A Critique of Stefan Molyneux's Against the Gods

Stefan Molyneux is a philosopher who does podcasts on political philosophy, economics and philosophy in relationships to name a few things. He is someone I have listened to since the 2016 Presidential Election and I find some of his ideas very interesting and engaging. Stefan is an atheist, however in more recent podcasts has had nice things to say about Christianity and claims to regret being overly critical of it in the past. This having been said Stefan has written a book Against the God's which is available through his website in audio and written form: https://freedomainradio.com/ which argues for atheism. I'm going to focus on chapter two of the book "Why are Gods Self-Contradictory” because as a Christian this is the part that is of most concern to me. 

Against the Gods? Argues for atheism

Stefan claims that "gods are entirely self-contradictory entities, the supernatural equivalent of square circle" (pg 13).  Stefan defines God in the following way "a god is defined as an eternal being which exists independent of material form and detectable energy, and which usually possesses the rather enviable attributes of omniscience and omnipotence". I find this definition to be mainly agreeable, however omniscience and omnipotence are not necessary for God- he could simply be extremely powerful and extremely knowing. Arguments for this view can be found in Scott Shalkowski's paper "Theoretical virtues and theological construction". Furthermore, omniscience and omnipotence are often taken into consideration alongside the fact that God can only do the logically possible- a notion which Thomas Aquinas argued for. As an example, God cannot make a square-circle as it is not logically possible, God only having power and knowledge to do all that is logically possible.

Stefan Molyneux is host of philosophy show

Freedomain Radio

Stefan claims that "we know from biology that even if an eternal being could exist, it would be the simplest being conceivable. An eternal being could never have evolved, since it does not die and reproduce, and therefore biological evolution could never have layered levels of increasing complexity over its initial simplicity". This argument is incoherent- biology and evolution are only relevant once the universe has come into being and there is something for evolution to act on. Christians conceive the universe as contingent, evolution and biology as parts of it also being so. As I noted in my blog on Pannenberg's engagement with the natural sciences, the universe is seen as created by God, described from God's viewpoint rather than from extrapolation from the universe. As such the creation is contingent, meaning that it need not be from God's viewpoint. The universe could not exist at all or be entirely different. By contrast God is necessary- God existing in himself, not possible for him to not exist. God's existence therefore just is, in the words of Aquinas God is the "uncaused first cause".

That an uncaused first cause exists has been demonstrated by the existence of the singularity theorems. One of the predictions of General Relativity is that the universe begins with an initial singularity. The laws of physics do not apply at a singularity, as physical quantities become infinite at a singularity, the laws of physics only able to govern finite quantities. As such no laws of physics can apply to a singularity, the singularity being beyond the laws of physics. Fred Hoyle has spoken on how it is more accurate to think as the laws of physics as being derived rather than applied to the singularity, the singularity therefore being the uncaused first cause of the physical universe. As Thomas Aquinas defined God as the uncaused first cause, this is a good demonstration of the existence of something which exists necessarily- God.

Molyneux continues "we also know that consciousness is an effect of matter – specifically biological matter, in the form of a brain. Believing that consciousness can exist in the absence of matter is like believing that gravity can be present in the absence of mass, or that light can exist in the absence of a light source, or that electricity can exist in the absence of energy. Consciousness is an effect of matter, and thus to postulate the existence of consciousness without matter is to create an insurmountable paradox, which only proves the nonexistence of what is being proposed " (pg 15). Consciousness is a great mystery which is why I personally do not comment on it as there is little scientific understanding on the issue. One cannot therefore give an account of consciousness which demonstrates that it is purely an effect of matter. Also, the argument that consciousness is an effect of matter in the form of a brain is incompatible with freewill- if consciousness is entirely dependent upon the brain then causation is a one-way street the brain being able to affect consciousness, but consciousness not being able to affect the brain. This is incompatible with freewill as everything you do is a result of physical stimulus in the brain and as Molyneux holds to freewill his position is self-refuting. Christianity's central claim is that Jesus Christ was both God and man- God therefore having consciousness while being God at the same time- Molyneux would have to refute the claim that Jesus was God and man to dispute this which he does not do here. Furthermore, Christians hold that man is made in the image of God, man’s own consciousness reflecting the creators.

Another argument Molyneux gives is that "omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow". Christian's hold that God's perfect nature and the knowledge and will which result from it are unchanging. The way that God relates to the world is therefore unchanging (however God passes through a process to bring about his will see my blogpost here for more on this: https://theologyphilosophyscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/an-evaluation-of-karl-rahners-trinity.html) his perfect knowledge and will being a result of his omniscience, omnipotence etc. God's mind therefore never changes so there could never be a scenario where God would not have the ability to change what happens tomorrow as God’s mind cannot change. Molyneux’s argument is therefore unsound as it is not logically possible for Gods nature to allow the situation it is dependent upon to arise. Another way of tackling this argument is reasserting God's ability too only do the logically possible- it is not logically possible for God to change what will happen tomorrow as it would  invalidate its knowledge- this claim is not inconsistent with God existing or not being omniscient or omnipotent. One may object at this point by claiming that God can only do the logically possible is a easy get out, however if God can do the logically impossible he can be both omnipotent, omniscient and able to change what will happen tomorrow as he is not constrained by logic- in other words Molyneux's argument requires that God can only do what is logically possible as it requires limiting God to logic to demonstrate self refutation in the first place.   

Molyneux's final argument is that "an object can only rationally be defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either directly, in the form of matter and/or energy, or indirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole (pg 17). This is just an assertion which is refuted by Christian's experience of God, testimony that Jesus Christ was God and arguments for the existence of God. (If Molyneux has engagement with these elsewhere please let me know)

I do not know how much contemporary philosophy of religion or theology Stefan has read, however I get the impression it cannot be that much from the chapter ""Why are Gods Self-Contradictory", though I'm no logician so I'm more than happy to be known if my arguments fail. Against the Gods may have something to contribute outside of attempting to demonstrate the nonexistence of God, however the arguments presented here are poor which is why other atheist philosopher rarely use them.