The modes of inquiry are, to be sure, very different
The World Science Festival is offering a “Faith and Science” panel, funded by the Templeton Foundation, of course. Chad Orzel disagrees with Jerry Coyne and Sean Carroll on the wrong-headedness of this. Sean points out
there is a somewhat obvious omission of a certain viewpoint: those of us who think that science and religion are not compatible. And there are a lot of us! Also, we’re right. A panel like this does a true disservice to people who are curious about these questions and could benefit from a rigorous airing of the issues, rather than a whitewash where everyone mumbles pleasantly about how we should all just get along.
To which Orzel responds
I’m not convinced you need anyone on the panel to make the case that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible…The interesting subject of conversation is not so much the absolute compatibility or not of science and religion– given that neither side is really going to budge on that– but rather how it is that religious scientists reconcile the supposedly incompatible sides of the issue.
He doesn’t know that “neither side is really going to budge on that” and therefore he doesn’t really know that a discussion of it would be immovable and uninteresting. It’s true that it’s unlikely that either side will budge as a side and as a result of being on the panel, but what individuals including those attending the panel will do is much less obvious. His dismissal is, as so often with accommodationists, flippant and dogmatic at once.
Josh Rosenau thinks it’s good stuff though – in fact better than that: he says Orzel is absolutely right.
Someone like Dawkins would stop the World Science Festival panel cold. The whole point Affirmative Atheists are making is that there is no dialogue to be had. Which means that the panel would descend into a metaconversation about whether there should even be conversations like the one they were supposed to be having. And that wouldn’t inform anyone.
Why wouldn’t that inform anyone? Rosenau doesn’t say. Why should there be conversations like the one they were supposed to be having at a science fest? It’s certainly not obvious to me, given that science and “faith” operate in rather different ways. It’s also not obvious to me that, or why, an explanation of that fact would not be interesting.
Larry Moran comments on Orzel and Rosenau.
I don’t understand this. The argument isn’t that the topic of ‘the relationship between science and religion’ shouldn’t be brought up. On the contrary. Affirmative Atheists (?) want to bring religion into the sphere of scientific and public debate. We want to drag it out, kicking and screaming, and subject its truth claims to the same rigorous analysis and scrutiny we’d give to any hypothesis.
It’s the Templeton types who want to shut down honest discourse, and engage in the unfettered promotion of the propaganda that says that there’s no conflict between science and religion. Simon Blackburn once used the term “Happy Clappy Religion” to refer to those vacuous interfaith dialogues which basically had people going around the circle explaining what they believed, and everyone clapping and cooing about how wonderful it was that this was what worked for them, and now it’s my turn. That’s not an honest dialogue. It’s a creepy kind of monologue — or maybe a circle jerk.
Doesn’t really fit into a purported science festival, I think.
I think Sastra is quite right in her explanation of how Josh is off base.
Chad Orzel may be an excellent physicist, and perhaps even a good educator of physics. I’m sure I would learn quite a bit about the subject if I read his book. But his knowledge of philosophy and instincts for the utility of debate leave a lot to be desired. Recall:
Two things. a) Contrary to what Orzel evidently believes, philosophers are not all nostalgic idiots. Some of us move on with the world. b) He agrees that the two worldviews don’t fit. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out how religious compatibilists make sense of, and overcome, Orzel’s doubts? Wouldn’t an attempt at that involve an eloquent, charitable, and professional debate between people who are both informed of the philosophical merits of both positions, and hence willing to shed light on the issue instead of just more mindless heat?
For the record, I had two weeks of an undergrad seminar taught by Orzel and based on that admittedly limited experience, he is indeed an excellent teacher.
This debate is interesting, because it’s the mirror image of an aspect of the problem of evil I’ve been thinking about. Basically, atheists can never win the problem of evil debate because to show a contradiction, you have to concede the existence of God and the existence of evil. But once you’ve done that, you’ve given the believer license to make up rules as he goes along; no atheist’s interpretation of the meaning of the words “God” or “evil” can be correct; if they were, that person would not be an atheist, QED.
But we still need to bring it up. After all, it’s the argument that convinced Charles Darwin, supposedly, and I’m sure many others besides.
In the case of NOMA, I think atheists do need to try to keep a horse in the race, just to make sure that advocates of NOMA are forced to answer honest criticisms of the idea.
Orzel obviously realizes that the compatibility side would get their asses kicked if the panel had people arguing for incompatibility, so he makes excuses and runs idiotic proposals up the flagpole to obfuscate.
Dan L. above: your arguments are specious and juvenile and, oh yeah, flat out wrong. The “problem of evil” argument was lost thousands of years ago by theists and again every time is comes up. You start with stupid, incorrect premises and then move on to utterly stupid conclusions. I rate you the laughing joke of the week.
@NEB:
First of all, I am an atheist and probably kind of agree with you on how the POE discussion SHOULD turn out.
Second of all, you are a prick. Seriously, there’s no call to jump all over me for making an innocent remark.
Third, you’re an idiot. You call my premises stupid and incorrect when I didn’t even state any premises. You call my conclusions utterly stupid when I haven’t even argued for any. You don’t show the slightest sign of understanding what I said, and yet you’re quite eager to criticize that. And you can’t even do that. You assert that what I’m saying is stupid and wrong, but give absolutely no argument to support that.
Sometimes I think you’re actually religious and make the posts you do to make atheists look bad.
Thanks Dan.
Putting aside NEB’s intemperate incredulity, I have to admit that I don’t see your point about the problem of evil, either. The contradiction arises when we suppose that there is a God. If we suppose that there is no God, then there’s no contradiction.
You might be thinking that the most interesting implications follow out of the problem of evil when we suppose that there is a god. For practical purposes that’s true. But logically it’s consistent with the if-then statement for us to say that there isn’t any god.
That’s because if-then statements are a bit funny and unintuitive. If I say that “If there’s rain today then there’s clouds”, then it’s consistent for me to also note that there is no rain today. It’s consistent because we think there’s a subtle difference between saying “if something-then…” and saying that something is a given.
I actually hold the opposite view to yours. I think there’s no way for the theist to solve the problem of evil. They have to bite the bullet. And often, that’s what they do — so, for some Jews (for instance), God is not a morally comprehensible being. And for early modern Christians, morality has nothing at all to do with happiness. The moral horrors that result from either view act as the intuition pump that deconverts people in droves.
How can there be a discussion on how religious scientists are supposed to reconcile supposed incompatible sides of the issue if you refuse to countenance the idea that the two sides are not only supposedly incompatible but actually are incompatible ? It is not as though the idea lacks merit, a good many respected philosophers and scientists contend that religion and science are indeed incompatible.
I suspect Orzel is just worried that if people arguing for incompatibility were allowed to take part they might spoil things by asking how an interventionist god can operate in the Universe without leaving behind a trace of evidence it is doing so. After all, is not a basic premise of both science and philosophy that before studying phenomenon one should have evidence that the phenomenon is real ?
Dan L.: I don’t care that you don’t like my tone.
“you have to concede the existence of God and the existence of evil.”
This is a premise, you stated it, and it is bullshit. I stand by what I said.
@NEB:
Again, I wasn’t making an argument, I was making a remark. And I’m not offended by your tone, I’m embarrassed that someone who thinks so shallowly as you, someone who can’t help but turn every little thing into a dichotomy, someone who can’t help but immediately conclude that someone suggesting an unfamiliar idea is wrong — that someone like that could call themselves a “skeptic” or an “atheist.”
You don’t offend me in any moral sense. You offend me in the aesthetic sense. You’re a boil on the ass of atheism. You do far more damage to skepticism and atheism as an ally than you ever would as an enemy. Fuck off.
@Benjamin Nelson:
Basically, I agree: omni God is self-contradictory, and quite probably contradictory with the notion of evil. But then to do the reductio ad absurdum that the POE is based on, you have to assume — for the sake of argument, not for keeps (maybe NEB doesn’t understand what a reductio or proof by contradiction is) — the truth of these possibly contradictory ideas.
And once you do that, you’ve opened the floodgates for all manner of sophistry. God’s not like that, he’s like THIS. That’s not how evil WORKS. What do you mean you haven’t read Aquinas? You’re so philosophically naive.
By “can’t win” I don’t mean we’re wrong. But if we take the debate as a game, there is no way for atheists to win it. “God” and “evil” will always mean something else until the believer wins. Essentially, when an atheist gets pulled into a POE argument, he’s letting his opponent make up the rules as he goes along.
Think about it this way: If an unstoppable force hits an immovable object, what happens? The only correct response is not to respond; those entities simply can’t coexist in the same universe. If you try to play according to the rules and say “force wins,” your opponent can just say “No, wall,” or vice versa. Assuming potentially contradictory premises is a dangerous game, because it gives the side dictating those premises license to shift goalposts ad infinitum.
So yes, the contradiction in the POE is obvious to me, but that doesn’t make it a winning strategy. You have to be able to make it obvious to someone who doesn’t want to see it, and that’s impossible to do.
For the organizers of the panel, anyone who proposes that science and religion are incompatible is, by definition, extremist. They’ve managed to frame discussion in such a way that they place themselves between “fundamentalists” at both ends.
Of one thing I’m certain, and that is that the word supernatural will not appear in their discourse. That word needs to be brought to them, and they have ensured that won’t happen.
Bob, well care that I don’t like your tone. I don’t. If you don’t care, fine, but then spare us the comments if they’re in that tone.
Informative article on the Templeton Foundation
http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy?page=full
Dan, I think you’re being a bit vague when you say “you have to assume … the truth of these possibly contradictory ideas” (those ideas being existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence). At any given time, you do have to assume the truth of three of the four; but you can’t assume all four at once on pain of absurdity. It’s true that, for all the permutations that are possible, each of the four ideas must be assumed. But that doesn’t lead you to any of the conclusions you seem to want to make.
I think you’re trying to point out something about framing, so to speak, and not logic. We have this PoE, and it demands that we adopt from the beginning the stuff that we ultimately want to disprove; and so theists will have rhetorical opportunities to say, “Ha ha, you assume the existence of God even in your lame proof!”. But as you say, that’s sophistry (and/or stupidity). The only solution, if you’re patient, is to explain the difference between “if-then” and “the given”; if you’re not patient, mock until they’re ready to listen. Or find a better frame. But the argument still works once you get down to brass tacks.
Really it depends on what you think the rules of the game are. There are two games. One game is sophistry and rhetoric, which involves chiding and embarrassing people as a means to impress an audience. Another game is logic and reason, which involves honest debate and cooperation. Some very special and gifted people are able to win both games at once; it requires training and worldly wisdom and that sort of thing. Most of us poor mortals have to oscillate between the two depending on context or mood.
I think you’re summoning the demonic spirit of Eagleton in your Aquinas remark! I have my own things to say to that. I prefer a vaguely secularized Buddhist account of evil, for reasons that Eagleton could in theory (but effectively doesn’t in practice) recognize. But perhaps it is enough to note that he seems to have a “Statler and Waldorf” view of evil, which is narrow and baroque and not that helpful.
What do I say to someone who brings up the “if-then”? I say, “Neither, because neither exist.” And if they insist on getting comment using unsatisfactory premises, I say, “Are you still beating your wife?” And if that doesn’t make the fallacy sink in, then I would try zen-like aphorisms, i.e., “Existence perishes while the impossible persists.”
I totally agree that any such panel should include people who argue that science and religion are not compatible (in the sense that people like me have in mind when we say that – of course our position is more subtle than it’s painted by our opponents). I also think that the really interesting argument is actually the philosophical one: is religion consistent with the scientific picture of the world or not? Exposure to the rationalisations of scientists who are religious may once have been interesting, but it’s become a bit repetitive lately.
One problem is that anyone who thinks as I do is going to be uncomfortable appearing on a panel that’s funded by the Templeton Foundation. So I suppose the first thing we have to work out – as individuals and as a group if we’re trying to achieve consensus here – is whether we think it’s okay for someone like Richard or Jerry or Ophelia to take part in this panel at all. If we think the answer is “Yes,” there’s then a question about whether we/they should lobby for representation on such a panel. We might well succeed: the Templeton folks would probably love to get one of us there, though they’d prefer someone famous like Richard to someone rather obscure, like, say, me.
At the moment, though, I tend to think that the answer is “No.” I’m really not sure about this, and I’m very open to argument, but my feeling is that going on such a panel just gives the whole circus more respectability that it does’t warrant. It’s difficult. For example, with some misgivings I turned up to speak at the Parliament of the World’s Religions last year. On balance, I don’t regret it, but I’m not sure that it accomplished much except to allow them to say that they had an atheist speaker (well, a number of us … it wasn’t just me). On the gripping hand, Templeton is pretty dangerous, and I think we’re kind of supping with the devil if we take its funding or its speaking opportunities. (Disclaimer: before so much stuff blew up about Templeton, I did publish a piece in the Templeton-funded e-journal The Global Spiral. I’d feel more iffy about doing so if the opportunity came up again.)
Here’s the rub, if we do think that the non-accommodationist crowd, from Richard down to lowly me, should be boycotting Templeton-funded events, we can’t really be surprised if those events are then stuffed full of accommodationists. We can complain about their actual arguments, but we can hardly complain about it happening that way.
Good points, Russell.
We can probably be pretty sure they didn’t ask some obvious candidates though – Jerry, Richard, Sean Carroll, for instance.
But I’m content to restricting myself to complaining about the existence of such a panel at such a Fest – though I’ll also probably forget, and go on complaining about everything, reasonably or not.
Isn’t it a little surprising for the “let’s all get along” camp to call Dawkins et al. “people with fixed and absolute views” and putting them on a par with Biblical literalists and nutjobs like Rupert Sheldrake? As I said over there, quite the dick move. Rosenau even basically says that the WSF panel shouldn’t be expected to present “a healthy cross-section of views”. I mean, does someone need to take his meds or what?
Well yes. Rosenau has that problem I was just talking about the other day – of being one of those people who put enormous emphasis on being Nice yet can be quite strikingly unpleasant themselves.
It does get ironic, or something, to be constantly getting lectures on being Nice from all these people who are [whispers] not all that Nice.
Jason Rosenhouse has a particularly cogent post on this very subject over at EvolutionBlog. I have nothing to say on the main topic beyond “What he said!”
On the side discussion of the PoE: Dan L., I think I get what you’re saying – and I think I understand what Benjamin might not be understanding about what you’re saying. Benjamin has the basic right of it, drawing the distinction between logic and rhetoric, but I don’t think the particular sort of rhetoric Benjamin describes (the childish “You had to assume the existence of God in your argument so there!”) is what you (Dan L.) really meant. Rather, the problem is that it is very difficult to get any theist to commit to clear definitions of the key terms of the argument from the get go – God, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and evil are all words that appear to have a meaning, after all, so why should they need to be pinned down in advance? But when theists start to lose the rational argument (as they must), they immediately launch into equivocation/weaseling rhetorical arguments about any or all of those definitions. For example, the citation of “mysterious ways” or “God is beyond our understanding” can be nothing but weaseling when it’s said by someone who is all-too-willing to assume – at least when they’re not trying to get out from under the obvious conclusion of the problem of evil argument – that they know very well exactly what God thinks about all sorts of moral matters.
Ha, I just went to Jason’s to see if he happened to have a cogent post on this subject, and by jingo he did. I must have gone in just as G left.
Like that endless argument with Nicholas Beale at Talking Philosophy a year or two ago. That was when Polkinghorne got the use of a room at the Royal Institution for the launch of a goddy book of his, and there was a good deal of irritation that the RI seemed to be endorsing his pesky book when in fact they were just obliged to let him use the room when he asked because he’s a member. Beale is his collaborator, and man he can weasel at Olympic level. Jean Kazez did stalwart work trying to pin him down, as did Eric.
My comments were directed under the assumption that something is being uniquely asserted about conversations on PoE. But if George’s interpretation of Dan is right, then there’s neither any game there, nor any acquiescence on behalf of the thinking interlocutor implied. It’s not even sophistry, it’s just sheep bleating. If there’s a “win” involved, it’s not because of anything you’ve said, or framed, or anything you can change — it’s just entrenchment. So in that case there’s nothing uniquely interesting to be said about PoE.
I generally agree about the bleating of theists, Benjamin, but the problem of evil is unique in this way: As a positive argument against the existence of a purported God, as distinct from the negative arguments which dismantle the various bad arguments for the existence of God (ontological, teleological, first cause, whatever), just engaging in the argument in the first place carries certain rhetorical risks. Any atheist making the PoE argument puts him- or herself in the position of appearing to (1) define the deity being argued against, and (2) take on the burden of proof. In fact, the theist is really the one who has the burden of proof for this whole god nonsense, what with making an existence claim for a completely undetectable entity (worse, an entity which is purportedly supernatural yet has effects on the natural world), and the PoE just accepts a standard theist definition for that entity as the starting point of the argument to show why the existence of such entity is inconsistent with the world we actually live in. But those facts of the matter are not perhaps as obvious to everyone as they are to old hands at philosophy and rhetoric, so the noted and numbered appearances to the contrary create many rhetorical (not logical) traps for the unwary – and it sounds to me like Dan L. either has himself been unwary or has been reading arguments made by the unwary.
For the record, if anyone ever intends to engage with believers on the PoE: Your first move must be to get whomever you’re arguing with to accept that the tri-omni definition of God is in fact consistent with what THEY believe: Never, ever give the impression that you are defining “God” as thus and such; the PoE starts by accepting the common conception of God as advanced and accepted by the big three monotheistic religions. It’s their fictional entity, so make it clear that it’s their definition you’re starting with before you show why the entity so defined is inconsistent with all available evidence.
Oh dear god.
It seems Rosenau thinks Larry and Ophelia have been mean to him. He is now complaining about being misquoted.
Is there no one to take his spade away ? I would suggest Mooney, Orzel or another accommodation but they all seem to be busy digging their way to the bottom.
George, it really depends. When I was a Christian, I seriously needed to be confronted with arguments about the problem of evil. Since I was, in fact, a Christian, there’s a sense in which the burden on proof was on someone wanting me to change my position. But that burden of proof was met. I do think that this is the argument that actually gets people to change their minds and “convert” from theism to atheism. It doesn’t do it alone of course, since various bullets can be bitten. But it’s the argument that really does damage and has, notoriously, led to many people giving up religion.
I don’t know your personal background, but I suspect that a lot of atheists rely on arguments such as “no evidence”. That may be their reason for not accepting religion, but it won’t convince an actual religionist, who will have had all sorts of experiences that count as “evidence” in their minds. If we actually want to convince people to give up theism, we need to take on the burden of showing the problems with their position. If we fail in any given case, I don’t think it matters. The point is to put arguments that actually put doubts in the minds of a certain number of people who actually are orthodox Abrahamic religionists.
I don’t think there is any cogent answer to the problem of evil. But that’s partly because of my other positions – e.g. I reject the idea contra-causal free will. Even when I was a Christian, I could make little sense of contra-causal free will; and I suspect that creating doubts about it is one of the most effective things we can all do in the longer term.
Mind you, I also can’t make any sense of objective morality. That may not be a wise thing to admit from a political/strategic viewpoint, but there you go. I’m not Matt Nisbet. Moreover, I tend to think that, by standards most of us would agree to, amoralism (in the sense discussed by Richard Garner in Beyond Morality) is better than moralism. Properly understood, it’s more likely to lead to compassionate outcomes.
George, I’m finding your comments very hard to distinguish from my remarks. There are risks, I just identified the mechanism that produces the risk that is unique to PoE (i.e., the confusion between if-then and the given). The thing you mentioned — the fungibility of definitions — is not at all a unique risk.
In my remarks, I gave an implicit answer on how to do a more adequate frame-job. A way to frame it so that it is extremely clear is to put it in terms of four conditions, not three. The fourth condition being “existence”. So, you can note that only the following options are logical possibilities of PoE, putting special accent on (i):
God is…
a) …not bloody likely (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, existent)
b) …Satan / … the indifferent watchmaker / …a deity with multiple personality disorder (omniscient, omnipotent, existent)
c) …a beefed-up Gandalf with Alzheimer’s (omnipotent, benevolent, existent)
d) …Zeus (omnipotent, existent)
e) …Zordon (omniscient, benevolent, existent)
f) …Carnac the Magnificent (omniscient, existent)
g) …the man Jesus (benevolent, existent)
h) …just a slob like one of us (existent)
i) …not. (non-existent)
Dan L.:
The religious could alternatively argue that “God isn’t good as such – mostly he is just really powerful and we don’t want to piss him off.” This has the added benefit of fitting the Abrahamic holy books.
Rosenau says I got him wrong – he did say why: he said why in the part of his post that came before the part I quoted (which was most of it).
Well, yes and no. True enough, he did purport to say why, and I could have said as much. But then again, what he said before “the panel would descend into a metaconversation about whether there should even be conversations like the one they were supposed to be having. And that wouldn’t inform anyone” doesn’t actually say why that metaconversation wouldn’t inform anyone – it says why different discussions that he has witnessed were derailed by different people talking about different things. To treat that as saying why would require accepting his implicit claim that Richard Dawkins is the equivalent of Rupert Sheldrake and Hugh Ross. I don’t accept that claim. I don’t consider his two analogies good analogies. I also don’t accept his assumptions about what the faith & science discussion is supposed to be about; I don’t see why it couldn’t perfectly well be about why such a panel was offered, or what the relationship between “faith” and science actually is.
If this is about conversation and the possibility of conversion, to be asked is: who amongst us has proof of the readiness to be converted through an argument — or, hardened against it? How many instances does each side, Theists or Atheiists, have of his or her own conversion from previous conviction, on any topic. Science’s operating procedure,”mode of inquiry” is to ask and test; scientist day in and day out, have their own theses overturned. The Theists’ training is to dismiss evidence, the very concept of it (on the whole) unless it is “evidence” through and of revelation, the ‘heart’ or feeling. Does religion operate in any way other than fear or faith? Conversation is a form of evidence presentation, leaving a little “budge” room.
Why have a conversation at all indeed? How do you know that you are arguing ‘in good faith’ in conversation? How do you test the evidence of “feeling” or the heart? Well, as a Theist, probably, probably, you don’t. You accept on “faith.”!! Is it GOOD Faith? There is a test for reliablility of “feeling”. Would a dualist/theist “submit” (Ha! submission) to it as readily as a curious scientist? Not as readily, my guess. An easy out is to make a distinction between bodily and intellectual and soul feeling. Then you have to test all three, and two are probably untestable, one irrelavant, the body — if you say so. Easy out.
Psychologist/psychotherapists are dualists and very difficult conversationalists.How should I engage with theists and psychologists knowing as I do that the basis of their assumptions is faulty, their feelings distorted (testable, mind), their faith a bit suspect? An “eloquent charitable debate” under such circumstances? Sometimes I just try to irritate the theists for their impenetrable obfuscation and evasion. Sometimes I just ignore them, and occasionally I argue in good faith. There really is no conversation without a willingness/readiness to look at evidence, to admit the possibility of evidence. Many, many theists and dualists have no idea that they are arguing in Bad faith uh, at least in My Opinion. They don’t know their own motivations, operating on faulty intuitions/’heart/ feeling from which arise or through which are exercised their beliefs. Poor sods. Are scientists ever operating like this? Doubtless. Poor sods, existent slobs, we humans.
NEB, Chill, chill! I concur.
George Felis:
You got it right, pretty much, but I want to qualify a few things. I mostly agree with you guys, that for anyone used to reasoning in straight lines, the PoE is a very convincing argument against God. I agree that people should keep making it, though as George points out, one has to be wary, at least from the rhetorical point of view.
But I don’t think the case is as clear cut from a logical point of view as you seem to, and the reason is wrapped up in my comment about the immovable wall and unstoppable force. Basically, I don’t know what it means for there to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. I don’t know how to apply the laws of logic to the properties and behaviors of such a thing. I can assume that evil is incompatible with such a thing, but it’s really not obvious because I really can’t wrap my mind around this thing whose existence I’ve already conceded for the sake of argument. I don’t think wariness is enough; once you’ve assume five impossible things before breakfast, you’re open to attack from a huge, shadowy, amorphous frontier of ad hoc apologetics.
The internal contradiction of such a thing was obvious to me in high school, but go ahead and try to convince someone who already believes in it that it’s internally contradictory. Or even formulate a logical argument that demonstrates the contradiction. I don’t think you’ll be able to do either satisfactorily. You inevitable get stuck in a situation where you’re screaming, “But A and not A is so obviously a contradiction!” and your opponent is screaming “You’re so arrogant; you’re so philosophically naive.” It’s a hopeless situation, because if your opponent embraces the contradiction instead of acknowledging it for what it is, there’s literally no headway to be made.
Part of my reasoning behind this is asking myself, “If I was playing Jehovah’s advocate and the PoE came up, how would I respond?” I realized I could keep the problem open forever if that happened, just by qualifying what is meant by “God” and “evil” and turning the debate into an argument about the nature of those things rather than — much more relevant — the existence of those things. And I’m sure I could do a pretty good job of it.
As Russell points out, though, the argument does work on an individual level; it convinced him, and it seems to have convinced Charles Darwin. Many prominent atheists find it convincing, and a friend of mine read the God Delusion and seemed to find the general idea pretty convincing as well (she seems pretty firmly in the atheist camp now).
@Bruce Gorton:
I’ve seen that one too. That one is at least logically consistent, though morally and aesthetically repellent. I prefer not to debate at all with people who espouse such a view.
Except that you don’t have to accept the existence of God to make the PoE argument. You can reframe it in roughly the way I suggested — existence is just one condition among others. So you need not feel insecure, to the extent that matters to your worries.
You suggest, helpfully, that we can question whether or not the terms have any meaning. That’s an Anthony Flew style of argument. But you can plug that into your treatment of PoE as yet another condition, with one more line in the truth-table:
God is…
j) …not something we can talk about, because terms like “omnipotence”, etc. are meaningless.
That’s pretty unintuitive, frankly. But it is a good way to shut down a conversation with annoying theists if that’s what you’re aiming for.
Enough threadjacking, on the issue at hand here’s the question I’d really like to see those four guys on the panel asked (which is why I wish one of us was on the panel to ask it):
“Suppose you were put in suspended animation for a hundred years. When you thaw, you wake to a world in which a synthesis of results from diverse fields (perhaps computation theory, philosophy, neurology, psychology, perhaps some others) had succeeded in explaining much more about the mind and brain than is currently explained. Suppose that many of the things that are asserted to be “off-limits” for scientific investigation had in fact been explained, at least qualitatively (the same way that we can characterize the behavior of electrons in a metal lattice but can’t come close to actually calculating the behavior quantitatively). Suppose, for example, scientists could now give a good account of why it feels the way it does to love your wife, or why the color blue looks the way it does, or why the suffering of children is so repellent to most human beings.
“We don’t have to suppose that these answers are completely satisfactory, or that all such questions are answered; just that many more questions have been answered than are currently, and that at least some of these are questions that are considered unanswerable by science.
“If you were to awaken into such a world, I’m assuming you would still argue for the compatibility of religion and science. But how would you do so? Would you challenge the results of these scientific experts investigating phenomenon (most likely significantly outside your areas of expertise)? Would you accept the diminishment of religion’s magisterium with aplomb and good grace? Or would you capitulate that religion is only meaningful in a metaphorical or mythological sense, that religion is compatible with science in the sense that religious narratives are not literally true?”
@Ben Nelson:
Not sure if you’re addressing me with the last post. If so, I don’t agree with the approach you’re proposing. Mostly because “existence” is notoriously tricky to define or explain, and so constitutes one more path into the philosophical morass that one inevitably falls when discussing the PoE.
I have to warn you, I take philosophical arguments more seriously than most atheists do, and I think most of the versions of the PoE floating around these days really are subject to criticism on the grounds of lack of philosophical sophistication. If you are addressing me with your last post, your interpretation is really a pretty drastic “dumbing down” of my position.
I’m not really here to attack or defend the PoE, by the way. I don’t think it’s a very effective argument; that’s my opinion. If I was a religious believer right now, I doubt I would find it convincing. Because of this, it’s not an argument I’m inclined to make; I think there are much better arguments. Again, since this is all my opinion, you might be wasting your breath trying to insist to me how good an argument it is. I disagree, and I don’t find your arguments any more convincing than those of the other thirty thousand New Atheists explaining the PoE right at this moment. I brought up my stance on it only because it seemed to me the mirror image of the situation discussed on this thread, to whit: we lose the NOMA debate because we don’t accept our opponents’ premises; we lose the PoE debate because we do.
…what it feels like to love your spouse – not all ‘you’s are male!
I hate reading something that I assume is addressed to me along with everyone else and then suddenly bump into a ‘what it feels like to love your wife’ and realize that it’s not addressed to me at all. I especially hate it…………….here.
cough
Sorry – that’s not meant personally. The exasperation is at the phenomenon, which is ubiquitous, not the person.
Sorry, Ophelia, I understand you frustration at that sort of phrasing. Of course, you read from your point of view and its disruptive when the perspective suddenly incorporates some facet of identity that you don’t share.
Unfortunately, I write from my own perspective, and the question (one I have actually seen posed as an example of a question science can’t answer) is the one that popped into my head. It’s sexist, no doubt, but it’s the “like a fish” kind that, by definition, is rather hard to be aware of. Though I will certainly try.
It’s not really an excuse, but the quote IS from a question that I’m vicariously posing to four males.
It’s really ok Dan! Picture me with those whirling arms that Benjamin has when I do that – I’m being histrionic rather than really furious.
Here’s one I happened on in William James yesterday –
Tsk.
:- )
Dan, yes, my comments are still directed to you. I’m glad you take your arguments seriously. And by all means, if you think I’ve misrepresented you, then show me how. When distilling (j) above, I refer to your claims: “Basically, I don’t know what it means for there to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. I don’t know how to apply the laws of logic to the properties and behaviors of such a thing.” (Emphasis yours.)
But let’s not be distracted by attitudes. I find myself constantly saddled with the tedious and thankless task of pointing out where my understanding (equally serious) really does seem to depart from those I come across. Often it isn’t clear to me that my reply here has been considered, and as a result people provide elliptical replies and dismissals. That’s unfortunate, because to my mind it resolves the points you have made; and intellectual curiosity compels me to wonder how you make sense of them, if they had been taken seriously.
To just say that you have resolved not to find PoE convincing is unhelpful to the extreme. Though you’re entitled to that opinion, I am left thinking that it is an idiosyncratic one until you give a robust encounter with what has been said in its defence.
If you don’t like “existent”, substitute “real”; if you find “real” to be without meaning, in the same way that you find “omniscience” and “omnipotence”, etc., to be, then — well, I find that unintuitive. And I also think I can give logical, rhetorical, and coercive replies to the “immovable object/unstoppable force” problem, depending on situation, all of which expose the meaningful fallacies of the other speaker.
Still, there would be no harm in disagreeing on that. You might say that I have these semantic intuitions, it doesn’t mean you do. Fine. But even so, I’d be left wondering what it is you think I’ve misrepresented. You can’t say that we’ve found a place to disagree while also saying that I’ve misrepresented you.
Hi Ben,
Sorry I’ve taken so long to reply.
As far as how you’ve misrepresented what I’m saying, here’s a pretty clear example:
“To just say that you have resolved not to find PoE convincing is unhelpful to the extreme”
I have not resolved to find it unconvincing; I have read a fair amount about it, thought about it a fair amount, and DECIDED, after thorough consideration, that it is unconvincing.
“f you don’t like “existent”, substitute “real”; if you find “real” to be without meaning, in the same way that you find “omniscience” and “omnipotence”, etc., to be, then — well, I find that unintuitive.”
It’s not that the words have no meaning (it’s a rare word that has no meaning); it’s that the meanings are imprecise, and possibly necessarily so. It may be that our naive philosophical view of “realness” or “existence” are too imprecise to be anything but misleading. Or maybe they’re imprecise, but not pathologically so and diligent work by philosophers could fix it up in principle. I don’t know. And that’s the problem. Again, not that they’re meaningless (possibly because they mean too much), but because the relationship of the meaning to the real (phenomenological) world isn’t clear.
Simple example: take two tables of (nearly) identical construction. Each “exists,” each is “real.” Now take them apart and shuffle up the parts such that you’re no longer certain which legs go with which top, reassemble into two tables. Do the original tables (call them A and B) still “exist”? Are they still “real”? The answer to neither question is obvious, and I’m almost tempted to answer, somewhat counterintuitively, “no, yes” respectively.
On the other hand, tables A and B are made of wood — the dead cell walls of former plants. Are the plants “real”? Do they “exist?” What about the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen those cells walls are made of? So you find the notion that I find the concepts “existence” and “realness” insufficient to deal with real metaphysical and ontological concepts “unintuitive.” That’s interesting, because the reality of “existence” and “realness,” whatever it is, is in fact pretty uinintuitive.
This is what I meant by saying you had “dumbed down” what I was trying to say. You seemed to think I was saying “omniscient,” “omnipotent,” “real,” “exists,” were meaningless, which is not at all the case — all these words clearly mean something. I think it’s possible or even likely that it is the same as the way that words like “unicorn” and “Sherlock Holmes” have meanings, completely coherent meanings that we can discuss just fine despite the fact that neither noun really corresponds to anything in the material universe. This is considerably more subtle than simply declaring the words to be meaningless.
And I have no doubt that you can, as I have already said, resolve the wall/force question by refusing to accept the premises under which it is formulated. In fact, that is, as far as I know, the only solution. I used it as an example to point out how, in a simple example, accepting contradictory premises is a sure fire way to lose an argument. My point was that that PoE is a more complex version where the logical contradiction within the premises doesn’t really slap you in the face. And, in fact, I think there are some quite effective arguments against the contradiction.
I don’t think these arguments are bullet proof, but they take forever to formulate and even longer to rebut; and since they’re predicated on the existence of God and evil, with which I don’t agree, I don’t see any reason into listening to the arguments and then taking the time to rebut them. To me, it’s a waste of time. There are more interesting problems in philosophy, and more interesting arguments against theism.
Finally, it’s the kind of situation that makes one look bad in a debate. If Dennett, whose plodding and methodical approach doesn’t work very well in debates, were to bring up the PoE, he would get to the point of trying to show the contradiction, and then his opponent would be able to spend ten minutes speaking as if he knew exactly what he was talking about, making a big cotton candy castle of a reply to the criticism. And in a debate format, it would look and sound convincing, which is all that matters.
Ben, this is my last post on this. I don’t think the PoE is a good or convincing argument, and that is based on thinking about it curiously and sincerely. It doesn’t work for me. I don’t like it. I don’t know how else to say this: I just don’t care how good you think it is. Lots of people find it convincing and that’s fine. And it’s nothing on you that I don’t find it persuasive. You’re not saying anything new about it. That’s why you’re not convincing me; not because I’ve resolved not to be convinced, but because I’ve already heard everything you’re saying and haven’t been convinced.
And since I find it so goddamned boring, I don’t really want to play Yahweh’s advocate so you can show me just how effective it is. Just drop it. Don’t worry about it. New topic.
Alright, but if a term is imprecise, it is only imprecise with respect to some questions you think are left unanswered, and which cripple the concept into disutility. Your two tables example shows us that ontology can be a tough business. But it doesn’t touch the sense of reality I would assign to the PoE table, which is (effectively) “we think the thing would be out there even if nobody were around to know it”.
Sure, but this doesn’t really track what you’d said earlier, and it is consistent with the position I’ve argued!
You say that “my point was that that PoE is a more complex version where the logical contradiction within the premises doesn’t really slap you in the face. And, in fact, I think there are some quite effective arguments against the contradiction.” I didn’t see why you would say such a thing. I still don’t, because you haven’t given reasons — you’ve deferred by saying that it would be a long conversation. Probably so. I just spent more than an hour talking about PoE with two poor souls from “Campus for Christ”. They certainty had answers, which I rebutted in various obvious ways.
You are worried about the debate format, it seems. If you have the intuitions you have, then I can see how that would be trouble in debate. But I would say things which I believe, and which you would find offensive, because you have intuitions going in the other direction. Namely, I believe — genuinely believe, in a wholehearted and independently formulated kind of way — that recognition of PoE as a genuine problem is a prerequisite for sanity. Whether or not this is cogent, you ought to admit it’s clear. (And this conviction, I might add, ought to explain my persistence on this point well beyond the levels of personal comfort.)
It’s fine if you don’t want to talk about it anymore, and I can respect that. But I think I can, in all decency, point out that the central question has been so far untouched.
Ben, I don’t know how much more clear I can make this: I didn’t want to attack OR defend the PoE. I didn’t want to talk about it at all except to compare the topic at hand with it. I’ve stated this several times. So the fact that “the central question has been so far untouched,” is irrelevant. In fact, I’m not even sure which “central question” you’re referring to. I’m also not sure how the bit about Sherlock Holmes fails to track what I’ve already said. It seems completely unrelated, except to the extent that I mentioned it to point out how tricky “reality” and “existence” can be to nail down.
Again, as I’ve said several times already, I don’t care too much what you think about the PoE. I’m not trying to change your mind about it. You complain that I haven’t given you any reason to think its unconvincing. That was never my goal. It’s not a conversation I wanted to have in the first place. (Sorry if this sounds repetitive, but I’ve tried to express this fact several times in this thread already and you still haven’t gotten it.)
Anyway, I’m not offended by your questioning my sanity, purely on the basis of believing the PoE and answers thereto can be more subtle than you allow. Actually, if anything, it makes me feel a little sorry for you. It’s absolutely absurd to presume that you’re the final arbiter of sanity, or that you get to decide which positions make one sane or insane. There’s a really out-sized arrogance in that sort of “argument,” worse in some ways than the arrogance I see in theistic arguments.
In short, what are you on about? Are you trying to pick a fight or something? I thought I was pretty clear about the fact that I don’t want to argue the PoE itself, that I was remarking on a similarity (or contrast) I saw between it and the topic of the thread. I don’t care if you find it convincing or not; a simple corollary is that I don’t care if I’ve made a good case that it’s unconvincing. That was never my goal. That was not what I had set out to do.
Even shorter, what part of “drop it” are you having trouble with?
I’m having a hard time with the part where you make claims that you don’t want to defend, and then puff up in indignation when their indefensibility is highlighted.
Whether you care about whether people reject your views or not is your choice, but you deserve to know why it is that they do.
Ben,
Accusing me of indignation now? Can you make a single post where you don’t ascribe some motive, intention, emotion, or other quality that you have no justification for so ascribing?
I’m not indignant, I’m frustrated at your repeated misrepresentation and misinterpretation of my intentions. And it’s either deliberate or pathological, as far as I can tell, since I think I’ve very clearly explained this already:
Any claims I made are of the following form:
“My opinion is X.”
That’s not the sort of claim that needs to be defended, because you have no access to the content of my opinions while I do. You have no basis for telling me what my opinion is.
Now, you clearly disagree with my opinion, but here’s the important point that you seem to be unable to wrap your head around:
I don’t care that you disagree, and I don’t care why you disagree.
Oookay, can we leave it now? I could just close the comments, but I’d rather simply ask.
As I said, everyone’s entitled to their opinions, though I’m just as entitled to point out their indefensibility. Nobody should be surprised when their mere opinions are dismissed, and especially not when those opinions are dismissed with reasons; that’s how opinions go. Criticism is, and ought to be, just one of the costs you must be prepared to incur when you’re in the business of presenting (or presupposing) your free-standing opinions.
I think it would be quite unfortunate if the comments were closed, because what we see here is a microcosm of religious debates taken more widely. Our hides should be tougher than this. Specifically, there’s no reason for this to turn into a comedy of manners. After all, I’m interested in why Dan thinks the things he does — genuinely interested, because I’m invested in some other beliefs that I find compelling, and which are at odds with his. But I can live without that satisfaction.