A few times I’ve referred to my view about “the God question” as “radical agnosticism.” I thought it might be fun to work through what this means.
For the purposes of this discussion, by “God” I shall mean follow Hart’s definition of God as “the one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things” (The Experience of God, p. 30).
Next, I shall stipulate that our assertions about the world fall into two classes: those that take a truth-value in all possible worlds and those that take a truth-value only in the actual world. This is a contemporary version of “Hume’s Fork”: there are “relations of ideas”, “truths of reason”, analytic a priori claims and then there are “matters of fact”, “truths of fact,” synthetic a posteriori claims. (There are some reasons to be skeptical of this neat distinction but I’ll leave that aside for now.)
Whether or not God exists would therefore seem to be either a “truth of fact” or a “truth of reason”. I shall therefore now argue that it cannot be either.
Truths of fact are either directly observable phenomena or they are posited phenomena. (Though the boundary is strictly methodological and shifts over time.) But there are many presumptive truths of fact — claims with truth-value about the actual world — which we know have turned out to be false. And we know that because of empirical inquiry, and in particular, in the collection of techniques of inquiry called “science”. (I shall not insult anyone’s intelligence by assuming that there is a single thing called “the scientific method”).
Central to disciplined empirical inquiry, including and especially the sciences, is the act of measurement: intersubjectively verifiable assignments of quantitative variation across some interval of spatio-temporal locations. (It might be said that “the Scientific Revolution” is the historical period during which measurement slowly becomes the dominant conception of objectivity.)
But with that notion in place, it is perfectly clear that it is not even possible to take measurements of a perfectly transcendent being. A being that transcends all of space and time cannot be measured, which means that no claims about Him can be subjected to the tribunal of scientific inquiry. And hence no matters of fact about God can be verified one way or the other. That is to say that all claims about God that are restricted to the actual world have an indeterminate truth-value: they cannot be determined to be true or false
The epistemic situation is no better when we turn from a posteriori to a priori claims. In a priori claims, the tribunal is not science but logic, and the central epistemic concept is not measurability but provability. Can the existence of God be proven? Many have thought so!
But here two things must be pointed out: a proof, to be deductively valid, consists of re-organizing the information contained in the initial assumptions. One can generate a logically valid proof of the existence of God. (Gödel, for example, has a logically valid version of the Ontological Argument.) The process of proof-construction is not going to give you more information in the conclusion than was present in the premises.
Logic is limited in another important way: there are multiple logics. What can proved in one logic can be disproven in a different logic. It depends on the choice of logical system. Once you’ve chosen a logical system, and you’ve chosen some premises, then of course one can prove that God exists. But neither the premises nor the rules are “self-evident”, inscribed on the very face of reason or of reality, etc.
Hence we cannot determine that God exists or does not exist on the basis of logic alone, since provability is no more reliable here than measurability is.
On this basis, I conclude that it is not even possible for beings such as ourselves to assign any truth-value at all to the assertion that God exists. This yields a radical agnosticism. Whereas the moderate agnostic can accept the logical possibility of some future evidence or reasoning that would resolve the issue, the radical agnostic insists that beings with minds like ours are completely unable to resolve the issue at all.
Radical agnosticism is at the same time compatible with either utter indifference to the question of the existence of God (“apatheism”) or some quite definite stance (ranging from theism to pantheism to deism to atheism). All that radical agnosticism insists on here is that all definite stances on the God-question are leaps of faith — no matter what direction.
I know it’s definitional. It’s a very bad definition. I could do the same with the word, ‘magneto’–say that anybody who knows anything believes in magneto. (And PS, magneto has revealed to me–to all– that he exists. He did it in the magneto papers–IN BOLD 18-pt TYPE even).
Your argument (which, again, is what it is, even though it’s bad) is a goofy and confusiong concoction of an unsound ontological argument with an unsound epistemic reliability argument chaser). Nothing follows from it, in spite of its allure for you.
How do I know this? I understand the argument and some logic (neither of which is God).
And, as I am in pontification mode this morning, I will say that I found this OP, as well as much of the defense of it, filled with pathos, It reminds me of a past religious OP of KNs involving religious speech which also had the goal of saving some sort of religion for him. I find that need kind of sad, and, as Erik, FMM and others point out its not a religion that really ought to satisfy anybody anyhow. It’s a washed out, faded sturm…signifying nothing.
Various concepts of God ARE definable. I like a definition requiring sole universe-creating responsibilities, omnicience, omnipotence, and way way benevolence. Maybe add having necessary existence as part of its essence, if you like–it doesn’t matter since ontological arguments are no good. I think that’s a nice orthodox definition: any such item would surely be worthy of worship, anyhow, and there could only be one of it.
OK, so does it exist? No. This is not a “failure to believe” (also wishy-washy) tact. It is actual atheism. It doesn’t save room for some sort of radical apahoopyhoopianism either–a ploy that would allow me have a cutesy religion of my own and maybe stay on better terms with my believing brethren.
But how can I assert this stuff with so much assurance? Maybe it really does exist, no? Maybe I’m wrong! Sure, but maybe atomic Minnie Mouse exists too, and I also disbelieve in her. As they taught us in Damn Yankees, you gotta have heart.
PS: Oh, in case the yorkie is prowling, I understand that others may prefer other definitions of “God” and “atheism”–I simply prefer mine.
fifthmonarchyman,
Sez you.
An atheist doesn’t need to define God at all. What’s silly are the numerous conflicting ways in which various religious sects attribute characteristics to this entity. God’s attributes, including ‘necessity’, appear to vary according to how one was brought up, and the various Books read and held sacred.
Oh, don’t mind me, just a drive-by.
Allan Miller,
I suppose an atheist doesn’t HAVE to define “God” but he or she certainly CAN–and I think it makes sense to do so. The best way to do it, IMO, is to figure out what properties have generally been thought to accompany worthiness of worship. Then, one can always say of some of the gods that people have pushed aren’t really God anyhow. Just because something has an elephant head doesn’t make it God.
That’s what I take to be the philosophical method, anyhow. Otherwise, you’re stuck with not really knowing whether you’re an atheist just because somebody called Pele or Coltrane “God” at some point (or is now referring to Stephen Curry that way). When you say you don’t believe in him, what do you even mean?
Unless someone was to define god as exactly that. It’s all in the definitions anyway!
walto,
First, let’s sort out the old ‘existing’ thing!
In the case of giving the label to something concrete, I can definitely believe in that concrete thing – even if I don’t agree that the label was applicable. But people are saying there actually is a concrete ‘thing’, which they happen to label as ‘God’. I don’t believe them.
There’s not much of a difference between claiming god is truth or Stephen Curry (Paul Pierce would have a better ring to it though).
“So I defined god as Stephen Curry, you know he exists so you can’t be an atheist!
Now let me tell you more about god… [enter psychotic nonsense]”
Watch the circular argument…you’re getting sleepy….sleepy……sleeeeepy……
According to you, “God is truth” is definitional.
But truth is a contingent property of some sentences. So it looks as if you have defined God to be contingent (or incoherent).
Neil Rickert,
Yes–although I’d say that some truths are not contingent myself (i’m guessing you might disagree). Either way, your point is absolutely right. Identifying God with truth makes no sense at all, even if one believed that there would be no truths without God. I.e., even that alleged entailment, if it held, would not make God IDENTICAL to truth. Wildly different concepts.
That would just be a function of the definition you give ‘the label’, no? Still comes down to settling on a definition, I think.
walto,
Nah. If someone says Pele has invisible powers, you have pointed to an attribute of a ‘real’ individual. His existence is not in dispute, though those powers might be. With God, though (what most people mean when they push the concept) it’s existence, as well as purported powers, that needs evaluating.
I don’t feel any need to define God. I can hardly define something that does not even exist. Tell me what you (an imagined interlocutor) think God is or does and I’ll tell you whether or not I think it’s bollix, as defined.
That’s not a god anyone actually believes in. It’s simply a demonstration that it’s possible for humans to create concepts that have no demonstrable real world referents even in principle.
The vast majority of theists believe that the god they claim exists interferes in the real world. Those claims require objective, empirical evidence to support them.
“Rigorous” is a stretch. You’ve basically asserted the existence of something that created the universe, without evidence, and constructed the definition of it such that it isn’t possible to confirm or disconfirm it. It’s similar to the ontological argument in that sense.
Your “radical agnosticism” is still orthogonal to the theism-atheism spectrum. If you lack belief in a god or gods, you’re an atheist.
You can be a radical agnostic and still be either a theist or an atheist.
That does not follow. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is fully intelligible regardless of whether or not you’re capable of defining a concept that is not testable in principle.
Lack of belief is the reasonable default in the absence of supporting evidence or logic.
You’ve spewed this incoherent nonsense before but have consistently failed to explain what you mean. Please define exactly what you mean by “truth” and in what sense you mean “truth exists.”
I work with the one that doesn’t go away when I stop thinking about it.
This type of discussion is easier in a bar where the response can be “It’s the one where your ear is ringing because I slapped you upside the head for being a pseudo-solipsistic twit.”
(Warning: “Pseudo-solipsistic” may prove difficult to articulate after a certain amount of time at the bar.)
Yes, that’s a good way to do it.
ETA: incidentally, that’s a good way of handling disputes about who is and who isn’t an atheist too.
Here in the U.S. many theists are attempting to use government force to impose their sectarian dogma on others. See the Freedom From Religion Foundation page I mentioned yesterday for some examples.
There’s at least one intelligent design creationist commenting here who assures us that all those calculations have been done and are available. He’s not so good at providing references to the actual calculations, but he’s quite emphatic that they do exist.
‘whirr click, sproink’
Sorry…my bad. That was supposed to be a question, not a declaration.
So I was asking FMM if he thinks his god is a truth of fact within his worldview. I’m betting he does think so.
Not what I stated at all. What I pointed out is that a god…any god…existing does not establish “here and now” or “there and then” simply by existing. The reverse is also true: that we have as sense of “here and now” does not establish the existence of some god.
Moot to the point.
I have no problem with that. It seems it is only certain theists who are concerned with the validity of things that cannot be established as truths of fact. As I’ve noted before, whether something can be established as a truth of fact does not change whether that item is useful or valid. This is why I reject most flavors of theism; most theists can’t seem to understand this.
I don’t understand the problem here.
I someone defines himself or herself as a theist, we can make no other assumptions about what it is they believe. They could believe in Yahweh, Xenu, Zeus, or any of a thousand gods or creeds.
I don’t follow the logic that says an atheist must have beliefs.
It sounds exactly like the IDist logic that asserts that acceptance of evolution is [fill in the blank: , atheism, Stalinism, Nazism, hedonism, nihilism].
Jonathan Swift parodied religious wars by writing about a war between big enders and little enders: a war over which end of a boiled egg to break.
When you get down to it, the obnoxious thing about religion is not whether it is right or wrong, logical or illogical; the obnoxiousness stems from the tendency of religious arguments to involve power and politics and force.
If it were not for the historical invocation of force, god arguments would be white sauce or red. big end or little end.
What Patrick has said is not that he has a definition of atheism that supersedes the dictionary, but that nonbelief is the one and only thing common to all atheists.
Might want to check with some of your brethren who appear to have no qualms trying to have schools teach “creationism” in science class. That would be the very definition of ‘forcing’.
I cannot think of any major religion that has not spread and maintained itself without force. There are obvious forms of force: imprisonment, torture, execution, and there are subtle forms of force: shunning, banishment, loss of economic opportunities.
But the OP discusses a specific definition of God, not what the vast majority of theists believe. To be sure, the vast majority of self-proclaimed theists don’t understand the definition or they explicitly reject it. Even so, Hart’s definition is not irrelevant or random. It’s scholastic, classical, and traditional to theology.
Everybody has some beliefs about physics. High school students vastly outnumber academic astro/nuclear/theoretical physicists. It’s often hard to make sense what academic physicists write and why they do what they do. Academic physicists are a tiny minority among the physics-believing population and practically everybody can live just fine by totally ignoring what they do, but does this fact make their physics irrelevant? No. They are experts of physics, whereas everybody else only imagines knowing something about physics.
Similarly, theologians are experts of defining God and other religious concepts. Religious claims of the vast majority matter less.
The difference is that what physicists believe translates into cool things like computers and iPhones. Medicine, solar power.
Theologians argue over big end vs little end.
Actually, the difference as I see it is that physicists have direct access to physical phenomena, the math to describe the entailments and conditions of that phenomena, and can then actually use the data derived to make ridiculously accurate predictions and designs. Theologians have direct access (in some cases) to some words written by other theologians and many times words written by laymen. They are no more experts on the divine and can make no more accurate predictions and assessments about any gods than children. They are simply experts on the words some people have used to describe their own opinions/feelings/perspectives about the divine.
ETA: To put this a bit differently, theologians are no more experts or authorities on the divine than comic book fans are of a particular comic book subject. I know an incredible amount about the Iron Man comics and subject for instance (collected and read some 300 or so books back in the day), but that doesn’t mean Iron Man is real or that I can make a replica suit. It simply means I can claim expertise when it comes to what is supposed “canon” in terms of the Iron Man story line and what isn’t.
Much ado about nothing.
IDists believe the intelligence is immaterial therefore has no physical properties. What IC is measuring, of course they cannot actually measure it, would the input of intelligence into the natural system.
Not exactly. IDists are fond of the fine tuning argument which would require that everything is created to precise proportions, which seems to fulfill the classical need for God to be the ultimate cause. Everything is intelligently designed and created.
However while such a divinely created system can be the proximate cause of many things there is a class of objects which require intelligent intervention to occur and that intelligence can be quantified by science somehow. Intelligence is one of those things which require intelligent intervention. And since there is only one proposed free standing source of intelligence, an intelligent Uncaused Cause must exist for ID
Nor for IDist, but there are some created things which take intelligent intervention creation.
Maybe but not because of the problem you raised.
The problem is that the way we define atheism is a choice, not something that is either true or false. That’s actually why they have more than one definition in dictionaries. You like Patrick’s version–good for you. You’re not “right” about this though–it’s just a preference.
When Patrick can express his preference without pontificating about it as if he’d read this definition on some mountain tablets, I will stop pointing out that he’s full of shit.
I note, too, that no “objective, empirical evidence” has been provided for Patrick’s assertion–not that he should need to support his preference with anything like that. But if he wanted to, he could provide some data regarding usage, rather than a diagram he likes that simply restates his preference pictorially.
I basically agree. In any case, there’s certainly no harm in considering this or that definition–especially one that’s gained some traction somewhere–and discussing whether there must be (or just IS) something that has those characteristics. If other people mean other things by “God” that’s fine. They can be taken up one by one if necessary. None of those guys exist (except, you know, Pele, Curry, Evan Parker, etc.)
Unless one’s eternal damnation hangs in the balance, a few misparsed words and the fiery lake for you.
My bet is you will find something else to point out.
The question Patrick addresses is what is common to all atheists.
If someone says, I am an atheist, what can you infer without further discussion?
Patrick’s and my answer is, the absence of belief in god or gods.
Other things might be true, but they are not entailed by the word.
You can infer that the person says he is an atheist.
That’s all.
Thank you for the clear summary. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to communicate.
You seem to have a good insight into the IDists’ minds. So, IDists take that everything is created. They also say that there are some created things which take intelligent intervention creation. But how aboout other created things? Did they take no intervention or was the intervention not intelligent?
That’s a bit cold, even for a closet Skinnerian.
I would add to your remark that a person who says he is an atheist says he lacks belief in god or gods.
I’m with you on this. If someone says he or she is a vegetarian, I feel pretty safe inferring that person doesn’t eat some type of animal muscle. I don’t think I can go beyond that however as I’ve encountered a number of “vegetarians” who eat all sorts of sea-based (and even fresh water based) animals.
Now I’m quite sure there a number of opinionated and passionate vegetarians who insist that the term properly used can only be applied to those who do not eat any animal proteins (including dairy products), but I do not think anyone needs to assume such in order to have a basic impression when someone else uses the term.
I didn’t intend to get into a massive quibble fest, but my kids have an informal “supper club” with about 40 new Yorkers of all stripes. I’ve cooked for them, so I am somewhat aware of vegetarians, ovo-lacto-vegetarians, fishtarians, vegans, fruitarians, and such. Then there are the ethically raised meat and dairy eaters, the wild-caught seafood eaters, the stone ground grain eaters.
These people can set you straight, and they do.
My daughter shared a house in college with an orthodox Jewish girl. She came to dinner parties, but would not eat anything not prepared in a Kosher kitchen.
Am I rambling? Sorry. My only intention is to point out that people seem happy to set you straight if you misinterpret a label. Evilutionists, too.
No as I have said before God is not a truth of fact he is Truth and what makes facts possible.
peace
Of course you could and if you did Magneto would be your god. The only question would be, Does your God has the qualifications necessary to do what you claim he does?
I would venture to guess that the better your god meets the necessary qualifications the more it will resemble the Christian God
I don’t think you do. If you did you could articulate it in such a way that I would recognize it as my argument instead of a goofy straw-man version of it.
peace
No it’s according to God (John 14:6)
Is it true that truth is a contingent property of some sentences?
Apparently not 😉
Peace
There is much more to truth than the opposite of falsehood. But truth is at least the opposite of falsehood.
Truth is not an entailment of God. Truth is what God is.
I would suggest you look into the doctrine of divine simplicity it might help you to understand what is being discussed here
peace
Simplicity explains a whole lot about your position.
Glen Davidson