Thor’s Rehab

Some more reflections on the Dennett versus D’Souza debate (see earlier posting). Science has come up with the Big Bang model and now theists see in it evidence for a first cause argument. They argue that from the fact that the universe has a beginning it follows that the universe has a special kind of cause: an intelligent first cause (preferably the christian kind in D’Souza’s case). How should the philosophical and/or scientific community rebut? How should Dennett have rebutted? In my opinion there really is a host of arguments that is applicable.

The more or less implicit claims made by D’Souza are the following:

1) The Big Bang shows that the universe had a beginning.
2) ‘Outside’ the universe, there is a realm of existence (let’s call it the realm of god) from which the universe is caused
3) The beginning of the universe is the beginning of everything with exception of the realm of god.
4) Although time is an intrinsic aspect of the universe alone there is a causal connection between the god realm and the universe (causal bridge).
5) The realm of god and god himself is static and uncaused.
6) The universe was caused intentionally and deliberately
7) God intended to create the universe as it is.

Some remarks on these assertions:

(2) The Big Bang model in its present form by no means requires a realm of existence outside the universe that is causally connected with the universe. Yet this causal connection and this outside realm both are necessary in D’Souza’s argument.

(3) Why not allow (from the ‘outside realm’) for the unintentional causation of many universes (rebutting 3), or for unintentional triggers in which the same universe is created and destroyed over and over? Indeed, in buddhism there is no divine cause required to cause the universe. Then shouldn’t D’Souza make perfectly clear on what grounds he can falsify buddhistic cosmogony over the christian one? Shouldn’t D’Souza make perfectly clear from what solid fact it follows that we are in need for an intentional and deliberate causator? The blunt fact is that no religion can infer an intentional causation of the universe from the Big Bang.

(4) How can ’cause’ have meaning without time to line up cause and consequence?

(5) This assertion allows for uncaused existence. Why not allow this for the universe itself? And why should this causator itself be uncaused. From what facts of the Big Bang model should this plug-in-the-bath-tub argument follow?

(6) If we allow for a causal connection between a realm of existence ‘outside’ the universe and the universe itself, then why not allow for an unintentional causation of our universe from that realm? There is no need for assertion intentional and deliberate causation. This is an unneccessary addition that further complicates the model. When Ockham’s Razor is applied to it, it is clear that should be left out. Furthermore couldn’t god have created a more clearly purposeful universe. There’s a lot of waste about. His rolemodel as a good housekeeper in the universe lies in shambles. A holodek for mankind would have been enough.

(7) Wouldn’t D’Souza shout the same argument in any universe that brought him about? And wouldn’t he be silent in any other universe? Is the carbon base of life necessary for the existence of intelligent agents such as us? How does he know?

All in all D’Souza is in great need of filling the gaps. I see a strong analogy between Thor’s thunder and god’s Big Bang. Why doesn’t D’Souza demand the full rehabilitation of Thor now we know he didn’t cause thunder but a much bigger bang?

Pope has no hope in mankind

Pope Benedict released a new papal encyclical on friday November 30. One of the statements seems to adress the present revival of atheistic manifestations. It reads: “Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.”

This is a sad thing, for it follows from this that according to pope Benedict man can not find hope in man himself. Only through the christian god man can have moral guidance, only through this god we can come to goodness. The world is a lost place he seems to say. Why bother about your brother when there is no hope there?

Shouldn’t someone point out the bankruptcy of this argument.

The Dennett vs D’Souza debate

On November 30, Daniel Dennett (renowned philosopher) and Dinesh D’Souza (conservative christian author) debated. The debate took place at Tufts University . The premisse of the debate they argued over was as follows: “God is a manmade invention.” Daniel Dennett argued the affirmative, and Dinesh D’Souza the negative. The video registration of the debate can be found here:

Dennett versus D’Souza, Tufts University, November 30, 2007

Some perceptions on the debate:

Apparent is not only the wide gap between the conclusions both debaters arrive at but also the use and/or lack of debating techniques. Dennett lacks the verve with which D’Souza operates. Dennett fumbles around with the microphone, takes a lot of time to state his arguments and sometimes isn’t very on target in rebutting the assertions of D’Souza which are stated in a rather agressive tone. D’Souza on the other hand certainly has a steady flow of arguments and is a rapid speaker. As mentioned, his tone is rather aggressive and he most of the time shoutes in the microphone.

To the eye therefore D’Souza won the debate. On closer examination of the presented arguments his victory isn’t clear at all. For instance D’Souza states that scientific evidence for the Big Bang supports the idea of a first cause and therefore for a intelligent creator. In my opinion this isn’t rebutted sufficiently by Dennett. Boeddhism allegedly also is compatible with the Big Bang but doesn’t invoke a divine creator.