Atheists usually say that theism is a more complicated hypothesis because it posits everything that we know exists PLUS God, but surely that’s wrong. Theism is just the hypothesis “a perfect person exists”, so it’s a very simple hypothesis that posits only one thing that has no/few arbitrary limits (assuming God’s perfection is logically prior to God’s properties). Contrastingly, certain forms of naturalism posit things like “a finely-tuned universe with conscious and non-conscious things and this much stuff necessarily exists/happens to exist”. So theism posits one simple thing and naturalism posits a bunch of complicated things.
Obviously, most theists posit the existence of the universe and matter independently of their theism, but that shouldn’t make a difference in whether theism or naturalism is a simpler hypothesis, right?
I think it depends on one's model. I would say theism is at least more complicated than not taking any sides on the issue (per agnosticism), but I agree that ~theism adds its own complexity that many theist models can shave off (e.g., imperfection-entailing parameters in fundamental reality).
On the topic of agnosticism, would you agree with the claim that way more people should be agnostic? I have been thinking this recently and I just think that the level of expert disagreement on philosophy of religion means that people who haven’t deeply studied the area shouldn’t strongly believe one side or the other. Atheists have to contend with people like you who have at least potentially sound responses to anything they could raise and theists have to contend with people like Paul Draper. Do you think that the level of disagreement between experts and the knowledge that there is a strong possibility that someone on the other side is right on a subtle point that has dramatic implications for the whole debate means that in most cases people should suspend judgement?
To me it just seems weird like if random people had strong and firm opinions on string theory or something like that. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts if you are able to respond
This is a really great question! I might make a blog post on it, since I have a lot to say. My summary thought is that people often *underestimate* their powers to discern truths for themselves (and there are many truths to discern). But for those leaning on tribe or experts, then yes, I think agnosticism is perhaps wisest in many cases...
Okay I’m interested in seeing that post if you make it! The kind of epistemic paralysis I’m describing definitely wouldn’t be very appealing. Briefly, do you think that “Josh Rasmussen disagrees with me despite having the same data” should act as a reasonably powerful undercutting defeater for the average atheist? I guess this runs into the problem of “I should only believe something if there is expert consensus” being something that many/most experts disagree with so using this as an epistemology a bit self-defeating.
I think I have a book with a chapter on this very issue and my philosophy teacher did his PhD thesis on peer disagreement so I think I’m well set up to investigate the issue, but I’d be interested in hearing your brief thoughts on that.
I don't know, It seems like you're trying to play apples-and-oranges by comparing bare theism to naturalism instead of comparing theism to atheism. It seems as though the important questions are whether (theism + the universe exists) is simpler than (~theism + the universe exists), and whether (theism) is simpler than (~theism), no?
As a deeper point, and I'm sure an actual philosopher has made this point better than I, but I'm skeptical of that perfection is actually a simple idea. Perhaps the fact that we have a single word for it obscures this, but the fact that there has been such frequent and intense debate about the moral domain, i.e. about what the good and the perfect are, tells me that this is in fact a very complicated concept to posit! For all their complexity, we've cut out huge swaths of understanding in physicalist primitive concepts, i.e., in physics. We can't really say the same for the property of perfection!
I am comparing bare theism to naturalism as theories about the foundation of reality. Is that fair to do? What else needs to be added to bare theism with respect to what makes up foundational reality, in your view?
I agree about the second part that it is complex to figure out what goodness is, but whatever goodness actually is is something simple under pretty much every theory.
I suppose there's nothing stopping you from comparing theism to naturalism, it's just that there are plenty of other atheist theories of foundations besides naturalism, like (if I am understanding things correctly) modal realism and certain forms of idealism.
Part of your comment also makes me wonder if we have the same concept of simplicity or not: when you ask what needs to be added to bare theism to make up reality, it seemd as though, to you, the deciding factor for a theory's overall simplicity is the simplicity of its foundational concepts, not of any resulting concepts that are implied by it. Whereas, I could imagine someone defending the view that a theory with simple foundations and complex implications is, overall, complicated rather than simple. (An intuition pump for this might be that the field of mathematics seems like a complicated thing, even though mathematical results are just logical implications of the ZFC axioms, which are both simple and few.)
A simple theory with lots of true predictions has what we might call "unified simplicity," which is an intrinsically simple theory at its root with a high level of predictive success. (Note: *every* theory trivially has infinitely many predictions.)
The best and only real case for atheism anywhere and everywhere is that no version of god has ever been demonstrated to be possible, much less plausible, much less likely, much less actual. All are either an untestable force or an untestable personified force. All are literally indistinguishable from fiction and Ought to be treated accordingly.
I’m interested in the simplicity section.
Atheists usually say that theism is a more complicated hypothesis because it posits everything that we know exists PLUS God, but surely that’s wrong. Theism is just the hypothesis “a perfect person exists”, so it’s a very simple hypothesis that posits only one thing that has no/few arbitrary limits (assuming God’s perfection is logically prior to God’s properties). Contrastingly, certain forms of naturalism posit things like “a finely-tuned universe with conscious and non-conscious things and this much stuff necessarily exists/happens to exist”. So theism posits one simple thing and naturalism posits a bunch of complicated things.
Obviously, most theists posit the existence of the universe and matter independently of their theism, but that shouldn’t make a difference in whether theism or naturalism is a simpler hypothesis, right?
I think it depends on one's model. I would say theism is at least more complicated than not taking any sides on the issue (per agnosticism), but I agree that ~theism adds its own complexity that many theist models can shave off (e.g., imperfection-entailing parameters in fundamental reality).
On the topic of agnosticism, would you agree with the claim that way more people should be agnostic? I have been thinking this recently and I just think that the level of expert disagreement on philosophy of religion means that people who haven’t deeply studied the area shouldn’t strongly believe one side or the other. Atheists have to contend with people like you who have at least potentially sound responses to anything they could raise and theists have to contend with people like Paul Draper. Do you think that the level of disagreement between experts and the knowledge that there is a strong possibility that someone on the other side is right on a subtle point that has dramatic implications for the whole debate means that in most cases people should suspend judgement?
To me it just seems weird like if random people had strong and firm opinions on string theory or something like that. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts if you are able to respond
This is a really great question! I might make a blog post on it, since I have a lot to say. My summary thought is that people often *underestimate* their powers to discern truths for themselves (and there are many truths to discern). But for those leaning on tribe or experts, then yes, I think agnosticism is perhaps wisest in many cases...
Okay I’m interested in seeing that post if you make it! The kind of epistemic paralysis I’m describing definitely wouldn’t be very appealing. Briefly, do you think that “Josh Rasmussen disagrees with me despite having the same data” should act as a reasonably powerful undercutting defeater for the average atheist? I guess this runs into the problem of “I should only believe something if there is expert consensus” being something that many/most experts disagree with so using this as an epistemology a bit self-defeating.
I think I have a book with a chapter on this very issue and my philosophy teacher did his PhD thesis on peer disagreement so I think I’m well set up to investigate the issue, but I’d be interested in hearing your brief thoughts on that.
I don't know, It seems like you're trying to play apples-and-oranges by comparing bare theism to naturalism instead of comparing theism to atheism. It seems as though the important questions are whether (theism + the universe exists) is simpler than (~theism + the universe exists), and whether (theism) is simpler than (~theism), no?
As a deeper point, and I'm sure an actual philosopher has made this point better than I, but I'm skeptical of that perfection is actually a simple idea. Perhaps the fact that we have a single word for it obscures this, but the fact that there has been such frequent and intense debate about the moral domain, i.e. about what the good and the perfect are, tells me that this is in fact a very complicated concept to posit! For all their complexity, we've cut out huge swaths of understanding in physicalist primitive concepts, i.e., in physics. We can't really say the same for the property of perfection!
I am comparing bare theism to naturalism as theories about the foundation of reality. Is that fair to do? What else needs to be added to bare theism with respect to what makes up foundational reality, in your view?
I agree about the second part that it is complex to figure out what goodness is, but whatever goodness actually is is something simple under pretty much every theory.
I suppose there's nothing stopping you from comparing theism to naturalism, it's just that there are plenty of other atheist theories of foundations besides naturalism, like (if I am understanding things correctly) modal realism and certain forms of idealism.
Part of your comment also makes me wonder if we have the same concept of simplicity or not: when you ask what needs to be added to bare theism to make up reality, it seemd as though, to you, the deciding factor for a theory's overall simplicity is the simplicity of its foundational concepts, not of any resulting concepts that are implied by it. Whereas, I could imagine someone defending the view that a theory with simple foundations and complex implications is, overall, complicated rather than simple. (An intuition pump for this might be that the field of mathematics seems like a complicated thing, even though mathematical results are just logical implications of the ZFC axioms, which are both simple and few.)
A simple theory with lots of true predictions has what we might call "unified simplicity," which is an intrinsically simple theory at its root with a high level of predictive success. (Note: *every* theory trivially has infinitely many predictions.)
Thanks, I appreciate these points.
One note: I agree 100% that naturalism is not the same as bare atheism, and indeed, I even suggested a *theistic* version of naturalism.
The best and only real case for atheism anywhere and everywhere is that no version of god has ever been demonstrated to be possible, much less plausible, much less likely, much less actual. All are either an untestable force or an untestable personified force. All are literally indistinguishable from fiction and Ought to be treated accordingly.
which has its parallel in IV.
You should not have respectful engagement with cancer, you should root it out with extreme prejudice.
Which is why I'm harder on religious people.