Kangaroo tails and counterfactuals

[bpesta22]

Trying to come up with some new / unique arguments for atheism, and I'm wondering if anyone here would critique this blog:

Here is the first sentence in Philosopher David Lewis' book, Counterfactuals:

"'If kangaroos had no tails they would topple over' seems to me to mean in any possible state of affairs in which kangaroos have no tails, and which resembles our actual world as much as kangaroos having no tails permits it, the kangaroo topples over." The rest of the book is dedicated to defining logically what "counterfactuals" mean and how best to reason with them.

A counterfactual is a special type of IF-THEN statement, where we know the IF part is false. It's obviously true that "kangaroos have no tails" is false, so how do we evaluate the claim that if they did have tails, they'd topple over? (*).

Lewis appeals to the idea of possible worlds. A possible world is any world that might have been, if things happened somewhat differently. It's the world where this blog already bored you to the point of you not finishing it (a possible world probably fairly close to the actual world); it's the world where you wore a different shirt to work today, or where you are a fundie instead of a heathen, or where Hitler won WW II.

Some possible worlds (e.g., the one where this blog has bored you) are obviously closer to the real world than others (e.g., the one where Hitler won the war).

Applying this to kangaroos, we have to imagine possible worlds that are as similar to the actual world as possible, but where kangaroos have no tails. What would we have to change in these possible worlds? We'd have to modify things such that evolutionary pressures on kangaroos made them lose their tails (or never grow them), and then change anything else (depictions of kangaroos in cartoons or kids books) that makes kangaroos having no tails reality. Once we've identified these similar possible worlds, we then evaluate the counterfactual by looking to see kangaroos indeed topple over in all these possible worlds. Any such possible world where kangaroos are still standing would make the entire counterfactual-- if kangaroos had no tails they would topple over-- false.

What's my point? I think applying the idea of counterfactual reasoning to god makes for an interesting conclusion.

Most people- 90%+-- believe in a god of some sort. So, for the vast majority of people, any statement of the form "IF there is no god then X" is a counterfactual conditional. The "if" part is false to anyone who believes in a God.

So, people would then evaluate the truth of these statements by imagining worlds as similar to our real world as possible, but wherein god doesn't exist. My question is, what about the real world would we have to change to have a possible world where "God does not exist" is true?

I think the answer is nothing!

What is it about our real world that implies god exists? Is it the appearance of design? No, it is just an appearance-- an anthropomorphic fallacy committed by vane people who think their existence is special (in some cosmic sense), and which merits some grand designer and the promise of eternal life.

Evil exists, which is what one might expect where no gods around to mete out justice. Innocent kids die; child molesters go free; miracles do not happen (at least non can be verified). Prayers go unanswered. People starve. Even the image of Jesus in your waffles is probably best explained by non-supernatural causes.

Randomness, chaos, natural selection, (mostly harmful) mutation. All things that seem pretty close to what one would expect where no gods present.

Many people believe in god, however, but overwhelmingly, the god they believe in is determined by their birth (I find it funny that most fundamentalist Christians I come across would be just as dogmatic about Allah, had they only been born in Iraq and not the USA). About what you'd expect where there no universal watchmaker.

The more we understand about reality via science, the less we need any type of supernatural explanation for anything ever.

What about the uncaused cause argument? There must be a first cause and it is god (because I say so). Whether it's the big bang, a god, or something else that created the universe, what would we need to change in our actual world to accommodate that. Nothing. The world where the big bang created the universe is no different from the world where god did, except in who or what did the creating. In this scenario, god is just a placetag for ignorance (we dunno how the world was created, or we can't accept the big bang explanation, so goddidit).

So, here's the challenge:

What about our real world would have to be changed so that the statement "If God does not exist" is true. If you come up with no changes, does that prove that god does not exist? (you'd in essence be arguing that the current reality is perfectly consistent with the idea that no gods exist, which contradicts the idea that gods exist, therefore, gods do not exist!).

It's an affirmative defense of atheism. What would reality be like if God didn't exist? If you can't come up with something different from our current reality, then bite the bullet and conclude that god doesn't exist.


sorry for the length if you got to this point!

 

[blutoski]

It's an affirmative defense of atheism. What would reality be like if God didn't exist? If you can't come up with something different from our current reality, then bite the bullet and conclude that god doesn't exist.

Two thoughts on this:

1. Contrafactual reasoning is a weak argument, since it's usually considered a logical fallacy. We don't really know what would happen if an event didn't take place - we can only speculate. What you're looking for is something called: truth through contradiction, which is a reasoning strategy that assumes the exclusive opposite of what you're trying to prove, and seeks contradiction.

2. Furthermore, if you go forward with this in rhetoric, I predict you will run aground debating the credibility of their examples. For example:

• if there was no God, then the universe wouldn't exist, and clearly we do (contrafactual reasoning)
• if there was no God, then we would have no morals, and clearly we do (contrafactual reasoning, a priori assumptions, or question-begging)
• if there was no God, then we would have no purpose (argument from consequences)
• if there was no God, then I wouldn't feel the presence of the Holy Spirit when I pray, and I do (how do you dismiss that?)

And so on...

 

[Zep]

The opening thought is based on a "factual" that is actually wrong. Let's look at it again:

"'If kangaroos had no tails they would topple over' seems to me to mean in any possible state of affairs in which kangaroos have no tails, and which resembles our actual world as much as kangaroos having no tails permits it, the kangaroo topples over."

It is incorrect in that kangaroos actually use their tails to balance, and have to LEARN to do so from a young age. So they would topple over only if they had learned to do so, then they suddenly lost their tail when they needed to rely on its balancing abilities. That is, certain (unusual, granted) preconditions need to be met first.

The more generic version of this is to make a statement that is true in only a limited sense, but to then reach a logically unsupportable general conclusion while overlooking the limited facts present in that true statement. Fallacy of excluded middle? Over-generalisation?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

bpesta:

So, people would then evaluate the truth of these statements by imagining worlds as similar to our real world as possible, but wherein god doesn't exist. My question is, what about the real world would we have to change to have a possible world where "God does not exist" is true?

You have tried to define a contingent God. What you are saying would work if God could sensibly be defined as existing contingently. But this is not the case. If God exists, then God necessarily exists. And if God exists necessarily then it means that God exists in all possible worlds and it is not possible to imagine a world similar to ours where God doesn't exist.

Note that I am not providing an ontological argument here - I am not defining God into existence. What I am doing is insisting that if God does exist then he could not have failed to exist, by definition.

 

[drkitten]

If God exists, then God necessarily exists. And if God exists necessarily then it means that God exists in all possible worlds and it is not possible to imagine a world similar to ours where God doesn't exist.

Well, that's an assertion.

It happens to be ontologically, semantically, and logically ungrounded.

But it's an assertion nevertheless.

What I am doing is insisting that if God does exist then he could not have failed to exist, by definition.

.... and I'm saying that the readership has no reason to take your "insistance" at all seriously.

 

[JamesDillon]

I don't know about Geoff's necessarily existing God, but I think a theist would probably respond to your argument that, in a counterfactual world where God doesn't exist, the universe wouldn't exist either, so such a possible world would indeed vary quite significantly from the present one.

That's not to say that that objection is true, but I don't think that arguing about counterfactuals can show that it isn't, becuase you're begging all the really important questions by assuming that a possible world without God would look the same as a world with God.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't know about Geoff's necessarily existing God, but I think a theist would probably respond to your argument that, in a counterfactual world where God doesn't exist, the universe wouldn't exist either, so such a possible world would indeed vary quite significantly from the present one.

That's effectively the same as what I said.

 

[JamesDillon]

That's effectively the same as what I said.

Sort of; I was suggesting that from the theist's perspective, a universe without God would be entirely empty of all things. That isn't quite the same as saying that God necessarily, if at all, exists; it's only to say that a theist would reject the premise that a universe without God would look exactly the same.

 

[Molinaro]

Most people- 90%+-- believe in a god of some sort.

Says who? I've never heard of such a high guess at that number, yet you state it as if it's some fact to be found lying around.

 

[blutoski]

Says who? I've never heard of such a high guess at that number, yet you state it as if it's some fact to be found lying around.

It's in the right ballpark. It depends on the region in question (eg: countries) and how the question is phrased.

According to most polls, the west has the highest proportion of agnostic+atheistic citizens, and the US comes in at 8%, Canada at about 12%.

Paradoxically, when the question is: "do you absolutely believe in God," the US shows a 70% 'yes' response, and Canada about 50%.

My assumption is that the 20% or so who are neither agnostic+atheistic nor absolute believers are not sure.

 

[JamesDillon]

Paradoxically, when the question is: "do you absolutely believe in God," the US shows a 70% 'yes' response, and Canada about 50%.

My assumption is that the 20% or so who are neither agnostic+atheistic nor absolute believers are not sure.

I would speculate that a fair number of those people would identify themselves as a member of a particular religious group sort of by default or for cultural reasons, but when asked directly whether or not they believe in God, many can't say that they do.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sort of; I was suggesting that from the theist's perspective, a universe without God would be entirely empty of all things.

But surely from a theist's perspective, the Universe only exists because God does? If God had failed to exist, so would the Universe.

That isn't quite the same as saying that God necessarily, if at all, exists; it's only to say that a theist would reject the premise that a universe without God would look exactly the same.

I'm not saying God neccesarily exists, either. I am saying he cannot exist contingently. Either he exists necessarily, or he doesn't exist.

 

[Jimbo07]

Says who? I've never heard of such a high guess at that number, yet you state it as if it's some fact to be found lying around.

Isn't about 95% stated in the movie Contact?

JD: I suspect that's not quite right. I saw a poll not too long ago (oh great, I'm sure people want me to go and actually look it up ), suggesting that despite not attending church, people either claimed an affiliation or 'personal spirituality.' I doubt that woo-woo is dead.

What really surprises me is that Molinaro hasn't heard numbers this high! Heck, the Wikipedia section on religion claims more affiliations than there are people!

 

[JamesDillon]

JD: I suspect that's not quite right. I saw a poll not too long ago (oh great, I'm sure people want me to go and actually look it up ), suggesting that despite not attending church, people either claimed an affiliation or 'personal spirituality.' I doubt that woo-woo is dead.

I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said. No doubt there are a lot of independently spiritual people out there who check the "Other" box on the religious identification survey. But my point was that there were a lot of people who would identify themselves as, for example, "Jewish" or "Christian" more out of a sense of cultural belonging than because they actually subscribe to the religious content of those beliefs. (This is probably especially true in the Jewish sense, since the term can denote either a religious belief or an ethnicity). My parents, for example, would call themselves Christians despite not having attended church, except for weddings and funerals, in all the time I've known them. However, when the question is phrased differently, not "What religion are you?," but "Do you believe in God?," I would speculate that some people would be more likely to answer in the negative on the basis of their personal beliefs rather than the community with which they identify.

But, again, that's just my relatively uninformed speculation.