After returning from Vietnam I treated myself to one too: 1966 Mustang convertible. Decades later I
completed this combustion mania by purchasing a 1982 baby blue Mercedes Benz, which delighted
my youngest daughter who directed me to a certain spot (where the boys are) on UMass Amherst campus every time I drove her back on weekends. After this cathartic sally into atheism, again, I'd
like to propose a much more interesting theological challenge to you as even now am writing the
This is excellent. I'm excited to see how this unfolds. I'm very sympathetic to Graham Oppy's perspective on this issue, where we see Theism and Naturalism as respective metaphysical theories and then compare them on various theoretical virtues. So, for myself, in reviewing your future posts, that's the perspective I'm going to be coming at it towards: can the considerations you raise about the elements be accounted for by Naturalism? Or would Theism have better explanatory power here? Looking forward to your future posts!
Thank you! I considered what you said and mention it in the Day 1 post. I'm always going to say theism because it answers origins and purpose in ways naturalism doesn't. That is one thing I am still not clear on for Oppy, but I don't want to misrepresent him. Why does he not go beyond nature? Part of my frustration is that he himself might say that he does, but I do not agree that he does. In Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, he does something similar (and I think he was even a believer). Heisenberg doesn't want to invoke anything spiritual or religious, and so he avoids anything metaphysical. He ends up with a strange conclusion that he claims escapes materialism, but I would argue fails to do so. Thanks for your comment. I can always count on you! I appreciate that.
Interestingly enough, Oppy might agree with you that he doesn't go beyond nature (as long as "nature" is defined as the idea that causal reality is exhausted by natural reality and there are here are none but natural causal entities with none but natural causal properties). Oppy does not go beyond nature (i.e., affirm Naturalism) because of his broader epistemology/methodology. Oppy believes that when it comes to accepting a theory of the world, we want an approach that maximizes simplicity and minimizes trade-offs, i.e., a theory that has the right degree of explanatory power and simplicity. As outlined in his "The Best Argument against God," Oppy thinks that when we compare Theism and Naturalism, Naturalism can explain everything that Theism purports to explain but can do so with a simpler theory.
For example, imagine someone who accepts everything that science tells us about how lightning is formed but then says that alongside that, we need to posit Zeus as responsible for the formation of lightning. Oppy (and most naturalists) would say that the postulation of Zeus is otiose, as we can explain everything we need to with recourse for natural causes. It's not clear that Zeus does anything additional explanatory.
So, in choosing between two theories:
Science/Natural Explanations for Lightning
Science/Natural Explanations for Lightning + Zeus,
we should choose the former theory, which explains everything that the latter theory tries to explain and is much simpler. Oppy says the same thing applies to Theism as well:
Theism: God + Natural World
Naturalism: Natural World
Oppy would say that we don't need to go beyond the natural world because opposing theories don't provide any additional explanatory power and are less simple than Naturalism.
Of course, you naturally disagree with this; you might say there are a whole host of things that Naturalism can't explain, but Theism can like the contingency of the universe, the existence of change, consciousness, order/stability, motion, morality, beauty, love, purpose, etc.
However, naturalists have been aware of this and have written dozens of papers, books, and articles that outline how all these subjects and more can be accounted for within the naturalist paradigm. This is one reason the "New "New" Atheists, as you mentioned in your recent podcast episode, are often frustrated with apologetics because it seems that many who do apologetics often ignore the deep, complex, and thorough scholarly work that Naturalists have put together in addressing the phenomena that Theists take to be intractable for Naturalism.
After returning from Vietnam I treated myself to one too: 1966 Mustang convertible. Decades later I
completed this combustion mania by purchasing a 1982 baby blue Mercedes Benz, which delighted
my youngest daughter who directed me to a certain spot (where the boys are) on UMass Amherst campus every time I drove her back on weekends. After this cathartic sally into atheism, again, I'd
like to propose a much more interesting theological challenge to you as even now am writing the
prospectus should you consider.
This is excellent. I'm excited to see how this unfolds. I'm very sympathetic to Graham Oppy's perspective on this issue, where we see Theism and Naturalism as respective metaphysical theories and then compare them on various theoretical virtues. So, for myself, in reviewing your future posts, that's the perspective I'm going to be coming at it towards: can the considerations you raise about the elements be accounted for by Naturalism? Or would Theism have better explanatory power here? Looking forward to your future posts!
Thank you! I considered what you said and mention it in the Day 1 post. I'm always going to say theism because it answers origins and purpose in ways naturalism doesn't. That is one thing I am still not clear on for Oppy, but I don't want to misrepresent him. Why does he not go beyond nature? Part of my frustration is that he himself might say that he does, but I do not agree that he does. In Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, he does something similar (and I think he was even a believer). Heisenberg doesn't want to invoke anything spiritual or religious, and so he avoids anything metaphysical. He ends up with a strange conclusion that he claims escapes materialism, but I would argue fails to do so. Thanks for your comment. I can always count on you! I appreciate that.
Interestingly enough, Oppy might agree with you that he doesn't go beyond nature (as long as "nature" is defined as the idea that causal reality is exhausted by natural reality and there are here are none but natural causal entities with none but natural causal properties). Oppy does not go beyond nature (i.e., affirm Naturalism) because of his broader epistemology/methodology. Oppy believes that when it comes to accepting a theory of the world, we want an approach that maximizes simplicity and minimizes trade-offs, i.e., a theory that has the right degree of explanatory power and simplicity. As outlined in his "The Best Argument against God," Oppy thinks that when we compare Theism and Naturalism, Naturalism can explain everything that Theism purports to explain but can do so with a simpler theory.
For example, imagine someone who accepts everything that science tells us about how lightning is formed but then says that alongside that, we need to posit Zeus as responsible for the formation of lightning. Oppy (and most naturalists) would say that the postulation of Zeus is otiose, as we can explain everything we need to with recourse for natural causes. It's not clear that Zeus does anything additional explanatory.
So, in choosing between two theories:
Science/Natural Explanations for Lightning
Science/Natural Explanations for Lightning + Zeus,
we should choose the former theory, which explains everything that the latter theory tries to explain and is much simpler. Oppy says the same thing applies to Theism as well:
Theism: God + Natural World
Naturalism: Natural World
Oppy would say that we don't need to go beyond the natural world because opposing theories don't provide any additional explanatory power and are less simple than Naturalism.
Of course, you naturally disagree with this; you might say there are a whole host of things that Naturalism can't explain, but Theism can like the contingency of the universe, the existence of change, consciousness, order/stability, motion, morality, beauty, love, purpose, etc.
However, naturalists have been aware of this and have written dozens of papers, books, and articles that outline how all these subjects and more can be accounted for within the naturalist paradigm. This is one reason the "New "New" Atheists, as you mentioned in your recent podcast episode, are often frustrated with apologetics because it seems that many who do apologetics often ignore the deep, complex, and thorough scholarly work that Naturalists have put together in addressing the phenomena that Theists take to be intractable for Naturalism.
It's fun watching someone have a mid life epiphany. Good luck.
For my crisis, I got a Mustang.