I recently had a brief exchange with atheist philosopher Stephen Law on Facebook:
Law
Interesting point. Magical or extraordinary beings with extraordinary powers can explain anything you need explaining, which is one reason why they are so popular. Can't explain x? Posit extraordinary being y with desire for x and ability to bring x about and bingo you can explain it. Then you can run argument to the best explanation to conclude that your y-involving worldview explains what your rival's cannot and thus is to be preferred!
Hays
Maybe you're uninformed about the extensive literature on the subject, but it's not just a question of "positing" agents with supernatural or paranormal abilities. Rather, that's often based on direct experience.
Law
What we are looking at re this post is a very specific suggestion: that a major reason for favouring the Xian world view over the atheist is that it explains more, or provides the better overall explanation of what we observe. But it only achieves that (if indeed it does) by appealing to an extraordinary being with extraordinary powers.
Hays
If God exists, what would make him an "extraordinary" being? And is it "extraordinary" that God has powers which lowly creatures do not? Or is that ordinary for God?
For instance, there are various animals that have "extraordinary" abilities in relation to humans, or extraordinary sensory acuities, but these are not extraordinary for the animals. So that's a comparative ascription rather than an absolute ascription.
Law
…which always gives you an automatic explanatory advantage - but rarely a more rational worldview. E.g. you can't explain why your keys ended up on the mantelpiece; I can! - it was gremlins (who like hiding keys and have the power to do it) - my world view wins!
Hays
i) Comparing God to explicitly fictional critters like gremlins skews the issue. A more apt comparison might be ghosts or demons, for which there's actual evidence. Or examples of paranormal powers, for which there's actual evidence.
ii) Suppose ghosts, angels, and demons exist. In a world where they exist, are they extraordinary or ordinary?
iii) An angel might have powers that are extraordinary in relation to humans, but ordinary in relation to angels. So what's the standard of comparison that you're using?
iv) On a standard definition, if God exists, then he exists in every possible world. Assuming (ex hypothesi) that God exists, his existence would not be out of the ordinary, but commonplace.
Law said:
ReplyDeleteMagical or extraordinary beings with extraordinary powers can explain anything you need explaining, which is one reason why they are so popular. Can't explain x? Posit extraordinary being y with desire for x and ability to bring x about and bingo you can explain it. Then you can run argument to the best explanation to conclude that your y-involving worldview explains what your rival's cannot and thus is to be preferred!
The great irony of Law's statement is that it is all-to-often unbelievers, not theists, who posit the existence of an "extraordinary" thing that can account for anything.
For example, can't account for fine-tuning or consciousness naturally. No problem! Here is one infinite multi-verse, and suddenly, everything is explained.
Can't account for some obvious miracle naturalistically. No problem! Claim that super-powerful naturalistic aliens did it and that will account for the evidence just as well.
Can't seem to explain a number of features of life, like life itself, and consciousness, language, rationality, etc. No problem! Add some chance, plus time, plus an endless supply of promissory naturalism, and then sit back in the comfortable assurance that you have explained everything.
So you get the point. Unbelievers have their "explain everything" tactics as well, and they use them just as often.
Damian Michael