How atheists and theists differ with regard to explanations

A Facebook conversation on how atheists and theists differ with regard to explanations

Person A:
I know of nothing in Christianity (or any other religion, though I know much less about those) that offers any explanatory power at all. An explanation offers predictive insight into a phenomenon. I do not see how Christianity does that.

Person B:
where does evil come from, why, how does it get resolved, why are there morals, where do they come from, what is the meaning of life, what is the ultimate origin of the universe, what is future, is there justice and so on - how on earth do you not think Xianity has explanatory power? Whether you think those answers and explanations are wrong - they exist ons level atheism can't touch

Person A (responding to Person B)

1. Where does evil come from and how is it resolved?

Evil comes from others taking actions and/or producing consequences that we find unconscionable. “Natural evil” comes from events happening that we would find unconscionable if they were consciously enacted. We resolve them by finding ways to mitigate or prevent their occurrence (laws, medicine, earthquake fortification, etc.).

2. Why are there morals and where do they come from?

We are entities with personal preferences and brains capable of predictive modeling and empathy for others. Virtually all humans desire to be alive, safe, happy and healthy, and we care about others enough to desire the same for them. We evaluate actions and attitudes that promote these goals as good and those that hinder them as bad. Since we share such desires, yet occasionally act in ways that deliberately or inadvertently run counter to them, we have societies that together (through familial, tribal or national structures) enforce certain ideas about behaviors through encouragement or discouragement.

3. What is the meaning of life?

This question makes no sense to me. Meaning comes from an evaluating mind and is specific to that mind. We find meaning in the things we do and have and the people we interact with that cause us to build up memories and association over time. “*The* meaning of life” implies some singular overarching narrative that applies to everyone, something which is neither apparent nor (to me) desirable.

4. What is the ultimate origin of the universe?

Our universe of spacetime and energy (as you know) began expanding around 13.8 billion years ago. It's not known and likely not knowable if there was a prior state or if “prior” is even a meaningful term in that context.

5. What is the future?

Much like the past and the present. Our ability to predict specifics is directly proportional to the amount of knowledge available.

6. Is there justice?

Yes, insofar as humans impose consequences for unconscionable actions.

None of these involve a deity or religion, nor do I see how most of them could. If you like, I can go into how religion would simply have no practical relevance to any of them.

Christianity doesn't explain any of these things. It (and many other religions) makes assertions about them, but either those assertions offer no predictive insight into the phenomena or they predict them incorrectly. Just as the “answers in Genesis” are merely answers without substance, so more generally is religion. To the extent an idea is original or exclusive to a religion, it fails to explain anything.

Me:
Person A wrote,

<Christianity doesn't explain any of these things. It (and many other religions) makes assertions about them,>

One's basic beliefs about what is real determine what one will accept as reasons and causes. Thus, premodern explanations which included metaphysical causes were eclipsed by modern notions of explanation, which eschewed them. As Devid Hume, the consummate empiricist and modernist, wrote: “[A]ll causes are of the same kind, and that in particular there is no foundation for that distinction, which we sometimes make betwixt efficient causes, and formal, and material … and final causes” (Treatise of Human Nature, I.iii.14). The one type of cause that remains in Hume--constant conjunction--serves to explain the production of the effect; it is most similar to Aristotle’s efficient cause.

Atheists, insofar as they are naturalists, have a reductionist view of explanation. Matter is all that is real, so efficient causality is all that is necessary for explanations; indeed, it all that is possible for them.

Christians, on the other hand, do not limit reality simply to material beings which are able to be quantified, measured, predicted and controlled. Thus efficient causality may be necessary, but not sufficient for explaining natural phenomena, while supernatural beings and events require even a more robust kind of explanation, which modernists cannot countenance.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet, 1.5. 165–66).