Key Moments
Why an Atheist Studies Religion | Michael Tooley
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
An atheist philosopher argues traditional arguments for God fail to prove a morally good deity, instead showing that even a perfectly evil being could fit the evidence, raising questions about religious claims.
Key Insights
Many arguments for God's existence, including fine-tuning and cosmological arguments, fail to establish that the deity is perfectly good, leaving open the possibility of a perfectly evil or indifferent being.
The field of philosophy of religion is disproportionately dominated by theistic philosophers, creating an imbalance that makes the work of atheist philosophers like Tooley more critical for intellectual balance.
The fine-tuning argument, while perhaps less dramatic with the multiverse hypothesis, still does not provide evidence for a morally good deity, nor does it distinguish from a simulation created by another civilization.
Introverted mystical experiences, whether described as monotheistic or monistic, may share the same core experiential content, with interpretations shaped by the individual's pre-existing beliefs rather than the experience itself.
Drug-induced mystical experiences and near-death experiences share similarities with religiously interpreted experiences, suggesting that the physiological and psychological states, rather than divine intervention, might be the primary cause.
New arguments suggest that the existence of evil might be logically incompatible with a perfectly good and omnipotent God, particularly if God has a disposition against evil, mirroring the concept of free will.
Why an atheist studies religion
Michael Tooley, an atheist, dedicates his career to the philosophy of religion not out of belief, but due to the significant moral and societal claims made by various religions. He observes that believers in any given religion are often confident in their tenets, despite the fact that geographical or cultural birth would likely lead them to different beliefs. Tooley finds that some religious doctrines, particularly those concerning sexual morality and concepts like hell, can cause undue worry and unhappiness. He feels that a rational examination of religious claims, based on evidence, is a more beneficial approach to living than unquestioning adherence to potentially harmful doctrines. This intellectual engagement stems from a desire to critically scrutinize beliefs that impact human lives and moral frameworks.
The failure of arguments for a benevolent God
Tooley argues that many traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence—such as the ontological, cosmological, and fine-tuning arguments—are fundamentally flawed because they do not establish the existence of a perfectly good deity. He contends that these arguments, even if successful in proving an omnipotent and omniscient being, could just as readily support the existence of a perfectly evil being or one that is indifferent to morality. This suggests that philosophers presenting these arguments are engaged in a form of 'false advertising,' as they do not provide grounds to conclude that the God in question is morally good, as commonly understood in theistic traditions. The fine-tuning argument, for instance, could just as easily be explained by a malevolent creator or a designer of a simulation.
The skewed landscape of philosophy of religion
Tooley notes that the field of philosophy of religion is disproportionately populated by theistic philosophers, a phenomenon he finds sociologically predictable but intellectually problematic. While surveys indicate that a small percentage of philosophers hold theistic views, a significantly higher percentage of those specializing in philosophy of religion are theistic or sympathetic to theism. This creates an imbalance where arguments and perspectives favoring religious belief often dominate. Tooley believes this imbalance has been exacerbated by figures like Alvin Plantinga, whose view that philosophers of religion can bring their beliefs into their analysis has, in Tooley's opinion, led to the acceptance of weaker arguments. This situation, he implies, necessitated his own rigorous atheist perspective to provide intellectual counterbalance.
Critiquing the fine-tuning and cosmological arguments
While acknowledging the fine-tuning argument as one of the more interesting theistic arguments, Tooley maintains it does not provide evidence for a morally good God. He notes that even if the universe's constants are precisely tuned for life, this could equally point to a malevolent creator or a simulation designed by another civilization. The multiverse hypothesis is often presented as a counter-argument to fine-tuning, suggesting an infinite number of universes where life could arise. However, Tooley suggests this doesn't eliminate the core issue: the argument still fails to demonstrate the goodness of any potential creator. Similarly, cosmological arguments, like the Kalam argument, which posit a cause for the universe, do not inherently reveal the moral character of that cause.
The nature and interpretation of religious experiences
Tooley delves into religious experiences, particularly mystical ones, suggesting they can be broadly categorized into extroverted and introverted types. While extroverted mysticism involves a sense of unity with nature, introverted mysticism is further divided into monotheistic and monistic experiences. He references Walter Stace's work, which proposed that the experiential core of both monistic and monotheistic mystical experiences might be the same, with interpretations influenced by the individual's conceptual framework (e.g., Christian beliefs leading to a God-centered interpretation). He finds the work of Andy Robinson particularly convincing, arguing that the direct experience is common, and the theological labels are applied afterward. Furthermore, studies on drug-induced experiences (like LSD during a Good Friday service) and comparisons with near-death experiences suggest that these phenomena can produce profound religious feelings that are indistinguishable from subjectively reported religious experiences, casting doubt on their divine origin.
Reframing the problem of evil with logical incompatibility
Tooley has long focused on the problem of evil, initially finding arguments for logical incompatibility between evil and God's existence unconvincing. However, he is now inclined to believe that such arguments may be successful. He considers the argument that a perfectly good and omnipotent being would likely create beings with a strong disposition against performing evil actions, similar to God's own presumed disposition. The objection that this would negate free will is countered by questioning whether God’s own disposition against evil implies a lack of free will. Tooley suggests that having a disposition never to choose evil does not preclude free will, thereby strengthening the case that the existence of significant evil in the world might be logically incompatible with the existence of a perfectly good, omnipotent God. He views this line of reasoning as a promising development in the debate, though he has not yet reached a completely firm conclusion.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Supplements
●Organizations
●Books
●Drugs & Medications
●Concepts
●People Referenced
Common Questions
As an atheist, Michael Tooley studies religion because he believes religious claims, especially moral ones, have significant implications for how people live. He finds it intellectually fascinating to examine the arguments for and against religious doctrines, particularly their impact on human happiness and morality.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
The speaker references the Bible, specifically the Old Testament and portions like Deuteronomy and Leviticus, to cite moral rules, including the Ten Commandments, and problematic teachings regarding slavery and punishment.
Cited as a book of the Bible containing moral teachings, such as the requirement for death or stoning for certain acts.
Cited as a book of the Bible containing moral teachings, such as the requirement for death or stoning for certain acts.
Mentioned as a work by Aldous Huxley detailing his psychedelic experiences, used as an example of extroverted mystical experiences.
Mentioned as a work by Hume where he briefly discusses alternative hypotheses for a deity: perfectly good, perfectly evil, or indifferent, which serves as a basis for some probabilistic arguments against theism.
Mentioned as an example of rules laid down by God in the Old Testament, with the observation that few of them are about moral right/wrong, and notably, owning slaves is not prohibited.
Discussed in the context of its moral teachings, particularly regarding sexual morality and the view that masturbation can be a mortal sin, leading to negative consequences for the afterlife.
A central focus of the speaker's work in defending atheism, used to argue against the traditional definition of God.
One of the arguments for God's existence that the speaker analyzes, finding it flawed and easily undermined, particularly when paralleled for an evil being. It is also discussed by the host as 'cute' and easily bypassed.
Mentioned as an argument for God's existence that is presented by religious philosophers but is flawed because it doesn't guarantee a morally good being. It's also described as more challenging than the ontological argument.
Listed as an example of arguments for the existence of God that the speaker believes are flawed because they don't establish the goodness of the being they aim to prove.
An argument for God's existence that the speaker critiques, stating it doesn't prove the creator is morally good. It's also discussed as a more challenging argument than the ontological, though potentially answered by the multiverse hypothesis.
Mentioned as an argument for God's existence that is flawed because it doesn't demonstrate the creator's moral goodness.
Their objections to the cognitive significance of theological statements were addressed in the speaker's PhD thesis, arguing that such statements could be meaningful and coherent.
Co-author with the speaker of 'The Knowledge of God Debate', Plantinga's view that philosophers of religion can bring their beliefs into their work is seen by Tooley as having a harmful effect, leading to bad arguments.
A professor of philosophy at Princeton who wrote a book in 1960 on mystical experiences. He argued that the experiential core of monistic and monotheistic mystical experiences is the same, with interpretations differing based on the individual's concepts.
Mentioned for his graduate work and thesis on mystical experiences, arguing that the experiential component of monistic and polytheistic experiences is identical, with the difference lying in the conceptual framework applied by the experiencer. Tooley finds his work convincing.
Associated with a 1966 study where participants given LSD or psilocybin reported profound religious experiences during a Good Friday service, suggesting drug-induced experiences might be qualitatively similar to others.
Mentioned for his book 'The Doors of Perception,' which described his experiences with psychedelic drugs and is referenced as an example of extroverted mystical experiences.
Cited as an example of a figure associated with monotheistic introverted mystical experiences, where the individual is claimed to be in direct contact with God.
Cited as an example of a figure associated with monotheistic introverted mystical experiences, where the individual is claimed to be in direct contact with God.
Cited as an example of a figure associated with monotheistic introverted mystical experiences, where the individual is claimed to be in direct contact with God.
Mentioned for his work on probabilistic arguments for atheism, specifically an argument comparing the probability of the universe originating from physical states versus a conscious being, and relating this to the probability of theism.
Discussed in the context of Walter Pahnke's 1966 study and the speaker's personal experience. The drug is noted for potentially inducing religious experiences, raising questions about their divine origin, and also for not affecting everyone equally.
Mentioned as a substance given to participants in Walter Pahnke's 1966 study, which led to reported deep religious experiences.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 38 summaries
30 minDo Laws of Nature Govern Reality? | Michael Tooley
22 minWhy Physics Needs Counterfactuals | Chiara Marletto
30 minIs Dark Energy Changing Over Time? | Saul Perlmutter
36 minThe Dark Matter Puzzle | Saul Perlmutter
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free