Carnal Reason

In Fortifying Hume’s Miracle Prison (2), author James Arlandson poses a challenge, one I want to accept. Arlandson is criticizing philosopher Antony Flew.

First, Flew says that Christians believe in God’s love, no matter how much evidence from evil may militate against the belief in his love; they redefine the concept so that God always maintains his reputation. It seems Christians refuse to listen to contrary evidence and to change their mind.

Corduan summarizes Flew’s challenge:

Whenever there is a challenge to their belief in God’s love, [Christians] simply redefine the concept so as to avoid having to deal with the possibility that maybe the loving God in whom they believe does not exist. (”Miracles,” p. 173)

In one of Flew’s earlier works, he says that the assertion that God loves us undergoes a “death by a thousand qualifications” or counter-examples of his love (”Theology and Falsification,” p. 97). He then asks: “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you [believers] a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?” (p. 99).

… Corduan spots an inconsistency in Flew’s challenge to believers about evil and the love of God. This is, the believers’ never-lose position is exactly how Flew opposes the reality of miracles: his skepticism can never lose.

According to Flew, it is contrary to the nature of science to make allowances for the supernatural, and historical reports should not be permitted to violate the nature of reality as science circumscribes it for us. According to Flew, that does not mean that science necessarily has the correct explanation for every historical event, but that whatever the ultimate explanation may be for a special event, it cannot be miraculous. (Corduan, p. 174)

Third, how does Flew’s skepticism about miracles parallel the believer’s (seeming) unquestioning belief in God’s love in the face of evil? Corduan answers the question:

Consequently, Flew’s claim that no events are miraculous is completely unfalsifiable, and, just as he accuses the Christian in his defense of the love of God, it becomes a meaningless mantra. No evidence could conceivably count against his rejection of any event as miraculous. (Corduan, p. 174)

Thus, we may pose this question to Flew and other neo-Humans [sic], rephrasing the one he asked of believers in the love of God: “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of antisupernaturalism?“

Like Flew, I have argued that the Christian doctrine of the goodness of God is literally meaningless:

It seems to me that the Christian claim that “God is good” is vacuous. It is consistent with every possible state of affairs. God is good, but the world is an abbatoir. God is good, but in the afterlife He runs a torture chamber. What would it mean if God were not good? What would be different?

Arlandson posed a question to neo-Humeans: “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of antisupernaturalism?”. Arlandson likens his question to Flew’s, and hence to mine. I will answer his question.

I maintained that Hume’s arguments against miracles are epistemological. He does not argue that miracles cannot happen, rather that accounts of miracles are not credible. The key that unlocks Hume’s miracle prison is personal experience. I could be convinced of the reality of the supernatural by personal experience of something I deemed supernatural. I could not be convinced by other’s accounts of their experiences of the supernatural.

Let me be specific. The central miracle of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ. I don’t believe that the apostles’ testimony is sufficient reason to believe the resurrection actually happened. So what could convince me of the reality of the supernatural? My father died many years ago. His resurrection, one I witnessed, would suffice.

That wasn’t so hard. Your turn, Mr Arlandson. I answered your question; can you answer mine? What events would you accept as demonstrating that God is not good, or does not exist?
[tags]religion, miracles, skepticism[/tags]

Posted on January 1st, 2007 by pwyll
Filed under: religion