I just came across your blog after my dad mentioned an interesting post he read in New Advent! I’m an agnostic (former Catholic).I tend to agree with you more than Oppy on this. He seems to basically be applying Occam’s Razor and stating that we should not posit things that are not necessary.
I think that’s generally fine as a rule of thumb (not necessarily a metaphysical principle), but I don’t think it works as an atheistic argument since it would beg the question. If there are things in the world that necessitate a divine cause, then it makes sense to posit God, just like there are certain things in the world that indicate dark matter exists. If those things weren’t there, then sure, perhaps it would not make any sense to posit that dark matter exists, but since they are there the theory makes sense.
I’ll note I haven’t read Oppy so I may be mischaracterizing his position to say it’s an outright argument for atheism. But anyway, good read! 😊
>>>If there are things in the world that necessitate a divine cause, then it makes sense to posit God, just like there are certain things in the world that indicate dark matter exists.<<<
Oppy's approach is that we need to balance simplicity (and) explanatory power when we consider theories. Oppy would agree with you that if there is a case where positing God provides us with a very high degree of explanatory power that can't be accounted for on Naturalism, then that would make Theism the better theory, even if Naturalism is a simpler view. Oppy just believes that there isn't anything that necessarily requires Theism as an explanation that can't be explained by Naturalism.
Consider first, the delineation of belief as defined within the Catholic tradition. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, inculcated that the crux of the Christian belief starts from a humble acceptance of God's existence. From this divine acquiescence flows a stream of faith, morality, love, and inherent meaning, all emanating from this primal conviction. However, we must be reminded of Ratzinger's emphasis on the pursuit of open dialogue and understanding as indispensable companions of faith, most notably highlighted in his seminal text "Introduction to Christianity.” For him, faith starts with God but should engage with the doubts and questioning present in modern thought, a lesson applicable here in our exploration of atheism.
To grasp the seemingly heterogeneous nature of atheistic beliefs, one must untether the concept of belief from its theistic confines. While theism (and Christian belief in particular) usually accommodates a central guiding principle i.e., God and His divine teachings, atheism, as explained by Oppy, does not hinge on an opposite single antithesis. Instead, it makes room for an amalgamation of beliefs drawn from various sources such as reason, methodology, empirical evidence, personal experience, and ethical standards.
What can be discerned as a guiding principle in an atheist's life is perhaps an ardent reliance on reason and empirical evidence. They seek answers to the existential and moral enigmas in the natural world and human experience, despising any appeal to divine or supernatural entities or principles. The rational inquiry becomes their compass, leading their pursuits in life. Inspired by this view, many atheists place crucial importance on ethical living, social justice, and the pursuit of knowledge, showing that a life without belief can, nonetheless, be rich with purpose and moral integrity.
However, this explanation should not oversimplify or stereotype the diversity that exists within atheism, just as one would err in stereotyping the various expressions of belief within Christian tradition. Atheism is not a singular, monolithic viewpoint but a large tent accommodating various perspectives - a spectrum rather than a distinct point. Therefore, just as diverse spiritual charisms express themselves within a Christian framework, so too does a variety of outlooks find shelter under the umbrella of atheism.
Even the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in "Nostra Aetate" recognize the validity of different paths to truth and encourage respect and dialogue among diverse belief systems. While retaining the belief in the salvific mission of Christianity, the Church also acknowledges that “truths found among non-Christians can work to God’s glory,” implying that an atheist's pursuit of truth, too, can be a journey towards a greater understanding.
This exploration incarnates Ratzinger's own theological method - deep historical-contextual understanding, a harmonious merging of tradition with modern reflection, balanced examination of the issue, and a commitment to further learning. The heart of Ratzinger's theological method invites an atheist-Christian dialogue that can foster mutual understanding and challenge each side to deepen their beliefs through interaction with the other. Let us continue to build bridges of understanding and respect in our shared pursuit of truth. For, as Ratzinger reminds us in "Truth and Tolerance", "the truth can only be a network of relationships, a shared journey, an open-ended process."
In my opinion, it would be easier to covert an aethiest or your modern day progressive hippy type to Catholicism than Non-Catholic Christian.
Thank you, Aaron, for mentioning Ratzinger's book. That makes sense that untethered to acceptance of God's existence, beliefs can come from a variety of sources. I really like your perspective and enthusiasm for recognizing valid and differing paths to truth. I am misunderstood sometimes for saying that we can 'evangelize through science' but what I mean is that empirical science is common ground we can all agree on. As Fr. Jaki once wrote, a Catholic should be the "most thorough materialist." Thank you again for commenting.
Excellent article. Just to respond briefly to some points:
"It seems true that the theistic, particularly Christian, set of beliefs entails more theoretical commitments than the atheistic set of beliefs. Maybe that is debatable another time, but I do not find in Oppy’s book an explanation why theistic commitments are unjustified for explanatory power."
Oppy's book, in this case, is meant to be an extremely basic introduction to some of the issues. Oppy defends the point about theistic explanations relative to Atheism in the works "The Best Argument Against God (2013)" and "Naturalism and Religion (2018)". For an extremely detailed analysis, I'd recommend consulting Oppy's 2006 book "Arguing About Gods" which is a comprehensive look at many of the main arguments for Theism.
"It would be inappropriate to compare the truths of faith beyond reason that are the subject of dogmatic theology and divine revelation with atheistic beliefs."
This is a genuine insight which I think is good to note. When debating with Atheists, Theists will ultimately start citing explanations that rely on divine revelation or theology. Yet, as you point out, an Atheist who doesn't accept that Theism is true is hardly going to take further claims of revelation seriously, which often assumes Theism is true (something that the Atheist does not grant). Matt Fradd has a great article (The Catholic Apologetics Mansion) where he argues about the importance of first establishing Theism before bringing in any other doctrines. St. Thomas Aquinas also takes note of this, which is why he begins the Summa Contra Gentiles with a discussion on issues relating to God's existence before discussing divine revelation.
"Oppy explains that atheists can have many varied beliefs that have nothing to do with God’s existence, and I do not understand this since for a Christian everything flows from that first belief that God exists."
Oppy's general point here is that Atheists are not pigeonholed into having certain beliefs as a result of their Atheism. They can take a wide variety of metaphysical views. For example, many Theists think that Atheism is incompatible with believing in objective morality, yet there are plenty of Atheists who take an objective view of morality (such as Oppy himself, Erik Wielenberg, Michael Martin, Wes Morriston), and others who take a more subjective view (J.L. Mackie). Some Atheists are Platonists about abstract objects (Eric Steinhart, Michael Huemer), while others are nominalists (Graham Oppy). Some Atheists are physicalists about the mind (Jack Smart) while others are dualists (Michael Tooley). The point is that Atheism is a broad metaphysical church, and thus there are many different metaphysical views one can take as an Atheist.
Thank you so much! I'm thankful for your support. (So grateful!)
That is a fair point. As I was writing, I was thinking that too. "This book's title is "The Basics," so probably what I'm missing is in another book." I will set out to understand his point now that I am more accustomed to his writing style.
I am intrigued by your point about a wide variety of metaphysical views (and am inexpressibly impressed with your knowledge of authors). I did notice that Oppy was clear about all the other beliefs atheists can have, and I suppose the same can be said for Christians. There are probably as many denominations. Even within Catholicism (we don't think of it as a denomination though), there are different sets of metaphysical commitments. Not all Catholics are Thomists. Not all Thomists agree. I have to say: the chemist in me gets very uncomfortable here. I am trained to seek the one right or best answer or explanation and to expect an objective verification of it. We don't have that in philosophy. I realize that is pretty much the same dilemma of modern philosophy. Kant, Hume, Hegel, etc., wanted a clearer path to truth. They wanted philosophy to more like physical science. But it just isn't.
So where does that leave us, Desert Naturalist? A discussion about what I think is best and you think is best? That doesn't seem the direction we should go, or rather, it seems like no direction at all. I've hung my hat on Thomism and seek to defend it. At the same time, I also am unable to get my head around it as I'd like, and I sometimes worry that I'm committed because I don't want to go back and rethink it all, which is why I like this project. What about you and other atheists? Do you have a preferred metaphysical view? How do atheists decide?
Thank you for the kind compliments as well. And yes, Atheists do have a wide variety of metaphysical views, and it's a shame that Theists don't actually engage them fully. For many apologists, Atheism usually just includes the New Atheists + Continental philosophers such as Nietzsche and Sartre, but this analysis excludes the wide range of figures in the analytic tradition. Figures such as W.V. Quine, David Lewis, David Armstrong, and others. Though some of these figures don't attack Theism explicitly, they build entire metaphysical theories and worldviews that show how Atheists/Naturalists could account for ontology, ethics, and metaphysics without God and thus constitute an indirect yet formidable attack on Theism.
I sympathize with your perspective on Catholicism. Even among a school of thought like Thomism, you can still find further disagreements, such as River Forrest Thomists who believe that Thomism should be married to a more Aristotelian way of approaching metaphysics and the sciences vs. a more Existential Thomist approach that puts a greater emphasis on Aquinas' focuses on esse.
I don't think the widespread amount of diverging views implies that we can't find truth in philosophy, but it does imply that seeking truth will be a much harder and messy discipline because the nature of philosophy is that it's going to be something that sits on the boundaries of science where things aren't settled. Nonetheless, as Oppy articulates, I think we can use some of the methodologies present in science (Bayesian reasoning, inference to the best explanation, abductive reasoning) to help us seek truth in philosophy, namely by trying to construct theories that offer the greatest balance between explanatory power and simplicity.
As Oppy outlines, we should compare the best versions of Theism and the best versions of Naturalism and see how they cohere on a wide variety of explanatory virtues. While this method isn't perfect, I think it articulates a general approach to how to settle differences/debates between opposing metaphysical views. My own preferred view is close to what is termed "Australian Materialism/Realism" in philosophy and follows closely on the work of Oppy, Mackie, Armstrong, Lewis, and many classical analytical philosophers:
Thank you so much for commenting. It's kind of scary starting out on a new platform, and I really like Substack so far. I'm also happy to meet another Christian who wants to better understand atheist arguments.
I just started reading Catholic philosopher Patt Flynn's book The Best Argument For God, in it he makes the argument that not only does theism explain things better but it involves less commitments (more simple). I don't know his arguments are good yet since I just started it but it might be worth checking out
You are the second person to recommend that book to me this week! Thank you. I know Patt and did a debate about intelligent design with Michael Behe on his podcast a few years ago.
I just came across your blog after my dad mentioned an interesting post he read in New Advent! I’m an agnostic (former Catholic).I tend to agree with you more than Oppy on this. He seems to basically be applying Occam’s Razor and stating that we should not posit things that are not necessary.
I think that’s generally fine as a rule of thumb (not necessarily a metaphysical principle), but I don’t think it works as an atheistic argument since it would beg the question. If there are things in the world that necessitate a divine cause, then it makes sense to posit God, just like there are certain things in the world that indicate dark matter exists. If those things weren’t there, then sure, perhaps it would not make any sense to posit that dark matter exists, but since they are there the theory makes sense.
I’ll note I haven’t read Oppy so I may be mischaracterizing his position to say it’s an outright argument for atheism. But anyway, good read! 😊
>>>If there are things in the world that necessitate a divine cause, then it makes sense to posit God, just like there are certain things in the world that indicate dark matter exists.<<<
Oppy's approach is that we need to balance simplicity (and) explanatory power when we consider theories. Oppy would agree with you that if there is a case where positing God provides us with a very high degree of explanatory power that can't be accounted for on Naturalism, then that would make Theism the better theory, even if Naturalism is a simpler view. Oppy just believes that there isn't anything that necessarily requires Theism as an explanation that can't be explained by Naturalism.
Consider first, the delineation of belief as defined within the Catholic tradition. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, inculcated that the crux of the Christian belief starts from a humble acceptance of God's existence. From this divine acquiescence flows a stream of faith, morality, love, and inherent meaning, all emanating from this primal conviction. However, we must be reminded of Ratzinger's emphasis on the pursuit of open dialogue and understanding as indispensable companions of faith, most notably highlighted in his seminal text "Introduction to Christianity.” For him, faith starts with God but should engage with the doubts and questioning present in modern thought, a lesson applicable here in our exploration of atheism.
To grasp the seemingly heterogeneous nature of atheistic beliefs, one must untether the concept of belief from its theistic confines. While theism (and Christian belief in particular) usually accommodates a central guiding principle i.e., God and His divine teachings, atheism, as explained by Oppy, does not hinge on an opposite single antithesis. Instead, it makes room for an amalgamation of beliefs drawn from various sources such as reason, methodology, empirical evidence, personal experience, and ethical standards.
What can be discerned as a guiding principle in an atheist's life is perhaps an ardent reliance on reason and empirical evidence. They seek answers to the existential and moral enigmas in the natural world and human experience, despising any appeal to divine or supernatural entities or principles. The rational inquiry becomes their compass, leading their pursuits in life. Inspired by this view, many atheists place crucial importance on ethical living, social justice, and the pursuit of knowledge, showing that a life without belief can, nonetheless, be rich with purpose and moral integrity.
However, this explanation should not oversimplify or stereotype the diversity that exists within atheism, just as one would err in stereotyping the various expressions of belief within Christian tradition. Atheism is not a singular, monolithic viewpoint but a large tent accommodating various perspectives - a spectrum rather than a distinct point. Therefore, just as diverse spiritual charisms express themselves within a Christian framework, so too does a variety of outlooks find shelter under the umbrella of atheism.
Even the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in "Nostra Aetate" recognize the validity of different paths to truth and encourage respect and dialogue among diverse belief systems. While retaining the belief in the salvific mission of Christianity, the Church also acknowledges that “truths found among non-Christians can work to God’s glory,” implying that an atheist's pursuit of truth, too, can be a journey towards a greater understanding.
This exploration incarnates Ratzinger's own theological method - deep historical-contextual understanding, a harmonious merging of tradition with modern reflection, balanced examination of the issue, and a commitment to further learning. The heart of Ratzinger's theological method invites an atheist-Christian dialogue that can foster mutual understanding and challenge each side to deepen their beliefs through interaction with the other. Let us continue to build bridges of understanding and respect in our shared pursuit of truth. For, as Ratzinger reminds us in "Truth and Tolerance", "the truth can only be a network of relationships, a shared journey, an open-ended process."
In my opinion, it would be easier to covert an aethiest or your modern day progressive hippy type to Catholicism than Non-Catholic Christian.
Thank you, Aaron, for mentioning Ratzinger's book. That makes sense that untethered to acceptance of God's existence, beliefs can come from a variety of sources. I really like your perspective and enthusiasm for recognizing valid and differing paths to truth. I am misunderstood sometimes for saying that we can 'evangelize through science' but what I mean is that empirical science is common ground we can all agree on. As Fr. Jaki once wrote, a Catholic should be the "most thorough materialist." Thank you again for commenting.
Excellent article. Just to respond briefly to some points:
"It seems true that the theistic, particularly Christian, set of beliefs entails more theoretical commitments than the atheistic set of beliefs. Maybe that is debatable another time, but I do not find in Oppy’s book an explanation why theistic commitments are unjustified for explanatory power."
Oppy's book, in this case, is meant to be an extremely basic introduction to some of the issues. Oppy defends the point about theistic explanations relative to Atheism in the works "The Best Argument Against God (2013)" and "Naturalism and Religion (2018)". For an extremely detailed analysis, I'd recommend consulting Oppy's 2006 book "Arguing About Gods" which is a comprehensive look at many of the main arguments for Theism.
"It would be inappropriate to compare the truths of faith beyond reason that are the subject of dogmatic theology and divine revelation with atheistic beliefs."
This is a genuine insight which I think is good to note. When debating with Atheists, Theists will ultimately start citing explanations that rely on divine revelation or theology. Yet, as you point out, an Atheist who doesn't accept that Theism is true is hardly going to take further claims of revelation seriously, which often assumes Theism is true (something that the Atheist does not grant). Matt Fradd has a great article (The Catholic Apologetics Mansion) where he argues about the importance of first establishing Theism before bringing in any other doctrines. St. Thomas Aquinas also takes note of this, which is why he begins the Summa Contra Gentiles with a discussion on issues relating to God's existence before discussing divine revelation.
"Oppy explains that atheists can have many varied beliefs that have nothing to do with God’s existence, and I do not understand this since for a Christian everything flows from that first belief that God exists."
Oppy's general point here is that Atheists are not pigeonholed into having certain beliefs as a result of their Atheism. They can take a wide variety of metaphysical views. For example, many Theists think that Atheism is incompatible with believing in objective morality, yet there are plenty of Atheists who take an objective view of morality (such as Oppy himself, Erik Wielenberg, Michael Martin, Wes Morriston), and others who take a more subjective view (J.L. Mackie). Some Atheists are Platonists about abstract objects (Eric Steinhart, Michael Huemer), while others are nominalists (Graham Oppy). Some Atheists are physicalists about the mind (Jack Smart) while others are dualists (Michael Tooley). The point is that Atheism is a broad metaphysical church, and thus there are many different metaphysical views one can take as an Atheist.
Thank you so much! I'm thankful for your support. (So grateful!)
That is a fair point. As I was writing, I was thinking that too. "This book's title is "The Basics," so probably what I'm missing is in another book." I will set out to understand his point now that I am more accustomed to his writing style.
I am intrigued by your point about a wide variety of metaphysical views (and am inexpressibly impressed with your knowledge of authors). I did notice that Oppy was clear about all the other beliefs atheists can have, and I suppose the same can be said for Christians. There are probably as many denominations. Even within Catholicism (we don't think of it as a denomination though), there are different sets of metaphysical commitments. Not all Catholics are Thomists. Not all Thomists agree. I have to say: the chemist in me gets very uncomfortable here. I am trained to seek the one right or best answer or explanation and to expect an objective verification of it. We don't have that in philosophy. I realize that is pretty much the same dilemma of modern philosophy. Kant, Hume, Hegel, etc., wanted a clearer path to truth. They wanted philosophy to more like physical science. But it just isn't.
So where does that leave us, Desert Naturalist? A discussion about what I think is best and you think is best? That doesn't seem the direction we should go, or rather, it seems like no direction at all. I've hung my hat on Thomism and seek to defend it. At the same time, I also am unable to get my head around it as I'd like, and I sometimes worry that I'm committed because I don't want to go back and rethink it all, which is why I like this project. What about you and other atheists? Do you have a preferred metaphysical view? How do atheists decide?
Thank you for the kind compliments as well. And yes, Atheists do have a wide variety of metaphysical views, and it's a shame that Theists don't actually engage them fully. For many apologists, Atheism usually just includes the New Atheists + Continental philosophers such as Nietzsche and Sartre, but this analysis excludes the wide range of figures in the analytic tradition. Figures such as W.V. Quine, David Lewis, David Armstrong, and others. Though some of these figures don't attack Theism explicitly, they build entire metaphysical theories and worldviews that show how Atheists/Naturalists could account for ontology, ethics, and metaphysics without God and thus constitute an indirect yet formidable attack on Theism.
I sympathize with your perspective on Catholicism. Even among a school of thought like Thomism, you can still find further disagreements, such as River Forrest Thomists who believe that Thomism should be married to a more Aristotelian way of approaching metaphysics and the sciences vs. a more Existential Thomist approach that puts a greater emphasis on Aquinas' focuses on esse.
I don't think the widespread amount of diverging views implies that we can't find truth in philosophy, but it does imply that seeking truth will be a much harder and messy discipline because the nature of philosophy is that it's going to be something that sits on the boundaries of science where things aren't settled. Nonetheless, as Oppy articulates, I think we can use some of the methodologies present in science (Bayesian reasoning, inference to the best explanation, abductive reasoning) to help us seek truth in philosophy, namely by trying to construct theories that offer the greatest balance between explanatory power and simplicity.
As Oppy outlines, we should compare the best versions of Theism and the best versions of Naturalism and see how they cohere on a wide variety of explanatory virtues. While this method isn't perfect, I think it articulates a general approach to how to settle differences/debates between opposing metaphysical views. My own preferred view is close to what is termed "Australian Materialism/Realism" in philosophy and follows closely on the work of Oppy, Mackie, Armstrong, Lewis, and many classical analytical philosophers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_realism
Great article! I'm a Christian also trying to engage atheist arguments as charitably as possible. Looking forward to learning more from you.
Thank you so much for commenting. It's kind of scary starting out on a new platform, and I really like Substack so far. I'm also happy to meet another Christian who wants to better understand atheist arguments.
I just started reading Catholic philosopher Patt Flynn's book The Best Argument For God, in it he makes the argument that not only does theism explain things better but it involves less commitments (more simple). I don't know his arguments are good yet since I just started it but it might be worth checking out
You are the second person to recommend that book to me this week! Thank you. I know Patt and did a debate about intelligent design with Michael Behe on his podcast a few years ago.