Monday, August 15, 2016

Two New Objections to the Fine-Tuning Argument

Rough draft:
First objection: Necessarily, nothing can create concrete objects ex nihilo. So the posterior probability of the fine-tuning of the universe of concrete objects on the hypothesis that the god of classical theism both (i) designed it and (ii) ultimately created it ex nihilo is nil. But according to classical theism, for any world W containing concrete objects, God ultimately created the concrete objects in W ex nihilo. Therefore, classical theism entails that God ultimately creates ex nihilo any world containing concrete objects he designs. Therefore, the posterior probability of fine-tuning on the hypothesis of classical theism is nil.

Second objectionThere are final causes in God's nature that are ontologically prior to his intelligent agency. For example, God's intellect and will work together to perform various functions, such as designing and creating things.  God's life is also meaningful and purposeful according to classical theism. On classical theism, therefore, final causes are built into God's nature without a prior cause. But if that's right, then classical theism entails the existence of final causes at the metaphysical ground floor that God cannot create. And if that's right, then theism entails that non-conscious teleology is a more fundamental feature of reality than teleology caused by intelligence. And if that's right, then we'd expect base-level teleology in the universe that's not caused by God on the hypothesis of theism. Therefore, absent a further reason for thinking cosmic fine-tuning isn't expected unless caused by a divine fine-tuner, cosmic fine-tuning doesn't confirm theism vis-a-vis naturalism.

Toward a Plausible Framework for Doing Philosophy of Religion


I've argued that no divine personal agent that's wholly distinct from the natural world of concrete objects has the capacity to serve as the ultimate ground of abstract objects, concrete objects, final causes, or objective moral duties.  Now suppose I'm right about that. Then either some of these things (e.g., final causes and objective moral duties) derive from more fundamental entities, or they don't. If they do, then as we've seen, no divine personal agent that's wholly distinct from the natural world of concrete objects serves as their ultimate ground.  If they don't, then the world is chock full of eternal, uncreated entities of the sort listed above -- abstract objects, concrete objects, final causes, and objective moral values, in which case no divine personal agent that's wholly distinct from the natural world serves as their ultimate ground.  Either disjunct leaves many interesting candidates within the space of epistemic possibilities -- e.g. pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, Spinozism, demiurgism, etc. However, one historically important candidate has been ruled out, viz., the god of classical theism. 

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Theism, Naturalism, and Final Causes

There is a long tradition in theistic philosophy of religion of appealing to God as the ultimate ground or architect of final causes -- of purpose, plan, and function -- found in nature. A key rationale behind this appeal is that final causes have an intelligent source as part of their nature or essence. This rationale appears to be at work in a wide range of arguments for God. Examples include design arguments, arguments from reason, arguments from intentionality, and arguments from life-meaning and purpose. 

Here's the rub: There are final causes in God's nature that are ontologically prior to his intelligent agency. For example, God's intellect and will work together to perform various functions, such as designing and creating things.  God's life is also meaningful and purposeful according to classical theism. On classical theism, therefore, final causes are built into God's nature without a prior cause. But if that's right, then classical theism entails the existence of final causes at the metaphysical ground floor that God cannot create. And if that's right, then theism entails base-level final causes that do not require intention. 

The moral: Theism entails that non-conscious teleology is a more fundamental feature of reality than teleology caused by intelligence, in which case it's not at all clear why base-level final causes are problematic for naturalism vis-a-vis theism.

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Contrarian Philosophy of Religion Assertion Wednesday

Theism entails that non-conscious teleology is more fundamental to reality than teleology caused by intelligence.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Contrarian Philosophy of Religion Assertion Tuesday

On classical theism, purpose is built into God's nature without a prior cause, in which case classical theism entails the existence of purpose that God cannot create at the metaphysical ground floor, in which case theism entails purpose that doesn't require intention -- and indeed, that non-conscious teleology is more fundamental than teleology caused by intelligence --, in which case it's not clear why purpose in the universe without intention is problematic for naturalism.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

The Summer 2016 Issue of the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion...

...is out, and looks to be a great read. It contains a book symposium on Metz'  Meaning in Life, as well as articles on a host of other topics.

New Issue of Philo

Here. The table of contents is below to whet your appetite.


Dan Flores, Correlations and Conclusions: Neuroscience and the Belief in God
Mark Glouberman, ‘O God, O Montreal!’: Secularity and Turbo-Charged Humanism

Mark Glouberman, ‘O God, O Montreal!’: Secularity and Turbo-Charged Humanism

Tony Houston, Renaissance Humanism: Obscurantist Impieties

R. Zachary Manis, The Problem of Epistemic Luck for Naturalists

Steve Petersen, A Normative Yet Coherent Naturalism

CP Ruloff, Against Mind-Dependence

Lawrence Torcello, On the Virtues of Inhospitality: Toward an Ethics of Public Reason and Critical Engagement

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Fantastic Recent, New, and Forthcoming Books by Timpe et al.

Timpe, Kevin and Ben Arbour (eds.). Philosophical Essays Against Open Theism (Routledge, forthcoming).

Timpe, Kevin and Daniel Speak (eds.). Free Will and Theism: Connections, Contingencies, and Concerns (OUP, 2016).

Timpe, Kevin. Free Will in Philosophical Theology (Bloomsbury, 2014).

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Wielenberg's New Paper on Plantinga's Free Will Defense

Wielenberg, Erik. "Plantingian theism and the free-will defense", Religious Studies 52:2 (forthcoming). 

Here's the abstract:
I advance a challenge to the coherence of Alvin Plantinga's brand of theism that focuses on Plantinga's celebrated free-will defence. This challenge draws on (but goes beyond) some ideas advanced by Wes Morriston. The central claim of my challenge is that Plantinga's free-will defence, together with certain claims that are plausible and/or to which Plantinga is committed, both requires and rules out the claim that it is possible that God is capable of engaging in moral goodness. I then critically evaluate an interesting strategy for responding to my challenge inspired by some recent work by Kevin Timpe, arguing that the response ultimately fails. The upshot of the article is that Plantinga's brand of theism is internally inconsistent; furthermore, because the claims that are in tension with the free-will defence are ones that many theists are likely to find attractive, many theists are not able to appeal to Plantinga's free-will defence in responding to the logical problem of evil.
Site Meter