Occasionally give me pause

* Missing archeological evidence for particular recorded Biblical events

No Way, José

* The Problem of Pain
* Moral Argument for Atheism

Waaaaaaay Terrible

* Argument from historical failure of Christians
* Who designed the designer?
*
Profoundly, Jaw-Droppingly Awful

* Argument from flaws in the natural world
* Argument from the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.
* Pragmatic arguments (we don’t need God, etc.)
* Belief in God is just superstition

Candidate for ‘Dumbest Idea of the Century’

* Argument from biological and/or situational determinism

That is my list. The order in each division is irrelevant. If my placement for any of these needs defending, let me know.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aesch.+Ag.+1485&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0003

while in Aristotle it’s “ti ekinese proton” or “kinoun ti proton”:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristot.+Met.+7.1041a&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0051
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristot.+Met.+9.1049b&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0051

so it’s not even “he”, it’s “it”.

I think the connection is really unlikely.

Now I didn’t notice your reply. I have never heard Aeschylus’ phrase story and I can’t find it anywhere.

I’m sorry I didn’t notice you had replied once more! I think we had a good exchange here and your last post makes several good points.

I concede I don’t know exactly how Aristotle and Plato thought of Zeus and the other traditional gods. As for “prime mover”, I gathered Aristotle got the phrase from Aeschylus who applied it to Zeus but I can’t find a good source at the moment so maybe I’ve got this wrong.

Robert Gressis: Where in the philosophical literature do you see the argument from exceptional assertion forwarded?

I’m not going to canvas the literature looking up explicit references for you. If you haven’t seen various theistic arguments amount to little more than a special assertion (as far as professional and lay opinions go alike), then oh well.

Robert Gressis: Maybe when Russell claimed the existence of the universe was a brute fact?

Certainly theists are not the only ones guilty of having sacred assertions. I’d have to see Russell’s actual argument to comment further.

Ben

As for the Stoics and Zeus, I’ve found one fragment in Diogenes Laertius that definitely confirm your view:

“And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common (orthos logos) to all things, as is identical with Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is.” (7,88)

I’ve also found a pun-based fragment suggesting that Stoics’ god is a kind of combination of many mythical gods:

“He is, however, the artificer of the universe and, as it were, the father of all, both in general and in that particular part of him which is all-pervading, and which is called many names according to its various powers. The give the name Dia because all things are due to (dia) him; Zeus (Zena) in so far as he is the cause of life (zen) or pervades all life; the name Athena is given because the ruling part of the divinity extends to the aether; the name Hera marks its extension to the air; he is called Hephaestus since it spreads to the creative fire; Poseidon, since it stretches to the sea; Demeter, since it reaches to the earth. similarly men have given the deity his other titles, fastening, as best they can, on some one or other of his peculiar attributes.” (7,147)

And one more, similar:

“God is one and the same with Reason (nous), Fate (heimarmene), and Zeus; he is also called by many other names.” (7,136)

I guess you were right, then. I overlooked those fragments last time I was reading that. On the other hand, there are fragments saying Zeno or Chrysippus despised Zeus and other mythical gods.
Cleanthes’ Hymn is a good example too, though we should remember that those days being an innovatory poet was no virtue, so hymn’s author had to stick to the convention and there was no convention of writing a hymn to a vague supreme being. Thus, authors of such works had to address them to some mythical gods, like epic poets had to admit they were mere tools in the hands of Muses (not necessarily believing in it) or tragedians had to write chorus’ parts in Doric (not necessarily being familiar with it). There was also no possibility to say something like “our civil god doesn’t exist, so worshiping him is pointless” without being exiled (at least). So there were some philosophers who could worship certain gods and write poems about those (or the other) gods without believing in them, and also write philosophical texts on supreme beings not identifying them with any of those mythical gods.
I thought that a link between natural and civil theology in the case of Stoics had been usually something like “common people believe in mythical gods that admittedly don’t exist, though worshiping them introduces some order into society and this very order is a god itself”, not like “mythical gods exist, but we understand their nature better than the common people”, though I am not sure about that anymore.
Yet, I’m still pretty sure about Plato and Aristotle. Do you think that, say, Aristotle’s Prime Mover is a deeper understanding of Zeus as well?

Sometimes stuff gets stuck in the spam trap until I have time to let it through.

I posted my reply to this twice and it still didnt go through!

rhys: Physicists most certainly did not posit a world ensemble merely as a knee jerk reaction to this supposed fine tuning that theists go bananas about.

I’m sorry, you’re wrong again. The theistic implications of fine-tuning definitely contributed to the formulation of the multiverse theory, as made clear in this Discover magazine article from 2008 (with the amazing title “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator(!)–the Multiverse Theory”):

“Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.” http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

You’ll also notice: “the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved.” In fact, Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of the multiverse theory, is campaigning for science to jettison falsifiabilty as the criterion of a good scientific theory because the multiverse can never be falsified. Thus we are left with a choice of metaphysical alternatives: God or an infinite number of universes. Take your pick as to which is most plausible.

Scribbling numbers and formulas on a blackboard can tell you the possible combinations, what it cannot tell you is if those combinations are likely to occur!

This point is so damn important but you keep freakin ignoring it!

I can tell you have been listening to Dr Craig. He has a twisted interpretation of the multiverse theory. Here is how he thinks it came about:

Atheist materialist scientist #1: Gee! We know that the universe is finely tuned! Uh-oh this might prove the existence of God! We can’t have that now can we! I don’t want there to be a God, he might send me to Hell!

Atheist materialist scientist #2: I know what to do! lets make up some ad-hoc bullshit about there being squillions, squillions and squillions of different universes all with different values and see if that solves the problem!

Atheist materialist scientist #1: Spiffing idea chap! Atheism has been saved again! Thats what I’m talking about baby! Now lets go and snort lines of coke, have sex with prostitutes and commit mindless transgressions until our cocks fall off number Two!

Atheist materialist scientist #2: Right on number One!

Meanwhile, back in reality:

The multiverse is predicted by:

> The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

> Cyclic theories of the universe

> String theories

And so on. Physicists most certainly did not posit a world ensemble merely as a knee jerk reaction to this supposed fine tuning that theists go bananas about.

Plus there are ways to verify the idea of a world ensemble. The fragmenting universe scenario and string theory both makes testable predictions. If these are confirmed, this corroborates the multiverse hypothesis.

The MagicManDunIt hypothesis cannot predict anything. It cant be falsified, verified, tested, it does not increase our knowledge, it doesn’t simplify anything. In a nutshell, Godditit is by definition the furthest thing from an explanation there is.

rhys: What you must understand is to calculate the probability of a possible initial configuration, you have to roll the dice and see how many times your value comes up!

I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong about “possibility” and “probability”. The theoretical formulas that physicists use to describe the universe entail that the constants can have a wide range of values–that’s the science and that’s the default position. There would not be so much work on the idea of multiverses if that were not the case (why waste time on a nonfalsifiable idea which gets those who work on it accused of doing metaphysics and not physics if a multitude of universes were not possible as shown by the formulas?)

rhys: Oh yeah and there’s also the huge ass problem where a perfect God should not need to create a universe then fine tune it, it should be able to support life on its own without the values needing to be monkeyed around with.

You’re just wrong here too. The whole point of fine-tuning is that the initial conditions were fine-tuned–not “after the fact.”

I’m happy to discuss these issues with you, but I hate having to repeat myself and re-clarify obvious points.

Chance

What you must understand is to calculate the probability of a possible initial configuration, you have to roll the dice and see how many times your value comes up! that is how you calculate probability! For the theist to say that our universe is improbable he has to observe other universes and see what constants they have compared with our own and see how commonly ours come up! Scribbling numbers on a chalkboard only shows what possible combinations can be attained, not what probable combinations be be obtained!

The theist is the one making the affirmative claim here! He is saying:

(a) There are possible worlds where the universe could have had a different configuration

(b) These possible worlds are just as probable as the one we observe

Do you understand? The onus is on the theist to demonstrate why these worlds are just as probable and the only way to do that is to:

Observe lots of other universes and see what values all the forces took

I hope I have clarified my reasons why I think the fine tuning argument is just a really appalling argument from ignorance.

No I am not saying there is no such thing as a multiverse! I am merely saying there is no proof for it yet. I am taking the default position of doubt until there is positive evidence that corroborates the claim. For instance if some of the predictions of string theory are confirmed, then the multiverse idea will seem more appealing. Or if we can confirm the mother universe fragmenting scenario, then that will also be positive evidence for the claim of a world ensemble.

Oh yeah and there’s also the huge ass problem where a perfect God should not need to create a universe then fine tune it, it should be able to support life on its own without the values needing to be monkeyed around with.

rhys: Law
Despite his most polemic efforts, Dr Craig has not ruled out law, or shown why a natural law could not suffice as a good explanation. He has just stated that we haven’t found a plausible candidate yet.

That’s true, but that is why law is not the best explanation (currently). “Law” is not the default position requiring all other positions to bear the burden of proof; if there is law, it must be demonstrated. So far, it has not been (and cosmologists are not hopeful that it will be, which is why all the attention is paid to multiverse theories, even though they are non-falsifiable and thus more like metaphysics than physics).

rhys: Chance

This is just faulty reasoning. The burden of proof is on Dr Craig to show that other combinations of initial values are at least plausible, and he has to show that they are just as probable as our universe.

Not at all; physicists can easily change the constants in the formula and arrive at different possible universes; the burden is on the one claiming that these constants are somehow necessary values to come up with an explanation of why this is.

rhys: In fact it is much more likely not to be the case because assuming any possible universe could have formed, ours did. The actual likelihood of this universe forming is exactly 1/1. God or no God, 1/1.

So are you saying the multiverse theory should be thrown out as absurd, since ours was the only possible universe? (even though you have provided no evidence that that is the case).

lukeprog: ayer,I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you suggesting that for something to be “fine-tuned,” it should be the case that the constants must be most narrowly constricted for permitting that thing such that one tiny tweak in any of them would eliminate the given result? If so, I hereby proclaim the universe was fine-tuned to create Venus, since had the constants been tweaked even a tiny bit then a planet with the exact chemical and physical makeup would never have existed.I’ll write more about fine-tuning arguments later, no time now…  

No, but you’re getting closer. It’s absurd to choose one example of a category (e.g., Venus in the category of planets), but of course planet formation is a precondition for human life so if the universe was fine-tuned for human life it would also have to be fine-tuned to produce planet as part of the chain of causation leading to human life. And that is precisely the case:

“Another finely tuned value is the strong nuclear force that holds atoms — and therefore matter — together. The sun derives its ‘fuel’ from fusing hydrogen atoms together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller — say, 0.6% instead of 0.7% — a proton would not be able to bond to a neutron and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. Without the presence of heavy elements, planets would not form and hence no life would be possible. Conversely, if the amount of matter converted were increased to 0.8% instead of 0.7%, fusion would occur so rapidly that no hydrogen would remain. Again, the result would be no planets, no solar systems and hence no life.”

http://www.allaboutscience.org/cosmic-fine-tuning.htm

lukeprog: Steven,

Unfortunately, Kai Man Kwan’s article doesn’t even discuss the most basic objection to arguments from religious experience; namely, that other people have contradictory religious experiences.

Yes he does. He deals with it on page 536.

I can tell you have been listening to Dr Craig’s work. The trichotomy that he posed to solve the problem is false, and here is why:

Read the word fine tuning. That word carries alot of pre-supposition with it. It firstly says that there was something to be tuned, and secondly that something did the tuning. Now if you already believe in God and think he had a reason to monkey around with the physics of the universe, then fine tuning is probable. However, the probability of God existing, given that the initial conditions are balanced for intelligent life can still be quite low. Like I said above this is standard conditional probability that you learn in freshman level.

Dr Craig gives 3 solutions to the fine tuning ‘problem’

(1) Law
(2) Chance
(3) Design

Law
Despite his most polemic efforts, Dr Craig has not ruled out law, or shown why a natural law could not suffice as a good explanation. He has just stated that we haven’t found a plausible candidate yet.

Chance

This is just faulty reasoning. The burden of proof is on Dr Craig to show that other combinations of initial values are at least plausible, and he has to show that they are just as probable as our universe. Only a-posteriori reasoning can accomplish this and we are in no position to do such a thing.

Design

Craig only infers design because he eliminates the previous 2 (tried to). There is no positive reason whatsoever to think that God fine tuned the universe.

The main point I want to reemphasize is that we have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that other possible universes with different combinations of constants are just as probable as ours. In fact it is much more likely not to be the case because assuming any possible universe could have formed, ours did. The actual likelihood of this universe forming is exactly 1/1. God or no God, 1/1.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you suggesting that for something to be “fine-tuned,” it should be the case that the constants must be most narrowly constricted for permitting that thing such that one tiny tweak in any of them would eliminate the given result? If so, I hereby proclaim the universe was fine-tuned to create Venus, since had the constants been tweaked even a tiny bit then a planet with the exact chemical and physical makeup would never have existed.

I’ll write more about fine-tuning arguments later, no time now…

rhys: 1) Human life is the pinnacle goal of the universe; human life is not the byproduct of mindless forces

Only presupposed theistic belief can warrant this assumption, so we are back to begging the question.

No, that is determined by the discovery that the constants are precisely tuned to produce life and then asking the question: why would that be? It has to be either law, chance or design. Design is posited as an inference to the best explanation.

rhys: 2) God exists

The fine tuning argument assumes that God was already there and had an opportunity and a motive to rig the universe in our favor.

I have no idea where you are getting that from; there are clearly three possible explanations for the apparent fine-tuning: law, chance or design. The argument does not assume God, it posits God as the best explanation of those three.

rhys: 3) A unifying theory that proposes the possibility of a super-force assigning all the values the constants currently hold will never come to fruition

The theist has to ardently oppose this with all his will if he is to promote the fine tuning argument, since if evidence for a super-force comes out, it is by definition a much superior explanation then Goddidit.

If such a theory is established, then “law” will be the proper explanation for the apparent fine-tuning. But it would still require an explanation for “where did the law come from”?–(a lawgiver, perhaps?)

rhys: 4) All possible combinations of the physical constants are equally probable

This assumption is naive. There is no way of determining how probable each combination of constants is unless you see it tried out.

Absent an explanation that the value of the constants are required by some law of nature, it is perfectly reasonable to assume a range of possibility for the constants; and cosmologists do so all the time

rhys: And lastly, it is arrogant beyond words to think that the entire universe was divinely knob-twiddled by a playful architect solely for our pleasures and pastimes.

As I noted above, that idea that a universe producing sentient life and, as Sagan said, “becoming aware of itself”, does not cry out for an explanation is just bizarre. Of course it does.

Bebok: Greek “theistic” philosophers were often openly hostile towards mythology.

Yes, we’ve been over this several times now. The Greek philosophers (and other Greek writers) felt free to reject any myths they didn’t feel fit with their theology. They also felt free to interpret myths allegorically. Generally, the myths they objected to were those that showed the gods in a bad light. Plato didn’t think mythology as such was an evil or useless thing or that every myth should be rejected.

Bebok: I don’t think we can say that Xenophanes, Plato, Aristotle or the Stoics believed in any kind of Zeus.

You obviously have some familiarity with this subject and it puzzles me that so far into this exchange we still seem so distant from understanding each other. Why did the Stoics call the supreme being Zeus if they “didn’t believe in any kind of Zeus”? Why did Cleanthes write Hymn to Zeus if he “didn’t believe in any kind of Zeus”? Why did he call Zeus “Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful, Zeus”? Why did he include lines like the following if he thought the deity he was worshipping was not the same as the god worshipped by his countrymen?

So great is the servant which you hold in your invincible hands, your eternal, two-edged, lightning-forked thunderbolt.

Saying the Stoics “didn’t believe in any kind of Zeus” is starting to sound to me like that old chestnut in which the Iliad and the Odyssey “were not written by Homer, but by another man named Homer”.

We shouldn’t see the Greek mythology as the main defining constituent of the Greek religion. You brought up Varro’s system and that model does have some use, it gives us three parts:

1. Poetry (mythic theology)
2. Philosophy (natural theology)
3. Worship (civil theology)

While the myths have some relevance to philosophy and worship they’re only central in poetry.

ayer:
“Dawkins and Hitchens are right on this one–fine-tuning is among the best theistic arguments, which is why their only response is that “cosmology has yet to find its Darwin.”  

Ive got nothing against your theistic beliefs, but the fact that you accept the argument from fine freakin tuning is just bizarre beyond words. The argument from fine tuning makes 4 assumptions:

1) Human life is the pinnacle goal of the universe; human life is not the byproduct of mindless forces

Only presupposed theistic belief can warrant this assumption, so we are back to begging the question.

2) God exists

The fine tuning argument assumes that God was already there and had an opportunity and a motive to rig the universe in our favor. The likelihood of the fine-tuning of the universe, given that God exists is quite high, but the probability of God existing, given the balance of the initial conditions could still be extremely low. This is standard conditional probability theorem.

3) A unifying theory that proposes the possibility of a super-force assigning all the values the constants currently hold will never come to fruition

The theist has to ardently oppose this with all his will if he is to promote the fine tuning argument, since if evidence for a super-force comes out, it is by definition a much superior explanation then Goddidit.

4) All possible combinations of the physical constants are equally probable

This assumption is naive. There is no way of determining how probable each combination of constants is unless you see it tried out. A good analogy is a six sided die. You do not calculate the probability of rolling a 3 by adding up every possible outcome, since rolling the die and landing on a corner or an edge is technically a possible outcome. What you do is you roll the die as many times as possible and calculate the average amount of times you hit a 3. Similarly, the only way to calculate the probability of getting a different combination of initial conditions for the beginning of the universe is to examine the initial conditions of other universes and calculate the bell distribution of values. Since this is the only universe we know of, as far as we can tell the probability of this universe appearing is exactly 1/1. No intervention from sky daddies required.

And lastly, it is arrogant beyond words to think that the entire universe was divinely knob-twiddled by a playful architect solely for our pleasures and pastimes. We have literally existed for only .0000182481752% of the universes history. Even our own Earth is remarkably hostile to us. There are snarling predators who will kill us, flesh eating bacteria which literally eat our insides out, tornadoes that rip through cities destroying homes and killing thousands, cyclones, hurricanes, cataclysmic tsunamis, extreme temperatures, solar flares, destructive meteors, super-volcanoes, gamma-ray-bursters, cosmic rays, and so on. We go 8000 meter up we suffocate from lack of oxygen. We go down 2000 meters we burn to a crisp from the Earth’s core temperature. If we are exposed to the vacuum of space we die a horrible painful death within 3 minutes, not to mention that even in an astronaut suit we would succumb to the violent blasts of cosmic and gamma rays that are so prevalent in deep space. Even if you assumed that every single star in the galaxy had one Earth-like planet, and you ignored all the massive voids found between galaxies, the universe would be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927% deadly to life. I’m sorry I’m not going to mince words. To sit there with a straight face after those facts and say that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life is downright fucking bananas.

lukeprog: If anything, it was fine-tuned to make black holes, which are common and take up most of the mass of the universe.

Are you saying that the same variety and number of constants have to be set to precise values for the universe to be a “black-hole permitting” universe as to be a “life-permitting universe”? (i.e., a black-hole-permitting universe is as rare in the panoply of possible universes as one that produces sentient life)? I would like to see a citation for evidence of that.

Further, even it that were the case, are you saying that you see nothing more remarkable about a universe that produces intelligent life that can ask deep questions about that universe, than a universe that produces black holes. Even Carl Sagan recognized the qualitative difference with sentient life, as I recall he would rhapsodize about the remarkable fact that the universe has become “self-aware” with humanity.

SteveK: I don’t know that theology teaches that God is fine-tuned. Necessary, yes. Immutable, yes. Eternal, yes.

I don’t think theologians traditionally use the words “fine-tuned”, but I don’t really see any relevant difference, do you?

How could one consider a ‘perfect being’ anything but finely tuned? He is the most finely tuned thing that can possibly exist.

He’s the one fine-tuned thing that doesn’t require an external explanation. Because he’s special.

Everything requires an external explanation? News to me, really. So you basically agree with the ‘turtles all the way down’ approach – or just for fine-tuned things? Anyway…I don’t know that theology teaches that God is fine-tuned. Necessary, yes. Immutable, yes. Eternal, yes.

Haukur: Christians have traditionally been much more inclined to take their myths literally. But you still have Christian philosophers who do not think YHWH is literally the type of being you’ll find “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in YHWH.
More generally, Christians have a strong tendency to unite around orthodoxy while pagans have a tendency to unite around orthopraxy. Christians believe it is crucially important to have correct beliefs about the divine while pagans usually do not assign this the same overriding importance, often being more concerned with correct action.
It’s sometimes suggested that the pagan philosophers were somehow closer to Christianity than to popular paganism but that doesn’t seem to be borne out by the facts. Certainly, when a Stoic became emperor he vigorously fought against Christianity and promoted the pagan cults. And when a Platonist became emperor he vigorously fought against Christianity and promoted the pagan cults.
Long after the pagan cults had been suppressed there were still pagan philosophers around. Even in the 15th century, at the very end of the Roman Empire, its most celebrated philosopher (Plethon) was a crypto-pagan.

I totally agree. That was not my point, though. I didn’t try to defend Christianity in any way.
Neither the God-Nature of Stoics, nor the God of Xenophanes, God-Creator from Plato’s Timaeus or Aristotle’s Prime Mover were “deeper understandings” of Zeus. Greek “theistic” philosophers were often openly hostile towards mythology. For example, Aristotle wrote:

“Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned.”

Haukur:
Zeus is the supreme god of the Greeks. As Hesiod said:
Then, next, the goddesses sing of Zeus, the father of gods and men, as they begin and end their strain, how much he is the most excellent among the gods and supreme in power

Note what he writes about Eros, the first god who emerged, at the same time:

“…and Eros, the fairest of the deathless gods;
he unstrings the limbs and subdues both mind
and sensible thought in the breasts of all gods and all men.”

Zeus was generally the supreme god, but limited in many respects at the same time. I haven’t noticed any hint of apologetics of Zeus in the Greek philosophers’ writings. I don’t think we can say that Xenophanes, Plato, Aristotle or the Stoics believed in any kind of Zeus.