Here is a question - is there an inverse? One thing would be sufficient, but that doesn't mean there aren't other causes... as in, the surgeon and chemo cured my cancer - or the rain cycle is the cause for rain - or the odds played in my favor, so I got a good parking spot... those causes could be sufficient. But, could it ALSO be that God causes those things?
I think there can be multiple sufficient causes of one event. Basically, sufficient causes are "If X then Y" statements. "If it's raining, then the ground is wet." "If I spill my water bottle, then the ground is wet." So, it may have been raining, and you spilled your water, both together secure the ground's wetness just as each individually does.
More specifically, God causing you to get a good parking spot needs more clarity in the "causing" aspect. In the essay, I'm using necessary and sufficient as more like pragmatic concepts. Strictly speaking, some philosophers think you can have different kinds of causation or "dependence relations." We'd need to clarify what we mean when we say God caused you to get a good parking spot, then.
"The odds" or "luck" seem to be heuristic concepts with little to no grounding metaphysically. In other words, to me, we describe what's happening as "lucky," but we don't discover "luck." At the very least, it doesn't have any predictive power (by definition).
Because of this, I think we can definitely use the concept of luck while believing in God's sovereignty. The latter is a deep truth about reality, the former is just a useful invention. (Ironically, naturalists might say the reverse?)
Those are some initial thoughts. Thanks for commenting ;)
I agree that the possibility space is always open that some hidden spiritual cause is necessary for some mundane event. But I don’t see any non question begging way to establish that this is the case.
In other words, I could think that there’s some hidden spiritual cause to a mundane event. But why should I? I don’t need to posit God to explain why someone gave up his seat for a pregnant woman, so I don’t posit God— despite the fact that I certainly could.
The burden is not on the naturalists to justify why they don’t need to posit God to explain a mundane event— the mundane causes seem sufficient for the mundane event—but it’s on you to explain why we need to posit God to explain a mundane event, I.e. for you to explain why it is that the mundane cases are not sufficient for a mundane event such that some spiritual cause has to be posited as necessary in addition to the mundane cause.
How can you address this in a non question begging way to convince a naturalist?
Firstly, my friend, thank you for commenting. I 100% agree with your assessment. That's why I clarified a few times that I am NOT trying to convince naturalists, but only show functional naturalists a way to reintegrate spirituality--i.e, people who aren't naturalists, but act as though they are.
That said, I do wonder if the burden is on non-naturalists in general, considering most humans, both now and at nearly all times in history, have not been naturalists. Maybe the burden is on non-naturalists in any specific case (e.g., something spiritual partially/necessarily caused the person to give up a seat) but not generally.
As for arguments against naturalism, I think the casual closure of the universe is demonstrably false. I also think the law-like view of natural laws (like the weak force constant) is more plausible than the Humean "mosaic" view of physics. This law-like, causal, dependence relation is difficult to justify on Naturalist grounds. So there you have a couple of reasons to doubt naturalism.
That still doesn't get you to pervasive spiritual causes--you need lots of other background beliefs and knowledge for that to make sense, but it's a start.
Here is a question - is there an inverse? One thing would be sufficient, but that doesn't mean there aren't other causes... as in, the surgeon and chemo cured my cancer - or the rain cycle is the cause for rain - or the odds played in my favor, so I got a good parking spot... those causes could be sufficient. But, could it ALSO be that God causes those things?
I think there can be multiple sufficient causes of one event. Basically, sufficient causes are "If X then Y" statements. "If it's raining, then the ground is wet." "If I spill my water bottle, then the ground is wet." So, it may have been raining, and you spilled your water, both together secure the ground's wetness just as each individually does.
More specifically, God causing you to get a good parking spot needs more clarity in the "causing" aspect. In the essay, I'm using necessary and sufficient as more like pragmatic concepts. Strictly speaking, some philosophers think you can have different kinds of causation or "dependence relations." We'd need to clarify what we mean when we say God caused you to get a good parking spot, then.
"The odds" or "luck" seem to be heuristic concepts with little to no grounding metaphysically. In other words, to me, we describe what's happening as "lucky," but we don't discover "luck." At the very least, it doesn't have any predictive power (by definition).
Because of this, I think we can definitely use the concept of luck while believing in God's sovereignty. The latter is a deep truth about reality, the former is just a useful invention. (Ironically, naturalists might say the reverse?)
Those are some initial thoughts. Thanks for commenting ;)
I agree that the possibility space is always open that some hidden spiritual cause is necessary for some mundane event. But I don’t see any non question begging way to establish that this is the case.
In other words, I could think that there’s some hidden spiritual cause to a mundane event. But why should I? I don’t need to posit God to explain why someone gave up his seat for a pregnant woman, so I don’t posit God— despite the fact that I certainly could.
The burden is not on the naturalists to justify why they don’t need to posit God to explain a mundane event— the mundane causes seem sufficient for the mundane event—but it’s on you to explain why we need to posit God to explain a mundane event, I.e. for you to explain why it is that the mundane cases are not sufficient for a mundane event such that some spiritual cause has to be posited as necessary in addition to the mundane cause.
How can you address this in a non question begging way to convince a naturalist?
Firstly, my friend, thank you for commenting. I 100% agree with your assessment. That's why I clarified a few times that I am NOT trying to convince naturalists, but only show functional naturalists a way to reintegrate spirituality--i.e, people who aren't naturalists, but act as though they are.
That said, I do wonder if the burden is on non-naturalists in general, considering most humans, both now and at nearly all times in history, have not been naturalists. Maybe the burden is on non-naturalists in any specific case (e.g., something spiritual partially/necessarily caused the person to give up a seat) but not generally.
As for arguments against naturalism, I think the casual closure of the universe is demonstrably false. I also think the law-like view of natural laws (like the weak force constant) is more plausible than the Humean "mosaic" view of physics. This law-like, causal, dependence relation is difficult to justify on Naturalist grounds. So there you have a couple of reasons to doubt naturalism.
That still doesn't get you to pervasive spiritual causes--you need lots of other background beliefs and knowledge for that to make sense, but it's a start.