Via 3quarksdaily, here is Richard Skinner (“poet, writer, qualified therapist and performer”) elaborating on Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously. I would argue that they should take him seriously because much of what he says is true, but that’s not Skinner’s take.
Skinner suggests that Dawkins is arguing against a straw-man notion of God (stop me if you’ve heard this before). According to the straw man, God is some thing, or some person, or some something, of an essentially supernatural character, with a lot of influence over what happens in the universe, and in particular the ability to sidestep the laws of nature to which the rest of us are beholden. That’s a hopelessly simplistic and unsophisticated notion, apparently; not at all what careful theologians actually have in mind.
Nevertheless, Dawkins and his defenders typically reply, it’s precisely the notion of God that nearly all non-theologians — that is to say, the overwhelming majority of religious believers, at least in the Western world — actually believe in. Not just the most fanatic fundamentalists; that’s the God that the average person is worshipping in Church on Sunday. And, to his credit, Skinner grants this point. That, apparently, is why Christians should take Dawkins seriously — because all too often even thoughtful Christians take the easy way out, and conceptualize God as something much more tangible than He really is.
At this point, an optimist would hope to be informed, in precise language, exactly what “God” really does mean to the sophisticated believer. Something better than Terry Eagleton’s “the condition of possibility.” But no! We more or less get exactly that:
Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, grappling with what is meant by ‘God’, have resorted to a different type of language, making statements such as “God is ultimate reality”; or “God is the ground of our being”, or “God is the precondition that anything at all could exist”, and so forth. In theological discourse, they can be very helpful concepts, but the trouble with them is that if you’re not a philosopher or theologian, you feel your eyes glazing over – God has become a philosophical concept rather than a living presence.
The trouble is not that such sophisticated formulations make our eyes glaze over; the trouble is that they don’t mean anything. And I will tell you precisely what I mean by that. Consider two possible views of reality. One view, “atheism,” is completely materialistic — it describes reality as just a bunch of stuff obeying some equations, for as long as the universe exists, and that’s absolutely all there is. In the other view, God exists. What I would like to know is: what is the difference? What is the meaningful, operational, this-is-why-I-should-care difference between being a sophisticated believer and just being an atheist?
I can imagine two possibilities. One is that you sincerely can’t imagine a universe without the existence of God; that God is a logical necessity. But I have no trouble imagining a universe that exists all by itself, just obeying the laws of nature. So I would have to conclude, in that case, that you were simply attaching the meaningless label “God” to some other aspect of the universe, such as the fact that it exists. The other possibility is that there is actually some difference between the universe-with-God and the materialist universe. So what is it? How could I tell? What is it about the existence of God that has some effect on the universe? I’m not trying to spring some sort of logical trap; I sincerely want to know. Phrases like “God is ultimate reality” are either tautological or meaningless; I would like to have a specific, clear understanding of what it means to believe in God in the sophisticated non-straw-man sense.
Richard Skinner doesn’t give us that. In fact, he takes precisely the opposite lesson from these considerations: the correct tack for believers is to refuse to say what they mean by “God”!
So, if our understanding of God can be encapsulated in a nice, neat definition; a nice, neat God hypothesis; a nice, neat image; a nice, neat set of instructions – if, in other words, our understanding of God does approximate to a Dawkins version, then we are in danger of creating another golden calf. The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God.
It’s a strategy, I suppose. Not an intellectually honest one, but one that can help you wriggle out of a lot of uncomfortable debates.
I’m a big believer that good-faith disagreements focus on the strong arguments of the opposite side, rather than setting up straw men. So please let me in on the non-straw-man position. If anyone can tell me once and for all what the correct and precise and sophisticated and non-vacuous meaning of “God” is, I promise to stick to disbelieving in that rather than any straw men.
Update: This discussion has done an even better job than I had anticipated in confirming my belief that the “sophisticated” notion of God is simply a category mistake. Some people clearly think of God in a way perfectly consistent with the supposed Dawkinsian straw man, which is fine on its own terms. Others take refuge in the Skinneresque stance that we can’t say what we mean when we talk about God, which I continue to think is simply intellectually dishonest.
The only on-topic replies I can see that don’t fall into either of those camps are ones that point to some feature of the world which would exist just as well in a purely materialistic conception, and say “I call that `God.'” To which I can only reply, you’re welcome to call it whatever you like, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Might as well just admit that you’re an atheist.
Which some people do, of course. I once invited as a guest speaker Father William Buckley, a Jesuit priest who is one of the world’s experts in the history of atheism. After giving an interesting talk on the spirituality of contemplation, he said to me “You don’t think I believe in G-O-D `God,’ do you?” I confessed that I had, but now I know better.
For people in this camp, I think their real mistake is to take a stance or feeling they have toward the world and interpret in conventionally religious language. Letting all that go is both more philosophically precise and ultimately more liberating.
Garth, while math might be infinitely extended as an intellectual “game”, reality probably only “use” a finite subset such as logic. Gødel also proved that logic is complete:
From Wiki:
“Gödel’s completeness theorem is an important theorem in mathematical logic which was first proved by Kurt Gödel in 1929. It states, in its most familiar form, that in first-order logic every logically valid formula is provable.
The word “provable” above means that there is a formal deduction of the formula. Such a deduction is a finite list of steps in which each step either invokes an axiom or is obtained from previous steps by a basic inference rule. Given such a deduction, the correctness of each of its steps can be checked algorithmically (by a computer, for example, or by hand).
A formula is called logically valid if it is true in every model for the language of the formula. In order to formally state Gödel’s completeness theorem, one has to define what the word model means in this context. This is a basic definition in model theory.
Put another way, Gödel’s completeness theorem says that the inference rules of first-order predicate calculus are “complete” in the sense that no additional inference rule is required to prove all the logically valid formulas. A converse to completeness is soundness. The fact that first-order predicate calculus is sound, i.e., that only logically valid statements can be proven in first-order logic, is asserted by the soundness theorem. ”
Carl
Carl,
I am not talking about the provability of logical systems but the incompleteness of formal systems containing a certain part of arithmetic.
In such a consistent formal arithmetic system, M, a statement can be constructed in the language of M which is neither provable nor refutable in M.
You maintain that a self consistent ‘thing’ has to be explainable.
I ask you to prove this statement for all self consistent ‘things’ and give an arithmetic system ‘M’ as a counter example. The fact that such systems are incomplete means that you cannot be assured in all cases that an explanation – a statement constructed in the language of M – exists, while the self consistent M might indeed exist.
You then conclude that nothing can be eternal.
As I think you are in error to think that all self consistent ‘things’ have to have an explanation, I think it is perfectly logical to accept the possibility of ‘things’ existing eternally, without beginning or end, they just ‘are’.
Returning to the theme of this thread I think it is perfectly logical to accept the possibility that the universe, going through an endless cycle of ‘Big Bangs’ might be eternal.
I also think it is perfectly logical to accept the possibility that mathematics, including incomplete arithmetic systems, are eternal, in the sense that they are always ‘true’ even if there are no human minds around to think so.
Furthermore, I also think it is perfectly logical to accept the possibility of an eternal God to exist ‘eternally’. I define God as the author and guarantor of the laws of science – the agent that (constantly) “breathes fire into the equations, making a universe for them to describe.”
In the last two cases I use the word ‘eternal’ to mean both ‘at all times’ and also ‘outside time’, i.e. on some higher than 4 dimension space-time manifold.
Garth
Garth, the point is that all propositions are true or false. There is no such things that are “undecidable” in principle. Consistency means that there is nothing undecidable. If something seems to be undecidable in system M, use a larger system that contains M. No problem.
The intrinsic “unexplainability” of an assumed eternal existence just shows it cannot exist. You are forced into circular logic, showing that the assumption is wrong.
Carl
Goldbach’s Conjecture (GC): every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.
Before Gödel’s work, mathematicians believed that, in principle, either GC could be proved to be true, or a counter-example could be found to prove that it is false. Now we know there is a third possibility: it could just “happen” to be true – not for any provable reason but just because that for every even number greater than two, there happens to be be two prime numbers which add up to it. The only “larger system” which could be used to prove or disprove this would be to physically check every even integer. (At least this is my understanding.)
Summary: I agree with Garth, on this point.
JimV, All physicists know that GR and/or QM must be modified or replaced because
they are not compatible. Self-consistency of reality forces this conclusion.
Limited human knowledge on some math issues should be no source of confusion on this point.
No one in their right mind would think “oh well, GR do clash with QM but maybe that is the way reality is. Why should reality be consistent?”
A reality that is not consisent is a reality that does not exist. However, there may be no limit to how much math that can be invented. No one can claim that reality actually “uses” all of this math. We don’t know how much “it” uses.
Carl,
Are you claiming that the larger system that contains M is actually complete? Unfortunately it also fulfils the conditions of incompleteness as proven by Godel. Or do you envisage a embedded hiearchy of such systems, each higher system providing the incomplete explanation of the one below? “Turtles all the way down”
Again, even with the knowledge that formal lofical systems containing an arithmetic are incomplete, you are making an assertion on which your whole argument is based: “A self-consistent system with an intrinsic “unexplainability” cannot exist”.
I say they can exist, ‘mystery’ is an inherent part of existence. So prove that it is your assertion that is the correct one.
Garth
Garth, as there is no limit to the amount of math that can be constructed, there is no limit to the amount of propositions that can be decided. We might view math as a sort of Hilberts hotell, where it is always room for more guests even if there is a guest in every room.
Something that is without limit cannot be described as “complete” (in your sense of the word I guess). So this is the situation for math. But its self-consistency is not affected by this. Actually anything that is not consistent is not part of math by definition.
Whether reality (the laws of physics) “uses” a finite or infinite “amount of of math” in order to “work” is of course an open question as well. Probably (hopefully) only a finite amount.
Something that cannot be explained is something that is not logical. Something that is not logical is not consistent and its existence will conflict with itself. So it cannot exist.
CarlN: we seem to be talking past each other. My point was simply that nowhere in his work did Gödel prove that there is always a “larger system” which could be used to resolve undecideable propositions; and unless you have such a proof, you are not entitled to have us accept your assumption. According to Gödel, by my understanding, there are things we are never going to know, and whether Goldbach’s Conjecture is true may be one of them. Whether an incomprehensible, undefinable, hidden entity exists or does not exist may be another.
(My understanding is based on “Gödel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid” by Douglas R. Hofstadter, which I recommend highly.)
JimV, I believe I did not say that Gødel proved that there always are a larger system? But this is the assumption for all mathematicians who work on such problems like the Goldbach’s Conjecture. A proof (or disproof) will be found sooner or later. That there will always be some unresolved “conjectures” at any particular time does not mean a ting.
What is interesting to discuss would be: Does nature (laws of physics) in any way depend on whether or not even numbers can be written as the sum of two primes?
Suppose nature does need that even numbers are the sum of two primes. Since nature actually exist we see that the conjecture must be true even before we have found the mathematical proof.
Carl,
your whole argument and its conclusion hangs on the assertion:
Prove it.
I make the following assertion:
‘A thing can exist without there being a sufficient reason for its existence, it always has been in existence and always will exist’, it simply ‘is’.
Disprove this statement.
Garth
Garth, no. It does not work that way. You prove it. 🙂
I have already proven my stuff:
“1. How can something be consistent while not being explainable? If something cannot be logically explained, even in principle, it will be non-logical. That means again it will not be self-consistent.
2. If a sufficient reason for the existence of reality cannot be given (even in principle), by the same argument the existence of reality will be illogical and contradict itself. So the conclusion is that there is a reason.
The only way to break the circular logic around the question of why reality exists, is to realize that it comes “from” nothing. ”
This disproves your stuff, by the way. 🙂
Well actually I haven’t discussed ‘my stuff’, I have just tried to understand your position and given counter arguments and possible examples for the sake of our mutual enlightenment. The whole point of my last post was that I do not think you have ‘proven your stuff’.
Firstly, given that you think you have a logically watertight case that proves everything had to come from ‘nothing’, that it just ‘jumped out’ of the void in full working order complete with a set of mathematics, physics, biology etc., I think actually the onus is on you to prove your assertions that lead to that conclusion.
The assertion I find most problematic is your conviction that the self-consistency of a system requires the existence of an explanation of that system’s existence.
This of course begs the question of what constitutes an explanation (“sufficient reason”) for existence. That notwithstanding, I can envisage a mathematical system, such as an arithmetic, that is self-consistent but the existence of which is left unexplained, for it is simply there (‘true’).
Secondly, would not reality itself be self-inconsistent by your own argument because its existence had no ‘apriori’ cause or explanation? The fact that ‘in nothing’ there was ‘nothing’ to prevent it from coming into existence does not in itself constitute an explanation for its existence. That is why I found your conclusion absurd, in the sense of the argument being self-contradictory.
Garth
Ok Garth, let’s go over it again.
We cannot explain existence using existence. That’s circular logic. We could choose to believe that stuff (like God or math or the universe) just exist like you do. That means we are taking a position (without any proof!) that no explanation is possible. This is what I would call stupidity (sorry!). Why on Earth should there be no explanation for a simple question “why something rather than nothing”?
So simply avoiding the circular logic and refusing to accept the “no-explanation-possible”, one is forced to conclude that something comes “from” nothing.
And again, a reality that can’t be explained (also meaning it is not self-consistent) does not exist.
Well, prove that the no-explanation-possible theory is correct, and I’ll change my mind. 🙂
Well, in order that I might answer the question about the possibility of a self-consistent system not having an explanation for existing, would you define what you consider does constitute a valid explanation or “sufficient reason” for existence?
Garth
Garth, a sufficient reason for existence is that it starts to exist “from” nothing. This explains it. Simple as that. I’ve earlier shown how this is logical. Nothing can’t prevent it from happening. No causation is needed as such “need” does not exist “when” nothing exists.
Postulating anything that has no explanation for its existence, where does that leave you? You end up believing in anything.
We need a logical explanation for existence. Nothing else will do.
You give your explanation, just keep it logical. Then you can convince me.
Carl,
do you not see your statement: “a sufficient reason for existence is that it starts to exist “from” nothing. “, even if a logical deduction from your premise, conveys ‘nothing’?
It is you who “ends up believing in anything” for ‘anything’ can also come from nothing, if there is ‘nothing’ to prevent it.
I would see a sufficient reason for the existence of a physical object at a time tn the causal components at time tn-1 that formed the object at time tn.
Let us look at concepts of time, here I have ordered events in a causal web along a time-like axis tn, tn+1, tn+2 etc. In the standard GR theory the existence of a singularity at t0 appears to mark a first instant and indeed the universe may have simply have started to exist “from” nothing.
If that were so then one interpretation of the data might reasonably be, “What a miracle!”
However this is not the only possibility.
Many workers in the field believe that the existence of the singularity signifies the breakdown of the GR theory at this event, and as an alternative, suggest that through the Planck era quantum effects create a bounce, a tunnel from a previously existing universe. Thus the existence of our universe in its earliest moments is derived from the existence of a previous one, and that from an even earlier one ad infinitum.
A further possibility might be to recognise different definitions and ways of measuring time itself. If We can define two physically significant times as follows:
Sample two photons, one emitted by a caesium atom the other sampled from the peak intensity of the CMB radiation.
The first, an “atomic” second, is defined as the duration of exactly 9.19263177×109 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
The second, a “photonic” second, is defined as the duration of exactly 1.604×1011 periods of the radiation corresponding to the peak of the CMB black body spectrum.
Both systems of time measurement are physically significant and agree with each other in the present era, although they will diverge from each other at other times.
When compared to the atomic standard, the “photonic” clock in the linearly expanding model, extrapolated back to the earliest moments of the BB, diverges to (-) inifinity as atomic time t->0.
Thus in this model we can recover “an infinitely old universe” within an apparently finite (as measured by an “atomic” clock) BB paradigm.
Furthermore, if ephemeris time is that measured in the “photonic” system, as it is in a certain suggested alternatives to GR, then the Pioneer spacecraft will appear to have an anomalous sunwards acceleration of cH or 6.69×10-8 cm.sec-2; such an acceleration aP = (8.74±1.33)×10-8 cm.sec-2 is actually observed. (Allowing for drag and radiation non-inertial forces and uncertainty in H.)
Thus in one time system the universe started to exist “from” nothing, and in the other it has always existed. Both descriptions of time lead to the same self consistent and ‘existing’ universe, but it the second perspective on time there is no explanation for the universe’s existence, it always ‘was’.
Garth
Garth, no I do not believe in “anything” as you know I say that only self-consistent “things” can start t exist. This also explain why the laws of nature looks like math (or actually is math).
This universe might be the only self-consistent “thing” that can start to exist “from” nothing. But there may also be others, I don’t know.
Nothing explains a lot! 🙂
Add to this the impossibility of eternal existence (for a number of reasons). One is that eternal existence has no explanation. If we insist on logic we are forced to reject it.
Why eternal existence instead of nothing is the one you should explain.
Garth, we also now know that the universe will be expanding forever. There is no endless cycles of expansions and contractions. The universe started from nothing and will expand forever.
This was a one off. Enjoy while you can. 🙂
Carl,
That conclusion is model dependent. Cosmological models change with the season, wait for the next SNe Ia type discovery. However, even if this universe is expanding ‘forever’ it does not mean that there were no precedents to it.
In the eternal inflation model, or in Smolin’s Cosmic Natural Selection hypothesis, such universes as ours are constantly budding off one another’for ever’.
Actually I like the once off ‘universe’, it is a very Western, rather than Eastern way of looking at time, but then I am from the ‘West’ and that preference is probably just a prejudice of mine…
Garth
Garth, it is not model dependent. It only depends on observations. And it fits very well with creation from nothing. We use Occams razor on the rest.
Pingback: More discussion about “The God Delusion” « My agnostic views
Carl,
Your quote from the “Quirks and Quarks: Before the Big Bang” thread:
I thought I would respond in this thread as the subject here is ‘God’ rather than a discussion of the physical theorizing about the pre BB state.
You seem to have an emotional commitment to your “it starts to exist “from” nothing” conjecture.
First, as I was saying above, the majority of the effort today in pondering the origins of our present universe is to see it as having precedents. Most would think that an eternal universe in whatever form is actually more easy to hold from an atheistic point of view rather than one that had a definite beginning at a first moment of time. Fred Hoyle certainly expressed this opinion over the Steady State versus Big Bang controversy in the 1950’s and ’60’s.
This is not necessarily the case, as in Stephen Hawking’s initial condition hypothesis: “The only initial condition is that there is no initial condition”, He conceived the topology of the BB itself as like that of the North Pole, “What came before the BB?” being the same sort of question as “What is north of the North Pole?” He used a concept of imaginary time to evade an actual singularity and to produce a spherically connected causal web. There does not seem to be much mileage in this approach at present, although it would be consistent with your argument.
However, whatever our view on the origin, or otherwise, of physical time may be, it says nothing about the existence of ‘God’ or not. A significant theological movement today is that of Process Theology in which God changes with time.
So in this view, if God is necessarily bound up with the physical universe, as the author and guarantor of its scientific laws, and if the universe ‘started to exist “from” nothing’, then a self-consistent God too could have started to exist from nothing, with the universe; for ‘nothing’ would have prevented it happening.
I find that most religious believers are actually happier with the idea of a non-eternal universe, so your comment quoted above would not seem to apply.
Regards,
Garth
Garth, I agree it is a good idea to look “behind” BB if there was any indication something was there. But there is not (yet at least). So Occams razor say it is childish to speculate about.
The point is we do know that BB is the start of it all, coming from nothing. Anything
else is excess baggage. Until observations might say otherwise.
However, I a bit fed up of this now. As the quote shows! 🙂
Garth, one thing more. Of course a self-consistent god could start to exist “from” nothing and then created the physical laws etc. That is almost OK. It is logical, but there is still some excess baggage.
And again, anything eternal gives us no explanation. So it is not logical and must be rejected.
For all the reasons I have given above I do not agree with this conclusion, even though the universe, God etc., in fact, may turn out not be eternal.
Is not this an example of a ‘non reason’ rather than ‘sufficient reason’?
Garth