Godless Business

26 – Star Spangled Jesus Fish

Ron Williams, a Queensland father, is taking the National Schools Chaplaincy program to court due to apparent violations of the Australian Constitution; specifically section 116.  The case has been accepted by the Hight Court court and is scheduled for hearing in May.  If you wish to help Mr. Williams win this important case, please donate at http://www.highcourtchallenge.com/

References

Standard Podcast [ 1 h 14 min 02 s | 67.84 MB ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download


  • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

    Nice cast guys

    Ugh… Bill O'Reillly epitomises the worst features of US society – proud of his ignorance. Even if you grant his appeals to ignorance his own logic falls on itself. Bill asks 'who put the put X there?' ad nauseum for any of feature of our reality (with a haughty tone), well, who put his god there (seeing as god is also a fixture of our existence according to Bill-O)? If Bill can presuppose the existence of a god to plug his gap then there is no reason a god of god can't be presupposed to explain god's existence, ad infinitum.

    Regarding the contradictory demands of religion I think Fulke Greville's line sums it up bestl: "Created sick, Commanded to be well." Or as others have suggested, religion is like a snake oil salesman, invent a sickness which does not exist (although its symptomology often reflect the difficulties of the human condition) and offer a cure which is also similarly invented. Marx was incorrect to call it an opiate of the masses, it is a placebo.

    For the census, there is a 'non-religious' box (under the space to write in freehand which is below a few tick boxes of the large religions). There is a broad 'Other Religion' category where actual belief systems which involve supernatural claims are categorised when you look at the broad categorical table of results. The 'No Religion' category is coded for 'no religion, not fully described', 'Agnosticism', 'Atheism', 'Humanism' and 'Rationalism'. For the last census some separate supplementary codes for 'new age' and 'theism' were included however the numbers for these were very small.

    Check out page 149 of for the codes for religion affiliation (to save the hassle of navigating the ABS website, it isn't particularly intuitive) http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscribe…

    Another aspect to having the government provide a tax exemption for religious institutions is it places the government in the position of deciding what is and is not a religion. In practice it effectively limits sets the capacity for a group of individuals to establish a religion in Australia should they be rejected. The case in point to this is the decision that the raelians are not a religion because while their claims are outlandish and fantastical they are ultimately natural if they are true (obviously the retort is 'well isn't that the case for any religious claim?'). In order to provide a fair market place of ideas (as a liberal secular democracy should) it is unethical to provide advantages for some and not others, either give everyone a tax-exempt status (not going to happen) or tax everyone equally and provide a tax exemption for activities demonstrated to have saved the government money (eg charity).

    While this aspect of the situation is not a strong point for atheist concerns it should be for any civil libertarian religious individual. Consequently this is the primary argument made by 'Americans United for the Separation of Church and State' (http://www.au.org/) and I think most Australians who consider themselves religious are also in alignment to this principle. It is only a few particularly righteous individuals who seek to impose their religious morality on the greater society (eg ACL, leader of the anglican and catholic churches, family council, etc).

    • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

      Bill asks 'who put the put X there?' ad nauseum for any of feature of our reality (with a haughty tone), well, who put his god there (seeing as god is also a fixture of our existence according to Bill-O)? If Bill can presuppose the existence of a god to plug his gap then there is no reason a god of god can't be presupposed to explain god's existence, ad infinitum.

      Not quite. O'Reilly, I think is trying to use the cosmological argument, but pretty much makes a hash of it.. However, your reply here makes pretty much the same error that Dawkins makes with his central argument in TGD, and that is to ignore the distinction between things that are contingent and things that are not (i.e. things which are 'necessary'). Cosmology has made it pretty clear that the universe is both temporal and contingent, and any final cause would have to be, by definition, eternal and necessary – the only way to get out of that logically is to show that the universe is eternal and necessary (the big bang was initially resisted because it shows that the universe had a beginning). To ask then 'who made x?' of an eternal and necessary being is a nonsense question, akin to asking a bachelor the colour of his wife's hair.
      Also, there's no 'gap' being plugged, because it's not a scientific question – it is about agency not mechanics. It is not an answer to a question that science has not yet answered, but one that science by definition cannot answer. We must turn to other disciplines such as philosophy for questions such as this.

      • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

        Ah yes the usual non-temporal contingent versus temporal contingent. By what piece of information or evidence do you base that feature of God on? Or is it simply the way he is defined, seems rather convenient (and circular).

        What is more, you're mashing the science rather poorly. Find me a component to prevailing scientific observation and theory which involves a violation of E=mc^2. Cosmology has not made it clear the universe is contingent, there are hypotheses but right now we have no theory beyond the big bang with an evidentiary basis. So while you've defined God into being non-contingent there is reason to think the universe is not. It is common for people to think all the laws of physics break down in retracing the big bang but it is a false view, only some fail and one which does not is the law of conservation of mass-energy.

        I certainly reject your position that it is a question science can't answer. I don't think you're correct in assuming an agency (which is all you're doing, be honest) and I don't see why science is by definition unable to answer such a question especially since it certainly relates to the universe, something we have been studying rather effectively for some time.

        Howver, it gets worse from Bill's perspective because he isn't just arguing for the deist god argued for with the cosmological argument (there is no component to this argument which specifically identifies the Christian god). Bill is pretty clear he is arguing for a fine-tuning, micro-managing god who specifically placed planets and moons in their particular arrangement.

        So while you've tried to save Bill's argument even you should admit his thinking is beyond saving.

        • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

          By what piece of information or evidence do you base that feature of God on?

          Logic: Any maximally great being would by definition be eternal and necessary.

          So while you've defined God into being non-contingent there is reason to think the universe is not

          On the contrary – physicists and cosmologists have offered plenty by way of showing that the universe could easily have been different in an innumerable number of ways (isn't that what Hawking's multi-verse theory rests on?)- I've never seen anyone argue that the universe is necessary. The big bang certainly shows that the universe isn't eternal.

          Can you show why we should consider the universe to be necessary and not contingent?

          I certainly reject your position that it is a question science can't answer.

          That's great – but show why . Science, by definition deals with the physical universe and its mechanics, and not with questions of agency. Lennox (a philospher of science) amongst others demonstrates this well. How can science deal with questions of agency beyond its defined sphere of examination? While science can certainly examine the effects of any agency, the question of the agency itself is for other disciplines to deal with.

          he is arguing for a fine-tuning

          And this demonstrates why science can only take us so far. Science can tell us what the physical laws are, but it cannot tell us why they should be so (if there is a reason at all) – that is a philosophical interpretation of the data (and indeed one which a number of eminent physicists and philosophers are happy to make btw)

          r. I don't think you're correct in assuming an agency (which is all you're doing, be honest)

          No, it's not an assumption – it's a conclusion based on the nature of the universe (things like rational intelligibility do not make sense without a rational intelligence behind it)

          • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

            Logic: Any maximally great being would by definition be eternal and necessary.

            I do not see how your 'logic' isn't just defining the being into existence. You can't consider existence an attribute of a real thing simply because the nonexistent have no attributes. Concluding about the existence of a thing based on its properties is not logically sound.

            1. Shangri-La is the maximally greatest place on earth.
            2. A place that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
            3. Therefore, Shangri-La exists.

            So please don't flop out the ontological argument Findo – thought you were more interesting than that.

            isn't that what Hawking's multi-verse theory rests on?

            The multiverse theory remains untested, the null-hypothesis cannot be rejected given the current data. This is why I said there are hypotheses but no theory yet. Lawrence Krauss has a lecture on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo) where he presents hypotheses about how the universe could have come into existence from nothing but it remains untested (despite his confidence in it being supported).

            Hawking also dismisses the fine-tuning argument because he simply says there is no reason to think the laws of physics and chemistry could be any other way. This is certainly more justified because while it can be interesting to see if there are other points of coalescence with the constants (something not done yet, the 'research' showing slight variations in the laws would not result in a stable universe only involved changing one law at a time), we have no reason or evidence these constants can be anything but what they are.

            I've never seen anyone argue that the universe is necessary.

            I'm perpetually amused and frustrated people persist in assuming it isn't. We know the universe exists (as much as we can know anything beyond ourselves exists) and we have no justifiable model for explaining the universe NOT existing. There is no known violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy that I am aware of – perhaps Godless Biz's resident astronomer would know? My online searches remain unfruitful.

            The big bang certainly shows that the universe isn't eternal.

            Kind of yes but mostly no. The big bang involves not just the expansion of space and energy/matter but also time so on one hand it is nonsensical to ask what happened 'before' the big bang but the theory is silent on where the space, energy/matter and time came from. The big bang theory is about the expansion of the universe not the creation. This is like confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Like I said before, the big bang theory does not involve a violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy. This gives us no reason to think creation happened and deductively reason to think the universe may actually be eternal in some sense (perpetual may be a better term).

            I'll leave the rest because these few points are pretty much deal breakers for the discussion.

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Concluding about the existence of a thing based on its properties is not logically sound.

              I agree – and I did no such thing. I agree that the ontological argument is an invalid theistic proof. But, what it does do – and what I was using it for – is show that God would be a necessary being.

              he presents hypotheses about how the universe could have come into existence from nothing

              So Krauss' view seems to validate the view then that the universe is temporal and contingent – indeed, even his view that the universe could arise from nothing assumes a temporality and contingency.

              Hawking also dismisses the fine-tuning argument because he simply says there is no reason to think the laws of physics and chemistry could be any other way.

              That's interesting. He doesn't think they could be any other way, and yet proposes a theory in which there are other universes in which they are different?
              Never-the-less, (unless he retracts this in his latest book )he thinks that universe had a begining:

              "Personally, I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang."

              Martin Rees doesn't think his 'six numbers' are brute facts, but rather:

              "An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different."

              Whether or not there is any actual evidence for the multi-verse theory of Rees and Hawking et al. (and I with the criticisms of Paul Davies btw) it remains that they recognise that the universe could possibly have been otherwise. Where is the logical contradiction in thinking they could have been different?

              This puts it well:

              To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory.
              Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent.

              . We know the universe exists (as much as we can know anything beyond ourselves exists) and we have no justifiable model for explaining the universe NOT existing.

              That it exists does not mean it had to, or that its existence is necessary. I exist, but I'm still contingent. "The state of affairs in which nothing existed at all is a logically possible state of affairs, even though it is not the actual state of affairs." The burden lies with you to show that the universe could not have failed to exist in order to be a necessary entity.

              The big bang involves not just the expansion of space and energy/matter but also time so on one hand it is nonsensical to ask what happened 'before' the big bang

              Would you say the universe existed before time, or only when time began (the big bang)? Surely if the universe is within time, then it is temporal?

              The big bang theory is about the expansion of the universe not the creation

              So you're saying that the universe existed before the big bang – that it didn't begin at the big bang (the way Hawking et al say)?

              Tja… so much for not having this debate :D

            • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

              I agree – and I did no such thing. I agree that the ontological argument is an invalid theistic proof. But, what it does do – and what I was using it for – is show that God would be a necessary being.

              You're still defining the being into existence even accepting the universe is contingent – you haven't demonstrated what it is contingent on. To assume an agency is to exceed even the evidence based theorising.

              So Krauss' view seems to validate the view then that the universe is temporal and contingent – indeed, even his view that the universe could arise from nothing assumes a temporality and contingency.

              In a sense, keep in mind his lecture is evidence-based theorising. However, you misunderstand the physics definition of nothing – he actually says in the lecture that nothing isn't actually nothing. So the nothing the universe is theorised to have been contingent on isn't really nothing.

              Regarding the multiverse theories – to point to the universe as just so designed in the context of these views is a bit like the puddle musing on the perfect design of its hole. While universes could have been otherwise in this theory it is then inevitable (by the craziness of infinity) that we would exist just so, it takes the 'magic' out of existence and removes any need for an agency in the process. Krauss mentions this too if you recall. It also means it is logically contradictory to assume non-existence because (again thanks to infinity) it is inevitable and probably multiple – the multiverse theory does not necessarily entail unique universes either. So not only is it inevitable for us to exist but theoretically we would do so an infinite number of times.

              I haven't read Hawkings last book so not fully up to speed with his latest position. But it doesn't matter much because none of this is settled and we could engage in the same discussion 5 years from now with a very different slant (especially if the LHC yields some unexpected results).

              Would you say the universe existed before time, or only when time began (the big bang)? Surely if the universe is within time, then it is temporal?

              No, time is a property of the universe. As special relativity has shown time is not necessarily a consistent feature of the fabric of the universe.

              So you're saying that the universe existed before the big bang – that it didn't begin at the big bang (the way Hawking et al say)?

              To draw the analogy to life again, the diversification of life didn't begin with evolution, it began with abiogenesis. Similarly, I understand the universe to have expanded with the big bang. What expanded in the big bang was the total energetic constituency of the universe (coalescing into matter over space and time). I don't know how the constituents of the big bang began – I'll wait until the physicists stop arguing and see where the evidence lands.

              Given we don't know how the universe began it seems pretty presumptuous to assume there was a who involved.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              One point worth mentioning: Krauss suggests "nothing weighs something". This is certainly not the nothing I normally think about.

            • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

              Yes, it isn't what anyone thinks about when you say the word nothing which makes things confusing when physicists say nothing in a different way.

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              even accepting the universe is contingent – you haven't demonstrated what it is contingent on.

              If you mean 'demonstrated' in an empirical sense – of course not, how could I? The question lies beyond the scope of science. It is a philosophical question which seeks to find an answer that makes best sense of what we know about the universe.

              So the nothing the universe is theorised to have been contingent on isn't really nothing.

              Fair enough – still, it just pushes the question back a step – what is the origin of the laws governing the 'nothing' vaccuum? (the multi-verse theory – which I know you don't accept – just pushes back the question also)

              to point to the universe as just so designed in the context of these views is a bit like the puddle musing on the perfect design of its hole.

              Sort of, but not really.. if we imagine that the puddle has done some experiments and realised that the size and shape and smoothness of his hole wouldn't affect his puddle-existence.

              Ultimately you have to look at the universe (and the fact that we happen to find ourselves in part of the universe where we actually have the ability to study it!) and make one of two conclusions – with Dakwins & Co. and simply say 'lucky…' (about 1 in 10 to the power of 30 or 1 in 10 to the power of 123 depending on who you ask) and either accept that improbability or come up with theories to negate it, or say with Freeman Dyson that 'it almost as if the universe in some sense must have known we were coming'.
              That is much more like our 'puddle' finding himself in the middle of of Dubai in a 'hole' lined with tiles containing floral motifs and arabic letters.

              While universes could have been otherwise in this theory it is then inevitable (by the craziness of infinity) that we would exist just so, it takes the 'magic' out of existence and removes any need for an agency in the process. Krauss mentions this too if you recall. It also means it is logically contradictory to assume non-existence because (again thanks to infinity) it is inevitable and probably multiple – the multiverse theory does not necessarily entail unique universes either. So not only is it inevitable for us to exist but theoretically we would do so an infinite number of times.

              Yes, that is the point of the multi-verse theory – to take the apparently improbable so-called fine-tuning and show that it had to have happened (As Edward Harrison perhaps a little hyperbolically suggests, the nature of the universe is such that you either have to choose between blind chance that requires multiple universes or desitic design that requires only one), but Lennox points out that not only are a multi-verse and a God are not logically mutually exclusive, he points to the philosopher of physics Micheal Lockwood who observes that it doesn't actually negate John Lelsie's firing squad argument:

              the element of surprise and need for explanation exists within whichever universe in which the fine-tuning is being observed. After all, the probability that a given person obtains a run of ten sixes in throwing a dice is not altered by the fact that there may be many people throwing dice in the same city at the same time.

              Also – you still wouldn't have any explanation of the 'meta-laws' which govern the multi-verse, which means the question is just getting pushed back. I tend to agree with Richard Swinebourne:

              To postulate a trillion-trillion other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height irrationality.

              back to you..

              none of this is settled and we could engage in the same discussion 5 years from now

              Sure.. it's not settled – that's philosophy for you ;) Doesn't mean we can draw reasonable conclusions though, so long as we're prepared to change them if something arises to warrant it.

              Given we don't know how the universe began it seems pretty presumptuous to assume there was a who involved.

              Maybe – but to draw a conclusion that there was a who involved is not. ;)

            • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

              While I have issues with just about everything you wrote and quoted here I seem to have realised something about your position and it should have hit me much earlier.

              Basically, I'm not sure that the notion of a God as you have defined could be falsified. It seems you are pointing to any model physicists have proposed for the existence of the universe and saying they're not incompatible with the existence of a God.

              All I'm getting is that 'philsophically' you feel justified in your appeal to ignorance because of the properties you attribute to god. It all seems rather circular. Can you show me how this isn't circular?

              Also, tell me, what would count as evidence against the existence of God?

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Seeing as it's not a scientific hypothesis, I'm not sure the falsifiability is that big of an issue (I don't think I hold to the postivism that you seem to imply here)

              It seems you are pointing to any model physicists have proposed for the existence of the universe and saying they're not incompatible with the existence of a God.

              Perhaps. I don't see that positing a transcendent causal mind necessitates any one particular physical model (though I would say that an orderly one points to such a mind moreso). And you haven't actually proposed a model for the existence of the universe, but rather models of the universe and it's expansion. What you are saying is akin to saying: It seems you are pointing to any model combustion engine and saying they're not incompatible with the existence of an engineer. Physicists deal with mechanics. Mechanics does not do away with agency.

              All I'm getting is that 'philsophically' you feel justified in your appeal to ignorance because of the properties you attribute to god. It all seems rather circular. Can you show me how this isn't circular?

              I don't think it's an appeal to ignorance, but rather an appeal to best explanation of the evidence (looking at the way the universe is and asking what best explains why it should be so – rational intelligibility from rational intelligence e.g.) I don't think that is circular either – it's not strictly deductive as it's about best explanation, not a necessary explanation. I think your objection cuts both ways in terms of whatever philosophical positions you might hold (e.g. naturalism, postivism, scientism etc.)

              Also, tell me, what would count as evidence against the existence of God?

              A universe that we couldn't understand – that was not rationally intelligible would not lead to the conclusion that there was a rational intelligence behind it, I think. But I suspect this question brings assumptions of positivism to the table.. am I right?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Seeing as it's not a scientific hypothesis …

              Science deals with reality. If you're saying your god is not real, then I accept.

              I don't see that positing a transcendent causal mind necessitates any one particular physical mode …

              Have you ever come across a mind without a physical brain? You are claiming this is possible, so I would like to know how you came by this information.

              A universe that we couldn't understand …

              Is your god is rationally and intelligible? If so, then by the same reasoning he too should have a rationally intelligible creator. If not, then how could you know anything about you god?

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Science deals with reality. If you're saying your god is not real, then I accept

              Nice try Skegg. Science deals with the physical universe. It is quite a philosophical assumption to imply that this is the sum total of reality. But I do concede that begging the question so does make for good soundbites.

              Have you ever come across a mind without a physical brain? You are claiming this is possible, so I would like to know how you came by this information.

              Until something is shown to be impossible, it's reasonable to allow it as a possibility.

              Is your god is rationally and intelligible? If so, then by the same reasoning he too should have a rationally intelligible creator.

              The same reasoning doesn't apply because the rational intelligibility of a being that has / is a rationally intelligence is self-explanatory. The rational intelligibility of a non-sentient entity is, however, not self-explanatory as it has no intelligence of its own to speak of.

            • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

              I'm not sure your aversion to having a falsifiable argument for the existence of a God is justified.

              If a deductive argument is to be made then it must be valid and sound. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. A sound argument is one with premises considered to be true.

              Yes?
              As far as I'm concerned the capacity to know whether premises are true requires more than just philosophical musings (afterall, it isn't hard to define entities into existence) but an extension of such thought processes applied to reality. Here enters empirical observation and testing.

              Unless ofcourse you think you're making an inductive argument but then you would have to admit the premises only suggest your conclusion. A far weaker position especially given the subject matter and humanty's collective ignorance on all pertinent issues. Are you open to such uncertainty?

              I just don't see how I can justify positing a creative transcendant mind when I find no reason and evidence to do so (seeing as your reason and evidence seems to be an unfalsifiable position, therefore it must be true… that sounds a lot like the definition of an appeal to ignorance).

              Yes, I am not positing a model of the universe or its creation (if it had one or the manner of it) because I don't know. Hawking himself is on record as having changed his position because the evidence has not fallen the way he preferred (on the basis of mathematical beauty essentially). I leave such things to the science which is making headway (as usual). However, I'm also not positing the existence of a being which necessarily (as you define it) preceeds even the universe (or whatever the universe came from… ah see what I did there?). Seeing as I am not willing to even take a firm position (despite preferences) on the actual model of the universe (something I know exists) I see no justification to go beyond that. What is more, should I take a position which is later demonstrated to be false I'm willing to change my mind.

              Your argument isn't an appeal to best explanation because your explanation presupposes the evidence with this whole rational intelligibility gambit. The argument is circular. And as Askegg commented, it opens itself up to an infinite regress, the hallmark of a circular appeal. Nevermind that it is completely presupposed and devoid of any evidence beyond a certain philosophical aesthetic.

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              If a deductive argument is to be made then it must be valid and sound. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. A sound argument is one with premises considered to be true.

              Yes?

              Right – which is why I noted that the conclusion isn't a necessary conclusion from the premises.

              Here enters empirical observation and testing.

              Yes – all well and good if the question falls within the scope to do that.

              Unless ofcourse you think you're making an inductive argument but then you would have to admit the premises only suggest your conclusion. A far weaker position especially given the subject matter and humanty's collective ignorance on all pertinent issues. Are you open to such uncertainty?

              Sure. It's also not the only reason I have – it is part of a number of reasons, whose weight I find persuasive. It is certainly not irrational.

              I just don't see how I can justify positing a creative transcendant mind when I find no reason and evidence to do so

              That's fair enough.. I disagree – I do see reason and evidence to do so. You don't.. ok.

              seeing as your reason and evidence seems to be an unfalsifiable position, therefore it must be true… that sounds a lot like the definition of an appeal to ignorance

              I did not say 'must be true' – I have consistently said that it 'indicates'.

              Your argument isn't an appeal to best explanation because your explanation presupposes the evidence with this whole rational intelligibility gambit. The argument is circular.

              I don't understand you here – doesn't any explanation of evidence have to presuppose evidence? If not – what is there to be explained?? How is it circular to posit an explanation for evidence?

              And as Askegg commented, it opens itself up to an infinite regress, the hallmark of a circular appeal.

              No, it doesn't as I pointed out above – he makes a category error there (again) in equating a non-sentient entity with a sentient one.

              Nevermind that it is completely presupposed and devoid of any evidence beyond a certain philosophical aesthetic.

              I disagree that it is devoid of evidence or presupposed. But then, I generally get the feeling that naturalists have a very narrow idea of what they will consider evidence, which is itself somewhat circular.
              I see no error in asking what the most elegant explanation for the rational intelligibility of the universe is. And to my mind, 'chance' doesn't cut it.

            • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

              I disagree that it is devoid of evidence or presupposed.

              To say rational intelligence is required to produce rational intelligibility it assumes it's own conclusion. How? Well a rational intelligence is going to be rationally intelligible isn't it?

              The claim also ignores the potential for chaos to produce order (which has been demonstrated to in fact happen, mathematically and empirically). Although I suppose you may take issue with this since it has only occured within this universe but I'm not sure where else we are supposed to look…

              But then, I generally get the feeling that naturalists have a very narrow idea of what they will consider evidence, which is itself somewhat circular.

              There are decent philosophical arguments for the existence of a reality external to one's own consciousness. It is from there that I progress with empiricism as a best-practice method for discerning the nature of this reality. As I've pointed out before, I can only pragmatically make use of empiricism because I have no other method of knowing beyond the reality I exist within. While philosophical argument may justify my view that reality exists it is not sufficient by itself to make claims about the nature of this reality. It does amount to an axiomatic position but one I feel is justifiable philosophically. Certainly not something I think you could disagree with entirely since you think this reality is demonstrating the existence of a god to some degree (although it needs help from personal experience apparently). Forgive me but it does look like you like to bounce between a deist god (undiscernable to human experience) and a personal subjective god (not observable with empirical methods). Shame it is the space in the middle that counts when it comes to not fooling yourself (to paraphrase Richard Feynman).

              I see no error in asking what the most elegant explanation for the rational intelligibility of the universe is. And to my mind, 'chance' doesn't cut it.

              And this is the crux of the matter. People like myself seek to validate our views of reality by comparing them and their necessary implications to the observable existence (can't exactly do so with the unobservable can we?). You assume it could be some other way, otherwise why would chance be an issue (nevermind this raises issues with various problem of evil and problem of unnecessary suffering questions)? Even if it was by chance how would you know, seeing as your entire existence (to date?) is limited to the conditions produced by the chance or predetermined event? Again, you formulate your position in just such a way that it can't be falsified.

              I can't say it was or wasn't chance, as we have discussed it depends on the model for the universe but the picture is incomplete. This simply doesn't matter though, because my critique is that you are over-reaching the evidence. Something you seem to passively admit by appealing to philosophy. You acknowledge that god is 'beyond science' so you feel philosophy is able to justify thinking an entity exists. I don't just find the logic to be questionable, but I see no axiomatic demand to do so (like I do with reality). So I'm left with you presenting a case for the existence of a god that I can't distinguish from one which doesn't exist.

              Many people have favoured views of reality (including scientists) which they have found 'elegant' but it doesn't matter how nice it feels and how safe, satisfying or exciting the conclusion is when it comes to whether it is true (or trustworthy). Surely you don't disagree with this? Or is truth simply an aesthetic of reality? That would be a strange appeal to consequence.

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              To say rational intelligence is required to produce rational intelligibility it assumes it's own conclusion. How? Well a rational intelligence is going to be rationally intelligible isn't it?

              I didn't say it was required – I said that rational intelligibility points to a rational intelligence as a source. Yes, that assumes such a rational intelligence will be rationally intelligible as well, but that's not assuming the conclusion (i.e. that the rationally intelligible universe is the product of a rational intelligence) in the premise (i.e. the universe is rationally intelligble).

              The claim also ignores the potential for chaos to produce order (which has been demonstrated to in fact happen, mathematically and empirically).

              It doesn't ignore it – it simply had not noted any examples of rational intelligibility coming from anywhere else. I do recall asking for such examples in the past – and would be very interested to seen the examples of order / rationality from chaos / irrationality that you say exist.

              It is from there that I progress with empiricism as a best-practice method for discerning the nature of this reality. As I've pointed out before, I can only pragmatically make use of empiricism because I have no other method of knowing beyond the reality I exist within. While philosophical argument may justify my view that reality exists it is not sufficient by itself to make claims about the nature of this reality.

              I have no problem with empiricism for where it is applicable – the mechanics of the natural / physical universe. I think one is justified in accepting the conclusions of philosophical arguments as true – though of course recognising that its not empirical knowledge. I don't think that anything other than empirical knowledge is somehow irrational to hold to.

              Certainly not something I think you could disagree with entirely since you think this reality is demonstrating the existence of a god to some degree (although it needs help from personal experience apparently).

              It's not that I think it 'needs help' from experience, I simply note that my experience does not match your philosophical conclusions as well as it matches mine. I think that understanding mechanics can point to aspects of agency, but to understand the agent, science can't help, and other disciplines like philosophy and theology must be utilised.

              Forgive me but it does look like you like to bounce between a deist god (undiscernable to human experience) and a personal subjective god (not observable with empirical methods). Shame it is the space in the middle that counts when it comes to not fooling yourself

              I'm not 'bouncing' anywhere. A deist view shares a view of agency in terms of origins and laws etc. with theism, so of course there will be much in the deist view that I would agree with. What deism doesn't do is think that this agent ever acts interventionally or has ever made any kind of special revelation. Neither special action or revelation fall within the scope of science to be able to comment, because science doesn't 'do' unique events, but works with repeatable, observable things. But that's not to say it is beyond experience or reason, just that it's beyond any repeatable empirical experience.

              blockquote> People like myself seek to validate our views of reality by comparing them and their necessary implications to the observable existence (can't exactly do so with the unobservable can we?).
              I think philosophy does that – asking questions like 'what would we expect the world to be like if ….' etc. Philosophy seeks to account for, and make the best sense of what we do know. We know that the universe is rationally intelligible and ordered, so what best accounts for that? And does that then make sense of and account for other things?

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              my critique is that you are over-reaching the evidence. Something you seem to passively admit by appealing to philosophy. You acknowledge that god is 'beyond science' so you feel philosophy is able to justify thinking an entity exists.

              The irony is, of course, that any philosophy that asserts that anything beyond scientific knowledge should not be held to or accepted is itself a philosophical position and not a statement of scientific knowledge. I simply don't have the problem with philosophy that you seem to have. I do think that one can be justified in accepting something based on philosophical reason when the issue lies beyond the scope of science. (And as I just noted, you apparently do too, in at least one instance!)

              Many people have favoured views of reality (including scientists) which they have found 'elegant' but it doesn't matter how nice it feels and how safe, satisfying or exciting the conclusion is when it comes to whether it is true (or trustworthy). Surely you don't disagree with this

              No, I don't disagree – and it of course cuts both ways. Presumably the naturalist philosophies that Richard Dawkins espouses appear elegant to him too. But the issue is about those things which lie outside the scope of empirical testing, and elegance (occam's razor) is useful tool to help decide which explanations are more preferable (more likely to be true). Of course, there is a greater uncertainty when it comes to philosophy, but that doesn't mean we should never feel justified in accepting our conclusions.

            • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

              Our exchange has inspired me to investigate this topic further and I thought I would share a few links I found useful.

              I already linked Lawrance Krauss's lecture and I have two other youtube lectures to share. Both are quite recent

              The first is from Andrew Lange (2009) titled "How Did The Universe Begin?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_4bMIqmV9U

              The second is from Neil Turok (2010) called "What Caused The Big Bang?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9iJMWJdyw8

              I found Turok's to me more enlightening as it was a more encompassing view of the competing theories (even if he is more inclined towards M-Theory and a cyclical model for the universe, which we haven't even raised in our exchange). However, Turok also compared his own views to Hawking's and gave some history to the changing views of physics. In addition, Turok seemed more clear about what was theoretical and what had evidentiary support. Lange seemed to quickly jump over the idea of what caused (or was the source of) the big bang and was quite focused on the nature of the universe.

              Both videos are about an hour long though and certainly lose me at a few points with the math but the down side to presenting the limits of physics to a broad audience involves jumping over some big issues as well as some math most won't follow. It was interesting to me to hear about a lot of the same information but see two different perspectives and favoured models for the universe.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Thanks. I have something to watch now :)

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Thanks for that – (Not sure when I'll find time to watch though.. self-imposing a weekday ban on this 'hobby' of philosophical debate and discussion until mid April).

              I do appreciate the discussion, even though we don't and probably won't share the same conclusions.

        • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

          So while you've tried to save Bill's argument even you should admit his thinking is beyond saving.

          Well.. more to the point (I realised after writing the previous reply that I got a little off my point) whether Bill's argument is rubbish or not – the whole 'who made god?' response is still a bad rebuttal because it commits the fallacy of of making a category error.

          As soon as you begin to ask such a question about the causal agent proffered (in this case, the Judeo-Christian God) you are, in allowing the hypothetical required to ask such a question, accepting the qualities of that agent (hypothetically of course), so even if I can show logically that any maximal being must be necessary, it's irrelevant, because the Judeo-Christian God under discussion is described/understood as necessary and thus, to ask who made it is simply a category error which renders the question meaningless. It fails as a rebuttal because it's fallacious.

          There are much better responses, such as asking why he might think that 'fine tuning' requires such a causal agent -these are legitimate philosophical questions and debates one could have- though one which I really don't wish to get into right now. That it's a category error was really the point I was trying to make, and I think it stands (though one might make a case that Bill is also committing a similar category error). We can save the debates about whether inferring necessary agency in justified or not, and whether science deals with it or not for another day, perhaps.

      • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

        "Cosmology has made it pretty clear that the universe is both temporal and contingent.."

        No it hasn't and your special pleading is noted.

        Although we can push our mathematics towards zero sized objects, there is zero empirical evidence to suggest this can actually occur. The closest we might seem to get is the Planck length, and this is literally an entire universe away from being nothing.

        Besides, you have not demonstrated your "god" thing is necessary. You have just given the cause of the universe the god label, and asserted the causal chain stops there. Where is your evidence to support this claim?

        Furthermore, you do not simply believe in a creative force. You believe this force took human form by impregnating and shooting out of a virgin's womb. You believe he walked on water, healed the sick, and turned water into wine (a great party trick). You believe he was tortured, crucified and buried, only to rise from the dead three days later and fly into Heaven. You are a very long way from demonstrating this creative force is ANY of these things.

        • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

          No it hasn't and your special pleading is noted

          What is special pleading about saying the universe is both temporal and contingent?

          And if cosmology has not shown that the universe is temporal and contingent, why do people like Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking talk about the universe having a beginning? Can you point me to any scientists who still think the universe is eternal or that it's non-existence is logically impossible?

          Besides, you have not demonstrated your "god" thing is necessary. You have just given the cause of the universe the god label, and asserted the causal chain stops there. Where is your evidence to support this claim?

          Yes, I did – I already said that any maximal being must logically be both eternal and necessary (that means non-contingent btw). That is not arbitrary.

          Furthermore, you do not simply believe in a creative force…. You are a very long way from demonstrating this creative force is ANY of these things.

          You're right, this argument doesn't, and I did not imply that it did. The issue is about possible causal agency, not about whether any possible or alleged causal agent has revealed themselves personally. That might come down the track – but at present it's a red herring.

          • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

            "What is special pleading about saying the universe is both temporal and contingent?"

            Sorry, I thought you were presenting the Kalam cosmological argument; Everything has a cause, oh except that thing over there…..

            "Can you point me to any scientists who still think the universe is eternal …

            Strangely enough, Stephen Hawking. In his latest book he outlines the argument that our universe was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. Physics do not exist in a vacuum.

            "…any maximal being must logically be both eternal and necessary "

            Any maximally causal being? Why does it have to be a being? Why do you reach the end of a causal chain and then throw away causality? Can you actually demonstrate there is an end to the causal chain, or you just wish there to be one to prove your preconceptions? Can you show the cause of the universe is not just another link in a larger causal chain? If not, then on what basis do you claim the cause of the universe must be eternal and necessary?

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Sorry, I thought you were presenting the Kalam cosmological argument; Everything has a cause, oh except that thing over there…..

              Actually the Kalam argument is that everything that begins to exists has a cause – because the universe began to exist then it must have a cause.. similar argument, but not the one I was making.

              an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. Physics do not exist in a vacuum.

              Even quantum vacuums? ;p
              So do you think that the laws of physics are necessary, eternal, brute facts then?

              Why does it have to be a being?

              Because we're talking about agency and volition.

              Why do you reach the end of a causal chain and then throw away causality?

              Occam's razor – a final cause involves less unnecessary entities than an infinite causal regress.

              If not, then on what basis do you claim the cause of the universe must be eternal and necessary?

              Actually, I didn't claim that the cause of the universe must be eternal and necessary (or at least, if I did, allow me to clarify) – any final cause must logically be eternal and necessary. I just happen to think that because the universe is rationally intelligible, that there is a rationally intelligence as the cause.

              I mean.. you've only really got to other options – try and argue that the universe is eternal and necessary (which is pretty difficult to do) or argue for an infinite causal regress in which rationality emerges from irrationality. I think a more elegant explanation is to posit a single eternal and necessary mind behind the universe.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              My bad on Kalam; I meant the plain old cosmological argument.

              The laws of the universe are not like societal laws. They are not written by an author but are descriptions of reality. Quantum vacuums are a state of reality, thus will have "rules" which they follow (unless it is truly chaotic).

              You say "final cause" as if there is one. Please demonstrate this is a fact.

              I just happen to think that because the universe is rationally intelligible, that there is a rationally intelligence as the cause.

              And if there is a rationally intelligence cause, there must be a rationally intelligence cause to cause the cause. I thought you were trying to escape an infinite loop?

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              . They are not written by an author but are descriptions of reality.

              Yes, they are descriptions of reality – but it is begging the question to simply assert that there is no causal agent for them.

              Quantum vacuums are a state of reality, thus will have "rules" which they follow (unless it is truly chaotic).

              Are they a fact, or a hypothesis?
              Are they necessary or could it be chaotic? If it's not truly chaotic, why not? Where does the order come from?

              You say "final cause" as if there is one. Please demonstrate this is a fact.

              You still seem to stumble over the hypothetical 'if's of philosophy… or should I just ask you to demonstrate the fact of infinite regression, as you seem to speak as if there is one?

              And if there is a rationally intelligence cause, there must be a rationally intelligence cause to cause the cause. I thought you were trying to escape an infinite loop?

              Why must there be? Again, you make a category error (and note that I did not actually say 'must')

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "…but it is begging the question to simply assert that there is no causal agent for them."

              Why? You describe your god with properties and attributes yet see no need to assign a causal agent. You simply claim his attributes are necessary. Why not apply Occam's razor and consider the attributes of the universe are necessary?

              Are they necessary or could it be chaotic? If it's not truly chaotic, why not? Where does the order come from?

              All good viable questions. You are making a claim regarding the apparent order of the cosmos, so I was wondering how you have discounted these possibilities.

              You still seem to stumble over the hypothetical 'if's of philosophy..

              I forgot. Your god is not real, merely a philosophical view.

              or should I just ask you to demonstrate the fact of infinite regression, as you seem to speak as if there is one?

              I am not making a claim either way, but asking you to justify why you have made your decision in eliminating the options.

              Why must there be?

              Because it's a premise of your argument.

              If "I just happen to think that because the universe is rationally intelligible, that there is a rationally intelligence as the cause" does not actually mean "only rationally intelligible causes rationally intelligible" then I apologise.

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Why? You describe your god with properties and attributes yet see no need to assign a causal agent. You simply claim his attributes are necessary. Why not apply Occam's razor and consider the attributes of the universe are necessary?

              I don't think you understand what 'necessary' means in this context.

              I don't simply claim God's attributes are necessary – I showed that logically, any maximal cannot be contingent.
              In order to show the physical laws are necessary, you have to show that they couldn't have been any other way and that they couldn't have failed to exist. I don't think you can do that. Occam's razor won't help you in this situation (it's about postulating entities, not the attributes of such) The universe does appear to be contingent.

              All good viable questions. You are making a claim regarding the apparent order of the cosmos, so I was wondering how you have discounted these possibilities.

              You didn't answer my question – though it seems you do entertain the possibility of them being chaotic (which means they're not necessary). Which possibilities have I discounted?

              I forgot. Your god is not real, merely a philosophical view.

              Some of us don't make the mistake of thinking that philosophy has nothing to do with reality. But points for a good effort.. though it doesn't change my criticism of stumbling over the 'if'.

              I am not making a claim either way, but asking you to justify why you have made your decision in eliminating the options.

              I don't think I 'eliminated' anything – I said that I found it a more elegant explanation to posit an intelligent first cause.

              Because it's a premise of your argument.

              No, it isn't, because my argument doesn't commit the category error you persist in making.

              If "I just happen to think that because the universe is rationally intelligible, that there is a rationally intelligence as the cause" does not actually mean "only rationally intelligible causes rationally intelligible" then I apologise.

              Apology accepted.

              If you changed your paraphrase to:
              "only rational intelligence causes rational intelligibility" then you'd be much closer. But I did not assert 'only' – I said that I had not encountered any rational intelligibility that didn't come from a rational intelligence.. If you have any examples, please do give them.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "In order to show the physical laws are necessary, you have to show that they couldn't have been any other way and that they couldn't have failed to exist."

              Franky, I do not know if the physical laws could have been any different. I am not making any claims here. However, you are claiming that the physical laws could not have been different and I am asking you how you came across this information. Stop dodging and supply the evidence.

              Which possibilities have I discounted?

              You seem to be discounting all other possible explanations for the physical universe. Again, I am asking how you did this.

              I don't think I 'eliminated' anything – I said that I found it a more elegant explanation to posit an intelligent first cause.

              I think you have made it as far as "a cause". How are you adding "intelligent" and "first"?

              If you changed your paraphrase to: "only rational intelligence causes rational intelligibility"

              I have no evidence this is the case. Humanity creates things, but beyond this we cannot say. You are falling into the problem of inductive reasoning.

            • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

              Franky, I do not know if the physical laws could have been any different. I am not making any claims here.

              So… you're not saying that the universe is necessary, and you acknowledge that you cannot show the universe is necessary.. so why should we then think that it is?

              However, you are claiming that the physical laws could not have been different and I am asking you how you came across this information. Stop dodging and supply the evidence.

              No, I'm saying that there's no reason to assume that the physical laws couldn't have been different. If you have reason to show otherwise, please supply it. As I already said, that the multi-verse theory is so popular amongst leading cosmologists and physicists (the one's who are deists and theists that is) only goes to show that they allow that the physical laws could be otherwise. If you have a reason to think the physical laws are not contingent, then please say so.

              You seem to be discounting all other possible explanations for the physical universe. Again, I am asking how you did this.

              And again, which explanations are you talking about? Which explanation are you alleging I've discounted?

              I think you have made it as far as "a cause". How are you adding "intelligent" and "first"?

              I'm pretty sure I've already made the point about rational intelligibly and non-contingency.

              You are falling into the problem of inductive reasoning.

              It's only a problem if I don't allow for it to be wrong – if I treat it as certain, then yes, that is the problem of induction, but I'm not treating it as certain, so it does not fall foul of that problem. As Hume has argued, inductive conclusions are inevitable and we just have to deal with it.

              Unless you can demonstrate the invalidity of the premise
              a) rational intelligibility is the product of rational intelligence
              experience has shown in to be so, and I've seen no reason to think otherwise. That is, the premise hasn't been falsified (which is what I asked you to do). Of course, I cannot say that the rational intelligibility necessarily means it is the product of rational intelligence (you tried to put those words in my mouth) but it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that the rational intelligibility of the universe points to a rationally intelligent source.

  • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

    "Check out page 149 of for the codes for religion affiliation"

    Small correction – page 143.

    It is worthwhile noting atheism, agnosticism, humanism, and rationalism are ALL considered subcategories of "No Religion". So choose whichever of these fits best.

    I will be sure to mention this in the next podcast.

    • http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/ David_Gibson

      Ah yeah, 149 of the pdf file but 143 of the document, sorry should have been more clear.

      • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

        Oh, I see what you mean now. As you were.

  • Neo

    Great episode guys!

    Ricky Gervais could have been talking about Jason Lee?
    Just saying ;-)

  • godlesspaladin

    Where did you get that end song "Take my sins away" ? I must have it. :-)

  • Pingback: Godless Business – Is the universe necessary?

Subscribe

Subscribe to the Podcast

Father Bob and Aronra

This week I meet with Aronra in Melbourne for the Global Atheist Convention, and thought it would be a good idea to chat up with Australia’s most popular secular humanist Catholic Father Bob for a chat.  Strap yourself in for this one.

Standard Podcast [ 56 min 23 s | 36 MB ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Further Reading

Excellent Marriage

On Thursday the 17th May the churches of Tasmania will be hosting an event at the Stanley Burbury Theatre entitled “Excellent Marriage”.  According to their web site the event “aims to celebrate the importance and value of marriage for the Australian community”.  They say  “people from religious and non-religious backgrounds, young and old, are all invited to…
Continue reading

More Ultimate Answers

This is a continuation of my reply to Andrew Finden’s “one last philosophical hurrah” post, and addresses the question “why believe there is a god?” It is encouraging to read the opening statement of this section where Andrew admits “that one can cannot prove that God exists”, however he quickly (and rightly) dismisses philosophical materialism…
Continue reading

Ultimate Answers

Those who have been following this blog for a while will, no doubt, recall the various discussions/debates/arguments I have had with Andrew Finden in the past. As frustrating as I find them at times, I think he often tackles interesting and difficult topics with a calm intelligence not very often found in the religious debate. This…
Continue reading

Dear Mr. Swan,

Wayne Swan is currently having meeting to finalise the Australian federal budget.  In these tough economic times it is more important than ever to ensure your hard earned tax dollar is being spent in the most effective and efficient manner.  In view of this I can think of one poorly thought out federal program which,…
Continue reading

We have it all

Last weekend I attend the second Global Atheist Convention run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia in Melbourne. The convention attracted over 4,000 attendees to listen to extraordinary line up of world class speakers from a variety of disciplines on a wide range of topics. The convention began with a comedy line up including the brilliantly hilarious…
Continue reading

Poor Pell

Last Monday on Australia’s ABC television network the jet-lagged evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins squared off against Catholic Cardinal George Pell on the “Q and A” program with unimpressive results. A transcript of the entire show can be found in the ABC’s web site. The level of intellectual debate on this episode of Q and A…
Continue reading

Back to top

Follow @askegg, @cynskeptical, @jimpalfreyman, and @nigelhoney on Twitter.

Designed by Andrew Skegg for using the Twitter Bootstrap framework.