My recent recorded "Does God Exist?" debate (held on August 19, 2012 vs. Dr. Ronda Chervin) which was recorded for a special episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available on Youtube. A remastered high-quality downloadable and streamable audio-only file is scheduled to be released as a podcast on the first Wednesday of September. This was my second recorded debate of this kind.
Dr. Chervin presented variations of Aquinas' third and fifth ways in her opening statement.
I presented the evidential problem of natural evil, Stephen Law's 'Evil God Challenge,' and the problem of theological fatalism.
Thanks to all who supported, promoted, and watched the debate. Jason Gogola (behind the camera) and Karla Porter (the debate's moderator) helped with the organization and worked hard to make this happen. An extra special thanks goes out to my opponent, Dr. Chervin, for providing a good debate.
Comments, questions, and feedback -- always encouraged -- can be posted here. I will be participating in events like this in the future, so constructive criticism will help improve the quality of debates like this. Consider also sending e-mail and thanks to Dr. Chervin at ChervinRonda (at) gmail (dot) com. Feel free, also, to sound off on the event's Facebook page which still has ongoing discussion!
I will be dedicating some upcoming blog posts concerning this debate in which I will further develop the arguments I presented, restate and expand my objections to my opponent, and comment on some issues which were raised in the question and answer session. Stay tuned by following the blog label 'NEPAGodDebate' and keeping watch on my blog.
An interesting note which should be known...
At a point in the question and answer session, moderator Karla Porter was asking questions which were not delivered by persons in the live chat. For whatever reason, the chatroom crashed and -- while it was still open -- questions were not easy to read considering the blinding speed of the chat. In the future, we will ask that questions be sent via another medium instead. I appreciate, though, that so many people viewed! Crashing the chatroom is a good sign of interest :)
Information on participants:
Ronda Chervin received a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Fordham University and an MA in Religious Studies from Notre Dame Apostolic Institute. She is a widow, mother, and grandmother. Ronda converted to the Catholic Faith from a Jewish, though atheistic, background and has been a Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Loyola Marymount University, the Seminary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Franciscan University of Steubenville. She is an international speaker and author of some fifty books about Catholic thought, practice and spirituality. Ronda is currently a Dedicated Widow of the Holy Eucharist forming a small community of dedicated widows. Dr. Ronda is currently teaching philosophy at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. Her website can be found at www.rondachervin.com.
Justin Vacula received bachelor's degrees in Philosophy and Psychology, a minor in Professional Writing, and the distinguished W.A. Kilburn Memorial Award for Philosophy from King's College. Justin Vacula is an outspoken atheist, activist for the separation of church and state, a speaker, writer/reporter, blogger, and host of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast. He is currently enrolled in Marywood University's graduate-level Mental Health Counseling program. Vacula holds leadership roles as the co-organizer, spokesperson, and a board member of the NEPA Freethought Society. Justin has appeared on various radio shows, television networks, and podcasts. Vacula will be speaking at the upcoming September 28-30 Atheist/Humanist conference in Harrisburg. His website can be found at www.justinvacula.com.
Karla Porter works with organizations that want to achieve employer of choice status, are interested in attracting candidates who will develop into employee brand advocates that drive growth and continued success, embrace diversity, desire a culture of innovation and excellence, want to enrich the community, and reward superior performance with celebrity. Porter is one of four organizers behind the upcoming NEPA BlogCon 2012 conference at Luzerne County Community College taking place on September 29. Her website can be found at www.karlaporter.com.
Showing posts with label free will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free will. Show all posts
Debate/Discussion with Pastor John Murray - NEPA Pridefest 2012
I recently had a debate/discussion with Christian fundamentalist Pastor John Murray from Tree of Life Christian Fellowship Church at NEPA Pridefest 2012 (an LGBT festival) in Kingston, PA. Murray and fellow churchgoers arrived to preach to/protest at NEPA Pridefest 2012.
We chatted for about 45 minutes about homosexuality, faith, theological fatalism, free will, the problem of evil, Stephen Law's 'Evil God Challenge,' the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, miracles, cosmological arguments, the soul, sin, and much more.
Philosopher Stephen Law enjoyed the discussion and you might too.
Enjoy this lively discussion.
My protest of "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally in Scranton, PA
Here I am at the "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally in Scranton, PA with my protest sign also promoting the NEPA Freethought Society's website. In this post, in a narrative fashion of sorts, I will provide some of my thoughts concerning the rally and recount some of my protesting experience. I can write for hours about the bad arguments (and responses to my arguments) posed to me, but I won't do this and instead focus on some tidbits of my experience. Aside from my thoughts, the end of this post includes local print media coverage of the event via reporter Rich Howells writing for Go Lackawanna in which I was interviewed.
This Friday, I woke early to create a sign inspired by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that I would bring with me to protest the "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally in Scranton, PA. For those of you who were unaware of the event in Scranton (which had also taken place concurrently with other rallies nationwide), the rally was essentially a religious-based objection to Obama's Affordable Care Act on the grounds, at least according to many of the ralliers, that the Affordable Care act would 'trample religious freedom' because people of certain religious persuasions [namely Christians who find contraceptives and abortions to be mortal sins or some other evil] would be forced to 'violate their consciences' whether this would be dealing with funding contraceptives and abortions or Christians being forced to provide contraceptives and abortions to patients. This reasoning and objection could be phrased in various ways, but I won't go into this here because I want to focus on my protesting experience while giving my accounting concerning my thoughts surrounding the rally.
One of the first (and biggest) signs/banners I saw at the rally, pictured above, was quite interesting as it seemed to be evident that -- and my thoughts would later be validated -- there would be a contingent of people under the wide and general umbrella of 'tea partiers.' ...which is quite interesting because this rally, at least as I understood it (and the website for the event said), was supposed to be a religious objection rather than a political objection or, even more broadly, a political rally. I suppose, though, that many individuals were attracted and it needed not be the case that individuals were 'on the same page.'
As I walked around the rally with my sign -- mainly before speakers came onstage -- I ended up having some very interesting discussions with people who approached me and initiated conversation. The man pictured above, for instance, yelled "Devil come out of you!" at me and was quite hostile. There was no discussion with him... Others, though, even they didn't appear to be too learned (based on their responses to my arguments and the arguments they posed to me), seemed to be actually interested in learning about me and having a discussion.
(this glorious document was handed to me at the rally)
When blogging, I tend to tackle more serious arguments for God's existence while also responding to counter-arguments theists give to, for instance, the problem of natural evil. Here, though, the arguments and counter-arguments weren't so serious at times. 'Free will defenses' of various forms, 'Jesus died for sins,' and 'man sinned so that is why natural disasters happen in this fallen world' -- just to recall some examples -- were offered as responses to the problem of natural evil. Pascal's Wager even reared its ugly head at points. A man, after discovering that I accept evolution following my rejection of his design arguments, asked me if I ever heard of "creation science" to which I replied with a swift "did you ever hear of methodological naturalism" (after explaining what that meant because he had no idea).
One woman, although this might not be the woman in the above picture, noted that my appearance at this rally was "offensive" and "disrespectful." I asked her why she believed this and didn't really get a response other than repeated assertions. I explained that I was the only person protesting at the rally, was civil, did not interrupt anything, was not yelling at people, and had discussions with those who approached me reinforcing the idea that my appearance -- although she might not like me being there -- is a reasonable dissent and a protected right. As Peter Boghossian might say, her offense meant nothing to me. I wasn't attacking people, mocking people, being rude, or anything like that... The specter of 'respecting beliefs' is not so uncommon.
As the rally went on and speakers came to the stage, I remained still holding my sign to the right of the stage while speakers spoke and people listened. Some people got 'excited' (for lack of a better term on my behalf) and appeared to get angry with my sole dissenting sign. A woman, for instance, defiantly went in front of me thus blocking my sign. I started audibly laughing and told the women, "We can do this all day. You won't tire me out." Following this and my going in front of her (perhaps making a conga line of sorts, if you will), some other people joined in attempting to block my sign.
One man, at a point, even threatened to call police on me while claiming that I required a permit to protest. Much to his surprise, it seems, I encouraged him to call the police...and he refrained from doing so. This might have been my favorite moment of the rally.
This 'blocking attempt' -- partially by the persons holding the 'appeal to heaven' banner -- was quite hilarious and counter-intuitive for multiple reasons. I find it quite desperate and perhaps cowardly that -- at a rally with about two-hundred people (many of them holding signs) -- my sign just couldn't be tolerated. I was not going around blocking signs that I was unhappy with [and to be fair I couldn't block them all although I wouldn't do that anyway], but rather tolerated them recognizing that people ought to have the right to express their ideas on signs and be free of people trying to squelch their messages. This drew a tremendous amount of attention to me, away from the speakers, and made the religious 'blockers' look very foolish as we played a ring-around-the-rosy game of moving around.
Finally, the organizer -- Mary Ann Haas -- stepped in to interrupt the nonsense and persuade the 'blockers' to cease their maneuvering around me. She said that I seem like a nice person who was very respectful and should be left alone instead of being [this is my term and perhaps a paraphrase] harassed. We spoke for some time and she seemed very agreeable as far as free speech and openness to ideas was concerned. I explained that I see encounters like this partially as learning experiences and encourage others to do the same. It is important to face objections to one's ideas, I explained, and learning can be had from that.
After the speakers concluded, various ralliers approached me saying -- in part -- some really nasty and bizarre things. One woman, for instance, explicitly told me that she can't wait until I burn in Hell following a "I'll pray for you." I asked her how an all-loving god could possibly send people to be tortured for all eternity and the usual responses of "It's your choice" and "It's your fault, not God's. God gives you the chance" followed. Some men told me that I should join the military and fight overseas to find out "what the flag really stands for" and "what it really means to stand up for rights." I responded in part saying that, while several atheists are in foxholes, the military is not for me. I can exercise my rights in other ways and, more specifically, better utilize my talents.
One man -- in what I call a constant dismissal of intelligence and education -- told me that I needed "a course in logic" following my reasons for not believing in any gods which he asked for (I responded with problem of natural evil, inductive argument for naturalism, and a more general explanation that the reasons believers have given me aren't sufficient for belief). I told him, "I actually have a degree in philosophy and have taken logic courses. I graduated from King's College, too." He said that King's isn't "really Catholic," infested with "liberal theology," and is heretical. I explained that I had religious classes, too, and had lengthy conversations with ministers and theologians on campus. He just kept attacking King's and the 'heretical persons' there. I suppose the more educated, then, are less qualified to defend the Catholic faith or otherwise that their arguments are worse than laypersons?
As you might expect, pseudoscience also was a large part of this rally. The above woman and others told me about how 'studies show' that 'the pill' is harmful to women, causes cancer (as seen on this sign), and many other wild tales. Never mind, of course, women who use contraceptives for 'non-sex reasons' and require them in order to deal with ovarian cists and other maladies.
I had a really fun time! My friendly approach seemed to really pay off as the organizer was concerned about my safety and discouraged people from giving me a hard time. We walked away after she gave me many hugs. Don't get me wrong, though, I was not pulling punches. I wore my American Atheists 2012 convention t-shirt, was very hard hitting with my arguments, stood against a crowd of two hundred, and obviously brought a sign that happened to offend people. I am really excited for a future event like this and will plan ahead so that others can accompany me.
Following the event, local newspaper Go Lackawanna covered the rally and included various comments I made to the on-scene reporter. Here is a selected portion of the article:
Justin Vacula, an atheist and co-organizer of the NEPA Freethought Society, was the lone counter-protester at the rally, holding his own sign that read “Put women’s rights over bishops’ wrongs.”
“I want to see that religion doesn’t trump law. People want their religious beliefs to inform what the government has to do…The Constitution is explicitly godless. It’s a secular document. The government is anything but founded on religion. A lot of the founding fathers were deistic,” Vacula said.
“They weren’t Christians, and they realized by leaving God out of the Constitution that we could have a secular government for everyone. These people are talking about religious freedom, but if they’re really for religious freedom, it wouldn’t be about their Christian beliefs…Health care is about patients, not the people who are providing it.”
Claims of Personal Revelation and Divine Hiddenness
I have what seems to be quite a novel idea that I would like to present here...
Months ago, I authored a post dealing with what is often called the problem of divine hiddenness or, more generally, why -- if the Christian god exists -- the Christian god remains hidden. Theists typically, at least from my experience, use personal revelation as reasons to believe in God (or otherwise justify their previously held belief in God) and thus -- as it seems and should be guaranteed to follow if we accept their claims for sake of argument -- increase the probability of God existing. Surprisingly though, as I will argue, if it is the case that theistic belief is conditional on a god not revealing himself, it seems to be the case that both claims of personal revelation undermine the reasoning of theists who maintain that God must remain hidden due to certain considerations and that claims of personal revelation (if accepted for sake of argument) actually seem to lead to a conclusion that the Christian god doesn't exist.
Before getting into the thick of things, as this should often be the case, it should be helpful for me to define terms in order to eliminate confusion.
Personal revelation is a phrase used to describe some sort of intervention from God in which a person believes that they are either communicating with God or receiving some sort of message or good reason to warrant belief in God. Revelations can come in many forms from something as simple (and silly, some theists would even attest) as seeing Jesus in a photograph to being 'called' by God to enter into priesthood or something similar. The Catholic Church, for instance, is filled with a history of people -- some of them saints and some of them simply laypeople -- who claimed to have personal revelations and even have claimed to encounter God or other figures in groups of people as opposed to a solitary encounter.
Divine hiddenness is a phrase used surrounding the concern of why, if the Christian god exists, the Christian god remains hidden or otherwise doesn't unequivocally reveal himself to everyone so that they believe. Some versions of what turns out to be a problem (or even an argument against the existence of God) include an argument for why God would want and should want to reveal himself to everyone. Theists often maintain, from my experience, that God has sufficient reasons to remain hidden and, on some accounts, his hiddenness is required to preserve free will, 'genuine belief,' and even faith.
The problem, then, when understanding both divine hiddenness (and the associated reasons that God ought to remain hidden or otherwise a warranted Christian belief being contingent on God remaining hidden) and personal revelation should be clear. A theist can not justifiably maintain that God both must remain hidden (or remains hidden and has reasons to do so) and that God reveals himself to people; a contradiction seems to be apparent here. A further problem is found, then, when people maintain that God has revealed himself to people. If God must or does remain hidden, instances of revelation -- if true (or accepted for sake of argument) -- seem to lower the probability of the Christian god existing.
Suppose Bob maintains that the Christian god exists, has sufficient reason to remain hidden, and has revealed himself to Bob. What are we to make of this? In order to avoid a contradiction and remain coherent, Bob must reject one of his ideas, but which one of these ideas should he reject? Suppose Bob -- prior to having experienced a personal revelation -- has a litany of reasons which he considers adequate enough to warrant belief in the Christian god including but not limited to arguments from design and cosmological arguments. Bob, then, doesn't find reason -- when considering these arguments and arguments from detractors -- to reject belief in the Christian god, but has to face the question of why God remains hidden and doesn't unequivocally reveal himself to everyone. Suppose Bob maintains that God doesn't reveal himself because God wants to preserve free will (and Bob believes that an utter revelation would infringe upon free will and not lead to genuine belief) and values belief based on a considerable degree of faith. Bob, then, after his personal revelation experience, seems to have to reconsider some of his beliefs.
Bob, as should be apparent, can then either reject the idea of Christian belief being contingent on God remaining hidden or reject the idea that he has a personal revelation from God. An interesting third option, though, remains. Bob can reject belief that the Christian god exists! For Bob, after some examination, his personal revelation seems to be quite undeniable while some of the arguments for God that he had previously considered seemed to point not specifically to the Christian god, but rather to a creator god or being. Some options Bob might consider are as follows: perhaps some other god exists who is masquerading as the Christian god, the revelation was ambiguous, and Bob misinterpreted something. Bob, of course, can also reject the idea that the Christian god has sufficient reason to remain hidden or that he experienced a personal revelation, but he's not about to do that.
Hopefully this hypothetical example gives a good introduction and a better understanding of the following problem which I will formalize:
(1) If the Christian god exists, people can not profess genuine personal revelations from the Christian god.
(2) People profess genuine personal revelations from the Christian god.
(3) The Christian god does not exist.
In order for this deductive argument to be valid, its premises must lead to the conclusion and this is the case, so challenges to it must be attacks on its soundness (the truth-value of the premises). The argument, though, can only work -- as premise one implies -- if God's hiddenness is contingent on Christian belief; theists who believe that God doesn't remain hidden are not faced with a problem. Remember, many theists will argue that God has sufficient reasons to remain hidden including but not limited to considerations of free will, faith, and genuine belief.
Some may also object thinking -- when reflecting on premise one -- that the professed genuine personal revelations aren't genuine; people are lying, mistaken, drawing inappropriate conclusions, or a combination of these. This consideration, though, doesn't seem to matter considering that many theists -- including leaders in the Catholic Church and people writing Church history -- profess that personal revelations are genuine; the mere fact that people are professing personal revelations, not whether they are true or not -- is the issue. One of the problems, though, as I mentioned earlier in this post and this argument alludes to, is that God can't both remain hidden and reveal himself to people. If a theist professes to have experienced a genuine personal revelation and maintains that God remains hidden, we must assume that something else is 'going on' such as a non-Christian god revelation if the personal revelation itself is not doubted.
What, then, should people draw from this reasoning I proposed if I happen to be on-target? It seems quite obvious, as people might have already considered, that God can't both remain hidden and reveal himself to people, but the less obvious item I argued for is that claims of personal revelation -- when coupled with the belief that if the Christian god exists, he must remain hidden and/or that personal revelation claims can't be genuine -- actually make a solid case against (not for) the existence of the Christian god.
The vapid Christian response to the death of Tyler Winstead
(Image from Citizen's Voice article)
As an atheist and a theological non-cognitivist (one who believes god-language is empty in content), it should be quite obvious that I don't believe talking about God or appealing to any god is going to actually do anything about the recent shooting death besides offer false hope. In this case, it seems that the appeals to God -- as you'll see in this post -- actually hurt the situation and make people believe that something is being done to rightly address the shooting death...which is one of the main reasons why I am authoring this post.
Some atheists may object to me even writing this post or commenting on the issue (and some have) because of various reasons: they may want me to 'leave the family alone,' may believe that religious appeals are persons' only coping mechanisms, may believe that is is improper to criticize Christian beliefs considering the recent death, etc. I don't think these objections are sufficient especially considering people -- even those outside of Winstead's family -- honestly believe that their 'Christian solutions' will properly address the recent death...and they're willing to go on the record with their comments.
One of the first comments that was made 'on the record' regarding Tyler Winstead's death was from Tyler's grandfather, Willie Golden, who said,
We believe in God and his master plan - whether we understand it or not.
This comment is quite interesting concerning the implications that this statement makes which are as follows:
- God -- an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing being -- includes the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy in his 'master plan.'
- Since God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, his 'master plan' should be lauded because only all-good consequences can flow from an all-loving being. (Many Christians, from my experience, have argued or asserted that all judgments or actions stemming from God must accord with his all-loving character)
- Since Tyler Winstead was killed as part of God's plan (and God is all-loving), this is actually -- as much as our moral intuitions may contend -- a good thing. [I'll get more into this later considering a pastor actually states that Tyler "is in the best hands he ever will be.]
I can't possibly believe in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God who weaves -- as Golden says -- the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy into his 'master plan.' Instead of failing to understand the plan, we should instead assume the following: God's plan doesn't include the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy or God doesn't exist. How can one seriously contend that a shooting death of a 14-year-old boy coheres with the moral character of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god?
Did God really send the shooter?
Other comments concerning 'God's plan' came from someone whom, incidentally, I had the pleasure of debating on a special episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast. Rev. Marcelle Dotson, commenting on the death of Tyler Winstead, was quoted in an article saying,
I know the plans that I have for you, declares the Lord. They are plans for peace and not disaster.
I was quite confused by this comment, so I asked Rev. Dotson to clarify her statements. She said, on Facebook,
It's unfortunate that the Citizen's Voice did not include the comments that followed pertaining to that passage: That is is not God's plan that any life should be taken by another and that God intends a hopeful future for all. We are not to allow perpetrators of violent acts to hold us hostage and attempt to deny us a life of peace and justice.
Thankfully, Rev. Dotson doesn't believe that the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy is part of God's plan (although concerns of theological fatalism might force her to concede this, but that's a post for another day). This statement, though, seems problematic because Dotson contests that God intends a hopeful future for all. I cannot see how this is the case when God, whom many Christians believe created the universe, weaves natural disasters into the fabric of his design. I mentioned this in my debate with Rev. Dotson vis-a-vis the evidential problem of natural evil and Dotson's response seemed to appeal to the common 'you can't know the mind of God' defense that I believe dramatically fails.
Following Dotson's comments, Rev. Michael Brewster of Mount Zion Baptist Church -- who believes that atheists are adversaries of Christians who are trying to take away their power of prayer [listen to his sermon titled "Prayer: It's Importance in a Believer's Life" ...although it's no longer available (5/24/12)] -- had many words to say regarding the death of Tyler Winstead.
The Citizen's Voice article, "Church offers message of love in wake of teen's death," features many comments Rev. Brewster offered. The article begins, "...the community intends to fight back with a force far more potent than violence.
A large number of us have determined to engage with a fierce, and much more powerful weapon, the likes of which no evil has the power to withstand," Brewster said. "We'll employ the weapon of unconditional and radical love for humanity, and out right to live, and not only live, but our right to thrive in a community in peace, in this beautiful valley God has created, in this place we call our home. We intend to preserve it.
It's quite obvious that 'evil' has already had the power to withstand the supposed love and prayers Brewster and every member of his congregation have offered to God. God has, it seems, done absolutely nothing -- assuming he exists -- to prevent to death of Tyler Winstead. On some accounts, this death was even part of God's plan. The "powerful weapon" of "unconditional and radical love for humanity" in "this beautiful valley God has created" isn't going to stop the violence.
God, if he exists, despite all of the prayer and "unconditional and radical love for humanity" allowed Tyler Winstead to be killed at the age of 14. Free will, you say? Apparently, the 'free will' of the shooter was more important than Tyler's. Apparently, God's secret reason for allowing all of this famine, pestilence, slaughter, disease, and death outweighs every concern and desire humans have to be free from egregious suffering -- much of which has nothing to do with moral agents acting -- and we should just continue believing that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god exists despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary.
Following the previous comments, Brewster said, of Tyler, during a moment of silence,
he is in the best hands he will ever be.
Apparently, on Brewster's account, Tyler is better off dead (and allegedly in the hands of God) than he is alive and in the hands of his loving family and friends. What 'message of love' is this?
To make matters even worse, Brewster says,
I want to say to those who are responsible for taking this precious life, I want you to know that despite what you've done, God has and always will love you. And he stands ready to forgive you, should you humble yourself and ask for his forgiveness. Furthermore, it is because of the message of Easter, which brings hope to all mankind, that the family, too, has chosen to love and to forgive you as well.
So, as we see, God loves and forgives people who kill 14-year-old children provided that they humble themselves and ask for forgiveness. What kind of morality and legitimate forgiveness is this? God, apparently, can forgive on the behalf of others (including the murdered victim) and a simple humbling and asking for forgiveness can make everything better. Additionally, the family, on Brewster's account, loves and forgives the shooter.
I don't know about you, reader, but I don't think I could possibly forgive a person who might happen to murder a 14-year-son of mine especially if I didn't even know the person, the person's motives, or other circumstances that were involved.
While Brewster and many others -- being persons of faith -- may appeal to their religious beliefs to cope with or otherwise address the death of Tyler Winstead, it's quite clear that appeals to religion and some other world aren't going to do anything in this situation. Instead of appealing to God or some other world, our concerns should remain in this one where only real solutions can be found. I don't have the answers, but it should be quite clear that Brewster's message of love -- as a response to the death of Tyler Winstead -- is a vapid one.
Theological Fatalism
I've finally updated my essay dealing the problem of theological fatalism - the contention that free will and an omniscient being, God, are incompatible. Enjoy.
For a more detailed investigation and more discussion of this issue, I highly recommend Dr. David Kyle Johnson's paper -- God, Fatalism, and Temporal Ontology -- published in Religious Studies and his podcasts on this issue at Philosophy and Pop Culture.
Theological Fatalism
Theological Fatalism
Tebow 3:16 - God Doesn’t Help Tebow Win
This post is from a guest contributer who wishes to remain anonymous.
This Tebow thing is really getting out of hand. I thought it might have ended when his winning streak ended and the Broncos lost to the Patriots, but in this weekend’s wild card game, it happened again. Tebow threw about a 10 yard pass through dropped coverage that was run 70 yards for a touchdown in the first play of overtime. This meant, given NFL rules, the Steelers wouldn’t even get a possession to try to answer, so the Broncos advanced into the playoffs…to play the Patriots, again.
As you probably know, Tebow is the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. They have had a 'string of luck' lately—quite a few comeback, fourth quarter, and overtime wins. Of course, in the NFL, unlikely and quirky wins happen all the time. And when they do, people are usally critical. When teams win by barely beating teams with comebacks after quarters of terrible play, most people aren’t keen on singing your praises. Things, though, are different with Tebow. Why? Because he’s Christian. I mean really REALLY Christian. He was home schooled, so he has really had his religious beliefs beaten into him. He hosts an evangelically motivated website, 'wrote' similarly motivated books and has helped with his father’s missionary work in the Philippines... to help circumcise impoverished children. He also appeared in a pro-life commercial during the 2011 Super Bowl. When Tebow played for the Florida Gators, he wrote Bible verse references in his eye paint. Eye paint messages are not allowed in the NFL, but as a Bronco, Tebow has been regularly seen bowing down in petitionary prayer during games’ crucial moments and in prayers of gratitude right after touchdowns, often pointing up to heaven as he stands up, mouthing the words “thank you.” (This is now known as “Tebowing.”) As a result, many are inclined—without hyperbole—to attribute Bronco winning streaks to divine intervention.
The notion that the Bronco wins are a result of divine intervention has received a lot of attention. Saturday Night Live made fun of the notion the night before the Broncos lost to the Patriots in the regular season. Conan O’Brien reenacted the overtime pass against the Stealers with his peanut players having the hand of Jesus come down and guide the football into the receiver’s hand. ()
But to many—in fact to most—it’s not a joke; people who think that God is involved in Tebow’s wins are not joking and really think God is helping Tebow win. If you have any Christian football fans as Facebook friends, you know what I am talking about. If you watch a game, you will see many signs around the stadium that say “we believe.” Although they may simply have 'faith in their team,' the message seems to be more specific. They believe that Tebow has bestowed God’s favor onto the Broncos and that it will take them to the Super Bowl. Colorado pastor Wayne Hanson -- who has some connections to Tebow’s family -- just came right out and said it, “It’s not luck. Luck isn’t winning 6 games in a row. It’s favor. God’s favor.” Countless media outlets have echoed these thoughts.
The most recent game added to the hype. According to an ABC affiliate, Tebow passed for 316 yards, averaged 31.6 yards per completion, and the ratings for the game peaked at 31.6 at the very moment that Tebow threw the game winning touchdown. A Bible verse that Tebow often painted in his eye black when he was a Gator was (you guessed it) John 3:16. It is often considered the quintessential evangelical Bible verse. This has many seriously wondering whether God had a hand in the game’s stats. Since the NFL bans messages painted in eye black, could God be sending his own message? If so, it worked. “John 3:16,” according to the article, was the number one Google search on Monday, getting more hits than it ever has.
But does Tebow really think that God has a hand in his wins? Many Tebow fans want to deny this and say that he’s just thanking God for his talents while he is “Tebowing,” but it is quite difficult to maintain such a position given the evidence that Tebow gives us. When you always bow down in prayer during crucial moments of the games, and then when things go right you stand up, point to the sky, and say “thank you,” what else could you be doing but asking God for help and then thanking him once you get it? Why would you be thanking God for the chance to play or for your talents, in the most vital moments of the game? Is Tebow ecstatically jumping up and down after beating the Steelers, and then bowing down, thinking to himself “I’m so glad I’m talented. Thank Jesus?” In answer to a question about the Broncos' overtime win over Chicago, Tebow said, "I believe in a big God and special things can happen." Tebow may even believe that a Super Bowl win is preordained by God. "It's not necessarily prophesying, but sometimes you can feel God has a big plan,” he said. Tebow thinks God has a hand in his wins.
Bill O’Reilly, in an interview back in June, asked Tebow, “Do you pray for victory?” Tebow replied,
You know, I think He honestly does care about how we play on the field, more than anything more than win or lose our hearts on the field. On the field I'm trying to play for the glory of God but then also I'm trying to give everything I have and win and compete. And so I think more than just winning or losing, I think He cares about where our hearts are when we're playing.
Well, at least God has his priorities in order. According to Tebow, God cares more about 'Tebow’s heart' when he is playing than whether he wins. But he clearly still cares whether he wins. It’s really hard to deny that Tebow indeed does think God has a hand in his victories.
Even if Tebow doesn’t believe, his teammates do—teammates like Wesley Woodyard. He recounted to Mark Kiszla at the Denver Post Tebow’s message to him.
Tebow came to me and said, 'Don't worry about a thing,' because God has spoken to him." After Woodyard ripped the ball from Chicago's Marion Barber’s hand to prevent him from winning the game, Woodyard believes too. "I gave him a big hug,” said Woodyard, “and told him thank you. God speaks to people to reach other people.
If you want to think that Tebow doesn’t believe that God has a hand in his wins, fine. I’ve said enough about that, but it’s undeniable that a number of people do believe. They think that God is altering the outcome of his games—right down to the number of yards he passes for, to make people Google John 3:16. It’s this issue I want to examine. Is it rational to believe that God intervenes in Tim Tebow’s football games?
The simple answer is a resounding no. In fact, such a belief is about as irrational as you can get. Let’s talk about those “316” stats first.
They are interesting, but not remarkable. From what I can tell, they are accurate. He did throw for 316 yards. But he also completed 10/21 passes. Divide 316 by 10, and you get 31.6. So it’s not really two different independent occurrences of “316” because one derives from the other. But, although the overnight household ratings for the game were 25.9/46, the game did peak at 31.6/46 from 8:00-8:15 PM, ET. Although, Tebow was making his pass around that time, I highly doubt that the ratings spike happened at the moment that Tebow made the pass, as was reported above. It was probably after, when the 'Twitterverse' lit up with 9000 tweets a second, and more people tuned in as a result.
Thinking the “316” coincidences entail divine intervention is thinking at its most uncritical. What are the odds that Tebow would pass for exactly 316? Not that great. Chances the ratings would peak at 31.6 on the same night? Even lower. But, given the number of games that Tebow has played, will play, and the number of stats that are kept in NFL games, it is a guarantee that eventually one of his stats would equal some number that people would find significant. Maybe he could complete 4/16 passes in homage to Philippians 4:16, another bible verse that Tebow has painted in his eye black. (I hadn’t heard anyone claiming 3:16 is his favorite verse until now.) And it wouldn’t be too hard to find another instance of those numbers hiding in the slew of stats for any given game.
The fallacy involved in this kind of thinking involves anomaly hunting and a selection bias—we look for something remarkable, remember what we found, and forget all the unremarkable things we passed over. Sure, 316 yards is interesting…but how many stats, over all the games, have been completely insignificant? We don’t remember those. Just like when a psychic medium gets something right, and we remember it—and we forget the twenty other things that she just said that have nothing to do with anything. Keep looking and eventually you’ll find what you want.
But something else is very wrong with the “316 yards—it’s a sign!” mentality. Think about what it really entails. To get Tebow to throw exactly 316 yards, God would have had to control every minute detail of the game. Anyone going anywhere they are not supposed to, catching a throw they are not supposed to catch, or where they are not supposed to catch it, would ruin it all. The idea that God reaches down from heaven to make sure that Tebow’s pass gets to the receiver to win the game is already ridiculous enough—so ridiculous that when Conan portrays it literally on his show, we laugh out loud. But to think that God is directing every little aspect of a football game to make sure that Tebow gets 316 yards in exactly 10 throws [so when it’s divided by 10 the numbers don’t change] is just so stupid.
Not to mention—is God making everyone turn their TV on so that he gets exactly the 31.6 rating that he wants? Whatever happened to free will?
Many religious people will argue that, indeed, God does control every aspect of the game—and that he did make you turn on your TV. Why? Because God controls everything. So the idea that God has a hand in Tebow’s wins, and the 316 stats, is not crazy at all. Instead, it simply follows logically from the fact that God exists, they suggest.
But this is a highly controversial and widely criticized view of God and his nature. The idea that God predestines everything that occurs (including who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell) was argued for by John Calvin. But the idea runs afoul of many bible verses, not to mention many Christian ideas—like the fact that we are morally responsible for what we do. If everything I do, I do merely because God preordained—predetermined—that I would do it, then how is anything I do my fault? I can’t do anything but what God ordained I would do and the reason I do it ultimately has nothing to do with me or my decisions. If God makes me do it, then I’m not morally responsible. We usually wouldn’t think that you are morally responsible if you had to do something because someone had a gun pointed at your head. How much more so if God is literally controlling you like a puppet?
This idea also runs afoul of a common Christian apologetic move. The problem of evil asks how God could exist when there is so much evil in the world. A common reply is that the evil in the world is not the work of God—it is our work. We cause evil by our own free choices. Not all evil is the result of our free choices—no one has ever caused a tornado. So this solution doesn’t completely answer the problem. But it can’t solve anything if all our actions are predetermined by God. We can’t cause any evil if God makes us do what we do—if he does all our causing for us. Certainly, you can’t shift any blame off of God, onto us, for the evil in the world, if God predetermines all of it to happen.
Now, of course, football players’ performances are most often morally neutral—they aren’t out there causing good or evil. But here’s the thing. Christians maintain that when God doesn’t intervene in our free will decisions to prevent evil, like 9/11, it’s because free will is important. It must be protected and preserved. What, then, are we to make of the suggestion that God interferes with the free will of football players to make sure that a particular team wins? We must think it is absurd. If preventing 9/11 is not more important than preserving free will, certainly a football win is not either—no, not even a Tebow win. Not even if the win is a means by which God draws attention to himself or a bible verse.
To make things worse, the kind of reasoning that people are employing to conclude that God is helping Tebow is the worst kind. In a nutshell, it is an appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance occurs when one interjects a supernatural explanation for something that they can’t explain. This happens when people conclude that Criss Angel is magic because they can’t explain how he does his tricks. [Criss Angel is actually very honest about the fact that he is an illusionist, and has no supernatural powers—just like all magicians don’t.] But what’s more likely: no natural explanation or that you simply can’t think of one?
But it’s worse than that because the events for which people are invoking supernatural explanations don’t even need supernatural explanations. They are not miraculous; they are not violations of the natural order. If one of Tebow’s passes had disappeared in mid-air and then just appeared in the arms of a receiver in the end zone—then you might have something. But fourth quarter comebacks and overtime wins happen all the time—not to mention 316 yard stats. (Just Google it and see how many other 316 yard passing games you can find.)
Concluding that Tebow threw 316 yards because God made him is like concluding that prime empty spot in a parking lot is a result of divine intervention. Sure, it’s possible that God could have caused whoever parked there to cut their shopping trip to Wal-Mart short so they would leave and vacate a spot just when you needed it. But what’s more likely—divine intervention or the simple fact that someone with a good spot left Wal-Mart of their own accord around the time that you arrived? It is more likely that God intervened in the game to make sure that Tebow threw exactly 316 yards or that, just like hundreds of quarterbacks before him, Tebow simply threw for 316 yards?
The fact that people are really taking this seriously, I’m afraid, only reveals the childishness of religious thinking. Non-religious people are not drawing this conclusion. And, to be fair, not all religious people are either. (Rev. Alan Rundick denies it, but also thinks that Tebow denies it too. But there is a particular brand of religious person who takes this seriously and I think this demonstrates the kind of childish thinking that is involved in this kind of religion. Children think magicians are magic, adults know they are illusionists. Children are fascinated by history channel specials on Nostradamus, adults know that it’s all retrodiction. Children can be fascinated by the fact that Tebow threw for 316 yards, but adults should not.
But I also think this reveals the kind of god that these people worship. For the god that they revere, given the kind of things they think he does, it makes perfect sense to them that God would make Tebow throw for 316 yards. It also probably makes sense to them that God would free up a spot in the parking lot for them. Nietzsche spoke of such a god in his work, “The Antichrist.”
…what shall we do when [believers]… use the finger of God to convert their miser ably commonplace and huggermugger existence into a miracle of grace, a providence and an experience of salvation? The most modest exercise of the intellect, not to say of decency, should certainly be enough to convince these interpreters of the perfect childishness and unworthiness of such a misuse of the divine digital dexterity. However small our piety, if we ever encountered a god who always cured us of a cold in the head at just the right time, or got us into our carriage at the very instant heavy rain began to fall, he would seem so absurd a god that he’d have to be abolished even if he existed. God as a domestic ser vant, as a letter carrier, as an almanac-manat bottom, he is a mere name for the stupidest sort of chance....
If he were writing today, Nietzsche would have also mentioned football games.
A god who simply stands in for explanations of chance occurrences—especially chance occurrences that are bound to happen eventually anyway—is a childish invention, unworthy of worship. Christians who invoke God to explain Tebow’s success, who think that God even cares about football games, much less intervenes in them, do themselves and their entire religion a disservice. They trivialize God, trivialize religious belief, and they revitalize Tebow’s success.
P.S. Some have suggested that Tebow, and those like him,don’t pray to win—they just pray for everyone in the game to be safe and injury-free. There are three things to say about this: (1) He’s not doing that when he is bowing down on the sideline as the kicker lines up for the winning field goal. (2) God’s doing a pretty crappy job of keeping everyone safe, given the rise of concussions in football and the average survival rate of NFL players. (3) Praying for everyone in the game to be safe makes just about as much sense as praying for a win. Players are injured by the actions of others players. To keep everyone safe, God would have to make all the players be just where he wanted them to be—in other words, we would have to interfere with their free will. And, as we discussed above, he doesn’t do that. Unless you are asking God to not snap the cables of the overhead camera and make it fall on someone for shits and giggles, praying for safety at a football game doesn’t make much sense.
More on Divine Hiddenness
I argued, in my first post on this topic, that there are no good reasons to suggest that persons would lose free will (assuming free will exists) because persons would be skeptical/ not everyone would believe that God exists. Additionally, I noted that the theist is trying to 'have it both ways' because some already maintain that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for God...and yet they still maintain that they have free will. If a theist maintains that faith is the only way to believe in God and that there can not be sufficient evidence to believe, their argument about God's appearance compelling belief is undone by their own admission. Arguments concerning natural regularities and morally significant decisions also fail. Objections of 'we can't know the mind of God' and 'it is not God's responsibility to reveal himself' also fall short.
One point that I didn't discuss in depth was the idea that even if God revealed himself and everyone believed God existed, persons simply all would not worship him. Many atheists, in discussion about God's character, will argue that Christians are simply 'getting it wrong' when they apply the characteristic of 'all-loving' to God and would say that if the Christian god revealed himself, they would not worship him, but rather would rebel in some sort of way. Some persons of other religions, I would wager, even if the Christian god revealed himself and the Christian god had a very long conversation with us, would continue to worship their deities and offer some explanation of why their deities remained hidden while the Christian god revealed himself.
Some atheists -- and perhaps most popularly, Christopher Hitchens -- have argued that they do not want the Christian god to exist and would not 'sign on' to Heaven/eternal worship of God if a choice were to be had. Does the theist honestly think that persons like this would experience a cognitive shift if God revealed himself as he was known prior to revelation?
For some who may still not be convinced that all persons would not worship God if he utterly revealed himself, consider the following analogy. A large portion of the inhabitants of the planet Eth believe in an all-evil, all-powerful, and all-knowing god. Some persons who don't believe all-evil god exists object on various grounds such as atheists of planet earth do and say that even if all-evil god revealed himself, they would not worship such a being.
Is this situation much different than that on earth? If all-evil god revealed himself, some Ethians would refuse to worship. If all-good god revealed himself, Earthlings would refuse to worship. If you believe that Ethians could refuse to worship all-evil god, why wouldn't it be the case that Earthlings could do the same?
There is many good reasons to believe that God utterly revealing himself would not compel all persons to worship him.
---
A recent blog post from JD Curtis -- the person who I recently engaged with in a written debate -- responding to some of my arguments and a commenter on my Facebook page raises some questions and objections regarding the problem of divine hiddenness.
JD argues that arguments from "fine-tuning" and "the probability of specifically-coded DNA sequences arising by random chance" show "fingerprints of a Creator God [...] all over His creation" and says "God unmistakingly and clearly showing Himself to all would then diminish the overall amount of free choice we have when deciding what we would like to do." If JD believes that God revealing himself to all would diminish free choice and maintains that God had revealed himself to JD, it must follow that JD has diminished free choice...but JD doesn't maintain that he has diminished free choice. He simply can't have it both ways.
This is important because variations of 'free will defenses' rest on the idea that God doesn't utterly reveal himself because if he did, persons would lose their free will or have "diminished free choice" (as JD says here) in some manner. The theist can't possibly maintain this free will defense when he individually maintains that 'fingerprints of God are all over creation.' If the free will defense were to work, the individual theist who maintains there is sufficient evidence to believe in God must also maintain that their free will has been diminished.
JD maintains that "such a powerful manifestation would amount to coercion on God's behalf and God would rather that we behave and make our choices absent of any sort of psychological pressure on people that such an appearance would entail." JD notes that people behave differently when they perceive they are being watched. I agree. The problem, though, is, once again, that individual theists do believe they are being watched by God and they don't maintain that this is coercion. Many theists believe that there is sufficient reason to believe in God, yet they still 'sin' and face threats of hellfire. Why aren't individual theists being coerced today?
JD, responding to the change of 'don't threats of hellfire amount to coercion,' notes, "I find it only fair that we are forewarned of the consequences of our actions." This doesn't answer the objection. He also notes, "a truly evil god would never reveal that there were consequences for certain actions until we stand in judgment." I don't know what reason JD has for assuming this, but it's quite obvious that JD is largely ignoring fantasy literature. First, JD has no examples of truly evil gods that exist, so how can be make this claim. Second, would it be hard to imagine that a truly evil god would threaten people with consequences if they did not do its bidding?
Suppose, for example, a truly evil god wanted a specific trinket that a human owned. Suppose, then, that minions of this evil being approached this human and informed the human that he would be eternally imprisoned if he/she did not relinquish the trinket. Regardless, I don't see how knowing consequences somehow justifies a punishment [from a god that was unjust] or gets gods 'off the hook.'
JD seemingly goes on to say that there would be a major difference from God appearing and saying, "If you perform x, you'll go to Hell" and inspiring Bible writers to warn of a threat in the future while God did not tell this to a person. While it might be the case that persons may view God telling them more pressing, this still doesn't diminish the threat and individual theists still profess the dangers of Hell, are very afraid of it, etc. One of the ways theists [and the Bible] provide to diminish the threat or somehow deal with it is repentance; Jesus died so that sins may be forgiven.
I don't see how this gets the theist off the hook. What, exactly, is the argument here? JD doesn't explicitly state one. Perhaps the argument is, "God doesn't utterly reveal himself because the threat of Hell [, said by God,] would modify behavior." I've already dealt with this argument. Some theists believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe Hell really does exist and that they will possibly go there. Did these persons lose their free will?
A commenter on my page noted that JD was special pleading; he said that persons are aware that other persons exist and are not compelled to worship or love them and still maintain free will assuming free will exists. Why should God be a different case, the commenter wonders. JD's response to this is "you are in relationships with people because you want to be." Wonderful. Why, then, do the rules change with God? It is logically possible to both believe God exists and not worship God just like it is logically possible to believe other persons exist and not worship/love them. JD's working against himself here.
Finally, JD asks, " so you would argue a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god [...] would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against his or her will." I already addressed this in my first post on this topic; persons would still evaluate the given reasons to believe (or not believe) in God and come to a conclusion. If JD believes the 40-foot tall Jesus would coerce and that this is sufficient reason to believe in God, how can he also maintain what he considers to be evidence for God (fine-tuning and DNA) is not coercing him?
Divine Hiddenness and Free Will
Atheists (and theists) wonder why -- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven. An all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god should have no problem revealing himself to persons and should want to do so considering he is all-loving [he wants persons to avoid Hell and enter into Heaven]. Why, then, doesn't God just stop playing hide-and-seek and reveal himself?
'Free will defenses' are typically given to explain divine hiddenness. Some variations of free will defenses to explain divine hiddenness and other ideas worth considering are as follows:
- (1) Humans would not have free will if God unequivocally revealed himself.
(2) If God provided too much evidence to attest to his existence, persons would not be able to enter into a union with God properly because persons would be compelled to believe.
(3) Faith is important and is only possible if God doesn't unequivocally reveal himself.
(4) If people unequivocally knew that God existed, they wouldn't make morally significant decisions; people must choose good over evil rather than being compelled to do so.
(5) God can't intervene often because there would be no stable natural regularities. (Swinburne argue this although this is probably more relevant to natural and moral evil theodicies).
- (6) We can't know the mind of God. God has some reason to remain hidden, but we are simply not aware of it.
- (7) Why expect God to reveal himself? It is the responsibility of humans to find God, not God's responsibility to reveal himself to humans.
I will respond to these six defenses and note further problems that theists face in which they simply can't 'have it both ways.'
Defense (1): Humans would not have free will if God unequivocally revealed himself.
Defense (1) is probably the most common defense that is given to explain divine hiddenness. Theists maintain that free will is supremely important and that this must be maintained no matter what. This 'free will defense' is also commonly given to explain moral evil even when, for example, someone's free will is being 'violated' by the actions of others. For instance, if someone is being raped, God won't intervene, the theist says, because the free will of the rapist is important to maintain. All of this aside, let's consider this defense more thoroughly.
Is it really the case that persons would lose free will if God unequivocally revealed himself? I'm quite skeptical. Many persons today will profess that God does exist and really do believe. Some, for whatever reason, will attest that their belief in God is warranted, profess belief in Heaven and Hell, and believe that their sins could result in eternal torment. Despite all of this, theists who profess very strong beliefs continue to sin. While God hasn't unequivocally revealed himself to everyone, these people will believe that God has revealed himself through the 'design' of the universe, an answered prayer, or something else...and they still sin. Additionally, these people, theists will allege, still have free will. It seems that defense (1), then, fails.
Would people suddenly be physically or logically unable to perform certain actions if God revealed himself? What good reasons do we have for believing this? Theists may argue that some behavior [or all behavior] may change, but I am quite skeptical of this. I'm additionally quite skeptical of the idea that such behavioral changes would not be the result of free choice. (Let's assume, for sake of this argument, that theistic definitions of free will are tenable.)
Perhaps the theist, at this point, will argue “Even though these people profess belief, it's not a belief that is the result of an unequivocal revelation of God. If God unequivocally revealed himself, the world would be a much different place and persons would not freely believe in God.” While it would very likely be the case that many non-believers (and/or persons who are theists, but don't really seem to care about adhering to 'God's law') would believe that God existed if he unequivocally revealed himself, I doubt that the believers who are currently really, really, really confident that God exists would act much differently. 'Free' or 'not free,' it seems that the behavior of those who are really, really, really confident that God exists would remain the same. Are we to believe that these people are simply 'faking it' and don't really believe as they profess (or something else)?
I and many other atheists are aware that even if a, say, 400 foot Jesus were to march through the skies and mountains were to spin around in the sky, there would still be reasons to be skeptical. Perhaps some advanced alien technology that we are unaware of is causing us to imagine that the event is happening or the display itself is the result of such technology. If I were to see something that did not seem to adhere with what I currently know about the universe, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that God exists. I'd approach this matter very carefully and would not jump to conclusions. If I were to believe in God after the result of a careful process and investigation, would the theist [who believes in free will] honestly say that my belief was not a result of free choices?
Defense (2): If God provided too much evidence to attest to his existence, persons would not be able to enter into a union with God properly because persons would be compelled to believe.
Defense (2) is quite suspect primarily because believers believe there is currently enough evidence to believe in God (thus they believe). What, exactly, is 'too much evidence,' anyway... and how is that different than enough evidence? Believers will point to the currently available evidence as 'overwhelming' by noting that the universe seems designed by God (look at the trees, stupid!), the resurrection of Jesus happened and there is historical information to attest to this, God answers prayers, the universe is fine-tuned, other miracles occurred, etc. Are we to believe that this current 'evidence' compels people to believe when many people simply are not convinced by it?
This idea of entering into a proper union with God, in this light, is interesting. Apparently, since an overwhelming amount of evidence currently exists, according to theists, no one is able to properly enter into union with God.
Perhaps to be more charitable, let us assume that some theists admit that the current evidence for God is not overwhelming (or not even convincing enough to believe) and belief is had only by faith. This would be quite an awkward admission because the belief, then, would only be justified (somehow) because of faith. On the theist's own admission, there is no evidence sufficient to warrant belief. If this is the case, what sort of evidence that God can produce possibly warrant belief? Why would 'the game' suddenly change if God were to produce the evidence?
Perhaps the theist, answering this, might say, “I have granted that there is no current evidence to warrant belief in God, but there could be some evidence to warrant belief in God that God could produce. God revealing himself would be that evidence.” I still, though, don't think that such evidence would compel people to believe or somehow take away their ability to disbelieve.
Defense (3): Faith is important and is only possible if God doesn't unequivocally reveal himself.
Defense (3) assumes that faith is important and seems to assume that without faith, belief in God is worthless. Why is this the case? Is not belief the important thing regardless of faith? Are those who currently believe and do not profess faith (but rather profess that arguments alone are good enough reason to believe) somehow 'doing it wrong?' Will these people not enter into a proper union with God?
Defense (4): If people unequivocally knew that God existed, they wouldn't make morally significant decisions; people must choose good over evil rather than being compelled to do so.
Defense (4) fails for some reasons noted above and namely because persons currently profess that the evidence of God is overwhelming...and these people still are able to make 'morally significant decisions.' Are we to believe that those who currently believe in God based on what they consider to be overwhelming evidence are being compelled to make certain decisions? A common idea that theists propose is that people would refrain from sinning if there were overwhelming evidence for God, but this obviously is not the case because people who believe there is overwhelming evidence continue to sin. Additionally, such persons who unequivocally believe note that 'nothing will change their mind' and that God's existence is quite obvious; such persons believe God has already unequivocally revealed himself. Again, as I mentioned, I find great difficulty believing that the behavior of persons would not be the result of free choice [assuming free will exists] if God unequivocally revealed himself.
Defense (5): God can't intervene often because there would be no stable natural regularities. (Swinburne argue this although this is probably more relevant to natural and moral evil theodicies).
Defense (5) is very suspect and ignores the fact that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Why should we assume that there would be no natural regularities if God intervened in human affairs? Suppose that God were to strike down Hitler in order to prevent World War II (and such an action would indeed stop World War II). Would we then believe that this would suddenly entail that there would be no natural regularities? I don't see any good reasons to believe so.
The idea of God's intervention removing natural regularities (or, perhaps, to be more charitable, causing us to believe that some natural regularities might not be constant) seems quite funny [and leading to special pleading] considering that theists believe God has intervened in human affairs including but not limited to God raising Jesus from the dead. Some theists also believe that God answers prayers that would interfere with the free will of other persons. If theists maintain that Jesus raising from the dead and God's answering of prayer doesn't take away free will or natural regularities, how can they possibly maintain that God's intervention in there here and now, the future, or even in the past (minus the miracles, of course) would take away free will or natural regularities? The theist, it seems, would be forced to argue -- if he/she were to maintain that God's intervention would not take away free will or natural regularities – that free will 'works differently' from time to time, God's intervention in times past somehow did not take away free will, the free will of people in times past was not cherished like it is for people today, or something else.
Defense (6): We can't know the mind of God. God has some reason to remain hidden, but we are simply not aware of it.
Defense (6) can always pop up in almost any discussion about God. This 'mystery card' claims that there is some unknown, undetectable reason that God might have for failing to reveal himself in this case. We can, though, think of many really good reasons God would have for revealing himself and see, when other defenses are presented, that such defenses do not give us reason to believe God has a good reason to remain hidden (and argue that lack of evidence, reason, and argument supporting God's existence gives us good reason to not believe). Why should this 'unknown, undetectable reason' be permitted for the Christian god and not others? For all we know, every possible god for whom we currently have no good reason to believe exists has their own reasons to remain hidden. Who are you to question the minds of every possible god? I go into more detail with the 'You can't know the mind of God' defense here.
Defense (7): Why expect God to reveal himself? It is the responsibility of humans to find God, not God's responsibility to reveal himself to humans.
This objection largely misses the point of the problem of divine hiddenness to being with: if God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, why shouldn't he reveal himself to humans? If the theist contests that it is the responsibility of humans to find God, this doesn't address the problem, but only shifts the responsibility. Further, if humans are to find God, doesn't this mean that God should have devised a more effective way of aiding humans to this goal? The 'ball' is back in 'God's court.'
Framing this in terms of responsibility might also be unhelpful. The problem really isn't about responsibility, but rather is that God -- since he is all-loving and all-powerful -- has no good reason to remain hidden and has every reason to make himself known.
---
When we don't find a good reason to believe a proposition, the proper response is to not accept the claim. If we can't think of a possible reason for God not revealing himself (and additionally find no reasons to believe God exists), we're quite justified in not believing that the Christian god exists. Even if we can devise a reason for God remaining hidden, this doesn't, of course, mean that God exists. With lack of a reason for God to remain hidden and a lack of a reason to believe God exists, the theist faces two major problems.
The common defenses theists give to answer the problem of divine hiddenness fail. Theists believe that persons would lose their free will if God unequivocally revealed himself, but this simply is not the case. The variations of this free will response to the problem of divine hiddenness are not sufficient for one to believe that God has a good reason to remain hidden. Additionally, the idea that natural regularities can only be had if God remained hidden fails. Finally, the common 'mystery card,' if this works for the Christian god, would have to work for every other possible god.
My second post in this 'series' is here.
Psychology Denialism and 'Big Government'
An interesting discussion with a neighbor of mine ensued today when he and I started talking about local politics. We eventually started talking about republican candidates for president and I told him that I would love to see Sarah Palin run because the race would be quite entertaining and silly. He responded and said that she has some great ideas, but the media is out to make her look stupid. I asked him to clarify what these great ideas were and responded saying that while people in the media may make people believe that she is stupid, Palin's speeches, appearances, and ideas make her look very silly and make her a candidate to be laughed at. My neighbor mentioned that her ideas consisted of 'people fending for themselves,' 'being a man,' and not wanting big government to carry people. He explained that people can fend for themselves no matter what.
I objected to all of these points and I asked him to clarify his terms. He defined 'being a man' roughly as 'toughening up' and making things work for yourself. Aside from the patriarchal undertones which I objected to/his using of this term, I understood his point and mentioned that people are often victims of circumstances and cannot always fend for themselves without help from the government or even others. I mentioned various cases such as single mothers who have little opportunities for jobs [and only high school education or ever less]. I mentioned persons with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, and other various limitations. I mentioned disaster victims. I mentioned children in dysfunctional families who simply can't provide for themselves...
My neighbor objected to the idea of mental disorders and other limitations because he believes that people can fend for themselves no matter what. Defending this, he appealed to one person with mental disabilities who is local to me who works a job and can function. Even though he has disabilities, he said, he can still 'fend for himself' and doesn't need government assistance. I objected saying that he's committing a sampling error: you can't just look at one person with one or some disabilities and then say that every person who is disadvantaged can 'fend for themselves.' Many, while they may be diagnosed with a mental disorder, have different levels of diagnoses: some may be fully-functioning, low-functioning, or quite disabled. Some people simply can't hold jobs and don't have money to purchase their medications, and their mental disabilities can limit their daily activities to quite a debilitating level. Just because one person or some people with mental disabilities can 'fend for themselves' does not mean that all can.
At this point, my neighbor started to object to diagnoses by levying the 'classic' 'scientists are always wrong' objection. I wasn't going to let this one pass and started to talk about what science is, what scientists want to do, and about how science is self-correcting. Of course scientists can be wrong, but what they do is offer what we can know today given the evidence. Scientists, if and when wrong, should not discount the whole of science, but rather should be welcomes because we can substitute wrong information with more accurate information.
While some people may be misdiagnosed/some psychologists may overdiagnose, this doesn't mean that the whole of psychology should be thrown out. Diagnoses are made through a combination of testing, definitions derived from diagnostic manuals, etc. It is one of the reasons that top psychology schools ensure that students receive technical research experience throughout the program. Persons with mental disorders may be able to function better than others or not noticeably (at least to the general public) be impaired in some areas of life. To deny psychology because scientists were wrong about some things or because some persons can deal with their impairments better than others is extremely fallacious.
Instead of responding to these arguments (or perhaps simply admitting defeat), my neighbor tried a new argument that was quite odd. He mentioned that some famous brilliant scientists were considered to be 'crazy' by their neighbors and the public and that if we prescribed medications to these people, we wouldn't have had so many scientific advances today. Notice, first, the inherent special pleading here: while this person said that scientists are always wrong, he then cherry-picks and admits that some scientists were indeed right and then fails to understand how scientific advancements take place. It matters not what a scientist's disposition is, but rather whether their ideas are correct. Many scientists in the past and even today may be considered 'crazy,' like my neighbor mentioned, but this matters not if their ideas are correct. It's also not the case that we would not have advanced scientifically if we prescribed medicine to past scientists or if we believed that had mental disorders.
Taking his argument a step further in a new awkward direction, my neighbor mentioned that 'big government' did not hold these scientists back and now, because government is so big and because we have an advanced understanding of human psychology, we're 'suppressing' scientists. This is a very weird claim because federal funding, although it is not as much as it should be, is assisting scientists...and what does advanced psychological understanding have to do with our advancement of science? All sorts of scientists may struggle with mental disorders, but they can still 'do their science' and contribute. Advanced psychological understanding isn't a 'tool' of 'big government' that is used to stop scientific progress.
Finished with this discussion, I returned to other situations in which people are victims of circumstance, specifically disaster victims. He said that people who are effected by natural disasters simply shouldn't live where they live and should have insurance...
He said that he has insurance on his house [in an area of Pennsylvania where natural disasters very rarely, if ever, happen] and can 'fend for himself' without 'big government' stepping in. People who are in disaster-prone areas often have little to no options and a mass exodus of people 'moving out' simply just can't happen. Where are these people going to go? Who will provide these people with money?
I explained to my neighbor that we don't have a utopia where everyone has a great family, good social support, and lots of money to provide for themselves. It's rather hard in this economy, especially, for good jobs to just suddenly spring up and recruit all unemployed and disadvantaged persons. Persons don't have some sort of unrestricted free will like my neighbor espouses. Save the more difficult and engaging idea of whether or not we free will from a philosophical perspective, people are largely limited by their genetics, environment, and their opportunities. Everyone is not wealthy enough to 'fend for themselves' and government is often needed to provide for the general public. While some people may 'cheat the system' and be irresponsible, many are really well-intentioned persons who are simply disadvantaged. While some programs can be cut and while there is wasteful spending and bureaucracy, there's no reason to think of government as some evil force that is suppressing people and giving out free rides to undeserving people who can 'man up' and 'fend for themselves.' This largely republican mindset* simply doesn't pan out when faced with criticisms that I levied against my neighbor.
As always, feel free to offer some ideas by commenting on my blog post. This is largely about a discussion I had with my neighbor and can't possibly offer objections to all who don't agree with my ideas/think that government should be largely eliminated from our lives in terms of social programs, disaster relief, etc.
*Some libertarians (and other republicans), while not identifying as republican, may, of course, not be like my neighbor and have less extreme ideas, but many often cast the ideas of 'big government' and unrestrained human freedom with the 'everyone can and should fend for themsleves' mentality. This, as I noted, may be true for some, but certainly is not for all persons. Many are victims of circumstances and don't have the same opportunities as others. We can't all possibly pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, live the 'American Dream,' and live without aid from the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)