that we were having a conversation, which was met with an argument about postmodern literary interpretations:
Many a literature professor would disagree with your notion that this is a "demonstrated reality," as attested by the fact that so often the question has become NOT "What did the author mean?" but "What does this mean TO YOU?"

Yet, this misses the mark by a bit. We can both ask what the author of a piece means and what it means to us, they are not mutually exclusive, nor is this any sort of answer to the demonstrated fact that we are having a conversation via this blog and our meanings (not always fully conveyed, but enough for the purposes of answering this challenge) are being comprehended.

So, now we get to the meat of it:
What I am saying is that, on the basis of your worldview, none of these assumptions can be justified.

Hmmm, let's explore that. So far, none of the supposed assumptions that naturalists hold are actually assumptions. So, let's see where this goes.
In a universe moved along by random chance (which secular evolutionists assure us is THE key to explaining how things came to be as they are), it actually makes just as much sense to affirm as to deny that the sun will not rise tomorrow, that our brains may not have sufficient continuity of process that we really understand each other, or that gravity will shut off tomorrow.

OK, so yeah, in a universe where everything is determined by a roll of the die, it wouldn't make sense. But, that's a strawman representation of the naturalist's position. Do random factors play into how the world works? Of course. Randomly mutating genes of animals provide the change that allows natural selection to select the critters that will propagate their genes, but who said that that is a random process? Answer: no one except creationists.
Let us put the question this way: "Why does the fact that things have 'always' operated in a certain way imply that they will continue to operate in the same way?" How can a secularist answer this question? To say, "We know by empirical observation that things have consistently operated this way in the past" is to (1) assume the basic reliability of our senses (unjustified on a secular worldview, we've already noted) and (2) to beg the question.

I'm confused here. Isn't it a good indicator of how things work that they seem to be consistent? In no way do I have to assume the reliability of my senses or beg the question to conclude that it is highly likely that the sun will continue its pattern of rising in the morning (or more properly that the Earth will continue to rotate in such a way that my senses tell me the sun is rising). Does this mean it will? No, it does not, but it would take a major catastrophe (in which case we'd all be dead) or a violation of the working models that we have of the universe...which leads me to mdeltoro's next argument.

I've argued that if one believes in a god that can and does perform miracles, then one can not conclude that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow, that natural laws will not be violated, etc. We know that this god (if the Bible is correct) has made the sun stand still in the sky, which would be a violation of physics. Believing in a god that can do and does do these things at any time means that one can not be confident that miracles will not occur and can't assume an orderly universe. mdeltoro's response to me follows:
I know this is a sacred cow of secular science, but it is simply neither historically nor logically demonstrable. Theistic and Christian scientists have made and continue to make valuable scientific discoveries, because they are seeking to discover the universe and the laws which God created.

So, I'm failing to see what "historical" demonstration would look like, nor how it is relevant. Logically, it's pretty sound. If you believe that an entity exists that can violate physical law, then how can you believe those laws are inviolate? And, as an aside, this has nothing to do with whether scientists who are Xians can do science. Of course they can. The problem for mdeltoro is that in order to do science they must check their religion at the door.
From a logical point of view, affirming that God can and has done miracles is not the same as affirming that He does them willy-nilly or does them all the time.

This is true, and it's a good point, but it doesn't address my point, which is that if this god exists, then the potential exists at any and all times for the laws to simply change or be violated at the will of this deity.
If the purpose of Christian scientists is to discover the laws God made that normally govern His universe, no harm is done in affirming that God can and at times has acted outside those laws.

And, here's the crux - this is the problem that arises. All data is called into question once one assumes a god that can change anything and everything on a whim. How can we be certain of the data that leads us to a conclusion, when it might be an anomaly of this god's whim?

None of this, of course, refutes the fact that the god assumption is irrational and that using this assumption and then arguing to a conclusion does not make the conclusion rational. In fact, I think this actually supports my arguments. In order to perform science, we have to check our religious assumptions at the door. We have to ignore the religious conclusion that any or all of our data could be faulty due to god's interference. We have to ignore that a god such as the one in the Bible could very well change physical laws at any time and make anything happen, regardless of what we've previously observed (i.e. the sun may not rise tomorrow morning and yet we would not be dead).

7 comments:

Derek said...

This reminds me of a conversation you had on ebonmusing's site under one of the Quixote debate posts.

I felt like I needed a nap reading the posts.

GCT said...

Sorry if I got too wordy there, and you're right, it's very similar to a debate that was taking place on DA. In fact, I used the sun example there too.

I think that theists are so used to simply assuming things that they assume that everyone else must do the same thing. So, for the ones who realize that they are making assumptions about god, they feel like others must also make assumptions about not god, etc. It's simply not so, however.

Karla said...

"the god assumption is irrational and that using this assumption and then arguing to a conclusion does not make the conclusion rational."

Would the inverse be your position then, that it is rational for God not to exist?

Also regarding order. The theist is saying that if there is order then their is an Orderer. Things don't begin to be ordered without a Beginner of that system of order.

You contend that if God can interfere in that order (via miracles) than the order is not a given in a universe created by God and thus the theists argument is defeated.

However, what if the need for miracles is to restore order instead of a disturbance of order?

As you know Judeo-Christian theists contend that the world was once created good and evil corrupted that good. Thus God's miracles in that event could be argued to be restorative instead of damaging to order.

If a perfect make up of a person is a person with all his limbs and one is missing and God grows it out miraculously, that is not a damage to order, but a restoration to order.

I believe I have given this argument to you in the past, and I am not sure whether you addressed it.

I do appreciate your post and your taking of the time to expound on your position. You do raise questions that need good answers.

GCT said...

"Would the inverse be your position then, that it is rational for God not to exist?"

No, my position is that it is irrational to accept the god assumption due to the lack of support for it. Since we can't get to god without first assuming god, then the rational position would be not to believe that a god exists.

"Also regarding order. The theist is saying that if there is order then their is an Orderer. Things don't begin to be ordered without a Beginner of that system of order."

Incorrect, or do you think that god is up there crafting every snowflake or that he crafted every crystalline molecule in quartz and other crystals?

"You contend that if God can interfere in that order (via miracles) than the order is not a given in a universe created by God and thus the theists argument is defeated."

No. I contend that the theist has put forth a self-defeating model when the theist claims that a miracle-performing god exists and that the world is perfectly orderly.

"However, what if the need for miracles is to restore order instead of a disturbance of order?"

This is a contradiction. Miracles are violations of order.

"As you know Judeo-Christian theists contend that the world was once created good and evil corrupted that good. Thus God's miracles in that event could be argued to be restorative instead of damaging to order."

No. You are conflating "order" with desired outcome.

"If a perfect make up of a person is a person with all his limbs and one is missing and God grows it out miraculously, that is not a damage to order, but a restoration to order."

In violation of the laws of physics, biology, etc? No, sorry, that is disorder.

"I believe I have given this argument to you in the past, and I am not sure whether you addressed it."

This is the first that I recall you using this particular formulation.

"I do appreciate your post and your taking of the time to expound on your position. You do raise questions that need good answers."

Thank you.

Modusoperandi said...

GCT The problem for mdeltoro is that in order to do science they must check their religion at the door.
Which was why from the very beginning of modern science, even the most religious of scientists found they had to drop "God did it" explanations in order to focus their field research and lab work on natural causes and effects and their complex relationships. By doing so, they learned a great deal more about the ways of the natural world as compared to those guided by the Bible and Aristotle.
Many scientists are still religious. But what they do as scientists ceased being religious centuries ago.
The world is indeed a very complex place. We humans have been fooled by it over and over again, seeing meaningful patterns--gods, demons, other spirits--where there were merely natural processes--thunder and lightning, light refraction, unusually high seasonal amounts of rainfall and snowfall. We have "disenchanted the world" when we booted out Thor, Covenant Rainbows, and Noah's Flood from our explanatory toolkit...
As I said in an earlier post, these devout, Christians discovered that they simply had to stick to analyses of natural causes and effects, leaving religious dogma out of their work as scientists, in order to deepen their understanding of the natural processes under study. Modern science began when scientists stopped answering all questions with "God did it."
The seriousness with which they took the study of nature, minus any supernatural storytelling is what distinguishes, say, modern astronomy from traditional astrology, or modern chemistry from traditional alchemy. Astrology and alchemy dealt with the universe as if it had human characteristics, desires, fears, anger--anthropomorphism. Astronomy and chemistry rely on the default assumption that nature is unthinking and uncaring, heedless of what human beings do, and so, not at all like human beings.
And as I said above, many scientists today are still religious, but what they do as scientists is wholly non-religious.
(oddly, fm townhall.com)


Karla "As you know Judeo-Christian theists contend that the world was once created good and evil corrupted that good."
And the reality-centric evidence behind this myth is…? Also, if the world was created good, where did the evil come from? Lucifer? Who made Lucifer? Was He, perchance, the widely-posited all-good, omni-benevolent 3O'd God of the Bible? How many O's, omni's and all's do you have to knock off to get from here to there?

"Thus God's miracles in that event could be argued to be restorative instead of damaging to order."
What miracles "in that event"? Early post-Eden? Evidence please (the Biblical tale contradicts the evidence). The Flood? Fiction (or, in the very least, literal but not literal literal). Babel? Contradicts pretty much everything we know about the history of Man (from the spread and change of language, to the time period in which it supposedly took place, not to mention Gen10 has multiple languages before Babel).

"If a perfect make up of a person is a person with all his limbs and one is missing and God grows it out miraculously, that is not a damage to order, but a restoration to order."
Why won't God heal amputees, anyway?

Karla said...

GCT "In violation of the laws of physics, biology, etc? No, sorry, that is disorder."

That is an assumption, these laws. These aren't laws. You don't know they can't happen differently the next time and you don't know that that is the way it ought to happen. You can only know that it is the way it happens. So to introduce a miracle is not a violation, for there is no law being violated.

GCT said...

So, Karla, let me get this straight. You're both arguing that there are laws to nature that god has instituted, that we can depend on and that we don't know that any laws exist because god can bend them at any time, so they aren't really there? And, you don't see the inherent contradiction in your position? Amazing.