He is not one to pull punches and true to form, in To a Louse, Ed Feser holds a mirror up to the kind of reasoning that is all too common amongst Dawkins and Myers fans with this fictional dialogue between a scientist and a science sceptic;
Skeptic: Science is BS. Physicists believe in these things called “quarks,” which are little flavored particles that spin around and work like magic charms. Their evidence is that they read about them in a James Joyce novel. Some of them think the universe is made up of tiny shoelaces tied together, though they admit that they have no evidence for this and have to take it on faith. Einstein said morality is all relative – which is why he stole his ideas from this guy who worked in a patent office, and why Richard Feynman stole atomic secrets during WWII. Meanwhile, the chemists contradict the physicists and believe instead in little colored balls held together by sticks. Biologists believe monkeys can give birth to human beings. What a bunch of crap! It’s child abuse to teach kids about this stuff in schools.
Scientist: Are you joking? If not, I suggest that you actually read some science before criticizing it.
Skeptic: I’ve already read a lot about it, in blog comboxes like this one. And why should I waste my time reading anything else? I already know it’s all BS! Didn’t you hear the examples I just gave?
Scientist: No, you’re missing my point. You’ve completely distorted what scientists actually say. It’s not remotely as silly as you think it is. In fact it’s not silly at all. But you need to actually read the stuff to see that.
Skeptic: So you deny that physicists believe in quarks? What flavor are your quarks, chocolate or vanilla? Do you deny that they think we came from monkeys? Which monkey was your mother?
Scientist: No one says that monkeys gave birth to humans. That’s a ridiculous caricature. And of course I don’t deny that physicists believe in quarks, but you’re badly misunderstanding what they mean when they attribute “flavor” to them. They don’t mean that literally…
Skeptic: Oh so it’s just empty verbiage, then. See, you’re just proving my point for me.
Scientist: No, it’s not empty verbiage. It’s technical terminology.
Skeptic: I see, like magic spells. That’s why they talk about “charm.” Really, you’re just digging the hole deeper.
Scientist: Actually, it’s you who is digging your own hole deeper. That’s not what they mean by “charm.” If you knew anything at all about physics, you’d realize that.
Skeptic: See, every time I debate people like you, you always whine about how everyone misunderstands what you mean. You always say go read this shelf of books and come back when you know what you’re talking about.” It’s like one of the naked emperor’s sycophants telling the kid who sees that he’s naked that he needs to read the learned works of Count Roderigo concerning the fine leather of the emperor’s boots, etc.
Scientist: What a ridiculous analogy. You’re just begging the question. Whether science is really comparable to the naked emperor is precisely what’s at issue.
Skeptic: OK, I’ll bite. Explain it to me, then. Prove to me here and now in this combox that science is worth my time, as opposed to being the tissue of superstition, lies, and bigotry that I already know it to be. And don’t get long-winded like you people tend to do, or start throwing around references to this scientist I should know about or that book I should have read.
Scientist: What is this, an invitation to the Star Chamber? How am I supposed to explain fields as complex as quantum physics, or evolutionary biology, or chemistry to the satisfaction of someone as hostile to them as you are in a combox comment, or even a blog post or series of blog posts? Besides, there are so many things wrong with what you’ve said I don’t even know where to begin! And if I keep it short, you’ll tell me that I’m dodging whatever issue I don’t address, while if I respond at greater length you’ll tell me I’m a windbag. I can’t win! But why are you wasting time in a combox anyway? Why don’t you just read the work of some actual scientists? It’s right there in the library or bookstore if you really want to understand it.
Skeptic: I knew it. You won’t defend yourself because you know you can’t. But then, arguing with people like you just gives you credibility. That’s why you uneducated, irrational fanatical bigots need to be shouted down by reasonable, open-minded, well-read, tolerant people like me. Science is BS, and you know it. It’s just so obvious. So why don’t you go back to eating your tasty flavored quarks and tying your vibrating 11-dimensional shoestrings over at your Uncle Monkey’s house, OK? I’ll be here in the reality-based community reading my copy of The Science Delusion.
Naturally, a Dawkins or Myers would be appalled at our Skeptic. And rightly so. But replace terms like “science,” “physicists,” “quarks,” etc. with terms like “theism,” “philosophers,” “God,” etc. and you’ve suddenly got in our Skeptic a typical Dawkins or Myers fan – indeed, you’ve got someone pretty much indistinguishable from Dawkins or Myers themselves.
Tags: Bad Reasoning · Edward Feser · PZ Myers · Richard Dawkins · Science and Religion39 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
I laughed so much I nearly cried.
I know! It is so like talking to new atheists – he hit the nail right on the head.
That first paragraph where you go ‘but hang on, wait, no, you can’t take that interpretation off that’ was like so many conversations I have had with atheists about Christianity.
I bet Feser stole my idea!
Ha I totally didn’t see the twist at the end coming! Classic!
I’m a Christian struggling with doubt and this post doesn’t seem to help…
all I want is the truth. If I need answers in issues such as ethics i read philosophy, if I’m looking for answers about science then I need to read science authors and have already read widely on religion and will continue to read.
I don’t really understand why the author thinks physicists/philosophers, qarks / god, are analogous?
Silly Atheists Get a Right Good Smacking…
Matt Flannagan douses the ashes of already-defeated atheist ideology in a nice piece worth reading here. … It’s nice to know that there are others out there who haven’t bowed the knee to Ba’al….
Very very clever… I love it!
“I don’t really understand why the author thinks physicists/philosophers, qarks / god, are analogous?”
I don’t think he is saying this, I think he is saying the type of argument about quarks and scientist he cites is analogous to the type of argument about God and philosophers, both make the same kind of mistakes
The difficulty with the whole premise is that the sceptic is not an ex-scientist whereas as so many ‘new atheists’ are ex-Christians.
The other issue is that the roles can be changed to Pagan v Christian, Muslim v Christian, Scientologist v Christian, and it all still works.
Somehow I don’t think that Ed Feser meant that to happen.
Also Paul, many Christians are scientifically trained ex-atheists, so what? It’s about the quality of the arguments not the person.
Paul, it’s not an argument against a particular view point it’s an argument against a particular kind of argumentation. If it can be equally applied to different groups it just proves that everyone needs to learn how to be better arguers!
I see the point that you’re making Matt (and Anthony) and this type of arguing needs to be avoided…
I still don’t think that you can just substitute alternative words into the above argument though. The arguments made for science and the arguments that may be made for religion are fundamentally different. Is that part of the problem? Are we assuming that the two fields of thought overlap more than is the case? Are we on different see-saws?
@ Anthony and to a lesser extent Ropata,
“Paul, it’s not an argument against a particular view point it’s an argument against a particular kind of argumentation.”
I know that – and my point is that Christians make the same argumentation mistakes against other faiths. Pot meet kettle.
What I do read in criticism of the Christian faith, is from ex-Christians who followed the faith for some time.
I’ve not read the Bible in 35 years and any knowledge that I have of the contents of that book are based on what Christians tell me and quote to me.
That does not detract from my ability to criticise those parts that they do put up (the prophecies of Ezekiel or the Laws of Leviticus are good examples) nor my ability to criticise the behaviour of the Christian church as a series of institutions that operate in my country.
@John
You’re still not really understanding the point of this. Ed Feser is addressing a specific kind of atheism, the kind that’s branded on arrogance and ignorance. It just does not matter what “different arguments” are made. This is intended to make a satirical point, that is all.
You might be right Gil, although I think there is ignorance in every-bodies court and arrogance in most – I’m not really sure which side to laugh at here.
Don’t worry Paul, the bible hasn’t changed in the last 35 years.
I doubt anyone would deny that there is an abrasive lack of knowledge and respect on both sides but I would challenge the degree that you claim to see. Not sure what sources you are reading but those who I do follow are not stupid or derogatory unless the person they’re corresponding with is being haughty.
In any case, I think you’re taking an unnecessarily hostile stance toward this piece. Even if we put “Christian” instead of “Skeptic” in there, I am sure the bloggers here would be just as bothered as anyone else should be. So to remind you, the context of this post is specifically addressing atheists LIKE Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers. It’s not meant to be a sweeping generalization of all or most atheists.
There’s no side to laugh at, there’s only a “kind” of individual that despises truth that we can all agree to laugh at.
n this instance the kind of argument being used is invalid across disclipines.
“Are we assuming that the two fields of thought overlap more than is the case? Are we on different see-saws?”
Logical fallacies don’t change across disciplines, nor do the rules of logic, the elements of what counts as a good argument and so forth.
Of course different disciplines use different methods, but its simply not true that what counts as a fallacy in logic is discipline dependent.
That’s a fair comment Gil and there is alot of haughtyness out there. I reckon Ed (in the origional post) has some good things to say on the matter.
I’ve read alot of dawkins work (and some of PZs) and although it is haughty, if you consider his world view, it’s quite understandable.
However, I agree with you Matt, and this doesn’t excuse resorting to what is often mockery and abuse.
John, I have read lots people who share Dawkins world view, who are not haughty, carefully read the arguments of those who disagree with them, set them out accurately and offer thoughtful intelligent responses which show they understand the issues.
This happens all the time in Philosophy of Religion, so I don’t see why biologists can’t do this.
Ken when you can (a) accurately present someone position and (b) respond with something other than a caricature and an accusation of them being “dishonest” or “evasive. Let me know.
@ John:
“Don’t worry Paul, the bible hasn’t changed in the last 35 years.”
Perhaps it should 🙂
The funniest things I read about the Bible are the fantastical odds quoted in support of certain things and the liberal interpretations of modern conditions that used to confirm them.
Anyone know who the current King of Israel is ? Apparently there should be one.
“I know that – and my point is that Christians make the same argumentation mistakes against other faiths. Pot meet kettle.”
Introductory Critical Thinking would teach you that this sort of remark is known as a “Tu Quoque” breed of the Ad Hominem Fallacy.
My genuine bone of contention with this allegory, is that no one contends that the “skeptic” in the original scenario doesn’t need to spend a large amount of time to study physics, biology and chemistry as stated, to fully understand the “Scientist’s” argument. However, as someone who at least has a rudimentary understanding of science (in my own opinion), I have spent the last 11 years of my life studying religion, and yet I feel that I have made no further progress towards understanding or sympathising with the skeptic’s point of view. I am still waiting for someone to attempt to “respond at greater length” to my questions. I’m quite prepared for someone to be a windbag, if they get me there…
That brought a wry smile to my face. I’ve experienced just what you describe here.
Clint, you aren’t supposed to sympathise with Feser’s “science skeptic”, he’s a caricature. The skeptic here is not arguing honestly: the mirror image of certain New Atheist windbags.
Ropata, maybe I didn’t word my previous comment very well! I wasn’t sympathising with the skeptic; I was saying that we all know that the science skeptic needs to do a lot of research to understand the scientist’s argument, right, but then (in theory) the skeptic should be able to understand the scientist’s arguments. What I’m saying is that I think I’ve put in a sufficient amount of research into the religious arguments, but I still haven’t reached that point. Of course this could be my fault; but what I was saying is, that I don’t like the analogy, because I still feel like the “religious skeptic” even though I feel like I’ve done a reasonable amount of study.
Plus what I’ve said about waiting for someone to be a complete windbag and fully explain the religion thing to me… which has never happened. (Yes, that’s an offer, people!)
Clint as someone who has spent over 11 years studying these issues I am skeptical of the claim that a person who did this would still be at the “you believe in sky pixies” stage.
Could you honestly for example look at contemporary versions of the ontological argument by Maydole and claim his argument is so obviously absurd and amounts to claiming there is a tooth fairy in your room?
Believe it or not Matt, there are some genuine, interested atheists out there!! I’m certainly not here to try to make any theists feel angry or bad or anything… just giving my point of view.
I have spent some time looking into the ontological argument, primarily because IMHO it’s the shoddiest piece of logic I’ve ever seen and I’m flabbergasted people actually think it supports their argument (again, I’m not trying to insult people, it’s just my honest opinion). But I will look into the Maydole version as you suggest.
Clint, I did not claim there were no interested athiests, what I challenged was the contention that a person could both be properly informed about the current arguments in contemporary philosophy of religion and also maintain the “faires in the garden” caricature was accurate.
Your comments on the ontological argument betray my sucispion. I don’t accept it as a sucessful peice of natural theology either, but its clearly not “simple” or “obviously” shonky, it relies on some quite difficult and technical points of modal logic and modal epistemology. I also wonder how anyone can seriously conflate discussions of this sort in modal logic with belief in fairies.
“it relies on some quite difficult and technical points of modal logic and modal epistemology”
Only that awful bit of nonsense produced by Plantdigger…. or whatever his name is
In actual fact I think the majority of philosophers have completely missed the point of the ontological ‘argument’. It is more a report of a religious experience than it is a dry logical argument. It must start with an actual experience of a being greater than one I can not imagine… not just those words but the actual experience of the being. One the experience is taken away and all that is left is the logical argument I actaully agree that is is shonky and transparant and quite frankly an embarrassment – which should be a clue that originally it was something more.
I have never said anything about fairies in the garden, or made any analogies to that effect, Matt.
I freely admit to not knowing anything about modal logic or technical points of philosphy, but the classical versions of the ontological argument I consider to be logically ridiculous. As I’ve said, I will look into the Maydole argument. Yes, I realise that may require becoming familiar with technical notations, arguments, definitions etc of philosophy.
Believe me the “modal logic” version is even more absurd.
Max, I think you mis understand me somewhat.
First, I am inclined to think the ontological argument probably does arise out of a religious experience and in fact Plantinga himself suggests this, people experience something transcendent which is worthy of worship, the argument can be seen as an unpacking of what this means.
Second, I think your mistaken to suggest that “only the version provided by Plantinga” depends on technical points of modal logic and modal epistemology. I have seen numerous contemporary discussions of different versions of this argument which do this.
Third, you say the argument is “is shonky and transparant and quite frankly an embarrassment” I think this is an overstatement. Even staunch critics of the ontological argument, such as Graham Oppy accept that certain versions of it are valid, and within modal logic systems there are valid versions. So its not clear the logic is obviously shonky. I accept that the argument is not a successful piece of natural theology as it requires as a premise that one grant the metaphysical possibility of necessary existent being and there is nothing that compels a skeptic to do this, moreover I accept that there are questions about modal epistemology, how exactly do we know that certain things exist in other possible worlds remote from the actual world.
My point is much more modest, a person who dismisses the argument like the skeptic in the above exchange with the scientist, or who thinks its obviously clearly invalid and can be recognised as such simply by hearing it, is I think reacting irrationally. It takes a fair bit of work to even understand Plantinga’s argument, which occurs at the end of a very technical work on modal logic, hardly one that can be labelled obviously incompetent. I think the issues are difficult and not easy to tell. I know of logicans I respect who accept it and I know of others who do not. I doubt its transparently obvious at all.
Clint, sorry but I thought you said that despite years of study you still feel like the “religious skeptic” in the above exchange. That lead me to think you were the of the “faires in the garden” variety.
My point regarding modal ontological arguments is not to endorse them as sound, but to point out that to dismiss the case for God as on par with fairies is a lot like dismissing quarks on the basis of there taste. Quantum Mechanics is quite hard to understand, it would be really premature to dismiss it in this way. Similarly modal logic and the discussions around the ontological argument are equally technical and hard to understand, experts in modal logic disagree, to suggest the argument is just like merely asserting fairies exist strikes me as really really implausible.
As I read the new atheists and there followers, they frequently fail to understand even the basic philosophical and theological issues of the positions they describe. And I am sceptical that anyone who had studied these issues for 11 years with any competence could do this.
Its not because they are atheists, I read many atheist philosophers who understand the issues. They however are generally not the “fairies” and “flying spaghetti monster” variety.
“First, I am inclined to think the ontological argument probably does arise out of a religious experience and in fact Plantinga himself suggests this…..”
That does not change my claim that most philosophers see it as detached from its original context… it was not a claim about your views particularly. The ontological argument as presented in most philosophy texts, or even specifically philosophy or religion books present the ontological argument context free.
“Second, I think your mistaken to suggest that “only the version provided by Plantinga” depends on technical points of modal logic and modal epistemology. I have seen numerous contemporary discussions of different versions of this argument which do this.”
Yes I know there are several others. I was being facetious.
“Third, you say the argument is “is shonky and transparant and quite frankly an embarrassment” I think this is an overstatement. ”
This was my personal reaction to these arguments. I can only speak for myself.
“within modal logic systems there are valid versions.”
I have yet to see one.
”That does not change my claim that most philosophers see it as detached from its original context… it was not a claim about your views particularly. The ontological argument as presented in most philosophy texts, or even specifically philosophy or religion books present the ontological argument context free.”
I agree, one real flaw in philosophy is the failure to appreciate theological context people wrote in. I find theology often lacks the rigor of analytic philosophy and analytic philosophy often is ignorant of theological context.
“within modal logic systems there are valid versions.”
I have yet to see one.
Interesting, you don’t think the axiom of S5 it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p means that one construct valid ontological arguments?
Matt, I (actually?!) agree with you – given axiom s5, I would agree that a valid ontological argument can be formed. (I’ve done a wee bit of reading on this since my last post, for what it’s worth). However, I really struggle with this axiom. Can you (or anyone else) suggest any sources of information that would help to explain how it might be thought to be valid?
At least with my layman’s view, it goes completely against intuition that something must be true simply because it is possible. Certainly, it seems that you can apply this concept to many scenarios and prove it to be clearly false. I must not fully understand the concept.
Thanks
Am I to take this as a “no”?