Category Archives: Philosophy

Atheism, Morality, Philosophy

Why Ought I Act Morally? Part 1

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This week I’ve been listening to a debate between Matt Slick (Christian) and Dan Barker (atheist) on whether humans can be good without God.  Barker’s argument during the debate struck me as illogical, and here’s why.

Barker explained that moral values are merely natural inclinations that are built into human beings due to the long process of evolution.  These inclinations vary from person to person across a statistical distribution.  Some people feel a strong inclination to help the poor and some don’t.  Some people are strongly opposed to rape and some are not.

For every natural, moral inclination there is a statistical bell curve across humanity.  Evolution has bequeathed moral inclinations to humans, but to varying degrees.  At one point, Barker even said that it may be evolutionarily necessary for this bell curve to exist.  To give an example, it may be that if everyone was strongly opposed to murdering the innocent, this may not best advance the survival of the human race.  We can’t have everyone acting like Mother Theresa or else our species might die out.  The converse is also true: a world full of Hitler’s would also kill off the human race.

I agree with Barker that some people have stronger moral inclinations than others and that some of this variation may be genetic.  What I don’t understand is the next move he made in the debate.

He then offered his definition of behaving morally: do less harm.  For Barker, this phrase neatly encapsulates the diverse natural instincts that evolution has given us.  In essence, Barker is saying, “Nature has caused us to have these inclinations and if I had to come up with a phrase to describe what these inclinations are telling us to do, it is ‘do less harm.'”  Barker is acting as Nature’s ambassador and explaining to us in a command what she actually wants from us.  From then on, Barker repeatedly stated that humans ought to do less harm, with the situation determining how that plays out.

In the next post, I will explain why Dan Barker’s approach does not work.  See you then.

Existence of God, Philosophy, Science and God

Can the Mind Be Explained by Physics?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Some naturalists are betting on it, because ultimately physical laws, in their worldview, have to explain everything.  For the naturalist, there is nothing but physical reality which is governed by physical laws.  That being the case, everything, including the human mind, must be reduced to the purely physical and mechanistic.

Philosophers have pointed out serious problems with this attempt to reduce the mind to physics.  In a fascinating discussion of the origins of modern science, philosopher Richard Swinburne explains that mental states have been purposefully excluded by scientists because mental states were not seen as anything that science could measure or investigate.  Here is Swinburne:

Thermodynamics was conceived with the laws of temperature exchange; and temperature was supposed to be a property inherent in an object.  The felt hotness of a hot body is indeed qualitatively distinct from particle velocities and collisions.  The reduction was achieved by distinguishing between the underlying cause of the hotness (the motion of the molecules) and the sensations which the motion of molecules cause in observers. . . .  But this reduction has been achieved at the price of separating off the [sensation] from its causes, and only explaining the latter.  All reduction from one science to another dealing with apparently very disparate properties has been achieved by this device of denying that the apparent properties (i.e., the ‘secondary qualities’ of colour, heat, sound, taste, etc.) with which one science dealt belonged to the physical world at all.  It siphoned them off to the world of the mental.

But then, when you come to face the problem of the sensations themselves, you cannot do this.  If you are to explain the sensations themselves, you cannot distinguish between them and their underlying causes and only explain the latter.  In fact the enormous success of science in producing an integrated physico-chemistry has been achieved at the expense of separating off from the physical world colours, smells, and tastes, and regarding them as purely private sensory phenomena.  The very success of science in achieving its vast integrations in physics and chemistry is the very thing which has made apparently impossible any final success in integrating the world of mind into the world of physics.

Swinburne’s point is profound.  Modern science was never meant to deal with the mind and its mental states.  Not only that, but its very avoidance of explaining the mind is what has made it so successful.  Naturalists who demand that science explain the mind are asking it to do the impossible.  Maybe the mind is not reducible to physical laws.  Maybe it’s just the opposite – physical laws are ultimately reducible to The Mind.

Atheism, Morality, Philosophy, Theology

Is God the Source of Morality?

56 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Christians assert that God is the only source of morality.  Wanting to reject this assertion, atheists sometimes offer a counter-argument which claims to invalidate the Christian God as the source of morality.

The challenge is often referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma because it was first raised in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro.  The argument goes like this.  Either something is good because God commands it, or else God commands something because it is good.

Christians have problems with both options.  If you say something is good because God commands it, then right and wrong are arbitrary.  God could command tomorrow that murder, rape, and theft are right, and that love, kindness, and generosity are wrong.  That seems bizarre; it runs counter to all of our common moral intuitions.  It also conflicts with traditional and orthodox concepts of the Christian God.  If murder and rape can be declared good, then we have no idea what kind of God we are worshiping.

On the other hand, if God commands something because it is good, then goodness exists outside of God.  The ground for morality would then be independent of God –  a stand-alone entity.  God would be subservient to this source of morality, and therefore not God at all.  The Christian God is not subservient to anything outside himself.

What is the solution to this dilemma?  Christians have split this apparent dilemma by offering a third option: goodness is part of God’s nature.  God, according to Christians, is the good.  God commands the good because he is essentially good.  His nature does not change, so he cannot declare murder to be right tomorrow.  On the other hand, morality does not exist outside of him, but as part of him.  He is only subservient to himself, which is no subservience at all.

It turns out that no dilemma really exists once you understand the nature of God.  He truly is the source for all moral values and duties.

General Apologetics, Philosophy

Are You Refuting Yourself?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most common mistakes in thinking I have seen in discussions on the blog is the making of self-refuting statements.  According to philosopher J. P. Moreland, a self-refuting statement is a statement which “refers to itself and fails to satisfy its own criteria of rational acceptability or truthfulness.”  An example would be the following:

“No English sentence is longer than three words.”

Obviously this is an English sentence which is longer than three words, so the very statement itself fails to meet its own criteria.  Here is another example that Moreland offers:

“There are no truths.”

The person making this statement obviously thinks that this statement is a truth, so once again the statement fails to meet its own criteria.

Moreland concludes, “They refer to themselves and they falsify themselves. Self-refuting statements are necessarily false; that is, they cannot possibly be true.”  Here are some additional examples of self-refuting statements:

“I do not exist.” The problem here is that a person must exist to make the statement that they do not exist.

“Anyone who is biased should not be trusted.” Isn’t the person who is making this statement biased himself?

“Only science gives us true knowledge.” How do you know that statement is true?  It isn’t a statement of science.

“All truth is relative.” Is that truth relative?

“There are no absolutes.” Is that statement absolutely true?

“It’s true for you, but not for me.” Is that statement only true for you or is it true for everyone?

“You should be skeptical of everything.” Should we be skeptical of that statement?

“You can’t know anything about God.” Do you know that God is unknowable?

“You ought not judge.” Isn’t that a judgment?

“You should be tolerant.” Aren’t you being intolerant of me?

It is amazing to see how many times these kinds of statements are made.  One tip-off that a self-refuting statement my be on the way is if a person uses the words all, every, or no.  These words indicate that the statement is going to be a universal categorical statement, meaning that it will encompass all of its class.  Sometimes these words are implied in the statement without being explicitly included, so you’ll have to be watchful.

A person making one of these self-refuting statements can correct the situation by changing all or every to some.  For example, instead of saying, “All truth is relative,” a person could say, “Some truth is relative.”  The drawback is that the statement is now weaker and has less force, but at least it is not self-contradictory any more.  Better to make a weaker statement than a statement that flatly contradicts itself.

Intelligent Design, Philosophy

How Can We Tell the Difference Between Real Science and Pseudo-Science?

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most common charges that intelligent design (ID) opponents hurl at ID theorists is that ID is not real science.  They will say that a real scientific theory must be testable against the empirical world, must make predictions, must be falsifiable, must be explanatory by reference to natural law, and so forth.  They point to ID and say that it doesn’t meet all of these criteria, and therefore ID must not be science.

But is that true?  Are there really criteria that define whether something is science or not science?  Well, if you ask philosophers of science (the academic experts on this question), they will tell you that no such criteria exists.  Every attempt at formulating an ironclad set of criteria has ended up accidentally excluding what scientists consider to be legitimate scientific fields.  There is no set of agreed upon criteria for separating science from pseudo-science; it just doesn’t exist among philosophers of science.

According to philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, leading philosophers of science such as Larry Laudan, Philip Quinn, and Philip Kitcher have argued that the question of whether something is science or non-science is both “intractable and uninteresting.”  Meyer explains that “they and most other philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is ‘scientific’ according to some abstract definition, but whether a theory is true, or supported by the evidence.”

That is the key.  Theories should not be rejected or accepted with definitions of what is or is not science, but with the evidence that supports the theory.  This concept seems so simple and obvious, but the attempt at demarcating between science and non-science is a favorite technique of ID opponents.  By calling ID non-scientific, opponents never have to look at the evidence.  How convenient!  Call it pseudo-science and move on, without ever stopping to examine the evidence or evaluate the arguments offered by ID proponents.

Meyer quotes one philosopher of science, Martin Eger, who concludes, “Demarcation arguments have collapsed.  Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore.  They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that’s a different world.”  Indeed it is.

For further reading on this issue, see this article by Stephen Meyer.

Inerrancy, Philosophy

Are You Arguing Badly?

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Have you ever been arguing (holding a rational discourse where you are giving evidence to support your position) with someone and realized that they are not arguing against your position at all?  Instead, they are arguing against a distorted or false version of your position.  As I’ve discussed the beliefs of Christianity and the evidence for those beliefs over the last 7 years, I’ve seen this happen frequently.

What is going on when this happens?  After all, it’s pretty hard to get going with an argument if you can’t even agree what you’re arguing about.  There could be several reasons why your opponent is arguing a different version of your position.

  1. They may not understand your position even after you’ve explained it.
  2. They may assume they know your position before asking you.
  3. They may understand your position but purposefully distort it because the distorted version is easier to disprove.

Regardless of the reason, if your opponent is arguing against a false or distorted version of your view, then he is committing what philosophers call the “straw man” fallacy.  The fallacy is thus named because it is easier to knock down a straw man than a real man.

An example might be helpful.  Recently a Muslim commented on the blog that when Christian apologists are confronted with the inconsistencies and contradictions in the New Testament Gospels, they admit the contradictions but argue that the Gospels are still inspired and inerrant because each of the Gospels still contains the same basic message about Jesus and his life.

The problem is that the Muslim has distorted the apologist’s position.  First of all, apologists typically do not agree that there are contradictions in the Gospels.  Second, when Christian apologists are discussing the differences in the Gospel accounts, they are not discussing inspiration and inerrancy at all; rather, they are usually talking about the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts (see this post for more on this topic).

The trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives and the inerrancy of the Bible are two disparate topics that our Muslim commenter is confusing by mashing them together into one phantom argument that no apologist makes.  So our Muslim friend is committing the straw man fallacy.  He is arguing against a false view that no Christian apologist holds.

If you are ever arguing with someone, make sure you understand their view before you engage.  I know this can be difficult sometimes (I struggle to do it myself), but it is so important.  If you don’t engage your opponent’s true viewpoint, you will never make any progress toward understanding his point of view and then making rational arguments against it.  All you’re really doing is knocking over straw men.

Existence of God, Philosophy

A Simple Argument for God’s Existence

13 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A couple months ago, we featured a 7 minute audio clip from philosopher Peter Kreeft’s lecture on arguments for God’s existence.  For this post, we are presenting an additional clip from the lecture – this time on the first cause argument for God’s existence.  Again, Kreeft does a wonderful job simplifying the argument so that anyone can understand.  Enjoy!

[audio:https://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Arguments-for-the-Existence-of-God-First-Cause.mp3|titles=The First Cause Argument]
Atheism, Creation, Existence of God, Philosophy

Why is Stephen Hawking Wrong about God?

35 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In Stephen Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design (I haven’t read it yet, but I have read Hawking’s introduction and pre-release interviews), he offers explanations as to why our universe exists and why there is such incredible fine tuning in our universe to support advanced life on earth.  His answer seems to be that the laws of physics are the explanation.  There is no need for God.

Enter Professor John Lennox.  He wrote an excellent piece recently dealing with Hawking’s claims head on.  Lennox begins:

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

Lennox then goes on to further explain the mistake that Hawking is making:

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  –  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

The rest of Lennox’s article takes on other aspects of Hawking’s arguments and is well worth reading.

*Another response: Alister McGrath has also written a brilliant article addressing Hawking’s book.

Philosophy, Theology

Is God Subject to Logic?

30 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Over the past couple years of blogging, one of the most common areas of confusion in the blog comments has been about the relationship between logic and God.  Did God create logic like he created humans?  Did logic exist before God, so that God is subject to logic?  Can’t God do away with the laws of logic?  Can’t he violate the laws of logic?

The first thing we need to do is define what logic is.  A simple definition of logic is “the study of right reason.”  The foundation of right reason is embodied in three laws of logic that are undeniable.

The law of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

The law of excluded middle states that a thing is either A or non-A.

The law of identity states that if a thing is A, then it is A.

All logic, and thus all right reasoning, is built off of these three laws.  They are undeniable.

So now to the question.  Are these laws subject to God or is God subject to them?

The answer is that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God.  In other words, logic is built into God.  He did not create logic like he created humans, but neither did logic exist as some sort of entity outside of God.  Since God has always existed, and the laws of logic are based in God, then the laws of logic have always existed as well.

Can God violate the laws of logic?  No, because he cannot not be himself.  Whatever God is, he is eternally.  God does not shut down various attributes of his being, like cutting off lights in different parts of the house.  God is logical, he always has been logical, and he always will be logical.

Someone might object, “Doesn’t this mean God is limited by logic?”  This objection has always struck me as strange because logic is synonymous with rationality.  Is God limited to being rational?  Well yes, in the same way he is “limited” by his goodness, or his beauty, or his holiness.  God is never evil, ugly, or unholy; likewise, God is never illogical or irrational.

It is extremely important to note that humans could never know anything about God without the laws of logic.  Without the laws of logic, God could exist and not exist, God could not be God, God could be good and non-good (evil), and so forth on and on.  Logic is essential to our knowing God.  Christians who denigrate logic are, in effect, denigrating the foundational tools that we have to know anything about God.

Another objection that has been raised is that since God can do the impossible, then when we say he cannot be illogical, then we are saying he cannot do the impossible.  The misunderstanding comes from the word impossible.  Biblically, God may do what is impossible for human beings to do, but the Bible does not say that God can do what is logically impossible.

For example, objectors may argue, “God can raise people from the dead, but that’s impossible!”  Well, that’s impossible for humans, but it’s not logically impossible.  There is a big difference between the two.

In summary, logic is built into God as part of his nature, so God is not subject to logic as if logic is some force outside of him.  But he is “subject” to logic because he cannot deny himself.

Philosophy

Global Warming: Science and Rhetoric – Part 2

Leave a comment
Save Planet Earth

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This post is a continuation from Part 1 where we introduced the recent NOAA report on global warming.  The purpose of our analysis is to try and find out what the data is actually saying by stripping out some of the non-scientific rhetoric present in the report synopsis.

After presenting the ten indicators of global warming, the report discusses where the warming has been going.  According to the NOAA, “More than 90 percent of the warming that’s happened on earth during the past 50 years has gone into the oceans.”  Why is this important?  First, it explains why sea levels are rising.  Second, the oceans will hold the heat longer, extending the warming trend.  The warming oceans set up the next section of the synopsis.

The next section begins to draw out implications of global warming, and here is where the science moves quickly into fear-mongering.  Consider this passage:

At first glance, the amount of increase each decade – about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit – may seem small. But the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense. Continued temperature increases will threaten many aspects of our society, including coastal cities and infrastructure, water supply and agriculture. People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created – one that’s warmer and more extreme.

No mention is made of the potential positive impact of a warming planet on agriculture, water supply, etc.  The report just assumes that the climate from 1850 to 1960 is ideal for human civilization without justifying that highly dubious assumption.  Maybe warming will actually be a net positive for human civilization, but nowhere does the report even raise this as a possibility (see this recent essay on how cities will adapt to climate changes).  In addition, notice the use of these inflammatory words: “intensifying,” “intense,” “threaten,” “extreme.”  Why use these words in a dispassionate scientific report unless you are driving an agenda?  Just report the data, please.

The synopsis then anticipates those who will say that short-term temperatures may not be warmer in their location (for example, our local area was much colder than normal last winter).  The report reminds readers that these local fluctuations are to be expected, but the overall trend is toward a warmer planet.  Fair enough.

The most questionable section of the synopsis now takes the stage.  The authors present six extreme weather events from 2009, chronicling deaths and property damage from floods, heat waves, cyclones, and record winds.  Then, without comparing these 2009 weather events to weather events of previous years, the synopsis goes on to say, “Extreme weather events are unavoidable. But a warmer climate means that many of these events will be more frequent and more severe.”  (emphasis added).

The message is clear: if we don’t stop global warming, our way of life is threatened and more of us will die.  Really?  Is there no chance that warming temperatures may produce any good consequences?  Are all the consequences bad?  Surely not, but we don’t hear about any of those possibilities in this report.  It’s doom and gloom.  Why?  Because you can’t get taxpayer money without a crisis.

After analyzing the actual data in the report, there is a compelling case for global warming since 1960.  The data does seem to point in that direction.  The data also seems to indicate that the oceans are retaining the heat.

Beyond that, there is an attempt to scare people.  We are given weather anecdotes from 2009 and told that “more bad stuff like this is going to happen.”  That’s not good science and it is this kind of overblown rhetoric that makes people skeptical of global warming in the first place.  If the authors have real data showing that extreme weather events have trended up over the last 50 years, they should have presented it.

One thing the synopsis made no attempt to do was connect global warming with human causation.  The synopsis completely excludes the cause of the warming, choosing not to speculate (not sure if this is found in the detailed report).

Those are my thoughts.  What do you think about this synopsis?  What conclusions did you draw?