Re: The logic of atheism

Ben Goren wrote:
prabbit1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The first is that all gods have as an essential property
>> some sort of supernatural characteristic. The second is that
>> ``supernatural'' is merely a synonym for ``really, truly,
>> honestly, I really really mean it, no exceptions at all,
>> perfectly, absolutely, impossible.''
>
> No, it's not. It's a synonym for "violates the laws of
> nature." I.e. it does something that natural law says can't
> happen.

Exactly. And for ``natural law'' to have any meaning, it has
to be unbreakable, even by Superman. If Superman can break
it, it's not a natural law, though it may well be a rather
emphatic ``natural suggestion.''

This presupposes a certain understanding of natural laws that theists
(of which I am one) wouldn't subscribe to. Let's look at Newton's Law
of Gravitation as an example (and let's pretend that this law wasn't
modified by later work by Einstein...). The Law of Gravitation says
that for objects 1 and 2, having masses M1 and M2, and being separated
by distance R, a force of attraction will be experienced between them
having a magnitude given by
F = G M1 M2/R^2, where G is a universal constant.

Now, a theist (like Newton!) would view this as an observational
statement; it's sort of analogous to saying "Every time we have
measured the force between two objects, we found that it obeyed this
relationship. Because we have made this measurement so many times for
so many different objects, we feel confident in assuming that any time
the gravitational force is measured between any two objects in the
known universe, the force will always be given by this equation".

Your view makes a much stronger statement -- it says something more
like "The reason the gravitational force experienced between two bodies
is given by this equation is because the fabric of the universe
requires it to be this way; it is logically impossible for the objects
to not exert this force upon one another".

In other words, where the laws of nature are more properly seen as
*descriptive*, you are viewing them as being *prescriptive*. That's
not necessarily a ridiculous position, but I don't know if it's
necessary or if it can be supported emperically. Any experiment that
confirms the gravitational force just verifies the universality of the
law, but it doesn't say *why* the objects experience that force, and
lacking that, you can't insist that they are *required* to observe that
force.

Note that we can even make a stronger assumption than my
"observational" view above. In other words, scientific laws are
necessarily limited in scope because our ability to observe the
universe is limited. But let's say we could magically peek behind the
curtain, and we learned that, yes, the gravitational force between any
two objects is now, has always been, and will always be, exactly as
given by the above equation, without fail. *Even then*, this doesn't
rise to the level of prescription, in the sense of requiring the
objects to conform to this relationship. It simply says what force
*will* be measured; it says nothing about *why* that force is exerted
(or, for that matter, how it is exerted).

The reason why this distinction is important is because it makes your
argument circular. You are saying that because the laws of nature are
prescriptive, a supernatural occurence (for example, a suspension of a
heavy boulder in mid-air) is a logical absurdity. Whereas in the view
that the laws of nature simply describe observational facts, the
suspension of a boulder in mid-air wouldn't be seen as logically
impossible or absurd; it just wouldn't be seen as something we would
expect to happen under the usual course of things, nor would we be able
to explain it by appealing solely to naturalistic laws.

But theists also posit that God authored natural laws in the first
place; it would therefore seem disingenuous to say that if such laws
exist as imperatives, then God cannot. Why could He not temporarily
suspend the laws that He has written? It's certainly not a tenet of
Christianity, at least, that God established the laws of nature as
fixed and immutable and promises to never interfere with them. Indeed,
quite the opposite -- God is reported to frequently cause or enable
occurences that violate these natural laws. The reason this is
significant (assuming that such events occur, which is a completely
separate discussion) is that the laws of nature are readily observable
to all, and the inability of humans to violate them is equally
transparent. Virgins don't give birth, men can't cause fire to fall
from heaven, etc. These events would authenticate supernatural
involvement in the event because people know that such things cannot
happen under the ordinary course of things, and thus recognize that
something exceptional (literally: an exception to a natural law) has
occured.

I found a pretty nice article on this here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm#SH2a. Your view is called
"Necessitarianism" in the article.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on whence this logical necessity for
events to conform to natural laws arises. I think that a
"necessitarian" view is perfectly compatible with Christianity, since
it's implied that God created the universe to behave in an orderly way,
but I don't see that as precluding God's subsequent interaction with
the universe in a way that "violates" those laws. In contrast, I don't
see a motivation in materialism for this necessity, for this
prescriptive power of the natural laws. Where does it come from, and
how can we study it and verify its existence?

-Jeff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Matthew 14
    ... >> Can you offer any reason at all why I should believe that any ... Or did not accept that God created the world in six ... > in the violation of the laws of nature. ... If God occasionally violates natural laws, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Apparently random....
    ... "natural laws" presupposes the absence ... of God from reality. ... guided by Creator or Designer. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clarkes Law repealed! Re: Splitting the genres
    ... This begs the question of what ... Even though we don't know quite what those laws ... these natural laws is "natural". ... whimsical manipulations are "supernatural". ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Commentary: Stick to science in classrooms
    ... and other creationists like phillip johnson say) by supernatural ... creationists say that natural laws don't apply to the ... supernaturalism into the building. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Second Law of Intelligence
    ... "just following the laws of chemistry" concept. ... these basic laws of chemistry are not known to produce complicated ... require intervention outside the basic laws of physics. ... intervention in the normal process of natural laws is not the same as ...
    (talk.origins)