Silent Dave
October 8, 2006, 03:42 PM
Introduction
This is my second formal debate on IIDB, and as my role in the genesis of this debate is proactive, rather than reactive, I wish to thank first and foremost my oppoent, Whetstone, for agreeing to this debate. And as always, my thanks to Nightshade and the IIDB admins for making this debate venue possible.
In this debate, I will be defending the thesis that naturalism is more reasonable, on an evidentiary basis, than Christian theism. A number of such debates in the past have turned on the definitions of these key terms, and have thereby become trivial or otherwise uninteresting, so let me start by defining my terms as broadly as possible:
Naturalism -- the position that no gods, deities, or other supernatural entities exist.
Christian theism -- the position that there exists a God who possesses the following attributes, among others:
He is eternal.
He is powerful.
He is intelligent.
He is immutable.
He is unbound by physical laws or constraints.
He is holy. (Merriam Webster defines this as "exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.")
He sent Jesus into the world to atone for sins.
He is in other respects as described in the Bible.
Naturalism, so defined, is a strong and broad viewpoint to be defending; if Whetstone wishes to narrow it down, that is fine, as any reasonable narrowing could only make my job easier. As for Christian theism, 1-6 were taken directly from personal correspondence with Whetstone,[1] and 7 and 8 are taken from the conceptual framework of Christianity. Assuming that Whetstone will agree to the above as (at least minimal) definitions of the views we are respectively defending, I will proceed to offer eight lines of evidence that indicate the probability of naturalism being true and the improbability of Christian theism being true.
1. The History of Science
Once upon a time, humans thought that lightning bolts were produced by a supernatural being -- whether that being was called Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, whatever -- as an expression of their anger against mortal creatures. Today, although some particulars about the phenomenon of lightning continue to elude us, we know about about its various aspects -- light, heat, duration, frequency, distribution, etc. -- to be able to explain it in naturalistic terms. Of course, the hypothesis that God or another supernatural being is the ultimate causal initiator of each and every bolt of lightning that strikes the Earth is ultimately non-falsifiable; nonetheless, the naturalistic explanation for lightning -- that it is an electrostatic discharge caused by a combination of solar winds, ionospheric charge, and the observable behavior of electrons -- has come to surpass, in both the scientific and popular communities, the theistic explanation -- that God was angry at Farmer Bob for not sacrificing enough sheep, or he was testing our courage, or whatever reasons he may have had.
This is one, more or less arbitrarily chosen, example out of many in the entire history of science of naturalistic explanations superceding supernaturalistic explanations. And when I say "many," that's something of an understatement -- in fact, there are no examples of supernaturalistic explanations replacing naturalistic. Even Christian and other theistic scientists cannot help but concede that naturalistic explanations work better in science than do supernaturalistic explanations.
If naturalism is true, then this is exactly what you would expect; under naturalism, there are no supernatural entites, hence no supernatural causes, and therefore no supernatural explanations. But if Christian theism is true, then this is surprising; one would expect many if not most supernaturalistic explanations for observed phenomena to prove correct. Therefore, the history of science is evidence for naturalism and against Christian theism.
A Christian apologist might counter that such an argument is ultimately irrelevant, because God, the first and ultimate cause of everything, will indeed turn out to be the explanatory factor for ALL observed phenomena, directly or indirectly. The naturalist naturally asks, When will this become apparent? After we die? I'm afraid that, for anyone who is not yet dead, the apologist will have to do better.
Indeed, some apologists -- popularly known as "Intelligent Design" (ID) creationists -- have attempted to do just that. However, even setting aside the fact that leading ID proponents have admitted that ID is all about religion and philosophy, and not about science,[2] ID is neither scientific nor an explanation. Merely accounting for the facts is not enough;[3] a hypothesis can only be considered a scientific explanation if facts can be deduced from it. What facts can be deduced from the worldview of Christian theism? Insofar as it makes any predictions whatsoever, these predictions have all turned out to be false. The truth of this statement should become more apparent as the debate progresses.
As it stands, however, science contains countless examples of naturalistic explanations ultimately superceding supernaturalistic explanations, and precisely zero examples of supernaturalistic explanations superceding naturalistic ones. This is antecedently more likely on naturalism than Christian theism, and therefore counts as evidence for the former and against the latter.
2. The Physical Nature of Minds[4]
In recent decades, science has enjoyed enormous progress in our understanding of the human brain, and it now seems clear that the mind -- meaning a person's personality and consciousness -- is dependent upon the physical brain.
In a 1994 debate, Michael Tooley listed five evidences that the mind is either purely physical, or causally dependent on something physical:
A person can be caused to have a certain mental experience, or to be in a certain mental state, when that person's brain is stimulated into a corresponding physical state.
It is possible for a person to be unable to have any mental states at all if the physical brain is damaged in a certain way.
Certain mental capacities can be destroyed by damage to corresponding regions of the physical brain.
When we examine and compare the mental capacities of other species, we see that the complexity of those capacities are proportional to the complexity of the physical brain; as one increases, so does the other.
In any given individual of any given species, mental capacities develop proportionally to the development of neuronal circuitry in the corresponding regions of the physical brain.[5]
These factors, among others, strongly establish the conclusion that, in the words of Paul Draper, "Nothing mental happens without something physical happening."[6]
This provides compelling evidence for naturalism, and against Christian theism, in two ways. First, if God exists then some sort of afterlife exists where the mind exists without having, or being dependent on, any physical form (in other words, a "soul"). However, the evidence shows that a mind depends on a brain for its existence. Second, if God exists, then he himself would be a disembodied mind. However, because we have evidence that "nothing mental happens without something physical happening," we therefore have evidence that a disembodied mind cannot exist.[7]
Of course, Whetstone might respond that God might be a special case; but even if such a response were not completely ad hoc, the fact that the mind is purely physical, or dependant upon the physical, is not at all predicted by Christian theism -- if anything, it predicts the opposite. Naturalism, on the other hand, does predict that, if minds exist, then they are functions of matter and energy.
3. Evolution
Young-earth creationists are confused by, and/or scornful of, the oft-repeated statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's quite simple: How evolution happened is a theory. That evolution is happened is a fact. There is controversy in the community of respectable scientists about the former, but none about the latter.
To defend the truth of evolution itself is beyond the scope of this paper. Chris Colby's paper "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology," which is just that, is about 17,000 words in length -- over three times the word count I am allotted -- and it hardly even scratches the surface.[8] I will therefore simply let the premise of evolution rest on the overwhelming scientific consensus, and Whetstone may present objections to it if he wishes.[9] For the time being, I shall proceed on the assumption that evolution is true.
If Christian theism is true, then what reason would we have to expect that evolution took place? It flatly contradicts a plain reading of Genesis 1, and even if that text is not meant to be taken literally, it could be interpreted in any number of ways; God is certainly powerful enough to create sentient beings any way he sees fit. Christian theism does not predict evolution. Naturalism, on the other hand, all but necessitates it. The only way sentient life could arise would be naturally, and therefore "accidentally," and we can only reasonably conclude that if we observe many countless more failures than succeses -- which, on Earth and in the universe, is precisely what we observe.[10]
Moreover, as Jeffrey Jay Lowder has pointed out, naturalism better accounts for the fact that over 99 percent of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. After all, it's not as though God would have to continually experiment until he got things right.[11]
Thus, evolution constitutes evidence for naturalism and against Christian theism.
4. The Life-Hostile Nature of the Universe.
The same logic can be applied, on a larger scale, to the universe itself. The universe is vastly big -- big enough that expounding on Sagan's "billions and billions" theme, or invoking cliche metaphors to give one an idea of how unbelievably big it is, doesn't come close to doing justice to the true scale of the size of space, the number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe. Yet we know of only one place in the universe where sentient life can and does exist: an atmospheric shell, only a few miles wide, surrounding a single, comparatively tiny planet. Inside the shell, humans cannot move; outside of it, they cannot breathe. And even the majority of that is life-hostile; drop a human being down on a random spot on the Earth's surface, and he has a two in three chance of drowning. The only way humans can survive in these regions is to take along equipment to counteract this environment -- in some cases, such as underwater or in space, to construct an entirely seperate environment.
This is rather unexpected if Christian theism is true; one would likely expect that God would create a universe conductive to life, not lethal to it. On the other hand, a universe in which life is either nonexistent or unbelievably rare is exactly what you'd expect given atheism.
To counter this logic, Whetstone might revise his theory -- that is, fabricate an excuse (or, from a skeptical theist perspective, simply state that God has an excuse) for God to create the universe in such a way that, conveniently enough, makes it look just like an entirely naturalistic universe would. Richard Carrier explains by analogy why such a tactic will not serve Whetstone very well:
Suppose a man is on trial for murder and, in his own defense, proposes the theory that his fingerprints ended up on the murder weapon because a devious engineer found a way to copy and paste his fingerprints, and did so to satisfy a grudge against him. No one on the jury would accept this theory, nor should anyone ever believe it--unless and until the defendant can confirm in evidence every element of the theory. He must present independent evidence that there really is an engineer who really does have the ability to do this sort of thing (...) that this engineer really does hold a grudge against him (...) that this engineer had the access and opportunity to accomplish this particular trick when and where it had to have happened. Only then does the defendant's theory become even remotely believable (...) That the "devious engineer's fingerprint trick" fits all the immediate evidence at hand (the existence of the fingerprints on the weapon) is not even a remotely sufficient reason to believe it is true. Rather, every element of the theory must be proved with evidence that is independent from the evidence being explained. In other words, the mere existence of the fingerprints on the weapon is not enough evidence that the devious engineer put them there.[12]
The situation is precisely analogous to that of Christian theism. Whetstone can think of any number of excuses for God to have done things this way -- and no doubt he can find scriptural support for his excuses as well, because the Bible is so large, and so confused and contradictory about so many different points, that it can be made to support nearly any theological view. That is one reason why Christianity, in its thousands of various sects and denominations, has survived for so many centuries.
But the fact remains that the evidences cited above cannot, of their own right, be counted as evidence for whatever particular brand of Christian theism is to Whetstone's liking, although they can and do count as evidence for naturalism. Just as the "devious engineer theory" can be made to fit the facts of the murder, Christian theism can be made to fit the facts of the universe, but this doesn't make the alternate theory "supported by the evidence."[13] Thus, as Carrier again points out, "Christianity will rightly remain no more credible than this "devious engineer's fingerprint trick" until such time as every required element of that theory has been independently confirmed by empirical evidence."[14]
By contrast, naturalism predicts, quite precisely, the evidences I have listed above, and therefore, just as the defendant's fingerprints on the murder weapon are evidence for the defendant's guilt, the four observations listed above are evidence for naturalism.
Let us now turn to a different sort of evidence: the philosophical.
5. The Nature of Artifacts[15]
If God existed, the universe would be an artifact -- that is, a deliberately created object. However, the universe does not show certain signs of artifacting, which it probably would if it were created.[16]
How do humans determine whether a given object in the universe is an artifact? We look for tell-tale signs of having been created. For instance, in Michael Martin's words, "we know almost always that when an object has certain peculiar marks on it, these have been left by a flaking tool and, consequently, that the object was created."[17] Other signs to look for are "evidence of machining, materials that do not exist in nature, regular markings, and the like."[18] Different artifacts have different signs of their making, of course, but these signs are almost invariably present in artifacts.
Scientists, and others, use these signs as a test to determine whether a given object is an artifact. If an object does not meet this test, it is most probably not created. The universe as a whole does not meet the test; it exhibits no signs of being an artifact. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the universe is not an artifact, and hence reasonable to disbelieve in God.
There are two obvious objections to this argument. One is that, contra my observation above, the universe does exhibit signs of being an artifact; at this point, the Christian invokes some variant of the argument to design. All versions of the argument to design that I have seen, however, are flawed. Should Whetstone invoke a particular argument, either in his opening statement or in response to this one, I will explain how this is the case.
The other obvious objection is that the universe is unique, and should not be judged in the same way we judge ordinary objects within it. The universe is indeed unique, but as Martin argues, "there is no reason to suppose, in the light of our present evidence, that this is relevant in judging whether it is created or not. We have no reason to suppose it cannot be judged by the same criteria we use to judge whether planets, rocks, and gismos are created."[19]
The nature of artifacts, then, is evidence against theism, and therefore gives evidential support, albeit of an indirect sort, to naturalism.
6. God's Transcendental Nature
More philosophical evidence for the nonexistence of God is the Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God (TANG), provided by Michael Martin[20] and defended in a subsequent debate with Calvinist philosopher John Frame. This was intended as a refutation, albeit an indirect one, of the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), and is rarely used as an atheological argument, since a minority of Christians subscribe to the Christian theism addressed by both TAG and TANG. However, since Whetstone is a Calvinist, and since he has stated in private correspondence that God ultimately transcends logic as well as space and time, I believe that the particular brand of Christian theism that Whetstone adheres to and defends in this debate is susceptible to TANG.
The upshot of this argument is that logic and morality presuppose the falsehood of Whetstone's Christian theism.[21] Here's how:
Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, if Whetstone's God exists, then logic was created by God, or at least depends on God, and is therefore contingent upon God. Since contingency precludes necessity, logic cannot exist if God exists, and since logic clearly exists, God does not.
Morality, specifically objective morality, assumes that something remains either moral or immoral regardless of what any intelligent being has to say about it. However, if Whetstone's God exists, then morality is a function of God's will. If God commands that physical torture for its own sake is a moral action, then it is a moral action. If God commands that it is immoral, then it is immoral. Morality is then not objective, but rather it is arbitrary. Therefore, insofar as objective morals exist, God does not.
This argument won't be seen as forceful to Christians who aren't Calvinists, or naturalists who don't spend a lot of time dealing with Calvinists. But for Whetstone, who believes in a God that transcends logic and is the ultimate arbiter of morality, this argument provides strong philosophical evidence against the truth of his position.
7. Religious Confusion
Of course, there is the problem of whether, even if the Christian God exists, He is as described by Whetstone's particular theology. Whetstone himself has had two previous debates, both with fellow Christians, one about unlimited vs. limited atonement, the other about Catholic vs. Baptist models of authority. The fact that such debates even occur is philosophical evidence against Christian theism, for confusion within the Christian community is unexpected on Chrisitan theism, where there exists a God who presumably wants Christians to be clear about his commands and has the power to directly clear up any confusion, but expected on naturalism, where there doesn't.
Let me provide three examples of how Christians are confused. First, Christians are confused about ethics. Even disregarding the problem given above, that Christian morality precludes objective morality, there is the problem of what is ethical under Christian theism. Not only does Jesus recommend some actions which are clearly unethical -- for example, allowing evil to exist without trying to fight it (Matthew 5:39), racism (Matthew 10:5, 15:21-28, Mark 7:25-30) -- and fail to condemn other actions which are unethical, such as slavery, but the Christian Bible contains contradictory ethical views. For example, we should both love our enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27,35) and hate them (Matthew 12:30, 13:41-42,49-50); it is both immoral to call someone an insulting name (Matthew 5:22, Colossians 3:8) and isn't (Matthew 15:7, 22:18, 23:15,17, etc.); it is both immoral to lie (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:22, Proverbs 6:17-19) and isn't (John 7:8, 18:20, Luke 23:39-43, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 1 Kings 22:20-23); we both should honor our parents (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4, 19:19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20) and shouldn't (Luke 14:26, 1 John 3:5, 4:20); to name just a few.[22]
Second, Christians are confused about the atonement. Even putting aside the quesiton of whether the atonement was limited or unlimited, all major theories of the atonement either fail to explain why God had to sacrifice his son for the salvation of sinners, or they make the sacrifice seem pointless. For example, the Satisfaction Theory put forth by St. Anselm states that, by sinning, humans insult God and fail to give him his due, and an obligation exists to undo the insult and satisfy honor; only the death of God's son can give proper satisfaction, and this death is just since it was voluntary. However, even the voluntary death seems unjust, since a good person would not permit an innocent person to provide satisfaction even if the guilty party could not pay anything, and it is not clear that an actual death would be necessary for satisfaction, as opposed to some other punishment (and even assuming that a death was necessary, surely there can be little satisfaction in this case, since Jesus was supposedly dead for only a short time). Also, in Whetstone's view, the atonement applies only to the "elect;" in more mainstream versions of Christianity, it applies only to those who accept Jesus. Why did Jesus only atone for their sins? I know of no satisfactory answers to these questions, and no objective way to discern truth from among the answers that do exist.[23]
Third, Christians are confused about salvation. The Bible presents conflicting views of this: some verses argue that salvation is attained through works, others through faith alone, and still others have been interpreted to mean that only those arbitrarily elected by God are saved, regardless of anything they do in life. If faith is the saving factor, it is unclear what, exactly, one is supposed to have faith in. Is it simply the gospel message, as outlined in the problem of nonbelief above, or is there more? Is it simply the resurrection, as Paul maintains, or is it the everything from the Virgin Birth to the Trinity to the Second Coming, as the Creeds maintain? If works are the saving factor, then what works are good and what are bad? If only the elect are saved, then does it matter what we do in this lifetime? If not, why even bother being a Christian?[24]
I know Whetstone has his own opinion on all these issues, and he will no doubt be happy to tell us what it is. But it will not do much good; the overall dispute remains, and there seems to be no non-arbitrary way to resolve it. It is the dispute itself, not Whetstone's personal opinions of it, that provide evidence against Christian theism and in favor of naturalism, under which one would expect confusion of this sort.
8. Nonbelief
Finally, the existence of a widespread amount of nonbelief is evidence against Christian theism and for naturalism. Under Christian theism, which presumes that there is a god who is intelligent, incredibly powerful, and desiring of people to be aware of the gospel message (at least in the limited sense of acknowledging the truth of its factual propositions; this is not the same as actively being a Christian or, in Billy Graham's words, "making a decision for Christ), one would expect most or all humans to at least be aware of the gospel message. Under naturalism, one would expect widespread nonbelief, which is just what we have.
There is a great amount of scriptural support for the premise that, if Christian theism were true, God would desire most or all humans to be aware of the gospel message. God commanded people to "believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:23), to love him above all else (Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30), and to preach the gospel message to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and to all creation (Mark 16:15-16). 1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants all humans to "come to a knowledge of the truth." And in John 18:37, Jesus states, "For this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth." There are many other verses along these lines.[25]
As for God being powerful and intelligent, this was already conceded by Whetstone. Certainly a being powerful enough to create the universe is at least powerful enough to make most or all humans aware of the gospel message, and intelligence implies rationality, which in turn implies acting in accordance with one's goals. The only way to escape the force of this argument, then, is to respond that God has a reason for not bringing about a state of most or all people aware of the gospel message, a reason which precludes and outweighs his desire for people to believe. My remaining space is limited, so I will not try to anticipate Whetstone here, but rather simply wait for his response.
Conclusion
In this statement, I have examined eight lines of evidence -- four scientific, and four philsophical -- that suggest the truth of naturalism and the falsehood of Christian theism.[26] The Earth and the universe are very different places than one would expect them to be if the Christian God existed, but they are more or less exactly as we would expect if there are no supernatural entities.
Endnotes
[1] Private correspondence with Whetstone. Note that some Christians might take exception to Whetstone's characteristics, in that they would add omni- modifiers to some of God's characteristics -- God is perfectly powerful, for instance. In addition, Whetstone mentioned nothing about God being loving toward the human race, which for many if not most evangelical Christians is what God and Christianity are all about. In that sense, Whetstone's theism should be considered seperately from mainstream Christian theism; in other respects, however, Whetstone's Calvinistic concept of God will suffice for this debate.
[2] Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution. World Magazine 11(28): 18. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html
[3] For example, solipsism, while universally considered to be false, nonetheless accounts for every conceivable fact that a sentient being might be aware of.
[4] This section is mostly plagiarized from my 2005 debate with Smith_87, available elsewhere in this forum.
[5] Michael Tooley, Opening Statement (www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley2.html) in William Lane Craig and Michael Tooley, "A Classic Debate on the Existence of God," undated, updated July 13, 2002, spotted October 3, 2006
[6] Paul Draper, "Opening Statement" in William Lane Craig and Paul Draper, "Does God Exist?" (videotape, West Point, NY, 1996), quoted in Jeffrey Jay Lowder, "The Empirical Case for Metaphysical Naturalism," (www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1999/march.html#Naturalism) dated March 1999, spotted October 3, 2006
[7] Steven J. Conifer, "Mind-Brain Dependence as Twofold Support for Atheism," (www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/mbd.html) dated 2001, spotted October 1, 2005.
[8] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html dated January 7, 1996, spotted October 3, 2006.
[9] If he chooses not to do so, then he has two options: either accept the truth of evolution, at least for the purposes of this debate (after which he can go out and educate himself if necessary), or dismiss my argument as sub-prima facie. The latter option would effectively end the discussion surrounding this particular argument, but perhaps not in a way that would score him a technical victory, depending on whether the reader/judge accepts evolution as scientifically uncontroversial or not. Thus, it would be a good strategy for "preaching to the choir," but I fear it would not go over well on IIDB.
[10] Richard Carrier, "Why I Am Not A Christian," (www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html) dated 2006, spotted October 2, 2006.
[11] Jeffrey Jay Lowder, "Naturalism vs. Theism: Where Does The Evidence Point?" (video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492), recorded September 26, 1999, spotted October 6, 2006.
[12] Carrier, 2006.
[13] If anything, it makes it less supportable since, although by adding additional elements to a theory one might escape being damned by evidence that is the opposite of what the original theory might predict, doing so only makes the modified theory prima facie less likely to be true.
[14] Carrier, 2006. Emphasis retained from the original.
[15] See [4].
[16] Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1990), pp. 330-333. See also Wallace I. Matson, The Existence of God (Cornell University Press, 1965), pp. 129-130. Martin bases his argument largely on Matson, but has developed it in a more systematic fashion.
[17] Martin (1990), p. 331.
[18] Matson, pp. 129-130, quoted in Martin, p. 331.
[19] Martin (1990), p. 332.
[20] Martin, The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God, (www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html) dated Autumn 1996, spotted October 5, 2006.
[21] In his original paper, Martin also argued that science presupposes God's nonexistence. However, I am not convinced that science must necessarily presuppose metaphysical or methodological naturalism, and therefore shall not use that aspect of Martin's argument in this debate.
[22] Douglas Krueger, What Is Atheism: A Short Introduction (Prometheus Books, 1998), pp. 33-46.
[23] Michael Martin, Is Christianity Absurd? (www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/xtianity_absurd.shtml), dated 2002, spotted October 5, 2006.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Theodore M. Drange, Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God (Prometheus Books, 1998), pp. 64-65.
[26] One might notice the absence of perhaps the most common atheological argument, the argument from suffering, also known as the argument from evil. I have omitted that argument from this debate for the following reason: the main premise of that argument is that, if God exists, he doesn't want people to suffer needlessly. However, Whetstone believes in a God who created many if not most people with the full knowledge and intent that they would ultimately be consigned to the lake of fire, regardless of whatever they might do in their earthly life. I cannot believe -- nor could I, with a straight face, ask Whetstone to believe -- that such a God gives a whit about how much a person suffers in the earthly life. Calvinism does indeed provide a forceful response to the problem of suffering, even if in so doing it throws the theological baby out with the bathwater.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.