Shermer looking at an UFO
In Scientific American, atheist and "skeptic" Michael Shermer explained what he modestly calls Shermer's Last Law. This law states: "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God"
Expanding on this, Shermer says: "God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Because we are far from possessing these traits, how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us? We can't. But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI!"
This is an amazingly inept argument typical of Shermer and other atheists like him. God having the attributes of "omniscience and omnipotence" has nothing to do with us (i.e. it is not measured nor defined by their relations with our finitude).
Shemer asks "How can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us".
Answer: Appealing to other attributes of God like inmateriality. Are these aliens material? Then, by definition, they're not God (whatever be the alien's advanced technology).
Or eternity: Have these aliens existed eternally in their current state, or do they began to exist and have evolved by natural selection? If the latter, then by definition they're not God (regardless of the aliens' advanced technology), because God is by definition an ontologically necessary (and hence eternal) being not subject to natural selection nor other contingent, material processes.
Or their creative powers: Are these aliens the "cause" of the universe's beginning of existence out of nothing, or are they an evolutionary effect of the universe's material evolution under the pressure of natural selection? If the latter, then the aliens are not God.
That Shermer's argument is plain stupid is revealed by his misconstruction of the concept of God: "But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI"
Bravo!!!! What amazing display of philosophical knowledge and logical thinking! Obviously, if I define God like that, then "by definition" the deity would be an ETI.
The problem is that not sophisticated theist in the history of thought has ever been so stupid as to defend the concept of God on that grounds that God's knowledge and power is simply "relatively" superior than us.
Shermer is typically superficial when he discusses whatever matter. The same sloppy arguments can be seen in his discussions about ufology, parapsychology, afterlife research or ingelligent design or any other topic. Among professional skeptics, I think Shermer is clearly the most inept. He's an intellectual lightweight.
By the way, we can criticize the formulation of Shermer's Last Law on the following grounds:
1-If Shermer's law is true, then atheists should deny (not only doubt) the existence of advanced aliens, since whatever reason they have against God's existence is a reason to deny advanced aliens too. However, a hard-core atheist like Richard Dawkins has reportdly said that "he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet."
Let aside the fact that (for dialectical purposes alone) we can reply to Dawkins' "alien creationist hypothesis" with his own style of argument: "Dawkins, your alien hypothesis doesn't explain anything because the aliens in question remain themselves unexplained". But obviously we're not so stupid to argue like that (see more on Dawkisian arguments here).
The point is that Dawkins is open to the alien hypothesis instead of the God hypothesis, which implies the former is distinguishable from the latter (therefore, for Dawkins, Shermer's Law has to be false).
2-If Shermer's Last Law is true, then an eventual contact with ETI would imply the empirical destruction of atheism (since, in Shermer's idiosyncratic definition, such ETI would be relatively superior than us in terms of knowledge and power, and hence by Shermer's own definition would be a DEITY. And the existence of a deity implies the falsehood of atheism).
Is this the reason why pseudoskeptics also attack ufology?
3-Shermer's Last Law has other implications. For example, it provides atheists with a reason to reject whatever evidence is presented for God's existence, since they could argue that it is caused by ETI.
If God appeared to the entire world tomorrow with undeniable and irrefutable evidence, Shermer would argue that such evidence is insufficient because it is indistinguishable from the evidence provided by an advanced alien. Therefore, according to Shermer’s Last Law, God could never (even in principle) give enough evidence for an atheist to conclude that God exists. It makes atheism empirically unfalsifiable and hence unscientific!
This is the ultimate protection for atheism. It is like arguing that Jesus' Resurrection (if it is an actual historical fact) doesn't provide evidence for Christianity, or that actual physical and direct voice mediumship (if veridical) doesn't provide evidence for survival of consciousness. No unbiased researcher would accept these conclusions.
When you see a person arguing like that, you'll know for sure that her idiosyncratic and prima facie implausible position is strongly determined by what they reject. It is a matter of the WILL. In the case of atheists, what they reject is the existence of God, therefore they use whatever reason is at their disposal to protect their atheistic worldview from falsification.
In a way similar to Shermer's law, atheist philosopher J.J.Smart (who, contrary to Shermer, is an intellectual heavyweight) comments: Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added)
Smart concedes that he prefers to think himself has gone mad instead of accepting hard empirical evidence for God's existence. This is the FAITH OF AN ATHEIST (at least Smart is honest enough to recognize it).
Another example of this is atheist Quentin Smith, who prefers a non-explanation whatsoever instead of an explanation based on God. Commenting on the origin of the universe, Smith writes: "The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing... We should instead acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being ." (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Comsology. P.135. emphasis in blue added)
Note that having for reasons the "no reason at all" and "coming from the reign of non-being" is sufficiently comfortable to an atheist when confronted with the origin of the universe. Smith prefers a "no reason at all" as a reason to hold his atheism.
This is an example of the extraordinarily strong faith of an atheist. (Even the most dogmatic religious believer would provide a reason for his beliefs: he will say that "God did it. Period." This could be dogmatic and childish but it is at least intelligible as a reason. But compare that dogmatic reason with Smith's "no reason at all" and "coming from nothing". Seriously I ask you: What position requires of more faith?)
Do you think seriously and honestly that people like intellectual lightweight Shermer, and heavyweights Smith and Smart are honestly open enough to accept even the best evidence for God's existence?
Think about this please, because it will give you amazing insights about the psychology of atheists and pseudoskeptics.
Inspired by Shermer's Law, I'd want (modestly too) postulate what I'd call Jime's Iron Law. It states: "As a rule, hard-core atheists are irrational, suffer of severe wishfull thinking and have a cognitive impairment which prevents them to think logically in general and specifically about God, parapsychology, afterlife research and other topics which tends to destroy atheism. As consequence, they will always prefer a non-explanation at all over an explanation in terms of paranormal, spiritual and/or supernatural forces or entities (even if the evidence for the latter is very strong)"
I'll have to develop Jime's Iron Law (sounds good, isn't?) in more detail in future posts.
Expanding on this, Shermer says: "God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Because we are far from possessing these traits, how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us? We can't. But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI!"
This is an amazingly inept argument typical of Shermer and other atheists like him. God having the attributes of "omniscience and omnipotence" has nothing to do with us (i.e. it is not measured nor defined by their relations with our finitude).
Shemer asks "How can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us".
Answer: Appealing to other attributes of God like inmateriality. Are these aliens material? Then, by definition, they're not God (whatever be the alien's advanced technology).
Or eternity: Have these aliens existed eternally in their current state, or do they began to exist and have evolved by natural selection? If the latter, then by definition they're not God (regardless of the aliens' advanced technology), because God is by definition an ontologically necessary (and hence eternal) being not subject to natural selection nor other contingent, material processes.
Or their creative powers: Are these aliens the "cause" of the universe's beginning of existence out of nothing, or are they an evolutionary effect of the universe's material evolution under the pressure of natural selection? If the latter, then the aliens are not God.
That Shermer's argument is plain stupid is revealed by his misconstruction of the concept of God: "But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI"
Bravo!!!! What amazing display of philosophical knowledge and logical thinking! Obviously, if I define God like that, then "by definition" the deity would be an ETI.
The problem is that not sophisticated theist in the history of thought has ever been so stupid as to defend the concept of God on that grounds that God's knowledge and power is simply "relatively" superior than us.
Shermer is typically superficial when he discusses whatever matter. The same sloppy arguments can be seen in his discussions about ufology, parapsychology, afterlife research or ingelligent design or any other topic. Among professional skeptics, I think Shermer is clearly the most inept. He's an intellectual lightweight.
By the way, we can criticize the formulation of Shermer's Last Law on the following grounds:
1-If Shermer's law is true, then atheists should deny (not only doubt) the existence of advanced aliens, since whatever reason they have against God's existence is a reason to deny advanced aliens too. However, a hard-core atheist like Richard Dawkins has reportdly said that "he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet."
Let aside the fact that (for dialectical purposes alone) we can reply to Dawkins' "alien creationist hypothesis" with his own style of argument: "Dawkins, your alien hypothesis doesn't explain anything because the aliens in question remain themselves unexplained". But obviously we're not so stupid to argue like that (see more on Dawkisian arguments here).
The point is that Dawkins is open to the alien hypothesis instead of the God hypothesis, which implies the former is distinguishable from the latter (therefore, for Dawkins, Shermer's Law has to be false).
2-If Shermer's Last Law is true, then an eventual contact with ETI would imply the empirical destruction of atheism (since, in Shermer's idiosyncratic definition, such ETI would be relatively superior than us in terms of knowledge and power, and hence by Shermer's own definition would be a DEITY. And the existence of a deity implies the falsehood of atheism).
Is this the reason why pseudoskeptics also attack ufology?
3-Shermer's Last Law has other implications. For example, it provides atheists with a reason to reject whatever evidence is presented for God's existence, since they could argue that it is caused by ETI.
If God appeared to the entire world tomorrow with undeniable and irrefutable evidence, Shermer would argue that such evidence is insufficient because it is indistinguishable from the evidence provided by an advanced alien. Therefore, according to Shermer’s Last Law, God could never (even in principle) give enough evidence for an atheist to conclude that God exists. It makes atheism empirically unfalsifiable and hence unscientific!
This is the ultimate protection for atheism. It is like arguing that Jesus' Resurrection (if it is an actual historical fact) doesn't provide evidence for Christianity, or that actual physical and direct voice mediumship (if veridical) doesn't provide evidence for survival of consciousness. No unbiased researcher would accept these conclusions.
When you see a person arguing like that, you'll know for sure that her idiosyncratic and prima facie implausible position is strongly determined by what they reject. It is a matter of the WILL. In the case of atheists, what they reject is the existence of God, therefore they use whatever reason is at their disposal to protect their atheistic worldview from falsification.
In a way similar to Shermer's law, atheist philosopher J.J.Smart (who, contrary to Shermer, is an intellectual heavyweight) comments: Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added)
Smart concedes that he prefers to think himself has gone mad instead of accepting hard empirical evidence for God's existence. This is the FAITH OF AN ATHEIST (at least Smart is honest enough to recognize it).
Another example of this is atheist Quentin Smith, who prefers a non-explanation whatsoever instead of an explanation based on God. Commenting on the origin of the universe, Smith writes: "The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing... We should instead acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being ." (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Comsology. P.135. emphasis in blue added)
Note that having for reasons the "no reason at all" and "coming from the reign of non-being" is sufficiently comfortable to an atheist when confronted with the origin of the universe. Smith prefers a "no reason at all" as a reason to hold his atheism.
This is an example of the extraordinarily strong faith of an atheist. (Even the most dogmatic religious believer would provide a reason for his beliefs: he will say that "God did it. Period." This could be dogmatic and childish but it is at least intelligible as a reason. But compare that dogmatic reason with Smith's "no reason at all" and "coming from nothing". Seriously I ask you: What position requires of more faith?)
Do you think seriously and honestly that people like intellectual lightweight Shermer, and heavyweights Smith and Smart are honestly open enough to accept even the best evidence for God's existence?
Think about this please, because it will give you amazing insights about the psychology of atheists and pseudoskeptics.
Inspired by Shermer's Law, I'd want (modestly too) postulate what I'd call Jime's Iron Law. It states: "As a rule, hard-core atheists are irrational, suffer of severe wishfull thinking and have a cognitive impairment which prevents them to think logically in general and specifically about God, parapsychology, afterlife research and other topics which tends to destroy atheism. As consequence, they will always prefer a non-explanation at all over an explanation in terms of paranormal, spiritual and/or supernatural forces or entities (even if the evidence for the latter is very strong)"
I'll have to develop Jime's Iron Law (sounds good, isn't?) in more detail in future posts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment