I first learned about so-called "atheistic teleological arguments" (ATAs) when I read Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification in 1995. When I first read Martin's chapter on ATAs, I found them very puzzling. Since 1995 I have thought about them off and on but without investing the time to really understand them. Since I have learned much about Bayesian confirmation theory since 1995, I've decided to finally attempt a formal assessment of ATAs once and for all. The purpose of this … [Read more...]
The Evidential Argument from Scale — Index
November 21, 2011 By 2 Comments
Opening Scene from Contact The purpose this post is to provide an index for all Secular Outpost articles regarding the evidential argument from scale (AS) for naturalism. "The Argument from Scale Revisited" by Jeffery Jay Lowder Part 1: a critical assessment of Nicholas Everitt's version of the AS, as formulated in his book The Non-Existence of God Part 2: an attempt to strengthen Everitt's argument by restructuring it as a Bayesian argument and appealing to a modified … [Read more...]
The Argument from Scale (AS) Revisited, Part 4
November 21, 2011 By 8 Comments
In this version, I am going to make a subtle switch in the emphasis of the argument from the scale of the universe to the fact that humans don't have a privileged position (spatially or temporally) in the universe.[1]PreliminariesB: The Relevant Background Evidence1. A physical universe, which operates according to natural laws and which supports the possibility of intelligent life, exists.2. Human beings are a type of intelligent life and exist only on Earth.3. God's purpose(s) include the … [Read more...]
The Argument from Scale (AS) Revisited, Part 3
November 14, 2011 By 30 Comments
In part 2 of my series on the evidential Argument from Scale (AS), I concluded that neither metaphysical naturalism nor theism explain the evidence regarding the scale of the universe, if we restrict our background knowledge to the two propositions I identified as B1 and B2. In this post, I want to explore the effect of adding a new statement (B3) to our background knowledge:B3. God's purpose(s) include the creation of embodied moral agents.I want to emphasize that I don't claim theism … [Read more...]
The Argument from Scale (AS) Revisited, Part 2
November 14, 2011 By 13 Comments
Originally published on 14-Nov-11; updated 20-Nov-11In part 1 of my series on the evidential Argument from Scale (AS), I concluded that Everitt's formulation of AS is unsuccessful. At the same time, however, I said that there is something about the AS I find intuitive and so I wanted to try revising AS as a Bayesian argument to see if I could make a stronger version. The purpose of this post is to attempt to do just that.PreliminariesLet us organize the relevant evidence into B, the relevant … [Read more...]
The Argument from Scale (AS) Revisited, Part 1
November 11, 2011 By 6 Comments
There is something about Nicholas Everitt's argument from scale for atheism that appeals to my intuitions, but I haven't been able to quite put my finger on what it is. So I'm going to try to reformulate the argument from scale as a Bayesian argument. Before I do, however, let's review Everitt's formulation of the argument. In his book, The Non-Existence of God, Everitt begins by introducing the generic form for the family of arguments of which the argument from scale is a member:Everitt's … [Read more...]
Peter Atkins’ Opening and Closing Statements for the Craig-Atkins Debate (2011)
November 6, 2011 By 2 Comments
(Posted with the permission of Peter Atkins.)Opening StatementMy immediate task is to set out my stall, not to respond to Dr Craig’s arguments at this stage: that will come later. It is, in fact, my task to bring you forward from the eleventh century, where you have been immersed with considerable erudition for the past 20 minutes, to the twenty-first century, and to present arguments based on a thousand years of increasing knowledge about the world. Dr Craig would have been a wonderful … [Read more...]
LINK: Ted Poston on the Problem of Social Evil
October 30, 2011 By 1 Comment
According to Ted Poston, the problem of evil includes more than just the familiar categories of moral evil and natural evil. It also includes social evil, which he defines as any pain or suffering brought about by game-theoretic interactions of many individuals. Social evils cannot be reduced to natural or moral evil. Moreover, traditional defenses for natural and moral evil fail against the problem of social evil.LINK … [Read more...]
Do Proponents of the Argument from Evil Try to Have it Both Ways? A Reply to David Wood
October 26, 2011 By 3 Comments
According to David Wood (see here), atheists who appeal to the argument from evil are logically inconsistent. Why? Wood offers the following explanation:For instance, atheists seem to be arguing (1) that human beings are so good that God shouldn’t allow us to suffer, and (2) that human beings are so bad that God shouldn’t have created us (or given us free will, etc.). That is, atheists are simply shocked that a good God would allow human beings to experience all sorts of pain and injustice. … [Read more...]
Is God’s Existence Obvious to Everyone?
October 26, 2011 By 10 Comments
As a 'friendly atheist,' I believe that theists can be fully rational in believing that God exists. I know that some theists are 'unfriendly theists' in the sense that they believe (1) The existence of God is obvious to everyone. But why believe (1) is true? I'm aware that Romans 2 is often quoted in this context. Notice, however, that there is no logical contradiction between believing (2) There is a supernatural creator of the universeand (~1) God's existence is not obvious to everyone.One … [Read more...]
Follow Patheos
Atheist: