{"id":73,"date":"2008-09-12T05:00:20","date_gmt":"2008-09-12T11:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.consider.org\/blog\/?p=73"},"modified":"2008-09-12T05:00:20","modified_gmt":"2008-09-12T11:00:20","slug":"hitchens-god-is-not-great-xiv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/2008\/09\/hitchens-god-is-not-great-xiv\/","title":{"rendered":"Hitchens – God Is Not Great XIV"},"content":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3<\/a><\/h2>\n

This week, I am continuing in the fifth chapter of Christopher Hitchens\u2019 book \u201cGod Is Not Great<\/a>,\u201d where Hitchens attempts to show that the metaphysical claims of religion are false.\u00a0 After stating his claim that \u201cAll attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule,\u201d (pg 64-5) which I addressed last time, Hitchens briefly sketches the rise of secularism, lauding those who saw the light, ridiculing any who lagged behind.<\/p>\n

Now there is no doubt that there has been a trend toward the secularization of society, but this is hardly an argument one way or the other, and to be fair, it is not completely clear if Hitchens intends this as an actual argument or if he is just using this as background, or perhaps filler, as it takes up most of the chapter. If he intends this as an argument, it fails because it commits one or both of the following fallacies, appeal to the people, and appeal to misplaced authority.<\/p>\n

The fallacy of appeal to the people occurs when appeal is made to what the majority believe, instead of pointing to actual evidence. About the only place it can be somewhat acceptable, is when, after laying out the evidence, appeal is made to how many find the evidence convincing, but to be valid the emphasis must remain on the evidence.<\/p>\n

Now at times the evidence is so complex as to require special training to evaluate, for example, when dealing complex medical issues one should seek out a doctor. Appealing to people who are authorities instead of the evidence in these cases is not fallacious. But if Hitchens is intending this, then he commits the other fallacy. \u00a0<\/p>\n

The fallacy of appeal to misplace authority occurs when citing an authority who is not an authority in the particular field in question.\u00a0 That someone is an authority on nuclear physic does not automatically mean they are an authority in other sciences such as botany, much less non-scientific areas like metaphysics.\u00a0 But again, it is not completely clear that Hitchens is even intending this as an actual argument.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It is the last two pages of the chapter before Hitchens finally gets around to clearly making an actual argument, one based on Ockham\u2019s razor, which holds that answers should not be unnecessarily complex. Basically his argument is, \u201cit cannot be strictly proved that God, if defined as a being who possesses the qualities of supremacy, perfection, uniqueness, and infinity exists at all\u201d (p 70), and we don\u2019t need God to explain the universe, therefore, using Ockham\u2019s razor God does not exist.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There are many problems with this argument.\u00a0 The first is that Hitchens hides a lot in his carefully worded sentence. It is true that Ockham rejected that such a supremely absolute God could strictly be proved. This is because we only know about our universe. As such we can not say for sure that there are not other universes, and other gods for those universes.<\/p>\n

Ockham did however believe that it could be shown that were was a creator God, or first cause, for this universe.\u00a0 In addition he believed that probable arguments could be made for the existence of a Supreme God.\u00a0 (See Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy III, pg 84) While atheists dismiss probable arguments when it comes to God and religion, they have no problem with them elsewhere.\u00a0 This is because at some level virtually everything we know depends on probable arguments.<\/p>\n

In logic this distinction between what can be strictly proved and what is an argument based on probability is what lies behind deductive logic and inductive logic.\u00a0 The results of a sound deductive argument, where the premises are true and the reasoning valid, are strictly proved. Induction at best only yields results that are probably true for there always remains a chance however small that the conclusion might be incorrect; there always remains some doubt.<\/p>\n

Atheists jump on this doubt as a reason to reject induction when talking about God. However, they are quick to use induction elsewhere. After all, virtually all of science is based on induction.\u00a0 The theory of Gravity is based on induction, not deduction and thus there remains some doubt about it, though admittedly this doubt is more theoretical than anything else.\u00a0 In other areas this doubt is larger.<\/p>\n

Evolution is not even close to being strictly proved, and considerable doubts exists, but, this does not stop atheists from attacking and ridiculing those who point out problems and raise questions about the theory.\u00a0 So when atheists reject probably arguments for the existence of God they are being extremely selective.<\/p>\n

Hitchens seems to be aware that Ockham believes a first cause, if not a supreme God, could be demonstrated for he proceeds briefly attack the idea.\u00a0 But it is a feeble attempt.\u00a0 Those interested can find a more completely discussion of the argument from first cause in my book Christianity and Secularism<\/a> chapter two.<\/p>\n

In the end this chapter strikes me more as filler that could better have been summarized as the opening paragraph or two of the next chapter, where Hitchens discusses arguments from design.<\/p>\n

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity<\/a>: a Faith Based on Fact<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3 This week, I am continuing in the fifth chapter of Christopher Hitchens\u2019 book \u201cGod Is Not Great,\u201d where Hitchens attempts to show that the metaphysical claims of religion are false.\u00a0 After stating his claim that \u201cAll attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule,\u201d (pg […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,6,14],"tags":[123,405,525],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}