A question online theists refuse to answer?

by Luke Muehlhauser on December 23, 2009 in Criticism of Atheists

Measure76 at Reddit posts the following “question online theists refuse to answer“:

I ask this question sometimes, when I run into a theist on the internet, who is making a case for God.

I ask “Can you prove to me that God exists in a way that will also show that Zeus does not?”

So far, every time I’ve tried it, I get no response at all from the theist.

I’m an atheist, and I’ll answer right now for the theist.

The answer is: “No, I can’t, but that’s an absurd demand to make.”

Why should the theist need a proof of God that would simultaneously disprove Zeus? What a bizarre request! It’s like asking me for a proof of heliocentrism that simultaneously proves that unicorns don’t exist.

Even if a single argument isn’t meant to accomplish both things at the same time (a proof of God and a disproof of Zeus), I don’t know any Christians who claim to be able to disprove the existence of Zeus.

But let’s be generous. Maybe what Measure76 meant was something like:

Can you offer an argument for God’s existence that couldn’t just as well be used to prove the existence of Zeus?

The answer is: “Yes. Take your pick of the three major arguments always offered for the existence of God, among others.”

The cosmological argument, if successful, establishes the existence of a First Cause of the universe. That fits the God of classical theism but not Zeus.

The teleological argument, if successful, establishes the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe. That fits the God of classical theism but not Zeus.

The ontological argument, if successful, establishes the existence of a greatest conceivable being. That fits the God of classical theism but not Zeus.

I ask this question sometimes, when I run into a theist on the internet, who is making a case for God.
I ask “Can you prove to me that God exists in a way that will also show that Zeus does not?”
So far, every time I’ve tried it, I get no response at all from the theis

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }

Hylomorphic December 23, 2009 at 10:05 pm

At least some pagan philosophers of antiquity would strongly disagree with your assessment. Zeus as they conceived him was perfectly compatible with those arguments. There were, for instance, Platonists like Proclus who identified Zeus with the Demiurge of the Timaeus. And there were those Stoics like Cleanthes who identified Zeus with the Logos which providentially orders the world.

For example: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/cleanthes_hymn.html

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 23, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Yeah, there are some who held Zeus to be a kind of Supreme Being. But that’s not the usual notion of Zeus, and I don’t think it’s the notion of Zeus presupposed by Mercury76.

  (Quote)

Hylomorphic December 23, 2009 at 10:39 pm

In Hellenic religion, Zeus is the highest of all the gods. I have difficulty seeing how that doesn’t make Zeus some kind of Supreme Being.

Regardless, the overall point Measure76 was making stands. Under a conception of Zeus believed by some of the most philosophically sophisticated of the worshipers of Zeus, those arguments apply equally to Zeus as they do to Jehovah.

The argument highlights what I take to be the paradoxically idolatrous nature of monotheistic religion. I have a blog post discussing some aspects of this idolatry. It’s not a full account; I point toward a number of philosophical issues–the universality, or at least publicity, of reason, for instance–that have to be resolved before a full account could become perspicuous.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 23, 2009 at 10:44 pm

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s the point Measure76 was making. And anyway, that was only my generous reinterpretation of him, not his actual words.

  (Quote)

Hylomorphic December 23, 2009 at 11:20 pm

It could be that Measure76 was trying to make a weaker claim: that one cannot make an argument which justifies a sophisticated notion of Jehovah, but not a naive notion of Zeus.

But why should we pay any attention to such an argument? It’s obviously wrong. Equally wrong would be the claim that one cannot justify a sophisticated notion of Zeus (or Allah, one could add, or Shiva or Ahura Mazda) while not justifying a naive notion of Jehovah–the “bearded old guy in the sky” notion, for example.

If we are to pay any attention to Measure76′s argument, then we should amend it to make it as strong as possible–comparing a sophisticated notion of Jehovah to a sophisticated notion of Zeus. But it is not clear to me that such an argument would be all that flawed. The three arguments you mention apply just as equally to the Jehovah of Aquinas as they do to the Zeus of Cleanthes.

  (Quote)

Lorkas December 23, 2009 at 11:29 pm

It seems to me that he’s using “Zeus” as a stand-in for “other deities”. It becomes much more difficult for you to answer, for example, if you replace “Zeus” with “Allah” or “Brahman”.

It seems to me that the only arguments ever offered that, if true, would succeed at establishing both “Yahweh exists” and “other gods do not exist” as true are the historical arguments for Christianity, but those seem to be fairly weak unless you already believe the conclusions they’re trying to establish.

  (Quote)

Edson December 24, 2009 at 12:10 am

The standard and primary proof of God is the historical existance of His Son on the planet Earth. All the other proofs (cosmological, teleological, ontological, etc) are significant, but secondary.

Of course other people will just provide dozens of denial arguments ranging from objections surrounding Jesus recorded life experiences, to the extremes of even denying such a captivating person existed.

Honestly, it is apparent that it takes faith to believe Jesus is real and to be the Son of God, but it is even more obvious that it takes even much greater faith coupled with a massive unbelief influence to deny the conventional biblical record of Jesus history on Earth.

  (Quote)

Hansen December 24, 2009 at 12:41 am

Edson: The standard and primary proof of God is the historical existance of His Son on the planet Earth.  

I think non-Christian theists would strongly disagree with you about that. :)

  (Quote)

Edson December 24, 2009 at 12:56 am

I just realize now, when re-reading my comment and reading other comments, that I missed the point of this post: Zeus, God and proof. Well, I should have said that Zeus, Allah or Brahman are not recorded elsewhere to have said, before hand, that they will send their respective Sons to visit the Earth as a proof of their existance and keep the promise.

But the biblical God does that. He promises to send His Son and when He fulfills the promise, don’t you all just agree that this should be the proof of His existance?

Wish you all a Merry Christmass.

  (Quote)

Hansen December 24, 2009 at 1:19 am

Edson: Well, I should have said that Zeus, Allah or Brahman are not recorded elsewhere to have said, before hand, that they will send their respective Sons to visit the Earth as a proof of their existance and keep the promise.But the biblical God does that. He promises to send His Son and when He fulfills the promise, don’t you all just agree that this should be the proof of His existance?  

Well, there is an entire religion (Judaism) based on the same texts containing these alleged promises. Yet none of their followers (i.e. the Jews) agree that these promises have been fulfilled.

Note, I’m not trying to start yet another argument about the historicity of Jesus. That would be off-topic in this thread, I think. I just want to point out that it’s not just atheists that would reject the claims of Christianity as proof of a god.

  (Quote)

Shane December 24, 2009 at 1:45 am

Luke, your problem here is that this “God of classical theism” is actually incompatible with the god of (say) Genesis or Job. Classical theism presents a multiply worked-over god concept that in the Christian tradition has been superimposed on the biblical texts, but when we look at those texts without the “benefit” of millennia of interpretation and metaphorisation, there’s no spitting distance between YHWH, Zeus, Amun-Re or even the FSM.

If the Greeks had bothered (and some evidently DID), they would have had no problem at all in identifying the GOCT as Zeus, and vice versa, just as Theistic Christians (as opposed to Atheistic Christians) have done, and just as could be done for Amun-Re (which would be really cool – I’d love to see Karnak re-open as a functional temple to Amun).

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 24, 2009 at 1:51 am

True, that. The god of classical theism is not the god of the bible.

  (Quote)

Boz December 24, 2009 at 1:58 am

Thanks for posting this, lukeprog. I have had this idea rolling around in my head for a while, but had never seen it written.

Your argument leads to the conclusion that the only way to answer your question is through a historic argument – an argument that attems to demonstrate that jesus was actually bodily ressurected. For most(all?) other arguments “Zeus” can the substituted for “God”

  (Quote)

Edson December 24, 2009 at 2:01 am

Hansen,

Thanks for your question. I just presume that your question intend to mean that all the other theists who are non-christians are equally convinced of the existance of their respective deities, as much as I’m convinced of mine, which should get me realize, if I am sincere, to rethink the certainty or objectivity of my beliefs.

Well, Hansen this objection can be responded differently by different individual Christians. My response, as far as my knowledge is concerned, is that while the objective Truth exists, i.e. real God, and He has surely provided the way and the means on how to know Him, yet we should not be suprised if people misses this Truth. So many people of this world are so busy distorting the truth, perverting the way, stuck in ignorance, living irresponsibly, so is it any wonder if we see the proliferation of false philosophies, false deities, false prophets and false religions?

Of course, they believe they have truths and the only way to know if their truth is the real one, just read these words of the wise man:

John 8: 32-36 – And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free…. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

You see, the primary indicator of Truth is Freedom. If you have the real freedom, I mean, if you are not a slave of anything of this world, including the slavery of sinning, surely you have the Truth and that is the true Faith and true God.

  (Quote)

Shane December 24, 2009 at 2:14 am

btw, I’ve opened up a wee thread on this on http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com – Luke, your blog simply rocks! Well done.

  (Quote)

Shane December 24, 2009 at 2:25 am

Edson, the Muslims have similar proof texts from their scriptures, yet you don’t believe them. Why should THEY believe YOU?

  (Quote)

Edson December 24, 2009 at 2:27 am

Ah, Hansen, the Jews?

Well, you know if there are group of people who are supposed to be knowing God more than any other group, are the Jews.

The Founding Father of their State was God Himself, their King and Commender-In-Chief of their armed Forces during the early days of their newly formed State was God, every little details of the conduct of their lives was dictated by God.

Surely the Jews were and are supposed to teach other people about their God and I must tell you that this is what they did. Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, Paul was a Jews, Messianic Christians are Jews.

Therefore there are no basis whatsoever to suggest that Jews are allies of atheists to undermine Christianity. And Judaism is just the same thing I said that it should not suprise you if people becomes innovative of their own philosophies or cults when they live irresponsibly to distort the Truth.

  (Quote)

Edson December 24, 2009 at 2:40 am

“Edson, the Muslims have similar proof texts from their scriptures, yet you don’t believe them. Why should THEY believe YOU?”

Shane,

You dont know Islam, its texts, its atmospherics and its everything.

I have studied Islam and I wonder where are those proofs.

Please, tell me one.

  (Quote)

Beelzebub December 24, 2009 at 2:48 am

Edson: But the biblical God does that. He promises to send His Son and when He fulfills the promise, don’t you all just agree that this should be the proof of His existance?

If you could prove Jesus was God, sure. But then, if there were definitive proof that there was an OT God then we wouldn’t need the roundabout method of confirming a prediction. Let’s say this is what happened: The OT predicted Christ. A talented and slightly demented and terribly politically unsavvy young man named Jesus was born. He knew the OT predicted Christ; his followers knew the OT predicted Christ. He became convinced he was Christ; his followers became convinced he was Christ. He got himself crucified (remember…not terribly savvy). Ghost here, ghost there, Jesus flies to heaven.

Now, why isn’t that a perfectly reasonable account? Or, in what was is that less believable than that Jesus was God come to earth?

  (Quote)

Hansen December 24, 2009 at 3:15 am

Edson: My response, as far as my knowledge is concerned, is that while the objective Truth exists, i.e. real God, and He has surely provided the way and the means on how to know Him  

You are making the a priori assumption that if there is a god, then he wants us to know about him and has provided us with evidence. You don’t know if that assumption is true. And even if that is true, you still have to prove that any particular piece of evidence is the right one. It is basically a useless assumption that will only lead you into circular arguments.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 24, 2009 at 3:34 am

Thanks, Shane.

  (Quote)

Shane December 24, 2009 at 3:40 am

Hi Edson,
You’ve *really* studied Islam? I find it a bit difficult to accept that, given that you seem to think that YOUR “proof text” as above is unparalleled (in type, if not in specifics) in the Qur’an (never mind the Hadith). I do agree with you that the Qur’anic texts are proof of nothing, but the texts in the heterogeneous and flawed corpus that we euphemistically capitalise as “The Bible” are no better.
Which simply leads us back to the question of how we navigate these facts. And as Luke says, the GOTC is not the god (or rather godS, as there are many concepts of the Deity in the bible, not all consonant with each other) of the bible.
For an atheist, that is not a problem, and even for most Christians, the “god” of Genesis doesn’t figure in their core theology, other than as a demiurge.

  (Quote)

EvanT December 24, 2009 at 5:22 am

That fits the God of classical theism but not Zeus.

Luke is accurate that the Olympian Gods are not comparable to Yahweh (for instance they were all subject to fate and could take vows unbreakable even by them by swearing over water from the underworld river Styx).
Regardless, some people have taken on themselves to advance dodecatheistic theology. Google for “Greek Neo-Paganism” and “Modern Dodecatheism”. The result might surprise you. *chuckles*

Being Greek can be embarassing in sooo many ways…*facepalm*

  (Quote)

Edson December 24, 2009 at 6:11 am

Beelzebub, you ask,

If there were definitive proof that there was an OT God then we wouldn’t need the roundabout method of confirming a prediction?

I have no idea what you mean by this question. To the Jews, the existance of God was never a problem and did not require a proof. They knew God, as much as Americans know George Washington.

Jesus role, according to scriptures, was simply to bring the Kingdom of God, not only to Israel, but throughout the world. Now you have given the account of what seems to be the reality of your thought, that Jesus was simply a messianic conmman, but notice that you are just speculating. You dont see a problem trusting your own speculations but only see it when Christians trust the Scriptures, which are just beyond their own speculations.The same thing for Jesus mythers. Notice my point?

  (Quote)

Haukur December 24, 2009 at 6:22 am

lukeprog: The god of classical theism is not the god of the bible.

So the God of classical theism is not the supreme god of the Greeks, not the supreme god of the Hebrews, not the supreme god of the Christians – but he is the supreme god of Measure76?

EvanT: Regardless, some people have taken on themselves to advance dodecatheistic theology. Google for “Greek Neo-Paganism” and “Modern Dodecatheism”. The result might surprise you. *chuckles*

I too am shocked, shocked to learn that there are neopagans. Who ever heard of such a thing?

  (Quote)

Bryce December 24, 2009 at 8:33 am

Y’know luke, I don’t think the “teleological argument” would actually establish the God of classical theism.

Consider a watch as Paley wishes you to consider a watch; it obviously has a designer. It can also be noted that the complexity of the watch (from which we are to deduce the purposeful designer) is finite. Thus, only a finite mind is required to order the complexity present in the watch.

Turning our mind to the universe, let us suppose it has “obviously” has a designer for the same reason. We can also deduce that, while the universe is much much more complex than the watch, it is yet only finitely complex. So, where the watch required only a finite mind to order its finite complexity, the universe would also require only a finite, not omniscient, mind to design it. So, if we are to induct a designer from the design of the universe, it is unnecessary to induct an omniscient designer when we would only need to induct a finite mind, and possibly not even one greater than that of a human’s. Even just Zeus would be overkill.

And, anything less than infinite is infinitely far from infinite, so the teleological argument establishes at most a finite mind that ordered the universe, but not God.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 24, 2009 at 9:12 am

LOL @ Haukur

  (Quote)

Conversational Atheist December 24, 2009 at 11:50 am

I’m in a rush so this might be a bit sloppy, but consider a different tactic that rings similar.

If a theist asks you to provide evidence that Yahweh does not exist because ‘not believing in Yahweh is a belief about the non-existence of a deity which requires evidence’, one approach might be:

All right, I have no idea what kind of evidence would count for you — can you show me the evidence that you have that shows that Zeus does not exist? Or do you believe that Zeus exists?

——-

This avoids the ‘burden of proof’ argument and a whole host of others. Simply claim that however little the Christin believes that Zeus is the creator of the universe is exactly how little you believe that Yahweh is the creator of the universe.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 24, 2009 at 12:13 pm

Conversational Atheist,

That’s a good idea.

  (Quote)

Shane December 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm

That’s the old Outsider Test for Faith that John Loftus likes. I think it’s a goodtechnique, but remember when you’re arguing with a theist, you are not trying to convert *them* – you are trying to convert the *audience* :-)

  (Quote)

Eric Sherman December 25, 2009 at 10:34 am

Shane: Luke, your problem here is that this “God of classical theism” is actually incompatible with the god of (say) Genesis or Job. Classical theism presents a multiply worked-over god concept that in the Christian tradition has been superimposed on the biblical texts, but when we look at those texts without the “benefit” of millennia of interpretation and metaphorisation, there’s no spitting distance between YHWH, Zeus, Amun-Re or even the FSM.

This the crux of the issue, IMO. No matter how successful the arguments for Classical Theism are they do not establish proofs for Yahweh, in particular. At best we are left with an impersonal “Prime Mover” and “First Cause.”

Are Prime Movers and First Causes worthy of our worship and religious devotion? “Dear First Cause…”

If one were to extract from the Bible all the characteristics, traits and qualities of Yahweh, the God of the Bible (GOB), we do not get the sterile “God of the Philosophers,” (GOP) but something much more akin to Zeus.

I think in discussions/debates, for the sake of expediency, we should set aside/dispense with arguments for the existence of the “God of the Philosophers” and simply demand reasons/evidence for Yahweh, the God of the Bible. I have yet to hear any persuasive and compelling Classical or Modern arguments for the existence of Yahweh (or Zeus for that matter).

I might recommend, as a tactic, to simply concede the Classical Arguments and then stand there with folded arms and say, “And?”

  (Quote)

Haukur December 25, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Eric Sherman: I might recommend, as a tactic, to simply concede the Classical Arguments and then stand there with folded arms and say, “And?”

Luke basically tried this in his letter exchange with Vox Day. This landed him in an exchange about evil – the Christians will happily talk about evil any day of the week. Now they’ve moved on to debate the meaning of ‘is’ or something, I kind of stopped following.

  (Quote)

Hansen December 25, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Isn’t one of Craig’s prime arguments that because he believes the existence of a god can be proved via the classical arguments, then the probability of the resurrection of Jesus is suddenly much higher?

I guess the idea is that he wants miracles to seem like plausible explanations for observed mysteries. But if we concede this idea, we must apply it to all unsolved problems in science too. So basically it reduces to a god of the gaps argument that can “explain” all problems. And as we know, a theory that explains everything really explains nothing.

  (Quote)

EvanT December 27, 2009 at 10:51 am

Haukur: I too am shocked, shocked to learn that there are neopagans. Who ever heard of such a thing?  

Sarcasm aside, it’s not neopaganism that’s shocking, it’s the arguments used to rationalize the belief. For instance, Zeus is presented as the only god and all other gods are just manifestations of his attributes. It’s the “ancient people just didn’t get it right” argument rehashed.

  (Quote)

Shane December 27, 2009 at 12:29 pm

I don’t know that you can be that sweeping about the ancients; I can’t find any refs right now (how convenient ;-), but there are good grounds for thinking that in ancient times people DID regard various “gods” as peculiar manifestations of an underlying all-powerful divinity. In Ancient Egypt, for instance, gods could pretty much be mixed and matched on demand, and the distinctions between Amun, Re, Re-Horakhty, Horus, etc were pretty blurred.

All of which points us to a model of religion in which *belief* actually plays rather a small part, if any. The Abrahamic religions are perhaps something of an aberration, but even with the God of the Philosophers, we see people like McGrath and Craig dipping their toes in Spinoza’s waters, though they would hate to admit it…

  (Quote)

Haukur December 27, 2009 at 1:36 pm

EvanT: It’s the “ancient people just didn’t get it right” argument rehashed.

Neopagans come in many varieties – soft polytheists, hard polytheists, pantheists, duotheists etc. but it’s very rare to find them saying “ancient people just didn’t get it right”. Ancient pagans came in many varieties too.

  (Quote)

danielg December 28, 2009 at 11:35 am

I have attempted to answer this in my four part series on Pascal’s Wager. Relevant are:

Pascal’s Wager – Part II: debunking the ‘all religions are equally improbable’ ruse

The first problem with this approach is that anti-theists are only allowing ONE type of evidence or line of reasoning – that of empirical science.

But as Immanuel Kant, the great secular philosopher argued in his Critique of Pure Reason, reason itself (and by extension, empirical science) proves that reason has limits, and in being limited, can not make any claims EVEN TO THE POSSIBILITY or IMPOSSIBILITY of more reality than we observe….

There are other means of epistemology, even within science itself. Beyond the direct observation of empirical science lie indirect observation (such as our measurements of cosmic rays, invisible to our senses), historical evidence, the employment of logic, statistics, and reason to assess claims…

The error here is that, while it can not PROVE a faith true, it can ELIMINATE pretenders from contenders.

That is, using the OTHER means of evidence at our disposal, some faith claims, such as the FSM, fairies, or the validity of Islam, for instance, will fall into the category of NOT the truth. We may end up with one or more contenders, perhaps Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism (in my book), and that process of elimination is very useful to the person employing reason rather than making blanket condemnations.

Pascal’s Wager – Part III: Evaluating the gods

The point is, when evaluated by important, non-empirical criteria, faith claims can be differentiated, and some may be eliminated as serious candidates for faith, while others remain under consideration.

  (Quote)

Shane December 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm

DanielG,

Congrats for perhaps the pointmissingest comment on this post. Quite why you feel that the FSM is elimiable, but (for the sake of argument) Christianity is not is unclear. The “heuristic” in your blog post can have the toss argued ad nauseam, it is clearly contrived and post hoc, and there are certain points where you are quite wrong (such as the history of Jesus being written by eyewitnesses – not ONE of the gospels was written by an eyewitness, for example!). Also, Muslims would take great exception to your superficial treatment of Mohammed. Sorry, but that’s a Fail.

What you *really* want here is an experimental test. Show us this goddy thing, and let us fire protons at it… :-)

So, sorry, but it’s a fail…

  (Quote)

danielg December 28, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Shane: DanielG,Congrats for perhaps the pointmissingest comment on this post. Quite why you feel that the FSM is elimiable, but (for the sake of argument) Christianity is not is unclear. The “heuristic” in your blog post can have the toss argued ad nauseam, it is clearly contrived and post hoc, and there are certain points where you are quite wrong (such as the history of Jesus being written by eyewitnesses – not ONE of the gospels was written by an eyewitness, for example!). Also, Muslims would take great exception to your superficial treatment of Mohammed. Sorry, but that’s a Fail.

What you *really* want here is an experimental test. Show us this goddy thing, and let us fire protons at it…
So, sorry, but it’s a fail…  

Shane,

No, what YOU want is an empirical test, to which I say, such a thing does not exist. However, that does not mean that Christians like myself are not giving you an answer, we’re just giving you one you don’t accept.

But besides my “no, there is no empirical test, but there are other epistemelogic methods by which Zeus can be seen as much less probable than Jesus” answer, let me try another, perhaps then you will quiet down ;)

See my post in response to your question, Why no empirical test for God? Perhaps quantum science will provide it

  (Quote)

shane December 28, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Daniel, that doesn’t work. You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word “empirical” in that you think you can answer t/f y/n questions without recourse to at leaast some empiricism! I’ll not dispose of your misunderstanding of “materialism” yet, other than to point out that you are certainly not the only person to get science arse-about face. cheers, -shane

  (Quote)

Boz December 29, 2009 at 12:13 am

danielg said:
“That is, using the OTHER means of evidence at our disposal, some faith claims, such as the FSM, fairies, or the validity of Islam, for instance, will fall into the category of NOT the truth. We may end up with one or more contenders, perhaps Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism (in my book), and that process of elimination is very useful to the person employing reason rather than making blanket condemnations”

danielg, this is a bare assertion fallacy.

  (Quote)

Shane December 29, 2009 at 1:41 am

I’m going to perhaps have to clarify my position a wee bit – Daniel, you are engaged in a rear-guard *defence* of your irrational belief, and I think many of us here have seen these post-hoc attempts many times. To claim there are other epistemological means at your disposal is incorrect; you are engaged in clearing up inconvenient loose ends, not in finding “the truth”. A Muslim could do just as good a job on Jesus as you think you can do on Mohammed (and by “good” I mean pretty poor in both cases).

But back to science and epistemology. A common mistake made by apologists is to assume that science postulates the ultimate “bottom” and works its way up. That “naturalism” or “materialism” stakes a claim on the ultimate fundament of the universe and builds its epistemology upon that.

That is NOT how science works. We start where we *are* and work outwards from there. We are engaged in opening a panoply of ever-nested black boxes. We look at things as *systems* with internal states, inputs and outputs. Scientific theories seek to explain the working of these systems (and generally do very well indeed, unlike religious concepts), but we often find that in doing so we open the black box to find a system of more interconnected black boxes inside.

This is OK. We do not consider this a *problem* – it is the way science works. Sadly, many people who have set themselves up as “philosophers of science” do not understand this, and could do with spending some real time in a lab, instead of the armchair (Fodor, Midgley and Plantinga, I’m talking to YOU!).

But back to your heuristic – you ARE making empirical (in principle) claims, and some of those claims are wrong (such as the eyewitnesses one, and the scientific coherence one). Sauce for goose and gander.

  (Quote)

J January 3, 2010 at 10:41 am

Question, Can you prove to me that God does not exists in a way that will also show that Evolution is fact?

  (Quote)

Boz January 4, 2010 at 12:46 am

J, does the question in the article offend you?

  (Quote)

Shane January 4, 2010 at 1:49 am

Evolution works whether the gods exist or not. So do bicycles, weather systems and Macbooks. If the gods do exist, it hardly matters whether we call them YHWH, Zeus, Jove/Jehovah (same thing), Amun-Re or FSM. Indeed, it hardly matters whether we even *believe* in them. Won’t have any effect on bikes or evolution.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment