Keith Parsons's Blog, page 12
November 18, 2012
J. Brian Pitts: Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument for Theism
Abstract: The cosmic singularity provides negligible evidence for creation in the
finite past, and hence theism. A physical theory might
have no metric or multiple metrics, so a
‘beginning’ must involve a first moment, not just finite age. Whether
one dismisses
singularities or takes them seriously, physics
licenses no first moment. The analogy between the Big Bang and stellar
gravitational
collapse indicates that a Creator is required in
the first case only if a Destroyer is needed in the second. The need for
and progress in quantum gravity and the
underdetermination of theories by data make it difficult to take
singularities seriously.
The singularity exemplifies the sort of gap that is
likely to be closed by scientific progress, obviating special divine
action.
The apparent irrelevance of cardinality to
practices of counting infinite sets in classical field theory and
Fourier analysis
is noted.
LINK [image error]
finite past, and hence theism. A physical theory might
have no metric or multiple metrics, so a
‘beginning’ must involve a first moment, not just finite age. Whether
one dismisses
singularities or takes them seriously, physics
licenses no first moment. The analogy between the Big Bang and stellar
gravitational
collapse indicates that a Creator is required in
the first case only if a Destroyer is needed in the second. The need for
and progress in quantum gravity and the
underdetermination of theories by data make it difficult to take
singularities seriously.
The singularity exemplifies the sort of gap that is
likely to be closed by scientific progress, obviating special divine
action.
The apparent irrelevance of cardinality to
practices of counting infinite sets in classical field theory and
Fourier analysis
is noted.
LINK [image error]
Paul Draper's Chapter, "Christian Theism and Life on Earth"
Keywords:
Christian theism and life on earth; arguments against Christian theism, CT and IN; comparing Christian theism (“CT”) to “indifference naturalism”; IN, a form of naturalism and CT, supernaturalism; evolution, on special creationism as false; implication of God's “rationality,” creating a universe; theistic objections to special creationism; methodological naturalism, in the physical sciences; IN and CT, and accuracy, to the condition of life on earth; evolution, theists the belief, of God as not the special creator
Read more »[image error]
Christian theism and life on earth; arguments against Christian theism, CT and IN; comparing Christian theism (“CT”) to “indifference naturalism”; IN, a form of naturalism and CT, supernaturalism; evolution, on special creationism as false; implication of God's “rationality,” creating a universe; theistic objections to special creationism; methodological naturalism, in the physical sciences; IN and CT, and accuracy, to the condition of life on earth; evolution, theists the belief, of God as not the special creator
Read more »[image error]
Interesting Reference to The Empty Tomb
Since the resurrection is the central event of Christian history, Plantinga at the very least should make the effort to weigh the evidence for and against this event. Swinburne believes the evidence is quite high that the biblical accounts of the resurrection are literally true; others who have investigated the matter sharply disagree.[35]
-----------------------
[35] See, for instance, Robert M. Price and Jeffrey J. Lowder eds., The Empty Tomb:
Jesus Beyond the Grave (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 2005). Not only does Plantinga not wrestle with the cogent arguments against the reliability of the resurrection narratives presented in this work, I know of no New Testament scholars who have directly addressed the essays in this book, either. [boldface is mine]
Source: Johnson, John Joseph. "Alvin Plantinga's restatement
of Augustine's freewill theodicy and its implications for his concept
of" warranted" Christian belief." PhD diss., 2009, 178. Available online at https://beardocs.baylor.edu/xmlui/handle/2104/5313 (requires free registration with Baylor)
Related Link:
The Empty Tomb Official Companion Site
[image error]
Paul Draper's Essay, "Darwin's Argument from Evil"
The entire chapter is available for free courtesy of Google Books. You may need to be logged into a Google account in order to view this.
LINK[image error]
LINK[image error]
November 15, 2012
November 12, 2012
A Red-winged Blackbird
My daughter is a freshman philosophy student who is currently writing her second-ever essay in philosophy. The topic is Descartes Meditations. We have been discussing the deceptive god and evil genius skeptical arguments for the past week.
So, my disagreement with Stephen Law about the relevance (or irrelevance) of the Kalam cosmological argument to the evil god hypothesis coincides nicely with philosophical discussions going on in my own household. One question at issue is whether the Kalam argument, if sound, provides significant support for the evil god hypothesis.
A key premise in Stephen Law's reasoning appears to be this:
1. Belief in an evil god is absurd (i.e. very unreasonable).
If the Kalam argument (if sound) would provide significant support for the evil god hypothesis, then it seems to me that the Kalam argument is relevant to evaluating this premise in Steven Law's reasoning.
Like Descartes, I have found many of my past opinions to be in error, so I wish to subject my present opinion about the Kalam argument's relevance to the evil god hypothesis to rigorous examination to see whether it holds up and should be retained, or is cast into doubt by further examination and thus should be set aside as false or dubious.
In defense of my current opinion, I will present an analogy, and then see whether others can find any critical errors or problems with the analogy.
===================================
A missionary discovered a tribe of nomads in an isolated desert region. The missionary befriended the nomadic people and in a matter of a few months was able to learn their spoken language. One evening the missionary told a story to his nomadic friends about an event from his childhood. A red-winged blackbird had landed on a branch near the bedroom window of the young boy (who would one day be a missionary), and the bird awoke the boy with noises that sounded very much like a person saying the words "Rise and shine!" There was no word for "wings" or "bird" in the language of the nomads, so the missionary spoke instead of a "small black animal that could fly" and that had red markings on its "arms".
The nomads were incredulous. They had never seen a bird and did not believe that a small black animal could fly. In their view, the claim that such an animal existed was absurd, and they concluded that the story of the missionary was nothing but a tall tale.
A month later, the missionary left the desert and returned to his home back in the USA. One day after taking a walk around his neighborhood, the missionary noticed an injured bird in his driveway. He picked up the bird, brought it into his home and over the next few weeks nursed the blackbird back to health. When the blackbird had recovered, the missionary kept the bird as a pet in a birdcage.
Several months passed and then the missionary packed his bags and traveled back to the nomadic tribe in the isolated desert, taking his pet blackbird along with him. In the morning after rejoining the nomads, the missionary produced his pet blackbird and showed it to an audience of his nomadic friends. They were amazed at seeing a bird for the first time, but remained skeptical about the claim that the small black animal could fly. So, in an effort to persuade his skeptical friends, the missionary opened the birdcage and let the blackbird fly about the nomadic camp. The nomads were astonished at this sight, and they were finally persuaded to accept the claim that there existed a small black animal that could fly.
Upon hearing the change of mind of his nomadic friends, the missionary then asked them whether they now believed his story about the red-winged blackbird waking him up as a boy by
making sounds much like the words "Rise and shine!". But not a single nomad was willing to accept his story.
Although they now agreed that there existed such things as blackbirds, or small black animals that could fly, they steadfastly rejected the missionary's claim that he had seen and heard a red-winged blackbird. Since the missionary had only given them evidence of the existence of a blackbird, and had not given them any evidence of the existence of a blackbird with red markings on its wings, they continued to view the missionary's belief in the existence of a red-winged blackbird to be absurd, and they persisted in viewing his story as nothing but a tall tale.
=========================
This analogy can be interpreted in a couple of different ways.
Interpretation One
1. red-winged blackbird = an evil god
2. pet blackbird = a god who is not evil
3. showing the pet blackbird = presenting the Kalam argument
4. missionary = a believer in the evil god hypothesis
5. nomads = skeptics who take a view similar to Stephen Law
Interpretation Two
1. red-winged blackbird = God (i.e. a perfectly morally good god)
2. pet blackbird = a god who is not evil
3. showing the pet blackbird = presenting the Kalam argument
4. missionary = William Craig
5. nomads = skeptics who take a view similar to Stephen Law
[image error]
So, my disagreement with Stephen Law about the relevance (or irrelevance) of the Kalam cosmological argument to the evil god hypothesis coincides nicely with philosophical discussions going on in my own household. One question at issue is whether the Kalam argument, if sound, provides significant support for the evil god hypothesis.
A key premise in Stephen Law's reasoning appears to be this:
1. Belief in an evil god is absurd (i.e. very unreasonable).
If the Kalam argument (if sound) would provide significant support for the evil god hypothesis, then it seems to me that the Kalam argument is relevant to evaluating this premise in Steven Law's reasoning.
Like Descartes, I have found many of my past opinions to be in error, so I wish to subject my present opinion about the Kalam argument's relevance to the evil god hypothesis to rigorous examination to see whether it holds up and should be retained, or is cast into doubt by further examination and thus should be set aside as false or dubious.
In defense of my current opinion, I will present an analogy, and then see whether others can find any critical errors or problems with the analogy.
===================================
A missionary discovered a tribe of nomads in an isolated desert region. The missionary befriended the nomadic people and in a matter of a few months was able to learn their spoken language. One evening the missionary told a story to his nomadic friends about an event from his childhood. A red-winged blackbird had landed on a branch near the bedroom window of the young boy (who would one day be a missionary), and the bird awoke the boy with noises that sounded very much like a person saying the words "Rise and shine!" There was no word for "wings" or "bird" in the language of the nomads, so the missionary spoke instead of a "small black animal that could fly" and that had red markings on its "arms".
The nomads were incredulous. They had never seen a bird and did not believe that a small black animal could fly. In their view, the claim that such an animal existed was absurd, and they concluded that the story of the missionary was nothing but a tall tale.
A month later, the missionary left the desert and returned to his home back in the USA. One day after taking a walk around his neighborhood, the missionary noticed an injured bird in his driveway. He picked up the bird, brought it into his home and over the next few weeks nursed the blackbird back to health. When the blackbird had recovered, the missionary kept the bird as a pet in a birdcage.
Several months passed and then the missionary packed his bags and traveled back to the nomadic tribe in the isolated desert, taking his pet blackbird along with him. In the morning after rejoining the nomads, the missionary produced his pet blackbird and showed it to an audience of his nomadic friends. They were amazed at seeing a bird for the first time, but remained skeptical about the claim that the small black animal could fly. So, in an effort to persuade his skeptical friends, the missionary opened the birdcage and let the blackbird fly about the nomadic camp. The nomads were astonished at this sight, and they were finally persuaded to accept the claim that there existed a small black animal that could fly.
Upon hearing the change of mind of his nomadic friends, the missionary then asked them whether they now believed his story about the red-winged blackbird waking him up as a boy by
making sounds much like the words "Rise and shine!". But not a single nomad was willing to accept his story.
Although they now agreed that there existed such things as blackbirds, or small black animals that could fly, they steadfastly rejected the missionary's claim that he had seen and heard a red-winged blackbird. Since the missionary had only given them evidence of the existence of a blackbird, and had not given them any evidence of the existence of a blackbird with red markings on its wings, they continued to view the missionary's belief in the existence of a red-winged blackbird to be absurd, and they persisted in viewing his story as nothing but a tall tale.
=========================
This analogy can be interpreted in a couple of different ways.
Interpretation One
1. red-winged blackbird = an evil god
2. pet blackbird = a god who is not evil
3. showing the pet blackbird = presenting the Kalam argument
4. missionary = a believer in the evil god hypothesis
5. nomads = skeptics who take a view similar to Stephen Law
Interpretation Two
1. red-winged blackbird = God (i.e. a perfectly morally good god)
2. pet blackbird = a god who is not evil
3. showing the pet blackbird = presenting the Kalam argument
4. missionary = William Craig
5. nomads = skeptics who take a view similar to Stephen Law
[image error]
Atheist Prayer Experiment
Justin Brierley reviews the results of an experiment in which atheists pray for 40 days for God to reveal himself to them. Go here.
Thanks to The Atheist Missionary for drawing attention to this on twitter.
This is a win-win experiment to set up for the purposes of evangelizing of course.
Reasons why you should perhaps expect some positive reports include:
(i) Atheists who agree to sign up to this fairly onerous prayer regime are more likely to think there might be something to religious belief (one positive was clearly already flip-flopping - see the letter below).
(ii) Power of suggestion: if you tell people to pray, meditate, etc. and
that something unusual may be experienced, it's rather more likely to
be reported. Chris French's experiment on crystals
confirms that people will tend to report unusual psychological effects
whether they hold a real or fake crystal - in short the effect, such as
it was, was all in the mind. There's reason to expect a similar effect
here.
(iii) Events (coincidences, say) can easily be interpreted as divine signs, even when they are not.
(iv) We have a natural propensity to religiosity. Some religious response is therefore to be expected whether or not there's any truth to religion.
Read more »[image error]
Thanks to The Atheist Missionary for drawing attention to this on twitter.
This is a win-win experiment to set up for the purposes of evangelizing of course.
Reasons why you should perhaps expect some positive reports include:
(i) Atheists who agree to sign up to this fairly onerous prayer regime are more likely to think there might be something to religious belief (one positive was clearly already flip-flopping - see the letter below).
(ii) Power of suggestion: if you tell people to pray, meditate, etc. and
that something unusual may be experienced, it's rather more likely to
be reported. Chris French's experiment on crystals
confirms that people will tend to report unusual psychological effects
whether they hold a real or fake crystal - in short the effect, such as
it was, was all in the mind. There's reason to expect a similar effect
here.
(iii) Events (coincidences, say) can easily be interpreted as divine signs, even when they are not.
(iv) We have a natural propensity to religiosity. Some religious response is therefore to be expected whether or not there's any truth to religion.
Read more »[image error]
November 9, 2012
Marriage Equality in the state of Washington
I'm proud to be a citizen of one of the first states to pass a Marriage Equality act (Referendum Measure No. 74 in Washington).
70% of the ballots in the state have now been tallied, and Referendum 74 is currently ahead by about 6 percentage points (53% to 47%).
There are a little over 370,000 more ballots to count, but 133,000 of those are from the largest and most liberal county in the state: King county (where I live), and King county is approving 74 by a large margin (about 66% to 34%), so the Seattle Times is right to call 74 as being "approved".
[image error]
70% of the ballots in the state have now been tallied, and Referendum 74 is currently ahead by about 6 percentage points (53% to 47%).
There are a little over 370,000 more ballots to count, but 133,000 of those are from the largest and most liberal county in the state: King county (where I live), and King county is approving 74 by a large margin (about 66% to 34%), so the Seattle Times is right to call 74 as being "approved".
[image error]
Darwin Gets Write-In Votes in Georgia
http://news.msn.com/politics/darwin-gets-4000-write-in-votes-in-ga
Unfortunately, Darwin lost the election.
[image error]
Unfortunately, Darwin lost the election.
[image error]
Video Commentary on my debate with William Lane Craig
Someone
was kind enough to take the trouble to make this video going through
some of the exchanges between myself and Bill Craig in our debate.
There is an error. The creator of the video says that the subject of the debate was the existence of the Christian God. In fact, the question before us was simply "Does God exist?"
However, the points made in the video remain valid, as Craig, in the debate itself, actually defines God as being necessarily good. Hence, if I can show there is no good God, I can show there is no God, as Craig understands that term.
Craig said: "Now, first of all, it’s inaccurate to call this being an evil “God”
because God, by definition, is a being which is necessarily good." [image error]
was kind enough to take the trouble to make this video going through
some of the exchanges between myself and Bill Craig in our debate.
There is an error. The creator of the video says that the subject of the debate was the existence of the Christian God. In fact, the question before us was simply "Does God exist?"
However, the points made in the video remain valid, as Craig, in the debate itself, actually defines God as being necessarily good. Hence, if I can show there is no good God, I can show there is no God, as Craig understands that term.
Craig said: "Now, first of all, it’s inaccurate to call this being an evil “God”
because God, by definition, is a being which is necessarily good." [image error]
Keith Parsons's Blog
- Keith Parsons's profile
- 5 followers
Keith Parsons isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
