Edward Feser has a blog post up that is highly relevant to much of the debate that takes place here at The Skeptical Zone between theists and non-theists.
Lazy shouts of “unfalisfiability!” against theological claims just ignore all this complexity — the distinctions that have to be drawn between empirical claims on the one hand and claims of mathematics, logic, and metaphysics on the other; between extremely general empirical claims and more specific ones; between philosophy of nature (which studies the philosophical presuppositions of natural science) and natural science itself; and between the testing of a thesis and the testing of the auxiliary assumptions we generally take for granted but conjoin with the thesis when drawing predictions from it.
So, falsificationism is a rather feeble instrument to wield against theology. And in fact, atheist philosophers have known this for decades, even if New Atheist combox commandos are still catching up.
May I recommend this excellent read!
Like I said before – this book should be made into a movie!
I didn’t mean it disparagingly, especially not to the real man behind the legend (if there is indeed not a compilation). If you insist, I mean not important to me, or less important than the claims (on the truth of Christianity as a religion) based on supernatural attributions.
Cross-posting this comment here, where it’s better aligned with the thread topic:
Alan, to Patrick:
Alan,
I’m glad to see you making that point. I’m wondering, though, if you still maintain that the supernatural is untestable. That would imply that “gods with entailments” are not supernatural, which seems seems like an odd thing to assert.
Of course. By definition.
Hi Alan
We agree far more than we disagree.
I remain fascinated how Jesus Christ can remain such a positive force in human history continuing to inspire great altruistic self-sacrifice.
… ergo my Albert Schweitzer reference – a great scholar and musician who gave up comfort and privilege in an idealistic pursuit of principle that was not based on any off-the-rack standard “Santa Claus-Sunday School” version of Theology.
Hi Erik,
The assumption here is that the book of Revelation was written after AD 70, and that is no doubt the consensus view. There are, however, many arguments for an early date.
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation
Redating the New Testament
Revelation (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)
Who Is This Babylon?
Perhaps people just want some symbol to rally around when doing good.
I would like to see some statistics on charitable giving, broken down by religion or political affiliation. (I note that millions of people who openly reject religious affiliation support and vote for politicians who raise taxes for projects like welfare and health care. This is just an observation, not an endorsement or complaint.)
Jesus was not the first religious leader to instruct followers to be charitable. He wasn’t even the first Jew to do so.
I don’t care about the date. Obviously, in order to be about the destruction of Jerusalem, the book of Revelation must predate the event, but I don’t care about that either.
I care about the relevance of the book to us. If it was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem, what significance does the book have to us?
keiths:
Alan:
You’re claiming that the YEC God, if he existed, would not be a supernatural entity? That’s absurd.
I made the same point to Lizzie several months ago:
I hear ya…
Elaine Pagels does a good job of explaining how Christianity rose in popularity.
How can anybody even begin to quantify the countless Catholic clergy and laity who for the last two millennia submitted righteously to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience striving only to make this planet a better place for their fellow human beings. Widows, orphans and the dispossessed were provided basic means as well as orphanages, schools, hospices & hospitals. Today’s public frenzy of “Shadenfreude” denigrates such noble self-sacrifice and we are all the poorer and very much the sadder for it.
אָמֵן
Not so fast, there. I’m claiming no such thing.
Alan,
It’s a direct consequence of your earlier statements.
First:
Second:
If those two statements are correct, it follows that “gods with entailments” are not supernatural.
The YEC God is a “god with entailments”. Therefore, by your logic, the YEC God is not supernatural.
I would say something, but it would be rude. Suffice to say, I am not impressed with the net benefits of organized religion.
No. I define reality as in principle subject to testing by measurement and experiment. Anything (well, thing is an oxymoron here) else is imaginary, or as some people say, supernatural.
I question that you can link the YEC God to testable entailments. Try an example.
Alan,
Good grief, Alan. A testable entailment of the YEC God – the Young Earth Creationist God — is that the earth is young.
YECs will tell you that their God created the world less than 10,000 years ago, and that he is not deceitful. Therefore, the physical evidence should point to a young earth.
How does the age of the Earth demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity? Fail to see the link.
It definitely demonstrates the existence of rabbit holes down which threads slide.
Keiths, you’re good at aeronautics. Imagine a cart powered by a propellor geared to the wheels. The pilot steers it directly downwind. Do you think it possible with optimal engineering that it could surpass the windspeed.
petrushka,
What do you think, petrushka? Could a wind-powered cart heading directly downwind exceed windspeed?
Alan,
And if you think the YEC God is not a “god with entailments”, then what would qualify?
I’m not good with hypotheticals.
Even better at psychology though. Better at lots of stuff, I bet.
Alan,
It’s been done, Alan. Are you trying to change the subject?
petrushka,
Absolutely. It’s ridiculous to talk about empirical falsifiability on a thread entitled Empirical Falsifiability.
Good thing you’re here to set us back on track, petrushka.
I’m confused as to where the argument between Alan and keiths is currently occurring. I would suggest that the YEC’s are making a mistake by attaching entailments to their conception of God since it brings him/she into the realm of empirical falsifiability (i.e. not Supernatural). However, YEC’s, ID’s and many others of the same type are wonderfully adept at twisting and cherry-picking evidence. An Aristotelian First Cause is, in this sense, a more obviously Supernatural being which cannot be proven or disproven by evidence.
The dishonesty is on the part of YEC’s, not on the part of Alan from where I sit.
Alan,
Evidently not.
You told Patrick — correctly — that
Now you’re saying that you can’t come up with a single example — even one of your own invention — of such a hypothetical entity?
That does not seem obvious to me at all. Unless of course you are operating under that a priori position that everything in the New Testament is a valid and inescapable prophecy???
You certainly may. I have come across that book title in other searches, but I have not read it. However, with an enthusiastic commendation, I will put in my queue. Thanks.
If you have ever debated YECs, you would know that this is completely untestable (by YEC standards of evidence).
RoyLT,
“Supernatural” is not equivalent to “unfalsifiable”. The YEC God is falsifiable and has, in fact, been falsified. Yet he is still obviously a supernatural entity.
I quoted this earlier in the thread:
Neil,
I have debated YECs, but they don’t think their God hypothesis is untestable. Quite the opposite.
They do think their God hypothesis is testable and that one of its entailments is that the earth is young. Why else would they devote so much effort toward debunking radioactive dating methods?
They’re right that their God has testable entailments, but they’re wrong to think that the hypothesis isn’t falsified.
As I said, it’s a matter of definitions. Anything testable is real. Any”thing” imaginary is not. If you showed me Santa’s sledge, would that prove the existence of Santa? See, no good at hypotheticals.
They are certainly not equivalent, but I am suggesting that Supernatural entities are a sub-set of un-falsifiable objects. Do you agree?
Obvious to whom? The people who believe that he has not been falsified believe him to be Supernatural while those of us who actually care about the evidence against YEC believe him to be a figment of the imagination. Authors such as Spitzer confidently assert that his existence can be proven but cannot be disproven. The problem (at least as I see it) is with how explicit one is with entailments. Apologists in general are careful to jettison the entailments when it is convenient while at other times erecting massive structures upon them.
Alan,
It doesn’t. The fact that a hypothesis survives a test doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that it survived the test — that is, it wasn’t falsified.
That’s true of all testable hypotheses, natural or supernatural.
Stating the bleedin’ obvious again?
You can’t have a supernatural testable hypothesis. It’s a matter of definition.
They believe that there god is YEC testable but not testable by the methods of materialistic science. Practically speaking, that means that they reject testability.
You are assuming that valid tests must be empirical.
Can we test that claim?
peace
No, I’m defining reality as testable.
It is telling that your worldview is such that those are the only viable options. You can’t even imagine that your hero is not perfectly consistent in his argumentation. You have no evidence to support his consistency you just take it on faith.
Oh well to each his own.
peace
Therein lies the rub… or as discussed earlier with Natural Kantian regarding Popper’s criteria of falsifiability:
Scientific statements can be both meaningful and falsifiable.
Not all meaningful statements are scientific statements because it is possible for a non-scientific statement to still be meaningful and yet not falsifiable.
Far too many people quote Popper without understanding him.
No I’m saying that Ehrmans position on Lower Criticism makes his position on Higher Criticism untenable.
I’m open to correction. All you have to do is explain how given Ehrman’s take on the transmission of the text we can say anything definitely about Jesus.
I guess since you have nothing to say to me we will never know.
peace
For God’s sake – will you please STOP bearing false witness!
You clearly cannot wrap your head around the distinctions between Higher vs Lower Criticism and you clearly do not understand what Ehrman said!
STOP Lying for Christ!
First of all, it is clear that the Bible is not inerrant and has accumulated the metaphorical equivalent of mutations (a biblical equivalent of a “molecular clock”)
This is a FACT – we have the manuscripts to prove it! The quote you ascribe to Ehrman are only making that point, that point alone and and no other… BUT Ehrman continues to explain his heuristic approach, which you disingenuously disregard!
Again as I mentioned earlier: In Biology, Phylogenetic Trees can be inferred with maximum likelihood methods, which calculate the probability that a particular tree will have generated the observed data. Any high school student can explain cladistics along these lines.
http://tinyurl.com/z99q8sr
This is also a FACT !
Researchers can even employ these techniques to reconstruct many extinct gene sequences from naturally occurring organisms (such as the visual pigment protein genes from extinct archosaurs).
Again a FACT !
Ehrman and others can do the same for the New Testament. His premise is that many mutations have accumulated, but in lineage specific fashion. The original text can again be inferred according to cladistic analysis no differently than Phylogenetic Trees in Evolution.
Again a FACT !
Now you may prefer to disregard facts as is and embrace some uninformed and distorted version of blind faith. That is your prerogative! Just STOP spreading libelous slander about Ehrman’s scholarship because you prefer to disregard uncomfortable truths that to not fit into your particularly uniformed Weltbild!
That settles once and for all your ignorance regarding Ehrman’s Lower Criticism!
Basta!
Alan, let’s review.
Patrick wrote:
You correctly responded:
Now you say:
It follows directly from your statements that “gods with entailments” are real.
You are experiencing a severe reasoning malfunction.
He believes the Gospels all trace back to a single common ancestral document?
No, I parsed my words carefully.
To clarify: Each individual document can trace its ancestry (in lineage specific manner) to some unique original… Unless redaction of various documents ccured as in the Pentateuch
TomMueller,
Re:Pentateuch
Of course I meant to say Genesis
And given you understanding of the textual transmission you can say for certain that redaction of various documents of this nature did not occur in the case of the NT?
peace
OK
Lets see some manuscript evidence that the critical text of the New Testament does not contain the correct reading. In the words of Patrick and Keith support your claim or retract it.
peace
So you are saying we can know the original text of the NT? Now you sound like a fundamentalist 😉
What about the Telephone game?
peace
To be more precise, god-claims do have entailments.
Gods, not so much. I don’t actually know anything that is entailed by a god of any kind.
I think that’s part of the confusion here. YEC god-claims do have entailments, Genesis plus whatever they tack onto Genesis to “save” it. Not really scientific hypotheses (rather, apologetics), these nonetheless can be tested. We don’t, of course, know what any god may or may not do, in fact.
Glen Davidson