CHAT: Please Break my Book!
78 views
Skip to first unread message
HJ Hornbeck
Aug 15, 2012, 12:59:27 AM8/15/12
to University of Calgary Freethinkers Club
I've been nursing a book along for the past three years, slowly
hammering it into some form. The working (and likely final) title is
"Proof of God," and it's your standard counter-apologetics book. My
current score-card stands at:
Intro: DONE
Cosmological: Needs diagrams, otherwise done.
Ontological: DONE
Intelligence: 7/8th, needs one section and some diagrams created.
Logic/Dualism: DONE (but I spot a section which could use more
footnotes)
Morality: DONE
Design: DONE
Popularity: 1/3rd, at best.
Fine-Tuning: DONE
Transcendence: Needs diagram and one quote, otherwise done.
Miracles: DONE
Witness: 1/3rd, at best.
Holy Texts: 1/2 to 3/4, needs many more references and quotes.
Pragmatic: 1/3rd, at best.
Universal Counter-proof: DONE
And it's that last bullet point that I could use you help on. The
Universal Counter-proof chapter hopes to argue against all possible
gods, which is a *very* tall order! I've done the best I could, and
I'm reasonably confident of the strength of my argument, but of course
I'd love for someone to come along and rip it all to shreds. And so,
would you mind taking my ego down a notch?
http://tinyurl.com/universalCounterProof
As a wee bit of incentive, if you post an insightful comment or
poke a few holes in the logic you'll earn a spot in the
Acknowledgements! If you don't, it's still a chance to read through my
latest universal counter-proof (those of you who tuned in for Dog
Biscuits might recognize a few bits and pieces, incidentally).
HJ Hornbeck
(PS: Don't bother commenting about my citation style, I know it sucks
dust. Hopefully I'll get a bit of time to patch that up before I enter
phase 2...)
hammering it into some form. The working (and likely final) title is
"Proof of God," and it's your standard counter-apologetics book. My
current score-card stands at:
Intro: DONE
Cosmological: Needs diagrams, otherwise done.
Ontological: DONE
Intelligence: 7/8th, needs one section and some diagrams created.
Logic/Dualism: DONE (but I spot a section which could use more
footnotes)
Morality: DONE
Design: DONE
Popularity: 1/3rd, at best.
Fine-Tuning: DONE
Transcendence: Needs diagram and one quote, otherwise done.
Miracles: DONE
Witness: 1/3rd, at best.
Holy Texts: 1/2 to 3/4, needs many more references and quotes.
Pragmatic: 1/3rd, at best.
Universal Counter-proof: DONE
And it's that last bullet point that I could use you help on. The
Universal Counter-proof chapter hopes to argue against all possible
gods, which is a *very* tall order! I've done the best I could, and
I'm reasonably confident of the strength of my argument, but of course
I'd love for someone to come along and rip it all to shreds. And so,
would you mind taking my ego down a notch?
http://tinyurl.com/universalCounterProof
As a wee bit of incentive, if you post an insightful comment or
poke a few holes in the logic you'll earn a spot in the
Acknowledgements! If you don't, it's still a chance to read through my
latest universal counter-proof (those of you who tuned in for Dog
Biscuits might recognize a few bits and pieces, incidentally).
HJ Hornbeck
(PS: Don't bother commenting about my citation style, I know it sucks
dust. Hopefully I'll get a bit of time to patch that up before I enter
phase 2...)
HJ Hornbeck
Sep 1, 2012, 2:29:14 PM9/1/12
to University of Calgary Freethinkers Club
My favorite design book opens with a tale about a Joshua tree. The
author, having no idea what one was, figured they were pretty rare.
Once she saw a photo of one, though, she realized that one was rooted
to her neighbor's yard, and her neighbor's neighbor, and her
neighbor's neighbor's neighbor...
I'm now getting the same vibe with my own arguments. Here, for
instance, is Tom Campbell-Ricketts also using Bayesian reasoning to
argue against the gods, albeit only for unfalsifiable or omniscient
gods:
http://maximum-entropy-blog.blogspot.ca/2012/08/bayes-theorem-all-you-need-to-know.html
But I had a real shock on Thursday night, when I decided to flip
open Percy Shelly's "The Necessity of Atheism" on my way home, only to
discover something that looked suspiciously like a universal counter-
proof based on Bayesian inference:
"In a case where two propositions are diametrically opposite, the mind
believes that which is less incomprehensible, it is easier to suppose
that the Universe has existed from all eternity, than to conceive a
being capable of creating it; if the mind sinks beneath the weight of
one, is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the
burden?--The other argument which is founded upon a man's knowledge of
his own existence stands thus.---A man knows not only he now is, but
that there was a time when he did not exist, consequently there must
have been a cause.--But what does this prove? we can only infer from
effects causes exactly adequate to those effects;---But there
certainly is a generative power which is effected by particular
instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments,
nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration; we admit that
the generative power is incomprehensible, but to suppose that the same
effect is produced by an eternal, omniscient Almighty Being, leaves
the cause in the same obscurity, but renders it more
incomprehensible."
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/necessity1880.html
And while I've already acknowledged David Hume's arguments against
miracles as a major inspiration, I didn't realize he turned it into a
universal counter-proof that's eerily like Dog Biscuits:
"But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion;
men, in all ages, have been so much imposed on by ridiculous stories
of that kind, that this very circumstance would be a full proof of a
cheat, and sufficient, with all men of sense, not only to make them
reject the fact, but even reject it without farther examination.
Though the Being to whom the miracle is ascribed, be, in this case,
Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable;
since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of
such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of his
productions, in the usual course of nature. This still reduces us to
past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the
violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the
violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which
of them is most likely and probable. As the violations of truth are
more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in
that concerning any other matter of fact; this must diminish very much
the authority of the former testimony, and make us form a general
resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious
pretence it may be covered."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm#section10
In fact, it seems my basic argument is popular enough to have
earned its own Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations
HJ Hornbeck
author, having no idea what one was, figured they were pretty rare.
Once she saw a photo of one, though, she realized that one was rooted
to her neighbor's yard, and her neighbor's neighbor, and her
neighbor's neighbor's neighbor...
I'm now getting the same vibe with my own arguments. Here, for
instance, is Tom Campbell-Ricketts also using Bayesian reasoning to
argue against the gods, albeit only for unfalsifiable or omniscient
gods:
http://maximum-entropy-blog.blogspot.ca/2012/08/bayes-theorem-all-you-need-to-know.html
But I had a real shock on Thursday night, when I decided to flip
open Percy Shelly's "The Necessity of Atheism" on my way home, only to
discover something that looked suspiciously like a universal counter-
proof based on Bayesian inference:
"In a case where two propositions are diametrically opposite, the mind
believes that which is less incomprehensible, it is easier to suppose
that the Universe has existed from all eternity, than to conceive a
being capable of creating it; if the mind sinks beneath the weight of
one, is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the
burden?--The other argument which is founded upon a man's knowledge of
his own existence stands thus.---A man knows not only he now is, but
that there was a time when he did not exist, consequently there must
have been a cause.--But what does this prove? we can only infer from
effects causes exactly adequate to those effects;---But there
certainly is a generative power which is effected by particular
instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments,
nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration; we admit that
the generative power is incomprehensible, but to suppose that the same
effect is produced by an eternal, omniscient Almighty Being, leaves
the cause in the same obscurity, but renders it more
incomprehensible."
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/necessity1880.html
And while I've already acknowledged David Hume's arguments against
miracles as a major inspiration, I didn't realize he turned it into a
universal counter-proof that's eerily like Dog Biscuits:
"But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion;
men, in all ages, have been so much imposed on by ridiculous stories
of that kind, that this very circumstance would be a full proof of a
cheat, and sufficient, with all men of sense, not only to make them
reject the fact, but even reject it without farther examination.
Though the Being to whom the miracle is ascribed, be, in this case,
Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable;
since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of
such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of his
productions, in the usual course of nature. This still reduces us to
past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the
violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the
violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which
of them is most likely and probable. As the violations of truth are
more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in
that concerning any other matter of fact; this must diminish very much
the authority of the former testimony, and make us form a general
resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious
pretence it may be covered."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm#section10
In fact, it seems my basic argument is popular enough to have
earned its own Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations
HJ Hornbeck
HJ Hornbeck
Sep 28, 2012, 5:07:38 PM9/28/12
to University of Calgary Freethinkers Club
*sigh* The more I read, the less original my book is becoming.
For instance, I've had a look at Candide by Voltaire, and I don't
think he's deliberately arguing against the gods. The key passage
happens in chapter 18, when Candide and his translator Cacambo talk to
a wise man in El Dorado. Candide is steeped in the philosophy of his
mentor Pangloss, a caricature of Leibniz, and thinks that the house he
lives in is the best in the world. Here's the key passages:
At length Candide, having always had a taste for metaphysics, made
Cacambo ask whether there was any religion in that country.
The old man reddened a little. "How then," said he, "can you doubt it?
Do you take us for ungrateful wretches?"
Cacambo humbly asked, "What was the religion in El Dorado?"
The old man reddened again. "Can there be two religions?" said he. "We
have, I believe, the religion of all the world: we worship God night
and morning."
"Do you worship but one God?" said Cacambo, who still acted as
interpreter in representing Candide's doubts.
"Surely," said the old man, "there are not two, nor three, nor four. I
must confess the people from your side of the world ask very
extraordinary questions."
Candide was not yet tired of interrogating the good old man; he wanted
to know in what manner they prayed to God in El Dorado.
"We do not pray to Him," said the worthy sage; "we have nothing to ask
of Him; He has given us all we need, and we return Him thanks without
ceasing."
Candide having a curiosity to see the priests asked where they were.
The good old man smiled.
"My friend," said he, "we are all priests. The King and all the heads
of families sing solemn canticles of thanksgiving every morning,
accompanied by five or six thousand musicians."
"What! have you no monks who teach, who dispute, who govern, who
cabal, and who burn people that are not of their opinion?"
"We must be mad, indeed, if that were the case," said the old man;
"here we are all of one opinion, and we know not what you mean by
monks."
During this whole discourse Candide was in raptures, and he said to
himself: "This is vastly different from Westphalia and the Baron's
castle. Had our friend Pangloss seen El Dorado he would no longer have
said that the castle of Thunder-ten-Tronckh was the finest upon earth.
It is evident that one must travel."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/19942-h/19942-h.htm#Page_80
Don't see it? Here's the basic outline:
1. Our god is the best one, and must be worshipped a certain way.
2. Other people argue their god is the best one, but must be
worshipped differently.
3. Everyone can't be right, therefore either all but one person is
wrong, or everyone is wrong.
4. Given the lack of agreement, the odds are far greater that everyone
is wrong.
Which would be fine, except for one small problem: in Candide's
fictional world, El Dorado is demonstrably better than every other
country they visit. The streets are literally paved with gold,
everyone does what they wish, and so on. I think it's more likely
Voltaire introduced El Dorado as a foil, to be a place far more
enlightened than Candide's Europe. They're the ideal, and so point
four above is nullified; the God of El Dorado is the god most likely
to exist, and thus Voltaire is only arguing against European
conceptions of God, not the very concept of a god.
But while I dodged that bullet, I fell right on another. Hard.
The Atheist Experience just had a two-hour special, and one of the
callers asked about the host's views on religion. Dillahunty winds up
giving an anti-theist argument that's eerily like my Bayesian one. Not
only that, but he also relies on an argument I use in my definition-
based one! Start listening at the 39:30 mark:
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-780-the-clergy-project-6367881
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2012-09-23.mp3
Ugh. Will I ever have an original idea?
HJ Hornbeck
For instance, I've had a look at Candide by Voltaire, and I don't
think he's deliberately arguing against the gods. The key passage
happens in chapter 18, when Candide and his translator Cacambo talk to
a wise man in El Dorado. Candide is steeped in the philosophy of his
mentor Pangloss, a caricature of Leibniz, and thinks that the house he
lives in is the best in the world. Here's the key passages:
At length Candide, having always had a taste for metaphysics, made
Cacambo ask whether there was any religion in that country.
The old man reddened a little. "How then," said he, "can you doubt it?
Do you take us for ungrateful wretches?"
Cacambo humbly asked, "What was the religion in El Dorado?"
The old man reddened again. "Can there be two religions?" said he. "We
have, I believe, the religion of all the world: we worship God night
and morning."
"Do you worship but one God?" said Cacambo, who still acted as
interpreter in representing Candide's doubts.
"Surely," said the old man, "there are not two, nor three, nor four. I
must confess the people from your side of the world ask very
extraordinary questions."
Candide was not yet tired of interrogating the good old man; he wanted
to know in what manner they prayed to God in El Dorado.
"We do not pray to Him," said the worthy sage; "we have nothing to ask
of Him; He has given us all we need, and we return Him thanks without
ceasing."
Candide having a curiosity to see the priests asked where they were.
The good old man smiled.
"My friend," said he, "we are all priests. The King and all the heads
of families sing solemn canticles of thanksgiving every morning,
accompanied by five or six thousand musicians."
"What! have you no monks who teach, who dispute, who govern, who
cabal, and who burn people that are not of their opinion?"
"We must be mad, indeed, if that were the case," said the old man;
"here we are all of one opinion, and we know not what you mean by
monks."
During this whole discourse Candide was in raptures, and he said to
himself: "This is vastly different from Westphalia and the Baron's
castle. Had our friend Pangloss seen El Dorado he would no longer have
said that the castle of Thunder-ten-Tronckh was the finest upon earth.
It is evident that one must travel."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/19942-h/19942-h.htm#Page_80
Don't see it? Here's the basic outline:
1. Our god is the best one, and must be worshipped a certain way.
2. Other people argue their god is the best one, but must be
worshipped differently.
3. Everyone can't be right, therefore either all but one person is
wrong, or everyone is wrong.
4. Given the lack of agreement, the odds are far greater that everyone
is wrong.
Which would be fine, except for one small problem: in Candide's
fictional world, El Dorado is demonstrably better than every other
country they visit. The streets are literally paved with gold,
everyone does what they wish, and so on. I think it's more likely
Voltaire introduced El Dorado as a foil, to be a place far more
enlightened than Candide's Europe. They're the ideal, and so point
four above is nullified; the God of El Dorado is the god most likely
to exist, and thus Voltaire is only arguing against European
conceptions of God, not the very concept of a god.
But while I dodged that bullet, I fell right on another. Hard.
The Atheist Experience just had a two-hour special, and one of the
callers asked about the host's views on religion. Dillahunty winds up
giving an anti-theist argument that's eerily like my Bayesian one. Not
only that, but he also relies on an argument I use in my definition-
based one! Start listening at the 39:30 mark:
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-780-the-clergy-project-6367881
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2012-09-23.mp3
Ugh. Will I ever have an original idea?
HJ Hornbeck
yppo...@ucalgary.ca
Sep 28, 2012, 7:38:26 PM9/28/12
to freethin...@googlegroups.com
There's a simple explanation. Voltaire was a DEIST, and held atheists in
horror (see his entry on atheists and atheism in the philosophical
dictionary, for instance) almost as much as he held organized religion in
horror. To him, the wise knew there was a god and that he had to be
revered, but that was the end of it. There was nothing but junk in the
Christian bible, or anyone else's bible for that matter. His justification
for his beliefs tend to be quite metaphysical, which means quite airy and
non-logical. Mostly it all stands on the fact that the world is too
intelligible to have been created by chance, something that you might
recognize in today's creationists' arguments.
Example, from section one of his entry on atheists : "We are intelligent
beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind,
insensible being: there is certainly some difference between the ideas of
Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton's intelligence, therefore, came from
another intelligence.
When we see a beautiful machine, we say that there is a good engineer, and
that this engineer has excellent judgment. The world is assuredly an
admirable machine; therefore there is in the world an admirable
intelligence, wherever it may be. This argument is old, and none the worse
for that."
Interestingly, this is what he presents as the Atheists' arguments. It's
fascinating to see what kind of rationale that people had when living in a
world without a theory of Evolution, Genetics, Cellular Biology, General
Relativity and Astrophysics limited to Kepler's three laws.
"Notwithstanding, I have known refractory persons who say that there is no
creative intelligence at all, and that movement alone has by itself formed
all that we see and all that we are. They tell you brazenly:
"The combination of this universe was possible, seeing that the
combination exists: therefore it was possible that movement alone arranged
it. Take four of the heavenly bodies only, Mars, Venus, Mercury and the
Earth: let us think first only of the place where they are, setting aside
all the rest, and let us see how many probabilities we have that movement
alone put them in their respective places. We have only twenty-four
chances in this combination, that is, there are only twenty-four chances
against one to bet that these bodies will not be where they are with
reference to each other. Let us add to these four globes that of Jupiter;
there will be only a hundred and twenty against one to bet that Jupiter,
Mars, Venus, Mercury and our globe, will not be placed where we see them.
"Add finally Saturn: there will be only seven hundred and twenty chances
against one, for putting these six big planets in the arrangement they
preserve among themselves, according to their given distances. It is
therefore demonstrated that in seven hundred and twenty throws, movement
alone has been able to put these six principal planets in their order.
"Take then all the secondary bodies, all their combinations, all their
movements, all the beings that vegetate, that live, that feel, that think,
that function in all the globes, you will have but to increase the number
of chances; multiply this number in all eternity, up to the number which
our feebleness calls 'infinity,' there will always be a unity in favour of
the formation of the world, such as it is, by movement alone: therefore it
is possible that in all eternity the movement of matter alone has produced
the entire universe such as it exists. It is even inevitable that in
eternity this combination should occur. Thus, "they say," not only is it
possible for the world to be what it is by movement alone, but it was
impossible for it not to be likewise after an infinity of combinations."
I mean, it's clearly not *true* in any direct meaning of the sense, but
surprisingly close to the truth given the knowledge they had access to.
-Yannick
> --
> You've received this message because you are subscribed to the public
> University of Calgary Freethinkers Club mailing list. Lucky you! Here's
> the rules:
> - Anything posted here winds up in an archive which is visible to the
> public. Think twice before including your phone number or replying while
> totally wasted.
> - To post an informal message on a new topic to this group, please send an
> email to freethin...@googlegroups.com with "CHAT" somewhere in the
> subject line; that little addition helps others deal with the HUGE volume
> of traffic!
> - To reply to an existing message... reply to it. Yes, it's that simple!
> - To post an announcement to this group instead, fire off a message to
> freethin...@googlegroups.com . Keep it brief and informative.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
> freethinkers-c...@googlegroups.com
> - For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this
> group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club
>
>
>
>
>
horror (see his entry on atheists and atheism in the philosophical
dictionary, for instance) almost as much as he held organized religion in
horror. To him, the wise knew there was a god and that he had to be
revered, but that was the end of it. There was nothing but junk in the
Christian bible, or anyone else's bible for that matter. His justification
for his beliefs tend to be quite metaphysical, which means quite airy and
non-logical. Mostly it all stands on the fact that the world is too
intelligible to have been created by chance, something that you might
recognize in today's creationists' arguments.
Example, from section one of his entry on atheists : "We are intelligent
beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind,
insensible being: there is certainly some difference between the ideas of
Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton's intelligence, therefore, came from
another intelligence.
When we see a beautiful machine, we say that there is a good engineer, and
that this engineer has excellent judgment. The world is assuredly an
admirable machine; therefore there is in the world an admirable
intelligence, wherever it may be. This argument is old, and none the worse
for that."
Interestingly, this is what he presents as the Atheists' arguments. It's
fascinating to see what kind of rationale that people had when living in a
world without a theory of Evolution, Genetics, Cellular Biology, General
Relativity and Astrophysics limited to Kepler's three laws.
"Notwithstanding, I have known refractory persons who say that there is no
creative intelligence at all, and that movement alone has by itself formed
all that we see and all that we are. They tell you brazenly:
"The combination of this universe was possible, seeing that the
combination exists: therefore it was possible that movement alone arranged
it. Take four of the heavenly bodies only, Mars, Venus, Mercury and the
Earth: let us think first only of the place where they are, setting aside
all the rest, and let us see how many probabilities we have that movement
alone put them in their respective places. We have only twenty-four
chances in this combination, that is, there are only twenty-four chances
against one to bet that these bodies will not be where they are with
reference to each other. Let us add to these four globes that of Jupiter;
there will be only a hundred and twenty against one to bet that Jupiter,
Mars, Venus, Mercury and our globe, will not be placed where we see them.
"Add finally Saturn: there will be only seven hundred and twenty chances
against one, for putting these six big planets in the arrangement they
preserve among themselves, according to their given distances. It is
therefore demonstrated that in seven hundred and twenty throws, movement
alone has been able to put these six principal planets in their order.
"Take then all the secondary bodies, all their combinations, all their
movements, all the beings that vegetate, that live, that feel, that think,
that function in all the globes, you will have but to increase the number
of chances; multiply this number in all eternity, up to the number which
our feebleness calls 'infinity,' there will always be a unity in favour of
the formation of the world, such as it is, by movement alone: therefore it
is possible that in all eternity the movement of matter alone has produced
the entire universe such as it exists. It is even inevitable that in
eternity this combination should occur. Thus, "they say," not only is it
possible for the world to be what it is by movement alone, but it was
impossible for it not to be likewise after an infinity of combinations."
I mean, it's clearly not *true* in any direct meaning of the sense, but
surprisingly close to the truth given the knowledge they had access to.
-Yannick
> You've received this message because you are subscribed to the public
> University of Calgary Freethinkers Club mailing list. Lucky you! Here's
> the rules:
> - Anything posted here winds up in an archive which is visible to the
> public. Think twice before including your phone number or replying while
> totally wasted.
> - To post an informal message on a new topic to this group, please send an
> email to freethin...@googlegroups.com with "CHAT" somewhere in the
> subject line; that little addition helps others deal with the HUGE volume
> of traffic!
> - To reply to an existing message... reply to it. Yes, it's that simple!
> - To post an announcement to this group instead, fire off a message to
> freethin...@googlegroups.com . Keep it brief and informative.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
> freethinkers-c...@googlegroups.com
> - For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this
> group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club
>
>
>
>
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages