Subject: Re: 3 questions for theists Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:56:13 -0800 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Netcom jimhumph" wrote : > > Brian Holtz replies to Jason: > > > the trend is that the gaps are closing > > > Which 'trend' is this? Can you support this claim with > some 'objectively compelling evidence'? Here are some relevant excerpts from my book: http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#agnosticism : For centuries, theists have argued (with increasing embarassment) that Design is apparent in phenomena like: * the daily cycle of the Sun; the motions of the Moon and planets; * the seasons; rivers, currents, winds, thunder, lightning, precipitation and drought; * the genesis, design, and diversity of life; success in farming and hunting; * the human mind; evil, misfortune, disease, pestilence, war, and death. However, the Scientific Revolution had established by the middle 1800s that physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, and physiology could each be understood in naturalistic terms. Supernatural explanations still seemed necessary for the origin and mechanism of life and mind, and for the origin of the universe itself. In the subsequent century, science outlined the basic answers for these questions, and theism began to be abandoned by serious thinkers. Always hoping that the gaps in scientific knowledge are about to miraculously stop shrinking, most fideists have retreated into a theism based on an increasingly irrelevant "God of the gaps". http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#SciencesBigQuestions : The most interesting phenomena in nature are mind, life, and the universe itself. The big questions of natural science seek the origin, mechanism and fate of mind, life, and the universe. Before the 1860's, humans had only the beginnings of an answer to only one of these questions. Newton had figured out part of the mechanism of the universe, but the other eight questions were answered with a combination of biblical myths and wild guesses. By the end of the 1960's, humanity had, for all nine questions, out lined the following answers that will probably still be considered correct in two hundred, two thousand, or two million years. [...] > > abandon the Argument From Design and retreat to > > another trench. But if > > the trench of objectively compelling historical fact is > > not available, > > > What exactly is an 'objectively compelling historical fact'? An operational definition might be: any proposition about history supported by enough credible evidence that it eventually becomes considered indisputable by mainstream historians. Example: George Washington was America's first president under its current constitution. > >then I'm afraid all you're left > >with is personal revelation, which is a shallow trench indeed. > > > There is no 'objectively compelling historical fact' to support > a belief in deity > :. Belief in a deity must rest on 'personal revelation' > is , I'm afraid, hopelessly fallacious. It is, which is one reason I didn't make that argument. Now, if you were really pedantic (JH pedantic?! Imagine that! :-) you *could* make a case that I made a different fallacious argument: 1. There is no argument from design for theism. 2. There is no objectively compelling historical evidence for theism. -> 3. Belief in theism must rest on personal revelation. But then I would pedantically point out a) I said "all you [Jason] are left with" and not "all *one* is left with", and b) in that same posting Jason had written: "My evidence is only compelling for me." That is, I was exploring the beliefs of the particular theist Jason, asking what he would do if the gaps closed. If instead he had said he would retreat to, say, the Ontological Argument, then I would have said *that* was a shallow last trench. By the way, in addition to telling us that obviously fallacious arguments are obviously fallacious, would you be interested in answering my original 3 questions for theists? Here they are: 1. If you believe that the evidence for your god is compelling, how do you explain that it is not accepted by so many otherwise reasonable people? Why do so many people claim that the evidence for some other (incompatible) god is compelling? What other thesis so important and compelling (e.g. heliocentrism, evolution) defied general consensus for this long? How can you be sure that problem lies with the non-believers, and not with your thesis? 2. If you believe that the evidence for your god is compelling, when (if ever) do you expect to achieve a consensus as widespread as that supporting (say) heliocentrism? In 100 years? 1000? 10000? Never? 3. In the past, your god was used to explain the "gaps" caused by the absence of a naturalistic understanding of physics, astronomy, meteorology, agriculture, and physiology. Most of these gaps began closing after 1500, but by 1850, there were still no naturalistic explanations for the origin and diversity of life, the mechanism of mind, and the origin of the universe itself. In 2000, compelling naturalistic explanations already exist for the diversity of life and the mechanism of mind, while outlines of naturalistic explanations are being formed for the origins of life and the universe itself. If by 2150 there exist naturalistic explanations in these four areas that are as widely accepted as (say) heliocentrism, what significant gaps will be left for your god to explain? -- Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net