Arguments Against God: Gary Gutting Interviews Louise Antony Professor At University of Massachusetts

You can find the interview here.



2 thoughts on “Arguments Against God: Gary Gutting Interviews Louise Antony Professor At University of Massachusetts

  1. Interesting that the atheist appeals to “natural laws” in his assertion that God does not exist. However, natural laws require the presence of a material object FIRST, and then are utterly assumed. That is, natural laws can never be observed in a vacuum of “themselves”, but require the existence of material objects FIRST to be realized, is the logical perspective…and more so, these objects must be observed by man so that man can claim an efficacious epistemology. Which makes natural laws merely a way humans qualify the relative interaction of material objects we observe. To declare them real is a notion which is impossible to defend rationally.

    Natural laws are wholly outside of man’s existential scope, because man is material, and yet he argues that they are somehow CAUSAL, even though this is utterly impossible to rationally defend.

    And he presumptuously gives himself a pass on his irrational beliefs even to the point where he declares that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist!! Staggering. And deliciously ironic.

    The belief in the causal power of natural laws is an idea which can only boil down to “faith” in the unseeable and unknowable.

    I wonder…who is really the theist here?


  2. Thanks for your comment. I thought it was interesting that he said “When I claim to know that there is no God, I mean that the question is settled to my satisfaction”. To me this sounded like an exercise in stipulated philosophy where we can simply announce certain standards and be confident in their truthfulness because “the question is settled to my satisfaction”.

    At the very end Antony said something interesting to the effect that these differences in belief that we have are ontological differences. I thought that was very insightful. Unfortunately he made it clear that he isn’t very interested in those type of questions but would wrather place emphasis on moral questions. I think those are questions that we should be worried about because what we believe ontologically is foundational for what we believe about everything else.

    That might have been a better way to answer his question from the beginning “I imagine there are philosophers whose rational abilities you respect who are theists. How do you explain their disagreement with you? Are they just not thinking clearly on this topic?.” Antony could have responded “Disagreement over that question is really no more than a difference in philosophical opinion. Specifically, it’s just a disagreement about ontology — about what kinds of things exist”.

    Thanks for your comment. I thought that was an interesting interview but when no one responded to it I thought I might have been wrong. Thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s