Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



4/03/2017 1:35 am  #1


Atheist' Five ways ..?

Hey Guys How is it going ? 
Didn't really had much on the mind so decided to list the name of Five arguments for Atheism(mostly just against theism) that I have found most daunting..

1.Logical Argument from Evil.
2.Evidential Argument from Evil.(gratuitous evil,Inductive arguments,Problem of no-best world,sub-optimal world etc..)
3.Hiddenness Argument.
4.Arguments from Moral Anti-Theodicy.
5.Arguments for Anti-theism.

Which of these arguments do you find intimidating? What,in your opinion,are the strongest arguments for atheism which every theist should counter if he is to maintain rational belief?

Last edited by Calhoun (4/03/2017 3:09 am)

 

4/03/2017 2:26 pm  #2


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

Hello again Calhoun!

I am interested to hear other people's thoughts on these. Personally, I think 1 and 3 are pretty weak. I am not sure I am familiar with 4 and 5. 2 is still a very daunting argument, although I think the theists who specialize in it have put up some remarkable defenses. 

 

4/03/2017 4:35 pm  #3


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

#2 is definitely the most important to consider, although I consider a personalist argument from freedom to be a decisive response.

I agree with QED that #1 is not as serious as some people think it is.  #3 is interesting, but God has never been very hidden in my life so...

 

4/03/2017 9:13 pm  #4


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

I have never found the so called argument(s) from evil very intimidating. They seem, to make any sense, to have to appeal from God to an objective standard of good. But in classical theism this means appealing to God, or suggesting the supreme good isn't good enough, which is clearly silly. They also tend to treat evil as a substance in its own right and to ignore classical theist cosmology (indeed, any sort of non-naturalist one), in which evil is only a miniscule part of creation.

As a Platonist and someone with an interest in mysticism, I also haven't seen much worth in the arguments about divine hidenness. It seems to rely on a modern materialistic idea of the world, God's relationship and revelations to us, and our facilities.

I think that probably the strongest general arguments against theism, as opposed to attacks on or objections to specific theistic arguments, are those of Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus and also the Madhyamika (though these latter are not too far from more Platonic varieties of theism). These are arguments against the possibility of discursive metaphysics itself. But I would say almost all a theist need deal with can be found in the work of Hume and Nietzche.

 

4/04/2017 4:12 pm  #5


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

I'm inclined to agree with some of the commentators. I don't find (1) and (3) convincing. Regarding (2), so far the Modal Problem of Evil is one that I think is the most interesting out of all the arguments from evil.

I second what QED said about (4) and (5), could you elaborate on those?

 

 

4/04/2017 11:02 pm  #6


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

Hello everyone,thanks for all your responses.
I think all of these arguments require much larger discussion but I'll briefly comment on some of your remarks on the arguments

First of all regarding Logical problem of evil, well its difficult to really establish that ,it has been ever since Free-will theodicies or defenses became a thing ..but in recent years many philosophers have criticized this free-will response to it,and some have tried to formulate other better versions too, I am not sure about their success though, suffice to say Logical POE is far from dead..
And even if its exact reconstruction is impossible there is other way in which its proponents could try to recast it, they could try to argue that as long a there exists any problem of evil at all,logical or evidential,theism requires that it must be solved (i.e there exists a successful theodocy) they could then try to argue that since no such successful theodicy exists, Theism is irrational ,such a move would blur the lines between Logical and evidential problems but ,if successful, would prove that POE is logically binding. (i.e It must be solved in order to rationally accept theism)..

Regarding Argument 2, I think most of you do agree that its the most daunting and hard to deal with as both responses available to theists(Skeptical theism and Proving God-Gratuitous evil compatibility) have their own problems and complications ..

About Argument 3, Its indeed very good to know that God has blessed some of you with sufficient experience of his presence( And I hope he would do the same with all who seek him) but the most intimidating and touching aspect of J.L Schellenberg's formulation of the argument is that there probably are people who had no such experience ever and through no fault of their own(in other words non-culpable disbelief) and that, the argument goes is incompatible with perfectly loving God ..of course this argument has a huge literature dedicated to it and one can't really hope to cover it all in one discussion ..but a believer have to ask himself that why are their so many disbelievers ..

Mysterious Brony wrote:

I second what QED said about (4) and (5), could you elaborate on those?

 

Yes, about (4) the Anti-theodicists seek to show that many or all theodicy(responses to problem of evil) are morally objectionable and since theism naturally requires solving the problem of evil ,theism is morally objectionable, this line of reasoning is very intimidating indeed because it seeks to undercut the usually perceived  moral high ground of theism ..there have been Indeed many Anti-theodicists throughout history ...Among modern philosophers of religion I can right now think of D.Z Phillips(maybe) and Nick Trakakis (there are more ) as Anti-Theodicists ..

Arguments in (5) include arguments for Anti-theism perhaps I should use the word Axiological-Anti theism (see Klaas J.Kraay's "Does God Matter" there are many positions one could take on Axiological consequences of theism , ) it is the view that God's existence would make the world a worse place then it would otherwise be on his non existence, so we should prefer or hope or wish for his non-existence these type of arguments usually emphasize the Goods that come from non-existence of God and try to prove that these would be missing in a World with God popular Anti- theists include Thomas Nagel,Christopher Hitchens,Guy Kahane etc..

though interestingly enough it is sometimes argued that Atheists who wish to use Argument From Evil against theism should not be anti-theists otherwise the force of their argument is greatly diminished ..


 

Last edited by Calhoun (4/04/2017 11:03 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

4/05/2017 1:58 am  #7


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

The logical problem of evil surely relies on establishing a strict contradiction between the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful God and evil. As there doesn't seem to be a contradiction (they are not strictly inconsistent), it is hard to see how there can be such a problem.

On divine hidenness, surely it all depends on our understanding of the world, human nature, and God's interaction with it. I'd take it more seriously if those pushing it seemed to have a grasp of traditional theist (or traditional religious, in general) cosmologies and anthroplogies. This is a general issue that afflicts analytical philosophy of religion - as seems clear in the last two ways you mention.

I'm not sure there is anything contemporary analytical philosophy of religion has to say that Hume or Nietzsche didn't say better. If a theist can face them down, I think that is enough.

 

4/05/2017 8:44 am  #8


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

First of all regarding Logical problem of evil, well its difficult to really establish that ,it has been ever since Free-will theodicies or defenses became a thing ..but in recent years many philosophers have criticized this free-will response to it,and some have tried to formulate other better versions too, I am not sure about their success though, suffice to say Logical POE is far from dead. 

I don't know... I think it still dead, but the body is still twitching. I haven't encountered any arguments like the one you described above, but I have encountered some papers that try and revive the Logical PoE. They weren't very good... The free-will defense isn't even necessary. I think Plantinga's paper just showed that the Emporer has no clothes. The logical incompatibility argument has a ludicrous burden of proof. I don't need the free will defense to think that the logical PoE fails. 

About Argument 3... the most intimidating and touching aspect of J.L Schellenberg's formulation of the argument is that there probably are people who had no such experience ever and through no fault of their own(in other words non-culpable disbelief) and that, the argument goes is incompatible with perfectly loving God. 

Yes, Schellenberg's formulation is indeed the best. And I am one such person who hasn't had an encounter with God that a naturalist couldn't reasonably doubt. But I had a long correspondence with a cousin of mine concerning Schellenberg's DH argument, and I was never satisfied with Schellenberg's thoughts about when the inference is valid. He argues that for any time that a person is non-resistantly in a state of non-belief, God should make himself known to them. But why any time? Perhaps a person's maturity is such that, if God was to make himself known to them at some time t1, they would be less willing to pursue closeness with him then if God were to make himself known at some later time t2 (perhaps they need to know what life is like without God...). But if that is the case, then the only time that Schellenberg's inference is valid is the moment immediately before their death. I think that is enough to undermine the efficacy of the argument for most atheists. There is more I could add, but I'll open it up for people to comment on this first.  

 

4/05/2017 8:47 am  #9


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

Jeremy Taylor,

I'm not sure there is anything contemporary analytical philosophy of religion has to say that Hume or Nietzsche didn't say better. If a theist can face them down, I think that is enough.

Wow, I am surprised you would say that. My experience is that Hume and Neitzsche have some of the worst formulations of counter-arguments to theism. Have you read Oppy?
 

 

4/05/2017 9:59 am  #10


Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?

Quod-est-Devium wrote:

First of all regarding Logical problem of evil, well its difficult to really establish that ,it has been ever since Free-will theodicies or defenses became a thing ..but in recent years many philosophers have criticized this free-will response to it,and some have tried to formulate other better versions too, I am not sure about their success though, suffice to say Logical POE is far from dead. 

I don't know... I think it still dead, but the body is still twitching. I haven't encountered any arguments like the one you described above, but I have encountered some papers that try and revive the Logical PoE. They weren't very good... The free-will defense isn't even necessary. I think Plantinga's paper just showed that the Emporer has no clothes. The logical incompatibility argument has a ludicrous burden of proof. I don't need the free will defense to think that the logical PoE fails. 

Well I do agree that Atheists have their work cut out on this one but its not impossible especially if they can show that no successful theodicy exists(in case of evidential argument).
indeed,there are fewer atheists in Phil of Religion(at least they were fewer last time,they bothered to do that rough head count) but Many who do stick with it are infact very Smart,intelligent and dedicated(I think an atheist won't even bother with POR unless he actually does have some interest in at least some aspect of religion) ...

About divine hiddenness,as many comments on it suggest, theists actually does have lot to say in response to it. especially I think its power is greatly diminished by various theological considerations and doctrines within various religious traditions as the user Jeremy Taylor points out, but I think its very strong argument against a certain type of theist who identify them selves as merely philosophical theists and who try to arrive at every conclusion via natural theology ..of course like I said earlier their is a lot written for and against  this argument so I don't think I can evaluate its success or failure right now ..

ohh and QED about our correspondence on that Paper, I have a little shortage of time right now..I would respond to you on it tomorrow . 

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum