Sunday, June 8, 2014

The Ontological Argument Again


The Ontological Argument basically states:

1. God is by definition a being that must exist in all possible worlds.
2. It is possible that God exists in some world.
3. Therefore, if God is even possible in some world, he must exist in all possible worlds.


Or to put it another way:


1. God is by definition a being that must exist in all possible worlds.
2. If God is even possible in some world, he must exist in all possible worlds.


I personally take the position that the classical god of monotheism is not even possible, and so I don't have to wrestle with any of the logic after the first premise.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Metaphysical Musings Part 2


A fellow atheist asked me some of these questions about metaphysics and I thought I'd answer them here for good measure.

• What exactly is metaphysics?

As I come to understand it, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with fundamental ontological claims that we do not have empirical evidence for. Once we have empirical evidence for it, it becomes physics. Until then, it's technically metaphysics. There are ideas for example that theoretical physicists come up with that make claims about reality that we do not have empirical evidence for, such as String Theory. They would technically be metaphysical, although many of them are in principle verifiable. I consider metaphysics to cover ontological claims that are both capable of being verified in principle, but yet haven't, and ones that aren't in principle verifiable. 

• What constitutes a metaphysical claim?

It must be about the fundamental ontological nature of reality, but something we don't have empirical evidence for. So the claim "angels exist" is a metaphysical claim, and the claim, "the multiverse exists" is also a metaphysical claim. The difference between them is that one is derived from empirical evidence, and one is not. 

• What is the methodology for assessing the validity of a metaphysical claim?

By applying logic and rational thought using the best available scientific theories and evidence. 

• In what way is the term 'metaphysics' useful such that commonly accepted, unambiguously defined scientific terminology is not?

Metaphysics is a bit more like an umbrella term that can be used interchangeably with some scientific terminology, like a hypothesis, if it's about fundamental ontology. But metaphysics also covers claims that are far outside the domain of science, like claims about the supernatural. It seems that some atheists want to delegate the term metaphysics to only cover claims about the supernatural/paranormal and not have it overlap in any way with science. But to get rid of metaphysics because there are many different ways to define it, one would also have to get rid of the term "religion" because there are many ways to define it, and no consensus appears in sight. Metaphysics is not supposed to replace scientific terminology, its supposed to coincide with it when their domains overlap. 


Saturday, May 31, 2014

Metaphysical Musings


I've been thinking a lot about metaphysics lately. To me, metaphysics is simply fundamental ontological claims that we do not have empirical evidence for. Metaphysics is integral in any worldview, and scientists use metaphysics all the time. The multiverse for example is technically metaphysics because we don't have - and may never have - any empirical evidence for it. It also might be unfalsifiable, but I'm not going to throw it out like yesterday's newspaper just because of this.

When debating with theists over god and religion, you are essentially having a metaphysical debate. Every worldview is metaphysical, including naturalism. I personally have no problem with metaphysics. In fact, it's probably my favorite branch of philosophy. Some of my fellow atheists don't agree and think metaphysics is just a stunning waste of time and thought. I couldn't disagree more.

Let's take a look at some of the definitions of metaphysics. Wikipedia says, "Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined." Merriam-webster defines it as, "a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology."

What is and what is not metaphysical is not always easy to define. Many atheists have a problem with metaphysics because it's too closely related to the claims theists make about reality, which are often based on either bad, little or no scientific evidence. I'd distinguish these kinds of claims from the metaphysical claims scientists make, like the multiverse, as bad metaphysics versus good metaphysics. Good metaphysics applies rational thought to empirical science. So although we don't have empirical support for the multiverse, we do have empirical evidence for inflationary theory, which strongly implies a multiverse in its math.

To the atheists who want to jettison metaphysics along with philosophy (metaphysics after all is a branch of philosophy) I'd be very cautious. Some atheists think so highly of science that they think science is going to replace all other epistemological fields. It's true that we atheists often privilege science as the most valuable epistemology, but we shouldn't get carried away and think that nothing outside of science offers value. We should let science guide our beliefs but acknowledge that science might not complete the whole picture. Where science leaves off, metaphysics begins, and properly done, a coherent metaphysical worldview takes the best available scientific evidence and facts and applies rational thought to it. I am convinced that doing so leads one to naturalism and far away from theism.


Thursday, May 29, 2014

I Met Sean Carroll Today!



I just got back from the World Science Festival in Manhattan where there was a talk about the quantum measurement problem. The quantum measurement problem is traditionally where the different interpretations of quantum mechanics come in to explain the peculiar phenomena like the results of the double slit experiment. Hosted by physicist Brian Greene, Sean Carroll was there to represent the Many World Interpretation. After the show I got to meet him in person and have my picture taken with him. He was a lot taller than I expected but other than that he was very nice and cordial. I mentioned that I was a huge fan and that I particularly enjoyed his recent debates, especially the one with William Lane Craig.

It's so great being able to have access to some of your heroes in person. I actually saw Sean walking down the street right outside my job on the way to work this morning. Good thing I was late! Tomorrow I will be seeing the program about the latest developments concerning the gravitational waves that seemed to have confirmed inflationary theory. And later this weekend there will be several interactive exhibits and programs about science throughout the city, including a stargazing exhibition. It should be fun.

Watch the program below:

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Why Try To Convince Us God Exists Using Evidence, If It Will Ruin The Need For Faith?



If theists are going to argue that god doesn't want to give us too much evidence because that would ruin the need for faith or the ability to reject him, then why are so many of them investing so much time and money into trying to convince us - using evidence - that god exists? I fail to see how evidentialist apologetics makes any sense, because if I'm somehow persuaded by the arguments for god and I'm convinced he exists, then isn't the theist defeating his own purpose? Wouldn't I then be unable to deny the existence of god? Wouldn't I then not require any faith? Wouldn't the power of the arguments for god provide the same kind of conviction in me as would god giving me proof?

It seems to me that evidentialism is a farce, (not that I ever thought that it wasn't.) The whole charade to convince the masses that god exists using evidence seems to undermine the very things those same theists say is required by god in order for us to get on his good side.


Sunday, May 25, 2014

Can An Atemporal Being Be Personal?


On a recent Q & A on Reasonable Faith, a fan of Dr. Craig's ministry asked whether it is logical for a being to be both atemporal and personal. Craig's answer: Yes! Here's how he goes about justifying it and where I think he goes wrong.

First, I have argued many times that a timeless mind is by definition, non-functional. Minds think. That's all they do. Thinking is a verb; it's a process. The absence of time means one cannot think, and if one cannot think, it doesn't have a mind. On Craig's view, god is atemporal only sans the creation, and is temporal with creation. Under this view, the god that exists now is a temporal god, who is "free" to change with the passage of time. So since Craig believes the god who exists since the moment of creation is temporal, I'm going to focus on the atemporal god who is said to have existed prior, whether logically or temporally, to creation.

The questioner quoted an argument from an apparent atheist that said:

A thinking creature has will, reason and make choices based on reasoning. A creature beyond time and space can therefore not make the choice, since he is not bound by time and his reasoning can not work in any particular order.

Craig's response is that god doesn't require discursive reasoning. which is the process of arriving at conclusions from rational thought and decision making. God's omniscience, Craig argues, precludes reasoning discursively because god already knows the answer, regardless of whether god is temporal or atemporal. And this, he says, in no way precludes god's personal nature. 


But let's examine this further.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The Problem Of Evil Revisited


I've recently been think about the traditional problem of evil. I'm talking about the argument that human moral evil is incompatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent god. The usual responses to the problem of evil are the free will defense, and skeptical theism. I want to offer a few quick rebuttals to the free will defense as a means to show how an omnibenevolent god is compatible with human moral evil.

1. If god prefers a world where moral agents can perform evil acts through the means of free will and considers such a world more valuable than one without free will, then this world is more valuable than heaven, because in heaven, it is believed, no one can perform evil acts and no one would therefore have free will. The possibility of free beings would entail evil actions could happen.

2. God could have made it so that all people born would naturally be good natured and wouldn't desire evil. He could have done this a number of ways, such as making it so that only the sperm cells that would make good people would ever be created or get to fertilize eggs. If this is not considered feasible or desirable, then a heaven where there is no moral evil is also not feasible and wouldn't seem desirable either.

3. If god cannot prevent human moral evil because it would violate free will, then it makes absolutely no sense to pray to god if you are ever threatened with violence.

Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...