Replies

"the belief in God is cross-cultural and trans-historical, and for that reason alone, demands a refutation beyond an appeal to ignorance."

Not at all. The Big Three have common historical roots and therefore share a common, but still rather diverse, idea of the nature of god. Once you begin to compare other religions outside of the Big Three, the idea of "god" is not only not even remotely consistent, it's not even close to being universal.

"The appeal to ignorance is of course a logical fallacy:"

As I said, I would be willing to change my personal label to agnostic in the face of compelling evidence. To accept in any meaningful way, absolutely everything, because it's impossible to truly disprove something is a ridiculous proposition. Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, gnomes and fairies, these are all things I would assume you are willing to say do not exist.

Are you telling me you are in fact agnostic to the existence of smurfs? If your child asks if there are monsters under his bed, would you tell them it is a distinct possibility?

"The case here is that God must be presumed in order for existence to have intelligibility in the first place and, therefore, God is (or more exactly, the qualities of the Judao-Christian God are) implicitly endorsed and presumed by any scientific investigation, if it is to be meaningful and intelligible."

1) you assume that existence must be intelligible

2) you assume that existence is intelligible

3) you assume that any scientific investigation that does not include the qualities of a Judeo-Christian God is unintelligible

These are large and wholly unsubstantiated claims that are at best a loose hypothesis in need of supporting evidence.

I would counter that:

1) existence is not necessarily intelligible

2) there is no inherent reason that existence must be intelligible

3) no scientific investigation that I am aware of (feel free to cite examples) that ever tried to include a Judeo-Christian god or any other god has ever produced an intelligible result outside of sociology

"When I refer to Barr's book, I am not appealing to authority, but rather to what I perceive to be the soundness of his argument from the evidence. ... Second, you fall prey to another logical fallacy when, by default, you appeal to the "much larger body of physicists" in order to reject Barr's thesis a priori, without considering his case"

As I noted, I have not read his book and am only passingly familiar with his points. You noted his credentials but not his arguments, that is an appeal to authority. If you wish to argue his points, then the onerous is on you to present them to me.

"... I talk to a lot of physicists, and most won't touch this issues with a ten foot pole. Maybe they are smart to avoid these issues! They might not like what they find!"

Another possible explanation is that physicists work with facts and formulas. In the history of modern physics, and despite the unquestionable devoutness of some notable physicists, not a single discovery in physics has ever flowed from the inclusion of god in a formula. Out of thousands upon thousands, not one.

In other words, the existence or nonexistence of god has had the same impact on physics at the existence or nonexistence of smurfs. Why would a physicist touch the subject?

Not at all. The Big Three have common historical roots and therefore share a common, but still rather diverse, idea of the nature of god. Once you begin to compare other religions outside of the Big Three, the idea of "god" is not only not even remotely consistent, it's not even close to being universal.

I agree with you that the Judao-Christian, and also the Islamic versions of God share qualities that pagan religions do not share. HOWEVER, all pagan religions, at some way or another, tend to point in the direction of a similar notion of the Godhead. In Hinduism, for example, Brahman is a gesture in the direction of the deity that has qualities quite similar to the Judao-Christian deity. Neo-African pagan religions, like Haitian Voodoo, point to a God as a creator of all other gods.

Even if the above was not true, 5000 years of Judao-Christian religion, and the global reach of the "Big Three" as you call them demand a reasonable reply greater than an appeal to ignorance. And frankly Atheism deserves better arguments from believes than appeals to ignorance.

As I said, I would be willing to change my personal label to agnostic in the face of compelling evidence. To accept in any meaningful way, absolutely everything, because it's impossible to truly disprove something is a ridiculous proposition. Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, gnomes and fairies, these are all things I would assume you are willing to say do not exist.

Yes, if the notion of God were the equivalent of Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, and other such products of the imgination, then my argument would not have a leg to stand on. Obviously, I believe I have more to often in my line of argument -- enough that I think it would be compelling for a reasonable person to at least make the shift from atheism to agnosticism, if not a full-fledged believer.

Sorry that I keep promising the argument but not yet delivering, but I am working on a clear, economical formulation -- and even that will be somewhat lengthy. Apologies in advance. I haven't yet tried to do this on something like an online forum.

Are you telling me you are in fact agnostic to the existence of smurfs? If your child asks if there are monsters under his bed, would you tell them it is a distinct possibility?

I believe I already addressed this issue. Of course I am a disbeliever in Smurfs. If you think of God as something equivalent to Smurfs, then I can't blame you for rejecting the idea! But I am here to tell you, the notion of God is in a different category than Smurfs and flying spaghetti monsters. Those things are finite, God is infinite. Smurfs exist within creation, God exists outside of and is the origin of creation. Etc. Very different!

1) you assume that existence must be intelligible

No, I don't assume that existence must be intelligible. But I believe that qualities attributed to God within the Judao-Christian tradition (but not limited to that tradition) are necessarily a priori grounds for the belief in an intelligible universe. Therefore, if you throw out a God with those qualities, you must, by default, give up on any promise of an intelligible universe, which in turn places the very grounds of science in doubt. The grounds of science become subject to a very legitimate skepticism. Some people are willing to live with this consequence, and they have a right to their opinion.

2) you assume that existence is intelligible

No, again, I did not say so. But I think if one does assume existence is intelligible, at the same time as they assert an atheist doctrine of non-belief in God, then they are living a contradictory set of beliefs. I say this because I am led to believe that God is the ontological precondition for intelligibility, the Logos so to speak of Being. Without that promise, there is really no point in going about doing natural science, because naturalism assumes that the end of science is to arrive at Truth. At best, you'd have something like pragmatism, where science is just about making things happen that we want to happen -- a kind of proto-technology.

3) you assume that any scientific investigation that does not include the qualities of a Judeo-Christian God is unintelligible

Yes! But, remember, the qualities of this God are not necessarily limited to the God of the Jewish and Christian traditions, but can be glimpsed in other traditions, even pagan traditions, but not in a pure form.

These are large and wholly unsubstantiated claims that are at best a loose hypothesis in need of supporting evidence.

Yes, of course they are -- because I haven't yet made the argument. I'm just giving you the preview. But remember which assertions are really mine and which ones are not mine. Hopefully, my responses above have clarified my thesis. I will try to put it succintly in my argument as I work it out.

I would counter that:

1) existence is not necessarily intelligible

And I agree! As I mentioned, I think there are alternative viewpoints to the belief in God, but I just don't think they are as parsimonious nor as satisfying as the God thesis. Belief in an unintelligible, or even a potentially unintelligible universe is a big sacrifice in exchange for giving up on God. There are major, major implications here.

2) there is no inherent reason that existence must be intelligible

Again, I agree, for the same reasons as above.

3) no scientific investigation that I am aware of (feel free to cite examples) that ever tried to include a Judeo-Christian god or any other god has ever produced an intelligible result outside of sociology.

Hm, not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

I am suggesting, on the contrary, that ANY scientific investigation presupposes as its ontological ground of Being the existence of God, the Logos that is the ground of Being.

I know this statement in itself will probably not be very convincing to you. But for now suffice it for me to say that this is basically the story physics will tell. The facts will repeat empirically what I have stated above ontologically. Enough so that it becomes (arguably) more credible to believe in God than to reject God.

As I noted, I have not read his book and am only passingly familiar with his points. You noted his credentials but not his arguments, that is an appeal to authority. If you wish to argue his points, then the onerous is on you to present them to me.

As I said, I was not appealing to authority. I was recommending that you read the book and judge the arguments on their own merits. I was also giving credit where credit is due, because while I said this is "my argument," I have borrowed these ideas and synthesized them based on many sources. Barr's argument was extremely compelling to me, and helped me synthesize many of my own ideas, so I give credit to him for that. I wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism.

Another possible explanation is that physicists work with facts and formulas.

That's right. Theology and science are different. But they have implications for one another. Most physicists do not have training in theology. They have training in physics. Few can think the two together, and Barr is one of the few.