1. “Miracles are, by definition, impossible, so Christians will believe 1+1=3 if ‘God’ tells them to.”
Reply: Miracles are not, by definition, impossible. There’s a distinction between the Ideal Order and the Existential Order. The first deals with thought laws, like the principle of non-contradiction (a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way), and mathematical propositions; the second deals with physical matters of fact, like rocks, water, insects, plants, planets, and human beings. The Ideal Order deals with why causes that are self evident, they cannot be denied. The Existential Order deals with that causes, causes we see that occur (we see that rocks fall according to what we call gravity), but the why of which we do not see, and can therefore see no reason they should continue to hold. The Christian miracles concern the Existential Order, and contain no inherent “why” cause contradictions in the Ideal Order. (For more on the difference between orders see David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, SECTION IV PART 1: http://www.etext.leeds.ac.uk/hume/ehu/ehupbsb.htm#index-div2-N943628287 .
See also G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV--The Ethics of Elfland, beginning at the ninth paragraph: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch4.html )
2. “If the Universe needs God as a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause?”
Peter Kreeft points out “the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause… Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause.” (See http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm , near the bottom of the page, with a dot by it, starting out “Third, it is sometimes argued…”)
3. “Asking me to prove the non-existence of God is forcing me to prove a universal negative, which is like me asking you to prove that unicorns don’t exist when you’re not looking, or that the spaghetti monster isn’t flying about on some distant planet.”
First, you CAN prove a universal negative if it contains an inherent contradiction, but that’s beside the point. The comparison between God as the logical conclusion of various proofs (like the Cosmological Argument, the Argument From Desire, and the Argument From Reason) and the randomly devised spaghetti monster, Santa Clause or Easter Bunny, is a comparison of apples and oranges. The former conclusion is a construct of the intellect, a concept, which is
inherently un-picture-able (unimaginable), like the concept of a triangle, which contains the un-picture-able essence of all imaginable triangles, or, in the realm of the existential order, like the concepts of a black hole and a quark, both of which are inferred by effects, yet are none the less unimaginable. (See William Buckley’s interview with philosopher Mortimer Adler for more on intellect vs. imagination: http://radicalacademy.com/adlerinterview2.htm ).
4. “Faith is blind, irrational; it is believing without evidence.”
A.) Faith is trust in reliable authority. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York… The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority-because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority… A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” (Full quote from Mere Christianity, Book II, Chapter 5, third paragraph: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt )
B.) Christianity has what are called preambles to faith, also called motives of faith; for instance, God is knowable by reason with the attributes of goodness and truth; and Jesus, who was crucified for claiming to be God (for blasphemy) was indeed what he said he was. A reliable authority is one who has knowledge and veracity (moral integrity): God known by reason together with Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be God provides us a reliable authority.
C.)“It is only in the waiting, thirsting spirit that revelation can find a reply.” --George Brantl
The need for faith in the Christian God is the result of an attempt to live according to conscience, according to what one knows is right, and the subsequent failure to do so -- in other words, it involves the recognition that one needs a savior who has a direct relationship to his will, not his abstract intellect alone (i.e., not to mental assent to propositions alone). Christianity, says Lewis, "is addressed only to penitents, only to those who admit their disobedience to the known moral law… [i]t offers forgiveness for having broken, and supernatural help towards keeping, that law."
5. “The Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin didn’t see God anywhere, nor does the Hubble; so show me scientific proof that God exists -- till then I’m a skeptic…”
God is known by His effects, and in two different realms.
First, in the descriptive realm, the realm with which science deals where we describe what is, not what ought to be, we can come to a philosophical understanding of God. One way we (the traditional "we") rationally come to the intellectual construct "God," is a posteriori (after experience). It's method is no different than that by which we arrive at scientific "constructs," the only difference is the particular explanation of observable phenomena for which it is used to account. We start with the empirical world, and see a necessity to explain it's various aspects: science deals with becoming, with what philosophers term secondary causes; philosophy deals with existence, with ontology and metaphysics. It's either bias or misunderstanding, which would discount the one, arrived at by the same method as the other, for the mere fact that it is used to explain a different aspect of observable phenomena. Therefore, if you ask for empirically discoverable evidence for God's existence in favor of the scientific method to the exclusion of the philosophical, you are simply asking to affirm and deny the same method at the same time. In other words neither Yuri Gagarin nor the Hubble can, in principle, see a black hole, and we shouldn’t expect them to – the same goes for God.
Second, in the prescriptive realm, with which personal relations and morality deal; this is the realm of the will, and is really the more important and, as it concerns the existence of God, the relevant realm. Peter Kreeft notes that science operates on the principle of mistrust, but personal relations are just the opposite. If God is not a being with whom we can have a personal relationship, then He’s largely irrelevant in our practical lives; if He is then we need, like all relationships, to trust. But what idea of God do we trust? First, if God exists He is all good, and we must do our best to follow the moral law, which we can never completely uphold. Second, there is only one claim that God has actually come to us and we need to trust Him, and that we need his help to keep the law, and to transcend it in order to find ultimate fulfillment – that claim is made by Jesus Christ. Therefore, when you understand the Christian God to be the only source of the forgiveness and help we need, then it's quite clear that it’s our desperation stemming from the most important and basic attribute of our humanity -- our moral and relational experience, that drives us towards trust, towards a relationship with that "source"; a relationship which beckons: "taste and see," for the evidence will be a transformation of that deepest and most important part of yourself.
(For more on the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive, visit: http://radicalacademy.com/adlermoral.htm )
Cause and effect
2 weeks ago
18 comments:
1. The way I read this is that the “existential” order is the natural universe and the “ideal order” is simply the observation of the rules that govern the natural universe. In that case, I do not see the need to draw a distinction between the two orders, given that one can argue that the “ideal order” exists only in our minds as a description of the “existential order” and the processes of our minds can be explained by natural processes. But either way, it seems like the better critique of “miracle claims” is that they are simply misunderstood or misobserved natural processes. That and/or outright lies or delusions.
2. Making god motionless/changeless/perfect opens up a whole another can of worms for the theist. It basically emasculates the deity. If the deity is changeless then it cannot actually do anything or have a will. The god, as described by the various books of the Old and New Testament is most definitely not motionless, changeless or perfect.
3. What you cannot do, is prove that god as described in the bible is anything like the unimaginable first cause that you rightly claim is unimaginable. Yahweh, Elohim, Christ (… not Jesus), et al are essentially the same as the Easter bunny, Santa or the Spaghetti Monster, given your definition.
4. My only criticism of this is that I don’t think it’s actually a “common objection”. Everyone uses “faith” or beliefs every day. However, when beliefs are proven wrong by evidence, the rational person changes their beliefs. I.e. Young Earth Creationists are irrational.
5. We can in fact “see” black holes because of data provided by the Hubble and we can discern the predictable effects on the natural universe around them. However, I don’t see how you can compare Philosophy with hard science in this respect. The effects that black holes have are consistent and predictable, Physics observes and describes these effects. Yet Philosophy is just speculation within a formalized set of rules. But either way, I see no “effects” on the natural world that a deity could produce that are consistent and predictable and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you cited any? Any “effect”, philosophical or empirical, that a deity would produce that I can think of (morality, right?), also has a simpler natural explanation.
Jesse, also not sure how about your conclusion that gods existence necessitates that god is also “all good”. I think you could make an argument that if god exists and is the reason for existence, then god is order (although I don’t think we know enough about the universe to reasonably make that conclusion). If you are conflating “good” and “order”, then our sun going supernova and engulfing the earth is “good” because the event follows the predictable rules of physics. However that is not “good”, it’s “bad”, because it would negatively affect all of our abilities to live our lives. And that’s one of the ways we’ve defined “good” and “bad”.
The bottom line is that all these arguments require that you start with “If god exists…” and yet there is no compelling reason to actually hold that presupposition. And less than no compelling reason to accept any particular cultures deity claim.
Hi Ryan. Concerning #1 (I'l get to the others later), we're talking simply about the inherent possibility of miracles. 1+1 equaling 3 is an inherent IMpossibility. Jesus walking on water is not. There's a difference in kind here. Here's a quote from a section from Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, which is followed by a quote from Chesterton on being truly rational and agnostic.
"ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence."
"Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind."
In light of this, Chesterton writes:
"It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, "law," "necessity," "order," "tendency," and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, "charm," "spell," "enchantment." They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched... I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic."
#2. You're not conceiving God as timeless, but as "motionless, changeless," etc., within time. There's a profound difference. Any act of God is a willed act from all of eternity, there is no contradiction or emasculating involved.
As for God as described by the books of the Bible, this brings us to the distinction between inspiration and revelation. All of scripture is inspired, but not all is revelation. Revelation is something God reveals to us about Himself or us, as when He revealed to the Jews his name, I AM. As Peter Kreeft put it, "all other names tell what he is or does in relation to us... this [name] tells what he is in himself: the sheer, absolute act of being... It's the purely first person name... out of linguistic necessity... no Jew would ever say it... Jesus spoke it in John 8:58: 'I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham was, I AM'... That's why... the Jews who heard them tried to stone Jesus to death, and later succeeded in crucifying him."
All the other names or descriptions of God's acts in relation to us communicate to us that God is motionless or changeless as He acts from eternity (in other words, that he is a person with a will in eternity), not that He moves along making choices within the timeline of finite beings.
::3. What you cannot do, is prove that god as described in the bible is anything like the unimaginable first cause that you rightly claim is unimaginable. Yahweh, Elohim, Christ (… not Jesus), et al are essentially the same as the Easter bunny, Santa or the Spaghetti Monster, given your definition.
I AM is the unimaginable first cause with which Jesus Christ associated his particular, imaginable being. There was no Easter Bunny who did likewise.
::4. My only criticism of this is that I don’t think it’s actually a “common objection”. Everyone uses “faith” or beliefs every day. However, when beliefs are proven wrong by evidence, the rational person changes their beliefs. I.e. Young Earth Creationists are irrational.
Dawkins would certainly disagree, he would consider religious people irrational because certain beliefs do not rest on the evidence of science per se.
Jesse; I guess I AM was so unimaginable that he couldn't defeat iron chariots, or that it's a trinity or jealous or angry or loving, etc... There are plenty of other examples where the authors of the bible do in fact imagine what should be unimaginable.
I'll check out the rest of your responses later, that one just caught my eye as weak.
Jesse, #1, miracle claims; I’ll grudgingly concede that it’s technically "true" that the contrary of every “matter of fact” is “possible” or at least "not impossible". But this is where philosophers fail, they get lost in the weeds of the theoretical and in Hume’s case, have given us carte blanche to believe whatever absurd claim we want to. However, some things are still for all practical puproses impossible, like walking on water without manipulating the surface tension or the state of the water or other aspects of nature. And if you manipulating the surface tension or the state of the water, well then it’s not a “miracle”. Also the contrary of “sinking in water” is “floating on water” and that can be accomplished in a number of non-miraculous ways. But yes, Hume is “technically” correct. So given the technical validity of Hume’s but it’s utter impracticality, one must look at the claims themselves, and non-eyewitness accounts written decades after an event may be adequate for describing mundane events, but not at all for events that should otherwise be impossible.
On #2, you said “All of scripture is inspired, but not all is revelation”, that is a presupposition I don’t see any compelling reason to make, but it allows you to define certain parts of the bible one way and certain parts the other in an effort to keep it relevant with modern thought and science, but other than that I guess there’s no more need to discuss that topic given we don’t have the same presuppositions.
On #4, I don’t speak for Richard Dawkins nor he me, but I would agree that it is irrational to believe that which doesn’t rest on any evidence. The religious keep a very tenuous grip on rationality because the presuppositions required are so well established in our culture. With that said, as evidence is discovered that directly contradicts one particular belief of a religion, the rational believer sheds that belief and the irrational pne hangs on to it. Francis Collins vs. Ken Ham for example. However, this speaks more to a human desire to believe than to the validity of the religious claims.
I think that it is very disingenuous of you to mix and match epistemologies of different philosophies as you see fit to try to defeat these 'so called' Faulty Arguments.
Seems to me that you're willing to follow your notion that authorities must be listened to even when the authority is opposed to your position.
Of course, I'm talking about, for example, you using Hume when he either agrees with you or seems to disagree with whoever happens to be debating you.
On your first example 'argument'.
You point out, "..thought laws, like the principle of non-contradiction (a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way).."
Let's take the 'walking on water' miracle as a 'for instance'.
A human body can't balance on the surface tension of water and be unable to balance on the surface tension of water, at the same time.
If this miracle happened, it demonstrates that miracles describe 'impossible happenings'.
The loaves and fishes miracle seems to demonstrate that a certain number of loaves and fishes EQUALS a much larger number of loaves and fishes(although they weren't counted they surely were countable, right?)
This is actually equivalent to Christians believing a certain number(of fishes) equals a larger number(of fishes).
The 'water into wine' miracle. Some water cannot be plain water AND be some wine at the same time.
This becomes difficult because wine is largely water and is incorporated in the process of the ingredients becoming wine anyway, so it's just a matter of timing, a matter of the 'Shazzam!' effect causing it to be a miracle in the first place.
This 'miracles are impossible' thing is just wordplay and/or a difference of epistemology since you don't believe that miracles ARE impossible and atheists DO believe that, when we both really mean that 'shit like that just DOESN'T HAPPEN', causing the notion of it being a miracle in the first place. i.e. magical thinking.
You are later willing to retreat to a position of, 'well, everything that happens is miraculous anyways', which seems rather childish.
Or are you going to say that YOU, personally didn't say that, no, you just quoted another 'authority'???
Perhaps you are enjoying running philosophical circles around anyone who wishes to debate you BECAUSE they have a different epistemology from you, using opposing philosophies as a single 'club' to have them debate, not YOUR epistomology, but EVERY philosopher's epistomology(whether they agree with your's or not), but I believe that your God in his Supernatural Realm are entirely imaginary and no amount of 'deducing' can make them real.
Obviously you are well versed in religious philosophy and therefore, obviously, you KNOW that you are simply having your little joke, knowing that atheists don't even START from the same premises that you do.
Starting off from 'somewhere in the middle' and trying to work back to the beginning, to the basic premises, of your philosophy,
is ENTIRELY disingenuous on your part, don't you think? Mr. Smug.
Jesse, from one Catholic to another:
God knows we could all use a laugh --- and some Catechism ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jrh_uuPmd0
(from Late Nite Catechism with Sr.)
::5. We can in fact “see” black holes because of data provided by the Hubble and we can discern the predictable effects on the natural universe around them. However, I don’t see how you can compare Philosophy with hard science in this respect. The effects that black holes have are consistent and predictable, Physics observes and describes these effects. Yet Philosophy is just speculation within a formalized set of rules. But either way, I see no “effects” on the natural world that a deity could produce that are consistent and predictable and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you cited any? Any “effect”, philosophical or empirical, that a deity would produce that I can think of (morality, right?), also has a simpler natural explanation.
Ryan, it is not possible to observe a black hole by any means. Black holes are theoretical entities that are unobservable in principle. Only their supposed effects are observable.
The existence and conservation, and consistency and predictability of the natural world are the effects of God according to the inquiry of reason (realist philosophy) which mirrors that of science. Here’s a post on that.
::Jesse, also not sure how about your conclusion that gods existence necessitates that god is also “all good”. I think you could make an argument that if god exists and is the reason for existence, then god is order (although I don’t think we know enough about the universe to reasonably make that conclusion). If you are conflating “good” and “order”, then our sun going supernova and engulfing the earth is “good” because the event follows the predictable rules of physics. However that is not “good”, it’s “bad”, because it would negatively affect all of our abilities to live our lives. And that’s one of the ways we’ve defined “good” and “bad”.
Good is a transcendental of being, like truth. Transcendentals are being in a certain relation to us: truth is being in relation to our intellect, goodness is being in relation to our will. Only pure being, being without limitation (absolute being) could be absolute good. A limited good would be a limited being, thus not God (and not an end in itself, as our will desires).
::The bottom line is that all these arguments require that you start with “If god exists…” and yet there is no compelling reason to actually hold that presupposition. And less than no compelling reason to accept any particular cultures deity claim.
First, the stated purpose of these arguments is to show that certain objections don’t hold water. I think I’ve done that. Second, the measure of sanity is to look for that amount of certainty, which the subject matter allows, what CS Lewis called Aristotle’s canon. To say that the historical fact (which, being historical, does not have the degree of certainty as a basic mathematical proposition) that Jesus Christ was crucified for blasphemy is less than no compelling reason is not only to live outside of the accepted norm, it is (most likely) to randomly deviate from your own – for you no doubt accept the accepted norm in most other matters of historical import. I mean seriously, the fact that most of mankind believes in a higher power than the natural universe, itself, makes the idea that there’s “no compelling reason” almost dismissible on the face of it.
::Jesse; I guess I AM was so unimaginable that he couldn't defeat iron chariots, or that it's a trinity or jealous or angry or loving, etc... There are plenty of other examples where the authors of the bible do in fact imagine what should be unimaginable.
Again, as Peter Kreeft put it, "all other names tell what he is or does in relation to us... this [name—I AM] tells what he is in himself: the sheer, absolute act of being...
::Jesse, #1, miracle claims; I’ll grudgingly concede that it’s technically "true" that the contrary of every “matter of fact” is “possible” or at least "not impossible". But this is where philosophers fail, they get lost in the weeds of the theoretical and in Hume’s case, have given us carte blanche to believe whatever absurd claim we want to.
If what Hume says is true is true, then, strung together with atheism, “carte blanche” is a primary principle in the philosophy of atheism. Faith in the ongoing reliability (uniformity) of the natural universe is, strictly speaking, blind faith: “whatever absurd claim we want to [believe]” is simply the natural extension of a principle proceeding on blind faith.
In stark contrast, the Christian believes, (some of us largely through rational proofs), that a “God who combined ‘the personal energy of Jehovah’ with ‘the rationality of a Greek philosopher’” (i.e., the Logos of St John’s gospel) is the trustworthy cause of order and uniformity in the world. Though this admits the possibility of Miracle, it is certainly not carte blanche.
::On #2, you said "All of scripture is inspired, but not all is revelation", that is a presupposition I don't see any compelling reason to make, but it allows you to define certain parts of the bible one way and certain parts the other in an effort to keep it relevant with modern thought and science, but other than that I guess there's no more need to discuss that topic given we don't have the same presuppositions.
I'm just telling you what my religion actually teaches, as opposed to what some people want it to say so they can easily dismiss it. To further that former note, Jesus, who claimed to be I AM, granted his authority to the Church via his Spirit, so it's certainly reasonable in light of that to assume a teaching authority that can make such distinctions, and that, like any other field of knowledge, it would progress with the times while keeping an unchanging element at its core.
::On #4, I don't speak for Richard Dawkins nor he me,
I understand, my only point was that this is an objection that's out there.
::but I would agree that it is irrational to believe that which doesn't rest on any evidence. The religious keep a very tenuous grip on rationality because the presuppositions required are so well established in our culture.
Established by whom? Certainly not the non-religious!
Jesse; I believe it’s as likely that Jesus Christ was crucified for blasphemy as Julius Caesar was stabbed to death in the Roman Forum. However, I don’t believe either of them were “Son of God” just because ancient documents make that assertion about them.
The life and death of a historical Jesus does not present a compelling reason to accept your religions fantastic claims.
The bottom line is, you cannot be certain of many of the things you assert. God may or may not be “a transcendental of being”, it may be anything or nothing at all, it have once been and is no longer. Who knows, not you. Not me.
::I think that it is very disingenuous of you to mix and match epistemologies of different philosophies as you see fit to try to defeat these 'so called' Faulty Arguments.
I’m not using Hume’s epistemology. What he said in the portion I quoted fits perfectly with common sense. GK Chesterton (in a link I also provided) who was a Thomist (as am I) says the same thing in a different way. And Ryan agrees with Hume’s observation, does that mean Ryan necessarily holds to the philosophy of Hume?
::Seems to me that you're willing to follow your notion that authorities must be listened to even when the authority is opposed to your position.
Our common authority is the evidence of the senses, the truisms of reason, and conscience. You should have no difficulty in using one or more of these authorities to say whether or not Hume, in the portion I quoted, is wrong. Your ridicule for “authority” in religious matters doesn’t even play here.
::On your first example 'argument'.
You point out, "..thought laws, like the principle of non-contradiction (a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way).."
Let's take the 'walking on water' miracle as a 'for instance'.
A human body can't balance on the surface tension of water and be unable to balance on the surface tension of water, at the same time.
If this miracle happened, it demonstrates that miracles describe 'impossible happenings'.
His body was not doing both at the same time.
::The loaves and fishes miracle seems to demonstrate that a certain number of loaves and fishes EQUALS a much larger number of loaves and fishes(although they weren't counted they surely were countable, right?)
Of course not. If there were five fish and two loaves to begin with and one-thousand fish and two hundred loaves to end with then Christ made nine hundred and ninety five fish and one hundred ninety eight loaves of bread appear.
::This is actually equivalent to Christians believing a certain number(of fishes) equals a larger number(of fishes).
No, it’s equivalent to believing floyd, who is one substance, eating five peanuts, two fish, and one apple has turned nine substances into one; or that populating a pond with two female and two male fish may result in the population in the same pond of five hundred fish sometime down the road.
::The 'water into wine' miracle. Some water cannot be plain water AND be some wine at the same time.
But plain water one instant can be turned into wine the next without logical contradiction.
::Obviously you are well versed in religious philosophy and therefore, obviously, you KNOW that you are simply having your little joke, knowing that atheists don't even START from the same premises that you do.
Atheists simply won’t face their premises – that’s the point, and that's the unfortunate joke.
MI, my slow computer cannot show you tube videos, but I will check it out on another when I can -- thanks. Jesse
Jesse; "Atheists simply won’t face their premises – that’s the point, and that's the unfortunate joke."
I'm happy to face anything. Please clearly state which premise (all) atheists won't face and I'll be happy to prove you wrong.
Post a Comment