From: Josh Rasmussen
To: Francois Tremblay
Subject: Freethinker looks at your article

Hi Francois,

I stumbled upon your article in which you critique Swinburne’s Justification of Theism. I am a freethinker; I seek to follow reason and evidence wherever it leads. I value intellectual humility and critical thinking. As a result, I very much appreciated your effort to assess the merits of Swinburne’s reasoning.

Unfortunately, your article was uncharitible and as a result I think it might have the opposite effect that you intend – it will cause careful-minded theists to not take your critique seriously. For example, you are quick to accuse Swinburne of many fallacies, and it seems to me that at least some of your accusations are unwarranted. Consider your claim that Swinburne commits a category fallacy when he assumes that the fact that the states of affairs that make up our universe is contingent. Your discussion of this fallacy gives the impression that theists make this assumption due to a kind of insular perspective in which only God can count as a necessary entity. But the truth is, MOST philosophers (whether they be theists or non-theists) think that the fact that there are the states of affairs that make up the physical universe is a contingent fact, not a necessary one.
William Rowe is a notable example of an atheist philosopher who thinks that the fact that the universe exists is a contingent fact that could be explained. He might be mistaken, but it’s certainly not obvious that he’s mistaken. Typically atheists reply to the cosmological type arguments by suggesting that PSR does not apply to the unvierse as a whole (even if it is contingent) or that the universe as a WHOLE doesn’t exist at all. But very few think that the universe’s existence is necessary (even if it is eternal). Thus, very few atheist philosophers would agree that Swinburne commits a category fallacy.

Later you suggest that the existence of laws can be explained in terms of the natures of physical things. You might be correct. But atheist philosopher, Michael Tooley, would disagree. He argues that laws cannot be reduced to partuculars which those laws govern. Your discussion of this matter gives the false impression that only ignorant theists reify laws and worry about how to explain them.

I think your paper would be strengthened if you assumed the very best in the person whom you are critiquing. Once again, I am pleased with your desire to promote critical thinking concerning articles on this topic.

Blessings,
Josh

P.S. I attached a cosmological argument that you might find interesting…

From: Francois Tremblay
To: Josh Rasmussen
Subject: Freethinker looks at your article

Thank you for your email.

I invoked a category error viz Swinburne’s argument because he assumes that the existence of the universe is in the category of things that require explanation. Even if one thinks that some things in the universe are contingent, this does not imply at all that the universe qua universe is contingent.

I do indeed hold that everything in the universe is necessary. To posit that the universe qua universe is contingent is to assume divine creation or some other form of supernatural creation, which is semantically unacceptable. If you have an argument that can prove contingency without supernaturality, I’d like to hear it.

As for your other point, I don’t understand your proposition that “laws cannot be reduced to partuculars which those laws govern”. I never made such a claim. What I do claim in my article is that the origin of natural laws is not a mystery at all, at least in the general sense. We know that they arose from natural processes, both ontologically and epistemically.

In short, I see no need to “strengthen” my article on the basis of opinions that Swinburne does not express in his own article. If the philosophers you name wish to argue against Swinburne’s arguments also, they are free to present their own objections. I am, however, always ready to defend my positions and acknowledge their deficiencies when necessary. I hope this answers your questions.

From: Josh Rasmussen
To: Francois Tremblay
Re: Freethinker looks at your article

Francois,

Thanks for your reply. :)

It may be that Swinburne’s argument depends on the category error. My main point is that it is far from clear that the universe as a whole is not contingent, and thus, it is far from clear that Swinburn’s argument is a category error. No doubt you have reasons for thinking the universe as a whole is not contingent, but these should be mentioned, especially since so many atheist philosophers disagree. William Rowe thinks the universe as a whole is contingent but that PSR (principle of sufficient reason) does not apply to it. Thus, Rowe (and many other atheists) would disagree that “to posit that the universe qua universe is contingent is to assume divine creation.” This implicit assumption of your article requires defense (especially in light of the rejoinders to the ‘fallacy of composition’ objection). Plus, many in your audience (even atheists) would not grant that assumption.

With respect to laws, you say, “We know that they arose from natural processes, both ontologically and epistemically.” But this is precisely what atheist philosopher, Michael Tooley, would deny, given that he thinks that the ontological ingredients of laws are such that they are not caused to exist by natural processes. He might be incorrect in his reasoning, but it’s far from common “knowledge” among intellectuals that laws arose from natural processes.

You’re right that Swinburne does not discuss any of this in his article.
But Swinburne should not be expected to anticipate every possible unsound objection. My only point is that your objections are based on implicit premises that only a few philosophers (theists and atheists alike) would grant. Your paper would come across as more intellectual honest if you were to at least acknolwedge that the premises upon which your objections built are not accepted by all or even most philosophers.

My intention is not to tear-down your lovely article. Rather, I seek to build it up. Then, it will be more effective in it’s cause for truth.

Best Wishes,
Josh

From: Francois Tremblay
To: Josh Rasmussen
Subject: Freethinker looks at your article

Thank you again for your email.

I think the main point here is that my article argues from a specific rational-scientific, materialist, worldview. Our web site strongatheism.com promotes this worldview as an alternative to nihilism and subjectivism in atheistic thought. It is to be expected in all our articles. On this, I would encourage you to read my article “The Opposing Worldviews”.

As I mentioned before, we are always ready to defend that worldview against others, as you can read in the Against Theism and Skeptics section, but I see no need to defend it specifically in other articles.

From: Josh Rasmussen
To: Francois Tremblay
Re: Freethinker looks at your article

Wow, that article was very interesting and very helpful. Thanks! I’m curious. You state, “But most strong-atheists uphold that the universe is necessary, thus making such arguments pointless.” Michael Martin is a strong atheist, but I don’t think he thinks the universe is necessary….
Who are some examples then? I suppose Quentin Smith might count, since doesn’t he thinks part of the universe is necesssary? I suppose Ayn Rand would be another example. OK, so I see better where you are coming from.

I think your case for a foundationalist epistemology along the lines that you suggest is persuasive. I think there are necessary truths that no god could create, including ethical ones and abstract objects like numbers, properties, types, etc. Theologians tend to be terrible philosophers, and so their worldviews are often irrational at their foundation. However, theist philosophers tend to be rationalists, and many of them would not object to your foundational principles. For, example many theist philosophers recognize that God did not create any of the necesssarily existing things (like causal laws, logical relations, etc.) My own view is to start with basic axioms of reason and emperical data, and then seek truth wherever it leads. I often make mistakes and so I try to keep an open mind and recheck my work. My noetic structure is always being modified and growing. It turns out that I am currently a theist, since I think that axioms of the sort you mentioned yield theorems specifying the existence of God (see the paper I attached a couple emails back). Theologians have a lot they should learn from your objectivist philosophy. I wholeheartidly agree with it myself!

Josh