Summary
Highlights
FootofaHorse introduces his response to Ben Shapiro's video 'The Atheist Delusion', which critiques atheism and argues for the existence of God. He outlines Shapiro's previous controversial statements and sets the stage for a detailed refutation of Shapiro's arguments.
Shapiro suggests that religious belief offers a more 'fulfilling struggle' than 'pretending the universe has no meaning at all.' FootofaHorse argues this implies Shapiro chooses theism for emotional fulfillment rather than reason, and criticizes Shapiro for conflating atheism with nihilism and for implying atheists are 'pretending' not to believe in God.
Shapiro argues that atheism struggles with grounding ethics, as an 'ought' cannot be derived from an 'is.' FootofaHorse agrees with the difficulty of the 'is-ought' problem but contends that introducing God does not solve it, as a moral 'ought' premise (e.g., 'we ought not do what God forbids') is still required, rendering the argument circular.
FootofaHorse points out that Shapiro misrepresents Neil deGrasse Tyson's views, making it seem as if Tyson argues science is 'directly opposed to the idea of a creator.' He clarifies that Tyson's critique is specifically aimed at biblical fundamentalism, not general belief in God, and that science and religious belief can coexist for many.
Shapiro presents an argument (attributed to Alvin Plantinga) that if humans evolved solely by natural selection, our ability to reason for truth cannot be trusted, as evolution selects for survival, not truth. He concludes that a benevolent creator is necessary for trustworthy reasoning. FootofaHorse applauds the argument but points out its circularity: if reason requires God for justification, then arguments for God's existence using reason are presupposing God.
Shapiro claims that materialism cannot account for free will, suggesting God is necessary. FootofaHorse agrees that free will is a philosophical challenge for atheism but argues that theism does not inherently solve it. The existence of a soul does not resolve the issue of control over desires or actions, making the problem equally difficult for theists.
Shapiro introduces the argument from change, stating that all change is the actualization of potential, requiring an already actual cause. This leads to the conclusion of a 'purely actual actualizer' or 'prime cause'—God—to avoid an infinite regress. FootofaHorse provides a detailed explanation of the argument, including the concept of potential versus nothing, and its significance in philosophy.
FootofaHorse raises his first objection to the argument from change: if potential is a real quality, then objects like a cooling coffee would possess an actual infinite number of potential temperatures, which contradicts the widely accepted philosophical impossibility of actual infinites, a cornerstone of other cosmological arguments.
The second objection challenges the concept of a 'purely actual actualizer' (God) as having no potential whatsoever. FootofaHorse argues that for an entity to continue existing, it must have at least the 'potential to remain as it is,' implying that even God, by continuing to exist, would possess a potential, contradicting the argument's premise of pure actuality.
The third objection involves the A-theory and B-theory of time. FootofaHorse explains that the argument from change relies on an A-theory of time (where only the present is real). If a B-theory of time is adopted (where past, present, and future all exist simultaneously), then 'change' becomes merely a difference in temporal parts, and the distinction between potential and actual becomes an observer-dependent perspective, undermining the foundation of the argument.
Shapiro uses Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems to argue that science requires extra-scientific assumptions, hinting at a divine origin. FootofaHorse corrects this, explaining that Gödel's theorems indicate that within any consistent axiomatic system, there will be true statements that cannot be proven within that system. This points to epistemic limits, not necessarily a divine entity, and concerns mathematical proofs rather than the nature of reality itself.
Shapiro claims that evolution doesn't preclude a 'directing hand,' citing Stephen Meyer on information in cellular processes as evidence of intelligent design. FootofaHorse acknowledges evolution doesn't entirely disprove God but notes it refutes arguments for God based on biological complexity. He defers to GM Skeptic and John Perry for a more detailed biological refutation of Meyer's argument about information transmission.
Shapiro presents the fine-tuning argument, highlighting the precise conditions of the universe necessary for life. FootofaHorse criticizes Shapiro for misrepresenting atheist responses as merely 'getting lucky,' and explores alternative explanations: (1) constants being necessarily fixed (perhaps by an underlying law) or (2) the multiverse hypothesis, where an infinite number of universes makes it probable that one would be fine-tuned for life. He cautions against using the multiverse as an 'ad-hoc' solution without independent evidence.
Shapiro cites physicists Roger Penrose and Richard Dawkins on the mystery of consciousness, implying that science's inability to explain it points to God. FootofaHorse identifies this as a 'God of the gaps' argument, wherein Shapiro fails to provide reasons why God's existence would actually explain consciousness rather than merely filling a current scientific void.
FootofaHorse briefly addresses Ben Shapiro's final points on the problem of evil and religious individuals' actions, agreeing with Shapiro that these don't entirely disprove God's existence. He concludes by reflecting on the breadth of philosophical concepts covered in his critique of Shapiro's video.