That is interesting how Philip Goff brings together the alternatives of believing (“leaping” to) something that is false versus failing to believe something that is true with an inverse leap (holding fast to current potentially false view).
(Timestamp 1:04:03 for anyone that doesn’t want to scroll through to find it, though it’s an interesting discussion throughout)
The discussion of choosing to believe is bizarre. It’s inconsistent to believe that there’s a 30% chance something is true and also to believe that it is true. And while it’s consistent to believe that something is true while believing that the evidence suggests that there’s only a 30% chance it’s true, and then looking for more evidence, it’s a poor epistemic practice and a known failure mode to form beliefs first and then hunt for evidence that supports them.
Maybe that’s unfair, and they’re saying something more like “I know what the evidence says, but my gut tells me we’re missing something”, which is rational and consistent and not necessarily bad epistemology as long as he’s careful about how he applies that belief. It seems like firmer ground to call oneself an agnostic if you’re 50-50 on the truth of Christianity.
But I can see the appeal of the tepid Christianity he describes. It sets aside a lot of problematic beliefs and keeps Jesus’ moral philosophy and the aspects of belief that give warm fuzzies. I would imagine that most Christians wouldn’t really call it Christianity, though it fits most technical definitions in that he accepts the divinity of Christ. I didn’t follow how he gets from less-than-all-powerful god to Christianity specifically, maybe I missed it or maybe at some point in the chain of reasoning he’s just choosing to believe something without having reasons to believe it.
The idea of a less-than-all-powerful god does seem harder to refute, if only because it’s so much more amorphous than the “Omnigod”. What exactly are this god’s powers? What constrains them? It’s hard to refute because it’s mostly undefined. Any observation that might refute Omnigod doesn’t refute the less-than-all-powerful god (“Quasigod”? “Semigod”?), it just narrows down the set of God’s powers. Similarly it seems like a complete concession to the “god of the gaps” critique: God can do exactly that for which we have no other explanation, and no more.
Tangentially, it’s a disingenuous to describe Philip Goff as a “famous atheist”. It’s fair to say he’s famous by philosopher standards, but he’s not famous for being an atheist – having known of him and his work for a while, I didn’t know that he was an atheist. His website still describes him as a “practicing agnostic” (I assume he means to update this soon). He’s best known for his arguments for panpsychism, which always felt like panentheism to me.
Rereading the above, my reaction seems pretty negative, but I actually liked the video, it’s thoughtful and challenging. Thanks for pointing to it.
1 Like
A hypothesis, model, or theory are levels of belief that we pose or consider worth pursuing in order to collect and weigh supporting/defeating arguments and evidence. If we never did that (not even in response to “an” evidence/example), there’d be no reason to weigh arguments/evidence.
Sometimes we encounter evidence first and build a brand new hypothesis, model, or theory based off of it, or tweak a current one, but. Nothing says we have to wait for evidence before designing an experiment to test some rando hypothesis and its implications.
For example, if you have good deductive and evidence-based arguments for the universe’s beginning, as well as good odds for intelligent design, as Goff mentioned, it doesn’t get you all the way to Christianity, but if you believe a God would be morally good, you are justified in betting on Christianity, given the alternatives. I don’t know where he gets the 30% figure (at 01:03:34 he says 50%), but I would say the truth of a belief/claim is not dependent on the strength of either the evidence or the belief.
But, his evidence for atheism being lacking (because the problem of evil gives way to the problem of good)… 30% in favor of Christianity definitely beats 0% for atheism. He was already on the fence, and decided to “wager”. There are doctrinal/scriptural issues he is wonky on, but… he’s not rejecting the “point”.
Because he doesn’t want to miss out on the “pros” side of Christianity, community. He’s not even concerned with avoiding hell (resonates with “there is no fear in love; perfect love casts out all fear”). Seems legit to me, as far as that goes.
I commented to the YouTube video with other thoughts, but wanted to stay on topic in this thread. I like the twist.
He started with the POE. Then he was struck by the anthropic principle. Then he noticed arguments against God assume a particular model— the omni God that fails. He hypothesizes a God of limited power. That doesn’t meet Anselm’s standard of highest being that can be conceived. He notes both atheism and theism both have insoluable problems.
God can’t be explained. The ultimate relationship between the all and the many cannot be explained. Why? assumes a cause. Cause like time and space are the givens of how the mind structures the phenomenal world.
So, to me , Goff’s solution is unacceptable. But, he’s a thinker and a seeker on the way. So yeah, thanks for sharing the video. I’m considering reading his book, “Gallieo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness.”
Due to the POE. He confuses “can’t” (the way he says this word deserves a timestamp, but I’m short on time) with “won’t” (or is it vice versa?). It is not that God can’t force us all to straighten up and fly right; it’s that he won’t violate consent. He is self-limiting, which is the same as self-possessed—true power. The existence of evil (a violation of self=other) is not intended by God, but our evil choices are permitted—God upholds recognized personhood. Just as in natural law theory, we are not obligated to avoid unavoidable, unintended consequences, even if we foresee them—it does not release us from the obligation to uphold recognized personhood. We must act.
We must wager.
Sometimes he does intervene. See Revelation for one example.
The alternative is nothingness, which is impossible.
I’m familiar with the free will argument. But, find it unacceptable. A maximal God could do better. And it doesn’t explain natural evils like earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. God suffers with every sufferer. God seeks with every seeker. For the maximal God nothing and no one can be lost. The problem lies in the limitations of our perception.
“ If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.”
― William Blake, [The Marriage of Heaven and Hell]
Mkay. How does… your… whatever… do better?
God seeks what? The lost sheep. And what happens every freakin time? He always knew. Being sought is something the lost sheep perceives. Speaking of the doors & what not. Knock knock banana.
In terms of “loss”…
I am reminded of “the son of perdition/destruction” (again…always knew) — I am reminded of Jesus weeping at the death of Lazarus, or the lack of belief, or the foreshadowing of his own rejection and crucifixion. And all the other appropriate “re”sponses stretching back to the beginning and forward to that day.
Feelings are not weakness. A lack of superpowering them is.
Rethink power.
How is a question best answered by science. Science cannot explain why there is something and not nothing which one would have to explain to answer your question. Metaphysics starts here.
Your whatever doesn’t do better. It was rhetorical.
We hit an impasse at the Ding-an-sich.
1 Like
The dogmatist says my religion alone is true, and the religions of others are false. This is a bad attitude. God can be reached by different paths. One can rightly speak of God, only after one has seen him. He who has seen God knows really and truly that God has forms and that he is formless as well. He has many other aspects that cannot be described.
If they cannot be described, then how are you even saying/thinking that non-describableness with words? It’s just playing with words.
If I say “they are good, beautiful, and true” and you say “and so much more” — have you even said anything?
To infinity—and beyond!
Dr. Goff was charitable to the truth every religion has. But, he did say some are more plausible than others. He did not say that we should just be OK with contradictions. He is a philosopher.
People represent ________with symbols and myths, they conduct rituals, offer sacrifices, they dance and sing, meditate and pray, all in an attempt to experience __________that cannot be thought or literally put into words. They call __________ God for lack of a better word.
Please pick a topic in line with this thread & take your indecipherable babble elsewhere.
Matthew 10:14
1 Like