Noah Smith Uses Theology to Draw Political Conclusions: God Help Us
[UPDATE: I removed an analogy because it would have drawn attention away from Noah’s point.
UPDATE #2: In the comments, Scott Sumner objects that I have misunderstood him. I had thought Scott, in his original post, was being tongue-in-cheek, and giving a mock benefit of the doubt to Noah, since it’s crystal clear what Noah is saying in his post. But, I can’t argue with the author telling me what he meant, so there ya go.]
Scott Sumner links to–and points out the central problem with–a recent Noah Smith post. I can’t summarize it; here’s an excerpt that captures its spirit:
[H]ow does [the God of the Bible] know that there isn’t an even more powerful being – call it “SuperGod” – who has chosen to stay completely hidden up until now? Since the hypothetical SuperGod is, hypothetically, even more powerful than God, there’s no way for God to know that SuperGod does not in fact exist.
…
Conclusion: The most powerful being in the Universe, whoever that happens to be, will never be certain of His (or Her) status as such.Now before you reach for the keyboard to write a quick reply (“Of course God knows He’s God, God knows everything, DUH!”), realize that I’m not trying to catch theists with a clever “gotcha”….The most important thing about God is that he chooses to take responsibility for the world.
Think about it. God chooses to create life and humanity, set down laws, punish evil and reward good, send people to various afterlives, and dictate the fate of nations. He doesn’t waste time wondering if there is a SuperGod somewhere out there. He doesn’t need to know for certain that He’s the most powerful being in the Universe; all He knows is that He’s the most powerful being in the neighborhood.
Kind of like you and me.
Some people claim to receive direct communication from God. Others claim to witness miracles. But most of us go through life without seeing direct evidence of the God of the Bible. Instead, we go through life wondering if we’re the most powerful beings in the Universe. And we have to decide whether to take responsibility for those less powerful than us – animals, children, the weak and the poor.
There’s a strong instinct to abdicate that responsibility – to look at things like global warming, poverty, environmental destruction, human misery in all its forms and say “God will take care of that.” For some people it’s not God, but “the free market”, or “evolution”, or “history”. But even if you believe in those things, you don’t really know that they’ll make everything right, any more than God knows whether a hidden SuperGod is guiding all of His actions.
The truth is, whether you like it or not, it’s all on you. The responsibility for those weaker than yourself is not on God’s or the free market’s or history’s or evolution’s head, it’s on your head. So think hard about what you’re going to do with all your power.
My responses:
(1) Noah acknowledges the obvious problem with his premise: namely, that one of the defining attributes of the God of the Bible is His omniscience. With the ellipses above, you may think I’m leaving out Noah’s response, but I’m not. Noah gives no response, except to say that his purpose isn’t to make fun of religion. OK, fine, but it still affects the quality of your blog post, if its initial premise is totally wrong, right?
(2) Scott Sumner pointed out the ironic fact that when Noah talks of people taking “personal responsibility,” he doesn’t actually mean, people taking personal responsibility for these problems. No, what Noah clearly means, is that we should every four years go vote for politicians who “have the power” to deal with these issues, in the way Noah likes.
(3) Noah isn’t a socialist, and he probably favors a “market solution” to climate change, such as a carbon tax. So it would be funny if a Marxist or someone who recommends, say, that the EPA directly order specific energy production techniques, make fun of Noah’s wimpy evasion of his power over food production and climate change. Noah would rather “the market” deliver clothes and food to people, rather than us doing it individually (by enacting a socialist State). He would rather “the market” figure out the most efficient way to curb carbon emissions, with an $x/ton tax. What a coward!
(4) In conclusion, by, “The truth is, whether you like it or not, it’s all on you,” what Noah really means is, “You should agree with my specific policy conclusions on these important issues.”
Actually my post was not critical of Noah’s post, I just pointed out that people were likely to misunderstand his message.
I don’t see Bob saying that your post was critical.
I think by “problem” he meant you have shown that his post isn’t clear.
Scott Sumner pointed out the ironic fact that when Noah talks of people taking “personal responsibility,” he doesn’t actually mean, people taking personal responsibility for these problems. No, what Noah clearly means, is that we should every four years go vote for politicians who “have the power” to deal with these issues, in the way Noah likes.
It looks to me like Sumner is pointing out exactly the opposite: that you shouldn’t interpret Noah’s post the way you are here. (Because then you would be “fooled by framing effects”.)
Not that I think Sumner is right about this, My guess is there’s a reason government is not in there with free market, evolution and history.
(4) In conclusion, by, “The truth is, whether you like it or not, it’s all on you,” what Noah really means is, “You should agree with my specific government policy conclusions on these important issues.”
I think that’s more accurate. “Policy” alone doesn’t make it clear.
—————————–
Smith: The truth is, whether you like it or not, it’s all on you. The responsibility for those weaker than yourself is not on God’s or the free market’s or history’s or evolution’s head, it’s on your head. So think hard about what you’re going to do with all your power.
MartinK, I think it’s obvious why “government” is not in that list. To Smith, self-responsibility, as opposed to non-self-responsibility, is meant to refer to the “self” of the human race. Smith is a philosophical collectivist. He wants to contrast those concepts that are held by many as those which are to “care” or “help” or “guide” human development, with the concept of “the human race”. This “human race” concept is of course to be a social hierarchy, where “governmental” individuals are to do what “God” or “History” or “Evolution” are believed to do.
Self-responsibility to Smith doesn’t actually mean self-responsibility. To him it means coercive social hierarchy, with those who wield control (government) over those who are controlled (citizen).
This is what supposedly constitutes “self-responsibility”.
So if one *doesn’t* believe in God, one is presumably off the hook of being responsible for anything.
“(1) Noah acknowledges the obvious problem with his premise: namely, that one of the defining attributes of the God of the Bible is His omniscience.”
This won’t do. You can define god that way but then you need to show the bible god fits. Theres a gap between your definition and your assertion. Even on your terms Bob you only have (indirectly) bible god’s word for it that he’s omnipotent (I agree ad arguendo bible god claims he is.) but in Noah’s hypotheticl bible god is unaware of higher god — who might fit your definition, or might not.
Ken B. let me make sure I have this right:
==> Noah Smith specifically talked about “God–as described in the Bible” in his post. He said it’s possible that this God doesn’t know something (namely that there is a SuperGod).
==> Noah, you, and I all agree that the Bible describes God as omniscient.
==> You and Noah still think that Noah has a great point, by claiming that the God described in the Bible might not know something.
==> I think that you can’t start an argument by assuming the God as described in the Bible doesn’t know something.
Is the above correct?
Before I answer like you to meet Belder and Frant.
Belder is the most attractive man in the history of the world and Frant is his more attractive older brother.
The only warrant that you have for saying bible god is omiscient is that the Bible tells you so. Pretend instead of yahweh or elohim we call him belder. You have defined God as omniscient. Lets call that that frant. Maybe frant is belder, maybe not. you haven’t proven that Frant is Belder. You are relying on what Belder tells you.
Now let’s talk about the largest positive integer …
“The only warrant that you have for saying bible god is omiscient is that the Bible tells you so.”
And since we are going off the Bible’s description (“God – as described in the Bible”), that’s all we need. If we exit from the Bible’s description, then you could make any point you like, as absurd as you like, based on an arbitrary concept of God. But it certainly won’t have any bearing on the people you are trying to get to see your point – those that believe in God – AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE.
We can argue about whether the Bible is accurate in its description until we’re blue in the face, but that isn’t going to help you make Noah’s point. To convince, say, a Christian – which is what this argument is meant to do, really, or there would be no reason to bring God into it – you have to start with the accepted description of the God they believe in.
Oh actually, I see what you are saying now Ken. It’s sort of like you’re saying, “For all we know, the Samson described in the Bible could be really weak. For all we know, the pillars could have been designed in a trick fashion, and the narrator was ignorant of this fact.”
Is that what you are saying?
It’s funny, for your assertion to make any sense, you would have to be conceding that the Bible really was inspired by a Being who conceivably might be ignorant of a more powerful being.
But, if you are taking the Bible merely as literature, then your argument truly makes no sense at all. It would be like saying the Harry Potter as described in the novels might actually be evil, and the narrator just doesn’t know it.
I know subjunctives are hard Bob but …
In mathematics we have a notion called well-defined. You can define anything you want but just a finding it doesn’t prove that it has any particular properties or that it exists. You can define the largest positive integer. You can define the smallest positive real number. These definitions to not prove the entities exist in any conclusions you draw simply from these definitions will lead you astray.
The God of the Bible is a character this character claims omniscience. The only warrant you have for this claim is the Bible itself. Simply defining that character has omniscient does not relieve you of the responsibility to prove either that that character exists become distant when I mean or that he may be identified with the God of the Bible. Belder and Frant.
Grrr. Voice wreck conditions as tonyen would say.
Ken B:
If believing in God and Christianity and all the rest is founded on faith, then while you can argue whether faith is justifiable or not, I don’t see how your assertion that Murphy has a responsibility to prove God exists to you, such that if he doesn’t, then your response about subjunctives stands.
For consider. Suppose someone has faith that the God they believe in is omniscient, such that there is no possibility of that God now knowing something, such as SuperGods.
Given THAT is the case, then while you can critique their foundation of faith, I don’t think that you have necessarily shown that the God they believe in, is a God that doesn’t know there is a SuperGod.
The implicit premise behind your, Murphy’s, and Rowe’s argument, is actually a Kantian premise that has to do with a self-reflective analysis about the metaphysical constraints of a consciousness, in other words, an argument about what a consciousness cannot know apodictically.
It is not true that the ONLY “source” for a Christian’s beliefs is the Bible, end of story. No, they also have faith. Not only the faith that the Bible is true as written, but also the faith that an omniscient being exists notwithstanding the Bible.
If you temporarily take a sort of Bird’s eye, transhistorical perspective, it makes sense that there would be faith that an omniscient God exists, AND faith the Bible tells the right story about that omniscient God: People had a conception of an omniscient God before the Bible was written. The Bible is, to us atheists, written by those who already had the ideas in their minds and wanted to put them to paper.
Thus, you must distinguish between faith that an omniscient God exists, and faith that the Bible tells a correct story about this omniscient’s God.
Yes, in general, Murphy can be argued as being “obligated” to prove to you that the God as written in the Bible is true. But he actually isn’t required to prove to you the existence of the Biblical God, in order to show that the SuperGod concept a la Rowe does not necessarily follow from the premise of there being an omniscient God.
If the criticism of belief in an omniscient God is that we cannot prove such a God exists, then I don’t see how the SuperGod concept stands as anything other than the same unproved concept.
In other words, Murphy’s point that the SuperGod only makes sense if those who are proposing it presuppose the existence of God, is a valid one.
Rowe’s concept of SuperGod is just the God regular Christians had faith in all along. Sure, they’re obligated to prove it exists, but they aren’t in a position of believing that the God they believe in is not the SuperGod.
I mean Noah, not Rowe.
Laugh out cloud
“one of the defining attributes of the God of the Bible is His omniscience.”
Or rather, the attribute is God’s claim of omniscience. We only have God’s word to go on that. What if God really thinks he is omniscient, because SuperGod has not revealed himself to God. So for all He knows, all He knows is all there is to know. But He doesn’t know there are things which He might not know. You know?
Exactly. Bob is too busy not answering this point when I raised it; he probably won’t take time to not answer you.
🙂
Yosef, the Biblical description of God could be false, or apply to nothing, or whatever. No one is denying that. What Smith did though was:
1) Let us assume the Biblical description of God.
2) Now let us assume that description is false.
Of course the description could be false! But if you assume both it and it falseness, you are talking gibberish.
I understand the claim you guys are making, and you are simply wrong. “The God as described in the Bible” is omniscient, end of story. You can say He doesn’t exist, if you want, but the God as described in the Bible is omniscient, just like the Pharaoh as described in the Bible had a hardened heart.
If this were any other context, you guys wouldn’t be making such a goofy claim. If I said, “Is the Encyclopedia Brown as described in the children’s books the smartest person in his famiiy?” nobody would be so foolish as to say, “No, there might be a smarter sibling that hides from the reader the whole time.” If you were to take that tack, you couldn’t make a confident statement about anything in literature.
The Analog would not be saying that Encyclopedia Brown is the smartest but that he is the smartest possible. But Thats joke that Conan Doyle played when he introduced Mycroft who’s smarter than Sherlock.
If I said in November 1893 “Is there any mastermind behind many of the crimes of Sherlock Holmes as described in the stories?” nobody would say “No, there might be a Napoleon of Crime that hides from Sherlock the whole time”
Except there was. He just hasn’t been revealed to the reader yet. Or to Sherlock. Just like SuperGod might not have been revealed to God or God’s scribes
When people point out things said in the old testament, like the flat earth in Job, Bob explains that god didn’t quite tell the truth but trhied to put it in a form that people of the time could comprehend (who’s patronizing again?). Why not in this case?
If I were to try to make a point about the fundamental nature of the universe to someone who didn’t understand quantum mechanics, would I need to explain that first even if it were not actually relevant to the point I was making? Or could I pretend, say, that atomic theory is the most basic thing…. or even the “four elements”, in some cases?
If not, why would we assume that God would need to explain to Job about how the Earth is, in fact, round? His point stands either way.
So you agree then Matt that the bible might say something about god or the world that isn’t quite true but serves as a first approximation? And that Murphy has argued this exact claim in the past?
This is irrelevant. You are trying to convince someone that believes X is true. You start with the assumption that X is false, and proceed from there. You will convince no one. And your argument makes no sense.
If the statements made about God in the Bible are not entirely true, then the whole argument is irrelevant – if, essentially, God is NOT as described in the Bible, one can attribute ANY characteristic to Him, and then say “see, we should be like God”. What a brilliant and stunning argument. Or not.
“I understand the claim you guys are making, and you are simply wrong.”
Right-o. They keep saying, “But what if God, AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, is really not as he is described in the Bible?”
Since Ken likes math examples, this is just like you started an argument by saying “Let us assume X is the largest integer.” Now Ken won’t let you proceed, as he keeps saying, “Ooh, but maybe you forgot one!”
Which description exactly are you assuming is true? The one where he walks around? The one where he orders rapes and murders? The one where he refers to himself in the plural?
You guys seem to be awfully selective about which descriptions you rely on. But none of that answers the main point. It is entirely logically possible that the God of the Bible does not know everything but thinks he does. Many early Christians actually believe this. Perhaps Gene you should study some church history.
“It is entirely logically possible that the God of the Bible does not know everything but thinks he does.”
Duh, Ken, of course that is possible! But you can’t say:
A) Let us assume the God of the Bible.
AND
B) Let us not assume the God of the Bible.
Which is what Smith did.
You agree that its possible for the god of the bible to claim and believe in omniscience and yet lack it. I can write a book about marduk the turtle who claims omniscience. Assuming marduk of my book only assumes the claim, not the fact of omniscience. Smith’s point , got it seems by MF, is that teh basis you have for the claim, the bible, is consistent with an ubergod.
Let us expand further: Ken seems to think Smith is offering an argument by strong induction. But here would be the equivalent mathematical “argument”:
1) Let us assume that X is the greatest integer.
2) Now, let us assume Y, a number greater than X. Doesn’t that create problems for assumption 1!
This is NOT a proof by strong induction. It is merely nonsense.
“Smith is offering an argument by strong induction.”
Oops, by contradiction.
Bob, I don’t treat you like you’re 7, but I clearly cannot treat you guys like math grads either. Here is a stirling example why.
Consider this. Let x be the largest integer. X+1 is larger than x and is an integer . X is not equal to x+1 so x is larger than x+1by maximality.
That’s not nonsense at all. It’s a proof x does not exist.
Ken B., I will say it one last time for the record: Gene and I know that there is no such thing as the largest integer. You can truly stop trying to prove it to us.
Rather than you assuming we don’t understand simple number theory, I will in turn assume you don’t understand the first thing about rhetoric. You clearly can’t follow our simple argument. Doesn’t mean we’re right, but it means this conversation is pointless.
Bob, Gene called that argument nonsense. Well he also called it strong induction, but thats not a conceptual error. You chastise me for belaboring points that commenters still get wrong!
You argument is “assuming the god of the bible assumes an omniscient god”. But it doesn’t, it only assumes a god who says or believes he is. Thats why Smith’s argument is not what you say it is. He even explicitly notes a awy in which the bible god could be acting in good faith and still be wrong, showing an awareness of the distinction.
Also, I once again commend you Ken for being the most patronizing and unjustifiably confident commenter in the blogosphere that I have ever encountered. Do you actually think I don’t understand stuff like empty definitions?
NOTE: For all I know, there might be a SuperPatronizingKen, even more patronizing than Ken B.
I,m curious Bob. What am I supposed to do when you make a logic error? I clearly can’t explain or illustrate it, as that’s too confident and condescending (you really mean supercilious). I can’t just say “you’re simply wrong” as that would not help readers see the error. I guess i could burble about Peyton Manning — and refuse to allow comments that refute me –but I fail to see how snide misdirected sarcasm is less confident, less condescending.
It’s a puzzle.
as that’s too confident and condescending (you really mean supercilious)
I thought I had typed patronizing, not condescending, but I must be mistaken. A SuperBob probably changed it on me, without my knowledge.
Unlikely. SuperBob would have fixed your logic.
In any event, even if I grant you guys this point (purely for the sake of argument), Noah’s post is still nonsensical. He is either saying what I think he is saying–namely that there is a role for “us” to “do something” about the issues he mentions, meaning use government–or he is saying nothing at all. For example, if I think the best way to help eradicate poverty is to leave it to the “free market,” then I am fully cognizant of how the world works, how much “power” we have, etc. etc., and in full recognition of our moral responsibilities, I say…leave it to the free market. That includes me writing a check of half my income to various anti-poverty organizations.
But yet Noah’s post purports to show that such a move is abdicating my responsibility to use my power responsibly.
I’m not defending Noah’s post. If you like I am defending his rhetorical equivocation on two senses of god in his first sentence.
What logic error?
“and refuse to allow comments that refute me”
This year, ten million commenters have been banned from web sites for being obnoxious. Do you know how many of them said “It is because they can’t refute me!”?
Ten million.
Gene, you are well enough known here that readers can judge for themselves.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence around here: “Also, I once again commend you Ken for being the most patronizing and unjustifiably confident commenter in the blogosphere that I have ever encountered.”
And that refutes Smith’s logic?
Yes Bob, based on the evidence i do. But i am also articulating an argument for readers, not all of whom will see the error you are making.
As for confident, you didnt rebut Yosef or me, just said we’re simply wrong.
What error?
So which is it to be, Bob lamenting that I point out his errors in too much detail, or MF asking for more?
The error, again, is thinking he can just assume that the unmoved mover omniscient god he defines philosophically is the same as that senile old man in Leviticus.
Why wouldn’t it be?
If someone conceives of “the” God, and writes it down on paper, and adds stories to it, that you and I call “the Bible”, why is the default position the notion that the “Philosophical” God is not necessarily identical to the “Biblical” God?
When Christians think of God, they think of the “philosophical” God that is omniscient. I don’t see how or why you believe there is a possibility that the Biblical God is not the omniscient God being thought of by its writers.
Or, put it this way: What WOULD have to true in order for the Biblical God to be known as the philosophical (omniscient) God?
If you say nothing, then I hope you would be able to see that your critcism misses the mark.
Gene Callahan, not blinded by atheism, appreciates the silliness of Noah’s post.
Blinded.
Ha.
MF wrote:
Blinded.
Ha.
Hey, for what it’s worth, I wasn’t saying, “Anyone who is an atheist won’t see my point.” I would like to think even an atheist could understand that Noah’s post makes no sense, even if we set aside the specific dispute I’m having with Ken B. and Yosef.
But, it’s easier to see when someone’s argument is faulty, when the person is arguing for something with which you disagree.
“But, it’s easier to see when someone’s argument is faulty, when the person is arguing for something with which you disagree.”
That I can agree with it.
This is just very confused philosophy. It is not so much wrong as completely nonsensical.
God does not “know” in the same sense that we “know.” Things cause knowledge in us, but not in Him. He is prior, in every sense, to the thing known and His knowledge of it precedes it. God’s knowledge is entirely active and causal. “The knowledge of God is the cause of things.” (Summa P1 Q14 A8)
Likewise God does not “exist” contingently, but of necessity. He /is/ existence and the cause of existence in all things that exist, so you cannot talk of Him beginning to exist, or something existing apart from Him, or something causing His existence.
You can argue against the Aristotelian and Christian understanding of God entirely, or deny it, but within the context of Western philosophy and of Christianity, you cannot ask questions like this without showing that you simply misunderstand the concepts entirely.
“This is just very confused philosophy. It is not so much wrong as completely nonsensical.”
Yes. That is why the right response, I thought, was to parody it, rather than try to refute it: you can’t really refute nonsense.
“you cannot ask questions like this without showing that you simply misunderstand the concepts entirely.”
Right.
Kind of interesting the way Noah attempts to equate faith in Evolution with faith in God. How does Evolution know it is the most powerful force in the Universe? Maybe there’s a SuperEvolution out there secretly influencing the real Evolution in subtle but important ways. Maybe those random mutations are not really random but actually controlled by a deeper, and somehow more significant randomness.
As we enter the Twilight Zone… do do do do.
Yeah, and it’s bizarre to think evolution will solve problems we have right now, like high medical costs or confrontations with Iran.
People looking for a quick fix might come home disappointed.
Then again, God works in mysterious ways, and the SuperGod is even more mysterious. Hard to get good help, you know?
We’ll just evolve to be healthier and more peaceful, man. Now pass the joint around…
PIETAS (Latin, “reverance”): In Roman times, pietas is the quality of revering those things that deserve reverence. The word is the source for our modern English word piety and piousness (reverence toward the divine), but the Latin term is far more all-embracing–indicating not only devotion to the gods, but also devotion to one’s gens (family) and patria (homeland or country). Thus, it also means patriotism and familial responsibility. In Virgil’s Aeneid, one epithet frequently applied to Aeneas is pius Aeneas, implying that Aeneas particularly embodies this quality so valued by the Romans.
Hi Noah,
You wrote: “Some people claim to receive direct communication from God. Others claim to witness miracles. But most of us go through life without seeing direct evidence of the God of the Bible. Instead, we go through life wondering if we’re the most powerful beings in the Universe.”
If you are seeing yourself as the center of the universe as Lucifer did, you have some problems. If you cant see God, I understand, but seeing God is something that requires more than your eyes. Noah I think you are lacking the Holy Spirit. Just pray and read about the Holy Spirit. He will come to you.
One last thing and I will move on: Noah’s post is odd because it seems it has barely any audience. Consider:
(A) A reader who believes in the God of the Bible will not be persuaded to think, “Hmm, I should act like I’m the most powerful creature around, just like God does,” because, by assumption, such a reader believes in the God of the Bible and so knows that he isn’t the most powerful creature around. It’s perfectly reasonable for this person to think, “I will let God handle X.” That’s in fact what the Bible commands (interpreted properly).
(B) A reader who does not believe in the God of the Bible is probably not going to be persuaded to think, “Hmmm, Noah has convinced me that this fictitious character acts in a certain way, so I should act like that too.” Indeed, if the person is an atheist of the type who comments here on Sundays, he will say, “Why in the world would I want to emulate that fictitious being? He is a tyrant, insecure, blah blah blah.”
So either way, Noah’s post makes little sense, in terms of its overall structure. It seems to me Noah wanted to make a (dubious) point about the nature of God, and then wanted to somehow tie it to political debates. It was a non sequitur anchored on a falsehood.
It was at root a critique of the limitations of human consciousness. Rowe is using Kant when he says that it is possible that the God of the Bible
But he botches it when he simply denies that the God of the Bible he’s referring to is the SuperGod. He just says “hypothetically speaking, suppose there is a higher God”. He of course anticipates his readers responding with “The God of the Bible is omniscient, so it would know that it is the SuperGod”, but his response to that doesn’t cut it, as he goes on a tangent about Earthly affairs and not God caring about whether or not there is a SuperGod.
But I think Rowe is making a good point here, but he doesn’t make it explicit. Ken B I think picked up on it, and ran with it, instead of addressing your specific responses. That point is that how can YOU, Murphy, know that the God of the Bible is as omniscient as is claimed? How do YOU know that the Biblical God is the omniscient God with no SuperGod higher up, that you think about, notwithstanding the Bible?
Ken B is saying that you only have the Bible as evidence. In terms of written evidence, yes that’s true. But how would you articulate your conception of an omniscient God, notwithstanding the Bible? Ken B is saying that while you can THINK of “The most powerful being”, and “The being that knows all”, this doesn’t mean you are talking about something that exists in a well-defined manner.
The example he gives is “The largest possible integer”. That’s a definition. But what IS it? What does it mean? You can’t identiy it concretely, because any number you think of, will have a larger number. So to Ken B, the concept of God is like an arbitrary definition that is often mistaken to be a concrete being in existence.
Yes, Bob got all that right away, Major. I did too. The point is that Smith started by saying “Let’s take God AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE.” You can’t start by saying “let’s examine Harry Potter as described in Harry Potter novels,” and then continue, “But what if he really can’t do magic?”
That you didnt get it is shown by your comment on the largest integer example above. Assuming a largest integer exists is a contradiction.
“Assuming a largest integer exists is a contradiction.”
Again, Ken, duh. Rather than actually listen, it is best to just assume there is something basic you grasp that your opponent doesn’t.
Smith COULD HAVE set out to debunk the belief in an omniscient God with an argument by strong induction. He could have said “let us assume an omniscient God… [CONTRADICTION FOLLOWS]… Now, you see there cannot be an omniscient God. The concept is self-contradictory.”
But he did not do that. He simply first assumed the God of the Bible, and then assumed NOT the God of the Bible.
His “argument” has the form:
1) Assume there is a largest integer.
2) Now assume there isn’t one.
“with an argument by strong induction.”
Sorry, meant to say “by contradiction.”
C’mon Gene, now Ken B. will think, “This is why I treat them like they’re 7.”
If Smith really was going to present a proof by contradiction (what I meant to say before, as well — I misspoke in saying “strong induction”) here is where he should have started:
“Now before you reach for the keyboard to write a quick reply (“Of course God knows He’s God, God knows everything, DUH!”), realize that I’m not trying to catch theists with a clever “gotcha” or make a logical argument against religion.”
But no, there is where he STOPS. So just when he would have to take up the point of God’s omniscience and show a contradiction, instead he says, “But never mind that, on to your responsibilities.”
This is true, Smith’s preface does not well support his later spiel. But we’re only talking about the preface.
Actually Ken B, his “later spiel” doesn’t actually continue with the deduction that must follow. Gene’s right about this. Rowe just assumes “Let’s take God as described in the Bible.”
He doesn’t deduce from this at all. He just goes into a tengent on Earthly responsibility.
MF you are consistently referring to this writer as “Rowe.” No, it’s Noah Smith. Nick Rowe, whether atheist or theist, would surely never author such a post. His grandkids couldn’t bear it.
Crap, my bad.
What happens when you add one to infinity? Does it get bigger?
There is an operation of “successor” definable on infinite ordinals that is a generalization of +1. There’s a good book by an Ozzie, Stillwell, but i forget the title. Intended for non mathies.
Roads to Infinity: The Mathematics of Truth and Proof by John Stillwell?
Gets good reviews on Amazon.
Seems like an interesting guy if you can overlook the fact that he came from Melbourne.
I think the point is that there’s a well defined operation (adding one) that you can use to make an integer into a bigger integer.
There’s no such operation you can apply to God, nor does Smith attempt to define one; he merely presumes that God cannot detect the presence of a SuperGod. Gene explained this somewhat badly, presuming he intended to explain it at all.
I’ve previously asked on here, “Does God need to obey the laws of logic?”
If God is truely omnipotent, the answer is no, because all laws come from God including logic. It’s a strange conclusion though when you think that logic is not based on anything physical. We would expect boolean algebra to continue operation regardless of the physical universe.
Well it’s A point, but Smith isn’t doing a reductio. He’s just noting that you can consistently imagine such a being. He’s trying to emphasize that the bible god is all about responsibility, and then riffs on that.
The existence of a SuperGod would imply the regular God is no longer omnipotent, which is already a contradiction.
As for riffing on responsibility, the God of the Bible frequently blames people for being imperfect when God set it up that way. This is much the same as Obama blaming health insurance companies for obeying the law and cancelling plans.
Not exactly the quality of responsibility I’m looking for in a leader.
That is my assessment as well. I wrote in the second paragraph in my previous post that Rowe “botches it” in that respect.
I mean Noah
I mean Noah, not Rowe
Politics + Religion = Not Good
You’d think people would know this by now. Christ, this is why we have the separation of church and state.
Politics is in fact inseparable from religion. That is why we DON’T have the separation of church and state: instead, we have created an American civic religion, with prayers (“The Pledge of Allegiance”), hymns (“The Star-Spangled Banner”), prophets (Jefferson, Madison), saints (Washington, Lincoln, King), sacred texts (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address), religious feast days (Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving)… well, I could go on, but American politics certainly are not separate from the religion of Americanism.
Hmm. It would be entertaining to present this to anyone who claims America is a Christian nation. Well, at least we don’t have anything like what the French had after the French Revolution.
The Constitution has ammendments, and a process for future ammendments. The pledge of alligiance was brought in later. People have good and bad opinions about Lincoln and Washington, etc.
Religion gave up the ability to adapt, there never will be ammendments to the Bible and the Koran. There’s your difference and there’s your problem.
I’m not up on the figures but my guess is that the number of Americans beheaded for apostasy or drawing Lincoln cartoons must be in the low three digits at worst.
You are forgetting about the laws against flag burning that used to be enforceable before Texas v. Johnson invalidated them.
Good point, I did in fact forget that kind of thing. Or the Alien and Sedition acts. But I don’t recall any executions.
I agree.
Before we leave this dead horse beaten to mush, I want to emphasize a point. There is no one god of the Bible. The Bible was written over a long period of time by people with very different ideas about God. Even with in the Old Testament you can find varying ideas of God and what he wants. The ideas of God in the New Testament differ still.
Everyone in this cross-blog thread should be ashamed for bumping a 1,000 year old thread started by St. Anselm with his ontological proof of God’s existence.
Noah at least can be excused for his ignorance of Christian theology.