"This sort of approach misses the whole point of philosophy. We’re not here to win debates, or make our interlocutors look bad. We’re here to gain a better understanding of the world"
Of course you would say this mere days before the verbal thrashing you will receive when we meet to hash out the whole consciousness thing
I agree that people sometimes bite bullets that don’t actually reflect what they believe in an attempt to remain consistent while clinging onto some prior position that they’ve voiced. And that this is especially prominent in discourse about animal ethics.
The one concern I would highlight though is what seems obvious or absurd varies from person to person.
For example, many people report having the intuition that it seems obvious to them that moral realism is true. I do not share this intuition - in fact it seems obvious to me that moral anti-realism is true.
There are other positions I hold, such as epistemic anti-realism, that many people would likely regard as me just biting obviously crazy bullets in a desperate attempt to avoid affirming moral realism. But this is not the case! I’ve always had epistemic anti-realist intuitions - the view has never appeared counterintuitive to me, let alone absurd.
Classical utilitarianism has many entailments that I would find deeply insane, but I wouldn’t accuse proponents of that view of valuing their own ego over taking philosophy seriously.
I’m a bit puzzled by some of your remarks on begging the question. You say the following:
“Now, Moorean Shifts in various scenarios may still fail. Maybe, for example, you think the skeptical Modus Ponens take on some issue is more plausible, and reject the Moorean Shift as a result - but my point is, they don’t fail because they’re invalid.”
Begging the question is an informal fallacy, not a formal one, so saying that an argument begs the question is not to say an argument is invalid. Begging the question doesn’t even suffice to make an argument unsound.
But I agree with you that there’s a risk of casting such a wide net when it comes to defining begging the question such that every argument would constitute begging the question.
Agree completely on appeals to authority. Fallacies are often misused on the internet, and the appeal to authority fallacy is one of the most common victims of this.
1. On bullet biting. Yeah, I agree. Basically everyone will have views that people find absurd. The point is just to be honest with ourselves about what we're actually doing. Are we just biting bullets to save face, or do we really believe what we say.
2. On begging the question. Again, you're correct. I will amend that (also, quite funny to accuse people of not understanding begging the question while I myself got part of it wrong lol). Thanks for the spot
I’m afraid I am one of those atheists with a sex doll and I have a different understanding of the God of the Gaps argument than you.
> “God of the gaps” is used to refer to Theists misattributing to God what can be explained by nature.
If something can be explained by nature, it’s not a gap. Before we understood how natural selection works, there was a gap in our understanding and it was reasonable to guess — with no evidence — that humans were designed by God. Once we understood natural selection, the gap was filled.
We have a long history of thinking there is a gap, thinking that God explains the gap and then later discovering another explanation that makes the gap go away. We have zero examples where there was a gap and it turned out that God really did do it after all.
The argument from fine-tuning fits a similar pattern. We have a gap in our understanding. We have several ideas for how fine-tuning came about. One idea, among several, is that God did It. It’s reasonable to keep an open mind until we have more evidence or a better explanation. But to prefer the God Did It argument in the absence of evidence or a more complete explanation is precisely a God of the Gaps argument. If we ever come up with a more complete scientific argument, as with natural selection, the God Did It argument will be proved wrong. If we discover evidence that, yes, God really did do it, the scientific arguments will be proved wrong but until one of these proofs comes to pass, the argument that God Did It is a God of the Gaps argument.
Also, if I found a book on Pluto with all the answers, it would be rational to assume that either God wrote it or a race of aliens wrote it. I think a race of aliens would be slightly more likely but I would keep an open mind until I had more evidence.
My faith in naturalist explanations is not unshakeable — resurrection after crucifixion would convince me, or a speaking, burning bush — but naturalistic arguments have had a good run of it so far while Theistic arguments are yet to deliver. There are a few cases that are yet to be explained but if your only argument for God is that a case has not yet been explained, that is a God of the Gaps argument.
Before we knew about Natural Selection, I don't see how we could differentiate between human complexity and Fine Tuning in terms of when it's sensible to invoke God of the Gaps?
The fundamental nature of Fine Tuning seems relevant. The only explanation it seems that Atheism can make is chance, whereas our bodies aren't a fundamental feature of the universe, which leaves room for natural processes we're not yet aware of (evolution).
I will say though, before we learned about evolution, I think it would've been fair to think our bodies count in favour of Theism. We do look designed. You can't really blame them for thinking that
What is considered fundamental within the context of one theory may not be fundamental in a different one. Scientific theories may change over time. So what appears to be fine tuning of a fundamental constant (or of a combination of constants) at this stage may no longer be considered fine tuning in the future. This seems to me to be precisely the “God of the gaps” problem: if your argument for the existence of God can be undermined by scientific progress then it’s a shaky argument to begin with. Perhaps you could counter this if you assumed that major theoretical shifts are unlikely at this point (see the whole debate on the “end of physics” from a few decades ago) and that any further progress will be incremental.
Even if, say, the strength of gravity is not fundamental (although I'm not quite sure how it couldn't be), this would just kick the can down the road. Whatever the explanation of the strength of gravity is, it is itself finely tuned, and that seems quite lucky under Atheism
If you assume that any further theoretical developments are not going to remove the need for fine tuning (assuming any such need is present at this stage of theoretical development) because it’s just kicking the can down the road then you are severely limiting the potential for radically new solutions coming up as theory develops. Fine tuning is basically the lack of a sufficient reason for a certain parameter taking on a given value, while coincidentally only a narrow region of parameter space around that value is compatible with life (or intelligence, or civilization or whatever is needed for us to be able to have this discussion). New theories can change the parameter space (h didn’t exist as a constant before quantum mechanics) and at an even more basic level they can come up with reasons why a certain parameter is what it is. Physicists are actually actively looking to do this because fine tuning is deeply unsatisfactory.
From a different angle: fine tuning implies the possibility of tuning. A tunable system is an open system. This is discussed by Michael Polanyi (who was a theist) in the Tacit Dimension. I comment briefly on this here: https://mariopasquato.substack.com/p/causality-from-outside and hopefully more to come if I ever will find time to write it. I believe his point of view to be tenable, but assuming that the Universe can be tuned is to assume that it’s an open system. This is already more than halfway there to believing that there is a Tuner. But what if the next theory has no adjustable parameters?
"This sort of approach misses the whole point of philosophy. We’re not here to win debates, or make our interlocutors look bad. We’re here to gain a better understanding of the world"
Of course you would say this mere days before the verbal thrashing you will receive when we meet to hash out the whole consciousness thing
If you embarrass me, you're a bad philosopher. That's just the rules!
I agree that people sometimes bite bullets that don’t actually reflect what they believe in an attempt to remain consistent while clinging onto some prior position that they’ve voiced. And that this is especially prominent in discourse about animal ethics.
The one concern I would highlight though is what seems obvious or absurd varies from person to person.
For example, many people report having the intuition that it seems obvious to them that moral realism is true. I do not share this intuition - in fact it seems obvious to me that moral anti-realism is true.
There are other positions I hold, such as epistemic anti-realism, that many people would likely regard as me just biting obviously crazy bullets in a desperate attempt to avoid affirming moral realism. But this is not the case! I’ve always had epistemic anti-realist intuitions - the view has never appeared counterintuitive to me, let alone absurd.
Classical utilitarianism has many entailments that I would find deeply insane, but I wouldn’t accuse proponents of that view of valuing their own ego over taking philosophy seriously.
I’m a bit puzzled by some of your remarks on begging the question. You say the following:
“Now, Moorean Shifts in various scenarios may still fail. Maybe, for example, you think the skeptical Modus Ponens take on some issue is more plausible, and reject the Moorean Shift as a result - but my point is, they don’t fail because they’re invalid.”
Begging the question is an informal fallacy, not a formal one, so saying that an argument begs the question is not to say an argument is invalid. Begging the question doesn’t even suffice to make an argument unsound.
But I agree with you that there’s a risk of casting such a wide net when it comes to defining begging the question such that every argument would constitute begging the question.
Agree completely on appeals to authority. Fallacies are often misused on the internet, and the appeal to authority fallacy is one of the most common victims of this.
1. On bullet biting. Yeah, I agree. Basically everyone will have views that people find absurd. The point is just to be honest with ourselves about what we're actually doing. Are we just biting bullets to save face, or do we really believe what we say.
2. On begging the question. Again, you're correct. I will amend that (also, quite funny to accuse people of not understanding begging the question while I myself got part of it wrong lol). Thanks for the spot
Everyone’s beliefs are inconsistent. If you’re not sure how, just ask them to define their terms.
I’m afraid I am one of those atheists with a sex doll and I have a different understanding of the God of the Gaps argument than you.
> “God of the gaps” is used to refer to Theists misattributing to God what can be explained by nature.
If something can be explained by nature, it’s not a gap. Before we understood how natural selection works, there was a gap in our understanding and it was reasonable to guess — with no evidence — that humans were designed by God. Once we understood natural selection, the gap was filled.
We have a long history of thinking there is a gap, thinking that God explains the gap and then later discovering another explanation that makes the gap go away. We have zero examples where there was a gap and it turned out that God really did do it after all.
The argument from fine-tuning fits a similar pattern. We have a gap in our understanding. We have several ideas for how fine-tuning came about. One idea, among several, is that God did It. It’s reasonable to keep an open mind until we have more evidence or a better explanation. But to prefer the God Did It argument in the absence of evidence or a more complete explanation is precisely a God of the Gaps argument. If we ever come up with a more complete scientific argument, as with natural selection, the God Did It argument will be proved wrong. If we discover evidence that, yes, God really did do it, the scientific arguments will be proved wrong but until one of these proofs comes to pass, the argument that God Did It is a God of the Gaps argument.
Also, if I found a book on Pluto with all the answers, it would be rational to assume that either God wrote it or a race of aliens wrote it. I think a race of aliens would be slightly more likely but I would keep an open mind until I had more evidence.
My faith in naturalist explanations is not unshakeable — resurrection after crucifixion would convince me, or a speaking, burning bush — but naturalistic arguments have had a good run of it so far while Theistic arguments are yet to deliver. There are a few cases that are yet to be explained but if your only argument for God is that a case has not yet been explained, that is a God of the Gaps argument.
Before we knew about Natural Selection, I don't see how we could differentiate between human complexity and Fine Tuning in terms of when it's sensible to invoke God of the Gaps?
The fundamental nature of Fine Tuning seems relevant. The only explanation it seems that Atheism can make is chance, whereas our bodies aren't a fundamental feature of the universe, which leaves room for natural processes we're not yet aware of (evolution).
I will say though, before we learned about evolution, I think it would've been fair to think our bodies count in favour of Theism. We do look designed. You can't really blame them for thinking that
What is considered fundamental within the context of one theory may not be fundamental in a different one. Scientific theories may change over time. So what appears to be fine tuning of a fundamental constant (or of a combination of constants) at this stage may no longer be considered fine tuning in the future. This seems to me to be precisely the “God of the gaps” problem: if your argument for the existence of God can be undermined by scientific progress then it’s a shaky argument to begin with. Perhaps you could counter this if you assumed that major theoretical shifts are unlikely at this point (see the whole debate on the “end of physics” from a few decades ago) and that any further progress will be incremental.
Even if, say, the strength of gravity is not fundamental (although I'm not quite sure how it couldn't be), this would just kick the can down the road. Whatever the explanation of the strength of gravity is, it is itself finely tuned, and that seems quite lucky under Atheism
If you assume that any further theoretical developments are not going to remove the need for fine tuning (assuming any such need is present at this stage of theoretical development) because it’s just kicking the can down the road then you are severely limiting the potential for radically new solutions coming up as theory develops. Fine tuning is basically the lack of a sufficient reason for a certain parameter taking on a given value, while coincidentally only a narrow region of parameter space around that value is compatible with life (or intelligence, or civilization or whatever is needed for us to be able to have this discussion). New theories can change the parameter space (h didn’t exist as a constant before quantum mechanics) and at an even more basic level they can come up with reasons why a certain parameter is what it is. Physicists are actually actively looking to do this because fine tuning is deeply unsatisfactory.
From a different angle: fine tuning implies the possibility of tuning. A tunable system is an open system. This is discussed by Michael Polanyi (who was a theist) in the Tacit Dimension. I comment briefly on this here: https://mariopasquato.substack.com/p/causality-from-outside and hopefully more to come if I ever will find time to write it. I believe his point of view to be tenable, but assuming that the Universe can be tuned is to assume that it’s an open system. This is already more than halfway there to believing that there is a Tuner. But what if the next theory has no adjustable parameters?