About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

What's a skeptic to do?

I just got back from a delightful congress of the European Council of Skeptical Organizations, perfectly hosted by the Irish Skeptics. During the conference I had some good humored fun with a back-and-forth discussion with Vic Stenger, where I criticized him for the same reason I criticize Dawkins: the arguments put forth in both “God: the Failed Hypothesis” and “The God Delusion” are sound, but they are philosophical, not scientific ones.

Yet, the real challenge came at the end of the meeting, when our host, Paul O'Donoghue, divided us into working groups and asked us what skeptics can do to help counter the attack on science and reason that has characterized our society during the past decade (well, ok, the past couple of millennia). In other words: given rampant irrationality, what's a skeptic to do?

I would actually very much like to know the opinions of readers of this blog on the matter, but here are some pointers that emerged from our discussion. First off, as Carl Sagan aptly put it when he used the metaphor of science as a candle in the dark, we will always fight an uphill battle. Critical thinking does not come naturally to human beings, and the results of science are increasingly esoteric and difficult to understand. So it might be good for our collective psychological welfare if we set our aims reasonably low: the first order of business is to keep that darn candle lit, and then perhaps to gain a bit more territory against the aptly termed forces of obscurantism. But let us also be realistic and acknowledge that we are not likely to see dramatic improvements during our generation, and probably for much longer down the line.

Nevertheless, skeptics can and should become a regular resource for scientists and vice versa. Skeptics are amateurs who are passionate about their commitment to reason and outreach. Scientists are professionals, but most of their time is devoted to research and academic teaching, and little if at all, to public outreach. It seems obvious that the two groups should cooperate and coordinate their efforts, but there is a certain degree of distrust of skeptics by professional scientists (obviously, with some exceptions, such as Stenger, Dawkins, and myself). I will get to one large root of such distrust with my next point, but in the meantime I suggest that there are, in fact, good models out there for such cooperation. For instance, professional and amateur astronomers generally get along very well, with the pros even taking advantage of the enthusiasm of the dilettantes to gather useful scientific data and to help popularize the findings of the professionals (not to mention sell their books). This cooperation is made possible, in my experience (I used to be an amateur astronomer, when I was much younger), by the active intervention of groups and societies of both types, which often leads to meetings and publications where the two groups cross into each other's sphere of interest.

Why, then, are professional scientists generally wary of skeptics? Take the example of the increasingly popular Darwin Day events, which I helped start at the University of Tennessee in 1997 and that have sprung up more or less independently in hundreds of locations across the world. Some of these events are organized by biology departments (like my current series at Stony Brook University), but many are conducted by local groups of amateurs. Nothing wrong with that, until one realizes that the amateurs often mix a defense of science and reason with an assault on religion. This is true from local groups of skeptics, atheists and secular humanists to national organizations like the Center for Inquiry.

Now, far from me to advocate that religion is not, in fact, nonsense on stilts (during the Dublin meeting it was amusing to have Stenger characterize me as “timid” when it comes to criticizing religion). I also agree that a proper understanding of science does in fact help the general attack on superstition and irrationality. But, having been on the board of professional scientific societies, I also know that their mission simply does not include furthering atheism, and for very good reasons (for instance that such efforts would lead precisely to the same mistake that Stenger and Dawkins make: confuse scientifically informed philosophical positions with science itself).

There is no simple answer to this conundrum, as there are genuinely reasonable diverging opinions among skeptics, with some (such as myself), actually having switched position at some point during the debate (when I was a bit more naïve I was a full supporter of Dawkins-like attacks, and I still find them good fun, sort of a guilty pleasure of mine). But it certainly is high time for skeptic organizations to tackle the issue, or risk permanently alienating professional societies of scientists, thereby unwittingly playing into the hands of mystical, religious and paranormal nuts the world over.

34 comments:

  1. You're right. Most people aren't going to become critical thinkers.

    So we emphasize reliability. Counter the claims of miraculous cures with an analysis of the real success of, say Lourdes(sp?). Do people get better at a rate greater than expected for spontaneous recovery? Do they get better at a rate better than if they were treated medically?

    If your car breaks down, do you fix it with scientifically developed technology, or prayer?

    If some people understand that the belief they give lip service to is not the belief they run their lives by, we might make an impression.

    How many people answer polls claiming some religious faith or other because that's what they think people expect? Can we change the expectation?

    We should show that atheists can be moral, good, charitable people without fear of the cosmic avenger opening a can of whup-ass on them after they die.

    Don't be bashful about our lack of superstition, but don't be confrontational either. As religious people might say, witness by example.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm a little bothered by this:

    So it might be good for our collective psychological welfare if we set our aims reasonably low: the first order of business is to keep that darn candle lit, and then perhaps to gain a bit more territory against the aptly termed forces of obscurantism. But let us also be realistic and acknowledge that we are not likely to see dramatic improvements during our generation, and probably for much longer down the line.

    One potential interpretation of it is that 'We can't win easily, so for our own mental health we shouldn't try so hard.' I'm sure that's not what you're suggesting, but it's potentially confusing.

    Our long-term strategy must focus on education, and in particular on science education in public elementary, middle, and high schools. That's been one of the anti-rationalists' main targets, and we cannot let them have it. In my direct experience on the ground at both the state and local levels of public education, 'moderate' Christians have been our best and most effective political allies in the defense of good science education. It follows that alliances with them serve our long-term goals.

    As to specifics like those John mentioned, my favorite is "Evolution is exactly as atheistic as plumbing." I used that to an audience in a synagogue and got both laughter and nodding heads.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tough questions... Briefly as I can:

    1) While it's lovely fun to bash religion and other forms of superstition, it's the kind of fun one gets from shooting fish in a barrel, and about as productive too. While I have no problem with their conclusions, I worry that Dawkins et al do more to unite relatively secular believers with fundamentalists than to unite secular atheists with secular believers. If people want to read a nonsense holy book and go to services on their own time, fine, just keep it out of politics. I think that message gets lost all too easily. That said, I am struggling to determine the best way to be honest about atheism while not alienating secular believers. However, various societies at various times have managed to do just that, so it seems attainable.

    2) I am actually somewhat skeptical (sorry) about the need to focus specifically on science education. If you've watched a movie or TV lately, or heard people's impression of history and other cultures, you'll probably agree with me that the humanities and social sciences are not doing too well either. The truth is, for many people, science is not that interesting. HOWEVER...critical thinking generally is, and can be applied as much to science as it can to history, english, etc. At a personal level, I acquired some of my best critical thinking skills from great teachers in literature, history, sociology and economics, as well as science.

    I could say a lot more, but that is probably enough.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Max, this is where you and I disagree. Opposing only part of the corpus of irrationality, and leaving religion untouched (because it's "too large and sificult a beast to tackle"?) is like being a little bit pregnant. You either attack all irrationality, or none at all. If you're going to attack tarot cards, you're saying the Catholic Church's line on mysticism is equally vapid. If you attack ID, you are saying that the claims made by that religion are WRONG. And that is a vital point.
    ---
    Anyway, as to what can be done, in the adult mainstream, very little. By the time people reach adulthood, they are already too stuck in their beliefs. The best outreach is to kids, but that would require hiring genuine scientists and skeptics as teachers. And that would require a massive injection of capital into education, to fund worthwhile salaries for these people.
    Good luck securing the extra funding.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "In other words: given rampant irrationality, what's a skeptic to do?"

    One area where skepticism has already taken deep root is in politics. Here, even religionists are deeply skeptical. It seems to me, then, that we'd ought to show the lay public how useful that skepticism is in that particular field, and "wedge" the idea into other aspects of life. And yes, this will mostly happen at the younger demographic.

    But generally speaking -- and it's a sad thought -- I think most people prefer not to think. "It's an awful lot of work and besides, haven't I already been told what to think?" Given that,we ought to focus our time and effort on the young. I've always said, "All children are born geniuses; it takes us adults to screw them up." And that means that each one of us has to provide a skeptical example to every child in our life, especially when you consider the failure that is the American public school system.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Given that,we ought to focus our time and effort on the young. I've always said, "All children are born geniuses; it takes us adults to screw them up. And that means that each one of us has to provide a skeptical example to every child in our life.."

    Not true, T. A lot of elder people have plenty to offer society. Without the balance of maturity and wisdom in societies, (barring of course cannibalistic, incestuous or terrorist ones) the society will TOTALLY suffer for a lack of identity.

    Skepticism (to me) offers instead sort of a pseudo identity, one that is fostered by something akin to a detachment disorder. Detachment to anything that does not make apparent sense "to me" at the moment. If skepticism, otoh, was offering actual "wisdom", hey, I'd be all for if. But as for the matter of intentionally driving a wedging between people and their family solidarity, this is seldom the right thing to do.

    So skepticism is not just a symptom of a bored (i.e. intellectual) mind, I think it is also a sign of a very disappointed, disillusioned one. And that's what you propose to offer young people?

    Do you honestly think that a world full of intellectuals is going to be a better place to live? I think that a world full of intellectuals will be one without love. Love for self and self interest, but little else.

    Not interested. Variety is good.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's my two cents:

    1) Teach critical thinking to your kids. Starts in the home, right.

    2) Keep an eye on your community and run for office if you have to. Anti-science types are very involved in local politics. The victory in Dover was only half due to the court decision. The other side of the victory was that pro-science folks (most of whom described themselves as Christian, btw) ran for school board and won.

    3) Personally, I like the groups that host Friday the 13th events where they break mirrors, walk under ladders and intentionally spill salt. If you can point out the sillyness of supperstition in a fun, non-insulting way, people might be more recepive to your larger message.

    O.K. that's three cents, but it's a start.

    Jeremy

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Not true, T. A lot of elder people have plenty to offer society." -- Cal

    Agreed, of course. I was referring specifically to the inculcation of skepticism, and in that event, to be frank, most seniors, I fear, will be suffering mental sclerosis. Thus, a cost/benefits analysis implies that youth are the richer target.

    "Skepticism (to me) offers instead sort of a pseudo identity, one that is fostered by something akin to a detachment disorder. Detachment to anything that does not make apparent sense "to me" at the moment. If skepticism, otoh, was offering actual "wisdom", hey, I'd be all for if."

    This is not a true view of skepticism. Skepticism is the refusal to accept a proposition about reality in the absence of positive evidence. It has nothing to do with the solipsism of "what makes sense to me." And skepticism offers the greatest wisdom, in my mind; it's only commandment is to bow to the reality in front of you.

    "But as for the matter of intentionally driving a wedging between people and their family solidarity, this is seldom the right thing to do."

    You'll note that I did not advocate this at all, and thus your assertion, with which I agree, is an example of the straw man fallacy. I had in mind turning extant skepticism upon religion, as it is insidious, deleterious, and a brake upon mankind.

    "So skepticism is not just a symptom of a bored (i.e. intellectual) mind, I think it is also a sign of a very disappointed, disillusioned one. And that's what you propose to offer young people?"

    It is a good thing to be disillusioned, if one wants to control one's own existence. To hang onto illusions in the face of contrary evidence is not only sad, but very often dangerous.

    " Do you honestly think that a world full of intellectuals is going to be a better place to live? I think that a world full of intellectuals will be one without love. Love for self and self interest, but little else."

    1) You are conflating skepticism with intellectualism -- a telling error, if you don't mind my saying so, as it reveals to me much in your attitudes about both. Not all skeptics are intellectuals, nor are all intellectuals skeptics.

    2) As a skeptic who is a tad intellectual, I do resent and refute your implication that we are by nature loveless. Perhaps before you draw with such a broad stroke you'd ought to ask someone, like my son.

    3) Further, skepticism tends to increase diversity, for it results in many people asking questions.

    And yes, variety is good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. First, I totally disagree with Massimo that Dawkins's and my arguments are not scientific and that science cannot say anything about the supernatural. I think Massimo makes the same mistake that others make in failing to distinguish between ontological and methodological naturalism. The first is metaphysics, the second is physics. Science can use methodological naturalism to study any observed phenomena. It will look first for natural causes, but if a phenomenon is observed that has no plausible natural explanation, then there is no reason not to entertain supernatural ones. I give examples in my book

    Second, by denying science a role in considering supernatural hypotheses we are playing right into the hands of theists like Philip Johnson who accuse science of being dogmatically attached to a purely material picture of the world.

    I am redoing my talk on "Can Science Study the Supernatural?" which I plan to give at a CFI conference on Naturalism in Amherst, NY next week. I will put it on my web site, probably later today (Wednesday). Please check it out.

    Vic Stenger
    http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vic,

    welcome to my blog! Of course, I think yu and Dawkins are mistaken on this, though I seriously doubt that our differences are as big as you seem to think they are:

    > I think Massimo makes the same mistake that others make in failing to distinguish between ontological and methodological naturalism. <

    On the contrary, it is precisely on the basis of that distinction that I think that your and Dawkins' arguments are philosophical, yet informed by science. Dawkins' contention that "the god hypothesis" fails because one cannot reasonably invoke a comple entity (god) to explain a less complex phenomenon (the universe) is a great example of Occam's razor. Philosophy, not science.

    > by denying science a role in considering supernatural hypotheses we are playing right into the hands of theists like Philip Johnson who accuse science of being dogmatically attached to a purely material picture of the world. <

    Science is inextricably connected to naturalism, but it isn't dogmatism, and Johnson is full of it. Mine is a simple acknowledgment of the proper domain of applicaton of science. Science can reject specific supernaturalistic claims (e.g., there was a worldwide flood) because they deal with empirically verifiable statements. But science cannot reject a supernatural framework ("the god hypothesis") and to pretend that it can is simply not helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kimpatsu,

    > Opposing only part of the corpus of irrationality, and leaving religion untouched (because it's "too large and sificult a beast to tackle"?) is like being a little bit pregnant. <

    But I never said that we cannot oppose religion, or that religion isn't just another kind of supertition. Don't make the same mistake that Vic Stenger makes and think that I'm somehow "soft" on religion (I mean, c'mon, you've been reading my posts here for some time, no? :)

    What I did say is that we should not equate skepticism with atheism, for two reasons: one, because we can reject empirical claims about specific examples of miracles, but cannot reject the supernatural framework in toto; two, because we need allies among moderate religionists (and, contra Dawkins, there are a lot of pretty reasonable religious folks out there who favor science and critical thinking). This is in part a political battle, and we simply cannot take on 90% of the planet, period.

    More generally, the enemy is ideological fundamentalism (of which, incidentally, scientism is an example), not religion or spirituality per se. Of course, we also assume that once critical thinking gets hold of someone, that person will eventually come to question every unfounded belief, including his religious ones.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thump,

    I never doubted that you love your son, T. I'm referring to the movement of cynics, skeptics and intellectualism at large. I just don't think that any of it encourages people towards being their better selves.

    Do you know what I mean by the better self?
    Spent this previous week in Mexico with a medical team. The doctors and dentists that my husband flew in they could be doing a thousand other things with their time and education. Instead they chose to spend it on an indigenous people who could not do a single thing for them personally or their careers. Much less the physicians (and we) being exposed to diseases like TB and other almost eradicated diseases that they just would not have to put up with if the stayed in the states.

    Do you understand what sort of love I am talking about now? If MORE individuals sought to really spend their education on others, what a dramatically improved world this could be.

    If I were a skeptic, I certainly would invest MY TIME on things other than trying to convince others to become a skeptic! In perspective, a rather ridiculous way to spend a perfectly meaningful(?) education, if you ask me.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  13. M: "Of course, we also assume that once critical thinking gets hold of someone, that person will eventually come to question every unfounded belief, including his religious ones."

    OR THAT the same people might get an overview of the whole conglomeration and find that it has all been VERY MUCH tried and found VERY MUCH wanting.

    One day you & this other fella will have to come to terms with fact that some people have examined what they think about the two opposing views AND REALLY know their own mind (because of analysis) on the matter.

    It can happen, believe it or not.

    Massimo, Vic, wanna go to Mexico? (says the person who says nothing is random) Let's do something meaningful with 'our time' and like find the cure for TB or something equally magnificent. ;)


    caliia

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr. Stenger, sorry I haven't read your book yet, but I do agree with Massimo here, as I commented on a post of Massimo's a few days ago. I'm curious to read your book and see if it somehow answers my question, but given what's been said so far, apparently it doesn't.

    Here goes a (slightly edited, hopefully clearer) repeat of what I think about the "testing the god hypothesis" thing:

    Well, to me it seems people mix things up here. By what I remember of Dawkins writings, in all his examples he is actually talking about testing the claims of specific religions, and not the existence of god(s). That's an important distinction to me.

    Because if someone is stupid/hardheaded/ whatever enough to say the Universe is ~6000 years old, that only shows... what? That some people are completely out of touch with anything remotely reasonable. If you assume that god can only exist if this loony religion (or some other) is completely true, then yes, by testing religions' claims you are testing the existence of god. But that does not sound like a reasonable assumption to anybody but the fundies, I'd say. It's perfectly possible that god(s) (or aliens in Andromeda) exist but no religion that has ever existed or will ever exist knows anything at all about such god(s). Then what can we say about the "god hypothesis"?

    And any god worth its salt will be SUPERnatural, right? It won't play by our merely-mortal rules, right? It will be able to stay there and not be noticed if it wants too, or make the Universe in such a way that you wouldn't see anything indicative of god's existence even if you tried. How do you test for THAT type of irrational, out-of-the-world thing? The same way you test for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What's a skeptic to do? Tough one, I think... I tend to say "education, education, education". And as Muir said, not just scientific.

    The only problem is that I'm not 100% sure education is ALL that we need. Sure it's necessary, I just don't know whether it is sufficient. Maybe it's enough for doing the good we need to not worry about the rest of the population for whom education does not have an effect. Because, you see, some extremely highly educated people are also very religious. Ratzinger and other high guys in his church, for example, come to mind. You can't say they are short on education, and quite broad education too, I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is objected that science cannot disprove the existence of God, only particular claims about God acting in the world. But hardly anyone believes in a God who has no effect in the world. Deists are not a problem; if there are any they are advocates of science and rationality. So if you undermine the particular claims about God acting in the world, either by showing they are false or that they are explicable without resort to the supernatural, then you can disprove God in the same sense you can disprove the existence of Santa Claus.

    Brent Meeker

    ReplyDelete
  17. "If I were a skeptic, I certainly would invest MY TIME on things other than trying to convince others to become a skeptic! In perspective, a rather ridiculous way to spend a perfectly meaningful(?) education, if you ask me." -- Cal

    It may seem that way, until you realize that it was rational skepticism which gave us the antibiotics with which you and yours do your healing. Consider also: without rational skepticism, how are we to find out the true nature of any possible global warming? Shall we pray for answers? You utilize skepticism every time you analyze how a wrecked car in the fast lane came to be there. Did it drop from the sky? Did the Jolly Green Giant step on it? Rational skepticism is a constructive tool when it leads to the truth, wouldn't you agree? And wouldn't you agree that we send more probes to other planets, cure more illnesses, etc, than any previous culture? While I agree that all philosophical outlooks have limitations, you discard skepticism at your own grave risk. Wanna buy a bridge I own in San Francisco? It's a real pretty, orange thing. :P

    And seriously -- you assumption that my skepticismlimits my ability to love, be it on a personal or humane level, is condescending, vaguely insulting, and poorly thought-out. You've never before stooped to insult with me, so I am not bent out of shape, but consider: Rational skepticism is an intellectual outlook. Love is an emotional experience. A person can be rich in both, can't he? Your unspoken premise is that in the Appollonian/Dionysian struggle, it is a zero-sum game. That simply ain't so. Otherwise, how could scientists get laid?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I for one am totally for scientists getting laid.

    An advise those who "think" skepticism is so bad: next time you take your car to the mechanic with a flat tire and they tell you that actually it's your engine causing the trouble and therefore you'll need a new engine, please don't be skeptic! Being skeptic is bad. Just have faith in the mechanics. You'll lead a much happier and love-full life, I can guarantee.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cal! Grrrr!

    I would say the opposite of skeptical is :GULLIBLE

    To be skeptical is to doubt claims that are not supported by evidence and sound reasoning.

    Thats about it. It has nothing to do with cynicism or whatever any other thing you spuriously want to connect with it.

    Skepticism also is not in anyway opposed to compassion and love.

    This skeptic, yours truly, spent nearly a year in Nicaragua to help build houses, a school, and a water system for poor people there. I did this out of a motivation of humanistic love.

    Also what led me to do this in Nicaragua was my SKEPTICISM about the claims of the Reagan administration, and the mainstream media about what was going on in Nicaragua. This was one of the most important experience of my life.
    I greatly admire anybody, such as medical doctors, who use their skills to serve the wretched of the earth. I see no reason why these people can't be skeptics! And I am sure plenty of them are.

    I only wish God would help out with medical assistance to the world's poor! But unfortunately Jesus only healed people 2,000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "One area where skepticism has already taken deep root is in politics. Here, even religionists are deeply skeptical."

    Thumpy,
    I don't know, I am a little skeptical about that. This is where cynical may be a more appropriate label.

    In politics people are often not making their decisions based on evidence and sound reasoning, but are more manipulated by emotional appeals, ad hominem attack adds etc..

    Look at the swift boating of John Kerry, the lack of skepticism about the case for war in Iraq, the preoccupation of the price of John Edward's hair cut, the rise of the "Rock Star Obama", evangelical's preoccupation with Mitt Romney's allegedly incorrect theology, etc..

    People may just throw up their hands and say "all politicians are corrupt liars." But that is cynicism, not skepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Massimo,

    What does "unfounded belief" mean?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sheldon, I certainly agree with your latest point.

    My point, however, is that they practice skepticism when they hear campaign promises. I should have more fully fleshed out the line of thought.

    Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Marta,

    "unfounded belief" means that one holds onto a belief without reason, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    Contrast that with Plato's definition of knowledge (in the Meno) as "justified true belief" -- the key word being "justified."

    ReplyDelete
  24. For my sadness, I think that agressive attack (like some Dawkins' arguments) to religion only generate hate among believers.

    The only way is just doing the work to spread this way of thinking to all that we'll can. Independent of the outcome the words permeate one day. It's just a mater of frecuency at least my conviction needed a lot of information that was difficult to encounter at hand.

    "But let us also be realistic and acknowledge that we are not likely to see dramatic improvements during our generation, and probably for much longer down the line"

    Well, I think you are well aware of the "old mole metaphor".

    icaro.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Unless you are willing to invoke the separate magesteria of Stephen Gould, you cannot keep science from criticizing religion. Science is systematic skepticism. So how can it avoid criticism of religious claims based on no facts at all, particularly when religion makes testable claims about the facts based on no facts? Why should our deceiving heuristics and basic brain design that lead to religion be exempt from study by science?

    Separation just does not work. In college many years ago I had a physics professor who was also high up in the Transcendental Meditation movement. When he stated his belief that advanced TM practitioners could fly through the air, I asked him how he reconciled his professional beliefs with his TM beliefs. He replied, "When I do physics, I do physics. When I do TM, I do TM." Maybe some people can compartmentalize their mind, but I can't. I don't think it is rational to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Massimo,

    Have you ever written on the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God?
    What do you think the best objection to it is?
    I met an Eastern Orthodox who defended it and I have never heard of it so I had no ammunition :(

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mark

    check out the secular web

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oops. Didn't paste the whole thing.

    here it is

    ReplyDelete
  29. thanks suffenus!

    the guy also used the TAG impossibility of the contrary to say that naturalism leads to nihilism and from nihilism we can have no knowledge without god's revelation.
    any ideas on what to say to that? i didn't see Martin mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think Plantinga has written on it and this guy, Cornelius Van Til, pretty much invented the modern version.
    I know how much Massimo loves Plantinga!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. The best place to attack would probably be the claim that naturalism leads to nihilism. I didn't even think to ask him what he actually meant by "nihilism."

    ReplyDelete
  32. It would seem to me that nihilism refers to a lack of basis for morality, not for knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mark

    I wonder if your friend has heard of the Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God? It is expounded by Martin
    here (It is only a page long.) Briefly, how can God be the basis of logic, morality or science, if all is dependent on his will? He can order a man to sacrifice his son, make the sun stand still for a day, etc.

    I had thought that essay was included in the section I referred you to earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  34. suffenus

    yeah, I a lot rests on what exactly he means by "nihilism."

    LOL. That TANG is great.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.