On Oppy and Thomism
Real Atheology responds to my latest video with Rob Koons:
Fantastic Stream. Two brief comments.
At 59:23 Dr. Koons responds to a brilliant question regarding Paul Draper's Bayesian Case for Naturalism and Evidential/Bayesian Arguments for Naturalism more generally.
Firstly, Dr. Koons says that Draper (and Oppy) have a very narrow conception or range of what they consider evidence, mainly what physics and science tell us about the world. For example, he mentions normative/moral facts and causation as something that Oppy and Draper would reject as evidence. This seems to be incorrect, as both Oppy and Draper are moral realists and accept that morality is objective (though that it doesn't depend on God). Moreover, both have written extensively about building causation into the Naturalist picture of reality. Given that, Dr. Koons' remarks seem to be inaccurate.
Secondly, Dr. Koons says that one of his main complaints with Graham Oppy is that he seems to focus on "a very small spectrum of arguments for Theism" and doesn't seem to look at the full spectrum. I have no idea where Dr. Koons is getting this remark because he has repeatedly praised Dr. Oppy as one of the most formidable Atheists in the world today and has spoken highly of him given his attention to the developments of Natural Theology. A cursory look at Dr. Oppy's scholarship will find that he has responded to nearly every single major argument for Theism. In his magnum opus Arguing About Gods Dr. Oppy has engaged with multiple variations of Cosmological Arguments, Ontological Arguments, Teleological Arguments, Moral Arguments, Arguments from Consciousness, Arguments from Abstract Objects, Arguments from Religious Experience, Arguments from Miracles, and much much more.
Simply look at Cosmological Arguments (Dr. Koons' main area of specialty in Natural Theology) and you will find that Dr. Oppy has responded to some of the most formidable defenders of Theism in this area. He has multiple engagements with Dr. William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He has a series of debates with Dr. Koons on his own Cosmological Arguments from Contingency. Dr. Oppy has responded to Alex Pruss' variations of the Cosmological Argument, as well as the unique Thomistic-Leibnizian Cosmological Argument of Timothy O'Conner. Not to mention that Dr. Oppy has also written on the Five Ways and more contemporary forms of Thomistic Arguments such as Dr. Feser's Aristotelian Argument from Motion. Given all this, it seems false to say that Dr. Oppy (and other Naturalists like J.H. Sobel, Paul Draper, Evan Fales, etc) have not engaged with the full spectrum of Theistic Arguments.
Response: Feser’s reply to Oppy in Religious Studies summarizes Oppy's deficient engagement with Thomism. True, Oppy has engaged with Rob (and Rob has responded) and others, but his handling of St. Thomas and contemporary Thomists has been surprisingly shallow — and weak.
I won’t repeat Feser’s points, though I agree with them fully, and encourage anybody interested in these debates to read 5 Proofs, then Oppy’s critique, and then Feser’s reply, to make their own assessment. It is one thing to note there has been engagement but it is misleading to leave it at that. Despite Oppy’s obvious intelligence — and this may be the result of trying to be SO broad — his engagement with Thomism has been riddled with begged questions and simple mistakes, and that includes Arguing Gods.
As to Rob’s remark about evidence accepted by Oppy, I cannot speak for Rob, but Oppy has claimed that the only causes are natural (presumably physical?) causes. This is, for example, the position he articulates in Four Views: Christianity and Philosophy. Perhaps that is what Rob had in mind when making the remark about restricting evidence to what could be found in a physics laboratory. If so, then it seems Rob’s claim is not inaccurate, even if it must be qualified.
Either way — to acknowledge the points above, which are perfectly fair — my own position would NOT be to criticize the breadth of Oppy’s engagement but (again) the depth with respect to Thomism. Other of Oppy’s criticisms I agree with.