Objections to metaphysical arguments for the existence of God are otiose
What puts monotheism in a rather incredulous spot for me is the context of the emergence of the belief historically, including the anthropomorphism of it, let alone the politically useful patriarchal tone of it and its coincidence with the origin of writing (The Word, scripture, holy books, etc.). Outside of those very culturally specific things, the whole idea of God means what? If there were no humans, would there be any need for an all knowing all loving all powerful perfectly good God? Add to this the mind boggling timeframe of events on earth and the universe compared with the duration of the species and the timespan of written history. Or our propensity for storytelling and the need for cultural narratives to justify everyday roles and sense of justice at different times in our technological economies is pretty obvious. Beliefs in a divine right of kings or mandate of heaven or a belief in a mechanistic-rational order of the universe each probably serve(d) a similar social narrative function (with ideology lagging behind technology). Why would we bother to counter theistic arguments with metaphysical themed arguments if history, anthropology and cosmology more than suffice?
Comments (22)
(Your 'no God without humans point' touches on that but doesn't nail it to naive realism). From this pov, all rejection of ''existence of God' based on 'lack of evidence' or social history is futile, because 'God' remains psychologically and socially functional, and therefore 'exists' for many.
IMO, the only worthwhile debate in this matter is to discuss the view that religion in general, and theism in particular tends to be historically socially pernicious, and hence 'dysfunctional'. It bears some similarity with a 'drugs'debate'..
What are you thinking "metaphysical" refers to?
So you're using the colloquial "transcending the physical world" sense? In philosophy, the bulk of metaphysics is ontology, which is simply about "what exists," "what the nature of existent things/entities/etc. is" and so on.
The notion that "a start by a prior existing something" certainly would be considered...and my guess would easily become the prevailing theory, because of the harshness of animal existence.
Gods or a god may be the answer to Ultimate Questions...but if "gods or a god" had never been considered, we'd still just a blob of cells reacting as do the lesser animals.
So, the notion that there are gods seems inevitable...and whether correct or incorrect, would be almost inevitable to any creatures evolving the way we humans have.
To suppose that objections to metaphysical arguments for the existence of God are otiose...makes no sense. They are inevitable.
People do argue for and against the existence of God, invoking things like the problem of evil, the evidence of the work of intelligence in nature, the necessity or irrelevance of a prime mover, etc. All I'm saying is that the idea of monotheistic God is an accident of a very brief period of recent human history, which itself is extremely brief in the context of geologic history, and although the idea of God is meaningful to some of us, it has no sense without us. What would the monotheistic God be supposed to be without us? Another useful fiction for maintaining social order, now becoming increasingly useless and even counter-productive in terms of justice and human well-being.
The idea of monotheism arose independently in different human cultures. It is quite a natural idea to look at creation and wonder who made it. I think that aliens will also believe in a monotheistic deity of some sort; it makes sense from metaphysical arguments like the argument from causation etc... These arguments are just logical and transcend any particular culture.
I think that monotheism grew out of polytheism but the roots of monotheism are clear in polytheism - there is usually some sort of chief god who was responsible for creation. This chief god morphs into the monotheistic God over time. So most forms of polytheism could be regarded as proto-monotheistic.
I think that the argument from causality for a first cause is so obvious that it will have occurred to many people across the ages. Aristotle mentions it, St Thomas Aquinas goes to town on it; surely it will have occurred in other cultures too? A first cause for causality naturally leads to some sort of creator God, which leads eventually to monotheism.
There are no obvious metaphysical arguments to support a nontheistic viewpoint so I believe it would be a less common development.
Quoting Devans99
The need for a "first cause" is an absurdity...used mostly by people devoted to showing that a "god" has to exist.
The "first cause" can be everything...just as easily as it can be a creator being.
(The creator being necessitated only by your insistence that "what is" is a creation.)
Take an example; the break off shot in pool is the first cause of the pack scattering around the table. Take away the break off (=first cause) and nothing happens.
All instances of causality are inverted pyramids with the first cause being the pointy end and now being the ever growing base of the pyramid.
To deny the above is to deny common sense and much of science.
Because religious claims are metaphysical, and you can't disprove metaphysics with anthropology. It would be analogous to a genetic fallacy "An idiot and Hitler said 2+2+4, therefore not 2+2=4". Similarly "Someone believes in God because of historical and psychological context, therefore there is no God." It just doesn't follow. A study of anthropology and psychology etc might undermine someone's motivation for believing in God and generating a metaphysic to rationalise their belief, but that rationalisation remains logically distinct and is true or false on its own merits.
Yet...you posit an uncaused cause to explain it.
The position is untenable...although I doubt you will abandon it. You need it because your intentions all along have been to "prove" there is a GOD.
There is denial of common sense here. But you are the one denying it.
Frank, I agree with your replies to Devans99. And Devans99 as I have been arguing, there is no reason to assume that if it turns out that there is an ultimate cause, it would be anything like the historically accidental concept of a monotheistic God.
Rather a different case, Bert. One can look at the historical origins of myriad metaphysical claims but we don't because after some time passes we realize they are silly or ignorant. For example, do I need a metaphysical argument to disprove that if there is a God, he would be hungry for human sacrifice, as so many people believed for so long? No, because the all-too-human origins of that idea are obvious.
Scientists don't build on previous discoveries so much as upend previous accounts and the definitions that go with them. Empiricism is not a mirror of nature, it is a maker of worlds that allow us to do useful things.
All your argument has accomplished is to replace the mythology of the metaphysical primacy of God with the mythology of the metaphysical primacy of science. I don't know if youre aware of how outdated your philosophy of scientific method sounds to a growing community of philosophers as well as scientists. Check out French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat and American physicist and philosopher Arthur Fine , for starters.
For what it's worth, I'm not a proponent of naive realism and I find that archeologists and historians are far more interesting and informed about the history of culture than most philosophers who are busier grinding their axes.
I'm aware that there are many views of scientists on their models and history. Quite a good series was done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on their Ideas program called "How to Think about Science" if you're interested. Daston on the history of objectivity is very interesting, if I recall.
Yes, there are some serious problems with science and scientism (especially reductionism), but the evidence that we're advancing scientific understanding year after year is simply undeniable. (Too bad culture is unable to keep up with the current pace. I fear we won't be able to reorganize ourselves in time. A bit like anthropogenic climate change. A singularity.)
And I don't think I gave any account of "scientific method" so I don't know how you come to think my "philosophy of scientific method" sounds outdated.