Talking Past Each Other?

Two seemingly unrelated things caught my eye yesterday: an article by Theodore Drange opposing the Fine Tuning Argument for God (FTA), and an email from Paul, who comments here often. The Drange article was one of those that Victor Reppert links to occasionally, which is where I ran across it. I'll start with that and then come back to Paul's email.

Theodore Drange is (or was previously; I can't track down the current information) a philosopher at West Virginia University, author of at least one book in favor of atheism, and a frequent contributor to secular web discussions. This article on the FTA is brief, really just a synopsis of an argument. I'm going to synopsize it even further by listing his points. My purpose here is not to counter them with theistic arguments. You'll see in a moment where I'm heading instead.

Drange includes the hypothesis of God as premise (P4) in his version of how theists approach the FTA:

"(P4) The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he 'fine-tuned' those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems."

To Drange, this premise is completely inadequate because:

1. Such an hypothesis (which he labels G) does not address how God would have accomplished this creation.
2. G is hard to understand and thus does not qualify as an explanation.
3. Properties of God that have been proposed under G (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) lead to difficult questions such as, "can such a being make himself weak or ignorant?"
4. What did God do before creating the universe? If he is a God of love, whom or what did he love?
5. If God has such an interest in sentient organic systems, why did he take 10 billion-plus years to bring them into his creation?
6. Why didn't God do a better job with evolution, to cause less suffering to the organisms, or to have a much higher proportion of mutations be successful/adaptive rather than harmful?
7. Why did God arrange for the earth to be such a dangerous environment?

Because of these objections, Drange concludes at the end of this section, "Hence, (P4) of the Fine-tuning Argument is a false premise."

Drange also approaches the issue from another angle, that there are alternatives to G that could explain the fine-tuning of the universe. If it were my purpose here to counter Drange, I would list and answer those alternatives, but that's not what I want to do today in this post. (I do need, though, to point out that he does give credence to the "brute fact" explanation for the universe--that the universe just is what it is, and that's all.)

Instead I offer Drange's Inadequacy Objection as an example of how apparently fine thinkers can just talk past each other.

I assume that Drange is a competent person; he obtained a full professorship at a university and has authored at least one book and several articles. So it puzzles me that he would say what he says here. From a basic Biblical perspective, his objections that I have numbered 3 and 4 are rather elementary, very easy to answer. From a deeper theological perspective, numbers 2 and 5 have been very thoroughly addressed by theists. Number 1 is accurate as far as it goes, but it does no worse than his "brute fact" alternative, so it is a very weak point. Number 6 seriously begs a question about evolution. Numbers 6 and 7 (setting aside the evolution question) are reasonably good points, and worthy of much discussion. It's fine if someone proposes them as issues for theism; but to glibly conclude, "Hence, (P4)... is a false premise" is just overstating the confidence with which one can draw such a conclusion.

Again, I grant that he was writing in summary form; but this is what puzzles me: does he really think that his article has accomplished what it takes to justify saying therefore--that he has really established a case that readers would agree leads to that conclusion? It would seem that's what he thinks; it's what he wrote, after all. But the only way he could think that would be by disregarding or choosing to pay no attention to what theists actually say.

Not every statement about God or the nature of reality needs to be taken as an argument. In some contexts I will say, without qualification, evidence, or supporting argument, that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, who died on the cross and rose again to redeem us from our sins." I can do that because in many contexts, I'm not trying to prove something. I'm proclaiming what I understand to be true, probably among others who are inclined to agree.

If, however, I am speaking in the context of dispute about the truth of a viewpoint, it behooves me to adduce my own evidences, and pay respectful heed to the best arguments of those who disagree. This is the context in which Drange was writing, and this is what he did not do.

Now, to the email that Paul sent me. I have often disagreed with Paul in our discussions here, but I've always felt that he has treated our disagreements--and our arguments--with plenty of respect. I've even seen him challenge questionable assertions by people on his own side of a discussion. He quoted a source (see the first comment under that link) I myself would not generally agree with, but the point was excellent:

"To really 'fight fair,' Step One is to put one’s opponent’s best foot forward. Otherwise, every argument is a straw man argument. . . . you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your opponent says 'Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.' Then, you should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement), and third, you should mention anything you have learned from your opponent. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism."

That's a high standard, perhaps unreasonably high for the short-form context of a blog, but the intent behind it is exactly right. I would say that if we do not address our opponent's real arguments, we're just talking past each other. Drange was not talking about theism at all in this article--he was talking past it.

I've seen theists make the same mistake, of course. I hope I'm addressing the real objections to Christianity on this blog--at least, that I'm doing so when that's the purpose of the post. If I fail to do that, I invite you to call me on it! And I think Paul and I would both say that this is the standard we all ought to shoot for in our discussions.

Posted: Fri - December 1, 2006 at 08:05 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Talking Past Each Other?

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson