Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We Should Care About Your Personal Incredulity Why Now?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Prominent atheist John W. Loftus gives us an example of a common atheist argument from the size of the universe when he writes:

I think it’s [i.e., the vast size of the universe] even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God who supposedly created the universe for the specific purpose of gaining the affections of people on this lone planet of ours. If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us on a flat disk in a much smaller universe like the one the ancients believed existed.

This argument is a hot mess, a mishmash of factual errors,* self-serving assumptions and faulty logic.  But let us set most of that aside and focus on Loftus’ argument from personal incredulity.

The argument from personal incredulity takes the form of “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.”  Notice how Loftus exhibits this fallacy.  His argument boils down to the assertion that he cannot imagine why God, if he existed, would have created a large universe.  A large universe surely exists.  Therefore, God does not exist.

Here is the critical question that is left unanswered:  Why should the poverty of John Loftus’ imagination concerning God’s motivations matter to us?

The argument from personal incredulity is a species of the “argument from ignorance.”  Duco A. Schreuder writes:  “These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one’s understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality.”

Just so.  The limits of Loftus’ understanding about God’s motivations does not change what is true.  Indeed, if a God powerful enough to create such a vast universe exists, we can be certain that our understanding of him would be extremely limited.  Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that very limited understanding should be the foundation of an argument for his non-existence.

 

 

 

___________________________

*His assertion that the ancients had no conception of the scale of the universe, for example, is pure bunkum:  “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.”  Ptolemy’s Almagest, Book I, Chapter 6.  See also, Psalm 8 (“When I consider thy heavens . . . What is man, that thou art mindful of him?”).

Comments
BA, no prob. Ptolemy was appealing to the import of the celestial sphere model of the heavens, a sphere of effectively infinite radius. That is why local horizon acts as through it passes through the centre of the sphere, we are not appreciably different from it; 4,000 miles away . . . and by c 300 BC Eratosthenes' clever inference from shadows at Summer Solstice at Syene and Alexandria had scaled the Earth to be this sort of size. Likewise, how sundials work. In short, abundant, readily accessible evidence but we are likely to overlook the significance. Ptolemy, a brilliant man, drew that evidence together and highlighted its implications for the scale of the heavens 1800+ years ago. So, atheists making this sort of argument need to ponder why theists did not find the scale of the heavens troubling 1800 years ago or -- per PS 19 -- 3,000 years ago. Let the atheist answer to Ps 19. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
Thanks for the correction KFBarry Arrington
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
KD, point indeed. KF PS: Psalm 19: Psalm 19Amplified Bible (AMP) The Works and the Word of God. To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. 19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And the expanse [of heaven] is declaring the work of His hands. 2 Day after day pours forth speech, And night after night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there [spoken] words [from the stars]; Their voice is not heard. 4 Yet their voice [in quiet evidence] has gone out through all the earth, Their words to the end of the world. In them and in the heavens He has made a tent for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. 6 The sun’s rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat. 7 The law of the Lord is perfect (flawless), restoring and refreshing the soul; The statutes of the Lord are reliable and trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the Lord are right, bringing joy to the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether. 10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned [reminded, illuminated, and instructed]; In keeping them there is great reward. 12 Who can understand his errors or omissions? Acquit me of hidden (unconscious, unintended) faults. 13 Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous (deliberate, willful) sins; Let them not rule and have control over me. Then I will be blameless (complete), And I shall be acquitted of great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable and pleasing in Your sight, O Lord, my [firm, immovable] rock and my Redeemer.kairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
BA, As it's now a web era, looked. It's actually Bk I Ch 6, which in translation is:
Almagest, Bk I ch 6: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmology/Ptolemy.html#6 6. That the Earth has the Ratio of a Point to the Heavens Now, that the earth has sensibly the ratio of a point to its distance from the sphere of the so-called fixed stars gets great support from the fact that in all parts of the earth the sizes and angular distances of the stars at the same times appear everywhere equal and alike, for the observations of the same stars in the different latitudes are not found to differ in the least. {--> a good observation] Moreover, this must be added: that sundials placed in any part of the earth and the centres of ancillary spheres can play the role of the earth's true centre for the sightings and the rotations of the shadows, as much in conformity with the hypotheses of the appearances as if they were at the true midpoint of the earth. And the earth is clearly a point also from this fact: that everywhere the planes drawn through the eye, which we call horizons, always exactly cut in half the whole sphere of the heavens. And this would not happen if the magnitude of the earth with respect to its distance from the heavens were perceptible; but only the plane drawn through the point at the earth's centre would exactly cut the sphere in half, and those drawn through any other part of the earth's surface would make the sections below the earth greater than those above.
So, from C 150 - 180 BC, this was on record in the longest running science textbook of all time. Backed by a telling observation. The cosmos was known to be so much bigger than our home that an earth on scale of thousands of miles across is comparatively infinitesimal. At least many millions or billions of miles across, likely much more. So, why is it suddenly argued that the cosmos is now known to be very large and this reduces us to insignificance and casts doubt on the reality of God or the import of a fine tuned cosmos? We need to look back at C S Lewis' remarks on this particular atheistical argument. Were it not for the poetry in our souls that converts numbers into sublimity, the numbers would have no persuasive force, no better than numbers in a table of logarithms or the like. So, it is a shadow we cast that stirs us. Not that that is ridiculous, it's the shadow of a being made in the image of God with eternity in the heart, longing for a joy that can only be fulfilled beyond this world. The very business of Heaven: joy unspeakable and full of glory. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Were God like the imaginary 'gods' atheists describe, definitely I still would be an atheist too.Dionisio
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
what’s the theistic response to arguments like Loftus’?
Hand to the forehead, head shake, then laughterET
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
The cheese-mites asked how the cheese got there, And warmly debated the matter; The Orthodox said that it came from the air, And the Heretics said from the platter. They argued it long and they argued it strong, And I hear they are arguing now; But of all the choice spirits who lived in the cheese Nobody thought of a cow Conan DoyleBelfast
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Mung: I bet Loftus, if he really tried, could come up with reasons to be disbeliever given a small universe too.
I think it’s [i.e., the small size of the universe] even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God, a 'Maximally Great Being', who created this midget universe for the specific purpose of impressing us with his power. If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us a vast universe like the one the ancients believed existed.Origenes
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins writes: “The Argument from Personal Incredulity is an extremely weak argument, as Darwin himself noted [when it comes to theory of evolution by natural selection.] In some cases it is based on simple ignorance.” (p 38) Blogger Robert Van de Water make this point about the above quotation:
Richard Dawkins decries what he calls the “Personal Incredulity Argument”. According to Dr. Dawkins, many people look at the products of evolution and come to the conclusion that there is no way that such a thing could have evolved step by step over millions of years. This argument is invalid, according to Dr. Dawkins, because there are many things that are true that will not make sense to us as human beings with a limited understanding of reality. Despite the fact that I disagree with Dr. Dawkins on any number of issues, this is a valid point. Our limited understanding does mean that some things that are true will seem incomprehensible to us. In his book Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson turns this argument against Dr. Dawkins by arguing that if personal incredulity is to be dismissed as an argument against evolution it should also be dismissed as an argument against the existence of God. He talks about the use made by evolutionists including Dr. Dawkins of what Johnson characterizes as the “God wouldn’t have done it that way” argument and notes that this is the “Personal Incredulity Argument” dressed up in another guise. If the argument from personal incredulity is invalid with regard to evolution, then it is also invalid as an argument for atheism.
https://athoughtfulchristian.com/2014/02/10/the-personal-incredulity-argument/ Like so many atheists Loftus needs to study up on logic. Arguments based on logical fallacies aren’t really arguments because they are DOA.john_a_designer
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
it would help if we taught the much stronger science that explains the actual size and age formation and structure of the universe. as it is much for straightforward and logical than the standard SCM. Then those who considered it would not be so incredulous of the actual science only of why no one taught them SPIRAL before :) here is how SPIRAL that predicts the CR and a universe that approximates the sphere of the visible universe not 'Flat' w/ no ongoing cosmic expansion, compares to the vastly greater claims of SCM. SPIRAL vs SCM info-graphic: www.researchgate.net/publication/317415683Pearlman
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
In the New Testament, the the book of Romans, chapter one, it states that God's invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature can be clearly seen through what He has created so that all people are without excuse. That pretty much entails that the universe is going to be of mind-staggering proportions. It is a picture of His eternal power. A mind-bogglingly huge universe is a statement about an even more impressive Creator behind it.KD
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Even from a strictly secular and harsh point of view the argument doesn't work. Atheists love to say "The whole purpose of having a God is to fill in the stuff you can't imagine." Well then, the stuff Loftus can't imagine MUST fall into the God Department, whether a god exists or not.polistra
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
C.S. Lewis wrote a lengthy takedown of this argument that the universe is vast, therefore God is unlikely. I read it in his book Miracles (chapter 7), but he probably says similar things elsewhere. It's hard to find a short excerpt that can stand apart from the rest of his arguments, but this point specifically about Christian belief is relevant: "Christianity does not involve the belief that all things were made for man. It does involve the belief that God loves man and for his sake became man and died. I have not yet succeeded in seeing how what we know (and have known since the days of Ptolemy) about the size of the universe affects the credibility of this doctrine one way or the other. ... If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely." But do check out his full discussion in the book.DennisM
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
An honest question (yes, honestly!) - what's the theistic response to arguments like Loftus'? I'm not asking to argue for him, I'm genuinely curious. I can see a couple of possible lines of argument (with different theological implications), but I assume that other people have thought about this more deeply.Bob O'H
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Apparently it was ok to believe in God when people thought the earth was flat or was the center of the universe, but not anymore. God not only created the universe he sustains it in its existence. So why should it be small? I bet Loftus, if he really tried, could come up with reasons to be disbeliever given a small universe too.Mung
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Barry, where would science be if anyone really took arguments from personal incredulity seriously? The history of science is full of examples of facts that challenge our understanding. How about: Insects do not arise naturally from the soil in the spring, as the ancients supposed. They go through life cycles we would not recognize if we did not make a point of studying them. But if we operate from the point of view of incredulity, why would we research the matter? Worse, when we did research the matter, we discovered that omne vivum ex vivo - all life comes from previous life. Hence the maddening origin-of-life controversy. Credulity is bad in principle but incredulity can be a barrier to knowledge.News
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
A cruel, almost epigrammatic expose ; but how could you address his nonsense and avoid cruelty ? We already have Pauli's : 'It isn't even wrong;' Now we have vis-a-vis Loftus' 'argument' from credulity: It isn't even an argument, but an assertion from narcissism!Axel
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply