RE: The pre-failure of apologetic arguments
December 5, 2011 at 12:44 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm by Matthaῖos.)
Interesting video. However, I'm not sure that the analogy holds between his "spam" argument and Craig's Kalām argument (which I'm not especially enamoured with, at least as an argument for the existence of God).
Here's Craig's Kalām argument:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Here's the parody argument:
(1') Objects when pushed move faster. (I take it that by "object" he means a concrete, physical object.)
(2') A tin of spam is an object.
(3'): Therefore, a tin of spam at speed c will move faster when pushed.
It seems to me that the spam argument fails as a parody because it fails to match up the premises correctly. (1) is a metaphysical claim, while (1') is a scientific claim. And, (2) is a scientific claim, while (2') is a metaphysical claim (that a tin of spam is an object and not, say, a mental construct, a property, a proposition, etc.).
Given this observation, his analysis of (1) by comparing it to (1') doesn't seem to work. He explains that general relativity has demonstrated, scientifically, that (1') is false. But is it possible that science could, even in principle, demonstrate that (1) is false? No, because it is not a scientific claim, but a metaphysical one.
Rather than comparing (1) with (1'), he should compare (2) with (1'). But here, his reasons seem to fall flat - Craig would readily admit that if scientific evidence demonstrated that the universe didn't begin to exist, then his argument would fail. He argues that the universe began to exist based from scientific results, after all.
Finally, his whole argument seemed to boil down to the idea that 'the scientific method' (if it even makes sense to speak of such a thing) is just better than philosophical argumentation. Well, better at what? Unsurprisingly, the use of the scientific method is better at establishing claims within the various scientific fields of study. But equally unsurprisingly, the use of philosophical argumentation is better at establishing conclusions within various philosophical fields of study. In fact, it's not even a case of better or worse - metaphysical claims and the like simply can't be established by scientific enquiry. (However, I don't think that the converse - that philosophical argumentation can't establish scientific claims - is true, as some scientific claims could be metaphysically necessary or impossible.)
In the end, the question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific question (and indeed, that is true of all questions about whether something exists). It is a metaphysical question, and that means philosophical argument is required to establish it. There seems to be a curious trend against the use of philosophical argument; I am reminded in particular of Stephen Hawking's claim that "philosophy is dead" (followed, even more curiously, by a philosophical discussion about a highly contested view within the philosophy of science). The very fact that there is a field called the philosophy of science should make us wary of making such generalisations about philosophical argumentation; the very success of the scientific method depends on a number of metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that can not be established by the scientific method itself. This is neither a failing of those assumptions nor of the proposition that "God exists".
Here's Craig's Kalām argument:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Here's the parody argument:
(1') Objects when pushed move faster. (I take it that by "object" he means a concrete, physical object.)
(2') A tin of spam is an object.
(3'): Therefore, a tin of spam at speed c will move faster when pushed.
It seems to me that the spam argument fails as a parody because it fails to match up the premises correctly. (1) is a metaphysical claim, while (1') is a scientific claim. And, (2) is a scientific claim, while (2') is a metaphysical claim (that a tin of spam is an object and not, say, a mental construct, a property, a proposition, etc.).
Given this observation, his analysis of (1) by comparing it to (1') doesn't seem to work. He explains that general relativity has demonstrated, scientifically, that (1') is false. But is it possible that science could, even in principle, demonstrate that (1) is false? No, because it is not a scientific claim, but a metaphysical one.
Rather than comparing (1) with (1'), he should compare (2) with (1'). But here, his reasons seem to fall flat - Craig would readily admit that if scientific evidence demonstrated that the universe didn't begin to exist, then his argument would fail. He argues that the universe began to exist based from scientific results, after all.
Finally, his whole argument seemed to boil down to the idea that 'the scientific method' (if it even makes sense to speak of such a thing) is just better than philosophical argumentation. Well, better at what? Unsurprisingly, the use of the scientific method is better at establishing claims within the various scientific fields of study. But equally unsurprisingly, the use of philosophical argumentation is better at establishing conclusions within various philosophical fields of study. In fact, it's not even a case of better or worse - metaphysical claims and the like simply can't be established by scientific enquiry. (However, I don't think that the converse - that philosophical argumentation can't establish scientific claims - is true, as some scientific claims could be metaphysically necessary or impossible.)
In the end, the question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific question (and indeed, that is true of all questions about whether something exists). It is a metaphysical question, and that means philosophical argument is required to establish it. There seems to be a curious trend against the use of philosophical argument; I am reminded in particular of Stephen Hawking's claim that "philosophy is dead" (followed, even more curiously, by a philosophical discussion about a highly contested view within the philosophy of science). The very fact that there is a field called the philosophy of science should make us wary of making such generalisations about philosophical argumentation; the very success of the scientific method depends on a number of metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that can not be established by the scientific method itself. This is neither a failing of those assumptions nor of the proposition that "God exists".
