Felicia vs Doubt
Aw crap. I waited too long and now Greta Christina already did what I was planning on doing - answering the questions recently posted on Friendly Atheist, questions purportedly intended to instill doubt in us atheists. Now obviously she’s not the only person to have done so but I bet if I were to read her post I’d feel it’s pointless to write my own. So I better hurry and finish this one! Here we go:
Historian Gary Habermas: “Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself.”
These historical facts are: (1) Jesus was killed by crucifixion; (2) Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; (3) The conversion of the church persecutor Saul, who became the Apostle Paul; (4) the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half-brother; (5) The empty tomb of Jesus. These “minimal facts” are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. While the fifth fact doesn’t have quite the same virtual universal consensus, it nevertheless is conceded by 75 percent of the scholars and is well supported by the historical data if assessed without preconceptions.
I was under the impression that there’s very little evidence beyond the bible that Jesus even existed. But ok, I’m not a bible scholar, or a historian. So, for the sake of argument, let’s grant these “minimal facts”. First of all, facts 2, 3 and 4 are entirely incidental. What people believe makes no difference to reality. As for a tomb mysteriously emptying… Is that really so hard to imagine? I honestly don’t see how this would be compelling evidence for anything at all. Especially not the christian god. All we’re saying here is that a guy was executed, and then his corpse disappeared. So … uh … so what?
Philosopher Paul Copan: “Given the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief that the universe (all matter, energy, space, time) began to exist a finite time ago and that the universe is remarkably finely tuned for life, does this not (strongly) suggest that the universe is ontologically haunted and that this fact should require further exploration, given the metaphysically staggering implications?
“And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?”
1. No. Why should it? The puddle is shaped to the ground it lies on, not the other way around. If the ground was shaped differently the puddle would look different or not exist at all. Let’s just appreciate the fact that if the universe didn’t happen to be “finely tuned”, we wouldn’t be here.
2. No. We’re social animals and thus have a system of morals. We’re not the only ones but ours are arguably the most “advanced”, whatever that means. We’re the ones who have decided what is good or bad. And the problem of evil only arises because the christian god is supposed to have made us in his own image, which presumably means that what we think is “good”, he thinks is “good”. Which makes us wonder why he didn’t make the world “good”. Now if the christian god was just a general being, not affiliated with any particular species, I might be more inclined to believe… or not.
Talk show host Frank Pastore: “Please explain how something can come from nothing, how life can come from non-life, how mind can come from brain, and how our moral senses developed from an amoral source.”
Uh… how about … no? Because even if I had no idea how to answer any of those questions, I still really wouldn’t feel the need to have an invisible friend take care of them. See, I’m not worried about not having answers to everything. As it happens, I do have some clues as to how answer how life can come from non-life and the origin of morals. That this talk show host doesn’t just means he hasn’t looked for the answers.
Historian Mike Licona: “Irrespective of one’s worldview, many experience periods of doubt. Do you ever doubt your atheism and, if so, what is it about theism or Christianity that is most troubling to your atheism?”
That’s cheating, you were the one supposed to induce doubt in me, not ask what you might say to induce doubt! But to answer the question: No. There is absolutely nothing troubling in christianity or any theistic belief. It’s all crazy. Sorry! But it is!
Author Greg Koukl: “Why is something here rather than nothing here? Clearly, the physical universe is not eternal (Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology). Either everything came from something outside the material universe, or everything came from nothing (Law of Excluded Middle). Which of those two is the most reasonable alternative? As an atheist, you seem to have opted for the latter. Why?”
Because there is as yet no evidence for the former.
I didn’t email Alvin Plantinga, considered by many to be among the greatest philosophers of modern times. But based on his assertion that naturalism is self-defeating, we could formulate this question (thanks to William Lane Craig for some of the concise wording): If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)
Finally something interesting. You’re right - we can’t prove anything. That’s why science doesn’t deal with Truth. Only religions deal with Truth. We’re just trying to make models that seem to fit how the world works. Of course, everything we experience is filtered through our own senses and cognitive faculties, and those senses are very limited indeed. But by the same argument - they were selected for survival - I think it’s safe to say that what we experience is at least somewhat correlated with the “real world”. Otherwise, those experiences would be useless to us.
Either way, Plantinga’s argument is stupid. He’s essentially saying that since we can’t prove naturalism, we should default to the other idea. Why? Because it feels better to believe there’s Truth out there? Sorry, but that really doesn’t cut it. As long as there’s no evidence for the existence of any god, I’m going to default to naturalism. That I can’t even prove my own existence is philosophical nitpickery and really doesn’t bother me in the least.
So to wrap up. The interesting thing about these questions is that they pretty much confirm something most atheists already know: That we’re not the ones who need all the answers. Atheists are fine with unanswered questions. In fact, we thrive on them, at least those of us who are scientists. That several of these religious people thought that asking questions about the universe to which they knew or thought there were no answers only goes to show that that’s what they think we should fear.
I pity them, and I’m also vaguely embarrassed that this is the best they could come up with. I mean, come on. I could’ve answered these questions equally well ten years ago! When I was 15 years old!
Now to compare notes with Greta Christina…
Well spoken!
Comment by Martin R — Saturday, January 31, 2009 @ 21:26
Thanks
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Sunday, February 1, 2009 @ 01:07
Thanks for this post. I thought of doing something along this line when I saw Hemant’s post. You and Greta have both done such a good job of answering the questions that I have nothing to add. Besides that, you’ve both done a better job than I would have done anyway.
Comment by the chaplain — Sunday, February 1, 2009 @ 02:53
I saw this on Friendly Atheist, too. I had contributed responses to Strobel’s first and second offerings, but I could see with this one that he really isn’t going anywhere. His assertion at the start was that he was going to give us the reasons he abandoned atheism for Christianity. My conclusion, based upon what he has told us, is that this move wasn’t justified and that it was likely prompted more by emotion than reason. Surely, no one not already longing for the comfort of belief would be swayed by the arguments Strobel and his allies have presented.
One thing that irked me about the latest post is that some atheists have taken Licona’s bait about “doubting atheism.” Atheism isn’t something to “believe in.” It, itself, is doubt through and through. Thus, I don’t see how it’s possible to “doubt atheism.” Now, it might be possible to doubt the evidence and reason that led one to become an atheist; but what Licona is trying to do, again, is foster the notion that atheism is a belief system, based on faith, and thus not superior rationally to religion.
Comment by mikespeir — Sunday, February 1, 2009 @ 03:45
mikespeir - I agree. When it comes to the part about “doubting atheism”, I read that as “doubting that atheism is the correct conclusion, given the current evidence”, or conversely, “doubting that theism isn’t incorrect”. Doubt isn’t necessarily the opposite of faith, but I can see where you’re coming from, as it’s no doubt how Licona intended it!
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Sunday, February 1, 2009 @ 14:23
Frank Pastore’s argument is further silly given that there is a continuum of diseases (free living bacteria->obligate parasties->viruses->tiny viruses->prions, transposons etc) going right down to the single molecule level, and who is to say where the point for being “alive” is in the first place? otoh, I doubt my doubt all the time. Have yet to recieve any interesting proof the other way though. Personally I’m waiting to see an amputated arm grow back before my eyes.
Comment by Glynn — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 00:40
Glynn - I’ve seen a lot of atheists discussing this particular set of questions who keep saying that “doubt” is an integral part of atheism, etc. Thing is, I really don’t think “being open to new evidence” is the same thing as “doubting that the position I currently hold is the correct one”.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 01:17
Hi
Just so you know where I’m coming from, I don’t believe that a successful ontological argument exists. I don’t think God is a matter of debate in which one person can prove God to another, I don’t think I can convince you or anyone else that God exists, and I honestly don’t care to change your mind. I stroll the Aetheosphere only to see and comment on the reasoning atheists are presenting these days. Lately, I’ve been checking out different posts responding to Lee Strobel’s questions from FriendlyAtheist. Now, the questions themselves are just the same old washed-up arguments for the most part, but it also irks me how confident atheists seem to be in the responses. Even in your thread this pattern emerges. I read Greta’s responses, and I really wasn’t as impressed as you and other atheists seem to be. That’s a different story, and if you want my take on Greta’s post, it’s on my blog. Anyways…
The main reason I stopped to comment here was that like Greta, you also used the puddle analogy. Now, I understand your reasoning behind it, and I agree with your overall conclusion - yes, if things were different (ground), then the universe would be different (puddle). However, I think the analogy is completely inadequate, especially in the context of Copan’s question, and using this analogy is liable to make believers think you just don’t have a valid response. I’m curious to know how the manner in which two pre-existing material substances fit together has absolutely any explanatory power pertinent to the overwhelming odds against life’s emergence? The odds that a puddle will perfectly fit a particular hole are always going to be 1:1. Do you really think it’s adequate to posit the puddle analogy as a valid answer to the fine-tuning argument?
I agree that your second response to Copan is valid. However, you say: “Which makes us wonder why he didn’t make the world ‘good’.” But when you say that, it makes me wonder, what concept of God are you arguing against? The God of the Bible claims to have made the world good. You say we’re social animals and we define what is good or bad - I’ll grant that - yet, by very definition, isn’t there a most good or optimal way to live? I think even if you agree and say yes, Copan’s argument still fails. That there is a most good or moral best does not entail God.
Perhaps my strongest disagreement, your comment to Greg Koukl totally missed the mark: “Because there is as yet no evidence for the former.” You say this as if there is evidence for the latter, when in context the latter violates known laws of nature! And in fact, what emerging evidence we do have (Higgs Boson) supports the former much more than the latter. Lastly, belief in the former does not entail God. One can believe that matter came from outside the universe (as opposed to ex nihilo) and still be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
As stated, Plantinga is not saying that because we can’t prove naturalism, we should default to theism. IMO, you’ve misunderstood his statement, which is more a question than a proof-claim for theism: Given that our senses were selected for survival and not truth, how can you be sure that your ideas about naturalism are true? That wasn’t answered. The best you give is, “…what we experience is at least somewhat correlated with the ‘real world’.” So does that mean our beliefs are ’somewhat’ reliable? Also, you say Plantinga’s argument is stupid, but you do the exact same thing as Plantinga in reverse scope! You say you default to naturalism because we can’t prove theism. How is that any different than Plantinga’s argument?
Now, where we fully see eye-to-eye is in our willingness to live with unanswered questions. I sure do marvel at the awe and wonder of the natural world, and I sure do appreciate it and live in the present as much as possible, and I agree with you that especially for scientists and philosophers, unanswered questions make the world go around!
Comment by cl — Thursday, February 5, 2009 @ 11:29
Hi cl! Thanks for your long and thoughtful response to my admittedly rather hasty post. Here’s a few thoughts:
Ok, I’m sorry, but I never got this. What the hell’s wrong with being confident? Expressing myself confidently doesn’t mean I think I’m 100% right about everything. It just means I feel no need to pretend humility, which irks me far more than confidence does. If you don’t believe in what you’re saying, shut up. (Unless you’re purposely playing devil’s advocate or just airing half-formed thoughts of course. But if you’re talking about something you have a well-formed opinion on, don’t pretend it’s not.)
I didn’t think Greta’s repsonse was better or worse than anyone else’s response. Mostly I was amused that our responses were so similar.
Uhm, I think you’ve completely misunderstood the analogy. The universe is the ground, life is the puddle. Whatever the universe looks like, any form of life that shows up in it is going to feel the universe fits it perfectly. In fact, the puddle analogy is even better than this, as you can extend it - a puddle is small and only covers a tiny patch of ground, just like life in this universe can only exist in a microscopic part of it. Most of the universe is NOT suitable to our kind of life.
Since the question was posed by a christian apologist, we’re talking about the god of the bible. Also, the problem of theodicy is only a problem so long as you claim god is good. So I’m not really certain where you’re going with the question.
That’s sort of our point, yes.
Actually, I said it because for me, it seems like the null hypothesis ought to be that nothing exists outside the universe, and so long as there’s no compelling evidence to the contrary, that’s what I’ll “believe”. But I’ll happily admit that I know very little of physics - this isn’t my area of expertise, so why am I expected to have any answers? Either way, when I said “no evidence for the latter”, I was actually again mostly talking about the christian god, as it’s a christian apologetic posing the question.
I did answer, my answer was that we can’t. We can’t know the “truth” about anything. Why don’t you accept this as an answer to his question?
And I’m at a loss how to answer your other question. Do you really not see how natural selection would have favoured those individuals whose sense organs and nervous systems gave them information about their surroundings that actually correlates with reality rather than completely false ideas? (And I say “correlates” because much of what we experience only exists in our minds. For instance, colours don’t actually exist, but our experience of them correlates with certain frequencies of light.)
I refer to occam’s razor and methodological naturalism. Invoking god isn’t useful. It doesn’t further what we call knowledge in any way, it doesn’t bring me personally anything, and hence I don’t see why his argument should convince me. He’s trying to add something to the world that to me seems unnecessary - it doesn’t add explanatory power. In my opinion, he has the burden of evidence. Until I see compelling reasons FOR believing that a given something exists, I’m going to default to believing it doesn’t.
Here’s to unanswered questions!
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Thursday, February 5, 2009 @ 15:14
I agree, and that wasn’t what I meant. What irks me is when I see a blogger offer legitimately leaky responses to a particular idea, and commenters in the thread act as if said responses utterly demolished the idea in question. It’s a trend I see often, and I suppose it just goes to affirm my feelings that there are shallow-minded people of all stripe out there. For example, the people who show up to DaylightAtheism or AnswersInGenesis, and simply nod in backpatting agreement to everything their host says. Such is not intellectualism in my opinion. I saw this to a small degree in your thread. As for you, personally, you should write with confidence, as should myself and the next writer, but never smug arrogance (and I’m not implying you are smug or arrogant so don’t go there please).
As for the puddle analogy, you strengthened it somewhat, but something about it still fails for me. At best, it can deal with the ‘ontologically haunted’ part of Copan’s comment. If I ever articulate my problem with it any better, perhaps I’ll come back by this thread. And I understood it from the getgo, even if my words indicated otherwise. But let me ask you, would you say that we are just lucky to an astronomically improbable degree that violates current understandings of statistics and probability?
As for your fourth response, in the OP, you said, “Which makes us wonder why (God) didn’t make the world ‘good’.” The problem with this is that the Bible claims God did make the world good, so any believer who reads your statement here is liable to think you are ignorant about basic biblical concepts, and that won’t help you at all in persuading them - if that’s what you’re interested in, if not, then no big deal. But I just want you to know that from a believer’s perspective, your statement was akin to Ann Coulter speaking on science.
But in the very act of saying that, you leave the NULL hypothesis. NULL means no value assigned.
Okay, I’m here in good faith, but I gotta get a little fierce here if you don’t mind. Did they not teach the laws of conservation of mass and energy wherever you went to school? If you aren’t qualified to speak on this particular question, why raise your hand at all? Lastly, the two competing Big Bang theories have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian God. The concept of Koukl’s question was purely scientific, and I sense some conflating here.
I disagree strongly, but I’m open to counter arguments. Perhaps this statement simply needs proper scope?
Of course I see how it would. Yet, when you said our senses were “somewhat” correlated with the real world, does that entail that our senses are “somewhat” reliable?
As far as your comments about Plantinga’s argument, perhaps I can’t get you to see that you’ve done the same thing that you called his argument “stupid” for. You default to naturalism because you perceive no evidence for theism. How is that different that Plantinga defaulting to theism because he sees no evidence for naturalism? Further, I still maintain that such was NOT Plantinga’s argument. His argument is not a proof-claim for theism. Rather, it asks you to justify how you can rely on your observations about the world and your conclusions about naturalism, and to me, this justification has not been provided.
It seems we can agree that such is your opinion, and that’s good. To each their own, right? And I will agree that invoking God isn’t useful - in science. But is science the totality of life?
BTW - I really like the title of your blog - Life Before Death.
Comment by cl — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 22:24
I don’t have time to read everything in your doubt blog, so you might have hit on this, if so, sorry. I grew up going to a Catholic grade school and all girl Catholic HS. I would love to believe there is a God. I am so jealous of people that are able to have faith. My question being, Why does God have to be a secret? Why do u have to wait until u die to see him? Why he can’t just appear to us now? Especially for people like me so torn in wanting to believe but just have serious doubt. First being, we won’t even have a MIND to know God as we know him as humans! Why does faith have to be the answer. Would we put all our money in a stock based on faith?? Or would we want more proof? Sorry so many questions, I could go on and on about this.
Comment by Barbara — Monday, February 23, 2009 @ 18:21
Hi. In the future I’m going to keep here links to their sites. But I do not worry about the sites where my link is removed. So if you do not want to see a mountain of links, simply delete this message. After 2 weeks, I will come back and check.
Comment by Heath — Monday, May 11, 2009 @ 21:26