Atheist philosopher of religion Keith Parsons recently decided to quit philosophy of religion, because he considers that the argument for God's existence have been refuted, and the case for atheism and naturalism is strong enough.
However, I think Parsons' strong naturalism makes him demostrably prone to overstress the strengh of the arguments for atheism/naturalism, and make him vulnerable to misrepresent the argument of theists.
Take for example Parsons' comment on William Lane Craig: "There are certain things William Lane Craig takes to be metaphysical intuitions, like that it’s undeniable that the universe must have had a cause—and for me it’s not. My intuitions are quite different,” Parsons says. And what then? He adds, “And then, once we’ve reached that point, there’s just no further to go." (emphasis in blue added).
Reading that comment is astonishing, since even the most ignorant, shallow, intellectually impaired and inept philosopher who has studied Craig's work would know that Craig DOES NOT assert that the universe must have had a cause is a metaphysical intuition. Proof of that is that the proposition "the universe has a cause" is the CONCLUSION of the kalam cosmological argument, as you can watch in this brief video by Craig (see the second 30 of this video, where the conclusion of the argument is written behind Craig):
Conflating the logical conclusion of an argument with a pure metaphysical intuition (which, being intuitive, doesn't require any special justification, except by the way of refuting potential objections or defeaters against it) is revealing of Parsons' philosophical rigour and charity in examining the theistic arguments.
For Craig, what's a metaphysical intuition is the first PREMISE of the argument, namely "whatever begins to exist has a cause", which is known as the "principle of causality" (A principle which is neutral regarding the existence of God, as evidenced by the fact that even atheists accept it, except when it's part of an argument for God's existence).
But even Craig doesn't rest his case for the first premise in his personal intuitions, but that he offers some independent arguments for it:
1-Such principle is constantly confirmed in our experience; therefore, it's highly plausible that such principle is true. (Note that many naturalists and atheists regard themselves as "empiricists", but they forget the lessons of such empiricism when they reject the empirical confirmation of the principle of causality. Actually, the rejection of such principle is pure atheist wishful thinking: they reject it only in order to avoid the cogency of the cosmological argument for God's existence. Out of such context, no naturalist/atheist would accept that things "come from nothing", that is, they wouldn't accept that things like dogs, books, stars, goverments, meteorites, movies, human beings, Ufos, rats, atheists, food, pencils, cell phones, trees, viruses, hair, rocks, keys, clouds, new animal species, etc. exist "out of nothing", without any cause whatsoever. In fact, people familiar with pseudo-skeptical cranks will know that whatever supposed paranormal phenomena or anomalous fact is reported, atheistic pseudoskeptics inmediately will try to debunk them appealing to many (arbitrary) alternative causes, like hallucitations in case of ghosts or alien abductions, frauds in case of psychics, misobservation in cases of Ufos, placebo effect in case of a healing by alternative medicine, etc. They'll invent causes, even if such particular causes don't apply to the concrete case. Have you seen any hard-core atheist, naturalist, materialist or pseudo-skeptical crank to say "The healing of that disease with homeopathy is not caused by homeopathy, actually it comes from nothing!"? Or: "That medium's materialisation feats have no cause at all, they simply exist out of nothing" Or: That animal species doesn't come from evolution or God, they come from nothing?" Obviously NO! These pseudo-skeptical charlatans, if accept the healing or mediumship phenomenon or animal species in question, will consider it a product of placebo effect or any other (non-alternative medicine favourable) cause, or product of magician's tricks, or the product of Darwinian evolution. This is strong evidence that atheistic pseudoskeptical charlatans also take seriously the principle of causality when it favors their personal prejudices, but they reject it when it's part of an argument against atheism, because they fully realize that consistency would destroy their naturalism).
2-The denial of such principle would imply that some things "come from nothing", but:
a)There is not evidence that such thing ocurrs. (Quantum physics is often mentioned, since virtual particles are said to come from the quantum vaccum, and therefore from nothing. However, only ignorant charlatans and intentionally dishonest sophists would conflate the "quantum vaccum" with nothing. If the virtual particles come from the quantum vaccum, then they come from something, not from nothing. Believe me, some atheists don't have the intellectual ability and rationality to understand this simple point, so trying to explain this to them is an absolute waste of time).
b)It's conceptually absurd to think that "nothing" (which by definition is what doesn't exist, that is, it means absolute non-existence) can somehow produce "something", since from out nothing nothing comes. Saying that "something come out of nothing" seems to make no conceptual sense at all (try to think about it carefully and rigurously. Note that you can imagine a phenomenon without a known cause; but it doesn't mean that such phenomenon is actually uncaused).
So the principle of causality is very highly plausible as a principle governing reality (independently of Craig's intuitions).
Therefore, when Parsons asserts "And then, once we’ve reached that point, there’s just no further to go", he's intentionally misleading the readers. The "point" in question "(the cause of the universe) doesn't rest on arbitrary personal intuitions, but in evidence-based rational principles (the principle of causality) and scientific evidence (e.g. the Big Bang), logical consistency, rational reflection and logical argumentation.
It's always a source of fascination to me to explore the mindset and psychology of atheists and hard-core naturalists and pseudo-skeptics. I confess that I haven't seen more evidence of irrationality (disguised as logic and reason) than in these people.
It's the ultimate self-delusion.
Exemples of contemporary atheistic irrationalism, dogmatism and wishful thinking:
-My post on Lewis Wolpert.
-My post on Michael Martin.
-My post on Theodore Schick.
-My post on Peter Atkins.
-My post on Thomas Nagel
Take for example Parsons' comment on William Lane Craig: "There are certain things William Lane Craig takes to be metaphysical intuitions, like that it’s undeniable that the universe must have had a cause—and for me it’s not. My intuitions are quite different,” Parsons says. And what then? He adds, “And then, once we’ve reached that point, there’s just no further to go." (emphasis in blue added).
Reading that comment is astonishing, since even the most ignorant, shallow, intellectually impaired and inept philosopher who has studied Craig's work would know that Craig DOES NOT assert that the universe must have had a cause is a metaphysical intuition. Proof of that is that the proposition "the universe has a cause" is the CONCLUSION of the kalam cosmological argument, as you can watch in this brief video by Craig (see the second 30 of this video, where the conclusion of the argument is written behind Craig):
Conflating the logical conclusion of an argument with a pure metaphysical intuition (which, being intuitive, doesn't require any special justification, except by the way of refuting potential objections or defeaters against it) is revealing of Parsons' philosophical rigour and charity in examining the theistic arguments.
For Craig, what's a metaphysical intuition is the first PREMISE of the argument, namely "whatever begins to exist has a cause", which is known as the "principle of causality" (A principle which is neutral regarding the existence of God, as evidenced by the fact that even atheists accept it, except when it's part of an argument for God's existence).
But even Craig doesn't rest his case for the first premise in his personal intuitions, but that he offers some independent arguments for it:
1-Such principle is constantly confirmed in our experience; therefore, it's highly plausible that such principle is true. (Note that many naturalists and atheists regard themselves as "empiricists", but they forget the lessons of such empiricism when they reject the empirical confirmation of the principle of causality. Actually, the rejection of such principle is pure atheist wishful thinking: they reject it only in order to avoid the cogency of the cosmological argument for God's existence. Out of such context, no naturalist/atheist would accept that things "come from nothing", that is, they wouldn't accept that things like dogs, books, stars, goverments, meteorites, movies, human beings, Ufos, rats, atheists, food, pencils, cell phones, trees, viruses, hair, rocks, keys, clouds, new animal species, etc. exist "out of nothing", without any cause whatsoever. In fact, people familiar with pseudo-skeptical cranks will know that whatever supposed paranormal phenomena or anomalous fact is reported, atheistic pseudoskeptics inmediately will try to debunk them appealing to many (arbitrary) alternative causes, like hallucitations in case of ghosts or alien abductions, frauds in case of psychics, misobservation in cases of Ufos, placebo effect in case of a healing by alternative medicine, etc. They'll invent causes, even if such particular causes don't apply to the concrete case. Have you seen any hard-core atheist, naturalist, materialist or pseudo-skeptical crank to say "The healing of that disease with homeopathy is not caused by homeopathy, actually it comes from nothing!"? Or: "That medium's materialisation feats have no cause at all, they simply exist out of nothing" Or: That animal species doesn't come from evolution or God, they come from nothing?" Obviously NO! These pseudo-skeptical charlatans, if accept the healing or mediumship phenomenon or animal species in question, will consider it a product of placebo effect or any other (non-alternative medicine favourable) cause, or product of magician's tricks, or the product of Darwinian evolution. This is strong evidence that atheistic pseudoskeptical charlatans also take seriously the principle of causality when it favors their personal prejudices, but they reject it when it's part of an argument against atheism, because they fully realize that consistency would destroy their naturalism).
2-The denial of such principle would imply that some things "come from nothing", but:
a)There is not evidence that such thing ocurrs. (Quantum physics is often mentioned, since virtual particles are said to come from the quantum vaccum, and therefore from nothing. However, only ignorant charlatans and intentionally dishonest sophists would conflate the "quantum vaccum" with nothing. If the virtual particles come from the quantum vaccum, then they come from something, not from nothing. Believe me, some atheists don't have the intellectual ability and rationality to understand this simple point, so trying to explain this to them is an absolute waste of time).
b)It's conceptually absurd to think that "nothing" (which by definition is what doesn't exist, that is, it means absolute non-existence) can somehow produce "something", since from out nothing nothing comes. Saying that "something come out of nothing" seems to make no conceptual sense at all (try to think about it carefully and rigurously. Note that you can imagine a phenomenon without a known cause; but it doesn't mean that such phenomenon is actually uncaused).
So the principle of causality is very highly plausible as a principle governing reality (independently of Craig's intuitions).
Therefore, when Parsons asserts "And then, once we’ve reached that point, there’s just no further to go", he's intentionally misleading the readers. The "point" in question "(the cause of the universe) doesn't rest on arbitrary personal intuitions, but in evidence-based rational principles (the principle of causality) and scientific evidence (e.g. the Big Bang), logical consistency, rational reflection and logical argumentation.
It's always a source of fascination to me to explore the mindset and psychology of atheists and hard-core naturalists and pseudo-skeptics. I confess that I haven't seen more evidence of irrationality (disguised as logic and reason) than in these people.
It's the ultimate self-delusion.
Exemples of contemporary atheistic irrationalism, dogmatism and wishful thinking:
-My post on Lewis Wolpert.
-My post on Michael Martin.
-My post on Theodore Schick.
-My post on Peter Atkins.
-My post on Thomas Nagel
0 comments:
Post a Comment