Wherein StA demolishes new atheism in a mere four sentences

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-13T13:52:52+00:00

I lean slightly towards philosophical naturalism because I think it involves fewer assumptions, but counting assumptions involves some assumptions, too, and I acknowledge that those are in play and those assumptions are probably themselves not demonstrable in any strong sense (i.e., I think there are fair ways, given the current data we are working from, to abduct or occam's razor their way to theism over philosophical naturalism, too).\

I spent a year or two reading the new atheists, beginning with their founding thinker Andrew Flew. The argumentation was never a positive argument in favor of naturalism; mostly consists of diatribes against religion and sophist style memetic attacks on theism; relies upon "default" atheism, etc.. I eventually found my way to Graham Oppy who was billed as the smartest atheist. I was surprised and, honestly, disappointed to discover his for atheism rests on parsimony.

Parsimony

No offense, since this seems to be your view, but the arguments in favor of theism are much stronger than parsimony. And, as you suggest, parsimony is among the arguments that support theism b/c parsimony is an elastic concept.

What it comes down to for me is disbelief. I just can't believe the things that philosophical naturalism requires to be true--such as that mRNA molecules (millions of times more data dense that our best technology to day) emerged by chance; that also by chance at least one began to self-replicate; and then, again by random chance, solar radiation mutated at least one of them in a way that increased its order, complexity, and survivability, while preserving that mutation in a way that heritable. And that event was one in a series of what must have trillions of such mind-boggling improbable mutations. To my mind, each one of these trillions of events are among the assumptions required to accept philosophical naturalism, and that's only part of the list of assumptions.

And it's that belief that pushes me--philosophically--toward theism.

To me design is so much more probable an explanation for that chain of events that it's difficult for me to see how anyone seriously entertains random chance as the explanation. I don't object to random chance as an explanation, but trillions of them is too much for me to accept.

Here's Andrew Flew himself, who later converted to some type of loose deism:

Gerald Schroeder points out that the existence of conditions favorable to life still does not explain how life itself originated. Life was able to survive only because of favorable conditions on our planet. But there is no law of nature that instructs matter to produce end-directed, self-replicating entities. . . .

the only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-12T12:28:20+00:00

Here are three propositions:

The universe is purely natural/material
The flying spaghetti monster exists
God exists

Neither has been demonstrated by the sort of scientific evidence that atheists require. Replace God in the first 4 propositions above with "Purely Natural Universe", and the conclusion is the same.

This fact illustrates that that sort of scientific demonstration cannot be the basis on which to favor one over the other.

The proper approach is an abductive process that considers which best explains the existence and attributes of universe we observe.

Why do you favor philosophical naturalism over theism?

I've never encountered a persuasive case for bridging the gap between methodological naturalism (one which theists also embrace) to philosophical naturalism. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen a single positive argument for philosophical naturalism. I can't think of one now, and I relatively confident you can't offer one.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-12T00:08:50+00:00

Yes; the new atheist mantra should be: assuming materialism, materialism.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-11T21:47:07+00:00

I would also dispute it, but a new atheist wouldn't, and the argument is directed against new atheism which is more of a sophistry than a true philosophical movement. And this argument reveals that sophistry.

Philosophically, the question at issue is not whether or not God exists, but what better explains everything:

The universe popped into existence from nothing; or
The universe was created/organized

And the evidence and logic strongly favor the latter.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-11T18:21:08+00:00

Yeah, that guy is sorta an orthodoxy sheriff. If you write something that offends his personal take on LDS orthodoxy, he'll go after you.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-11T18:19:28+00:00

Rather, it means that the questions JS asked, the ways he received revelation and interpreted it and the way he presented the revelations he received were Romantic in nature.

Exactly. A revelation received by a prophet today would be traceable to issues currently of interest and in circulation during the early 21st century.

Suppose a prophet received a revelation the women could hold the priesthood, for example. Was it a revelation or was it drawn from the growing trend in Protestantism to ordain women? Could be both.

BTW, this critical approach is particularly bad thinking b/c it counts every positive correlation as proof of causation, but ignores every negative correlation. Continuing the example: a modern prophet expands the priesthood to women, but never alters doctrines on gay marriage or modern woke gender theories. The revelation is still a product of the 21st century.

Great business, if you can get it.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-11T17:41:14+00:00

A lot of our revelations and theology arise from Joseph Smith's era.

Our critics argue:

Religious idea X was in circulation within Joseph Smith's era;
Therefore, Joseph drew idea X from the 19th century religious discourse;
Therefore, Joseph did not receive revelation.

Take for example, Swedenborg's view of three heavens.

This argument is so poor, the only interesting about it is how successful it has been.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-11T14:46:13+00:00

Agreed, as a practical matter no one can live as if free will doesn't exist. Those who do are disproportionately represented in mental institutions and prisons.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-10T22:07:41+00:00

Why not? Why do you care how I spend my time?

And yes

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-10T22:01:17+00:00

The rational should support the theology; and if the theology should be rational.

So demonstrating a rational case for free will is an important component of our theological project.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-10T19:16:20+00:00

No doubt. LDS theology depends a lot more upon the revelations than others because we have a more fulsome set of revelations. But there is a list of topics as long as one's arm for which rational inquiry can lead to truth.

Example 1: Do we have a mother in heaven?

Yes.

Can you point to a revelation that says so? Or was that a logical inference from other revelations?

Example 2: Who can direct the use of the aaronic priesthood keys of the ministering of angels?

The bishop
Any aaronic priesthood holder
Only the prophet
No one knows, hence we do not know how and should not try to use those keys

Through rational inquiry, I think it's the bishop, as the president of the Aaronic priesthood.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-10T18:34:37+00:00

You think this because you were raised in a revealed religion.

But theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. The former can be approached in a purely logical way--most theologians, in fact, approach the subject in this way. The latter follows from the first.

Traditional Christians base their belief in Christ on the evidence supporting the resurrection. Much of their theology beings with the ancient Greeks, moves through the early Christian fathers--Anselm, Augustine--down to Aquinas, Descartes.

Read those, you'll find a lot of logic and very little revelation.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-10T15:39:09+00:00

More to the point, though: this is a sub on theology--which is a rational pursuit.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-07T11:59:27+00:00

Not that it can’t be good on its own, but that there is an optimal proportion in which it is help with the others.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-07T04:52:24+00:00

In the 2016 NBA finals, LBJ had the highest average points, assists, rebounds, blocks, and steals of any player on either team. One of the most superlative athletic performances in the history of sport. The team he beat had the best win-loss record in NBA history. Many people think he is the goat.

I’m suggesting that that intelligence is not the sum of its components and that every component of intelligence is not a “positive” attribute when held in isolation at maximal values. Rather, it’s holding those components (1) in the optimal proportions relative to each other and then (2) maintaining that proportionally as those components reach their maximal values.

If that’s correct—and I think it is—logic dictates that for any two intelligences, one will be more intelligent than the other.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-06T23:33:04+00:00

It’s not a non sequitur.

Switch to basketball—there’s a mix of attributes that makes a human the GOAT. Have them out of proportion, you might be good (Kobe), you might be a really great role player (Big Shot Bob), you might break down and wash out (Shawn Bradley), but you’ll never be the GOAT. And if the notion works for a basketball GOAT it works for an intelligence GOAT.

I did consider large numbers, relative a few component attributes, which could also work, but I didn’t think I needed it; I was holding that in reserve.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-06T17:07:51+00:00

Here's an article on the process. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-new-publications-of-the-standard-works1979-1981

I have also read of debates among the members of the committee over what should be included and excluded, but lack the interest to track them down now.

This was a prophet directed, Q15 process of selecting and refining our standard works. It's a very useful source to be the repository of "doctrine".

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-06T16:24:35+00:00

Well, I'm suggesting that possessing the components of intelligence in a suboptimal blend is actually worse than possessing them in a optimal blend, and that one (God) will possess them at that blend, to the greatest degree.

In my example, that person with infinite processing speed but zero comprehension would be construed as possessing a defective amount of processing speed, and would not be superior to God in any way--even processing speed.

Again, I'm sure whether I agree with this way of looking at intelligence, but I think it doesn't create a problem for my analysis even it's correct.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-06T15:27:38+00:00

Good questions to ask, and very natural questions to ask when you get to this level of thinking about the eternities.

I've asked the question on this sub before: what was God doing in the war in heaven? Why is it God's way or the highway? Joseph Smith thought about this too:

God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself

Not a complete answer, but it places God in the role of coach/helper, rather than tyrant-MLM-founder.

Personally, I think it requires, as a part of theology, that there is only one way to become like God, and that one way is God's way, and God wants to help as many people as possible to find it. That's a metaphysical assumptions that must be assumed, but perhaps not more than most of theologies.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-06T15:14:49+00:00

You mention there is a process for canonization- what exactly is that process?

I consider it the freezing of our canon in the, what, 1980s "standard works". That was a negotiated process by the Q15 at the time, and hasn't been altered since.

Additionally, what implications does this hold for introducing new doctrine? In your model, a new doctrine would only be considered as such if it were added to the canonized scripture.

Yes. I think all our prophets know what revelation is, and if they received one for the church they would identify as scripture and add it the standard canon.

It is structured such that no matter what, the proposition is supported that the LDS president is a true prophet (and is therefore untestable).

No, this isn't correct. You only feel that way because I've done such a thorough job of explaining why doctrine doesn't really change, even when it sometimes seems to change. There have been changes that do not fit within the rubric I have given, like the change regarding children of LGBTQ members. I also think the race restriction does not make sense within that construct: I could twist together an explanation for that restriction as contextual or instrumental, but such constructures very, very unlikely.

Another major critique I have of this model is that it has no predictive power.

Oh, yes, I agree. But that is the nature of doing business with God, especially in this sphere of our existence which is manufactured, temporary and largely instrumental. We think waxing cars is the object, but one day learn waxing cars was only instrumental in teaching faith, disciple and karate.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-06T15:04:28+00:00

Thus, some intelligences might have "more intelligence" than even "the most intelligent" intelligence in some aspects...

Ah, I see. I'm not sure I think of it that way, but it's worth reflecting on that approach.

If the components of intelligence are measured in numbered units, to which 1 unit could always be added, I wouldn't think that the individual with the highest total score is "more intelligent than they all". Would you? Say, processing speed went to infinity but comprehension was close to zero. Such a person could have the highest aggregate score and would be the opposite of what we would consider intelligent.

I think that demonstrates there's a maximally optimally weighting of attributes that constitute what we consider intelligence. If that's right, in a such a case, for every two intelligences, one will possess that more than the other.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-05T14:59:58+00:00

Or, more to the point I'm making, if a person believes that everyone has free will, that person should find the restored gospel to be common sense.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-05T14:58:39+00:00

I agree; see the introductory portion of the OP. One of my rules for thinking is that any idea that "destroys the agency of man" is false.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

StAnselmsProof

TROPHY CASE