Contra Greg, as an indirect cause, it might have an effect. The great mass of people will never encounter philosophy in the sort of depth required to make a change from atheism to theism. However, if enough people with social or cultural influence do, then it might conceivably have an effect.

For example, it is probably true that out-breeding the opposition is a more plausible path to "victory" (leaving aside the possible objection that the materialist needs only to educate children, not necessarily beget them himself). However if the formation of these "robust counter-cultural communities" is itself put into effect by those under the influence of anti-materialist philosophy, then one could say that philosophical changes had an effect.

Basically, with regards to actually changing a culture, leadership is more important than numbers.

Last edited by Wyvern (3/15/2018 7:52 pm)

Greg wrote:

If atheism and materialism begin to wane over the next several decades, it will be because religious people decided to get together and make a lot of babies and raise them in robust, countercultural communities. Atheism and materialism will not begin to wane under the weight of the neoscholastic synthesis; they will not begin to wane because people finally start to appreciate what Mary didn't know. (For the record I don't think there are qualia.).

That's different from what it would take to change the public perception of the rationality of theism (or, more broadly, of the unsuccessful nature of naturalism) in this society though. I'd be interested to know what could possibly effect such a shift e.g. whether it would make a difference if a scientific popularizer type like Hawkins or Kraus suddenly became convinced of the truth of the PSR argument and propounded it enthusiastically on every occasion the origin of the multiverse was discussed.

Last edited by DanielCC (3/16/2018 7:19 am)

DanielCC wrote:

That's different from what it would take to change the public perception of the rationality of theism (or, more broadly, of the unsuccessful nature of naturalism) in this society though.

That depends on how you individuate societies.  *

But I take your point.

DanielCC wrote:

I'd be interested to know what could possibly effect such a shift e.g. whether it would make a difference if a scientific popularizer type like Hawkins or Kraus suddenly became convinced of the truth of the PSR argument and propounded it enthusiastically on every occasion the origin of the multiverse was discussed.

It's hard to say. Who knows what sort of psychological laws hold in the nearest possible world, doubtless quite distant from the actual world, in which Lawrence Krauss defends the PSR argument as often as he can?

But I am not sure that atheists would be anymore impressed than they were with Antony Flew's conversion to deism. That is to say, people disinclined to be theists would for the most part wonder whether Krauss lost his marbles and still disagree with him even if it became evident that he did not.

*This is a terrible wink emoticon, but it'll have to do.