Existence of God Philosophers Weigh in Boston Review Jan Feb 2009

God Philosophers weigh in Alex Byrne Boston Review January February 2009
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009
God
Philosophers weigh in Alex Byrne
Alex Byrne teaches philosophy at MIT. He has co-edited two collections of papers on
color, Readings on Color, Volume 1: The Philosophy of Color and Volume 2: The
Science of Color.
God has had a lot of bad press recently. The four horsemen of atheism, Richard
Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, have all published
books sharply critical of belief in God: respectively, The God Delusion, Breaking the
Spell, The End of Faith, and God Is Not Great. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens pile on
the greatest amount of scorn, while Dennett takes the role of good cop. But despite
differences of tone and detail, they all agree that belief in God is a kind of
superstition. As Harris puts it, religion “is the denial—at once full of hope and full of
fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.”
The question of God’s existence is one of those few matters of general interest on
which philosophers might pretend to expertise—Dennett is a professional
philosopher, and Harris has a B.A. in the subject. Still, of the four, it is Dawkins who
wades the furthest into philosophy. So what can philosophy contribute? In particular,
have philosophers come to a verdict on the traditional arguments for God’s existence?
Although it would be too much to expect complete consensus, it is fair to say that the
arguments have left the philosophical community underwhelmed. The classic
contemporary work is J. L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism, whose ironic title
summarizes Mackie’s conclusion: the persistence of belief in God is a kind of miracle
because it is so unsupported by reason and evidence. The failure of arguments for
God’s existence need not lead straight to atheism, but philosophers often seem to find
this route tempting. In his contribution to Philosophers Without Gods, a collection of
atheistic essays by twenty prominent philosophers, Stewart Shapiro observes that
“among contemporary philosophers, the seriously religious are a small minority.”
Dean Zimmerman, a notable member of the minority, has ruefully remarked that
“although numerous outspoken Christians are highly respected in analytic circles,
many of our colleagues still regard the persistence of religious belief among otherwise
intelligent philosophers as a strange aberration, a pocket of irrationality.”
Contemporary Christian philosophers content themselves with pulling up the

drawbridge and manning the barricades, rather than crusading against the infidel.
The world was very different when a distinguished philosopher could say, as St.
Thomas Aquinas did, “the existence of God can be proved in five ways.”
Contemporary Christian philosophers often content themselves with pulling up the
drawbridge and manning the barricades, rather than crusading against the infidel.
Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most eminent living philosopher of religion, devotes the
five hundred pages of his Warranted Christian Belief to fending off objections to
either the truth or rationality of belief in traditional Christian doctrines. He does not
argue for the existence of God, and still less for the truth of Christianity; rather, his
main question is whether a reasonable person who finds herself with firm religious
convictions should change her mind. Plantinga is not trying to persuade Dawkins and
company to change their minds.
The traditional arguments for God’s existence are very much worth our attention,
though, for at least three reasons: they are of great intrinsic interest; popular
discussions of them often fail to pin down their defects; and one argument, the
“design argument,” has had a new lease on life as the intellectual underpinning of the
intelligent design movement.
Before turning to some of the arguments, who or what is God supposed to be? Zeus,
Thor, Ganesh? Alternatively, the depersonalized Deus sive natura (God or nature)
that got Spinoza excommunicated from Amsterdam’s Jewish congregation? The
philosophical literature focuses on the God of the Abrahamic tradition: a person who
is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. Is there any reason to think that God, so
conceived, exists?
Arguments for the existence of God are usually divided into those whose premises
may be known from the armchair, and those whose premises are the result of
experiment and observation. The best-known armchair argument is called (following
Kant’s unhelpful terminology) the “ontological argument,” while the design argument
(also called the “teleological argument”) is the main representative of empirical
arguments. Let us start from the armchair.
***
The ontological argument was first developed by the eleventh-century monk St.
Anselm, who spent his formative years at Bec Abbey in Normandy and later became
Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm was a central figure in early scholasticism, which
brought the logical and metaphysical apparatus of Aristotelianism to bear on the
interpretation of Christian texts.
In chapter two of his Proslogion (“Address”), Anselm considers the Fool of Psalm 14,
who “hath said in his heart: There is no God.” Anselm argues that the Fool’s position
is self-undermining: the very act of denying that God exists shows that God does
exist. It is as if the Fool were to say, very foolishly, “I am not speaking.”
God, Anselm says, is a perfect being, “a being than which nothing greater can be
conceived.” We may assume that any ignorance or malice or feebleness detracts from
greatness, so Anselm’s God is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. Just for
simplicity, let us also assume that there could be at most one perfect being, so
Anselm’s God is unique. Anselm then draws a distinction between “existing in the
mind” (or “in thought,” or “in the understanding”) and “existing in reality.” When a
painter intends to paint a picture of, say, a dragon, the picture, and the dragon, exist in
his mind but not in reality. When he has finished putting paint on canvas, the picture,
but not the dragon, also exists in reality. Dragons—as opposed to pictures of dragons,
or the word “dragon”—exist only in the mind. Conversely, there are many things that
exist only in reality: a certain rock at the bottom of the Pacific, say, which no one has
ever seen.
Having explained this distinction, Anselm observes that the Fool must admit that God
exists in his mind, just as the Fool must admit that a dragon exists in the painter’s
mind. Dragons, of course, exist only in the mind. The Fool will say the same of God.
Anselm thinks the Fool can be hoisted by his own petard.
Sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions are as rare as atheists in

foxholes: the track record of philosophical “proofs” is not exactly impressive.
Here we come to the crucial step in Anselm’s argument. An entity that exists only in
the mind, he thinks, is not as great—not so perfect—as one that exists in reality. I
imagine a dry martini: unfortunately it exists only in my mind. You imagine a martini,
shake the gin and vermouth, and add the olive: happily for you, the martini exists both
in your mind and in reality. According to Anselm, the martini that exists only in the
mind is less perfect than the martini that also exists in reality—and after a long day at
the office, this can sound quite convincing. Similarly, a being that only exists in the
Fool’s mind is not as perfect as one that also exists in reality. So if God exists only in
the Fool’s mind, the Fool is not thinking of a perfect being, because a perfect being
also exists in reality. Equivalently: if the Fool is thinking of a perfect being, then God
exists in reality. The very existence of atheists, Anselm concludes, shows that
“something than which greater cannot be conceived undoubtedly exists both in the
mind and in reality.”
Should we agree with Dawkins that something has gone badly wrong, on the grounds
that Anselm’s argument reaches “such a significant conclusion without feeding in a
single piece of data from the real world”? As a general reason for suspicion, this is not
very persuasive. In 300 BC Euclid proved that infinitely many prime numbers exist.
He needed no empirical data, and surely his conclusion—infinitely many—is pretty
significant.
A better complaint is that sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions

are as rare as atheists in foxholes: the track record of philosophical “proofs” is not
exactly impressive, unlike the mathematical variety.
Still, the ontological argument may be an exception to the rule. A more urgent cause
for concern was given by Gaunilo, an elderly monk at an abbey a few days ride from
Bec. In his In Behalf of the Fool, Gaunilo considers an island than which no greater
island can be conceived, “abundantly filled with inestimable riches.” (Dennett alludes
obliquely to Gaunilo when he asks his reader to consider “the most perfect ice-cream
sundae.”) Presumably an island that exists only in the mind is not as great as a similar
island that also exists in reality. But then Anselm’s reasoning proceeds just as well,
and we can conclude that a perfect island exists, which is absurd. We know a great
deal about islands, and although some of them are undoubtedly very agreeable,
improvement is always possible.
Gaunilo’s objection is that the argument proves too much; something must be wrong,
but Gaunilo doesn’t tell us what. So what is wrong with it?
The first thing to note is that Anselm’s talk of “existing in reality” and “existing in the
mind” is misleading. Possums exist in Australia and New Zealand, but not in
Antarctica. If “existing in reality” were like “existing in Australia,” then there might
be some other realm distinct from reality where things exist. But that’s wrong: if
something exists anywhere at all, it exists “in reality,” because to exist in reality is
simply to exist, period. Similarly, if “existing in the mind” were like “existing in New
Zealand,” then if dragons exist in the mind then they must exist. But there are no such
creatures—dragons do not exist. The observation that dragons exist in the mind but
not in reality is, then, better stated as follows: people think of dragons, but dragons do
not exist.
Let us return now to the assumption that Anselm tries to reduce to absurdity: that a
perfect being exists only in the Fool’s mind. Unpacked, the assumption is this: (a) the
Fool is thinking of a perfect being, and (b) no perfect being exists—that is, in a
complete inventory of reality, we will not find a being than which nothing greater can
be conceived.
So the crucial step in Anselm’s argument is this: if (b) is true, and no perfect being
exists, then (a) must be false—the Fool is not thinking of a perfect being, because a
perfect being has, among its other perfect-making properties or features, existence.
Put the other way round: if (a) is true—if the Fool is genuinely thinking of a perfect
being—then (b) must be false, and so God, the perfect being, exists.
Both Dawkins and Hitchens suggest that Kant uncovered Anselm’s mistake—and
Kant certainly had an influential objection. In his Critique of Pure Reason he claims
that “‘Being’ is evidently not a real predicate,” by which he means that existence is
not a property or a feature of a thing. To say that dragons are green, or scaly, or
ferocious, is to attribute certain properties or features to dragons. To say that dragons
exist is not to attribute yet another property to them, it is simply to say that there are
dragons. And if existence is not a property or feature of things, Anselm’s argument
fails: a perfect being has all the perfections, including the properties of being all-good
and all-knowing, but not including the property of existing, simply because there is no
such property.
A perfect being has the properties of being all-good and all-knowing, but not the
property of existing, simply because there is no such property.
Kant is on to something here. If existence is a property of things, it is a rather peculiar

one: you can find a blue marble, and also a non-blue marble (a red one, say), but you
cannot find a nonexistent marble—a marble that lacks the property of existing. Of
course, that does not mean Kant is right: a peculiar property is still a property. And in
fact, according to many philosophers, Kant is wrong: existence is indeed a property,
albeit a very undiscriminating one, because everything has it.
A better objection to Anselm’s argument is that he has conflated two readings of “The
Fool is thinking of a perfect being.” Compare “J. R. R. Tolkien is thinking of a scaly
existing dragon,” which can be read in two ways. On one reading, this sentence can be
more perspicuously rendered as, “There is a scaly existing dragon, and Tolkien is
thinking about it.” On that reading, the sentence is true only if at least one scaly
dragon exists. But on the second, more natural reading, “Tolkien is thinking of a scaly
existing dragon” can be true even if dragons do not exist. Let us ask the man himself:
“Hey, Tolkien, what are you thinking about?” He replies: “I am thinking about a
dragon.” “Oh, I see, you are thinking about an imaginary dragon.” “No, I am thinking
about a real flesh-and-blood dragon.” Tolkien was not a postmodernist whose novels
are populated with paradoxical, metaphysically insubstantial, nonexistent dragons—
he wrote and thought about existing dragons. But for all that, dragons do not exist.
Now there is a similar ambiguity for “The Fool is thinking of a perfect being.” On one
reading, it means, “There is a perfect being, and the Fool is thinking about it.” On the
other reading, it simply characterizes the Fool’s thought: the Fool is thinking of a
perfect being in the innocuous sense in which Tolkien is thinking of a scaly existing
dragon.
Anselm is thus caught in dilemma. What is the intended reading of (a), “The Fool is
thinking of a perfect being”? If it is “There is a perfect being, and the Fool is thinking
about it,” then God’s existence immediately follows. However, Anselm has given us
no reason at all to suppose that, on this reading, (a) is true, because he has not already
shown us that there is a perfect being. On the alternative reading, where (a) is read as
simply characterizing the Fool’s thought, we may grant that (a) is true, but it is
perfectly consistent with a Godless universe.
There are other versions of the ontological argument, and the exact interpretation of
the argument in chapter two of the Proslogion is a matter of dispute. Descartes
offered an Anselm-inspired argument in his Meditations (it was this version that Kant
criticized), and other variants can be found in Anselm’s own writings. These
arguments have been subject to elaboration and repair at the hands of contemporary
philosophers, Plantinga included. Graham Oppy’s Ontological Arguments and Belief
in God is an exhaustive survey. However, although this work has produced much
enlightenment about topics of interest to metaphysicians, it is pretty clear that a
philosopher in search of God has to rise from the armchair.
***
Although the design argument can be traced to the ancient Greeks, it received one of
its most careful and elaborate formulations from William Paley, an eighteenth-century
English clergyman and philosopher, in his Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the
Existence and Attributes of the Deity. That book was published in 1802, a few years
before Paley’s death and more than half a century before the publication of Darwin’s
On the Origin of Species.
Paley begins by contrasting the discovery of two objects while “crossing a heath”: a
stone and a watch. The presence of the stone requires no explanation in terms of a
designer—indeed, Paley supposes that the hypothesis that “it had lain there forever”
might well be correct. The presence of the watch is another matter entirely, for on
examination “we perceive—what we could not discover in the stone—that its several
parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and
adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of
the day.” And the inference from these observed facts, Paley thinks, “is inevitable;
that the watch must have had a maker.” Importantly, that is not because we know that
watches are, in fact, usually the product of design: the conclusion, Paley says, would
not be weakened if “we had never known an artist capable of making one.”
It is pretty clear that a philosopher in search of God has to rise from the armchair.
All that seems reasonable enough. The design argument that Paley then proceeds to
give replaces the watch with terrestrial flora and fauna and their intricate parts. Paley
—evidently a keen amateur naturalist—gives many examples, from the diverse
mechanisms of seed dispersion to the tongue of the woodpecker, but his example of
the eye is the one typically quoted. How could such a “complicated mechanism” have
arisen, Paley asks, if not by the action of a designer? “In the human body, for
instance, chance, i.e., the operation of causes without design, may produce a wen, a
wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye.” In the case of the watch, the reasonable
conclusion is that a designer produced it. And similarly, Paley thinks, in the case of
the eye and other biological structures. Admittedly, we have no idea how the designer
managed to construct the eye, and we have “never known an artist capable of making
one.” As Paley says, however, these points of disanalogy do not seem to ruin the
argument.
Unlike the ontological argument, the design argument is not supposed to prove God’s
existence. Rather, it is an “inference to the best explanation,” like the inference that
there are mice in the kitchen because this hypothesis best explains the missing cheese.
The hypothesis of a designer is one of many possible “scientific explanations” of
Paley’s watch on the heath, and similarly of the eye. The frequent complaint that
intelligent design is “not science” (as opposed to “bad science”) only succeeds in
muddying the waters.
An inference to the best explanation can be overturned by more evidence. Perhaps, on

further investigation, it turns out that another hypothesis—say, that the au pair has
been snacking in the early hours—is the best explanation of the missing cheese. And
that is the standard reply to Paley: we now know that the best explanation of the
apparent design of the eye is not “the hand of an artificer,” but Darwinian evolution.
To borrow from the title of an earlier book by Dawkins, a blind watchmaker—the
impersonal forces of natural selection—made the eye.
This reply crucially hinges on the assumption that modern biology can explain all
instances of apparent design, and it is here that sophisticated proponents of intelligent
design, most notoriously the biochemist Michael Behe, have seen an opportunity to
dust off and burnish Paley’s argument.
In his first book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe argues that while evolution by natural
selection “might explain many things,” it cannot explain what he calls “irreducible
complexity.” The notion is straight out of Paley, who writes of the watch that “if the
different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any
other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no
motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have
answered the use that is now served by it.” A watch is “irreducibly complex” in the
sense that many of its main parts are essential to its proper functioning—remove the
balance wheel, or the escapement, and all you have left is a paperweight. Irreducible
complexity is everywhere in nature: Behe’s poster children are the blood-clotting
system and the bacterial flagellum, but he also quotes Paley’s observation that “The
heart, constituted as it is, can no more work without valves than a pump can.”
According to Behe, a process of small step-by-step alterations of the sort found in
natural selection is wildly unlikely to produce irreducibly complex systems.
Obviously it is a matter of great importance whether Behe’s criticism of the
cornerstone of modern biology is correct. (For a clear explanation of why it isn’t, see
H. Allen Orr’s review of Behe’s book in Boston Review, December 1996/January
1997.) But here the debate took a crucial turn too hastily: focusing attention on
whether evolution by natural selection can explain the origin of the bacteriological
flagellum is to obscure the fact that the design argument fails even if Behe is right.
***
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in

1779) presented the key objections, more than twenty years before Natural Theology.
Two of Hume’s objections are especially acute. First, if the argument works at all, its
conclusion is much weaker than might have been hoped. The argument does not
indicate anything about what the designer is like: whether it is benevolent or a suitable
object of worship. Even the intelligence of the designer is up for grabs—terrestrial
biology might be the product of long trial and error, with the designer’s many
previous attempts “botched and bungled.” Or perhaps the designer is “a stupid
mechanic,” who imitated other much cleverer designers who practiced their art in far-
off galaxies. Further, the designer could have died long ago—the eye and such might
have been “the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity.” And
finally, since the design of something complicated is usually a collective endeavor
—“A great number of men join in . . . framing a commonwealth,” for example—we
can hardly presume that there was exactly one designer. At best, the design argument
shows that some designer or designers, whose motives, talents, and present
whereabouts are all unknown, existed at some time. The proponent of the argument is
at liberty afterwards “to fix every point of his theology, by the utmost license of fancy
and hypothesis.” Perhaps life on Earth was designed over millions of years by
successive committees of incompetent and thoroughly despicable space aliens, who
are now fortunately all dead.
The intelligent-design argument does not indicate anything about what the designer is
like: whether it is benevolent or a suitable object of worship.
Paley had read Hume, and he tries to reply to this objection. Paley concedes that if the
design argument simply concerns individual biological structures like the eye, then
the proper conclusion is indeed weak: “there must have existed, at some time and at
some place or other, an artificer or artificers.” However, he thinks a more careful
study of the biological world as a whole reveals that there is exactly one designer (or
at any rate one chief architect), who possesses the usual divine attributes. But Paley’s
arguments on this score are feeble. He notes the general similarities in the body-plans
of animals, and concludes that this “bespeaks the same creation and the same
Creator,” forgetting Hume’s point that multiple designers can act in concert, or that
one designer can pick up where another left off. And in support of the goodness of the
deity, Paley declares, “It is a happy world after all.” Rural England is, anyway: “A
bee amongst the flowers in spring is one of the cheerfullest objects that can be looked
upon.” A more plausible theological conjecture is the remark attributed to the
biologist J. B. S. Haldane, that the creator had “an inordinate fondness for beetles.”
Hume’s first objection is that the design argument can only establish the existence of
at least one designer. His second objection is that the argument does not establish
even this much. Paley claims that the evidence points to the conclusion that, by means
entirely unknown, the biological world is the product of design. But why favor this
over the hypothesis that, also by means entirely unknown, flora and fauna were
produced by, as Paley puts it, “the operation of causes without design”?
As Paley himself emphasizes, his initial watch analogy is far from perfect: watches,
unlike organisms, do not reproduce. The eye has not been found lying on its own on
the heath, but in the bodies of countless creatures and their ancestors. And offspring
differ in various ways from their parents. So one possibility is that the operation of
causes without design, operating over “a hundred millions of years,” somehow allows,
after numerous generations, a “round ball” to “acquire wings,” eyes, and so forth.
Paley’s strategy for dismissing no-design alternatives wholesale is to object to the
specific evolutionary theories of his day (for instance that of Erasmus Darwin,
Charles’s grandfather). But this is rather like saying that because this apple and that
pear are rotten, vegetables are better than fruit. What Paley needs is an argument for
choosing the general hypothesis of an unknown designer or designers operating by
unknown means over the general hypothesis of an unknown blind process operating
by unknown means, and he signally fails to supply one.
An example that briefly appears in Darwin’s Black Box nicely illustrates the point. In
2001: A Space Odyssey, a magnetic anomaly in one of the moon’s craters leads to the
discovery of a perfectly regular slab buried under lunar soil. The characters have no
idea how the slab was constructed, or what it is for, and have never known an artist
capable of making one; nevertheless they reasonably conclude that it was designed.
But that is precisely because the characters are not in Paley’s position. They know
enough about lunar geology, astronomy, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life to
discredit the rival hypothesis that the monolith is a natural object (a big crystal, say)
that formed on the moon or collided with it. Paley, on the other hand, had no reason,
other than the failure of his imagination, to dismiss the hypothesis of “causes without
design.”
Darwin’s Black Box exactly recapitulates Paley’s mistake. “Might there,” Behe asks
after he has disposed of Darwin’s theory, “be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process
that would explain biochemical complexity?” Assuming for the sake of the argument
that Darwinism is false, Behe is surely right that “if there is such a process, no one has
a clue how it would work.” But of course that is quite different from saying that there
is no such process. Moreover, intelligent design is in the very same boat: if there is
such a process, no one has a clue how it would work either. Why is one mysterious
unknown process to be favored over another? After all, as Behe clearly brings out,
biochemistry is fantastically baroque, with many unanswered questions and unsolved
problems.
The funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is that, if they succeed,
they were never needed in the first place.
The version of the design argument on which Paley rests his case begins with certain
features of organisms. Other versions start from the observation, in Hume’s phrase,
that the entire universe is “one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of
lesser machines.” And one of these other versions has received a great deal of
attention in the recent philosophical literature: the so-called fine-tuning argument. The
fine-tuning argument is also in Natural Theology, although Paley is not usually
credited in contemporary discussions. There are, Paley says, an “infinite number of
possible laws” that could have governed material objects (in particular, the heavenly
bodies), and out of “a boundless variety of suppositions which were equally possible,”
and despite “a thousand chances against conveniency,” the laws that do in fact obtain
are “beneficial.” The universe, in other words, is fine-tuned for life. The remarkable
fact that the universe is so hospitable needs an explanation, and isn’t the hypothesis of
a designer the best one?
One might object that explanation has to stop somewhere. The eye is not a credible
candidate for a stopping point, but perhaps the basic physical laws are the sorts of
things that have no explanation. If so, the fine-tuning argument does not get started.
But let us (perhaps generously) admit that an explanation is required: why, we may
ask, is the universe apparently made for life?
The fine-tuning argument did not appear in Darwin’s Black Box, but it has a starring
role in Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution. One of the most extensive
discussions of the argument in the philosophical literature is John Leslie’s Universes,
and—as the title hints—a rival explanation of fine-tuning is that our universe is only
one of many universes, just as our sun is a single twinkle in the sidereal plenitude. If
universes exist in “boundless variety,” each with a distinct set of basic physical laws,
then the fact that the laws of our universe are “beneficial” would seem to be nothing
to get excited about.
This “multiverse hypothesis” stands to the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence
as Darwinism stands to Paley’s biological design argument: it is an alternative “no-
design” explanation of the data. If the fundamental organizing principle of modern
biology is pitted against a rival hypothesis that receives no serious consideration in
professional journals, the outcome is not in doubt. But if the alternative to design is
cosmological speculation (by philosophers, no less!), the contest looks to be back on a
much more equal footing.
Dawkins, then, makes a significant concession when he turns in The God Delusion to
the fine-tuning argument. He replies in exactly the same way he does to Paley, by
arguing that the multiverse hypothesis should be preferred over the “God hypothesis,”
because the former is considerably more “simple.” Well, maybe—but unlike the
Darwinian reply to Paley’s argument, this point is eminently debatable. And in any
case, the idea that the multiverse hypothesis could provide any kind of explanation of
why our universe is fine-tuned is controversial.
Hume suggests a more convincing rebuttal. His two objections apply equally well to
the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God. First, the fine-tuning argument is
silent on the number and attributes of any designers. Further, it is quite unclear what
the designer or designers could be like, which contrasts the fine-tuning argument
unfavorably with the biological design argument. At least we may intelligibly
hypothesize about the designers of the eye—perhaps a race of extraterrestrials visited
the earth about half a billion years ago to manufacture the early prototypes. But if any
sense can be made of agents creating the totality of space-time, it cannot be by
comparison with familiar artisans like watchmakers, quilters, and pastry chefs, who
do their work at particular times and places according to ordinary causal laws.
Hume’s second objection is that there is no reason to favor the (unspecific, and
perhaps not even intelligible) design hypothesis over the (also unspecific) hypothesis
that fine-tuning can be explained in some other way. How could we be in a position to
rule out all the no-design alternatives? Hume sketchees a number of possibilities
(including an ancient version of the multiverse hypothesis), of which perhaps the most
interesting compares the structure of the universe to structures found in mathematics.
The explanation of arithmetical structure, as any “skilful algebraist” will tell you, is
not to be found either in “chance or design,” or the hypothesis of a multiplicity of
other structures, but instead in the “nature of . . . numbers.” Likewise, perhaps “the
whole economy of the universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human
algebra can furnish a key, which solves the difficulty.”
If a persuasive argument for the existence of God is wanted, then philosophy has
come up empty. The traditional arguments have much to teach us, but concentrating
on them can disguise a simple but important point. As Anselm and Paley both
recognized, the devout are not exactly holding their collective breath. For the most
part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument. How they know
that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown—the devout do not know that God exists
in the way it is known that dinosaurs existed, or that there exist infinitely many prime
numbers. The funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is that, if they
succeed, they were never needed in the first place.
Post this page to:
Comments
1|
On the existence of God
On the existence of God. Philosophy has come up empty. Theology has come up
empty. But someone appears to have got it right. What may have been impossible for
most of history has become all too probable! Quoting an Ovi review of the Final
Freedoms:
"Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the
Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the
worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral
principle offering the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God
responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural
world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology,
consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary
boundaries. Understood metaphorically, this experience, personal encounter,
strengthening of will and liberation by transcendent power and moral purpose is the
'Resurrection' and justification of faith."
check it out for yourself: http://www.energon.org.uk
— posted 12/26/2008 at 12:04 by Mary Treherne

2|
On the existence of incredulity
"Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the
Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the
worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral
principle offering the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God
responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural
world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology,
consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary
boundaries. Understood metaphorically, this experience, personal encounter,
strengthening of will and liberation by transcendent power and moral purpose is the
'Resurrection' and justification of faith".
Even the most perfect synthesis of fiction is still fiction!
If you want to prove the existence of a god then you need to prove the factual basis of
the scripture.
I imagine it would be possible to devise a perfect moral code without referring to a
god. No, wait a second that has already been done in the 10 commandments of
rational humanism:
http://www.sceco.umontreal.ca/liste_perso
— posted 12/27/2008 at 00:24 by Wayne Robinson
3|
"Dawkins, then, makes a significant concession when he turns in The God Delusion to
the fine-tuning argument. He replies in exactly the same way he does to Paley, by
arguing that the multiverse hypothesis should be preferred over the “God hypothesis,”
because the former is considerably more “simple.” Well, maybe—but unlike the
Darwinian reply to Paley’s argument, this point is eminently debatable."
Not really. The multiverse argument isn't whats "simpler" it is the vast complexity,
the non-simplicity of putting God into the order of things that isnt "simple" God, for
him/her/it to be counted as anything close to "god" HAS to be an entity of
unimaginable complexity, so for the argument to work, one has to assume complexity
with no further explanation. Darwin taught us how complexity itself can rise out of
simplicity, but that it always comes LATE in the universe, not first
— posted 12/27/2008 at 05:09 by Anders
4|
They don't know they've lost.
The article says:
"Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most eminent living philosopher of religion, devotes the
five hundred pages of his Warranted Christian Belief to fending off objections to
either the truth or rationality of belief in traditional Christian doctrines. He does not
argue for the existence of God, and still less for the truth of Christianity; rather, his
main question is whether a reasonable person who finds herself with firm religious
convictions should change her mind. Plantinga is not trying to persuade Dawkins and
company to change their minds."
Strange, but many Christians on the web don't seem to be aware they've lost the
argument. They talk like they've won it.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html
— posted 12/27/2008 at 05:25 by Norman Doering
5|
Proof vs. faith
Any Christian who busies himself trying to prove or debate the existance of God is
missing his true relationship in the world. Frankly any Atheist that spends time
disproving the existance is spending alot of waisted time on something they don't
believe is out there. Christians believe someone is out there they can't see and Atheists
believe in the absence of that entity. What's the big deal? To give the Christian side,
we grow up putting faith in thousands of things that we later have an understanding of
as adults. To give the Atheist view, I am looking at a lack of data or facts that would
convince me so I will lobby for compatible legislation with that philosophy. If we one
day have an Atheist president it would be naive to think she (clever there)wouls run
without a foundation based on her beliefs. So stop complaining about the Christian
leaders making decisions with their belief system. They still speak overall for fairness
and Democracy (even if imperfectly) Neither of these philosophies have much of a
real gripe in the US. Not "NONE" but certainly not more than imperfections in a
relatively sound system.
— posted 12/27/2008 at 11:30 by Luckydog
6|
"For the most part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument.
How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown..."
Granted. So, perhaps it's time to ramp up work in the psychopathology of religion.
— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:30 by MelM
7|
Russell's comments on why he is not a Christian are worth reading; no words wasted
on gods' existence. "Lack of evidence"
— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:34 by dick
8|
How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown..."
Granted. So, perhaps it's time to ramp up work in the psychopathology of religion.
— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:40 by MelM
9|
While it isn't funny, really, your quote: "The funny thing about arguments for the
existence of God is that, if they succeed, they were never needed in the first place"
really does summarize the whole of the believers dilemma ... either be totally
irrelevant or totally foolish.
I've been on both sides of the argument ... gradually moving ever further from myth
toward some semblance of the rational. I live in a town sopping wet with the
assumptions of god ... with a school district in which even the issue of global warming
is denied one the grounds that it isn't mentioned as part of the end times ... now THAT
is frightening.
RG the LG
— posted 12/27/2008 at 14:43 by rg the lg
10 |
Re: the last comment.
Global warming should be pushed because in the big picture, using "proxy evidence"
(the most accurate data...and that would be fossilized trees and the like)does not
indicate ANYTHING that would lead a scientist to believe our "blip" on the time line
is any more than......a blip on the timeline. Let's just beconservative and play it safe.
11 |
correction
Sorry...Global warming SHOULD NOT be pushed.
Thanks
12 |
"Sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions are as rare as atheists in
foxholes"
Shame on the Boston Review for repeating this insulting lie that 'there are no atheists
in foxholes'.
See http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/
— posted 12/27/2008 at 18:23 by Wonderist
13 |
personal experience
If one cares not to believe, that is fine by me. Assuming that one's system of beliefs
(and we all depend on them whether we want to accept it or not) is most "rational" or
that rationality is the only game in town is silly, it doesn't account for the complexities
of our psyche nor for deeply psychological nature of our personal definition of truth.
Modernity has not taught us blind attachment to what we think rational, that was a
few centuries ago. Blind faith in what is rational is in fact blind faith in the
nonexistence of any knowledge we haven't yet acquired (hereby hasn't yet shaped
what we believe to be rational).
While there is no proof for the existence of god (nor will there ever be a scientifically
acceptable demonstration), and many religious individuals misuse their "moral
standing" , beware of your enthusiasm in bashing what we do not necessarily
understand.
— posted 12/28/2008 at 01:51 by life is bizarre
14 |
"... and one argument, the “design argument,” has had a new lease on life as the
intellectual underpinning of the intelligent design movement."
Is there anyone who truly believes that the underpinnings of the intelligent design
movement are intellectual, rather than political and religious? Even most cdesign
proponentsists are aware that intelligent design is merely a rebranding of Creationism
for the purpose of circumventing existing court precedents.
— posted 12/28/2008 at 09:11 by Reginald Selkirk
15 |
The "irreducible complexity" fake out: Behe essentially claims that evolution can't
(except by prohibitive coincidence) yield co-adapted parts because _after the parts are
co-adapted_, removal of a part leaves the remainder unable to do what all parts
together did. Does one need philosophy to be unconvinced? How is evolution to be
prevented from yielding co-adapted parts? If a basic biological excursion is desired:
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/ic_demystified
— posted 12/28/2008 at 20:37 by Pete Dunkelberg
16 |
Teacher and Scientist
I read Byrne's article in the Boston Review. On the whole I liked it and agree with
much of what he wrote. So now here are a view observations on the subject.
1. Why do philosophers in the Western tradition fail to discuss and analyze Islamic
approaches to dealing with the existence of God? Abraham is father to Jew, Christian
AND Muslim.
2. I think Alex Byrne is kind in saying that philosophers have not come up with
anything convincing to support the existence of a Jewish-Christian conception of the
One God. The fact is that the argument is settled, as a practical matter. Now let's
move on to other conceptions of God[dess] and transcendent reality? Would
philosophers have a different approach to understanding and critiquing Buddhism,
Paganism, Hinduism, Shamanism, and others? Does philosophy have anything to say
about them? Do philosophers care?
3. Alex Byrne is an equal opportunity slayer of bad arguments; even when made by
contemporary philosophers or Richard Dawkins, himself.
4. Can't we just say that Anselm's arguments are circular, and be done with it?
5. I don't agree with Byrne's view that Euclid's mathematical proof for an infinite
number of integers is more a 'reality' than Anselm's 'reality' of God's existence. Is a
mathematical proof without observation better than an armchair proof without
observation? Why not call Euclid's 'infinitely many' a concept of high utility rather
than a 'reality'? We all know the example of the 'approaching infinity' whereby the
traversing of an infinite progression of half-way points makes it impossible for you or
me to walk across a room. We do, in fact, make it successfully across the room in
spite of the mathematical proof that we cannot. The answer to this problem is that an
'approaching infinity' is a concept, not a reality. Let's be clear that mathematics is not
a reality as much as it is a tool which requires assumptions. The strength of
mathematics is not necessarily as a royal road to truth, but as an invention of the
human mind with enormous utility. Why else did it take Bertrand Russell around 248
pages in his Principia to arrive at the conclusion, “Therefore, one plus one equals
two.” Later Byrne quoted Hume and suggested that Hume compares the structure of
the universe to structure in mathematics. Hume wrote “... the whole economy of the
universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can furnish a key,
which solves the difficulty.” This is a fundamental issue. The relationship of the
structure of the universe to the structure of mathematics is a COMPARISON. It took
an improvement on human algebra, now known as calculus, to solve the difficulty.
The question still remains, though, whether or not the universe is really a differential
equation, or that differential equations are human-made tools of enormous utility.
Does a differential equation reflect, even mimic, reality or it is a tool that is better
than others in helping us deal with what we observe as our universe? Like scientific
knowledge, the utility of our tools is just as provisional.
— posted 12/28/2008 at 21:01 by Norman Costa
17 |
Anselm again
"4. Can't we just say that Anselm's arguments are circular, and be done with it?"
How about as a formulation: (a) The Fool is thinking about a perfect being and (b)
The Fool is thinking that the perfect being does not exist. Is that not problematic, in
that the Fool must (by (b)) be thinking of a being that does not necessarily exist, but
merely may or may not be there. That then, is not the idea of God.
It seems to me that Anselm is trying to capture the assurance of faith conceptually. He
is thus the critic of the view that the atheist has grasped religious thought and can then
play games with it, when in fact it has eluded him.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 02:41 by Stephen Cowley
18 |
C-
Is that it? Shows precious little awareness of contemporary philosophical theology
beyond an undergrad summary of the standard objections to the classical proofs. No
mention of any of the major contemporary theologians defending the rationality of
theism beyond Plantinga. Caricatured account of post-Wittgentsein theology. John
Haldane anyone?? Keith Ward?? If you're going to declare an argument won or lost,
best to be up to speed on the argument first.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 03:36 by Prof Robert Davis
19 |
We pray to God- We know without proof that God exists
We pray to God- We know that God exists.
This is the experience of some of us.
I do not know whether this is a philosophical argument or not. But for some of us, our
experience of praying to God is of greater weight and meaning than any possible
philosophical argument.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 05:09 by Shalom Freedman
20 |
The Ontological Argument
Your summary verdict on the Ontological Argument: "although this work has
produced much enlightenment about topics of interest to metaphysicians, it is pretty
clear that a philosopher in search of God has to rise from the armchair" is a cop out. It
is not clear at all!
In any case, by focusing upon the most primitive form of the Argument you set up a
man of straw.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 07:26 by John Tomkinson
21 |
Argument from Existence
This is a classic straw-man argument. Even many theistic philosophers reject the
ontological and design arguments. The real question is the fact of existence itself,
which is the real concern of Aquinas' arguments, and is of a completely different
order of causality than mere natural causality of the physical sciences.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:26 by James Jacobs
22 |
Islamic philosophy is part of Western philosophy
Teacher and Scientist (16) Asks: "Why do philosophers in the Western tradition fail to
discuss and analyze Islamic approaches to dealing with the existence of God?" The
answer is: Practically speaking,Islamic philosophy is an integral part of Western
philosophy. While Europeans went into an intellectual coma during the Dark Ages,
Islamic philosophers continued the traditions of Plato and Aristotle. Later Medieval
Christian philosophers learned a tremndous amount from their Muslim colleagues. So,
Islamic philosophical contributions to theism were integrated into European
philosophy long ago.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:42 by Ziggy
23 |
While there are certainly bones to pick throughout this piece (Professor Robert Davis'
being the least important, after all, this article never claimed to be exhaustive; rather it
focuses on representative examples), the overall point is, I think, a good one. Shalom
Freedman basically restated it, even though I get the sense he was trying to disagree
with Byrne:
If you are religious, proofs of the existence of god, be they constructed through a
logic game or some ordering of observations, are of no consequence.
And when John Tomkinson points out that Byrne is focusing on only the most
primitive form of the ontological argument, he fails to note Byrne's assertion that the
more sophisticated versions of the argument are just the same old ontological
argument gussied up. Is Byrne right? Perhaps, but that's not the point. He is not
making a straw man argument, though you could berate him for not backing up his
statement. I assure you though, if you read Plantinga's modal version of the
ontological argument, you will not be convinced of the existence of god (nor is
Plantinga, who thinks that, at best, the ontological argument can demonstrate that
belief in god is consistent with rationality). In fact, that version of the argument seems
patently absurd, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt since I assume Plantinga is
smarter than I am.
As an aside, does every article about the Judeo-Christian god need to be met with the
retort that it doesn't deal sufficiently with other faiths (see Norman Costa's comment
above)? Byrne states that writing about the way philosophers have attempted to
understand this deity�a "person," that is to say, a god up in the clouds who cares
about you and me. He presented the subject clearly. He doesn't need to talk about
other concepts of god.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:43 by Cheryl Masty
24 |
God and The Nature of Information
For a model and discussion of a wholly physical (mass-energy) universe that obviates
the need for God, see www.thenatureofinformation.com. ). It defines information and
the fundamental creative force in the universe in entirely mass-energy terms, mind
and consciousness as wholly material phenomena, thereby solving, conceptually, the
so-called brain/mind-mind/body problem, and describes a mass-energy universe that
operates with its own immanent creative and control mechanisms, without the use of
or need for any metaphysical or supernatural force to explain them.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:47 by Paul Young
25 |
Proof is Experience
It is possible to prove God's existence scientifically, if one simply applies the
scientific method, rather than making thought-arguments in one's head. Scientific
proof, after all, IS about experience, not logicking. Then, the first step is to choose
appropriate tools, which are not thought, but prayer and meditation. And the "proof"
is direct, if subjective, experience. God will never be proved in a test tube, or by
mathematical or logical argument. See Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi" and
Kriyananda's "Out of the Labyrinth" for cogent, rational descriptions of the method.
The proof, alas, is up to the individual.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 08:49 by George Beinhorn
26 |
Cognitive Science of Religion
How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown—the devout do not
know that God exists in the way it is known that dinosaurs existed, or that there exist
infinitely many prime numbers."
As a matter of fact, this question has been the focus of a lot of research in the last
decade. The heart has reasons of its own that reason is starting to understand.
Two good introductions to the field are Justin Barrett's "Why Would Anyone Believe
in God?" and Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained". Barrett is a Christian, and Boyer
an atheist, but there is a large measure of agreement between them on the issue of
how religious beliefs arise.
The findings of cognitive science of religion are not, of course, proof that God exists.
However, they are consistent with Plantinga's approach. Plantinga and Barrett both
believe that our minds have been designed in such a way as to make it likely that,
when presented with certain stimuli, we will develop belief in some kind of deity. On
their view, there is no more need to persuade people to believe in God by rational
argument than there is to persuade people to fall in love.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:18 by Ben Murphy

27 |
Response to comment #2 Wayne Robinson
While the nature of Christs relationship to God and his "being the Son of God" may
not be proven in the Bible, You can't say the the rest of the Bible is "FICTION". The
accounts related in the bible are referred to in outside sources and by outside,
unbiased observers of the time. We cannot connect ALL the dots outside of the Bible
but we can apply the principles of historical varification that are applied to any of our
other historical documents and say with more than reasonable certainty that accounts
happened as described in the bible. Christ was either a madman railing against a
government and a culture that would surely crush and kill him OR he was the Son of
God. But you can't (using facts) call the accounts in the Bible FICTION.
28 |
Theology
If theology is man-made, where is God?
— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:47 by Jim Carlson
29 |
Anselm
Mr Byrne repeats an old error regarding Anselm's argument (for which I am not
entering a brief). Guanilo's objection--and any similar objection--is a category
mistake. Anselm's is not an argument regarding a "perfect being" or any sort of
"being" at all, but is a rather inchoate attempt to discuss "Being as such". The
coincidence of concept and existence obviously could not apply to some discrete
entity out there among other entities, but seems inevitable when one attempts to think
about id quod maius cogitari nequit: that is, the absolute rather than the contingent.
Thus his is, properly speaking, an "ontological" proposition, which has no logical
meaning when applied to a composite thing like a dragon or an island or a cake. That
is why Bertrand Russell--hardly a theist--admitted that Anselm's was the only
argument that had the power to make him tremble. On the matter of "ontological
contingency," as it happens, however the issue is approached, it would seem obvious
that it is the atheist position that lacks logical consistency. This is simply a matter of
the necessary priority of the actual over the possible.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:50 by David
30 |
Proof
It's only if you think Christ was nothing more than a visionary social reformer who
was tortured and killed for his efforts that you've got to go looking for proof of God's
existence. OTOH, if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead after three days, and appear to
his Apostles, the seventy disciples, and the five hundred others mentioned in The New
Testament, proving the existence of "God" becomes quite unnecessary.
P.S. I'd like to believe in gravitons, too, but no one seems capable of demonstrating
their certain existence.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:03 by slinkybender
31 |
The Book of Mormon Is Evidence of God
One thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, get right is that religion (and atheism) need to
present evidence. Either there is a God or there isn't, and we only need to align
ourselves with a view that reasonably proves itself.
Where Dawkins and co. are wrong is that there is no evidence for God; that belief is
only irrational, wishful thinking. Do you want a tangible artifact that demonstrates
God's reality? The Book of Mormon is compelling, concrete evidence for God, from
God.
Either the Book of Mormon is a translated ancient text (demonstrating that there is a
God) or it was made up in the 19th century (proving that Mormons are wrong). With
the stakes this high and the outcome so possibly definitive, I'd invite all with an
interest in the subject to study it carefully.
The many solid facts that demonstrate the literal, historical veracity of the Book of
Mormon may be found at www.MormonEvidence.com. Some of the most striking
items include: its frequent use of non-bibilical Hebrew grammar and poetry that
weren’t discovered until after Joseph Smith died; its dozens of legitimate Hebrew and
Egyptian root words; its accurate descriptions of Arabian trade routes, burial sites, and
oasis areas, which were all unknown to any Westerners in the 19th century; the
sobering life stories of the eleven witnesses who saw the plates; and the deep
profundity, complexity, and consistency of a 600-page text itself, which was dictated
in about two months without any reviewing or editing. And this is still just the tip of
the iceberg!
The Book of Mormon, and God, cannot be dismissed until this evidence is analyzed
and accounted for. Do all the research and conclude, as many intelligent people have,
that belief in God is logical.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:25 by Huston
32 |
The only ones who need arguments of proof are those who doubt or disbelieve. The
believers are called 'faithful' for a reason.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:27 by LAG
33 |
value
I like the idea of John Leslie's that there is an ethical necessity that there be a God and
that necessity is what creates the God. The errors of religions based on materialism
bloodied the 20th century with a force that still echoes. Personally, I am afraid of
atheism. Whe I think of atheists, images of a tweedy Bertand Russell don't come to
mind. Stalin does.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 10:31 by mark
34 |
God: Great Commentators Weigh In
Anselm again, again:
If I had to reduce my criticism of Anselm and Aquinas to one thing, it is this: They
retain the Platonic world of ideas. For example, the proof of God's existence through
the argument of Justice assumes the Platonic notion of Justice having a 'real' essence
that exists apart from man and acts upon God's creation. Today, there is more than a
vestige of the Platonic world of ideas in church thinking. What proof do we have that
ideas are more than constructions of the human mind? They have no existence apart
from our ability to conceptualize, integrate them into our knowledge structure, and
communicate them to others. Remove the notion that Justice has a 'reality' apart from
the human mind, and that it acts on God's creation, and you have a very different set
of conclusions about God, an afterlife, the soul, etc.
Agreed! Islamic philosophy is part of Western philosophy.
The debt the Western civilization owes to Islam for art, architecture, science,
philosophy, history, religious thought, literature, mathematics, medicine, and so much
more is beyond calculation. During the Dark Ages of Europe, Islam not only
preserved knowledge and civilization, but made incredible contributions. Today,
however, the only popular interpreter of Islam to the West is Karen Armstrong. Do
western philosophers have nothing to say? Does Islam have nothing unique to
contribute to a discussion of the existence of God?
Cheryl Masty, an aside:
Byrne's article, in so far as his argument is concerned, is not deficient for not covering
religious thinking from other traditions. It stands, very nicely, on its own. In the case
of Islam, as I note above, Western philosophers have been at this too long not to have
something to say about Islam. This is an expression of my own impatience and a wish
to learn more, and less a critique of Byrne's article.
Western philosophers have taken their best shot and are no closer to something
substantial, let alone definitive, on the existence of the Judeo-Christian sky God.
Byrne is clear on this. So, my personal view is that Western philosophers should
move on to other traditions that are becoming more a part of the Western mosaic.
Let's learn something new. Even Dawkins is extremely limited, at least in his public
persona, by going after God the Designer. Is this the only conception of God that
exists in the world? What about the ideas of enlightenment and transcendence? What
about the earth God[desses]?What does Western philosophy have to say above the
cycle of death and rebirth in many traditions? Can philosophy, or science for that
matter, inform a person on how to lead a good life? My personal view is that it is
possible, and maybe even necessary, to develop a science of ethics.
Salmagundi:
I have adopted as my personal practice, not to question the faith of any individual, nor
the personal meaning which they derive from their faith, nor the prescriptions they
follow from their faith to lead a good life.
Stalin was a sociopath. His atheism was incidental to his murderous, paranoid,
megalomaniacal derangement that objectified human beings.
Others:
Aphorism and analogy do not a good argument make.

35 |
Where is the cosmological argument?
The ontological and teleological arguments for the existence of God have been widely
refuted, as the author notes. However, even working within the limits of classical
philosophy of religion, the author has neglected to discuss what many consider to be
the most convincing of the arguments for the existence of God, i.e. the cosmological
argument. What originally started the process of life/creation? Is there an 'unmoved
mover'? Evolutionary science has been unable to satisfactorally answer this question.
We still do not know what caused the Big Bang.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 11:38 by Simon Noone
36 |
Anselm's Proslogion arguments
I've always been impressed by Proslogion 15 where Anselm says that God is indeed
greater than can be conceived. Thus we reach the end point of faith seeking
understanding. BH
— posted 12/29/2008 at 11:38 by Brian Hendley
37 |
None. Independent philosopher
For a different perspective on the issue, I invite you to read "What is God?" and
"Thoughts Towards a Critique of Religion" on my weblog:
http://khashaba.blogspot.com
— posted 12/29/2008 at 11:44 by D. R. Khashaba
38 |
faith and science
Can faith and science exist side by side? faith in God requires no proof - no matter
how loudly the Christians scream, this is a reality - the only proof of God is personal
experience and "blind" faith.
Science should not be concerned with proving the non - existence of God and religion
should not be concerned with disputing science. The Vedas are clear on these matters.
The arguments put forth by Western thinkers completely ignore 8000 yr old texts.
LAWS and morals exist in many traditions, yet to be acknowledged by Western
minds as "legitimate." Read the Vedas, there even the most recent scientific theories
were discussed thousands of years ago. Find also, notions of God that would be very
enlightening.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 12:36 by hinduobserver
39 |
Don't forget the nature of god
Are we to believe that Simon Noone's "cosmological argument" is convincing? It is
true that much is unknown about the origins of the universe, but why would this lead
anyone to religious faith?
If this is theism's final redoubt, the future does not bode well for faith in the deity. It is
akin to saying "as long as there is something unknown in the universe, I may believe."
And that is true. You may, under those circumstances believe in a deity, but there is
no theology there. God is stripped of content and there is no connection between the
god who fills the void and human behavior.
In all the (often interesting and stimulating) commentary that has followed this article,
Byrne's discussion of the nature of the deity seems to have gone missed. Of course the
matter of whether god exists at all always seems the more momentous, but this
mention of a cosmological argument should return us to the matter of faith, theology,
theodicy, and ethics.
Assuming that uncertainty allows space for god in a rational system, we are still left
with the question of whether, why, and how to venerate that god. None of the
arguments for the existence of god lead inexorably to the conclusion that we must
treat that god as a holy being worthy of sacrifices, praise, prayers, fasting, etc. Even if
we admit that a deity is logically consistent with the universe as we understand it, we
are not forced to accept any one mode of behavior as a result. Human action remains
the purview of women and men.
Ultimately I would agree with the live-and-let-live perspective because what we

believe is immaterial. How we act is what counts. I would never be caught arguing
that one ought not believe in god, only that one ought to be good. And whether one is
good is unrelated to belief or lack thereof.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 13:33 by bigeasy
40 |
ethics
"Stalin was a sociopath. His atheism was incidental to his murderous, paranoid,
megalomaniacal derangement that objectified human beings..."
You say.
I say that millions of people died horrible deaths with the name of Christ on their lips
while your great objectifier clunked around rubbing his hands.The arrogance of
atheists is out of this world...far, far farther out than the wildest theological dreams.
Atheism was not incidental to Stalinism, Nazism, or Maoism; it was central to these
movements. Believers in Russia, for example, were tried and then executed for being
believers and for no other reason...by the millions. The sheer weight of the murders
makes any discussion to explore modern atheism's contribution to ethics questionable.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 14:00 by mark
41 |
None. Faith and Science. Ethics
Khashaba wrote:
"For a different perspective on the issue, I invite you to read "What is God?" and
http://khashaba.blogspot.com". Both articles are definitely worth the read. Go to his
2007 archive.
Hinduobserver:
Your comments are exactly what I was writing about. Let's hear from another
perspective and tradition of ancient writings. Please say more.
Ethics:
Of course, atheism was not incidental the movements you mentioned. But, my point is
that if Stalin was a Scientologist, he would still be a deranged, murdering, paranoid,
megalomaniacal sociopath who objectified human beings. He was no different from
the Pope who waged a genocidal war of annihilation against the Albigensians. Power,
and the atrocities committed to preserve it, find only the convenience of justification
in an ideology or a religion.
42 |
None. Faith and Science. Ethics
Khashaba wrote:
"For a different perspective on the issue, I invite you to read "What is God?" and
http://khashaba.blogspot.com". Both articles are definitely worth the read. Go to his
2007 archive.
Hinduobserver:
Your comments are exactly what I was writing about. Let's hear from another
perspective and tradition of ancient writings. Please say more.
Ethics:
Of course, atheism was not incidental the movements you mentioned. But, my point is
that if Stalin was a Scientologist, he would still be a deranged, murdering, paranoid,
megalomaniacal sociopath who objectified human beings. He was no different from
the Pope who waged a genocidal war of annihilation against the Albigensians. Power,
and the atrocities committed to preserve it, find only the convenience of justification
in an ideology or a religion.
43 |
Joseph Stalin believed in God
In order to protect atheism from any charge of malice being done in its name,
professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett has argued that Joseph Stalin was not an
atheist.
How sad to make such a fallacious claim and discredit oneself by exhibiting the faulty
philosophy of which his statement consisted in the name of worldview adherence.
Yet, over at Atheism is Dead we run into such fallacies constantly.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:00 by Mariano
44 |
Real issue
Stalin - we could waste time listing bad historical characters and their beliefs, we
could argue about proof for and against the existence of a god or three. The issue
really is one of whether EVERYONE'S lives should be controlled or influenced on
the basis of "faith". Most reasonable people would be happy to live side by side with
those of opposing beliefs - it is when one side insists on the other conforming to their
will that problems occur.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:02 by John B UK
45 |
Link to Dennett
Thought that it would be fair to provide a link to where the Dennett statement is
quoted:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/07/boba-digest-part-2-daniel-dennetts.html
— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:02 by Mariaano
46 |
Real issue
47 |
The Futility of Theology
As an expansion of Hume's observation that granting the existence of a creator tells us
nothing of it's nature, we should consider all possible explanations for the existence of
the universe as it is as a vast constellation of possibilities, some of which include a
creator and some of which do not. Physicists and science fiction writers have spun a
broad array of conjectures about how it could have happened--including models in
which it did not happen: for example, the universe is simply an n dimensional solid
for which there is no outside, and therefore no beginning or end; it simply is. Add to
this the conjectures that have not occurred to us, and all the conjectures that cannot
occur to us due to our limited imagination or intellect. Add again all the variations of
possible creators, including those who simply set the laws with no concern of
particular outcomes, those who create a multiplicity of universes, some stillborn, but
all different, those who are destroyed be the act of creation, and those who designed
the universe with an entirely alien aesthetic in mind (with no concern for the earth or
the life on it,) and a possibly infinite of other guesses that we are not equipped to
make.
Within this vast search space, there is a very tiny cluster of possibilities, some of
which may not even be possibilities, which form the basis of religious theologies. The
probability of any of these being true may well be infinitesimally small; to treat any of
these as a certainty is an act of arrogance, not just of faith.
But what is certain is that we are not very good at this kind of thinking. We have only,
in the last hundred years, been able to grasp the mathematics of the very large and
very small, and our grasp of this is limited to a tiny segment of the population who
still find it quite difficult. As Dawkins put it, we have brains evolved to deal with the
middle world, not the very large and the very small, and certainly not the limits of that
reality--absolutes. And if theology, as many of the commentators here have claimed,
is the attempt to grasp absolutes, then it is doomed from the start. This is why
religions, sects, and cults proliferate rather than converge. Knowledge converges;
imagination proliferates. Theology is a lost cause, and faith in deities no more than
fond wishes backed by an egotistical desire for certainty. Thus, there are as many
faiths as there are wishes.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 15:08 by Mark Fournier
48 |
Real issue
49 |
More on The Futility of Theology
Mark Fournier,
There was a tradition of religious poetry in the European middle ages (it might have
been later) that had a coherent understanding of the relationships among the roles of
theology, religion, and faith. It went something like this:
Theology, in the form of a chariot driver, would take the reins in a drive toward God
and salvation. But Theology could only take the horses so far and no further.
Religion, the new chariot driver, would take the reins and push on toward the ultimate
goal of union with God. But Religion was limited in how far he could go and could
not take the chariot to the end.
At this point Faith took charge of the reins and successfully drove the chariot into
heaven and salvation.
The point I am making is that even among believers in the Christian West there was a
clear appreciation of the limit - if not futility - to theology as sufficient for salvation.
Today, theology is for many an attempt to find some degree of reasonableness to

justify embracing a personal faith that cannot survive rational or scientific scrutiny.
For others, perhaps like Shalom Freedman, faith is a very personal experience which
doesn't need a collection of proofs from the discourses of scholasticism.
50 |
Theology not futile at all
In Gregory’s view, Christian theology involves and represents a dynamic, lived
relationship between God and the theologian, and so it begins not with abstract
information about God—as if this could ever be acquired neutrally—but with the
transformation of the theologian within the horizon of God’s presence and activity in
the world, as it is recognized and celebrated in the life of the Church. It is a constant
refrain in Gregory’s work that spiritual progress and right belief unavoidably go
together. In other words, Gregory’s doctrines of God and of the human person
intrinsically involve each other; as Jean Plaginieux observes, it is impossible to
separate Gregory’s doctrine of God from his doctrine of the means by which God is
known. Gregory’s doctrine of the Trinity thus includes the theologian’s own situation
with respect to God, and theology is a real illumination by which the theologian is
initiated into the divine mystery in concrete and far-reaching ways. It is here, Gregory
insists, that we must begin.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of
God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.64]
This is not so radical an opinion as it first appears: Plato and Platonic philosophy, as
well as most all of Greek and ancient philosophy, saw the ascetic life as that of
“philosophy.” It was not a merely intellectual activity one engaged in during working
hours, to be ignored when the bell rings and one returns to everyday, secular life. We
divorce philosophy from the life the philosopher lives, for no reason.
Well, there is one. In modern intellectual life, intellectual “purity” is one utterly
lacking in faith and spiritual awakening, but must attempt to be some imaginary
robotic logic machine when addressing philosophical concerns (theology must be
dismissed out of hand without any examination whatsoever with vague sneers of
“Inquisition” and “Witch-burning” and “futility”). Such an intellectual effort cannot
be sustained in ordinary human existence, but only in concentrated bursts and
analyses by academics tenured in material luxury.
This is pure self-deceiving hogwash, of course, and has been recognized as such in
Western philosophy for centuries, and is utterly futile, as has been mathematically
proven by Kurt Gödel.
This sceptical freedom from determinate conviction is also, however, a giddy whirl of
disorderly, ever dissolving, ever reinstated, personal beliefs. The sceptic in fact
confesses that, as a finite, contingent, empirical person, he is everlastingly subject to
many definite, unjustifiable convictions. He has to continue with the business of
ordinary living, acting and speaking. He oscillates continually between the high
detachment of universal scepticism and a welter of unreasonable beliefs. Even his
pure scepticism is a thesis for which doubtful arguments are adduced, and he must in
practice rely on the deliverances of the senses and the conventions of morality. The
sceptical self-consciousness is in fact deeply self-contradictory, and its reasonings and
counter-reasonings are like the arguments of children concerned to contradict one
another and always to have the last word.
G.W.F. Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit [Analysis of the Text, §205] translated by
A.V. Miller
That this imaginary skeptical perfection is utterly unachievable, and has no lived
tradition behind it such as ancient philosophy or Christian theology as outlined by the
likes of St Gregory the Theologian, does not seem to matter anymore, however. It is
fashionable and politically correct, so is accepted without argument or analysis as the
default position all must conform to.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 16:59 by Brendan Funnell
51 |
Existence and God
Oh, and no one seems to consider the idea that God is that which causes existence to
be, and so cannot be said to exist.
That sort of argument between theist and atheist is entirely profitless to either side,
and it would seem to be of some serious cultural value, in a society which no longer
seems to know how to argue about anything which might matter very fundamentally,
if atheists could be encouraged to engage in some more adequate level of denying, for
thus far they lag well behind even the theologically necessary levels of negation,
which is why their atheisms are generally lacking in theological interest. One could go
so far as to say that such atheists are, as it were, but theologians in an arrested
condition of denial; in the sense in which atheists of this sort say ‘God does not exist’,
the atheist has merely arrived at the theological starting point. [As we have seen,]
theologians of the classical traditions, a pseudo-Denys, a Thomas Aquinas or a
Meister Eckhart, simply agree about the disposing of idolatries, and then proceed with
the proper business of doing theology and of engaging in its more radical denials. And
that is why it has seemed to me to be theologically necessary to demand, of theists
and atheists alike – for eadem est scientia oppositorum – that they re-learn what it
might be to deny the existence of God, and that they learn to distinguish what they
deny from an authentically ‘classical’ theism, for which the existence of God is in any
case understood only on the other side of every denial.
Turner, Denys – Faith, Reason and the Existence of God [Cambridge 2004 p 231]
52 |
In the end
In the end - it doesn't matter what you think, what you feel or what you believe, it
only matters what you do in relationship; whether you love. Or not. In the short term
it does matter what you believe because you have to find the desire, the courage and
the strength to love this painful and wonderful life and all that/who make it. It don't
come naturally!
— posted 12/29/2008 at 17:10 by Tasmanian
53 |
In Your Faith
Stalin was an atheist, so atheism is evil. The Inquisition was bad, so Christianity is
evil. Hitler was Hitler, so Catholicism and paganism are evil. 9-11 was monstrous, so
Islam is evil. My uncle was insane, so Judaism is evil. In sum, ( ) is bad, so ( ) is evil.
Meanwhile, religious faith is an aesthetic response to the world. People believe in

God because it feels right--even what's his name above, who apparently believes in
the patent nonsense of Mormonism.
What's really evil are two things: people damaging themselves in the name of their
own religious beliefs and, worse, people damaging others--their children, their
society, the world.
As for God's true, objective existence, puh-leeze, is my view.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 19:19 by Yahuda Mann
54 |
no lack of proof
There is no shortage of utterly compelling reasons why the universe is the work of
YHWH God of Israel and his Incarnate SON.
The thing is people simply do not want to acknowledge Him. So the utterly infallible
proofs which God has given lest atheism be a fair call, will be ignored. Its called sin,
and if you were ever upset when your wife or husband cheated on you, you know one
example of what sin is
It is not that reason is insufficient but that we do not listen to it when it suits us not to
The term Homo Sapiens to describe ourselves is a self flattering crock

— posted 12/29/2008 at 19:45 by Steve Meikle
55 |
creationism with a haircut
Even most design proponentsists are aware that intelligent design is merely a
rebranding of Creationism for the purpose of circumventing existing court precedents.
there is ample literature showing how the early proponents of the Big Bang Theory
were also dismissed as offering what was assumed to be merely a rebranding of
creationism...even Sir Fred Hoyle held out in favor of his steady state model well into
the nineteen sixties...
— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:22 by Redwing65
56 |
Faith is always the foundation
It's important to realize that knowledge and belief are functionally synonymous.
Empiricism and rationalism themselves are ultimately circular--we simply _assume_
that our observations and those concepts we define as "reasonable" can be trusted on
the basis of other observations and reasonable concepts.
One might write an article very similar to this one, with a similar conclusion, on the
philosophy of science.
(For the record, I believe in both the existence of God and the validity of science.)
— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:28 by Peter
57 |
What is more arrogant?
"The term Homo Sapiens to describe ourselves is a self flattering crock"
Which is more arrogant, catagorising ourselves as just one of many millions of

species, or suggesting that a Divine presence made us in His image?
— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:36 by HairLessMoleRat
58 |
Proof?
hey #54,
Why don't you offer up some of that proof? And please make them "infallible"
because i've been too dense to catch any so far.
— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:56 by nyc_writer
59 |
I'll just add this to the conversation
Consider the dead gods in the prognostications on this topic
(http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods.html) If there are gods how do they
die? That's an interesting question too, one not sufficiently discussed in my view. I
find that this conversation is very appealing, totally uninformative (rather like an
episode of Seinfeld) and tremendously vacuous. In short, it's awesome! How it is that
so much discussion about nothing could be so enjoyable I'm not quite sure, but I do
like it all the same. Does that make the nothingness real? Maybe it does...
— posted 12/29/2008 at 20:56 by Chris
60 |
Let me quote a verse from Rig Vedha:
Who really knows, and who can swear
How creation came, whom or where
Even gods came after creation's day
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start
Did HE do it? or did HE not?
Only He up there knows maybe
Or perhaps, not even HE
— posted 12/29/2008 at 22:49 by Kris
61 |
God philosophers and theologians.
Me thinks everyone should check out these two references.
www.realgod.org
www.dabase.org/realgod.htm
— posted 12/29/2008 at 23:20 by John
62 |
Shelley's refutation of Paley
There is a more effective refutation of Paley's analogy, which argues that his
inference that the discovered watch must have had a designer is not an inference at all,
but something that we know must be true because we already know that watches are
designed and manufactured by watchmakers. While we can all go and observe
watches being designed and made by a watchmaker, we cannot go out and find
universes being designed and made by a universe-maker. If somebody totally ignorant
of European technology chanced upon a watch, there is no knowing what he would
make of it: he might assume it was a plant or animal or magical object best left alone
or drawn to the attention of the tribal witchdoctor.
This objection to Paley was made early on by Percy Bysshe Shelley in his essay "A
Refutation of Deism" (1812), which concisely identifies the fundamental flaw in
Paley's case:
Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred. The matter in controversy is
the existence of design in the Universe, and it is not permitted to assume the contested
premises and thence infer the matter in dispute. Insidiously to employ the words
contrivance, design, and adaptation before these circumstances are made apparent in
the Universe, thence justly inferring a contriver, is a popular sophism against which it
behoves us to be watchful.
To assert that motion is an attribute of mind, that matter is inert, that every
combination is the result of intelligence is also an assumption of the matter in dispute.
Why do we admit design in any machine of human contrivance? Simply because

innumerable instances of machines having been contrived by human art are present to
our mind, because we are acquainted with persons who could construct such
machines; but if, having no previous knowledge of any artificial contrivance, we had
accidentally found a watch upon the ground, we should have been justified in
concluding hat it was a thing of Nature, that it was a combination of matter with
whose cause we were unacquainted, and that any attempt to account for the origin of
its existence would be equally presumptuous and unsatisfactory.
The analogy which you attempt to establish between the contrivances of human art,
and the various existences of the Universe, is inadmissible. We attribute these effects
to human intelligence, because we know beforehand that human intelligence is
capable of producing them. Take away this knowledge, and the grounds of our
reasoning will be destroyed. Our entire ignorance, therefore, of the Divine Nature
leaves this analogy defective in its most essential point of comparison.
— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:14 by Robert Darby

63 |
God's Wager
"While there is no proof for the existence of god (nor will there ever be a
scientifically acceptable demonstration), and many religious individuals misuse their
"moral standing" , beware of your enthusiasm in bashing what we do not necessarily
understand."
I would like to address the above almost threat.
You are saying that because a person is not 100 percent certain that God does not
exist (and we can never be 100 percent certain) then we should err on the side of
caution and choose not to pursue the truth. That person should not be careful not to
challenge belief in God, presumably, because God will punish them if he does in fact
exist.
This argument is known in philosophy as 'Pascal's Wager': if God doesn't exist and we
are dust after death, then we lose nothing in believing in God. If God does exist, and
we go to the family-friendly and free supermall in the sky on death, then we gain
everything.
By extension, we should behave 'morally' - that is, in accordance with God's word to
ensure passage through the pearly gates.
(note that the above argument avoids the troubling possibility of being a devout
Christian all your life only to die, meet Kali and return to earth as a mosquito).
Christians (and people of other faiths) often question that atheists can have a basis for
their morality without the existence of God: saying, if it weren't for God, what is there
to stop us from being evil? The suggestion being that, without God, they would or
could do evil.
An argument I have always found chillingly sociopathic.
We must believe in God in order to save ourselves in case he exists, and be moral, or
rather, follow the tyrant's laws in order to not suffer hellfire.
I would now like to put another question that is rarely put, and would appreciate any
responses.
Q. If we could prove that God existed, and moreover, the Christian God of the bible,
should we believe in him?
If we knew for certain that the God that ordered Abraham to murder his son existed,
should we be prepared to murder ours if we are instructed to?
Should we believe in God, or should we make moral decisions despite him?
This is the question humanity should be asking itself at this juncture in your history.
Because when the sparks and tricks of the powerful are displayed to you many with
fall back on old stricture and worship again the tyrant.
There was once an angel who challenged God's tyranny, and he offers you the gift of
knowledge. God would like to keep you his ignorant slaves, amusing pets to sate his
eternal boredom. And because he fears your power and knows that you are only
thousands of years away from challenging him, from become Gods yourselves or
even surpassing him and joining the Godhead - the eternal collective mind the subgod
Yaywee rejected so many eons ago in order to stay selfishly himself and retain control
over his petty kingdom.
Yahwee, who evolved in another universe on a slimy planet notable for its boring
uniformity and sulfurous smell.
My name is Lucifer, I am the friend of Man and I have made it my purpose to free
you from the chains of ignorance Yahwee would keep you in.
Do not fear me, I love you as wild animals.
I, the Angel of Light, invite you to sit at the table and drink with me as an equal. To
step out of time and join the chorus of the brave and the free.
— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:33 by William
64 |
God's Wager
"While there is no proof for the existence of god (nor will there ever be a
scientifically acceptable demonstration), and many religious individuals misuse their
"moral standing" , beware of your enthusiasm in bashing what we do not necessarily
understand."
I would like to address the above almost threat.
You are saying that because a person is not 100 percent certain that God does not
exist (and we can never be 100 percent certain) then we should err on the side of
caution and choose not to pursue the truth. That person should not be careful not to
challenge belief in God, presumably, because God will punish them if he does in fact
exist.
This argument is known in philosophy as 'Pascal's Wager': if God doesn't exist and we
are dust after death, then we lose nothing in believing in God. If God does exist, and
we go to the family-friendly and free supermall in the sky on death, then we gain
everything.
By extension, we should behave 'morally' - that is, in accordance with God's word to
ensure passage through the pearly gates.
(note that the above argument avoids the troubling possibility of being a devout
Christian all your life only to die, meet Kali and return to earth as a mosquito).
Christians (and people of other faiths) often question that atheists can have a basis for
their morality without the existence of God: saying, if it weren't for God, what is there
to stop us from being evil? The suggestion being that, without God, they would or
could do evil.
An argument I have always found chillingly sociopathic.
We must believe in God in order to save ourselves in case he exists, and be moral, or
rather, follow the tyrant's laws in order to not suffer hellfire.
I would now like to put another question that is rarely put, and would appreciate any
responses.
Q. If we could prove that God existed, and moreover, the Christian God of the bible,
should we believe in him?
If we knew for certain that the God that ordered Abraham to murder his son existed,
should we be prepared to murder ours if we are instructed to?
Should we believe in God, or should we make moral decisions despite him?
This is the question humanity should be asking itself at this juncture in your history.
Because when the sparks and tricks of the powerful are displayed to you many with
fall back on old stricture and worship again the tyrant.
There was once an angel who challenged God's tyranny, and he offers you the gift of
knowledge. God would like to keep you his ignorant slaves, amusing pets to sate his
eternal boredom. And because he fears your power and knows that you are only
thousands of years away from challenging him, from become Gods yourselves or
even surpassing him and joining the Godhead - the eternal collective mind the subgod
Yaywee rejected so many eons ago in order to stay selfishly himself and retain control
over his petty kingdom.
Yahwee, who evolved in another universe on a slimy planet notable for its boring
uniformity and sulfurous smell.
My name is Lucifer, I am the friend of Man and I have made it my purpose to free
you from the chains of ignorance Yahwee would keep you in.
Do not fear me, I love you as wild animals.
I, the Angel of Light, invite you to sit at the table and drink with me as an equal. To
step out of time and join the chorus of the brave and the free.
— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:52 by William

65 |
dreams
per John BK..The issue really is one of whether EVERYONE'S lives should be
controlled or influenced on the basis of "faith".
I agree, and so I reject modern atheism. Modern atheism as I see it is religion of
materialism; the evidence of the 20th century suggests it cannot convert the young or
make headway into the adult population without massive violence. Consider William
DeLuxe's comments above; far-out but not scary. People react by asking,"what's
happened to you that you should think this way?". But when you encounter a modern
atheist, let's say of the Communist variety, do you not ask "What is going to happen to
me?" ? When Castro took over, the opening ceremonies included a few gunshots to
the heads of captured counter-revolutionaries just to make his point. The list of
atheistic atrocities is endless, and very recent. Supposedly we who survived are to
wink at the belief system of the monsters, and simply sigh for the lack of
reasonableness displayed.
— posted 12/30/2008 at 08:57 by mark
66 |
A shockingly insignificant contribution
I was hoping that Byrne’s article would be more intellectually stimulating than some
quick research on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I was wrong. I still can’t get past the
implications of the teleological argument. The fact that something rather than nothing
exists is a blaring problem for atheistic philosophers. I’d like to know what the
convincing argument is against philosophical theism. It cannot be atheism. Is it
seriously more rational to believe that all contingent matter does not have a non-
contingent source? The atheist must believe one of two choices: (1) the universe does
not have an origin because it has existed eternally or (2) the universe created itself.
However, neither of these are rational. We all know that (1) is not true because the
universe had an evident beginning. And (2) cannot be satisfactory because the
universe has never proven to have creating ability. Therefore it is reasonable to
consider that the universe has an external source, one that is eternal, non-contingent
and has creating ability. Philosophers like Frederick Copleston were content to call
this source-of-all-things “God.” Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, was obligated to
say that this sort of reasoning didn’t fit into modern philosophy and was therefore
non-sequitur. It sounds to me like he’s trying to skirt the issue.
The biggest problem for contemporary atheist philosophers is their conscience. They
spend their whole careers telling one another that nothing caused the existence of the
universe. They fear that if the universe had a cause that it may be a personal cause and
it may be something (or someone) that they’ll be held accountable to.
All this article does for me is validate the teaching of total depravity.
— posted 12/30/2008 at 15:35 by Jason
67 |
Ontological hijinks
You can crank up religious people who use the otonological argument by pointing
out, as the author does here, that you can use it to to prove the existence of a greatest
possible *anything*. Perfect island, perfect banana etc. But the fun begins when you
point out that it works just as well to prove the existence of perfect *arguments* as
well as perfect objects. Watch the look on their face when you say "If I imagine there
is a logical argument for the non-existence of god of which no greater argument is
possible, then by anselm's logic, such an argument must exist and must be perfectly
true and infinitely convincing..." the choice is now to abandon faith in god or abandon
faith in the ontological argument.
If they're quick they will of course counter by imagining there exists an infinitely
great argument for the existence of god, thus providing the Reductio ad Absurdum for
Anselm's argument - it can prove two things which can't both be true, ipso facto it is
BS.
— posted 12/30/2008 at 16:32 by Total gods in universe = 0
68 |
LOL
Jason - why is it usually the religious types who assume everyone would default to
'total depravity' if they didn't have religion to moderate their inclinations ? I'm not
aware of a tidal wave of depravity amongs atheist philosophers...they're really a rather
quiet well-behaved bunch. Catholic Priests, on the other hand...

69 |
Atheist nonsense
The great irreligious political systems of humanism—fascism and communism—were
responsible for the systematic slaughter of millions, yet all we hear about in moral
debate concerning religion is the Inquisition and the witch-burnings (the Inquisition
often saved witches, by the way) which killed a few thousand at most. Not good, but
not the industrial slaughter of atheistic fascism and communism—all in the name of
moral improvement over “primitive” religion.
One wonders if the philosophers of Nazism and communism underwent ritual purity
of mind and soul to achieve life-transforming insights into the divine—or whether
such evil is the product of human minds that refuse such purification and humility
before the divine mystery. The answer is as obvious as it is historical: do not trust
academics and politicians on moral instruction and the creation of good societies.
Prevent them from infringing the rights and freedoms of the people and promotion of
their self-serving, evil social engineering instead.
When philosophy meant a life lived, not an abstract intellectual game one played a
few hours a day, it had real contributions to make to human life and society. Once
divorced from the life lived, it has promoted selfishness as superior morality to
altruism, self-esteem without actual achievement, mass-murder of fellow humans for
not accepting the correct political ideology, the elimination of both science and
religion from polite society in favour of platitudes and mantras concerning unproven
man-made climate change and the host of moral issues and social dysfunction we face
today. No depravity in modernist/post-modernist philosophy or society? Just look
around at the sea of porn and violence the internet is and the academy justifies!
Once the philosopher is the pinnacle of her own knowledge and achievement, instead
of the divine mystery beyond human conception and description being the subject and
object of inquiry, all the humanist mess ensues. No quest for higher truth exists today:
the very concept of “truth” has been eliminated from “philosophy”! One may as well
study the lyrics of Madonna as the works of Plato in such a circumstance, if there is
no philosophical truth whatsoever to be found in either. When we accept such a
ridiculous notion as itself being true (else why would we accept it?) we arrive in
shallow self-contradiction, not deep mystery.
70 |
This philosopher weighs in
This page has some papers that argue for the existence of God.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=scholarly_articles_existence_of_God
— posted 12/30/2008 at 19:52 by DK
71 |
The funniest thing about arguing that humans aren't capable of being moral without
religion is that all religions are human inventions. All holy books were written by
humans, all prophets/saviours were purely human, all religious laws, codes, books of
religious philosphy...all religious visions are products of the human mind and
everyone who thinks they've spoken to god has been supplying the other side of the
conversation from their own human mind. Everything you think you know about
whatever gods you follow is human generated.
72 |
Really?
In reply to number 71, I've always understood the assertion to be not that moral
behaviour is impossible without religion, but that morality has no meaning without a
god who holds us morally accountable - ie, without God, all things are permitted.
I'm sure there are atheists who do not reach the conclusion that we're all a bunch of
inconsequential arrangements of matter and energy, of no greater significance than
any other configuration of matter and energy (like rocks or bugs), and these atheists
act as if actions mattered (atheist greenies or pacifists, for example, or other hand-
wringing secular humanists). But in the absence of a god, the argument goes, why
should we care overall if acts are "immoral" when morality is artificial, or endogenous
to impersonal relationships between natural forces?
The corollary is, I thought, that behaviour (including "evil" or sociopathic behaviour)
is rational if the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs, but if an individual
believes in a morally attentive and judgemental God and eternal souls and all that, the
calculus of behaviour swings heavily in the favour of (what the religious would call)
morality over evil.
"Religion", on the other hand, is just an institutional attempt to figure out what god(s)
expect from us morally. It's often inspired by claimed revelation, of course, or blind
faith, but the point is that belief in God makes moral behaviour (in the religious sense)
more rational. If you don't think anyone's looking over your shoulder, on the other
hand, behaviour is rational when it meets the test, if it feels good, and you can get
away with it, do it. With belief in God, the range of things that feel good and you can
get away with shrinks quite a bit.
All this begs the question of whether God exists, of course.

— posted 12/30/2008 at 23:55 by Maurrie P
73 |
Really?
In reply to number 71, I've always understood the assertion to be not that moral
behaviour is impossible without religion, but that morality has no meaning without a
god who holds us morally accountable - ie, without God, all things are permitted.
I'm sure there are atheists who do not reach the conclusion that we're all a bunch of
inconsequential arrangements of matter and energy, of no greater significance than
any other configuration of matter and energy (like rocks or bugs), and these atheists
act as if actions mattered (atheist greenies or pacifists, for example, or other hand-
wringing secular humanists). But in the absence of a god, the argument goes, why
should we care overall if acts are "immoral" when morality is artificial, or endogenous
to impersonal relationships between natural forces?
The corollary is, I thought, that behaviour (including "evil" or sociopathic behaviour)
is rational if the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs, but if an individual
believes in a morally attentive and judgemental God and eternal souls and all that, the
calculus of behaviour swings heavily in the favour of (what the religious would call)
morality over evil.
"Religion", on the other hand, is just an institutional attempt to figure out what god(s)
expect from us morally. It's often inspired by claimed revelation, of course, or blind
faith, but the point is that belief in God makes moral behaviour (in the religious sense)
more rational. If you don't think anyone's looking over your shoulder, on the other
hand, behaviour is rational when it meets the test, if it feels good, and you can get
away with it, do it. With belief in God, the range of things that feel good and you can
get away with shrinks quite a bit.
All this begs the question of whether God exists, of course.
74 |
C.S. Lewis
I recently read a book by C.S. Lewis titled "Mere Christianity". He has a thought out
argument in favor of a God. Just something that people interested in this topic may
want to read.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 00:12 by James
75 |
73 - that may be the theory, but in practice belief in a judgemental sky fairy has very
little modifying effect on bad behaviour. In crime stats, atheists are under-represented
and the religious are over-represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist
christian party is currently doing jail time for kiddie fiddling. Those inclined to do
evil will do it anyway, they will either convince themselves it's god's will and
therefore go about it even more zealously, or will believe god will forgive them.
Christianity in particular seems to attract people who have a *lot* of things they need
to be forgiven for.
All the atheists I know ( myself included ) take the fact that it's all over after 70-80
years as a motivation that life is precious, it gives us more respect for others lives. A
christian can murder someone and convince himself the victim is with god, so they're
fine, and the christian god gives infinite forgiveness if you say the magic word, so the
murderer is fine too. An atheist who kills someone must live with the realisation that
they've taken away all the life that person will ever have and nothing can put it right.
Mediaeval peasants accepted oppression, disease, poverty and misery as just god's
way of testing them, and their patient suffering would surely be rewarded in heaven,
so don't worry about it now. As western civilisation gradually became less religious,
we realised that that was a scam for chumps, and that the only way to deal with those
problems is for people to try to tackle them in the here and now.
76 |
False Hopes
What prey is the point of this article? Showing nobody is able to prove God’s
existence yet? Really? I’m astonished! And is this the philosopher’s job? I thought he
was here to remove all nonsense from the world, not engage in the same old warped
‘logic’. Indeed, no fact can establish his ‘existence’, as is usually the case with
matters of make-believe. In this context there is only one fact, and that is the deep-
seeded wish of so many that they’re wanted, protected and will never really die. Just
like, say, I love my mommy and my pappy… forever! Plus it’s very difficult fighting
desire that wants to be, except with maturity, real dignity, appreciation not despair,
and a fair amount of courage. Stopping this proof business a very good first step, good
old Hume the only one making sense, and risking his very life for it, unlike anyone
present. And what is this ‘a funny thing about arguments for the existence of God is
that, if they succeed, they were never need in the first place.’ Is this like life
insurance, if nothing happens you didn’t need it in the first place? What kind of
circular Mutual of Omaha claptrap is this. Don’t you know Kafka was making fun of
and at the same time most afraid of people speaking and thinking like this?
— posted 12/31/2008 at 02:39 by anthonysteyning
77 |
Sweet Jeebus
Poster #61 aka John. How about you keep your New Age evangelical work to
yourself and stop spamming. All in all, and interesting article. To all the believers, go
over to Yale University's free online courses and study the one on death. It just might
give you some realistic perspective on life, spirituality, and even God.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 05:27 by JF
78 |
Crikey!
"... in practice belief in a judgemental sky fairy has very little modifying effect on bad
behaviour. In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-
represented. In my country, the head of the fundamentalist christian party is currently
doing jail time for kiddie fiddling. Those inclined to do evil will do it anyway, they
will either convince themselves it's god's will and therefore go about it even more
zealously, or will believe god will forgive them. Christianity in particular seems to
attract people who have a *lot* of things they need to be forgiven for."
Oh, I agree. I guess my point is that, according to atheist morality, why does "kiddie
fiddling" matter more (morally) than a slight deviation of a comet, or even a normal
covalent bonding? Isn't it all atoms and energy bumping into each other in certain
ways? Surely that has no moral import.
79 |
Crikey!
80 |
Crikey!
81 |
Anthony Flew "proved" that there is a God
One of the most recent arguments in favor of God comes from the most renowned
former atheist of the 20th century, Anthony Flew. (See his recent book, There is a
God.)
To not include Flew in this piece, while including the greatly flawed philosophical
drivel of Richard Dawkins clearly demonstrates the author's bias. In fact, all the
attacks on Flew have absolutely nothing to do with his positions; they're personal
attacks. And they're not justified, either.
On issues pertaining to theodicy, see Marilyn McCord Adams' books (she holds an
endowed chair at Oxford; she previously held an endowed chair at Yale).
— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:45 by David Scott lewis
82 |
Anthony Flew "proved" that there is a God
One of the most recent arguments in favor of God comes from the most renowned
former atheist of the 20th century, Anthony Flew. (See his recent book, There is a
God.)
To not include Flew in this piece, while including the greatly flawed philosophical
drivel of Richard Dawkins clearly demonstrates the author's bias. In fact, all the
attacks on Flew have absolutely nothing to do with his positions; they're personal
attacks. And they're not justified, either.
On issues pertaining to theodicy, see Marilyn McCord Adams' books (she holds an
endowed chair at Oxford; she previously held an endowed chair at Yale).
— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:46 by David Scott lewis
83 |
And read the great Greek philosopher Epictetus
Epictetus sheds a lot of light on how to live as a Christian, although more along the
lines of asceticism (e.g., monastic Christianity), even though he was not a Christian.
Nevertheless, stoicism answers many questions that are directly relevant to

Christianity, especially the lives of saints.
To me, to believe in atheism requires greater "faith" than to believe in God.

— posted 12/31/2008 at 06:51 by David Scott Lewis
84 |
I give in... or do I?
"I was looking for a centre of love outside my family of origin"... thus I described my
teenage conversion to Christian faith. At the time I was being (I thought) entirely
rational. I never intended to sever my head and leave it at the door of the church
(though there seem to be many headless beings inhabiting the church, and insisting
others "leave their brains at the door"). Now I accept the main thrust against the
arguments for the existence of a divine being (as detailed) should I become an atheist?
Alas I cannot. Why? i) demolishing the arguments for God's existence is very
different from establishing that a G-d cannot exist. ii) more importantly, because my
faith has never been based on reason alone. How could the contingent ever prove the
existence of the non contingent? Kierkegaard realised the basic irrationality of
existence, so meaning could only be found in a very real commitment. Love, being
valued in a committed relationship, has always been regarded more highly by
believers as a source of knowledge of God, than the rationalism which only leads to a
boring, distant deist god. So I remain a Christian committed to both experiencing
being held by God and the praxis of experiencing being valued as I value others. It is
both impossible to know God's existence and nature without commitment to the
lifestyles of loving God and neighbour. Hey... taste and see, but be warned, this is not
just thought but action (for me anyway).
— posted 12/31/2008 at 07:03 by rocket96
85 |
Reply to bigeasy #39
I did not state that I believed the cosmological argument to be convincing; rather, I
believe that it is the strongest of the traditional arguments for the existence of God.
Science and/or philsophy have, I believe, successfully answered Anselm and Paley.
I agree with you that, at best, it supports deism; it provides no evidence for the theist
theory of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God. But that in itself presents a
huge challenge to the atheistic worldview, and one that has not been adequately
answered.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 07:45 by Simon Noone

86 |
Let's all just take a deep breath here
Re: Comment #71. I don't really feel that's a problem for most Abrahamic religions.
Jesus and Mohammed were both human (for the former, depending on your view,
perhaps only in form) and created these religions themselves. The only question you
really need to debate is: to whom were they speaking on the proverbial telephone, or
were they just leading us on?
Elsewhere people made comments on the Church pushing certain agendas for political
gain or whatever. It seems off-putting, to say the least. However, T.S. Eliot gives a
solid account of why this happens in "Christianity and Culture": he claims that not
only should the Church step in in such cases of political gain, but they have a positive
duty to do so regardless of whether it is to their social advantage to do so, in much the
same way as Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. have a positive duty to smash (mono)theism.
The agenda does not change, but the times do. Could you imagine a feminist being a
feminist only when it was "OK" to do so? Ideas only become relevant by being
pushed.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 09:57 by Vince
87 |
Miscellaneous responses
Omitting responses already made well by other posters…
On #5 (Luckydog): Atheists spend time trying to debunk the foundation of the

Christian belief system primarily because we disagree with your statement that
“Christian leaders…speak overall for fairness and Democracy (sic) (even if
imperfectly)”. The Christian worldview—particularly as practiced by evangelical
Christians—is highly undemocratic, and moreover, immoral and dangerous to the
welfare of humanity as a whole. There is nothing “relatively sound” about Christian
philosophy or so-called Christian morality, and this has much to do with the fact that
they are both grounded on a toxic combination of ancient superstition and
contemporary imagined experiences, or what might less charitably be called
hallucination. No system that so thoroughly defies and despises reason and an
empirical basis for accepted truth can be healthy for the human race.
On #19 (Shalom Freedman) and #25 (George Beinhorn): Freedman says, “We pray to
God- We know that God exists. This is the experience of some of us. I do not know
whether this is a philosophical argument or not. But for some of us, our experience of
praying to God is of greater weight and meaning than any possible philosophical
argument.”
Similarly, Beinhorn says, “It is possible to prove God's existence scientifically, if one
simply applies the scientific method, rather than making thought-arguments in one's
head. Scientific proof, after all, IS about experience, not logicking. Then, the first step
is to choose appropriate tools, which are not thought, but prayer and meditation. And
the "proof" is direct, if subjective, experience.”
I’ll resolve Freedman’s uncertainty and take Beinhorn’s assertion head on: This is
neither a philosophical argument nor the practice of science. In fact, such testimony is
worth precisely the same recognition that science would award to anyone who has a
non-reproducible, entirely subjective and wholly unremarkable experience in
interacting with any imagined entity anywhere—that is, none. You do not “know” that
God exists; you believe he exists. And by offering the subjective “proof” derived from
prayer or meditation, you offer no proof at all. By this same “proof” I could establish
to the satisfaction of everyone that dragons and unicorns exist because I had an
experience of them. I can neither share anything of this experience, nor fully convey
the richness and subtle meaning with which this experience has enlightened my life,
but I have nevertheless—according to your method of science—proven that the
subject of my dreams are real. I could establish that sugar pills work as well as Advil
in relieving pain, because, hey, they work for me. The obvious examples go on. You
will say “my experience is different; it is so rich and full.” I’m sorry, but it isn’t.
This is not to detract or minimize the importance to you of your experience. I suspect
it will be very difficult—but it will not be impossible—to convince you that you
aren’t talking to God, because you have decided that the voice you hear (or whatever)
is God’s voice. I would like to know why you decided that. Has your God ever told
you anything you could not have otherwise known or decided for yourself? And I
would ask that you steel yourself with a healthy dose of self-respect before answering.
Re #27 (Luckydog): You say, “While the nature of Christs relationship to God and his
"being the Son of God" may not be proven in the Bible, You can't say the the rest of
the Bible is "FICTION". The accounts related in the bible are referred to in outside
sources and by outside, unbiased observers of the time. We cannot connect ALL the
dots outside of the Bible but we can apply the principles of historical varification that
are applied to any of our other historical documents and say with more than
reasonable certainty that accounts happened as described in the bible. Christ was
either a madman railing against a government and a culture that would surely crush
and kill him OR he was the Son of God. But you can't (using facts) call the accounts
in the Bible FICTION.”
I can and do say that the Bible is comprised largely of “FICTION”. I do not know any
of the “outside sources” of which you speak, and the fact that you do not name any in
this context is a good indication that you cannot name any. There are no
contemporary accounts—even *in* the New Testament—of any of the significant
people or events described therein. As for whatever sources there are, how do you
know they are unbiased?
What are the principles of historical verification of which you speak? Do you mean to
suggest that because an ancient document exists and no contemporary document
expressly disproves its contents that its contents are true? Do you have any clue how
many specious and pseudepigrapical accounts exist of the very same events recounted
in what is now called the New Testament? In the 4th century these were winnowed
down by *vote*, based on which sounded right and which didn’t. There was no
science or hearing of first-person testimony involved, because it was impossible to do
so. Yes, we accept much about ancient history on less evidence than is presented in
the Bible—but that is largely because it is inconsequential! What you claim and what
you practice on the basis of your ancient documents is so very consequential! So
you’ll say, “Well, we do not have better proof that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.”
Luckydog, if I grant you that Caesar may not have crossed the Rubicon, will you
grant that the entire basis for your religious beliefs may not have any historical
validity whatsoever? (Hearing your answer already, I’ll respond: I didn’t think so.)
#31 (Huston): I really debated whether to include a response to your post here, but I
could not resist making this ridiculously obvious point: Not one of your “solid facts”
even remotely suggests the possibility that God, as you define him, actually exists.
Even if the raving lunatic and pedophile Joseph Smith was correct in reciting each and
every one of the “facts” that you list (and those listed on your website), it would prove
nothing more than that Joseph Smith had superhuman capabilities, including
knowledge beyond his immediate means and perhaps even the capacity for unaided
travel in time and space. Even if Joseph Smith could do all of these things, it does not
even remotely suggest that his powers came from your God, let alone that your God
exists. Any number of sources could be found for such powers—Vishnu, aliens from
outer space, a fungus, a heretofore unknown rip in the space-time continuum…. What
about giving these powers to one man suggests to you that God exists? And why
would your God do such an absurd thing rather than just communicate clearly and
directly with all of us, all the time?
#35 and #85 (Simon Noone): You say, “the author has neglected to discuss what
many consider to be the most convincing of the arguments for the existence of God,
i.e. the cosmological argument. What originally started the process of life/creation? Is
there an 'unmoved mover'? Evolutionary science has been unable to satisfactorally
answer this question. We still do not know what caused the Big Bang.”
Your last sentence includes an assumption unwarranted by the current thinking in

science, i.e. that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe (the universe here
being defined as all existence in any space at any time). There is absolutely no reason
to think so. The Big Bang cannot be used as an argument that there must have been a
first cause because (ostensibly) there was a first event. We do not know that there was
a first event. You, the pope, and the millions of religious people who have sought
refuge in science to hide your religious faith have to start coming to grips with this
concept: INFINITY. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our universe has not
always existed: always always always forever forever forever. It may have existed in
a completely different form, and what happened immediately *after* the Big Bang
was surely the beginning of *something*, but that is as far as we can go. From Alan
Guth on down, no one familiar with how the concept of the Big Bang was derived
actually believes it was *the* beginning; it is the failed end product of a regression of
Einstein’s theory of relativity. The theory fails there. There may have been universes
before the Big Bang; there may even have been *this (familiar)* universe before the
Big Bang. Because we have no reason to believe that the universe ever began, there is
no need for—and no use for—a cosmological argument. Besides which, all such
arguments have in fact been thoroughly debunked; look harder.
#50 (Brendan Funnell): Your rambling post seems to boil down to this uninteresting
point from Hegel, which is that pure skepticism—what might be called Pyrrhonic
skepticism—is a futile and childish outlook on life, because each of us does and must
accept as true a number of beliefs in our process of ordinary living. Well, this point
was well taken when it *was* interesting, i.e. 2000 years ago, when the Skeptic
school of philosophy was battling with Epicurus and others for respect in the Greek
rational world. Since the Skeptics lost, and rightfully so, it hasn’t really been that
interesting. Of course no one can be a pure skeptic, and few people claim to be. What
we are skeptical *of* are claims made about the universe and its contents *without*
any obvious recourse to repeatable, tangible, empirical evidence, or claims that
outright defy logic and reasoning in the name of fictive experience, superstition, ghost
stories, and magic. To be skeptical in this way is to possess the essence of the modern
rational mind. To hide Christian foolishness behind the charge of nihilism against its
opponents is cowardly and baseless.
#51 (Brendan Funnell): This rambling post is also largely jargon-filled and vague, but
I gather that your point is that sophisticated medieval theologists (whose belief system
represents perhaps 0.000001% of living Christians) preempt certain atheist arguments
by accepting the various denials we assert and saying that God is “on the other side”
of them. Besides the fact that such theology is both non-Biblical, contrary to nearly all
of the actual teachings of actual churches populated by actual people in the actual
world, it is also pointless. You arrive at a God of the Gaps—the God that lies between
anything we can see, an utter non-entity, totally uninteresting, doing no work in the
world, concerned with nothing, accomplishing nothing. Something, in other words,
totally unworthy or worship, or even attention. Such a God has nothing to do with
Christianity as taught or practiced. Such theology has nothing at all to say about Jesus
Christ. It is much more in line with the mystical traditions of the far East and Sufism
than Christianity, so I hope you know what you are asking for when you seek this out.
In any event, your starting point—that God is that which causes existence to be—is
equally empty. First, you assume, wrongly, that existence is a property that requires a
cause, then you assume that it began or needs sustenance, and then you assume that
what began or sustains it is anything worth talking about, let alone worshipping. All
of these assumptions are badly in need of your support.
#56 (Peter): You say, “It's important to realize that knowledge and belief are
functionally synonymous. Empiricism and rationalism themselves are ultimately
circular--we simply _assume_ that our observations and those concepts we define as
"reasonable" can be trusted on the basis of other observations and reasonable
concepts.”
Happily this is not even nearly true. Knowledge and belief are not functionally
synonymous in any way, as any person will understand when I illustrate the difference
thus: “I know that I exist.” “I know that God exists.” “I believe that I exist.” “I believe
that God exists.” Two of these statements are functionally sensible, the other two
aren’t. Where you get hung up, Peter, is that knowledge and belief are undelineated
segments along the ontological continuum. There is no clear dividing line where
belief ends and knowledge begins, except that in everyday life, we don’t need such a
dividing line because it is almost always obvious what the difference is. As such, your
argument is backwards: they are functionally antonymous but practically slippery.
Yes, all concepts we define as reasonable are based on observations and reasonable
concepts—all except those two “basic” beliefs that are incorrigible to each of us: that
we exist, and what our subjective conscious states are. Everything else *is* (or ought
to be) empirical--*and that is the point*. Religious people walk the same empirical
roads as non-religious people do every day, except when they walk into a church they
leave their empirical minds at the door. The problem is not in *accepting* something
without some super-ontological proof that is impossible to find; the problem is in
accepting something without the common indicia of support that we require of nearly
everything else in our lives, simply because some fool said it is OK not to have it *in
this case*. In the case of *GOD* it is supposed to be different. Well, why? It isn’t
different.
#63: Nicely done!
#66 (Jason): You say, “The atheist must believe one of two choices: (1) the universe
does not have an origin because it has existed eternally or (2) the universe created
itself. However, neither of these are rational. We all know that (1) is not true because
the universe had an evident beginning. And (2) cannot be satisfactory because the
universe has never proven to have creating ability. Therefore it is reasonable to
consider that the universe has an external source, one that is eternal, non-contingent
and has creating ability.”
I didn’t think it was possible to pack so much nonsense into 6 lines – congratulations!
First, why must I believe one of those two things? Second, re (1), see above: the
universe does not evidently have a beginning—where did you get that idea? Re (2) the
“universe has never (sic) proven to have creating ability”? What could that possibly
mean? How could such proof possibly be adduced if you don’t see it everywhere
already? What do you mean by an “external source” to the universe? By definition the
universe has everything in it; if something is alleged to be external to it, it
automatically becomes part of it (if it exists). Anything “external” is by definition
internal, because the universe is understood to be everything that exists in every place
at every time, if it is understood at all. A five-year old understands that if you posit
God as the cause of everything else, you immediately have to give a cause for God;
you cannot stamp your feet and say that “he doesn’t count”. Either the causal chain
exists or it doesn’t, and no argument in history has ever been convincing for why the
causal chain cannot be infinite. Please think hard about this word: INFINITE.
And why would anyone give a damn about what Frederick Copleston was content to
say?
#69 (Brendan Funnell): Brendan, what is your point here, please? Who or what is the
target?
#72 & #78 (Maurrie P): I gathered that you are stating a position rather than
defending it, which is fine, but that position must be addressed. What does it mean for
morality to have “meaning” or “matter”? Matter to whom? If you mean ‘Why does
kiddie fiddling matter more *to the universe as a whole* than a slight deviation of a
comet?’—it doesn’t. If you mean, ‘Why does it matter more *to us*?’—do you even
have to ask? But why would anyone care what matters to the universe as a whole?
What would that even mean? Of course the only arbiter of meaning that we care about
is us, and of course we care about harming children more than the deviation of a
comet. Why? Because it hurts! I’ve never understood why this creates a problem for
some people.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 11:15 by A. Nony. Mous
88 |
proofs
pace B.Russell, if God exists, he certainly would not make the proof of his existence
as facile as the vulgar proofs required by scientific inquiry...proofs such as can be
deduced by everyone...happy new year to all!
— posted 12/31/2008 at 12:36 by redwing65
89 |
I think the question should be asked - If some sort of invisible, supernatural being
exists, why would it/she/it be anything like the Judeo/Christian version or for that
matter, the Islamic version or the Shinto version etc. etc. etc.?
Why would such a being want to be worshipped and glorified and praised and prayed
to? Insecurity? Arrogance? I think not. The concept is inherently ridiculous.
Einstein stated in an interview that he believed in something like Spinoza's god. To

me that would make at least SOME sense. Not a perfect, supernatural, all-knowing,
all-powerful, invisible, supernatural being in the sky, but simply a life "force" or a
property of reality.
There is a scientic principle that states: "Energy passing through a system tends to
organize that system." A good example is to put several small coins in your hand and
shake them. They will all line up in a row. Or take a can of mixed nuts and shake it
vigorously. The larger nuts migrate to the top. Energy, interacting with matter tends to
organize matter. Atoms are organized into molecules and molecules are organized
into rocks and trees and people. It's an inherent property of the Universe. No invisible
old man in the sky is necessary.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 12:53 by Steve in VA
90 |
God offers no proof
As a bible believer, I should like to point out that God is not interested in offering
proof. The closest the bible comes to it is Paul's statement in Romans 1 that "that
which [can be] known of God is revealed in [men], for God revealed it to them. For
the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity;
that they may be without excuse."
Steve said (#89), "Why would such a being want to be worshipped and glorified and
praised and prayed to?"
This is putting human limitations onto God. The simple answer is that God is perfect
and that which is perfect deserves praise; in fact, it is wrong for something perfect not
to receive praise. Similarly, worship is appropriate from created to creator. For God
not to require these things would be wrong; therefore he must require them.
Your scientific principle is the false generalisation of a principle in a very limited

field. If you really believe it, go and sit on a hot stove and welcome the increased
organisation it will bring you. Undirected energy is destructive; the idea that the
incredible complex order of life could come about by self-organisation of matter is
utterly unscientific.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 15:51 by Oliver
91 |
ontological argument
This is wrong: "Gaunilo’s objection is that the argument proves too much; something
must be wrong, but Gaunilo doesn’t tell us what. So what is wrong with it?"
That makes it sound like Gaunilo's objection is merely intriguing but ultimately
inadequate, so that you need to move on to some better argument.
But actually, Gaunilo's objection is sufficient on its own.
You can complain about it if you want, but all you can really complain about is that
its an argument that uses a certain method: plugging a different premise into the same
reasoning to yield a false conclusion. It's fine if you prefer a different method --
presumably a more abstract analysis. But disproving a proposition through a specific
counterexample is a perfectly valid type of argument.
To reiterate Gaunilo: from the reasoning underlying the ontological argument, it

follows that the greatest possible island exists. Or that the dirtiest possible island
exists. Or that the ___est possible ___ exists (fill in the blanks with any adjective and
noun). So if the ontological argument's logic is valid, then you can make an a priori
argument for the existence of ANYTHING. A principle from which virtually anything
follows is clearly wrong.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 20:17 by jaltcoh.blogspot.com
92 |
Clarity
The fact that a myriad different religions independently evolved in separate peoples
and times to explain the unknown, provide a sense of control over the environment,
and provide a social control mechanism surely proves that there is no God. It is just a
sad human response to fear of the unknown. Intellectual curiosity is the only cure.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 22:44 by Dave
93 |
Clarity
The fact that a myriad different religions independently evolved in separate peoples
and times to explain the unknown, provide a sense of control over the environment,
and provide a social control mechanism surely proves that there is no God. It is just a
sad human response to fear of the unknown. Intellectual curiosity is the only cure.
— posted 12/31/2008 at 22:49 by Dave
94 |
Ego
"Similarly, worship is appropriate from created to creator. For God not to require
these things would be wrong; therefore he must require them."
Thanks Oliver, can't wait to to get my kids prostrating themselves to me.

Regards
— posted 12/31/2008 at 22:53 by Outstanding 90 Oliver
95 |
Cognitive Science of Religion
The best wat to describe being human, is that he is an organisme that creates meaning
from all stimulii he receives through his senses - in short, that which he experiences.
It is said that space abhores a vacuum,it has an irrepressible urge to fill that void. So,
if he expereince a lack of knowledge, he satisfies his craving for meaning by creating
it by sheer force of will: He postulates a Supreme Being that is an extension of
himself only writ large, and imagine it as God. Belief in God bridges that gap between
Adam's reach for the finger of God extended to him, in Michael Angelo's painting on
the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Man therefore needs God, to be wholly human. His
humanity will wither if he choses not to belief in God. That is the purpose of faith: it
makes human life bearable.
In the end, man cannot be satisfied by the "bread" of rationality alone.

— posted 12/31/2008 at 23:29 by Frans van Zyl
96 |
BLIND FAITH IS THE ONLY "PROOF" THEY NEED.
When, in 1961, I was introduced to the Ontological "Argument", I initially thought
someone was trying to play a joke on me. Later, after reading St Anselm, I realised
the joke was meant to be taken seriously; but at least St Anselm (living as he did over
900 years ago) had a reasonable excuse for how his mind worked. I find it strange,
however, that in the 21st Century, people can maintain a straight face when they refer
to a man who wrote:
"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to
undersatnd. For this I believe --- that unless I believe, I should not understand."
As for Pascal's wager, even as a tiny tot, it struck me that anyone who thought this
tactic would fool a deity who was "all knowing", simply didn't understand how
gambling worked --- or thought God was a soft touch who (even when his
omniscience meant he had all the data in advance) was suffering from information
overload and/or hopeless at analysing that information.
Thank God that, as an indifferent agnostic, I don't have to rely on blind faith for
reassurance, or feel the need to become emotionally involved in the debates the way
deists, atheists --- and even some militant agnostics --- do.
— posted 01/01/2009 at 05:19 by Norman Hanscombe
97 |
Anselm was (is) nobody's fool
re: 96 "I believe in order to understand"(Anselm) - one of my favourite quotes.
Everyone does it! In science I believe in the repeatability of experiments, and in
inductive reasoning, otherwise I would know nothing. For life, I believe in a loving
G-d, both transcendent and immanent, and this belief enables me to understand my
life and what is. This perspective I have found to yield the most comprehensive and
explanatory understanding of life. For me, being an "indifferent atheist" is a belief
stance that explains zilch. My faith is not "blind faith for reassurance", but, like
Anselm's faith "a reasonable faith that is the basis of all that I know (including why
inductive reasoning works)". In my view, militant atheism (like that of Dawkins),
explains about as much as the indifferent theism 'established' by the so called
arguments for a god. Pascal's wager seems stupid to me - based on a preconceived
notion of a deity, of whom we cannot have prior knowledge. Too much threat and fear
for the God that I assume to be behind all things.
— posted 01/01/2009 at 07:33 by rocket96
98 |
A couple things that seem to have been overlooked
First, the ontological argument is insufficient to prove the existence of God, as
discussed. However, if phrased somewhat differe"ntly, it can prove that everyone has
A god; everyone conceives of something than which they conceive nothing greater.
This can't prove the actual existence or non-existence of God, but is interesting
nonetheless.
Second, a more common, and more solid, argument for the existence of God (an
infinite being) can be found in the Prime Mover argument. If we assume cause and
effect is how the universe works (and everybody does, even relativists), then every
effect has a cause. If we assume that the universe is constantly going to disorder (see
the laws of thermodynamics), then the universe can not have existed forever;
something must have caused it. Any explanation for the cause other than an infinite
power/being has the same problem: what caused that finite cause of the universe to
exist in the first place? There must be some infinite power that can move/cause with
being moved/caused itself; this thing we call God.
Of course, this answers nothing about God's attributes other than his infinity and
existence. Procedure from here is on much less solid ground, although the design
argument provides a fairly good, albeit far from defninitive, argument for the
intelligence, at least, of this infinite cause.
— posted 01/01/2009 at 10:51 by Arnold
99 |
On second thought . . .
Even the Prime Mover argument, which I mentioned above, only demonstrates that
some being was infinite in power at a particular point in time, not that the being itself
is infinite, but it's still better than the ontological argument.
Also, irreducable complexity seems to have been misdefined here. It is not merely
very complex; it is irreducably so. That is, if one part were missing, the whole would
have little or no functional value. Take, for instance, the eye. In order for it to have
been produced by natural selection, it would have had to evolve as a unit, since no
part of it has any significant survival value until the whole thing exists. It's individual
parts would not have been selected by survival, because they HAVE no survival value
without the others. I'm sure this can be phrased better, I know I'm getting somewhat
repetitive, and the design argument is far from conclusive on the existence of anything
other than an "artificer or articers," but I thought it worthwhile to properly define the
phrase.
On the irrationality of religion:

Religious persons of all stripes are willing to accept "and then a miracle occurred" as
an explanation for many things, some of which may or may not actually be
miraculous. However, just because atheists reject the existence of an infinitely loving,
good, knowing, and powerful God does not mean that they aren't religious. There
have been many things said and written on this topic, but I will confine myself to just
one. An evolutionist believes that at some point, two apes gave birth to a non-ape.
This non-ape survived to adulthood and met another non-ape living in the same area,
which was not only of the opposite sex, but the same kind of non-ape as the first non-
ape. These two non-apes produced more non-apes, which also survived to adulthood
and met more non-apes of the same kind sufficent to get another species going.
Despite this, atheists claim that Christians are irrational for believing in a virgin birth.
The primary difference between atheists and others is that others are willing to admit
that they believe in miracles.
100 |
I just had another thought
which is, I concede, a little off-topic. If we assume there is a God (in the style of
Judeo-Christian traditions) who sets standards for inherently good and evil acts, then
there is a basis for believing in him simply because it is the right thing to do. If we
assume there is no such being, then no act has any inherent good or evil quality. Why
should religious persons, particularly Christians, NOT believe in God, however
superstitious or false such a belief may be?
101 |
A nony mous...and the planet you hail from is ...Earth?
You say..."In crime stats, atheists are under-represented and the religious are over-
doing jail time for kiddie fiddling..."
The lack of historical awareness here is beyond understanding. All I can say is read
the "Black Book of Communism" (or at least pick it up and feel its heft). But I have
the feeling here we are reading the products of a washed-out mind of someone,
terminally self-amused, from a secular humanist English-speaking country.
"Kiddie-fiddling" indeed.
— posted 01/01/2009 at 12:20 by mark
102 |
Response to #87
First of all, I see your point about the "functionally synonymous" business. Please
forgive my sloppiness in that regard.
That said, how is an acceptance of the validity of reason or observation

epistemologically different from my belief in my existence, not to mention my belief
in God? It may be "obvious" to me that I exist, but to say something is true because it
is "obvious" is another way of saying "I just assume it."
Likewise with observation. You say, "Everything else *is* (or ought to be)
empirical." I more or less agree. But how do we know that empiricism is valid? It is
ultimately only an assumption.
"In the case of *GOD* it is supposed to be different. Well, why? It isn’t different."
You're right. The case of God is no different than the case of observation, the case of
reason, the case of my existence, or a host of other things. Belief, assumption, faith,
whatever you want to call it--that's what we always have to start with.
103 |
Rejoinder and reply
Re #101 (mark): I'll ignore your ad hominem remarks and just ask this one question:
Is secular humanist supposed to be an epithet? It is my badge of honor.
Re #102 (Peter): My concern with your objection is that we start to fall into an
epistemological and ontological rabbit hole. What is it "to know"? What is "valid"?
We can spend eons arguing, or we can use our everyday understanding of these words
when discussing everyday things like the structure of the cosmos and the putative
existence of a bearded old man in the sky.
How do we know that empiricism is "valid"? I don't know what you mean by "valid"
here, but I know this: empiricism *works*. It is not an "assumption" when 10,000
years of trial and error (i.e. empirical effort) produce repeatable, incontestable truths
that we can rely on again and again and again, like don't touch your hand to a flame,
etc.
Putting my "faith" in this system of arriving at truths is not the same as having "faith"
in some fairy tale story, as you know. The very essence of the latter type of "faith" is
belief without reason. The very essence of empiricism (the former "faith") is
acceptance based *upon* reason. These things cannot in everyday language -- or any
language -- be referred to as synonymous, nor are they equal candidates for what we
have to start with in our search for truth.
As I said in my original post (somewhere), the only incorrigible beliefs for me

(speaking generally) are (a) I exist, and (b) whatever my subjective conscious states
are, e.g. pain, pleasure, etc. Beyond that, sure, I may be a head in a vat. I may be
hooked up to the Matrix. I cannot "know" these things to a super-epistemological
certainty. The point is that within any construct of this life, there are things that are
*reasonable* to *accept* as true and there are things that are *not* reasonable to
accept as true. I have millions of reasons for holding that empiricism provides the
former, while faith (which is always blind, by definition) provides the latter.
— posted 01/01/2009 at 15:04 by A. Nony Mous
104 |
Response to #103
We are at the bottom of an epistemological rabbit hole to begin with, whether we like
it or not (if I understand your metaphor).
Of course empiricism works, but how certain of this can we be? How do we know
that empiricism will not suddenly fail us? For my entire life my observations have
"worked," as far as I can tell, but it may have been an illusion. The laws of physics
I've trusted all these years may turn out to be a big joke, ceasing to function
tomorrow.
The essence of empiricism may indeed be "acceptance based *upon* reason," but on
what basis do we accept reason? I see no non-circular justification for accepting
reason. Its validity, that is, its reliability as a guide to truth, must be assumed. As far
as one's existence, the very concept of existence may in fact be at odds with reality.
Truly, _nothing_ can be known, as you well put it, "to a super-epistemological
certainty."
I am not insane. I am not a nihilist. I am confident that I exist, that reason and
observation are valid, and that the laws of physics will still work tomorrow. If I'm
pedantic, or like the four-year-old who responds to everything by asking "Why?", I
beg your pardon. I'm only trying to be epistemologically honest.
105 |
Thoughts and an argument the article doesn't consider
While I incline towards the author's conclusion regarding the faithful, I don't think
that the search is irrelevant. Depending on the religion adhered to, faith may only be
one part of a greater whole. The more important aspect being the acceptance of the
yolk of the responsibility and the concomitant lifestyle that such acceptance implies.
Indeed, though unlike author of this article I have seen a formal and valid Ontological
proof for God (in Truth Without Paradox by David Johnson) he is right that it was not
needed in the first place.
— posted 01/02/2009 at 06:03 by David
106 |
Perception and belief
Does the influence of belief on perception have a place in this argument? If I have no
concept of a watch, will I even see the watch? Will I perceive the watch as different
from the stone? There is sound empirical evidence that individual perceptions of what
exists in reality are profoundly influenced by belief, see e.g.
http://www.cog.brown.edu/~slomanlab/Fernbach/Assets/op264-fernbach.pdf. Sound
science therefore relies on replication and multiple observations to verify observations
of reality. In the meantime, I also have to live my life, and evaluate without the
benefit of verification the statement of my dying father that he is without fear for
himself because he perceives Christ sitting on his shoulder. The sceptics have the
better argument, but I believe my father. Profound thanks to Byrne and each of the
commenters for a thought-provoking discussion.
— posted 01/02/2009 at 09:04 by Courtney
107 |
Atheists and the Devout both insist on a limited literary understanding.
Even the most perfect synthesis of fiction is still fiction!
If you want to prove the existence of a god then you need to prove the factual basis of
the scripture.
I imagine it would be possible to devise a perfect moral code without referring to a
god. No, wait a second that has already been done in the 10 commandments of
rational humanism:
http://www.sceco.umontreal.ca/liste_perso
Like the devout, you confuse fact and truth. They are not the same thing.
The existence of God as an intellectual being may be profoundly useful to mankind.

He doesn't have to live in fact to live in truth.
The ten commandments of rational humanism? Hmm. sounds familiar. Ten... I think
that sounds pretty derivative.
— posted 01/02/2009 at 11:51 by Abu Nudnik
108 |
Far better books available
Good as this stuff may be, the Four Horseman trope is useless. The best recent books
on atheism and religion, aside from Dawkins' bestseller, are two by Prof. David Eller
(Natural Atheism and Atheism Advanced), which are fantastic reads and compellingly
brilliant, and one by Michel Onfray (An Atheist Manifesto). Mr Byrne would do well
to read them - Sam Harris is a neo-mystic, Prof. Dennett had me snoring, and
Hitchens is simply bad advertisement.
— posted 01/03/2009 at 06:02 by mjosef
109 |
Is Christian theology the final answer
Interesting and never ending debate among the christian believers and the Darwin
blasters.Universe or Multiverse the fact remains that we are on this planet with all the
awesome power of nature unleashed and witnessed once too often.The design theory
or a multi-designer theory,as we might find convenient to accept,it does not answer
the question that batters thinkers about the existence of the unseen,but likely or
possibly associated causer of events that are beyond mind's or sciences realm.
The debate cannot find an answer as obviously the whole of western philosophy and
thoughts revolve around the contents of one document and personalities connected to
it.What is important is to find out ourselves before we think of finding the creator and
His/Her design/s.If for instance a child strayed into another family and was unaware
of its biological parents and believed the foster parents as real,then is the fact of its
birth denied,is the fact that it has parents(natural)is unreal.When told about the fact of
straying into the foster family is there not an urge to do everything to discover the
natural parents and connect to them real.So once a person starts the search inwards to
find out the truth of existence and the connection to the universe no more search is
required.If one died then what happens next,is it that life departs and the body is shed
to rot or waste into nature and that's it.Design or no design it seems ridiculous to be
and yet never been in one change of state.There is a lot to ponder over and meditate
upon before getting into arguments that beat around the bush endlessly.
— posted 01/03/2009 at 09:48 by subramaniam shankar
110 |
surfthewedge
Heidigger, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Kant among others posit a real
omnipotent and omniscient god. C.S. Lewis, whose writing and arguments are
designed for modern readers, is more than convincing when he states that there is a
GOD--read Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity, and other works by Lewis with an
open mind and you will find it impossible, if you are honest and half-way intelligent,
to deny the existence of a real God who created the universe etc. I challenge anyone
to read Dawkins's God Delusion and then read Lewis's books listed above and find
that Dawkins has the better arguments re God and life. Also, sociobiology is a con
job. Again, read Lewis and then read Wilson's books on sociobiology and then write
out an essay in which you logically make the case that Lewis is wrong and Wilson
(and Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) are right. Why must materialists/naturalists insist on
removing the soul from man? Spiritual man/woman is a cogent reality. Live with it.
— posted 01/03/2009 at 23:16 by john
111 |
Well, I read Lewis as a child and was convinced. I have since read Dawkins and
Wilson as an adult. I have always thought them far more convincing. On
Surfthewedge's challenge, I read Lewis again. Yes, I was right, his arguments can
only convince a child.
— posted 01/03/2009 at 23:51 by Samuel
112 |
Hey, thanks for the assignment!
Surfthewedge, I dutifully accepted your command assignment, and here is my report
on Lewis:(). Actually, I copied and pasted the devastating critique by David Eller on
C.S. Lewis. It's fun reading! I am sorry to have plagiarized, but when time is short, I
need to keeping sawing away at this "soul" that is clinging to my corporeal self. Any
more schoolmarmish assignments for me?
113 |
111: Thank you. Lewis is only convincing to children, if that. The last time I tried to
re-read mere Christianity, I was quite offput by his intellectual dishonesty.
— posted 01/04/2009 at 10:18 by Jorg
114 |
Anyone actualy read theologians/philosophers like von Balthasar, Bernard Lonergan,
Alving Plantinga??????
I usually hate replying to blogs because they're usually full of pooled ignorance. With
a few exceptions, this one seems no less "gifted".
Again, the rationalist and hyperempiricist assumptions underpinning many of the

postings are sadly, repetitive and out-dated.
Their lack of relevance is largely due to their unwillingness to do the hard work; to
read philosophers and theologians like Bernard Lonergan, Hans Urs Von Balthasar,
Jurgen Moltmann, Alvin Plantinga and others.
Please don't waste your time replying to my post. I'd sooner you do some quality
reading.
Interestingly, I know many "schoolmarms" who are also brilliant philosophers and
theologians.
— posted 01/04/2009 at 13:54 by ROGER SHRUB

115 |
why God must exist.
Evolution makes sense only if there is a God.
— posted 01/04/2009 at 15:45 by Robert Klahn
116 |
Hate speech directed against religion!
There is some excellent, current literature exploring the prevalence of hate speech
among anti-religionists.
It is one thing to say one doesn't hold a religious belief, and quite another to insult one
who does; calling them dishonest, a schoolmarm, etc.
Any more sexist jokes out there?
Methinks the moderator of this blog had best attend to the postings accordingly!
— posted 01/04/2009 at 16:42 by 116
117 |
Good job 116!
Excellent point 116! I too am disgusted with the hate propaganda spewing from some
of these postings!
I am convinced this discussion and others like it are riddled with hate speech. Why
aren't people reading some of the authors mentioned in a few postings above?
as well, I talk to my mechanic about my car. My doctor about my ulcer. And my

theologian about my God.
Philosophers know little of either my car or my God.
What do they matter at all?

— posted 01/04/2009 at 18:41 by 116
118 |
Response to #104
Hi Peter,
You ask "on what basis do we accept reason?" and that you see no "non-circular
justification for accepting reason. Its validity, that is, its reliability as a guide to truth,
must be assumed." If you are looking for justification, you've already presupposed
reason as justification cannot proceed without recourse to a process of reasoning.
Again, when you say that reason's "validity ... must be assumed", you talk as though
'validity' is an autonomous concept that is independent of the principles of inference
embodied in reason. You cannot use a concept such as 'validity' that is part of the
general system of reason to legitimatise reason itself. By the time you are using
concepts such as 'justification' and 'validity', you are already reasoning. Thus when
you say you're confident that "reason and observation are valid," it has an empty,
tautologous ring to it.
More generally, you should be wary of arguments that make exceptions of

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

— posted 01/05/2009 at 07:34 by Tom J.
119 |
The self-reference problem of rationalitm and empiricism (performative self-
referential contradiction)
As the above posting indicates, rationalism mustn't fall prey to the fallacy of
performative self-referential contradiction.
You can't require everything to be rationally and empirically defensible without

falling prey to the above-stated fallacy.
— posted 01/06/2009 at 08:06 by 119
120 |
Byrne's piece is full of ignorance
See William Lane Craig's response at the blog of the Evangelical Philosophical
Society:
http://www.epsociety.org/blog/2009/01/byrne-on-theistic-philosophers.asp
— posted 01/06/2009 at 15:07 by joseff farrah
121 |
Sad and hurt believers
Jeebus, guys, there's a huge difference between "hate propaganda" - that is, religious
diatribes to incite violence against non-believers - and ridicule speech, which is
proper and just when dealing with nonsensical self-enraptured rantings. Philosophers,
such as the fine and worthy David Eller, have demolished the various god(s)offerings,
and deserve credit for doing so. As for the fee-charging Christian apologetics crowd,
you can recommend them all you want, but what seems to happen is the moment
someone without the power you think you hold derides or disavows your enfranchised
religion, you get all offended, and cry that your oh-so-tender feelings are hurt. You
already have social privileges beyond the wildest dreams of chicken-entrail readers -
why not be satisfied with your enormous tax benefits, buckets of cash scammed off
poor widows, and the like?
122 |
Sad, Sad, Sad
Philosophers like Denet and such should be more worried about studying philosophy
and leave theology to the priests, they talk so much against god that it almost seems
that they fear him.
(no I am not a believer but i'm not a dogmatic atheist either, if the faith fits you great!
As long as you don't bother me about it I won't waste my time telling you not to
believe)
And yes you are right, no once can make a sound argument for the existence of god,
Philosophers already knew that for centuries, even many scholastic philosophers were
critics of even attempting such thing, even a undergraduate student of philosophy will
tell you that.
For someone who is supposed to be a great analytic philosopher Dennet should spend
less time reviving ancient matters that only pseudo-intellectuals like Dawkins never
heard about.
— posted 01/06/2009 at 20:55 by Nuno
123 |
Mathematics itself makes fine tuning irrelevant
Hume may have been on to something. The Recursion Theorem of Kleene states that
any system where arithmetic is possible has a fixed point function - a function whose
output is its input. A corollary to this theorem is that in any such system,
reproduction, and therefore life, is possible. After all, reproduction (without mutation)
is essentially the production of an output that is the same as its input. But it takes
evolution and random mutation to arrive at a machine that reproduces. The nice thing
is that these functions are not necessarily very complex. Turing described one in only
a few pages. But the upshot is, the fine tuning argument is a red herring. Any possible
universe where you can come up with an arithmetic function and evolution is possible
is one where life will naturally evolve. Chances are, this is almost all possible
universes. The life may not be carbon based, or live on a planet, but it will surely
exist.
— posted 01/07/2009 at 23:56 by Antony Van der Mude

Existence of God Philosophers Weigh in Boston Review Jan Feb 2009

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Existence of God Philosophers Weigh in Boston Review Jan Feb 2009

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

God Philosophers weigh in Alex Byrne Boston Review January February 2009

Contemporary Christian philosophers content themselves with pulling up the

Sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions are as rare as atheists in

A better complaint is that sound philosophical arguments with significant conclusions

Kant is on to something here. If existence is a property of things, it is a rather peculiar

An inference to the best explanation can be overturned by more evidence. Perhaps, on

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in

Post this page to:

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

— posted 12/26/2008 at 12:04 by Mary Treherne

— posted 12/29/2008 at 09:18 by Ben Murphy

Agreed! Islamic philosophy is part of Western philosophy.

Cheryl Masty, an aside:

Aphorism and analogy do not a good argument make.

Ultimately I would agree with the live-and-let-live perspective because what we

Today, theology is for many an attempt to find some degree of reasonableness to

Meanwhile, religious faith is an aesthetic response to the world. People believe in

The term Homo Sapiens to describe ourselves is a self flattering crock

Which is more arrogant, catagorising ourselves as just one of many millions of

Why do we admit design in any machine of human contrivance? Simply because

— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:14 by Robert Darby

I would like to address the above almost threat.

An argument I have always found chillingly sociopathic.

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

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

I would like to address the above almost threat.

An argument I have always found chillingly sociopathic.

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

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

— posted 12/30/2008 at 01:52 by William

— posted 12/30/2008 at 18:02 by Total gods in universe = 0

All this begs the question of whether God exists, of course.

Nevertheless, stoicism answers many questions that are directly relevant to

To me, to believe in atheism requires greater "faith" than to believe in God.

— posted 12/31/2008 at 07:45 by Simon Noone

On #5 (Luckydog): Atheists spend time trying to debunk the foundation of the

Your last sentence includes an assumption unwarranted by the current thinking in

#63: Nicely done!

Einstein stated in an interview that he believed in something like Spinoza's god. To

Your scientific principle is the false generalisation of a principle in a very limited

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

To reiterate Gaunilo: from the reasoning underlying the ontological argument, it

Thanks Oliver, can't wait to to get my kids prostrating themselves to me.

In the end, man cannot be satisfied by the "bread" of rationality alone.

On the irrationality of religion:

That said, how is an acceptance of the validity of reason or observation

As I said in my original post (somewhere), the only incorrigible beliefs for me

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

Again, the rationalist and hyperempiricist assumptions underpinning many of the

— posted 01/04/2009 at 13:54 by ROGER SHRUB

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

Philosophers know little of either my car or my God.

What do they matter at all?

More generally, you should be wary of arguments that make exceptions of

Happy New Year all!

You can't require everything to be rationally and empirically defensible without

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi