Michael Egnor's Questions to Larry Moran

First of all, apologies to a couple of folks for not getting their comments posted. I've been away from this blog for quite some time, and it seems the spam filter's been a little overzealous. I'll try to check back more often. On to business...

Over at Evolution, News and Views, Michael Egnor has offered up a quiz to find out what atheists actually believe. I thought I'd tackle them one or two at a time. Here goes-

1. Why is there anything?

This is probably the most common challenge put forth by theists for the existence of a god, but for the life of me I just don't see the profundity here. When we consider this bedrock existential question, it seems to me that we're left with only two conceptual possibilities. Either there's always been something, or there's always been nothing.

Actually, I suppose I should mention the third possibility, that something actually emerged from nothing, and that for no reason at all, since otherwise the reason would have preceded the nothing, making that reason a something, thereby precluding the existence (or non-existence, if you will) of the aforementioned nothing. Follow? If this is the case, we're left with a reality where hypothetical nothings somehow produce babies out of non-existent bathwater; a neat trick, but neither here nor there regarding the relevance of Egnor's original query. Let's dismiss this third hypothetical and move on.

Ok, so we're left with two choices here. Before the Beginning, there is either something, or nothing. Call the possbilities 50/50. Since we're here, obviously eternal 'here-ness' wins out, yes? So, the answer to the question 'Why is there anything?' turns out to be the simplest one imaginable- 'Because there is!'. No, it's even simpler than that, since the 'cause' in 'because' implies a sense of causation that by logical necessity cannot precede existence since, by definition, it defines the relationship of rather arbitrarily drawn segments OF that existence bound by the laws inherent in what has come to be known as 'space/time'...whatever the hell THAT means! So, let's knock off the 'because' and settle for 'There Is'. As opposed, naturally, to the statement 'There Is Not', which only seems applicable in a relative way, as in "There IS NOT a banana in my refrigerator at the present time', but seems wholly inadequate in the face of the ubiquitous 'There Is' that assaults our senses on a daily basis in its diverse and sundry manifestations.

What caused the universe?

There are two ways to approach this question. In the grand, metacosmological sense, where the terms 'universe' and 'all hypothetical modes of existence' are interchangeable, we've already answered that question i.e. since causation cannot precede the template of its own operational matrix, NOTHING caused the universe. It simply exists, for no reason at all.

However, if we're relegating the problem to local universal conditions, I'd say the question is still up for grabs. However, rest assured that this culmination of what's become known as the 'big bang' in recent decades, is simply an emergence from some preexisting, pre-universal (small 'u') set of conditions. We might be talking about multi-universes, meta-universes, or simply primordial cosmic soup consisting of vacuum energy or virtual particles. Who knows? It's an interesting question where speculation runs rampant at times, but I'm not sure that 'God's Magic' is a particularly interesting rabbit hole to be throwing our resources down, especially considering the dubious nature of that belief system's (generically speaking) source material.

Why is there regularity(Law)in nature?

This is like asking "Why does a bunny hop like a bunny?" (Hm, seems to be a bit of a rabbit theme emerging here). What's so baffling about something acting exactly like what it is? Why is it dark outside when it's dark outside? Why does a rubber ball bounce when you bounce it? Anything is defined by the attributes and constraints that make up that thing. And let's say that the temperature of absolute zero actually fluctuated two or three degrees every leapyear. So what? I mean, the question regarding the mechanics of the situation might certainly prove to be interesting, most certainly overturning our understanding of the way things work physics-wise. But I don't think the 'why' of Mr. Egnor's question is meant to address the more prosaic causal problems. Nope, this is one of those big WHY questions, which ultimately makes it a nonsensical question i.e. 'Why is something exactly what it is, instead of something else?'.

Well, I managed to address three questions today. Now it's time to hop off to work and earn my carrots, so that's all for today, Alice!

Touchdown!

See what happens when you piss off Zeus?

Restore Stephen Baldwin

Ok...ok...ok...

So...can anyone tell me if this is a put-on? Please! Somebody tell me this is a put-on! Please! Everything I find on the net is taking it seriously, but...nah! It simply cannot be! I came across the website a few minutes ago, when it was flashed at the end of the latest South Park episode. If this is the real deal, and not just a put-on (please, SOMEBODY tell me this is a put-on), then it's simultaneously the most hilarious, tragic, and pathetic thing I've ever seen.

I'm seriously.

The Eagle Has Landed!

My book, 'Confessions of an Antinatalist', is now officially out and on sale (see link in right margin). The price is $12US. It's a trade paperback, glossy cover, and while the subject isn't properly anti-apologetic, I had plenty of opportunity to comment about what I think of religion. The book is written along the lines of a philosophical memoir (if there is such a thing). I'm also proud to say that I got an endorsement from none other than Thomas Ligotti, who has been lauded by some as the best psychological horror writer of our generation. He's also written a book on the subject which I'll be posting a lengthy review on shortly, over at my other blog antinatalism.net.

Word up: You can also order my book directly from the publisher, ninebandedbooks.com, and save on shipping costs. Thanks in advance to those who order.

Over at Spanish Inquisitor's...

...there's a good and relevant article. The internet may not be the death of religion, but certainly the incredible access to information hitherto unknown to the general populace is sure making a dent, isn't it? Atheist voices, shouting their sundry messages from the streets, and for the first time being heard. It's an interesting time to be alive, watching the slow crumbling away of these traditional edifices. People are becoming less afraid to buck the trends, so it seems; energized by a global community that gives them an equal footing in the information war against established authorities. Who ever thought there'd be a public call to blaspheme against the holy spirit? LOL! Strange days, indeed!

Night of the Living Jesus!

My traditional Easter/Halloween poem!

Why I Am a Christian

Surprised? So am I. Have you ever been so sure of yourself that you just knew nothing could ever change your mind, then come across an argument so convincing that everything you thought was true gets turned on its head? Well, that's what's happened to me on this date, March 28, 2010. I just got down on my knees at the side of my bed, and asked God to forgive me of my sins through the redeeming power of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm a little shaken up right now, so I'll leave it at that for the time being. I'll try to expound a little later, after I've managed to process some of this...

UPDATE: Whoops! Just kidding:)

I don't know; I guess I'm just in a mocking mood today. Right on the heels of writing this post, I run across this- several thousand words of pseudo-rationalistic exposition that can be boiled down to a single, succinct statement. Are you ready for it? Here goes-

Anything anybody believes on the basis of any authority is rationally justified, even though those beliefs are not necessarily correct.

Read it yourselves, and feel free to say where I'm missing something profound. Is it just me, or isn't this just part of the reformed epistemological agenda to render terms like 'logical justification' into meaninglessness? I hate to say it, but I'm really starting to feel the same contempt for the whole discipline that I'm sensing from the scientific community at large. Which is a shame, really. In my mind, philosophy has always stood for unwavering inquiry into the big question about life; even granting the often weird metaphysical theories that sometimes come out the other side. But in modern theistic hands, it seems to have morphed into some kind of bizarre epistemic cone of silence (shades of 'Get Smart') that's simply contrived to insulate dubious belief systems that harsh reality would otherwise impinge upon. And when you have these kinds of statements issuing from so-called giants in the field...

...I don't think traditional arguments for God's existence... are all that powerful... but it just seems to me that there really is such a person [as God]...

...When I look at the mountains, when I look at the treetops in my backyard, when I go to church, when I read the Bible, and on many other occasions I just find myself convinced that there really is such a person as God... It's more like a personal experience than an argument or a philosophical proof...

Alvin Plantinga

On the other hand, I am asserting an even stronger claim that you attribute to me. For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit's witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer. The first claim is not really all that radical: I think most theologians, not to mention ordinary believers, would say that arguments of natural theology are not necessary in order for faith in God to be rational. In the absence of some argument for the truth of atheism, I can be perfectly rational to believe in God on the basis of the Spirit's witness.

What I'm claiming is that even in the face of evidence against God which we cannot refute, we ought to believe in God on the basis of His Spirit's witness. Apostasy is never the rational obligation of any believer, nor is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. God can be trusted to provide such powerful warrant for the great truths of the Gospel that we will never be rationally obliged to reject or desert Him.

William Lane Craig

...well, all I can do is shake my head.

Some claim there is a renaissance of 'theistic philosophy' going on these days. I suppose in contrast to recent history, when the academic credibility of such a thing was hovering near zero, this would be technically correct. I hereby dub this to be 'the moon is made of green cheese' effect. Once the credibility of a movement based on such a ridiculous concept is thoroughly demolished, the victors share one last round of laughter, then move on to other, more interesting endeavors. However, there's always that sour grapes contingent that just won't let things go. At first they appeal to public ignorance, many of whom in their secret hearts just can't accept that the big light in the sky ISN'T, after all, a pendulous, extraterrestrial dairy product. Thus the sheep are fleeced, outdated concepts are repackaged and resold under the auspices of modern marketing techniques (consider Craig's rehashing of the Kalam and ontological arguments), professional spokesmen are hooked up to the cash cow via collection plate umbilicus, and the circus once again opens its flaps for business. This time with brighter lights, bigger name celebrities, along with the advantageous fact that nowadays even the mud farmers on Tobacco Road have laptops, DSL ports in every outhouse, and at least one cousin living on the outskirts of the big city who knows how to access PayPal.

Ok, that's my rant for today. I was feeling pissy, but I'm much better now :)

DOUBLE UPDATE:

Here's the source of the above Wm. Lane Craig quote. There are some real doozies in there, including...

...if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found.

There must be some stronger designation for this attitude than confirmation bias. Ah, I've got it! Confirmation certitude! And remember, folks...this guy's a professional philosopher!

In other words, if astronauts brought rocks back from the moon, the belief that the moon is made of green cheese would be false. However, we feel in our hearts that the moon IS made of green cheese, and so it follows logically that NASA is involved in a coverup.

Jesus' Cashmere Crowd of Tourin' - (and, yes, I'll do anything to make a pun, even and especially if it's a silly one...just in case you were askin')

Ok, I really don't know how else to say it. People are just plain fucking stupid! A sucker's born every minute. You can't overestimate the gullibility of the public. Yada, yada, yada. Hey you Christians! Listen up you Muslims and Jews! Lend an ear, you scatterings of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jaists, and all other assorted mono and polytheists! Gather 'round, you UFO cultists, and let's not forget you shit-for-brains Scientologists! THIS is the kind of thinking that created and upholds your holy scriptures and various edifices, you bunch of baboons! THIS is why you need skeptics in the world, to shake you and try to dislodge what marbles you have left out of the sticky corners of your superstitious mindsets. Fucking grow up and get real already, people! We've become an embarrassment to the Greater Galactic Federation...why do you think we never get invited to any of the parties, for crissake?

Mother Mary in a taco! Is there ANYTHING people won't fall for? ANYTHING AT ALL?

There Were Giants

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days...

And the sun stood frozen in the sky.
And a man slew one thousand men with the jawbone of an ass.
And a kid killed a professional armored soldier with a slingshot.
And a woman was turned into a pillar of salt.
And a donkey talked.
And a man built a boat big enough to hold a sample of every species in existence, And floated atop a completely submerged Earth.
And nations existed whose entire populations down to a man were irredeemably corrupt, to the point where genocide was absolutely justified.
And men lived to be almost a thousand years old.
Etc, etc, etc.

...in THOSE days.

Isn't it interesting how people can achieve a disconnect from their everyday common sense, simply by pushing questionable tales back into the misty past where nobody can check them out? This is far from a new phenomenon. Note that by chapter 6, the author of Genesis has already adopted the device, describing creatures who no longer exist in his time- thus his expression 'in THOSE days'. One can only wonder about the later origins of Goliath and his giant brothers. Well, not SERIOUSLY wonder; obviously, their existence also came to be in the folk tales of a future peoples' 'THOSE days'.

Time isn't the only means by which we cleave to the supposed veracity of otherwise obvious fictions. Geography is another. Whether it be the mystics of the orient, the magic healers of the Philippines, or UFO Grand Central located in the depths of the Amazon rainforest, it's much easier to make-believe when the objects of our beliefs aren't open to TOO much scrutiny.

But by far the most interesting, not to mention amusing, mode of cognitive dissonance by which otherwise seemingly rational people manage to talk themselves into believing crazy things, is philosophy. Which on its face is curious, seeing that philosophy is SUPPOSED to be an intellectual sieve through which to more finely strain the truth of our communal inner experience. Instead, what we too often get are merely refined methods of obfuscation. Especially in the realm of apologetics, where the use of philosophical forms of inquiry are used as a ruse to prop up otherwise embarrassingly frail religious rationalizations.

Thus we're stuck with ridiculous things like the ontological argument for the existence of God, where he is literally pulled into being by words alone. Then there's the Kalam argument, a muddle of half-assed conflicting premises meant to answer the child's logical question "But if God made everything, who made God?" Oh, and let's not forget the various epistemological shell games out there fashioned to cast doubt on everything, the more easy to lump in metaphysical fairy tales with valid modes of truth seeking- "Step right up and find the knowledge! Everybody's a winner!"

It's natural to be curious, and to wonder about the mysteries we have little or no access to. It's also tempting to make up answers to our questions in the form of myth, legend, and even convoluted philosophical concepts. It seems that we are doomed to the consternation that non-omniscience brings, and too many of us are content with accepting any story that comes down the pipe if it promises to plug the holes in our bewilderment, no matter how poorly. "Nothing new under the sun..." says the Ecclesiast.

At least, he DID say that...back in THOSE days...when there were giants.

Gideon Has Left the Building

Or maybe he just died on the toilet. Either way, it's all good. Thanks for the update, mysterious stranger(s). I owe you one.

Over at factonista.org...

...a good read.

Darwinian Conservatism

I've included a new link to Larry Arnhart's 'Darwinian Conservatism' blog. I thought it would be nice to offer a little balance, since so much vocal support for evolution comes from the left side of the political spectrum. Smart guy, good reading.