"Dawkins repeated primitive and worn out platitudes such as "if God made everything who made God?"

I've seen you say something similar to this about Dawkins and this argument a few times now. I'll just point out that this 'worn-out platitude' is usually in response to some variation of the equally banal 'Boeing 747' argument from theists.

I don't think The Courtier's Reply is brilliant, but it is clever. 95+% of theology takes God as a given, when that is actually the question; discussion of salvation, grace, predestination, typically do not make any arguments for his existence. If you're complaining that it gets used as an excuse to wave away relevant theological ideas that do intersect that question, then that's legitimate, but it's no more 'anti-intellectual' to not study the intricacies of faith-based beliefs than is it to not study the complexities of astrology.
Dave L | 04.27.08 - 9:31 am | #

Dave L,

Dawkins also makes the same argument against ID, and while there are good arguments against ID, that's not one of them.

I suspected someone would bring up astrology--but it is not the same. There is a critical mass that gives a position gravitas. There are billions of theists on the planet--it is perhaps the majority view. In that case, arguments against theism do not have to be polite--but dismissing such large numbers in such a simple minded way is, well, simpleminded. Not to mention that throughout history some of the great intellectuals were (and continue to be) theists, not astrologers--so theism has a much more solid foundation of apologetics than astrology. Ignore that fact, and if the numbers of theists and astrology followers were reversed, then dismissing the arguments of theists with a wave of The Courtier's Reply would make more sense.
heddle | Homepage | 04.27.08 - 9:45 am | #

"There is a critical mass that gives a position gravitas."

Argument from popularity.

What you are really saying though is that no matter how bad the initial argument is, the atheist must expend enormous amounts of energy and make intricate, erudite sounding arguments or else it isn't serious. As if it takes a Ph.D. to combat a third grade idea so simplistic as most theological opinions.
GCT | Homepage | 04.27.08 - 10:20 am | #

Bertrand Russel is helpful in regard to the worn out platitude of "who made God?".

In his book, Why I Am Not A Christian he poses this question as asked by his father and then, in the same chapter of the book, goes on to explain why the universe did not need first cause. Does anyone else see a problem with that reasoning?
Jennifer | 04.27.08 - 1:23 pm | #

"but dismissing such large numbers in such a simple minded way is, well, simpleminded"

I'm not aware of anyone who has stated that all arguments for God can be countered by the Courtier's Reply. Rosenhouse just made a comment on his post and sums it up quite well:

"You can dispute their arguments if you wish, but it is not adequate simply to gesture to various obscure theologians and say that the failure of Dawkins and the others to address them somehow undercuts their arguments."

If one is going to complain, which is common at least for Dawkins, that a 'New Atheist' doesn't appear to understand this-or-that point of theology, it then falls to the theist to make an argument stating that the proper understanding of that point has something to say about the existence of God. It simply is not required to know theology in much depth to understand (and refute) the primary arguments for the existence of God.
Dave L | 04.27.08 - 6:42 pm | #

Dave L, Quoting Rosenhouse:

"You can dispute their arguments if you wish, but it is not adequate simply to gesture to various obscure theologians and say that the failure of Dawkins and the others to address them somehow undercuts their arguments."

I haven't gone over to read the thread, but based on what you quoted Jason is simply repeating the Courtier's reply in defense of the Courtier's reply.

And the use of "obscure" is odd. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer--these are hardly "obscure" theologians and apologists.
heddle | 04.27.08 - 10:39 pm | #

Any mortal person who claims sufficient knowledge to warrant mockery of a differing belief necessarily succeeds in crowning himself a king among fools. If anyone claims otherwise, then let him prove that he is God, and I'll reconsider.
Crandaddy | Homepage | 04.28.08 - 1:00 am | #

Just as a matter of practicality, Dave L, I would say your comment,

"it gets used as an excuse to wave away relevant theological ideas that do intersect that question"

*is* a legitimate criticism of "The Courtier's Reply," at least from a theistic point of view. For instance, the whole "God is incredibly simple!" idea some theologians have batted around (so I've heard) could be used to refute Dawkins' "who made the maker?" argument, so it's not really wise of him to just ignore it.

I'm neither a theologian or a scientist, so maybe that line of thinking is wrong, but I'm just saying it's the kind of thing that should at least be responded to, since it's significantly more relevant than the Courtier's Reply would lead one to think.
Gunbine | 04.28.08 - 2:10 am | #

Is there a reality that I am not privileged/able [pick your preference] to observe under my control, or does reality consist only of what I am capable of observing under conditions that I can control/manipulate?

How you answer this question reveals some basic assumptions about your current outlook on theology. Different answers will necessarily be diametrically opposed in further theological discussion, and neither will be able to "scientifically" falsify the other.

I guess there could be another option: if I can't observe it in conditions under my control then it's not important.

I believe that it's the lack of control that bothers non-theists in considering the possibility of God. And many seem to be falling into the school of [to use a worn out word] fundamentalism which says "If you don't agree with me, you're stupid."

I don't see anything wrong with beginning with a presupposition of the existence of God. Everyone starts with presuppositions.
Bill Nettles | 04.28.08 - 11:30 am | #

As if it takes a Ph.D. to combat a third grade idea so simplistic as most theological opinions.

Gunbine said:

"Just as a matter of practicality, Dave L, I would say your comment,

"it gets used as an excuse to wave away relevant theological ideas that do intersect that question"

*is* a legitimate criticism of "The Courtier's Reply," at least from a theistic point of view."


It's a legitimate criticism *when it is used that way*, which I'm not seeing many examples of. Heddle's seemingly acting like the Courtier's reply is invalid on it's face when addressing any argument related to theism. I suspect he knows full well the breadth of arguments (many mutually exclusive) that may be labeled 'theistic' and I dispute his lumping together all theists and treating them as if everything they say deserves a 'serious' response.

I see the Courtier's Reply as a response to irrelevant arguments. If I say that the Christian God probably does not exist because (pick a reason), and a theist replies that since Dave L cannot name all the angels in the Bible his argument is invalid, then the Courtier's Reply to the theist's irrelevant point is entirely appropriate, assuming that the theist does not tie in the knowledge of the angel's names to an argument for God's existence or against my specific argument. It's worse than a lazy, ignorant response; it just poisons the well and muddies the point being discussed.

So let's see if the rubber can meet the road on this topic; can Mr Heddle or anyone provide an actual example by any atheist using the Courtier's Reply invalidly?
Dave L | 04.28.08 - 5:54 pm | #

"Any mortal person who claims sufficient knowledge to warrant mockery of a differing belief necessarily succeeds in crowning himself a king among fools. If anyone claims otherwise, then let him prove that he is God, and I'll reconsider."

Ah, so I have to be a god in order to know that the made up religions of the world don't make sense and are self-contradictory? By the way, you do know what the Bible says about calling people fools don't you?
GCT | Homepage | 04.28.08 - 5:58 pm | #

Mr. Nettles,
"I don't see anything wrong with beginning with a presupposition of the existence of God. Everyone starts with presuppositions."

Not accepting your presupposition does not necessitate that I've formed one of my own.

Xian Cynic,
"This isn't a defense of the Courtier's Reply; it's a demonstration that you already think it true."

It is indeed true that most (I didn't say all) theistic arguments are bad.

"The point, I think, is that it is rather arrogant to dismiss the whole study and thus say that you're not obligated to engage the most developed arguments made by it."

I've yet to see a good argument for it that wasn't a post-hoc rationalization based on shaky grounds. Xianity posits truths about a fictional character that are logically impossible.

"The fact that you think that "most theological opinions" require little or no intelligence to counter probably indicates that you've never tried to engage one critically, at least not the type of arguments made by Augustine or Aquinas (the latter especially)."

Aquinas was pulling stuff out of his backside. Of his five arguments most of them are the same stated in different ways and they've all been dealt with. But, that can't be it. Nope, understanding how bad most arguments are just means that I'm stupid and unserious, right? Get over yourself.
GCT | Homepage | 04.28.08 - 6:06 pm | #

GCT,

An unjustified categorical assertion coupled with an also unjustified sweeping dismissal of arguments affirming the contrary as unworthy even of study and consideration is arrogant sophistry, pure and simple. We are owed a justification of at least one of those in any case; in this particular case, I think Myers owes us a justification of both.

Furthermore, a belief qua state of being should not be mocked. I don't care how stupid you think it is.

By the way, you do know what the Bible says about calling people fools don't you?

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22)

Dave L,

I would say the vacuity of the "Courtier's Reply" applies, to name one example, when it's used to refute the first review linked to in Myers' article, that of H. Allen Orr. I'll address Dr. Rosenhouse's response specifically, though, because it's more detailed than Dr. Myers' essay (I assume they both have doctorates, right? I don't mean to insult them, Rosenhouse says he has a Ph.D in his profile and Myers is a professor so I think it's a safe bet I'm being respectful--I mean no offense if I'm wrong).

Rosenhouse states, Dawkins provides no serious discussion of Jewish or Christian theology? Of course not, because such theology is mostly irrelevant to how religion is actually practiced.

This is, to be blunt, wrong. Quakers are pacifists because of their particular interpretation of the Bible. The Amish eschew technology because of their particular interpretation of the Bible. And, of course, the theology of Augustine plays a very important part in how Catholics actually practice their religion--something which Dawkins mentions, according to the handy ctrl+f feature I can use with my .pdf of the God Delusion (er, don't ask where I got it...sorry, Dr. Heddle, I'll buy an actual copy someday ;_; ), about 4 times as small asides (in reference to the Christian valorization of ignorance and its hangups on sexual sin, respectively). Calvin, another theologian who had a *huge* influence on how religion was actually practiced (most famously among the Puritans) is mentioned only twice--Jefferson critiquing the "three Gods" and on page 222 when telling us that evolutionary rules of thumb do not control us in a "Calvinistically deterministic way."

I apologize for the long rambling, but the point is this: Since "arcane" questions of theology are actually very pertinent to how religion is actually practiced (understanding George Fox is crucial to understanding why the Quakers are pacifists, understanding Calvin's theology is crucial to understanding why the Puritans behaved as they did, etc.), Orr was perfectly to chide Dawkins for giving the matter only a cursory examination. Anyone who writes a book criticizing how the Christian faith is practiced (among other things) should not expect to get away with discussing Augustine so sparsely and not really talking about Calvin at all, not to mention the various other examples of how 'obscure' theological quibbles have significantly influenced the "social impact of widespread religious beliefs," in Rosenhouse's words.



And, of course, my original complaint still stands--the concept of God's simplicity is a refutation--perhaps a weak one, but a refutation nonetheless--of one of Dawkins' primary arguments against the existence of God. So in response to Dr. Rosenhouse's point that the book was "primarily about the reasonableness of believing in a creator God," Orr's complaint is still valid because the 'theological minutiae' of whether or not God is simple is very relevant to Dawkins' point about how there is "almost certainly" no God.
Gunbine | 04.29.08 - 2:43 am | #

Crandaddy,
"An unjustified categorical assertion coupled with an also unjustified sweeping dismissal of arguments affirming the contrary as unworthy even of study and consideration is arrogant sophistry, pure and simple."

Thank you for noticing, which is exactly what the Courtier's Reply is satirizing...the unjustified categorical assertion coupled with an also unjustified sweeping dismissal of atheists, Dawkins, or anyone else who dares to speak out against religion.

"We are owed a justification of at least one of those in any case; in this particular case, I think Myers owes us a justification of both."

On the contrary. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you need to justify them to your detractors. Hand-waving simply don't cut it, nor does beginning with assuming your conclusions.

"By calling Myers a fool, I mean to call his actions foolish, or morally transgressive. Surely the act of calling out actions I view as morally transgressive is not, itself, morally transgressive."

Then you should attack the actions and not the person, shouldn't you?

Gunbine,
"And, of course, my original complaint still stands--the concept of God's simplicity is a refutation--perhaps a weak one, but a refutation nonetheless--of one of Dawkins' primary arguments against the existence of God."

No, it's not. The argument that spawned this was that we are complex and complex things have to be designed by other complex things, which is one of the worst ID/Creo arguments there is. In response to that, Dawkins pointed out that the ID/Creos are advocating a god that is astoundingly comples due to their own logic. To simply turn around and say that god is simple defeats the original argument. You're not refuting Dawkins, you're refuting the original ID/Creo argument.
GCT | Homepage | 04.29.08 - 5:08 pm | #

GCT,

Actually, this response would apply quite well to something Dawkins directly says on p. 147:

How do they cope with
the argument that any God capable of designing a universe, carefully
and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a
supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even
bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide?

The answer to that is that would be to claim that 'divine' foresight and thoughtfulness actually spring from a simple rather than complex source. Dawkins never really addresses that argument, although he may have been unaware of it (I was until a little while ago). To his credit, he does mention the theologian Swinburne, specifically his beliefs on how God sustains the properties of each and every electron, and then points out that "A God capable of continuously
monitoring and controlling the individual status of every
particle in the universe cannot be simple," quoting approvingly John Ward saying 'God is internally complex.'

The problem is, Ward doesn't really give any reason why God can't be simple, at least not from what Dawkins quotes of him (I haven't read the Polkinghorne book it comes from), and Dawkins doesn't either. He restates his point, yes, saying on p. 154 that "if God
has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more
elaborately and non-randomly constructed than the largest brain or
the largest computer we know." but never really explains why this has to be so.

I'm not saying Dawkins is wrong--he may very probably be right. I am saying, however, that his book would have been better if he examined specific arguments for God's simplicity instead of just saying "He MUST be complex! It's impossible!" Why? *Why* can something simple not posess advanced powers of thought and volition? *Why* must something as powerful as God be "elaborately and non-randomly constructed?" I'd wager you'd probably come up with a quick, common-sense answer to that, GCT, but Dawkins doesn't provide one, and while that might be impressive on an internet blog like this one, it's the kind of thought I would expect the author of a book to provide and "the Courtier's Reply" does little to defuse the disappointment either I or, assumedly, Dr. Orr feels over the fact that Dr. Dawkins declined to do so.
Gunbine | 04.29.08 - 6:23 pm | #

GCT,

I don't want to get into a protracted debate over the ethics of Myers' Courtier's Reply. Suffice it to say that I've read it very carefully, and I interpret it as meaning just what I said in my last comment. It would be just as wrong for a theist to give that treatment to atheistic arguments.

By the way, I overlooked this before, but the Bible verse I quoted includes the condition "without a cause" with the injunction to not call someone a "fool." I interpret this to mean 'without a [just] cause.' In my case, I believe I had just cause to call Myers a fool. (His action was foolish.) Therefore, I'm vindicated--even Biblically!
Crandaddy | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 12:01 am | #

It seems to me that the justification for invoking the Courtier's Reply in response to theological arguments is that those arguments a generally built on a presumption of the existence of a god. It really matters nill how well developed and nuanced those arguments may be when the underlying presumption is not justifiable.

The only way theological arguments could be valid is if it were possible for one to reason one's self to the existence of not just a god, but to the specific god that is the subject of the theological argument.

David, I think from what I have previously read of your thoughts, you think such reasoning to a correct understanding of your particular god is not possible. How then is the Courtier's Reply not validly invoked in response to theological arguments about your particular god?

Cheers
Shaggy Maniac | 04.30.08 - 9:14 am | #

Shaggy,

It always seemed to me that the sensible approach (as taken by Russell, for example) is to allow theists their basic presuppositions--say that God exists and the bible is a reliable account of his revelation--and then attempt to demonstrate that intractable problems will nevertheless arise. Just saying that the presuppositions are stupid, which is the gist of the Courtier's Reply, make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
heddle | 04.30.08 - 10:57 am | #

David,

Thanks for your reply. Please note I did not say the presupposition of a god's existence is "stupid"; I suggested that invoking the Courtier's Reply follows from a lack of justification for the presupposition.

My point is that, as I presume you agree, one cannot reason one's way to a god, let alone a particular god, without invoking revelation or faith. It really makes the Courtier's Reply essentially an objection of question begging.

If on the other hand you claim that one can reason one's way to a god, particularly a specific god, without begging the question by reliance on revelation or faith, I'd be interested to read your argument.

Cheers
Shaggy Maniac | 04.30.08 - 11:10 am | #

Hola Dave,
maybe I'm getting something different from it but my take is that there is no primary evidence, so no amount of enterprise tangental to faith or philosophical musings regarding the issue have any meaning, and so to cite them as 'authority' is wrong?
Rich | 04.30.08 - 1:52 pm | #

Rich,

Not sure I understand. The Courtier’s Reply, as far as I can tell, was not intended to be narrow in scope. PZ said it applies to nearly all criticisms of The God Delusion, referring to complaints that Dawkins is a lightweight when it comes to theology. Others have argued that the CR was meant to apply to only a specific type of theological argument, say YEC, or whatever argument one feels doesn’t cross some ill-defined threshold. But many who criticized Dawkins’s lack of theological savvy were not fundamentalist YECs—yet they too are taken down by the CR. I think arguments that the CR is narrow are trying to recue PZ from taking such an anti-intellectual position.

The point is that Dawkins’s “then who made God?” question is neither a serious challenge to theism or, and this is more surprising, a serious challenge to ID. In fact it is not even a modest challenge to either. Instead of Dawkins ratcheting up his arguments, the CR gives him an escape clause. That’s how I see it—and I am not sure that addresses your comment in the least.
heddle | 04.30.08 - 2:11 pm | #

Oh. I thought that "clothes" were a metaphor for " evidence for god". In which case I find it quite clever and cutting.
Rich | 04.30.08 - 5:49 pm | #

Does anyone here even know what "divine simplicity" means or the differing perspectives on it in Christian thought? No, of course not. Why not? Courier's Reply, of course. The idea of God is stupid, so the idea of divine simplicity is stupid, so I don't need to know what it is, just that it's stupid. Since it's stupid, any argument I venture against it must be valid.

Also, popular ideas may be false, but popular ideas merit serious refutation if you actually intend to reach the people that hold them. If simply dismiss them with a wave of the hand, you achieve nothing except polarizing. The people on your side become more militant, and the people not on your side simply despise you. If you write a book about how stupid believing in the pope is with a bunch of puerile arguments based on Baptist propaganda,the Baptists will rally around you, while the Catholics will dismiss you as just another hater.

Guess what? The same thing's happened with the "New Atheists." Atheists have gotten more militant, but theists just take them even less seriously.
Josh S | 04.30.08 - 6:00 pm | #

Josh S,

If you write a book about how stupid believing in the pope is with a bunch of puerile arguments based on Baptist propaganda,the Baptists will rally around you, while the Catholics will dismiss you as just another hater.

Josh S and Crandaddy (and Heddle apparently),
Since you are both having trouble with the concept at hand, the Courtier's Reply is not an argument that theology is stupid per se. It's a response to the vapid arguments put forth against Dawkins that one does not need to heed Dawkins' arguments because Dawkins has not done the pre-requisite reading in whatever arcane book or paper that they feel is necessary to critique their obviously correct and sophisticated god. IOW, the charges being leveled at Myers and Dawkins are really better aimed at those that blithely dismiss all of Dawkins' arguments and all arguments of atheists as stupid and immature or unserious by fiat.

Gunbine,
Actually, he does go into some detail as to why a god would have to be complex. This god would have to be able to communicate and receive communications from all creatures all over the universe according to Xian thought, which would cause his bandwidth to be exceeding large. This requires complexity. I think he's also arguing that complexity in terms of information is necessary. To posit that the god of the Bible or the omni-max god of modern Xianity is simple is to be contradictory. The information content of an omnipotent god is well beyond the bounds of what can be considered simplicity.
GCT | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 7:01 pm | #

Oh, BTW Crandaddy, I don't see where it says you can call someone a fool for any reason. It says that you must not be angry with someone else without reason, but the others are not enumerated in that way.
GCT | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 7:08 pm | #

Shipalogen: "In April 1922, engineers on the Titanic discovered that if they doubled the stoking crew they could raise so much steam pressure that the entire ship would accellerate, rise up on plane and do 52 knots top speed, 47 knots cruise."

Realist: "The Titanic sunk on April 15, 1912."

Shipalogen: "Another primative and worn out platitude. The Titanic only cruised at 47 knots at night, so as not to upset the passengers."

Realist: "The Titanic is at the bottom of the ocean and has been since April 15, 1912!"

Shipalogen: "That's it, don't bother doing any homework, just go ahead and make simplistic dumbass arguments, and we'll cheer you on as if you are a genius. If you can't account for the Titanic's speed, just say so."

Realist: "THE SHIP IS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BLEEDING OCEAN!!!"

Shipalogen: "Well, if you're not able to argue rationally, I see no reason to respond to you."

Realist: "Is that your mother calling?"
DJM | 05.02.08 - 12:53 am | #

Josh: "Does anyone here even know what "divine simplicity" means or the differing perspectives on it in Christian thought?"

Josh, go to http://scienceblogs.com/ dispatch...s_creationi.php

and read the comments where I've written several replies that concern this question.

Executive version: ANYTHING that can think is highly complicated. Think billions of bits of carefully ordered information for even an ape intellect. As for an infinite omniscient God - that requires infinitely more information.

Claiming that any thinking being is in some way simple is no longer valid. We know enough about minds to make "simplicity" dead in the water.

Want an example? Do you think that God knows your telephone number? Including the area code and country code? That's 13 decimal digits right there, or about 44 bits. Now how many phone numbers do you think God knows? All of them? That's billions times 44. Simple? No.

Now amp it up a bit. How many bits of information does it take to make an intelligence that can even understand what a phone number is?

The question, "Where does God come from?" is really asking, "Where does a staggeringly enormous amount of information required to make any thinking being come from?" Evolution answers that question handily for human (and animal) intellects. What does theism say about God's intellect? Where did that HUUUGGGGEEE amount of information come from?

There's nothing "primative" or "worn out" about asking where God came from. It's like the theodicy argument. The only reason it's been around a long time is that the theists are unable to answer it and unable to admit that they can't answer it, so they keep trying and failing, over and over. Oh, and hurling childish insults at their opponents. Not much of an answer.
DJM | 05.02.08 - 1:18 am | #

Crandaddy: "By the way, I overlooked this before, but the Bible verse I quoted includes the condition "without a cause" with the injunction to not call someone a "fool." I interpret this to mean 'without a [just] cause.' In my case, I believe I had just cause to call Myers a fool. (His action was foolish.) Therefore, I'm vindicated--even Biblically!"

Crandaddy, read your Bible again! The only version that has "without a cause" in it is the King James Version and the phrase refers to being angry with your brother, not calling him a fool:

Mat 5:22 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Go to www.biblegateway.com, click on Passage Lookup and enter Mat 5:22. It will start with the New International Version - no "without cause". Click on the arrow to the right of New International Version and choose New American Standard Bible and click on update. No "without cause". Continue with "The Message", "Amplified Bible" and the "New Living Translation" - no "without cause" in any of them.

You'll finally find your phrase under "King James Version", but not referring to calling anybody a fool. From there, check the "English Standard Version", "Contemporary English Version" and thirteen other translations of the Bible and none of them contain "without cause" or anything like it in any context.

You haven't been vindicated, you've been embarassed. And if any of those versions are correct, in danger of hell fire.
DJM | 05.02.08 - 3:46 am | #

David,

Do you concede the point (indeed it may be part of your theology) that one can not reason one's way, absent revelation or faith, to a correct (i.e. salvific) understanding of a particular god?

If so, do you also concede that belief in such a god is necessarily irrational?

Cheers
Shaggy Maniac | 05.02.08 - 10:58 am | #

Shaggy,

a) Yes,

b) No. The correct metaphor might be blindness. It is not irrational for a blind man not to find a painting beautiful. Nor is it irrational for that man, once his eyes are opened, to be amazed at the beuaty of what he was missing.
heddle | 05.02.08 - 11:20 am | #

David,

Thanks for your response.

In this case I think your metaphor fails because one does not start from the absence of reason (blindness) but, in fact from reason (sight), which is the only means by which one can know anything to be true. So without reference to revelation or faith, one has no justification for presuming the existence of a god. Hence, we have the basis for calling the Courtier's Reply in answer to theological argumentation that presumes the existence of a god.

Its not about "stupid"; it is about justification for one's presumptions, I think.

Cheers
Shaggy Maniac | 05.02.08 - 11:52 am | #

DJmullen,

So then where did the multiverse come from?

I'm not trolling, actually, I'm genuinely curious. I'm no cosmologist but IIRC I could have sworn I read an article in either Popular Science or Discover about how universes gave birth to 'baby universes' in some way or something like that. Am I on the right track, or has my memory failed me? ?_?
Gunbine | 05.02.08 - 1:15 pm | #

DJM,

You haven't been vindicated, you've been embarassed. And if any of those versions are correct, in danger of hell fire.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matt 23:17)

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? (Matt 23:19)

Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? (Luke 11:40)

But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? (Luke 12:20)

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: (Luke 24:25)

Crandaddy, if we wanted to be really nitpicky, since the quotation,

whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

is referring to one's *brother.* Since Dr. Myers is not your brother (in any sense of the word), you wouldn't really be condemned for calling him a fool.

That's only if we want to be the most strident of Biblical literalists, of course, but I have the feeling Mr. DJM is expecting us to be. :x
Gunbine | 05.02.08 - 8:38 pm | #

gunbine: The multiverse is low enough in information that it can just exist. Most theories either produce an eternal multiverse or a roiling boil where a multiverse spawns universes which in turn spawn universes ad infinitive.

The point is that those universes don't have to somehow acquire enough truly staggering amounts of carefully arranged information to achieve consciousness.
Dave Mullenix | 05.03.08 - 5:25 am | #

Rereading this piece and its replies, I wonder if astrology had gravitas back when Johannes Kepler was casting horoscopes for a living? And did alchemy have gravitas when Isaac Newton was filling a trunk with alchemical nonsense?
Dave Mullenix | 05.03.08 - 5:28 am | #

"I see the Courtier's Reply as a response to irrelevant arguments."

yes: All religious arguments are irrelevant until the initial condition is met. Proof of God's Existence.

" If I say that the Christian God probably does not exist because (pick a reason), and a theist replies that since Dave L cannot name all the angels in the Bible his argument is invalid, then the Courtier's Reply to the theist's irrelevant point is entirely appropriate"

not the point in the least: All religious arguments are irrelevant until the initial condition is met. Proof of God's Existence. That is the point to the Courtier's Reply. quibbling over His nature before the initial condition of proof is met is as relevant as speculating as to whether Captain Kirk preferred shrimp cocktail to Kung Pau Chicken. Kirk is a fictional character, he doesn't exist in real life. speculation is irrevelant (although fun for some)

"assuming that the theist does not tie in the knowledge of the angel's names to an argument for God's existence or against my specific argument."

Sorry: initial condition still not met. I don't care if one knows the names of the angels or not. Irrevelant. The Courier's Reply argument focuses on just that thing. All the theology in the world doesn't matter until the initial condition is met. Proof of God. (not just personal or anecdotal)

"It's worse than a lazy, ignorant response; it just poisons the well and muddies the point being discussed."

poisons what well? Intellectual integrity?
Before any of these discussions can be meaningful in any way, we need to get the first order of business out of the way. demostrable non-faith based proof of his existence.
astrosmash | 09.03.09 - 3:55 pm | #

--Got that? OK now I can tell you the I never understood the so-called brilliance of The Courtier's Reply. In effect it claims nothing more than this: there is no need to study the nuances or depths of something that is so obviously stupid (as theology). That's how the new atheists saw it.--

No, the point is that there is no need to study the nuances or depths of something that has yet to be proven to exist in the first place. THAT'S how the new atheists see it. Stop misrepresenting our case please. If you are going to represent our position, do it honestly...

--I always saw it as "don't bother doing any homework, just go ahead and make simplistic dumbass arguments, and we'll cheer you on as if you are a genius.--

What homework... Your homework? Hindu homework? Budhist homework? Catholic homework? Mormon homework?
Baptist homework. All argumments are worthless until the initial claim is proven. that's it! Not complicated at all
astrosmash | 09.03.09 - 5:08 pm | #

Thanks astrosmash. Your brilliant defense of the Courtier's Reply:

"All argumments are worthless until the initial claim is proven. "

is worthy of the topic.

I might try that in a seminar: "Your talk on String Theory is worthless until you prove Strings exist. Astrosmash sez so."
heddle | 09.03.09 - 5:26 pm | #

In order for the initial condition of proof for God's existence to be met, we must first have a definition of what God is. Until we establish what we're talking about, there is no way to test the hypothesis.

If that results in having to test a large number of hypotheses, so be it. New Atheists have a weird tendency, as you did astromash, to ask rhetorically if they should have to investigate the claims of every religion as though that were an absurd expectation. The answer is so painfully obvious: yes, yes you should. If you do not have the desire to, then please stop talking about subjects you admit to not being interested enough to learn about.

Of course, the problem is much more basic. It has less to do with speculation on the existence of God than on accurate representation of people's beliefs. When Dawkins or Meyers says "these irrational, superstitious moron Christans believe X and that's stupid and therefore God doesn't exist" and we say "no we don't, we believe Y", the appropriate response is not "oh, it doesn't matter anyways because you haven't proved that there even is a God!" The appropriate response is an apology and an opinion reformed by the facts of the situation.
Cory Gross | Homepage | 09.03.09 - 7:05 pm | #

---The appropriate response is an apology---

An apology!? Oh come now.

---An acurate representation of peoples beliefs?---

What on earth does that even mean? Who's beliefs? Which beliefs? This is just more evasive theological waffling from what I can tell. You didn't address any of my points, but simply veered off into the world of "god as idea/ metaphor

---and an opinion reformed by the facts of the situation.---

What facts? You didn't provide any. We're not talking about what people believe or whether they believe it. Of course they do. That's not the point of the Coutier's Reply.

Plus, we're having healthy old school debate here. I haven't called anyone any names or attacked any specific ideas. This is not the place for apologies or playing the hurt feelings card. (see previous post)
astrosmash | 09.04.09 - 10:02 am | #

BTW, string theory doesn't have the predictive power that something like the theory of evolution has. A really cool thing though is that string theory is on its way out as a popular idea although it's maths are non contradictory with all other mathematical physics. There's a new game in town though, Try Googling "ted talks theory of everything" The talk is practically incomprehesible to non quantuum physisists like myself but the demonstration is jaw dropping and clearly on the right track
astrosmash | 09.04.09 - 10:12 am | #

"What on earth does that even mean? Who's beliefs? Which beliefs? This is just more evasive theological waffling from what I can tell. You didn't address any of my points, but simply veered off into the world of "god as idea/ metaphor""

Hmm, I thought I was pretty clear about what I meant. Let me see if I can be clearer...

The problem with the Courtier's Reply-Reply is usually not an issue over objective evidence for God. The problem, in most cases I have seen and experienced, is one of accurate representation of what people actually believe.

A New Atheist spokesperson will make a claim that a Christian or a Muslim or somebody else believes claim X, Y or Z. They then follow up that claim X, Y or Z is stupid, irrational or whatever and therefore constitutes a logical proof against the existence of God.

However, if the assertion that I, as a Christian, believe claim X, Y, or Z and I DON'T, then to tell the New Atheist spokesperson that they are objectively wrong about my beliefs is perfectly acceptable. I am entitled to correct them and say that I do not believe in claim X, Y or Z. I then have to option of clarifying that I believe claims A, B, or C and that if the New Atheist spokesperson had done any research they ought to have known that.

If New Atheists are driven by intellectual honesty and fidelity to the truth, then the New Atheist in question should take it upon themselves to reform their opinions in light of objective evidence. In this case, the objective evidence being me not believing in claim X, Y or Z even though they said I do.

Unfortunately, they will often invoke the Courtier's Reply and say that it doesn't matter whether I believe X, Y or Z or A, B or C since God is objectively unproven. That is evasive because it wasn't even the original issue. The original issue was what I do or don't believe, how stupid that is, and whether or not that constitutes a proof against the existence of God. What the New Atheist is doing is using the Courtier's Reply-Reply to defend being intellectually dishonest.

To the point, when you say I believe a certain thing and I don't, my correcting you is not theological waffling. It is you being objectively wrong and me correcting you about the facts of my own belief system.

For example, if you were to say that I believe in a big white man in the sky with a giant beard who sends homosexuals to Hell, and I tell you that this is not at all my conception of God, it is not theological waffling. You are wrong about what I believe. Your openness to correction about my beliefs is a litmus test of your honesty and whether or not you are making an argument in bad faith.

Now, ironically, you didn't actually address any of my points either. You clearly misunderstood what I had said about the way that New Atheists tend to use the Courtier's Reply-Reply. Now how about the issue of requiring theology in order to establish the identity of the thing you're supposed to be looking for objective evidence of?
Cory Gross | Homepage | 09.04.09 - 10:38 am | #

Well done! Wow. ..I see your point. I think that we would have to spend some time ironing out semantic differences, but 'twas a fine and fair reply. We're seeing this from different angles and are essentially arguing apples and oranges...Now how to get onto the same page.....
astrosmash | 09.04.09 - 11:11 am | #

Sure thing... I guess next would be addressing the other argument I brought up, which is that one must first have an idea of the thing they're supposed to be looking for. Saying that there is no objective evidence for God implicitly assumes a definition of God. A definition of God is the necessary predicate of being able to look for an assess any objective evidence for God. Your definition of God can radically alter what kinds of evidence you might look for, find and accept. One person's claims about God would lead to look for different things than someone else's.

Therefore, any scientific discussion on God MUST begin with a theological discourse on who God is. Anyone claiming to be interested in that scientific discussion MUST become versed in theology in order to do any study whatsoever. Saying that one does not need to is merely admitting that one cannot be bothered to take the question seriously and really has no business voicing an opinion on it.

And yes, there are a lot of different claims about God out there. And yes, again, that means you do have to investigate each one.
Cory Gross | Homepage | 09.04.09 - 3:26 pm | #