Dr. David Eagleman is the creator of a rather new religious belief called Possibilianism. It is more or less a version of Agnosticism and he gave a Ted Talk over this belief, which I will link right here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A). Catching up with an old friend of mine who is a Possibilian, he advised me to watch the video. I did. The following is my response to the video, highlighting just a few key points he made in his 22 minute speech.
The idea everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one less god than you do. - Preposterous notion. Atheism is believing there is no god, so I am not an atheist when it comes to any other religion.
You look at some religion and think its weird and they look at you thinking the same thing. - This is entirely subjective and does nothing to refute the objective claims and assertions of religions.
There is too much we don't know to make an assertive claim. - On the contrary, there is quite enough that we do know to make an assertive claim. Of course you can not absolutely claim any case, but there is enough to make a very logical and reasonable claim that God exists based upon our knowledge of cosmology, epistemology, ethics, logic, instincts, and our inherent knowledge amongst others.
Brains absorb what is poured into them. - Religions and the lack of religion are universal, this view doesn't explain conversions, and doesn't remotely refute or even dispute the facts and evidences brought to the table by religion. It also certainly doesn't explain my Agnosticism and Atheism before I looked into other religions and eventually became a Christian (to tie back into conversions with a more personal and radical example).
Mocking of the Genesis account. - He mocks (granted in a lighthearted way) the Genesis account of Adam and Eve while calling it the Christian account of our origin and the origin of the universe. I will later bring up how we should view the Bible but as for now I will simply say that discrediting the Genesis account certainly does not discredit Christianity.
"I'm not suggesting that the story of Adam and Eve is suspect because there are competing stories I'm suggesting it is suspect because the available scientific evidence weighs so strongly against it." - See both above and below. Also he makes the assertion that we have enough scientific evidence to weigh so strongly against the Adam and Eve account, and yet he refuses to make the claim, in fact his entire doctrine is rooted in the claim that we don't have nearly enough evidence for any positive assertion. This is a very one-sided argument and he clearly commits the Taxi-Cab Fallacy here.
Young-Earthers. - He then goes on to talk about Young-Earthers, specifically mentioning that the Bible accounts the world to be roughly 6,000 years old. As a Christian I see nothing wrong with the view of the Earth being 4.5 billion years old (I myself believe it). The whole thing you have to look at when reading the Bible (as I alluded to with the Adam and Eve rebuttal) is the intended audience of it. Many skeptics look at the Genesis account and equate it to ancient mythology, when in fact it is very demythologizing in nature. It doesn't consider all of the stars, earth, sun, moon, etc as gods but rather as mere creation. From as best as we can tell, Moses is most likely the author of Genesis and was divinely inspired to write it by God. Now do you think Moses and more importantly the layman of Israel at that time would have any clue about contemporary cosmology and the origins of the universe like the Big Bang, Hartle-Hawking Model, Steady State Model, etc? Certainly not. So it was written to show that the whole universe and everything in it is a creation of God and that, as far as Adam and Eve goes, the fall entered into the world through sin which man made by defying the will of God by giving into the temptations of the devil.
Know too little to commit to strict atheism but know way too much to commit to a specific religion. - This again seems to be merely showing the negative cases against religion but I haven't seen any rational argument against Christianity other than his mention of the Genesis account to which I have already retorted. Also we know quite enough to commit to at the very lease a god (Deism) while denying atheism (again, does not mean 100% indisputable but rather a strong case and far more plausible than the alternative. But if we must have 100% indisputable evidence before we can commit to any claim then I challenge you to prove you are not merely in the matrix or simply a brain being probed by a scientist in ways that stimulate your mind to make you perceive all that you experience, or even that you are not a part of my imagination or subconscience. 100% certainty really doesn't seem plausible even for our most basic and rudimentary knowledge.)
Complete absence of evidence. - He claims that there is complete absence of evidence which is really what lead me (as well as my previous rebuttals) to my conclusion that this wasn't very well thought out and he hasn't simply put in enough time into the topic. The argument for morality, the argument for purpose, and the Ontological Argument are simply 3 arguments which I gave to you to read. But let us also consider the Cosmological Arguments (there are two), the evidence given through the fine-tuning of the universe, and Leibniz' Argument from Contingency just to name a few (the list goes on). These arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of deity. Ockham's Razor then leads to the rational conclusion that it is a single deity. Anselm's view on the greatest conceivable being then shows that this deity must be all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. For the sake of argument let us call this deity by the name God. Now this brings us to the monotheistic faiths: Deism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Then we must look at the specific revelations and evidences to make up our minds from there, but we shall cross that bridge when we get to it. Which reminds me, if you make the claim that it is possible that a god could exist, why then should we believe this god has given no revelation to its creation? i.e. religion? Simply by acknowledging that God could exist we acknowledge that, most likely, if He were to exist one of these religious claims must be true about Him. Here Possibilianism falls apart. To me, Possibilianism seems to desire the benefits of Atheism while being able to plead ignorance and thus removing the need to back up its own beliefs. Certainly no man of science should have this mindset in his field, then why so in the field of religion? To end, let me be clear that there is no ad hominem attack in that last sentence or anywhere throughout this brief response, I am not trying to attack the man's character or likewise anyone who follows this belief, I am simply bringing up valid arguments against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment