posted
Well, I'm willing to accept the parameters of debate as HE established them -- i.e. my derision set aside -- so I don't see why MY given is so unreasonable.
But I'll advance my argument in this manner, for each of the famous "Five Ways:"
First Way: The Argument From Motion Aquinas' argument here, based on Aristotle, is that things move only when they are moved. Therefore, since things can be observed in motion, there must have been a First -- or Prime -- Mover, someone to set things in motion in order for motion to exist.
Leaving aside the fact that modern physics has been steadily chipping at Newtonian -- much less Aristotlean -- ideas of motion for some time, the larger question implicit in the Prime Mover argument is this: if an object REQUIRES a mover to move, what made the Prime Mover move? And if the Prime Mover doesn't require a mover, why do we require a Prime Mover at all?
Second Way: Causation Of Existence This is like the Prime Mover argument, but actually pares it down to its essence. Aquinas argues that it is self-evident that no object creates itself, and therefore there must be a Prime Creator, or First Cause. The problem with this argument -- again, leaving aside any issues of physics -- is explained above. If all objects and creatures can be said to logically require a First Cause, God -- an uncaused First Cause -- cannot logically exist.
Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects Aquinas sought to define two sorts of beings: contingent beings, objects that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence, and necessary beings, a category which basically consists of God. This is actually his explanation for the obvious flaw in Ways #1 and #2; we -- and all the other objects in the universe EXCEPT God -- are contingent beings, requiring a Prime Mover and First Cause. God, as a "necessary being," is the exception. So there.
Note, then, that Aquinas' argument so far consists of the following: "Everything needs a cause, except whatever caused everything."
Fourth Way: Degrees And Perfection This one is hilariously bad. Aquinas points out that, of any two objects, one can be said to be somehow "better" than the other -- more lovely, more solid, more perfect. Therefore, Aquinas argues, there must be an essential and universal quality of "perfection" by which these objects and their attributes can be measured, and that this perfection is contained in God.
Note that this argument does not actually argue for the existence of God, per se; it assumes as a given that God exists, and does not attempt to argue that the attribute of perfection could exist without God. Rather, it argues that if the attribute of perfection exists, it must be contained within God.
Sadly, both prongs of this argument fail miserably. Firstly, it is disputable whether a universal standard of absolute and Platonian perfection can be said to exist for all attributes of all objects. Secondly, no logical argument is made that suggests that God MUST embody this perfection, except within a narrow definition of the Godhead that is not supported elsewhere in his reasoning.
Fifth Way: Intelligent Design Similar (understandably) to the reasoning used by modern proponents of Intelligent Design creationist theory, this argument says that it's self-evident that the world works, and that the world is complex. Therefore, Aquinas argues, the world must have been designed by an awesomely powerful being. Of all of Aquinas' arguments, this is the one that most closely approaches science -- but, sadly, still lacks a testable hypothesis, a measurement of the world's inherent "complexity" relative to the probability of alternatives, and evidence for the likely existence of such a designer. Moreover, this argument (which is the essence of the Strong Anthropic Principle and teleological argument) is answered powerfully by the Weak Anthropic Principle -- which says, basically, that while our existence is against the odds, the fact that we exist proves that, in our case, we BEAT the odds.
quote:A HUGE portion of this board is religious-- maybe even a majority. Do they really seem like the kind of people that run around leading unexamined lives?
TaK. And I bet a majority of the religious people subscribe to the religion of their parents, which tends to prove my point.
Aren't you the one who quotes Lewis all the time? Is he your favorite author? One of these days I'll read some Lewis.
quote: the Wesleyan Quadrilateral – Scripture, Tradition, Experience, Reason. Decisions are to be based on all four. Ideally, all four will agree, or at least balance, but no decision should be made without taking all four into account.
dkw. I've never heard of this, it sounds like a good compromise between faith and reason. I can respect that. It's folks that hold dogma (in any religion) to be unassailable that give me the willies.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, surely you’re not suggesting that it’s impossible to intelligently and reasonably, after much thought and consideration, agree with one’s parents?
Edit -- In response to your latest – it’s not a compromise between faith and reason. You’ll note that faith is not one of the sides. Faith is based on all four of them.
posted
No, of course not. But you cannot deny the power of indoctrination, either. What is it the Jesuits say? Give us a boy for five years and he'll be in the church for life? Something along those lines.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarifacation you edited in above. I guess my point is that denying the religion of your family or your community has a cost, sometimes a very heavy cost, even fatal. In an atmosphere like this,to "intelligently and reasonably, after much thought and consideration, agree with one’s parents?" often is difficult if not impossible.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, my understanding of Kant is quite limited, but I am not sure I understand your thrust either. Did I come off as saying Kant was insincere or something like that? I just meant that Kant seems to me to avoid the question rather than attack it head on as others have. When I said "attempt to replace God" I wasn't trying to comment on his motivations.
At any rate, the last thing I wish to do is set myself up on a level with any great mind of the ages, especially with the imprecise wording I tend to use. Apologies.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, you are right about the cost, but, again, it works both ways.
I *do* quote Lewis a lot, Chesterton more. Are you suggesting that I quote them without thinking about them? (I know you're not... don't worry!)
There's nothing wrong with repeating what you've heard... that's how learning happens, 99% of the time. I believe the Earth orbits the sun, not because I have seen it or deduced it for myself, but because I learned it from a solid authority.
Gonna try to answer Tom, now. Hoo boy, I knew I'd get it from him for that little dig. Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mentioning the Jesuits reminded me of a joke a read. Seems the various brotherhood in the Catholic Church were arguing about which did the most good in the world, and which was the most beloved of God. The squabbling got out of hand, and finally the Pope prayed on it. In the morning he found a note on his bedside table:
Please stop bickering amongst yourselves. You are all important in My eyes, Franciscans, the Society of Jesus, Dominicans, Benedictines and all the other orders. All of you should concentrate on your good works, not on which order is the most beloved of God. signed, God, S.J.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Tak, you misunderstood me. I guess that paragraph could come across as a little snotty. I often quote people to support my arguments. A philosophy book I read recently made me more interested in Lewis, and Chesterson. Especially Chesterson's the Man who was Thursday. I think you've mentioned it on the forum before.
How does a negative cost in leaving a religion work both ways?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, Wilde was -- as he often did -- actually talking out his butt on that one. The sentiment is broadly accurate, but wrong about all the technical details. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The last function of reason is to recognize there are an infinite of things which surpass it." -- Blaine Pascal (scientist, not known for speaking out of butt)
posted
Dammit! not cool... I just spent all this time typing a reply to Tom and lost it dealing with the fourth way... arrrgh!
Edit and add: I like both the Wilde and Pascal quotes and Tom's response... good stuff all (inc. the S.J. joke... nice!). I don't think we really disagree, Morbo. I just wasn't sure where you were going. And yes, by all means, read Thursday.
[ September 08, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who is not satisfied with himself will grow; who is not sure of his own correctness will learn many things. --Chinese Proverb
He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils.--Francis Bacon
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.--Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary
Man is a credulous animal and must believe something. In the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.--Bertrand Russell
It is always easier to believe than to deny. Our minds are naturally affirmative.--John Burroughs
Sorry for all the quotes. I found some cool quote pages when I was checking on Kettering's Law for my earlier post.
TaK, the example you gave of the Earth orbiting the Sun is universally accepted scientific fact. When you absorb knowledge through your community and family, it often has no such universal application or acceptance. All it means is you function smoothly in the community. Reason for many people never enters into the equation, just acceptance. Dissent is harder.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my typically theistic fashion, I'm gonna take my loss as a sign from God that I should be less wordy.
[Tom] First Way: The Argument From Motion Aquinas' argument here, based on Aristotle, is that things move only when they are moved. Therefore, since things can be observed in motion, there must have been a First -- or Prime -- Mover, someone to set things in motion in order for motion to exist.
Leaving aside the fact that modern physics has been steadily chipping at Newtonian -- much less Aristotlean -- ideas of motion for some time, the larger question implicit in the Prime Mover argument is this: if an object REQUIRES a mover to move, what made the Prime Mover move? And if the Prime Mover doesn't require a mover, why do we require a Prime Mover at all? [/Tom]
It's not mere physical motion, but the ideas of energy and entropy, really. Aristotle was wrong when he said that all objects try to reach the center of the earth, but the concept he was describing when he said this was correct: all objects tend towards lowest energy. What Aquinas is stating here, put in terms of modern physics, is that an object can only decrease in entropy or increase in energy by the actions of some other object or energy. Then, he reasons, since the universe once had more energy and less entropy (the big bang) *something* had to make that happen.
[Tom] Second Way: Causation Of Existence This is like the Prime Mover argument, but actually pares it down to its essence. Aquinas argues that it is self-evident that no object creates itself, and therefore there must be a Prime Creator, or First Cause. The problem with this argument -- again, leaving aside any issues of physics -- is explained above. If all objects and creatures can be said to logically require a First Cause, God -- an uncaused First Cause -- cannot logically exist. [/Tom]
Aquinas is saying that nothing he knew of could cause it's own existence, but everything is brought into existence by some other object. This leaves 3 possibilities: nothing exists (dismissed out of hand), there is an infinite regression of things causing each other, or *something* was able to cause its own existence. This thing, He says, is best named "God".
The idea that there must be something self-existent is currently accepted as scientific fact (energy cannot be created or destroyed).
[Tom] Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects Aquinas sought to define two sorts of beings: contingent beings, objects that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence, and necessary beings, a category which basically consists of God. This is actually his explanation for the obvious flaw in Ways #1 and #2; we -- and all the other objects in the universe EXCEPT God -- are contingent beings, requiring a Prime Mover and First Cause. God, as a "necessary being," is the exception. So there. [/Tom]
You are right that Aquinas here addresses a possibilty left out of the first two ways: the idea of infinite regression of things causing each other. He reasons that either there are *only* beings which can *not* exist (everything we know) or there is something we don't know which *must* exist (cannot cease to exist). If we go back an infinite amount of time, and there is no necessary (self-existent) being, then, because it is possible for all things to cease to exist, all things would, at some point in an infinite time, cease to exist and so nothing would exist, which conclusion is dismissed. Therefore, there must be a being which must be.
[Tom] Note, then, that Aquinas' argument so far consists of the following: "Everything needs a cause, except whatever caused everything." [/Tom]
I disagree. He is saying "everything we know has a cause. These ways, however, show that a universe in which *everything* has a cause, *everything* is contingent, cannot exist. Therefore there *must* be something which we do not understand which causes itself. This is what people mean when they say 'God'."
[Tom] Fourth Way: Degrees And Perfection This one is hilariously bad. Aquinas points out that, of any two objects, one can be said to be somehow "better" than the other -- more lovely, more solid, more perfect. Therefore, Aquinas argues, there must be an essential and universal quality of "perfection" by which these objects and their attributes can be measured, and that this perfection is contained in God.
Note that this argument does not actually argue for the existence of God, per se; it assumes as a given that God exists, and does not attempt to argue that the attribute of perfection could exist without God. Rather, it argues that if the attribute of perfection exists, it must be contained within God.
Sadly, both prongs of this argument fail miserably. Firstly, it is disputable whether a universal standard of absolute and Platonian perfection can be said to exist for all attributes of all objects. Secondly, no logical argument is made that suggests that God MUST embody this perfection, except within a narrow definition of the Godhead that is not supported elsewhere in his reasoning. [/Tom]
I think you miscast this one as well, although I will grant that it's difficult even for someone sympathetic to the idea to state this one well, as I, no doubt, will not.. While he does point out that "good" and "bad" imply "best" and "worst", Aquinas is more concerned with the nature and reality of opposition. "Hot" and "cold", he correctly says, are real differences with real polar opposites (Absolute Zero and "all the energy in the universe"). These gradations are then applied to truth, existence and, as an aside, goodness. That which is most true, most real, most good, must be God. I think this is far and away the weakest of the ways, myself, but I strongly suspect that a lot of that is my failure to understand it.
[Tom] Fifth Way: Intelligent Design Similar (understandably) to the reasoning used by modern proponents of Intelligent Design creationist theory, this argument says that it's self-evident that the world works, and that the world is complex. Therefore, Aquinas argues, the world must have been designed by an awesomely powerful being. Of all of Aquinas' arguments, this is the one that most closely approaches science -- but, sadly, still lacks a testable hypothesis, a measurement of the world's inherent "complexity" relative to the probability of alternatives, and evidence for the likely existence of such a designer. Moreover, this argument (which is the essence of the Strong Anthropic Principle and teleological argument) is answered powerfully by the Weak Anthropic Principle -- which says, basically, that while our existence is against the odds, the fact that we exist proves that, in our case, we BEAT the odds. [/Tom]
This one is, to me, less a proof and more of an induction. The idea is essentially, that of the infamous "Paley's Watch". I have heard that Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker is an excellent disection of this idea, but I have not read it. Like Tom says, lack of "control groups" keeps us from really testing this a a proper hypothesis. but the basic gist is that, with all our intellect and creativity, we are not able to design things as complex and efficient as that which has eveolved here... and that seems to imply a purpose or planner superior to ourselves. I agree that it is proper and correct-- that if you find a watch on a beach, the easiest explanation is that there was a watchmaker, and, likewise, humans, infinitely more complex than watches, seem to require a much more detailed designer-- to make this connection, but I do not view it as a proof nearly so much as an instance of Occam's Razor.
Funny that now, two or three years after I last told you I'd go through this with you (you probably don't even remember it) we finally get around to this discussion, eh, Tom?
edited for spelling
[ September 08, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
forgot to answer one: It cuts both ways because it is just as hard to become a theist in a family or society of Atheists as it is to become an atheist in a family or society of religious people.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK: while your comment on Kant could be accurate from some perspectives, it is shallow at best, and significantly misinterprets Kant's intentions.
Spinoza, however, was incredibly concerned with proving the existence of God. He spent an exceptional amount of time on it. Very roughly, he first tried to prove that the existence of the finite implies the existence of the infinite, then gave reasons there must be an embodiment of all infinities. He gave numerous reasons, and they are all flawed.
I gave those two as specifics because they are some of my favorite philosophers to read. Note the et cetera on the end, accompanied by the rest of my sentence it specifies all the other philosophers who have tried to prove the existence of God.
Aquinas's arguments are quite flawed, and not just for the reasons Tom gives. My break is nearly over, but if you feel you have defeated any of Tom's points I may jump in.
Your comments on the nature of Reason are what is known as circular.
I see that you have come back at Tom; I will return later myself.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'll point out that none of your arguments address what is still the serious issue at the core of Aquinas' logic: his claim that there MUST be an uncaused First Cause, and that this uncaused cause is recognizably God.
The issue of first causes is one that is hotly debated among the scientific community; there are even people who have speculated that time itself does not technically exist, since that makes certain equations in quantum physics actually "work." In other words, there IS no reason to believe that a "First Cause" is necessary; at best, when forced to choose between an oscillating, steady-state, or "Big-Bang" universe, it winds up being one of three options.
More importantly, however, there is little in Aquinas' logic to suggest that this First Cause must in fact be a SENTIENT cause, a conscious choice. He attempts to make this argument with his fourth and fifth "Ways," of course; that's their whole POINT -- that God, being the essence of perfection, is perfect (and therefore all-knowing, all-wise, and so on), and that some kind of perfect being had to make the perfect universe.
Both of those "Ways," though, require the acceptance of premises that, even in Aquinas' time, should NOT have been considered givens.
In other words, Aquinas' logic actually proves nothing. He spends AGES rationalizing from his conclusions -- and even though you've tried to put a good spin on more modern interpretations of his recent claims, the weakness of the overall argument is still pretty obvious.
In the final tally, therefore, I think it's important to note that your summation of Aquinas' Ways (which are themselves inconclusive) -- "Therefore there *must* be something which we do not understand which causes itself. This is what people mean when they say 'God.'" -- suggests various possibilities for Godhood that Aquinas would find unrecognizable. What if, for example, the universe was actually "caused" by the compression of a timeless state, as suggested by some physicists? Is that compression REALLY recognizable as "God?"
What it boils down to is this: Aquinas cannot imagine a universe without a Creator, and he finds it comforting to imagine that this Creator embodies positive virtues. But it's not exactly a sound argument.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
And as one who doesn't ascribe to her parents faith and thinks that we've bastardized the phrase "faith of our fathers," I think that assuming by default that every theistic person is so because he or she was reared in that tradition is somewhat insulting. It's like saying all atheists are immoral - and being pleasantly surprised by those who don't fit my over-arching prejudice.
Nobody said faith was easy. It is for some. Some of us have to work at it - and to us, it may be all the more valuable. Just because it's something to be grappled with doesn't make it irrational, obtuse or irrelevant. If I didn't feel it was something worth fighting for, I'd have given up long ago.
posted
Great comeback to Tom's post, Tak. *kicks computer--If you were a Mac instead of a cheap Intel knockoff, maybe you'd be good for something besides regurgitating quotes!*
I think I'll eat lunch and watch the debate on the sidelines. I may post a counter to the "intelligent design" theory later.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK, ah, it sounded like you were making an offhanded critique, questioning his motives.
Of course, I also disagree with you that he was sincerely trying to "replace God". Rather, in the Critique of Pure Reason anyway, he was trying to delineate the boundaries of what human beings could in fact rationalize with their own faculties. One, I would presume (but could be wrong, as Kant is dense, complex, and not necessarily a thinker I agree with in the details) could agree with the Kantian limitations of the human mind, and still be religious.
Now the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant's attempt to apply his findings from the first Critique to ethical realities, seems to be an attempt to explain ethical decisions without appeal to God. However, this may have been more an attempt to show why disparate cultures (as were beginning to be rediscovered by the West in the 1700s) believed in largely similar ideas (if disagreeing on dozens of details), while not believing in the Christian God.
Of course, the Critique of Practical Reason is largely panned because Kant makes some dubious leaps of logic to rework the ethical within his abstract intellectual construct from the 1st Critique.
-- As just a comment, I find these sorts of discussions interesting, if rarely perspective changing; they, to me, add more evidence for my private hypothesis that humans are rationalizing animals, not rational animals.
posted
That last sentence is pretty clever, Bok. I'm not sure that I agree, but it's really interesting.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
asQmh, you've missed my point. People like you who come to their faith without the luxury of family support deserve respect. I didn't assume by default that all religious people are reared in a tradition. However, I think you are in the minority.[edit:debatable,depending on religion, culture, family etc.]
As far as atheists passing their faith down, I suppose that's true. What about a family of agnostics, who question faith but don't deny the existance of God?
Personally, I was raised Baptist, became an agnostic leaning towards atheism and naive materialism in high school. Nowadays I am an agnostic, mystic dualist, that is I believe there is more to the Universe than is sensed...really going out on a limb, huh?
quote: I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
Bertrand Russell.
I envy you your strong faith, asQmh.
[edit:Thank you, Bok. You are often quite eloquent.]
posted
Umm, asQmh, if you note, Morbo said a majority of the religious folk believe like their parents. I'd speculate it's true, but honestly it would take a survey to be sure.
You are setting up a strawman but misconstruing Morbo's comments.
-Bok
EDIT: Doh! Morbo was much more eloquent in defending himself than I.
posted
Bok, Morbo - I understand. I probably should have posted to another thread, but it was vaguely relevant and a rant. </rantionalizing>
It was a rant. On one side, there are the detractors who think that if you're Christian (or relgious at all, but usually Christian) you're that way because you grew up that way or you just don't know any better.
And then there's the other side: If you have questions, doubt and struggle, you don't have faith. You get stuck in the middle somewhere and don't really call either camp home. So . . . whining, griping, venting.
*begs for some slack based on the immutable Monday Factor*
[edit: I also wasn't addressing the remarks to anyone in particular - another forum sin. I wasn't railing against Morbo or Bok personally; I can't even point to a specific comment that tripped the trigger.]
posted
</rantionalizing>Lol I never looked at it like that, Q. I guess you do catch it from both sides, huh? Whereas in my view you seem to be an honest seeker for the truth, like me. Stay strong, doubting sister seeker!
*shrugs shoulders in universal symbol of doubters*
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
asQmh, no harm, no foul. Slack given (just be careful not to hang yourself ).
It sounds like Kierkegaard would be a good read for you. He puts up a wonderful (if suspect to later critics) argument about the power of the leap of faith. He was a Christian writer who often criticized the Danish Church for insufficient piety
posted
asQmh, did you get the e-mail I sent you yesterday? I got one of those "message delayed" notices.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw - Nope, it hasn't made it through. Yahoo's been a little. . . odd lately. If you don't mind resending, you can try this username @midsouth.rr.com That's my "home address."
posted
Being a Chesterton fan, I should have spent more time and thought on the joke and made my serious replies a little less time consuming and poly-syllabic. True to my own fashion, though, I went for the easy quote.
Trying to keep you all straight in my head, here:
Bok, you clearly know more about Kant than I so I'm just gonna bow to you on that one. I am also right with you in finding these discussions more entertaining than effective in changing minds. The only mind I know I have ever changed by argument like this is my own... ultimately, given a hunger for the truth, that's the most important mind to change, isn't it?
Fugu, as above, I *am* a shallow critic of Kant and, as Morbo points out, have to fall back mostly on what others have said. Also, as with Kant, I didn't mean to impugn Spinoza but merely observe that the upshot of his work was to replace the traditional view of God which he was given with something else more comfortable to his worldview. I don't mean that he was insincere in this, after all, don't we all do the same (atheists and theists alike)? Again, I'm not trying to paint it as deceptive or insincere, but rather pointing out that he comes up with something new rather than proving an old concept.
Oddly enough, though, you have caught me being imprecise again as I am about to agree with Tom on something which directly contradicts my opposition of Aquinas to Spinoza.
Aquinas is not proving the Christian God at all. Tom is exactly right. I am not a Christian because of Aquinas' reasoning. I remain, however, convinced of theism, in part, because of Aquinas' reasoning.
I tend to agree with those who think time is an illusion. I happen to think that time was created by God to allow man to see the nature of Freewill, Causality, and Choice in a universe that is essentially one thing, but that's way deeper than I'm prepared to go with this.
I agree that the 4th and 5th ways move towards in trying to describe what this uncaused cause must be like. Perhaps that is why they come off the weakest in terms of actual proof-- they are less proving and more trying to learn about.
But I disagree that the first three are made irrelevant by the choice between universal beginnings.
If Big Bang is true (and I favor this) then there still must have been something which "wound up the clock", so to speak, even if that something was merely the sum existence of energy (on the Einsteinian view that matter is nothing more than a specialized version of energy)... there is still something that was never created, which then created everything.
An Oscillating Universe tries to get past this difficulty by extending inifinte regression, but you still, on that hypothesis, have the same sum total of energy in the universe as an uncreated prime mover. Remember that each of Aquinas' ways ends with a statement which is best translated: "And this, everyone calls God." What he is saying that these things are out there, must be out there, and that these are the kind of things people refer to when they speak of a "God".
In fact, Aquinas goes on to point to our knowledge of God as being entirely negative: we cannot know omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, perfection, eternal existence or any other of the things that we attribute to God except in knowing that we have no experience of them.
The Big Bang and Oscillating Universe simply confirm there is something which we cannot completely comprehend which drives anything and everything which happens in the known Universe. We just call it "energy" and have different arcane magics (technology) to curry its favor.
The Steady State theory is a little more problematic. It seems to me that you have to have, even more, with this idea, some *source* from which things come to replace that which is passing out of existence. I have to confess to being weak on Steady State because, back when I was actually studying this, it was clean out of fashion and all but dismissed along side Aristotle's Spheres as far as Cosmology goes. I have heard that it has made a recent comeback, (particularly with topologists, maybe?) but I am pretty unaware of the current incarnations of it, so I feel I had best leave it alone.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* Steady State theory IS making a comeback, especially among multiverse advocates -- mainly because it makes some equations make sense without the necessity of a "fudge" constant. Of course, it's rather disturbing to think that cause and effect don't technically exist at the subatomic level, so I'm not a fan of the idea, myself, for emotional reasons. *grin*
You'll get no argument from me about Aquinas if all you're saying is that he makes a compelling argument for the need for a cause of some sort. The problem I have is the mental leap from this hypothetical "cause" to the conclusion that this cause must, in fact, be recognizable as a God of goodness and perfection -- or a sentient being of any kind, in fact.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, that's a common misperception of Spinoza, due mainly to propaganda spread by his contemporary opponents. Spinoza had a very typical view of God.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok - Thanks. I cut my incisors on Kierkegaard when I was in 7th grade - and probably bit off more than I could comfortably chew. Reading in bits and pieces since then. Anything in particular you'd suggest?
posted
Well, I think we have reached a point of agreement, then, and probably much closer to your side of the argument than you thought I'd give in. I think the big thing that Aquinas is demonstrating is that we are dealing, inherently, with a mystery when we push things back that far. Kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty for metaphysics.
What I take, personally, from Aquinas on the particular question of God's existence (he deals with a lot of the other stuff you mention elsewhere in the Summas, some of it, he doesn't touch at all) is that, when looking at the real origin of things, whether physically or metaphysically, we find the same sort of thing: Something uncreated, that exists from all eternity which makes everything else "tick" (if you'll pardon the allusion back to the watch ).
There are many parallels to be found between the two. A massed being moving at the speed of light would be outside time (time dilation would make all of history one eternal instant) and be omnipotent (have infinite energy) much like God. The Energy that created the universe would similarly do a good job of answering the title of First Cause and Prime Mover.
Like Aquinas, I think there is one truth and if we push it far enough from any direction, we will find the same sort of thing: specifically a mystery which is beyond human understanding. Physicists, in a wonderful act of humility, began labeling quarks "Charm", "Truth", and "Beauty" and talking about properties like "color" and "flavor" to emphasize that they simply have no concept of the things they study. It is by a similar humility that man has come to talk about "God"-- that we which cannot understand, that we can hardly conceive-- but the study of whom provides depth to probe for the lifetime of a star and further.
The unfortunate thing, of course, is that man often forgets the humility and talks of "my God" meaning "the God in my back pocket."
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
My take on Spinoza is, I say with some embarassment, precisely how he was taught to me... point for Morbo Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spinoza is one of the most mistaught philosophers out there, precisely because there is was so much false information out there that had been spread about him.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, regarding the Weak Anthropic Principle--it seems to me that there should still be some explanation of how exactly we came to beat the odds, even if this is just a blow-by-blow description of coincidences. That is, even given the W.A., we should still seek some adequate explanation of our existence.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would imagine, if you were to lay out the difficulties faced by our evolution, you would HAVE a map of the odds beaten by the Weak Anthropic Principle.
Think about it: the cosmological constants were okay. Planets formed. Some of these planets had water on them, and it turned out that some chemicals that liked water were also photoreceptive.
And so on.
One thing that's interesting about the WAP is that it helps people remember that it's entirely possible that life UNLIKE ours could arise in other situations. (Science fiction has almost as much fun playing with the Weak Anthropic as it does the Strong Anthropic. *grin*)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: One thing that's interesting about the WAP is that it helps people remember that it's entirely possible that life UNLIKE ours could arise in other situations. (Science fiction has almost as much fun playing with the Weak Anthropic as it does the Strong Anthropic. *grin*)
*nods* While I am not the sort of person who dismisses creationist arguments out of hand because they are creationist arguments, I have long found the creationist unwillingness to imagine life that does not require the same conditions we do (but requires some other set of strict conditions) amusing. After all, don't we Christian theists believe in not one, but two forms of life--intelligent life, no less--that are radically unlike us bags of water and hydrocarbons?
(It is conceivable that my refusal to dis creationism is due mostly to my being surrounded by it continually. So far as I can tell from where I live, certain factions of the churches of Christ are, via Apologetics Press, the intellectual core of creationism. That is, if you will forgive the term "intellectual"...and I myself have noticed a decline in the overall quality of argument since the conservative idea of debate became largely synonymous with "curse-warfare".)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the weak anthropic principle is the worst sort of circular reasoning.
It brings to mind a child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. When his parents ask how it is that he came to have his hand in the cookie jar he recounts a series of events, each one more improbable than the last. When his parents demand what proof he has that his story is true he replies: "It must be true, for here I am with my hand in the cookie jar."
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I studied Spinoza in an introduction to philosohy college class, but I don't remember anything from that class. In book I read recently, Gardner's Musing's of a philosophical scrivner, Gardner portrays Spinoza's God as formless and pantheist. Is this what you're talking about , fugu? Is that a misrepresentation of Spinoza's idea of God as well? I trust Gardner as a commentator, I've read his stuff for years and he is very well versed in philosophy.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re-reading my own post, I thought of a genuine (i.e. not rhetorical) question for Tom...
Why is it that I can apply Aquinas' ideas about "the God of the Philosophers" so easily to modern physics? What I mean is, I have always been fascinated (and heartened) by the idea that physics and metaphysics both give us some startlingly similar ideas, when boiled down. Is it just me being particularly innovative in adding new meaning to old texts, or is there some central point of truth being approached from two different sides? is the opposition of religion and science a simple matter of parallax or must it be a darker matter of war?
I'm curious as to your thoughts (and feelings) on this.
Edit to add that everyone is, of course, welcome to comment and that no, I won't get offended if your answer is just "you're really good at lying to yourself, TAK."
[ September 08, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, that is the worst form of reasoning from analogy. Sorry, I couln't resist.
Calculating the odds against human intelligence evolving, including many factors, is what drove Fred Hoyle, the British cosmologist and co-creator of the Steady State theory to believe in God. The last figure I remember was (could be way off) 1 in 10 ^ 750. A tolerably large number.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many scientists and physicists have remarked on the weird simularities between ancient philosophies and modern physics. One book (that I haven't read but have heard good things about) that discusses it is the Dancing Wu Li masters.link
There's also The Tao of Physics, but I haven't heard the buzz on it.
posted
Morbo- easy there slim. I wasn't reasoning from analogy, I was analogizing the absurdity of the WAP premise- a very different thing altogether.
Of course there are problems on the other side of the coin too. How exactly can we determine the probability of a universe occurring with the physical constants our universe has? We can't exactly measure the physical constants of other universes as reference points.
To my mind probability needn't enter the picture at all. God either exists or he does not. Statistics has nothing to say about the issue either way. COming up with mechanisms, on the other hand, is very relevant to the question. To state that evolution can account for everything is one thing, to demonstrate a mechanism for some of the very complex structures is quite another.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
Sorry, I couln't resist. 
