Counter Apologetics

Two Christian apologists reviewed my series on the moral argument for God on their channel, Democracy of the Dead. I recorded my own counter-response shortly thereafter, but thought it was too profanity-laden and impolite to release. Generally speaking, it’s good to remain dispassionate in these online spaces, but I let my frustration get the better of me. However, I changed my mind. I trust that you in the audience can discern why I’m reacting as I do in the episode. My exasperation was entirely the product of their errors, oversights, and misunderstandings — all of which were completely avoidable, had they put one-tenth of the effort into their video that I put into mine. Their mistakes are not exclusively philosophical. In many instances, they simply misunderstand what is being said, for what purpose it’s being said, and even who is saying it. All in all, it was an extremely tedious video to review, but I hope that my commentary makes it interesting, or at least entertaining.

Linktree

Zac (Adherent Apologetics) and I explore a few of the things that drew me to agnosticism. Religious ambiguity, disagreement among epistemic peers, the diversity of the theistic tradition (as well as the varieties of non-theism), the seeming inscrutability of the prior probability of theism, and my acceptance of the value-selection hypothesis have all played a part in pushing me (somewhat reluctantly) to agnosticism.

Linktree

I’m interviewed by Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) about my deconversion, the sad state of Christian apologetics, my issues with the skeptic community, free will, the afterlife, agnosticism, and a few other topics.

Fubilosophy

Linktree

What would convince you of God’s existence? Specifically, the Christian God. What would change your mind and cause you to convert?

I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That’s not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism.

I spend the most time talking about religious experiences, mainly for two reasons. First, their epistemic significance is not always appreciated by nonbelievers. Second, I’ve noticed that some Christian apologists really hate it when nonbelievers say the experience of God would convince them of theism and thought that was worth examining.

/ Videos referenced in the episode /

Jimmy Akin & Emerson Green – Debunking the Skeptics on UFOs

The Argument from Miracles (Panel)

Countering the Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

What would make atheists accept a miracle claim? | C.M. Lorkowski & Real Atheology

5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology 

4 Things I Learned About Epistemology

Phenomenal Conservatism with Michael Huemer

Linktree

The world is religiously ambiguous: It can be interpreted in various incompatible ways, and the interpreters are not necessarily violating any standards of rationality in doing so. As for me, I don’t feel any position being forced on me by the evidence. My best efforts to judge the total balance of evidence weighing for and against theism leave me thinking that no one has a decisive case; and the main way to give the impression of having a decisive case is to ignore the total evidence, focusing solely or primarily on the facts that support your position. Put a spotlight on the things that favor your view, and minimize or cast aside the things that don’t fit.

Over time, I’ve come to appreciate the force of some of the evidence against the hypothesis of indifference and in favor of a “value selection hypothesis“, e.g. psychophysical harmony, fine-tuning, and the axiological trajectory of the universe. These, along with a few other considerations that favor theism more directly, have gradually moved me to more of a middle position on theism vs. atheism. (Today, I don’t dive into a full-fledged defense of those arguments.)

There are plenty of sources of epistemic uncertainty that have increasingly led me to hold on to my beliefs more loosely. How am I supposed to alter my confidence in light of peer disagreement? How should I set my priors? How am I supposed to reckon with the inescapable contingency of my beliefs? Richard Rorty often spoke about a certain kind of philosopher with “radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered” (1989). Rorty goes much further, in ways that I can’t get behind. But what can I say? I’m impressed by many of you. The problem is that you have mutually exclusive, incommensurable worldviews. At least for me, at this point, agnosticism seems like the most honest reaction to my epistemic situation. (Of course, God can settle this whenever he likes.)

Linktree

Returning guest John Buck joins me to debate universalism, eternal conscious torment, and other topics related to hell and the afterlife.

My Playlist on Hell

Linktree

We wrap up our series on the moral argument for theism, summarize several problems with the argument famously associated with William Lane Craig, and discuss two other moral arguments for God that are not abysmal failures like the standard moral argument.

Linktree

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And morality.

The standard moral argument popularized by William Lane Craig and others goes as follows:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 

(2) Objective moral values do exist. 

(3) Therefore, God exists. 

Today, we cast some doubt on the idea that morality is objective only if God exists. We also define some crucial terms, refute a few apologetic canards, and discuss a few ways in which apologists have misrepresented the field of metaethics and failed the audiences that rely on them.

Here’s the overview of the whole moral argument series. Today, in part one, we’ll be covering sections (1)-(5).

(1) Introduction

(2) Defining Terms

(3) Apologetics vs. Metaethics

(4) “Humans are just animals” (Moral agents vs. patients)

(5) The Moral Law Giver

(6) Euthyphro & Intrinsic Value

(7) Hume’s Law

(8) Why Obey God?

(9) Groundless Morals

(10) Two Classes of Moral Realism

(11) God Cannot Provide the Basis for Objective Morality

(12) Good Moral Arguments

(13) What’s wrong with the moral argument?

A few resources mentioned in this episode:

Majesty of Reason – Moral Realism | Dr. Michael Huemer & Dr. Don Loeb

Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan

Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau

Support the Show

Linktree