Response to Brian Ballard’s “Hope Argument”
Brief Thoughts:
I chose to write about Brian Ballard’s newly projected book, The World is Relic, in which he discusses the Hope Argument in relation to nature and its benefits. This particular argument, rather than providing definitive proof, emphasizes action and the positive impacts of the belief itself, in that a theistic interpretation of nature is “lovelier” or more appealing than the naturalist perspective. Thus, we have reason to prefer and maybe hold it as true. He offered many examples as to why nature is good, such as the stress reduction and cognitive or mental/physical benefits of this “escape” or “freedom,” organic compounds and aerosols produced from plants promote healthier lives and a sense of nourishment—all of which are amplified by the theist, by let’s say divine communication or resemblance (i.e., a type of symbolic relationship with God). There is no denying the evidence supporting the influence of nature or perspective in driving impacts. After all, there are countless studies or stories regarding a positive or confident mindset keeping someone able to fight off disease or being this beacon of hope—in general, it appears noble to resist tragedy with willpower. And, while this argument is defensible in the sense of having reason or permissibility, it is inherently weaker compared to other arguments for God.
This is because it partially accepts it as a preference, which I enjoyed listening to because there is an aspect of epistemic humility behind this. It is a play on the ambiguity that drives the philosophy of religion. I suspect much of theism’s effectiveness diminishes when it resorts to skeptical theism or theodicies as a defense, as doing so relies on a type of blind acceptance that many people feel inclined to resist. Like the Pragmatic Argument—predicated on preference, meant to influence belief formation (e.g., Pascal’s Wager, William James’ Will to Believe, or Moral/Social Order Argument), it seems to invite others to at least consider the possibility of theism—done so in a serene and presentable manner.
Therefore, while it may not be the strongest defense, it appears to accomplish much of what a defense wishes to achieve. This is such an odd dynamic to follow, making it interesting and convincing. One of the objections that was brought up was the idea that it may make it “more enchanting,” but this is complemented by making it “more disturbing.” Though, I do not necessarily think this displaces or breaks apart the argument made, as they do not deliberately claim a defensible stance, a preferable one, sure. And nature might have its own ways of charming said disturbances.
More Resources:
Brian Ballard’s Personal Website: https://www.brianscottballard.com/
Regarding Pragmatic Arguments: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/
Regarding Hope: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hope/
Logical Problem of Evil: https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/