Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[Guest]

There is a well known adage: A theory that explains everything explains nothing.
I am anxious to find out why Swinburne's God is not just such a theory:

Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God. And it claims that every property which every substance has is due to God causing or permitting it to exist. It is a hallmark of a simple explanation to postulate few causes. There could in this respect be no simpler explanation and one which postulated only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. And theism postulates for its one cause, a person [with] infinite power [God can do anything logically possible], infinite knowledge [God knows everything logically possible to know], and infinite freedom.

My sarcastic theory: Everything that needs an explanation is ultimately explained by The Super Explanans. It is utterly simple and need no explanation (by definition) and just has the unanalyzable fauculty to explain and be the cause for everything. All things are explained now. Let's party.

If that how theists are using God then I would agree with you, it explains nothing in any meaningful sense. Might as well posit an infinite multiverse where everything that can possibly happen does happen. But I think the type of theists we are discussing here do not use God in that way. Christian philosophers and scientists don't write one line books with "God did it" in bold. Modern science would have never even developed in the first place if that was Christianity's attitude to natural philosophy. God is taken as the final end of the explanatory chain for everything in the world and supposedly offers some kind of unifying framework, but that still leaves a whole lot to fill in. If string theory turned out to be some kind of theory of everything there would still be a lot to discover about the details of how our universe works.

[_Phillip]

I am also very very suspicious of terms being used in ways that are radically out of their usual context. For example, there it the idea of a God being outside of time and space and yet creating the world including space and time. Isn't "create" a verb? Must we not have an action in time even if it isn't in our own spacetime manifold?

I believe Swinburne thinks of God as eternal not timeless. God would exist at every moment of infinite time. That is a somewhat unorthodox view in Christianity though.

[_Phillip]

Look, I always hear how we just have to take theology seriously because there are these educated people and famous prolific historical figures that take/took it seriously and because there are journals and academics in the topic.

But there are plenty of people who are educated and intelligent that think it is obfuscation and nonsense.
Does any substantial number of educated and intelligent people think that physics or biology is merely obfuscation and nonsense? That is a clue that there is something fishy about theology.

You got to call it as you see it. Helps keep believers honest.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Look, I always hear how we just have to take theology seriously because there are these educated people and famous prolific historical figures that take/took it seriously and because there are journals and academics in the topic.

But there are plenty of people who are educated and intelligent that think it is obfuscation and nonsense.
Does any substantial number of educated and intelligent people think that physics or biology is merely obfuscation and nonsense? That is a clue that there is something fishy about theology.

It's a bad comparison to place theology next to physics or biology. Apples and spark plugs.

The point of taking theology seriously has to do with epistemic humility and prudent strategy in the marketplace of ideas.

Remember when Blixa told us that when someone says something stupid and then quotes Derrida, she blames that person but not Derrida? It applies here as well. Theology is a huge and multidisciplinary field, it would be nuts to become familiar with a handful of theologians and then dismiss the whole field. There is a huge difference between saying something like:

“ Oh, I’ve read authors X, Y, and Z, and their ideas and theology didn’t do much for me. After that, I lost interest and moved on to other things.”

Versus

“lol theology is all BS”

Second, taking a casual and unwarranted confidence about Theism makes people complacent thinkers, which is why apologists like WLC can steam roll just about any atheist in a debate. We seem to assume that in every encounter, the theist is bringing a squirt gun to the water fight, when in fact, the theist is bringing a fire hose.

[_Blixa]

It's a bad comparison to place theology next to physics or biology. Apples and spark plugs.

The point of taking theology seriously has to do with epistemic humility and prudent strategy in the marketplace of ideas.

Remember when Blixa told us that when someone says something stupid and then quotes Derrida, she blames that person but not Derrida? It applies here as well. Theology is a huge and multidisciplinary field, it would be nuts to become familiar with a handful of theologians and then dismiss the whole field. There is a huge difference between saying something like:

“ Oh, I’ve read authors X, Y, and Z, and their ideas and theology didn’t do much for me. After that, I lost interest and moved on to other things.”

Versus

“lol theology is all b***s***”

Second, taking a casual and unwarranted confidence about Theism makes people complacent thinkers, which is why apologists like WLC can steam roll just about any atheist in a debate. We seem to assume that in every encounter, the theist is bringing a squirt gun to the water fight, when in fact, the theist is bringing a fire hose.

Amen and points to Aristotle Smith as well.

Religion is a lot more interesting to me at this point than Nü-atheism. That doesn't mean I'm believer, it just means that if I want to be taken seriously as a theorist of culture and narrative, I can't afford to jettison a large part of human narrative because OMG Science!

(At the same time, I'm of course appalled at the current political traction gained by decorating pre-Enlightment politics with fundamentalist bunting. But I regard this kind of contemporary irrationalism as ultimately a class behavior that has little to do with religious belief at its root.)

[_marg]

The point of taking theology seriously has to do with epistemic humility and prudent strategy in the marketplace of ideas.

When you can show some good theological ideas for the literal existence of the God Dawkins was arguing against then you'll have a point.

You've brought up Swinburne, so use him. Explain what ideas he has that are worthwhile considering.

One thing in this discussion which I believe you belittled at one point, perhaps I'm wrong is the concept of burden of proof...along with the concept that evidence and reasoning should commensurate with the sort of claim being made.

Rejection of a claim for the existence of something extraordinary doesn't require require as great a level of reasoning and evidence which should be rationally required to accept that claim. Dawkins does not need the same high level of reasoning and evidence to rationally reject the probabilistic philosophical God explanation for creation which Swinburne argues for.

Please explain in your own words what Swinburne offers which should be respected, with respect to his argument for God's existence.

[_EAllusion]

WLC wins debates because he is an extremely polished speaker and knows how to shotgun bad arguments and dodge objections. That and atheists who debate him don't really prepare for this inevitability. It's not because he's bringing particularly deep, sophisticated arguments that reasonable people can disagree on. One of his goto arguments is creationism as applied to DNA. Do you think this is something that vexes biologists? I doubt it. Take his design argument to a written exchange and it only takes minimal competence to blow it out of the water.

There's a difference between thinking careful, researched thought is sometimes (if not often) necessary to defeat theological arguments and thinking those arguments are pretty decent, if not successful. It's just naturally harder to show where an argument goes wrong than it is to make a wrong argument.

[_Morley]

Who is WLC?

[_EAllusion]

It occurs to me that one of Craig's main arguments in his arsenal of suck is a moral argument not unlike what DCP offered in his essay on secular critics. Does Stak think that DCP's essay was a fire hose in a water fight? Because I got the impression he felt otherwise.

[_Morley]

.... Craig ....

Thanks.