From : Jason Dulle
<jasondulle@yahoo.com>
Sent : Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:12 PM
To : "'Dawson Bethrick'"
<sortion@hotmail.com>
CC : "'sonny binayao'"
<sonnybbinayao@yahoo.com>
Subject : RE: Theism
Sonny Binayao forwarded me your email correspondence and asked me
to respond to your arguments against theism. I see you agreed to this. I apologize for the delayed response,
but everything in my life that could change has been changing, and I have had
no time for email. Let me respond
to your arguments.
1. You assert that the notion of God is
internally incoherent on the same level as square circles. Few would dispute the fact that the
notion of God could be false, but equally few would argue that the notion of
God is internally incoherent. I was
surprised to see you try to argue along that line. But before I begin to engage your
argument for the internally incoherent nature of theism, I would like to
address your comparison of theism to square circles.
For the
sake of argument let's assume theism is in fact internally incoherent. Even then, is comparing the internally
incoherent notion of God truly comparable to square circles? I don't think so. This comparison seems more like a
rhetorical device than an appropriate comparison. Square circles are a prima facie logical
absurdity while the notion of God is not.
A square circle cannot exist by definition. Squares and circles are mutually
exclusive. Their properties are not
compatible. We cannot imagine, yet
alone conceive of a square circle, and thus we can reject the notion
out-of-hand. We can, however,
conceive of and imagine the existence of God. The notion is not a prima facie logical
absurdity. It's
one thing to say there is no good evidence for believing in God (an assertion I
would dispute), but it wholly another to say the notion of God is internally
incoherent on the level of square circles.
One is logically absurd on its face and cannot possibly be true, while the
other is a logical possibility that could be shown false due to internal
contradictions in the notion itself.
We are prima facie justified in rejecting the notion of square circles,
but we are not prima facie justified in rejecting the notion of God.
Think of
the Hindu belief of salvation. Hindu's
claim all reality is one. You and I
do not exist as distinct individuals (atman). We are all part of Brahman. The idea that we are distinct persons
from each other, and distinct from the rest of the universe is
an illusion (maya). Salvation is obtained only when we
finally come to recognize our connection to the Brahman, understanding that we
do not exist. But wait...how can I
come to recognize that I do not exist if there is no I in the first place to
recognize such a truth? The Hindu
religion is inherently incoherent in this regard. But I would not dare say belief in
Hinduism is like belief in a square circle. The two are not comparable. There is an internal self-contradiction
involved, but not on the level of a logical absurdity such as a square
circle. Likewise
concerning the notion of God.
Now let me
address your attempt to prove that theism is internally incoherent.
A. I
agree. Whether one is a theist or
atheist, most everyone agrees that ontology precedes epistemology. Objective reality (what you call
"existence metaphysics") is the truth maker, not our subjective
beliefs (what you call "consciousness metaphysics") about
reality. Truth is obtained when
beliefs/propositions just so happen to correspond to reality (a corresponding relation). Without conscious knowers
present to contemplate the existant reality there
could be no truth--only bare reality.
No one except a few crazy postmodern epistemologists dispute this.
B. You contrasted the above view with
Christianity, claiming that "the idea of god assumes the primacy of
consciousness metaphysics." I
have had a difficult time understanding what you mean here. You say the Christian worldview is
"precisely the opposite view" of A, but I don't see how that is. In A you made the simple point that
ontology precedes epistemology, and that reality is what it is independent of
conscious knowers. For the Christian worldview to be
precisely the opposite would require that Christianity advance the notion that
epistemology precedes ontology, or that reality is (human) mind-dependent. Clearly that is not the Christian
worldview. So if you mean to say
Christianity advances the primacy of epistemology over ontology you are
mistaken. If that is not what you
meant to say (and it appears from your context that it is not) then you cannot
claim the supposed Christian view you expound on in B is the opposite of the
view expounded on in A.
After
reading and re-reading your email several times I think you might have been
applying the "opposite view" of A, not to Christians themselves, but
to the God they claim to serve. If
I am understanding you correctly, you recognize
Christians assume the primacy of ontology over epistemology in the same manner
as you, but argue that the God they believe in assumes the opposite. While Christian's believe the mind is
subject to reality, when it comes to God they claim reality is subject to the
mind (of God). Since the epistemological
priority of Christian believers is the opposite of the God they serve, there is
a contradiction. Am
I understanding your argument correctly?
Assuming I am understanding your argument correctly let me offer a
rebuttal. First, if God exists and
is causally prior to the universe, of necessity we would have a situation in
which mind has primacy over (physical) reality. But where is the contradiction in
this? There is nothing
contradictory about believing a great mind created physical reality, and at the
same time recognize that our minds do not have the same capability. While the existence and nature of
reality is subject to the mind who created it, reality
is not subject to other created minds within it. A simple thought experience demonstrates
this to be true.
Humans are
creative beings. We use our minds
to create things all the time.
Let's say one day the minds of men are able to create artificial
intelligence. What was once a piece
of metal and wires will be transformed into a conscious and intelligent being.
Would it be a contradiction for these newly created conscious beings to
acknowledge that their minds are subject to the reality created for them by
their human creators, and yet recognize that the same is not true of their
creators? Of
course not. One mind created
the reality of another mind, but only the created mind is subject to the
reality created for it by its creator.
The mind who created their reality is not. In the same way it is not a
contradiction for Christians to acknowledge that their minds are subject to
reality, all the while recognizing that the reality to which their minds are
subject is itself subject to the mind who created
it.
Cartoon
Universe
While
Christians believe reality is subject to the divine mind (consciousness), the
nature of that subjection is not as you have portrayed it. I am referring to your cartoon universe
analogy. Your understanding of God
as a cartoon-maker is not true to the Christian worldview. Christians do not believe, nor does the
Bible proclaim, that God will change the world at a whim. In fact, on the Christian view God has
given us His word that He will not do so.
Having said that, clearly God could change reality if
He wanted to. In fact, on
the Christian worldview He does so on a small scale on
various occasions. We call these
miracles. A miracle is when God
does something in a way that differs from the way He normally does it. Frankly I don't see how miracles argue
against absolute truth, but I'll say more about that in a bit.
When I
speak of God changing, or to use your word, "revising" reality, I am
thinking of large scale, permanent changes such as changing the physics that undergird our universe. For example, theoretically speaking God
could decide He wants to slow the speed of light to 1/2 its current speed, or
cause hydrogen to repel oxygen, thus eliminating the existence of water. What if He did? Would that be evidence against His
existence? What if God went on a
creative spurt so that every day you woke up you woke up to a radically
different type of universe? Would
that be evidence against His existence. Clearly not! Creators have the sovereign ability to
change what they created whenever they want without consulting the thing they
created. Human creators exercise
this prerogative all the time. For
example, every year human creators revise the motor vehicles they created the
previous year. It is absurd to
think a creator cannot exist if he possesses, yet alone exercises his ability
to modify his creation. Why hold a
divine creator to a standard you won't apply to human creators?
Truth Would
Still be Truth in a Cartoon Universe
Let's
continue with this idea of God revising reality on a daily basis. Such a world would be entirely
unpredictable just like your cartoon universe. Would that change the nature of truth as
you claim (You said, "In such a universe, 'truth' is whatever the cosmic
cartoonist happens to will at that moment. But when Christians speak of
'truth', they talk about it as if it were absolute. But obviously there could
be no absolute truths if the universe were as they described it")? No.
It would only change what is true.
Remember, truth is a corresponding relation between a belief/proposition
and the objective world (the way the world really is in itself
independent of mental knowers). If reality (the objective world) was
constantly changing, a belief that was true one day could be false the next,
but the nature of truth would remain the same. If the sun appeared yellow yesterday,
and I believed it was yellow, to say "the sun is yellow" would be
true yesterday. If the sun appears
green today, and I believe it is yellow, to say "the sun is yellow"
would now be false. I would have to
believe the sun is green to know the truth today. While that kind of a world would be very
difficult to navigate in, the nature of truth would remain the same. What was objectively true,
or absolutely true yesterday was objectively and absolutely true at that
time. What is objectively and
absolutely true today is objectively and absolutely true at this time. While the content of truth would change,
the nature of truth would remain the same: objective.
Even in a
stable world like our own this is true.
What was true one day may not be true the next. Consider tensed truths. If I am scheduled to lecture on
Christianity September 30th the following proposition would be true: "I
will lecture on Christianity September 30th." However, on October 1st that proposition
would be false. Now the
proposition, "I lectured on Christianity September 30th" is
true. While this is not a change in
physical reality, the principle remains the same: propositional beliefs about
reality have changed their truth value.
No one would consider these sorts of changes in what is true to mean the
nature of truth has changed. We
simply adjust our beliefs to fit the new tensed reality. If we can do so on a micro-level, why
couldn't we do so on a macro-level?
There is no principled reason we couldn't. So truth does not assume reality is
unchanging (non-cartoony) as you assert. Truth assumes that our beliefs about
reality correspond to reality, whatever that reality may be, whenever it
happens to be it. It is false to
think God cannot change reality without sacrificing the nature of truth.
You wrote,
"But when Christians speak of 'truth', they talk about it as if it were
absolute. But obviously there could be no absolute truths if the universe were
as they described it." I think
part of the problem may be your conception of "absolute." Absolute does not necessarily mean
"unchanging." It simply
means it is part of the objective world; i.e. its truth value is not subject to
mental subjects. Granted, absolute
carries the connotation of unchanging because many of the truths we label
"absolute" do not change over time, but the fact remains that
"unchanging" is not essential to its denotative meaning. If God wanted to turn water different
colors every day, it would be absolutely true that water changes colors on a
daily basis. If God turned the
water purple on Tuesday, it would be absolutely true that the water is purple
on Wednesday. If God turned the
water red on Wednesday, it would be absolutely true that the water was red on
Thursday.
How is
Reality Subject to the Divine Mind?
Earlier I
affirmed the Christian belief that reality is subject to the divine mind, but
said the nature of that subjection is not as you have portrayed it. At the time I merely argued against your
conception of this subjection as a cartoon universe. Now I would like to positively and
briefly explain the manner in which Christians believe reality is subject to
the divine mind. Reality is subject
to the divine mind in the fact that the existence of the universe is contingent
on a conscious agent who willed it into existence. And as I acknowledged earlier, while God
possesses full authority to shape, change, or improve His creation, He does not
do so except in isolated, minute ways.
Ad hoc
Now let me
address some specific comments you made.
You wrote,
"In such a universe, one could
not say, for instance, that it is not possible to walk on unfrozen
water, for again the cosmic cartoonist could make a liar of him at any time by
having men walk on unfrozen water, such as on an inland sea. In such a
universe, "truth" is whatever the cosmic cartoonist happens to will
at that moment." The same
could be said of the atheistic, evolutionary world you claim to live in. Evolution in its most basic sense means
change over time. What was true of
the universe at one point in time may/will not be true of the universe at
another. The only difference is the
amount of time it takes to change the universe. A divine creator can change the world
instantly, whereas evolution can only do so slowly over time. But the fact remains that in both worlds
what was true of reality at one point in time will not be true in another
because evolution (rather than God) has changed reality. Are you prepared to say evolution could
make a liar out of you?
And you
can't appeal to physical laws to guarantee a static universe. For one, physical laws have been in
place since the beginning of time, and yet the world as it existed billions of
years ago is radically different than the world we live in today. More importantly, physical laws really
aren't even laws. They are
descriptions of the way things normally work. There is nothing to which matter must
conform on an atheistic worldview.
It's just matter in motion.
It's not subject to anything.
It is whatever it is. There
is no reason to think the way physical reality behaves today, it must do so tomorrow
as well. They could change
tomorrow, or over the next eon. So
how can you be assured that physical laws (rather than God) won't make a liar
out of you? On an atheistic
worldview you have no assurance that the laws of physics will remain the same. All you can say is that this is the way
things have been up to this point, and it's likely they'll remain this way in
the future. That's all the
inductive nature of the scientific discipline will allow you to say. Anything else is pure speculation. Theism actually provides a foundation
for the belief that the universe will (not "might") continue as it
has, because it is being directed by an intelligent being who has willed that
it do so, and we can be assured of that because He has communicated it to us
via revelation. Whether theism is
true or false aside, theoretically speaking theism provides a better foundation
for believing in the stability of reality as we know it.
How are we
borrowing from a worldview that contradicts our own when we "speak of
truth as if it were absolute and unyielding to conscious
preferences"? Whether God
exists or not it doesn't take a genius to figure out that we
are subject to reality, and not reality to us. All it takes is one time of running into
a wall when you're a kid. Ha! It's typically non-theists who speak of
truth in a subjectival and relativistic sense. Why? Because the best
foundation of absolutism is theism, and they know it.
2. I completely agree with you. There is no such thing as "true for
you" vs. "true for me."
What determines truth is reality, not our personal feelings, likes, or
dislikes.
You are
right. You probably won't persuade
me to walk away from my belief in God, but not for the reasons you would
expect. At the end of the day I am
a theist, not because it gives me personal comfort to believe in God despite
the evidence, but rather because I find the Christian worldview to be the most
rational among competitors. The
existence of God is the best explanation for what we know about our world. His existence best explains the
existence of the universe, the finely-tuned properties of our universe, the
origin of life, consciousness, our moral experience, and the reliability of our
cognitive faculties. Atheism is
simply an explanatorily inferior worldview, rationally speaking. I would be more than happy to offer some
of the reasons I believe in God if you are willing to consider them.
In His
Love,
Jason Dulle
Come visit
the Institute for Biblical Studies at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/
and
Theosophical Ruminations at http://theosophical.blogspot.com/