An Argument For Theological Noncognitivism

Here is the next installment in my series of responses to the Triabloggers. In the last one, I presented a proof showing that presuppositionalists cannot maintain both that all valid arguments do not beg the question and that all knowledge presupposes the existence of God. Thus, they must either abandon their presuppositionalism or claim that some valid arguments beg the question. If they claim that some valid arguments beg the question, then they should provide a compelling argument for why the rest of us should abandon such a basic rule of logical argument. At this point, it seems we have a choice between logic and presuppositionalism. I'm choosing logic.

I will now turn my attention to theological noncognitivism. This is the view that theological terms (such as “God” and “the supernatural”) are non-sensical, and cannot even be entertained as concepts. I will focus here on the term “God” as defined and used by Steve Hays, one of the Triabloggers.

The term “God” has been defined by Steve as aspatial and atemporal mind. God and mind are one and the same. This is not to confuse God with the human mind, however. According to Steve, the human mind is aspatial yet temporal. Atemporality is God’s alone, apparently.

But what is mind? By taking the human mind to be aspatial, Steve is refusing to locate it in the human brain. Yet, Steve says that neuroscientists, by studying the brain, can study “manifestations” of the human mind. This implies that the human mind is at least in some way spatial. Steve has not presented a clear view of the physicality (or lack thereof) of the human mind.

Generally, when we think of the mind, we think of thought. Minds are thinking things. But thought takes time. That is presumably why Steve says that the human mind is temporal. Yet, this would preclude the possibility of there being an atemporal mind.

By failing to present a clear understanding of the term "mind," Steve makes it that much more difficult to understand what he means when he defines "God" as "atemporal and aspatial mind." As problematic as this is for Steve's position, it does not fulfill the argument for theological noncognitivism. So let's try to ignore the problems with Steve's usage of the term "mind" and move on.

Steve also says that God does not interact with or respond to the physical world, which is both spatial and temporal. (We may pause to note that the Bible offers many examples of God interacting with spatio-temporal events; e.g., God is depicted as engaging Job in conversation. This runs contrary to Steve’s usage.) Steve notes that “events are inherently temporal.” Events happen; God does not.

Steve also says that God “can instantiate any compossible state of affairs.” Steve is here coupling the term “God” with the verb "instantiate." Like all dynamic verbs (as opposed to stative verbs), “instantiate" denotes an action. To instantiate something is to do something. Actions are events. Thus, God cannot instantiate anything. This is a contradiction in Steve’s usage.

Since the term “God” is said to refer to an entity which cannot perform any actions, the term “God” cannot be used in conjunction with any dynamic verbs. Similarly, the term “God” cannot be used in conjunction with any stative verbs. For example, the sentence “God loves mankind” indicates that God maintains some feelings about mankind. The maintaining of feelings requires time. God thus cannot maintain any feelings, or any state of affairs whatsoever.

As we can see, the term “God” cannot be used in conjunction with any stative or dynamic verbs. This exhausts the possibilities of using the term “God” as the subject of a sentence. Therefore, “God exists,” “God instantiates compossible states of affairs,” and all other sentence about God's actions, states, or attributes, are meaningless. In sum, there is no sense in regarding “atemporal and aspatial mind” as anything at all.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument For Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.  Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.  There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct.  What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.  There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.  As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself.  You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.  So here's what I want to do:  I want to explain why I think incompatibilists are doing a very bad job of framing the debate, and also why compatibilism is the most reasonable option on the table.  It's an ambi
Read more

Coco, The Book of Life: What's the Difference?

If you've seen  Coco  and The Book of Life , you've surely noticed some of the similarities. At the very least, they are both animated musicals set in Mexico on the Day of the Dead (Día de Muertos). And you surely noticed that they both feature a guitar-wielding male protagonist who enters and returns from the Land of the Dead. But how many other similarities did you notice? --SPOILER ALERT-- In both films: Authenticity is a defining characteristic of the protagonist (Miguel in Coco ; Manolo in The Book of Life ). The protagonist learns the guitar in secret, and against the wishes of his family. This sets up a conflict between the desire to be true to yourself and devotion to your family. The conflict is resolved in a touching moment when the protagonist picks up his guitar and sings a plaintive song in front of his family. Authenticity and family both prevail in the end. Main characters (Juaquin and Xibalba in The Book of Life  and Ernesto in Coco ) achieve fame an
Read more

The Unintended Irony of Birdman and Big Hero 6

Birdman,  Oscar's Best Picture of 2014, is a satire of Hollywood's lack of artistic gravitas.  The primary target is the dark hole of superhero films that attracts much of the industry's money and talent.   Birdman goes out of its way to repeatedly poke fun at superhero movies.  And yet, the Oscar for Best Animated Feature went to Big Hero 6 . . . a superhero movie.  Who said the Academy had to be consistent? I just watched Big Hero 6 and enjoyed a lot of it.  Yet, it suffers from all of the problems that often plague superhero movies.  It is the perfect example of the sort of film that Birdman is making fun of.  (Warning:  the rest of this post contains major spoilers.) The hero (subtly named "Hiro"), a thirteen-year-old boy of limited means, somehow manages to produce thousands of tiny 'microbots,' and gear for controlling them directly through his thoughts.  It's not even so ridiculous that he could come up with a way to build such things--
Read more