A Facebook friend wrote:
Every kind of beautiful art causes me to marvel at the artist. Even more, at the Artist who made the artist.
So I responded:
Was there an Artist who made the Artist who made the artist who made the art?
The collective opinion of his other religious friends is a resounding ‘no’.
That being the case, my next comment would be:
So if an Artist does not need a creator, why does an artist?
It’s just the old ‘Who created the Creator?’ problem. If a god doesn’t need a creator and things can just appear uncreated, then anything could just appear without needing a god to create it. But if a god does need a creator, it doesn’t fix the problem; it just extends it back a generation. That way lies Infinite Regress, and it’s turtles all the way down.
But then I suppose this friend would then say, “God doesn’t need a creator. He’s God. Duh.” Can’t argue with a definition like that.
UPDATE: I was right. Someone did end up saying exactly that.
13 March 2010 at 7:37 pm
the argument seems to usually go in such a way that makes God by default the uncreated.
When you say, "Well, why couldn't the universe have been the uncreated," the problem they point out is that the universe demonstrably hasn't existed forever.
I don't think pointing to a being that hasn't demonstrably been shown to exist at all is a good fix, and I don't know enough about physics, but I don't really know how to counter this. The universe is of finite age, right?
13 March 2010 at 8:08 pm
Well, okay, so the universe hasn't existed forever, but their god has? Only if you define him that way. Hey: I think I'll define god as having only existed since last Thursday!
This is a case where science is constrained by an unwillingness to make stuff up.
13 March 2010 at 8:31 pm
Like I said, I don't like it, but it makes an easy way to get out of that particular counter.
They can say, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Whether you put your one god or the universe there, it has a cause…The regress isn't infinite, because they propose a God that did not begin to exist.
14 March 2010 at 7:38 am
Yes, I see their argument, but I don't see why they think they're the only ones qualified to make definitions around here. I can define things too, and I define god as 'a week-old tuna fish sandwich'. They can't prove me wrong!
They're just declaring by fiat that God has always existed. How do they know that's right?
The Bible, of course. Duh.
So it goes.
18 March 2010 at 1:33 pm
Yeah this one might be old, but it is hard. I think ordinary people might just think that science hasn't removed the God possibility from the "beginning of the universe" question. The whole scientific view of the beginning of the universe is profound enough in itself, but doesn't quite get us all to the point of atheistic rationalism.
18 March 2010 at 5:16 pm
Well, keep in mind we can't use atheistic rationalism to make a claim about the origins of the universe.
But we can say "I wonder if theists have given any evidence that a god started the universe."
And then we can say, "Oh, look, they haven't."
I admit there's still room for a god in that gap, but look out god, the gaps are shrinking.
19 March 2010 at 12:25 pm
The only thing philosophical arguments about the existence of God tend to prove is the internal consistency of their own logical constructions. They thus end up looking rather like Lewis Carroll's elaborations of nonsense.
I'd characterise myself as an agnostic who nonetheless still chooses to believe in God without practising any religion, and who accepts all the scientific proof available, distrusts organised religions, believes biblical texts are myth and fable (or maybe a poor historical attempt to explain something transcendental?), and can see no real harm in a belief in God per se (ie absent the folly and errors of history). I wonder how far away from the average secular Westerner that takes me.
I also think it is possible that ordinary people might not readily toss the God idea out due to a lack of scientific proof, ie take the atheistic position, but simply recognise the scientific basis of doubt as a modern condition of belief. This 'logic' might be inconsistent and flawed, but makes sense where people grow up in a culture of belief, or at least in a secular society that nonetheless has a long historical tradition of belief and still presents belief in a god as acceptable and widespread. Therefore your claim about science closing the gaps on religious belief forever might just be an atheistic wish fulfillment. I doubt if the gaps will close in our lifetimes; maybe never.
19 March 2010 at 12:29 pm
I must (unfortunately?) agree with Free Chocolate.
Talk about how the progression of science or history or whatever else will lead to a sure decline/demise of theism are really wishful, and they do a disservice to atheism anyway (don't rest on your laurels…) I think that even if certain discoveries shine light on previous mysteries, they also produce more shadows where ideas about god can develop and change again.
19 March 2010 at 5:40 pm
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that if I were to put forward a view of the type of God I believe in, it would be almost pantheistic – formless and genderless, in and through everything, especially the natural world, benign and chaotic, rather than a controlling designer. But now I'm almost sounding like an 18th Century Romantic. You atheists might call this corny, but maybe like everyone, I would like to see us take better care of the planet.
20 March 2010 at 3:57 am
Well, it does leave me scratching my head a bit, FC, but if it helps you to recycle, I suppose I won't complain too much.
I agree that the success of science doesn't necessarily have people chucking out their bibles. However, wouldn't you have to admit that scientific advance have left fewer gaps for a god to hide? Two hundred years ago, there wasn't really a good scientific explanation for the diversity of animals, and the Genesis account was mostly allowed to stand.
Now, as we've learned more and more about the natural world, creationists are having to hide their god in ever more abstruse places (e.g. Quantum God), or, as FC has done, take the concept of god off the scientific playing field entirely (e.g. NOMA argument).
I'm curious, Andrew. How do you think more knowledge create more gaps somewhere else? I hope I'm reading you right.
20 March 2010 at 4:15 am
Daniel, just because some of the traditional gaps are closed up don't mean we're running out of gaps entirely. That just seems awfully uncreative.
I think that for every discovery that scientists make, some new mystery is revealed. Now, I will say I don't believe most religions have caught up (e.g., we still have people trying to fight science that has been solidified for YEARS), but wouldn't you say that something like, say, theoretical physics raises more questions than it seems to plug up?
You dismiss religion's adaptation to theoretical science as "ever more abstruse." But, uhh, hasn't that always been the point?
I guess if I could really sum it up…I don't believe that scientific progress necessary is a linear race, where each new discovery gets us closer to a definite finish line. I think every bit of progress actually makes us realize that the finish line was a lot further away than we thought.
20 March 2010 at 5:20 am
Well, true it is that having more knowledge gives us more questions. But this does not mean that the amount of available information is somehow shrinking — that we now know less than we did before. It just means that we're honing in on the subject at a level of detail we didn't have before. It means we can now ask better questions.
It's sort of like what Michael Shermer said about the fossil record. When we find a transitional fossil that fits right in the middle of a gap, creationists say, "Look, now there are two gaps, where there was only one before!"
20 March 2010 at 6:35 am
Daniel, what are the Quantum God and the NOMA argument? I'm not familiar with these.
And now to play the devil's advocate (if you will) – how do we know you aren't just going through some prolonged dark night of the soul? After all, you were once a missionary; it looks like a massive reversal from the outside.
I've been fascinated recently by what Lacan had to say about atheism (partially applying Freud). He said that modern atheists think they know god is dead, but what they don't know is that unconsciously, they continue to believe in god, and all that happens is their subconsciousnesses become the sites of even more prohibitions than ever before, that sabotage their enjoyment. It is not a case of "God is dead; all is permitted." (Nietzsche/Brothers Karamazov) but "God is dead; nothing is permitted". Daniel I think this is borne out by your many objections to almost everything.
If I were to embrace atheism I would struggle with it anyway, so it is easier to believe in a god that is palatable whilst allowing for doubt – I am quite proud of my god concept I think it is nice!
20 March 2010 at 7:19 am
If you have to believe in a god, yours is one of the nicer ones.
'Quantum God' is a name I use to refer to a tendency among theists. Nobody understands quantum mechanics, so they try to stuff their god into that gap. Francis Collins and Deepak Chopra are two people I can think of who pull the quantum wool over people's eyes.
The NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument, is an attempt to end the argument between science and religion. It says basically that science and religion are describing two different things, so you can have both. Shermer argues thus:
The most logically coherent argument for theists is that God is outside time and space; that is, God is beyond nature — super nature, or supernatural — and therefore cannot be explained by natural causes. God is beyond the dominion of science, and science is outside the realm of God.
It's an interesting approach, but it only works if you have a god that doesn't interact with the physical world in any way. If this sounds like your god, then ask your theologian if NOMA may be right for you.
Daniel I think this is borne out by your many objections to almost everything.
Oh, FC, I don't object to everything; just things I don't agree with. But occasionally I point out the good stuff too. Watch for it.
20 March 2010 at 8:11 am
Thanks Daniel. On that last point, I probably should have noted rather that you set your moral/ethical bar very high; this I have observed from your posts generally. There is almost no room for imperfection, error or human failing.
Also, you propound atheism in a way that is almost (can I say it?) evangelical.
20 March 2010 at 4:08 pm
If I am an evangelical atheist (and I think I am), it's not because I advocate atheism on the net. That's just advocating my own point of view, which everyone does.
I'm an evangelical atheist because I come into contact with others who are pulling away from their (usually Mormon) religion, when things are looking uncertain and confusing, and I tell them "You can come out on the other side of this and be happier than you were before." In that way, I consider myself something of a passive evangelical atheist.
Anyway, thanks for not saying 'militant'.
You would appear to be an agnostic who believes in a god. A strange sort of agnostic.
20 March 2010 at 4:52 pm
No, I don't think you're a militant atheist, and none of this was intended to come across harshly; I can tell you are an essentially nice person (as are many of the people who comment on your blog). As for my position as an agnostic who nonetheless chooses to believe in a God, its not unprecedented! I'm reconstructing a position on religion based my own sense of personal disaffectedness.
20 March 2010 at 5:53 pm
Don't worry, FC! I haven't taken umbrage at any of your comments. Sorry if that's not coming through.
I'm curious to see what you come up with! Or 'evolve'.
21 March 2010 at 10:39 am
Hmm, the more I think about Lacan's views on atheism (just since I mentioned them here!), the more I wonder if he is overgeneralising a tad and is even perhaps a little out of date. Food for thought, though.
I like your blog; it's interesting…