Joplin FreeThinkers

 

There’s no question that Skepticon 4 was worth attending. As with Skepticon 3, we had the pleasure of hearing talks by Dan Barker, Greta Christina, PZ Myers, Sam Singleton, Joe Nickell, David Fitzgerald, and others. My two favorites this year were Dan Barker and Greta Christina. Christina’s talk on why atheists are so angry was so good that it would make for an excellent video night presentation for the group. I, for one, would love to see it again. It’s one of those speeches with so much packed into it that you can’t remember half of it, but you know it was all good. Of course, any of the other talks would be suitable for a group viewing as well, but in my humble opinion, Greta’s was top-notch.

Singleton, I feel, is also worthy of honorable mention. His sermon on “Giving Thanks” was both timely as Thanksgiving was fast approaching, and right. As he pointed out in his message, any gratitude on the part of Jesus is sorely lacking in the Gospels. I must confess, I had not noticed that before. Despite being an atheist evangelist who is primarily a comedian, he delivered a genuine message in his sermon.

Those who know me, and who attended this year, will not be surprised to learn that I could not disagree more with David Silverman, whom I consider to be very dogmatic and unenlightened. In his talk, he pushed for a broad definition of an atheist, as one who lacks a belief in any sort of god. This may sound like a reasonable definition, but I, as well as a lot of other people, dare I say most people, understand the word “atheist” to mean one who outright denies the existence of any sort of god. Silverman’s broader, more inclusive definition, which he defends as being more unifying, would also include agnostics, secular humanists, skeptics, etc. But as many of you know from the presentation I gave back in January, I argued (and still do) that theism, the philosophical view that there does exist some sort of God or supreme being (nothing whatsoever to do with faith or religion) is a perfectly rational viewpoint, and for all anybody knows, may be correct. It has philosophical merit and is a worthy contender in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be taken up in philosophy classes, journals, and textbooks in the first place. It can thus be rationally held by any freethinker. Now as I am an agnostic, I technically fall under the category of atheist by Silverman’s definition. So I, an atheist according to Silverman, argue that theism is a realistic possibility. Sound strange? Of course it does, coming from an atheist. But not so much, coming from an agnostic. This illustrates my point that Silverman’s definition is too inclusive, and so too uninformative to be of much value. (Not that a conclusionary atheist, who denies the existence of God, couldn’t nevertheless agree with my view of theism.)

I also recall a point in Silverman’s talk where he commits a gross logical fallacy. I don’t remember his exact words, but the reasoning went something like this (which he expressed rather excitedly): “For centuries, they have tried to prove the existence of God, and every single time they have failed! There is no God!” Any introductory logic student should be able to see the woeful illogic being displayed here. You don’t need proof to rationally believe in something. You just need good enough reason to support it. There’s not a lick of proof, or even hard evidence, that intelligent life exists on other planets. Yet, given our background knowledge, scientists still consider it to be a realistic possibility and see fit to speculate on its likelihood. In philosophy, the possibility of God’s existence is no different.

One more point about Silverman. Not long ago, he made an appearance on Fox News. When asked to defend his atheism, Silverman repeatedly said (again excitedly), “Because it’s the truth!” The more atheists like Silverman continue to make such emotionally charged dogmatic statements with no (fallacy free) arguments behind them, the more religious believers will accuse atheism of being just another religion. And the more such accusations will be right!

Now on to Richard Carrier. As bright, intelligent, knowledgeable, and impressive an author as he is, I cannot refrain from saying that his Bayesian argument against God would leave the philosophical community as a whole a bit underwhelmed. I am not about to get into the in’s and out’s of Bayes’ Theorem, but here is a very crude and simplified version of Carrier’s Bayesian argument against God, in a nutshell. Carrier points out the evil of slavery and makes use of it in the argument.

1. It is improbable that God would have a good excuse to allow such a horrendous evil as slavery.

2. Slavery was real.

3. Therefore, it is improbable that there is a God.

This sort of argument falls under the Problem of Evil, which is a philosophical challenge to theists to explain why a loving and benevolent God would allow bad things to happen. The Problem of Evil dates back to ancient times, and Carrier even presented a famous quote from Epicurus:

“Is he willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but unwilling? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him ‘God’?”

The audience applauded, and Carrier stood triumphantly as if to imply that this pretty much disproved the existence of God and that there was just nothing more to say about the matter. Such is Carrier’s ignorance or his dishonesty, since he should know better. The truth is that the Problem of Evil is an immensely complicated subject in philosophy, and theists have made countless responses to it, and atheists have made counterarguments to those responses, and theists have countered back, and so on and on it goes. From the value of free will, to greater goods, to the dichotomy of good and evil, to what some philosophers have called “soul making”, there is good reason to doubt that a benevolent God would want to create a “perfect” world in which there were no trials, hardships, or challenges to overcome. Not to mention other arguments for God’s existence, completely outside the Problem of Evil.

I don’t know why a benevolent God would allow slavery. But my point is that atheists have no right to declare victory over a small point like this when there are countless other things to consider, both inside and outside the Problem of Evil, that have bearing on God’s existence. Carrier’s point is well taken, but to imply that this settles the matter is to grossly oversimplify, and to fail to do justice to, an extremely complex and difficult issue. Anyone who thinks this is easy has a lot to learn.

By the way, long before (I’m presuming) Carrier ever heard of Bayes’ Theorem, it had been used, most notably by theistic philosopher Richard Swinburne, to argue that the existence of God is quite probable. I can’t evaluate the soundness of Swinburne’s reasoning, but his argument did find its way into the philosophical literature. Maybe Carrier’s will, too. But I won’t hold my breath.