I was intending to buy Ed Feser’s book as more background material for my half-baked next-project-but one: a handbook for secular conservatives. Reading his exchanges with Heather, though, and the stuff he’s posted on his site, I think I’ll pass. I’m getting the impression of a shallow and arrogant guy who has never reflected seriously on modes of thinking other than his own.
E.g. he justifies his “courtier’s reply” position (i.e. “come back and discuss this with me when you’ve read as many heavy-duty books on philosophy and theology as I’ve read”) by analogy to a physicist dealing with questions from a person ignorant of physics. That misses a couple of key points.
First, professors of physics mostly do not trade in courtier’s replies. They make a patient effort to put across some of the basics, which — even in the case of quantum mechanics — are not completely inaccessible to an intelligent layman. I’ve written a couple of pop-math books and I field emailed questions about them, often from argumentative readers, every day. I don’t do this by telling inquirers to go off and read Euler, Gauss, and Hilbert. I try to set them straight, and am surprisingly often rewarded with “Oh, I see!”
Second, our inquiries of theologians and believers are not about the nature and workings of the supernatural, but about its existence.
Why would a layman go and read a shelf of books about the natural sciences? Well, because he is surrounded by natural phenomena impinging on his senses. He sees glowing discs moving across the sky in a regular way; he sees fire leap up when a match is struck; he sees unsupported objects fall; he notices that some twins are identical and some not. What’s it all about? If he’s curious, he will invest some effort in exploration. He’s not in any doubt about the existence of the natural world. He wants to know how it works.
The objects of Mr. Feser’s studies are, by definition, not part of the natural world. It is possible to go through a long life without ever having any experience of God. (Trust me on this.) A fortiori for experience of the Afterlife … We don’t seek to know how these things work, we seek to know why we should believe they exist; or, supposing they do exist, why, since they do not impinge upon us in any way we are aware of, why we should be bothered with them, and why people who do believe in them should monopolize our political faction.
If Feser cannot reply to these simple fundamentals, as a physicist easily could (“You don’t think fire exists? Hold still while I stick this lighted match up your nose”), we are bound to suspect that either (a) he is a sensationally incompetent presenter of his subject, or (b) the subject is a bogus one.
Feser’s answer is “Go read a shelf of books.” But what would be our motivation for investing so much time reading about an object which shows no signs of existing? Where are the glowing disks and identical twins to excite our curiosity? If Feser can’t, in a few plain sentences, give us some good reason to think that God exists, why would we go delving into arguments about the Trinity and Hypostatic Union? And if we invested all that time and effort, and still came away unconvinced of the existence of God, who would recompense us for our trouble? Bertrand Russell read through all the Scholastics for his History of Western Philosophy, but came away as much an atheist as before. How do I know I wouldn’t repeat that experience, without Russell’s hope of a bestselling book to follow?
If Feser can’t put across the fundamentals of his … discipline to a person as intelligent as Heather, I feel no motivation to read his book. Although, if he would just come up with that design plan for a dispositive efficacy-of-prayer experiment, I might change my mind.
>But, you see, Padawan learners need the aid of Jedi Masters in order to demonstrate their connection with, and exercise of, the power of The Force. This eventually leads them to joining the Jedi Order. As such, you see, the Star Wars expert is much more valuable than the theologian.
How many nations and civilizations have the Jedi founded? Why don’t you live in one of them right now? How many universities have the Jedi founded? Have you attended any of them? If not, why not?
“And the Greeks lost everything because they believed the greatest accomplishment was to be useless and pursue useless things.”
Ditto the Spartans, who believed the converse.
The problem is that the utilitarians always look down on the theorists, and we get sentiments like “The elimination of that ethos from our educational system is as yet incomplete, but it will be a beautiful day indeed when the last shreds of it are annihilated” — which is easily the most appalling thing I’ve read on the Internet in a long time. (Although, to be quite frank, I think that this particular goal has already been achieved in our educational system, especially as classical Greek philosophy has been mostly replaced by junk like “Womyn’s Studies” and similar.)
Small wonder that technocrats like lawyers and politicians, bereft of any real philosophical underpinnings themselves, have created societal hells like modern-day Great Britain and, oh, say, Massachusetts, where “utility” is king, and reasoned, creative discourse something to be stamped out by PC speech codes.
Kim du Toit – is that really you? I mean, *the* Kim du Toit?
Anyway – well said.
As his “imaginary wife” I testify to the fact that it is *the* Kim du Toit (apologies to other Kim du Toits who may or may not exist).
“… the counterpoint to your argument from a slightly more libertarian perspective is that collectivist regimes such as they were merely aping religion”
The point was to keep within strict, historical, empirical, real-world examples. One can always resort to an ideational or idealized conception of one’s own view, then compare it to a nitty-gritty, real-world example of the views one opposes. However, that’s nothing more than a rhetorical sleight of hand. In general terms, the ideality/reality nexus and divide is often a pivot point in these discussions.
(And I had intended to indicate “mechanization played a big part,” not a “bit part”.)
I agree with Michael B (I think…)
Atheists kill just as good as anyone else. Maybe better. Period.
That doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of God. It just means we atheist types shouldn’t get all cocky.
Nor should we blame religion for all the world’s bloodshed.
@Panopaea
“How many nations and civilizations have the Jedi founded? Why don’t you live in one of them right now? How many universities have the Jedi founded? Have you attended any of them? If not, why not?”
Irrelevant. The fact that some people who believed in theology were able to accomplish things in this world cannot change the fact that the subject matter studied by the theologian is no more verifiable than the subject matter studied by the Star Wars expert.
As far as the evidence is concerned, proof for the existence of Jehovah is exactly equal to that of the proof of the existence of Darth Vader.
Indeed, talk of people being “regenerated in the Word” and putting on “armor of God” for “spiritual warfare” against “the Devil” calls to mind grown men dressing up as Luke Skywalker and playing with plastic light sabers when they really should just put the toys away and grow up.
“As far as the evidence is concerned, proof for the existence of Jehovah is exactly equal to that of the proof of the existence of Darth Vader.”
I don’t know what you mean by evidence. As for inference to the best explanation of some phenomenon (say, the existence or order of the universe), there’s no cosmological or teleological arguments for Darth Vader; as for a priori arguments there’s no ontological argument for the existence of Darth Vader; as for arguments about practical commitment, there’s no moral argument for the existence of Darth Vader. As for empirical evidence, there’s no argument from the historicity of the resurrection of Darth Vader. Nor is there a bunch of other phenomena (like the explanation of how we can modalize over entities that don’t exist in this universe, or an explanation of the truth values of mathematical statements) that we can invoke the existence of Darth Vader to explain.
“As far as the evidence is concerned, proof for the existence of Jehovah is exactly equal to that of the proof of the existence of Darth Vader.”
As an atheist, I want to agree with you. There is a difference, though. At least with the case of Jehovah there are multiplied millions who insist he exists. Except perhaps in the asylum, no one maintains that Darth Vader exists. He is known to be a fictional character and we know who dreamed him up.
However, I think your basic thrust is good. All you would have to do would first substitute Force for Darth Vader and hypothecate a world where the existence of this Force is taken for granted by the majority.
>As far as the evidence is concerned, proof for the existence of Jehovah is exactly equal to that of the proof of the existence of Darth Vader.
So Tacitus references Vader, huh? Interesting…
>Indeed, talk of people being “regenerated in the Word” and putting on “armor of God” for “spiritual warfare” against “the Devil” calls to mind grown men dressing up as Luke Skywalker and playing with plastic light sabers when they really should just put the toys away and grow up.
That would be regenerated *by* the Word. Anyway, until that happens you are a tame slave in the devil’s kingdom and as you are naturally flowing along with the current and unconsciously taking the path of least resistance the devil and the world (and your corrupt inner being) are very happy to leave you alone. Look out, though, once you get the Spirit of Christ into you. Then that armor is meaningful, and the battle truly begins. May you one day experience it.
@Robert Gressis:
And no matter how you dress up your wishful thinking, none of those things are evidence of Jahovah, just evidence of wishful thinking. (And arguments are arguments, not evidence.)
@mikespeir:
That multiple millions belief in Jahovah and not Darth Vader is zero evidence in favor of the existence of the former. A lot of people engaging in wishful thinking does not make it anything but wishful thinking.
Panopaea: Easy there with the black-magic (or is it white-magic?) Careful not to call any of those devils by name out loud…we don’t need Loki and his pals interfering with our regeneration and everything. We might run out of garlic, or whatever.
PS – You do realize this is a site intended for people who specifically do not have supernatural commitments, right?
Grant Canyon: Get it straight man! It’s regenerated *by* the Word, not *in* the Word. What, are you simple?
Even my leprechaun buddies know the deal on regeneration, jeez. 😉
>You do realize this is a site intended for people who specifically do not have supernatural commitments, right?
I suspect any self-identified atheist site inevitably wants something more than an amen chorus. A moot point though consider all these comments are going through moderation.
Panopaea: Not looking for an “amen chorus” – there have already been a fair number of spirited debates/disagreements in the young life of this blog.
It’s just that this – “you are a tame slave in the devil’s kingdom and as you are naturally flowing along with the current and unconsciously taking the path of least resistance the devil and the world (and your corrupt inner being) are very happy to leave you alone.” – reminded me of a cat hissing, with its hairs standing on end.
My point is that if you’re going to be so easily offended by irreligion, and people poking light fun at some of the absurd (to us) commitments and reasoning-style of the religious, then perhaps this isn’t the blog for you.
If not, by all means, stick around! But try to have less of a hair-trigger sensitivity. That’s all I’m saying.
Having been raised a Quaker I would like to point out that we already got our hands on the nukes. I give you Richard Nixon.
Let me tell you, from Moderator end, the moderation is, and will remain, inconsistent and haphazard. My impression is, that when I get round to it, I’m more lenient than other administrators. I have a number of “automatics” though. Any four-letter word, for example, triggers my autromatic “delete.” Four-letter words are for Lefties, with literary exceptions.
As far as the evidence is concerned, proof for the existence of Jehovah is exactly equal to that of the proof of the existence of Darth Vader.
One thing that I’ve never understood is how so many of the religious “faithful” will lecture on the importance of faith and then attempt to conjure evidence to prove what they just said that we had to take on faith…damndest thing….
No cause for panic, Ken. I’ve been reading quite a lot of religious apologetics lately. It just slides off. When the premises are absurd, the conclusions are unpersuasive. I find myself mainly concentrating on the literary quality of the arguments, which are often surprisingly good.
How many infidels did Richard Nixon nuke, again?
“And no matter how you dress up your wishful thinking, none of those things are evidence of Jahovah, just evidence of wishful thinking. (And arguments are arguments, not evidence.)” That’s why I wondered what you meant by evidence. I take it that if the postulation of some entity makes a great deal of sense of our experience of the world, but it isn’t the sort of thing that can in any sense be measured or detected through empirical means, then we have no reason to believe in its existence, on your view? I.e., the only kind of reasons that count in favor of a propositions are empirical ones?
“That multiple millions belief in Jahovah and not Darth Vader is zero evidence in favor of the existence of the former. A lot of people engaging in wishful thinking does not make it anything but wishful thinking.”
Grant,
I couldn’t agree more. My point was that there’s indisputable proof that Darth Vader doesn’t exist. Indeed, no one believes he does. Not so with Jehovah.
@Panopaea
“So Tacitus references Vader, huh? Interesting…”
Tacitus is not evidence.
“That would be regenerated *by* the Word. Anyway, until that happens you are a tame slave in the devil’s kingdom and as you are naturally flowing along with the current and unconsciously taking the path of least resistance the devil and the world (and your corrupt inner being) are very happy to leave you alone. Look out, though, once you get the Spirit of Christ into you. Then that armor is meaningful, and the battle truly begins. May you one day experience it.”
And may The Force be with you.
“I take it that if the postulation of some entity makes a great deal of sense of our experience of the world, but it isn’t the sort of thing that can in any sense be measured or detected through empirical means, then we have no reason to believe in its existence, on your view? I.e., the only kind of reasons that count in favor of a propositions are empirical ones?”
Postulating the existence of something is not evidence that it exists. And when the question is an empirical one – does any gods exist – then, yes, any answer that excludes empirical evidence is wishful thinking.
@mikespeir
“My point was that there’s indisputable proof that Darth Vader doesn’t exist. Indeed, no one believes he does. Not so with Jehovah.”
That address the evidence of their non-existence, not their evidence of existence.
Anyway, we don’t have indisputable proof of the non-existence of Darth Vader. For all we know, George Lucas is simply an unwitting prophet of The Force, called forth to spread the Jedi message in this time, in this galaxy. How do we know for certain that Darth Vader does not truely exists, along with the rest of the Star Wars gang, in a galaxy far, far away, etc., etc. Perhaps the films represent an artistic representations of that message.
Kind of a silly story, but no sillier than a burning bush, at any rate.
Re: #73 — “does any gods exist”????
Of course, I meant, “do any gods exist?”
Too early, no coffee…
“How many infidels did Richard Nixon nuke, again?”
None, sadly.
That’s replacing one useless thing with another.
Even the study of things which have no known ‘practical’ use and are unlikely to ever have practical uses – say, the life cycle of our symbiotic eyelash mites – is productive, in that it produces knowledge about the subject of its study. (Did you know there are different varieties of mite that specialize in eyelashes on the right- or left-hand side?)
Philosophy studies nothing but itself, and produces nothing at all – not even knowledge. If people are interested in what philosophy has traditionally claimed itself to be, they’d be better off studying logic and mathematics, the most abstract of the sciences, which are extraordinarily useful even though their practitioners traditionally tried to render them into abstract artforms without utility.
Grant wrote: “Postulating the existence of something is not evidence that it exists. And when the question is an empirical one – do any gods exist – then, yes, any answer that excludes empirical evidence is wishful thinking.”
I completely agree that merely postulating the existence of something provides no evidence that it exists. But what I was asking was a different question. If something X would explain a wide variety of empirical (and, perhaps, nonempirical) phenomena, but we have no empirical evidence that X exists–X would instead just be a really good explanation of all the data–then do we, on your account, have any reason to believe that X exists?
@Robert Gressis:
In such a situation we have postulated something that is merely not inconsistent with reality.
The problem is that that tells us absolutely nothing, because we can come up with an infinite number of such things which are “not inconsistent with reality.” (That is especially so if we are permitted to ignore the restraints of physical reality, as is often posited in theological arguments.) The George-Lucas-as-prophet situation I posed earlier, for example, is one such possibility. Further, for every such possibility that exists, there would be other such possibilities that can be postulated with would be inconsistent with the original postulate. (Thus, for every situation “Y,” there would be other situations which could be postulated which are wholly inconsistent with “Y.”)
Since, by definition, something which is inconsistent with reality cannot exist, there is no reason to believe that something which is “merely not inconsistent with reality” and supported by no empirical evidence exists, because nothing about it differentiates it from the other infinite possibilities which also are “merely not inconsistent with reality” but supported by no empirical evidence. Most importantly, nothing about X differentiates it from the other possibilities which not only are “merely not inconsistent with reality” and supported by no empirical evidence, but which are ALSO inconsistent with X.
Ed wrote: “Hence my repeated insistence that it just isn’t fruitful to get into the question of proving God’s existence at all without getting into it in detail and at length — and my reluctance to do so in ephemeral blog posts and the like, especially when I’ve just published a book which already does the job. Foreplay is everything, and it’s got to be done right.”
Wow! That’s pretty heady stuff. Take as much space as you need. Write a book about it. Write a mini-series. Whatever it takes. If you can prove God’s existence–whatever the length required to do so–then it would be well worth the effort. You would pass Aristotle, DaVinci, Darwin, and Einstein on the list of all-time greats. You would possibly end the inter-religious strife on this planet and help all mankind live more fruitful lives. By all means, start your proving by whatever medium works for you.
Shoot, sorry Ed. I didn’t even realize that you already wrote the book. My bad.
I’d like to belatedly second Bradlaugh’s praise of Kathryn Lopez. Her tolerance of and good humor towards friendly disagreement is unmatched; indeed, everyone associated with National Review has been extraordinarily gracious towards those of us who differ on the God question. And Kathryn’s labors in putting together and maintaining NRO are enormous.