Mike Ruse: Thank God I'm Not a New Atheist

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Philosurfer

It seems that the the need for revelation is very easy to defend. I wonder how he has engaged with the case I am turning around in my head. (perhaps no one has brought it forward).

Not sure exactly what case you are speaking of here, but I’ve run through with him the basic apologetics style NT argument from miracles. He was disinterested and often repeats that he simply is not into all that apologetics stuff. You can find his basic position related to miracles/revelation in:

I suppose I do not mean the standard apologetics. I am discussing instead the logical case for why revelations is necessary in addition to natural revelation, without actually engaging Scripture per se. I touched on it partly here:

@swamidass

Purpose implies intention. Many things appear intentional that are not. Many unintended consequences, become intended. The transition from unpurposed to purposed might be entirely extrinsic to the “thing.” It is very hard to discern intention, even in every day interactions with other humans, without the ability to ask them directly what they intended (revelation).

A more direct way of putting it:

1. Suppose the all powerful God who created everything actually exists.

2. What chances would we, as humans on earth, have of ever contact or understanding this God by observing nature?

3. It appears that the answer is we would not have any hope of contacting or understanding him much at all, except to know that He is better than all of creation if it is True that he exists, and other such very abstract things.

4. How could that God who created everything be know then?

5. It appears that this God could be known if He chose to reveal Himself to us. So if a God that big exists we should expect to look towards revelation to see if he has revealed himself.

Note that this does not identify the Bible specifically as the correct revelation. Nor does this establish the existence of God, or that God would want to be known by us. It does, however, establish the legitimacy of looking to revelation if we are considering the hypothesis that God exists and wants to be known. Revelation, in fact, is a very logical place to look if one believes that God created all things and wants to be known by us.

Before rejecting this as a special pleading, notice that it closely parallels our interactions with people themselves. We can observe people all the time, such as a celebrity on TV. We cannot, however, know him unless that inaccessible celebrity chooses to reveal himself to us. Likewise we can be in a conversation with a person about what is going on in their head, and how they feel about us. Without raising up to many bad memories of blind dates and marriages, it is self evidence we will have great difficulty knowing what another person thinks about us unless they choose to reveal it to us. If direct revelation was not important, we would no need for communication between one another.

For these reasons, we should be cautious about summarily dismissing revelation when we are discussing the possibility of God. Perhaps a coherent revelation could even be, rationally, the tipping for understanding key things about God, such as His existence. In fact, this may even be what we expect would be the norm, given our plain inability to access the Creator of All by our own devices.

So that is my case @Philosurfer. You are a philosopher. I’m curious who else makes that case, and what you think Mike Ruse might say. Also, I wonder what @Andrew_Loke might say, as this is right up his alley too.