What Prof. Keith De Rose Gets Wrong About God Claims (Part 1)

In this blog post I consider a recent interview given by Keith De Rose, professor of philosophy at Yale University and the author of “The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context.” .   DeRose sought to assure Gary Gutting that God claims are valid and atheists have no case in rejecting them.  I will be giving my own responses after each of DeRose's, showing why he is wrong.

Gutting noted that De Rose made the following statement: “Since atheists’ only real hope of knowing that God doesn’t exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn’t exist doesn’t seem to me a very serious possibility.”

To his credit, Gutting went on to observe:

"I think many atheists would object that it’s wrong to require them to have an argument showing that God doesn’t exist. They’d claim their atheism is justified simply because there are no good arguments in favor of theism. After all, it’s theists who are making an extraordinary claim. Isn’t the lack of evidence for the claim that God exists sufficient grounds for denying it?"

This is the key point and crux of the matter, and in any initiation of debate or exchange it is always critical to tag whoever is making the extraordinary claim. Here, again, I note that the definition of 'GOD' is also relevant. If we are only talking about a non-literal or figurative deity - such as Einstein meant in reference to the "God of Spinoza" - then it is case closed because he didn't mean a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing Being but rather a regulative ideal predicated on the mathematical description of the universe. Ditto with the 'God' of Deists, who is claimed to have set everything in motion but then walked away from it. Even hard core atheists like Victor Stenger have no problem with this god as he noted in his book 'God and the Folly of Faith'.

Despite this,  De Rose's reply is as follows:

" I think you can sometimes rightly claim to know that something doesn’t exist even if you don’t have a good argument for your claim. This is the situation with the currently infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster: We all find it bizarre and literally unbelievable and so reject its existence without any argument."

I, in fact, think some of our most important and interesting knowledge comes not through anything like arguments, but from just rightly rejecting as bizarre things that so strike us."

Fair enough, but note how he's dodged the central issue. That is, how can Christians (or Muslims, or Jews or anyone for that matter) make a claim for deity without factual, evidentiary basis? But after further pressing by Gutting (a Notre Dame professor of philosophy), De Rose launches into the "God as distinct entity" argument:

"In any case, the situation is very different with God. The thought that God exists does strike many atheists as bizarre. But, in contrast to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are all of these theists and agnostics who do not find the thought of God’s existence bizarre, and I really think they ruin our atheist friends’ hopes for easy knowledge here. The basic point is that, when there are many other apparently sensible people who disagree with you, you need a good argument to claim that you know they’re wrong

But again, this is a dodge. First, because he is arguing without having delivered a formal definition of the God he's making reference to. Second, no agnostic I know withholds belief in the generic form of "creative" deity peculiar to Deism but  rather in the more specific personal deity claimed by many  Christians .  Thus, for these agnostics, profound doubt prevents them from simply accepting a deity who knows every hair count for every person in the world (and all to come)  and what each is thinking every moment. It's a stretch too far! Third, Christians themselves differ widely on the concept of God they align with. And here again, it is well to note it is God concepts we are all about here and not the actual God-GOD of reality - assuming such exists.

Again, unless one has specified the nature of the 'God' one believes in,  the discussion is sterile and without point. Since the meaning of 'God' is vague then any claim can be made, and any expeditious rhetoric delivered with its applicability never called into question. This is what's so wrong with DeRose's claim of "many sensible people who disagree with you". Uh, not so - not when you press these "many people" to sit down and specify the nature of the 'God' they are claiming to accept. Is it a personal God that involves itself in every decision and breath a human takes? Is it an impersonal God like Brahman of the Hindus? Is it a detached God like that of the Deists? Unless we know what these "many people" are really claiming or believing in then it can't be said that they disagree with atheists in large numbers - since the lack of a coherent definition accepted by all trashes the "many people" argument - which, let's admit- assumes uniformity of belief in the SAME deity.


Prof. Gutting challenges De Rose once more:

"Are you saying that the mere fact that many disagree shows that we don’t have knowledge? Most of us deny without argument the existence of the gods of many religions (the gods of the ancient Greeks and of contemporary voodoo, the pantheon of popular Hinduism). Don’t we rightly claim to know these gods don’t exist, although many have and do disagree?"

And De Rose retorts:

"When your basis is not evidence or argument, but just how the matter strikes you, yes, the fact that the matter strikes others differently can undermine your claim to know. So, in particular, I am very skeptical about claims to know that the beliefs of major religions are false just because they strike us as bizarre."

Again, the point eludes him: at the core of religions' belief systems lie the definition of 'God' that they accept. Unless one parses the definition and explores its deficiencies one cannot be said to have discovered anything about the religions' validity. As for sounding the note of 'striking others differently'  this merely returns us to the subjective nature of God concepts, which as I noted in my recent book ('Beyond Atheism, Beyond God')  means all such concepts are relative and no one can be held up as exclusively true in respect of the others. But DeRose doesn't deal with any of this, preferring to talk in comforting generalities. 

Again, whether a religion or its God strikes anyone as 'bizarre' is irrelevant to the point of the evidentiary basis. Indeed, as I pointed out in previous posts, atheists need not even disprove a religion's God basis only show that whatever the basis is, it has no bearing on how we conduct experiments in science, for example. Or how we engineer safety factors into airlines, or how we build rockets to reach Mars or Pluto. In other words, the particular God concept or belief in God is actually redundant to how business is conducted in the real world - especially for the hard sciences like physics, as well as engineering.

Unphased, DeRose continues his answer to Prof. Gutting:

"If we knew that adherents to other religions came to hold their beliefs in some way that discredits them (say, through brainwashing), we might still know those beliefs are wrong on the basis of how bizarre they seem to us. Of course there are probably some individual believers who have come to hold their beliefs in a way that discredits them. But we don’t know enough about many believers to discredit their beliefs. So I don’t think we can know they’re wrong just because their beliefs strike us as bizarre."

Again, the central issue isn't believers' adopting "discredited" or bizarre beliefs, but rather whether  the beliefs and the 'God' behind them reflect a consistent reality that is in any way observable in the physical world. People in insane asylums also hold bizarre beliefs and many even claim to be 'God' - but rational people discount them because tests have disclosed neural defects or brain dysfunctions, such as schizophrenia.  Hence the source of their information or beliefs cannot be trusted. All of which bodes caution in accepting claims, irrespective of whether we know "all about" who is making them. It is for this reason atheists constantly harp on independent, objective tests in the real world.

Prof. Gutting then at last cuts to the chase:

"O.K., maybe atheists can’t rightly claim to know that theism is false just because they find it a bizarre claim. But atheists also point out that theists don’t put forward any evidence for the existence of God that stands up to rational scrutiny. Isn’t a total lack of evidence for a claim sufficient reason for denying it?"

As usual, DeRose dodges the question and uses obfuscation:

"No. When there’s a genuine dispute, a lack of evidence on the other side does not give you knowledge if you don’t have evidence for your claim."

But the issue is first, what is being claimed and second, the comparative QA for evidence on either side.   In general it isn't a question of whether knowledge exists despite lack of evidence, but whether the side that claims belief based on knowledge possesses a consistent and valid epistemology - or method of obtaining knowledge. For example, most atheists embrace science when they adopt the "extraordinary claims" argument. Science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, on which most religious claims are based, is neither measurable or verifiable, so falls into this rejected category and that includes ‘God’. More to the point, we tend to regard such entities held by virtue of belief alone – as opposed to evidence - as evocative of superstition.  The latter encompasses such beliefs, especially when the supernatural realm is populated by invisible beings which can supposedly affect and interact with our world. To the empirical scientist this is the very epitome of superstition.

 

In addition, most physical sciences, still operate on the principle of materialist reductionism. Thus, our job and duty is to remorselessly cull all dross or irrelevant issues that clutter as opposed to expose, what our objects of inquiry are about. This means all invisible, unapproachable entities must go into the epistemological dumpster.

Prof. Gutting again tries to steer DeRose into a sensible response:

 

"Of course, many atheists insist that they don’t claim to know that there is no God. They at most maintain that God’s existence is highly improbable, but don’t claim absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. So, for example, if theists came up with good evidence for God, they might change their minds."

And what does DeRose say?

"My suggestion is that neither theists nor atheists know whether God exists. And here I don’t just mean that they don’t know for certain, but that they don’t know at all."

This is true, but as a long time atheist would aver: It doesn't matter! Whether God exists has no bearing whatsoever, none, on the quality of our scientific research, its testable hypotheses, or how the tests are conducted. Apart from which, one can't say "atheists don't know whether God exists" unless the definition of God is first given - which DeRose clearly avoids in each of his responses.

For example, if "God" is taken to be identifiable with the universe itself (pantheism), there is good reason not to accept it. After all, it was Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts who first alluded to the danger of pantheism when he asked the question (in his book, 'Does It Matter?'):

"If the universe is identified with God, and the universe is destroyed in a 'Big Crunch' or superheated explosion, does that mean God is destroyed too?"

By the same token, if "God" is taken to be defined as the ultra-Being of ancient theology: i.e. as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. there is also excellent basis to reject it since the "Omni" attributes end up making the Being contradictory as I pointed out in the penultimate chapter of my own book.

 None of this DeRose appears to grasp - or if he does, he prefers to let it slide or cover in obfuscations. As when he continues:

"I don’t think the arguments for either theism or atheism lead to knowledge of their conclusions. But there are arguments on both sides from premises that someone might reasonably judge to be plausible. If you find it quite probable that God does not exist, I think it’s perfectly possible that you are reasonable to think as you do. But this doesn’t mean that someone who thinks it is likely that God does exist can’t likewise be reasonable in holding that position."

True, in terms of the latter, but only again IF his God is defined. As we see already from these responses in Part 1, DeRose can get away with a lot because all the way through he adopts an elastic definition within which he can contain a baby asteroid, or more to the point -  mold his responses any way he wants to fend off Gutting's probes while making it appear ALL theists are as rational as your basic, garden variety, scientifically informed atheist.

More to come in Part 2.

 

'God and Astronomy' - What Bob Berman Gets Wrong

ASTRONOMY Magazine Contributing editor Bob Berman,  in an article in the latest issue (August, p. 11, God and Astronomy) , literally steps into a cultural quagmire almost as treacherous as lax pundits have done in the political minefield of the JFK assassination. That is, he interjected the issue of God in trying to literally tone down empirical and observational science and its claims for confident knowledge,  while seeking some kind of putative accommodation with America's vast population of God believers. (And creationist know-nothings.)

Let me say ahead of time this is about like trying to square a circle, especially given that this nation's believers along with their religiosity, are outliers in terms of their peers in other industrial nations. The graphic below shows this:

Showing successful societies in relation to degree of religious beliefs (from Free Inquiry, Vol. 29, No. 1 Jan. 2009). Basically, for  18 out of 19 of the most prosperous democracies,  the share of population reporting absolute belief in a god or gods ranges from between as little as a few percent to at most one-half. In some of these nations, mainly in western Europe, two-thirds proclaim to be either atheists or agnostics. Compare this to the outlier U.S. (U) where 83 percent express solid belief- and this is for the patriarchal, personal version of a hyper-engaged deity.

Hence the stage is set already for strife and much debate, argument.  He starts out by describing how the very first COSMOS episode, with the animated segment on Giordano Bruno, irritated hordes of believers (mostly devout Christians) when Bruno - while being tortured - turned his head away from a crucifix in disgust. Well, uh duh!  You are getting some delicate parts roasted and broasted with assorted fiery implements and what do you expect him to do? Smile and shout, 'Thank ye, Jeezus!" Come on!

He then notes that "it's not lost on them that the original COSMOS was hosted by a proclaimed agnostic, Carl Sagan".  Which of course, is a common misperception - since Sagan was as much an atheist as I am. He just didn't want to disclose it for a very sensible reason: he knew by the time he'd become a famous popularizer that he had a very successful enterprise going with all his books. He didn't want to foul it up by spooking too many of his countrymen by saying the A-word. So he played it coy, much like Einstein before him (with his "God of Spinoza") and didn't let on - though if you parse his words it's clear he's an implicit or agnostic atheist.

At other times, and in assorted other interviews, it seems Sagan himself isn't clear what he is. For example, on one occasion he stated:

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

Also:

"An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God."

Which suggests Sagan wasn't really au fait with either atheism or agnosticism. In fact, an agnostic atheist is exactly someone who withholds belief until there is evidence for a claim. A pure agnostic is one who asserts there is an impossibility of ever knowing enough to confer belief.  He subscribes to the tenet that our brains are simply not up to the capacity to ever be in such an ultimately knowing position.

Moreover, Sagan is wrong that an "atheist is someone who knows there is no God." This is the cartoon version of atheism.   What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of God is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions. (The closest to what Sagan identified as atheism relates to the explicit atheist who maintains there can never be any evidence for a God because the natural sciences can have nothing to do with the supernatural.)

The gist of it is that the atheist maintains the probability is very high that there is no ultimate force out there, and we are on our own. Which is precisely the point Carl Sagan makes in the last segment shown of the final new COSMOS episode ('Unafraid of the Dark'), with the focus on the 'pale blue dot' of Earth.

 Anyway, Berman also misfires on a number of other levels. He writes, for example,  that the new COSMOS’ series  “continues the series’ conviction that a belief in God is a superstition anathema to science”. But as I noted in my own ASTRONOMY magazine article:  ‘The God Factor’ (Astronomy Forum, March, 1990), science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, which is neither measurable or verifiable, falls into this category and that includes ‘God’. More to the point, we tend to regard such entities held by virtue of belief alone – as opposed to evidence - as evocative of superstition.  The latter encompasses such beliefs, especially when the supernatural realm is populated by invisible beings which can supposedly affect and interact with our world. To the empirical scientist this is the very epitome of superstition.

This is reinforced by the fact that astronomy, like most physical sciences, still operates on the principle of materialist reductionism. Thus, our job and duty is to remorselessly cull all dross or irrelevant issues that clutter as opposed to expose, what our objects of inquiry are about. This means all invisible, unapproachable entities must go into the dumpster.

 Another cartoonish error Berman makes is when he claims that  “atheism cannot prove God’s nonexistence”  (i.e.. cannot disprove God’s existence) but as anyone who’s studied logic knows, you cannot prove a negative anyway.  Once again, atheism doesn't claim to prove God's nonexistence, only point out that the concept is superfluous to the advance of empirical science - which like it or not is inherently materialistic. This is the very emphasis that Neil deGrasse Tyson made in repeated episodes of COSMOS.

Berman is more or less aghast at this, as when he remarks: "The advocacy segments in shows like COSMOS may be well intentioned but I fear they may merely harden those who think science is a 'position' or 'view' of the world rather than an impartial portal to truth." 

But Berman doesn't seem to grasp here that science DOES take a position or view (naturalistic or materialistic) which undergirds its naturalistic approach to inquiry - in order to take an impartial approach to the natural world. If it allowed subjective beliefs to hold sway, or adopt any openness to supernaturalism, the impartial search for natural truth would be destroyed.

 What Berman reveals here is a tacit fear that science will alienate the American yahoo masses if it too explicitly declares its naturalistic basis in the approach to scientific inquiry. But know what? Tough shit! That is the way science works, like it or leave it - and go back to statues, crosses, and King James bibles. Moreover, I fail to understand why Berman is trying so desperately to appease and appeal to the American believer masses, when most educated Europeans have long past moved into a post-Christian era. (See above).

This unfortunate strain of timidity and unwillingness to upset the little godly believers also explains Berman's recalcitrance in acknowledging science' advance even when the probability is overwhelming that such advance is real. He states we need to more often respond "I don't know" to a lot of areas of inquiry like dark energy, etc. Which is true, but you can't be saying that ALL the time, or even most of the time, just because you're intent on projecting false humility to not scare away the religious masses!

This is also why he declares that the Big Bang is not the birth of the universe - as many cosmologists have described it - but "the birth of the observable universe" - which seems like extreme hair splitting to me. If one uses the cosmic microwave radiation to trace back the thermodynamic conditions in time, as Steven Weinberg shows in 'The First Three Minutes' - one definitely comes to a super dense, hot state with the cosmos the rough size of an atom.(If this isn't a 'birth' I don't know what is!)

Berman also seems not to grasp that the invocation of God in any domain is laden with peril because even if we did agree some ultimate power started at all (as I pointed out in my 1990 Astronomy article) there’d still be no agreement on the entity’s attributes, nature or powers. Even Berman acknowledges this observing that some see a ‘creator’ that stands apart from the universe, while others see an underlying intelligence in nature.( Sagan, for his part, equated 'God' to the physical principles and laws that govern the universe, which let's be clear, is more a physical God.)  The point here is that it makes more sense not to interject the issue of 'God' at all, because no two people can even agree on what the noun means.

Berman makes the further statement that:  “some astrophysicists are agnostics or atheists”  (implying the numbers are too small for believers to worry over) but this misses the larger point: that while 83 percent of Americans believe in God, only 33 percent of physical scientists do (according to a 2006  NY Times study). This bifurcation of belief is what we ought to be most concerned about. It sets the stage for an ongoing tension between scientists and the bulk of the American populace (which let us also recall, as I showed above, is an outlier compared to the rest of the advanced industrial world in terms of God belief and religiosity)

As for Bob Berman's claim that “the majority of the world regards the universe as suffused with intelligence” let’s bear in mind that popularity alone has never led to objective truth. At one time, the majority of the world also believed that the world was flat and that the Earth was actually the center of the universe. I am not saying here that the cosmos is not imbued with intelligence, it well might be (as I indicate in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'). What I am saying is that you cannot arrive at objective truth by means of assessing a poll or a vote then saying a "majority" decided it. This also means the IAU Pluto vote - to dethrone that small orb from proper planethood - was off base and wrong-headed.

 Science, including astronomy, proceeds by a certain methodology and is inherently naturalistic. The problem will always be that this delimitation will never satisfy those who espouse a supernatural domain or alternate supernatural  “universe”.

The sooner Bob Berman and other popularizers understand that, the quicker we can allow scientific inquiry to proceed without fretting over public alienation or loss of funding because a certain segment of the populace will go ballistic if their magic realms are marginalized.  Look at it this way: an advancing nation on the road of progress embraces the REAL. A backward, declining nation - one heading toward oblivion and collapse-   embraces the UNREAL.

That's the choice we have, and it ought to be easy,  though after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, I am not sure it can be. Those five Justices have clearly shown not even they can discern the real from the unreal. And if they can't,  how many millions of others (many clapping and cheering the decision) are in the same unreal boat?