The Debate at Vox's Place Continues....

The case against gods is being made over at Vox’s blog by Dominic Salterelli.  He hypothesizes thus:

” So, to make myself absolutely crystal clear on the matter, the hypothesis is:
For any new experience or phenomenon, when man attempts to explain the phenomenon using the tools for understanding at his disposal, the first attempt at explanation is almost invariably wrong.”

Based on this principle, plus the idea that gods are the concept of primitive understandings only, then the concept of gods must be wrong.

Now, even if true, does this hypothesis satisfy the criterion of evidence for the non-existence of gods?  Or is it merely a suggestion of unreliability in the acquisition of a concept in primitive times?  Does this disprove gods or God?  Or is it a strained attempt to discredit by the use of a negative proposition, which itself has no evidence which makes it conclusive?

Dominic uses the example of asking a child where babies come from: the child’s answer will be incorrect.  The premise here is that gods were created to provide explanations not otherwise available to the primitives.  Presupposed but not stated is the principle that there is no other reason for theism to exist, certainly not for moderns.  He could have just come out and said all that.  But that argument, taken directly, is obviously speculation; it cannot be proven in any sense of that word.

Moreover, it presupposes that gods do not exist and therefore could not have been the reason for conceptualizing gods.  Here’s the form:

IF [gods do / did not exist and could not have been the reason for early human concepts of deity],
THEN [concepts of deity must have been based on error].

So the argument being made is (a) entirely speculative (not evidence), (b) ignores modern reasons for theology, and (c) is circular because the conclusion is contained in the premises.

I don’t know what reasoning Vox will use to answer this hypothesis, this is merely my take.