A Baltimore Catechism for the New Atheists
August 3, 2012
Edward T. Oakes, S.J.
One of the more striking differences between the New Atheists and, say, Freud or Nietzsche is the willingness of the former to engage natural theology on its own terms. Not that they get very far in their clumsy forays—it’s all pretty halfhearted and amateurish stuff, indeed sometimes wincingly embarrassing.
Thus Lawrence Krauss tries to address the scholastic axiom nihil ex nihilo fit (“nothing can come from nothing”) in his book A Universe from Nothing, where he argues, based on string theory, that a vibration in a ten-dimensional string or “brane” started it all. As was already pointed out by Edward Feser in the June/July issue of First Things, even if one grants that string theory is true, Krauss has already conceded the very medieval axiom he thought he was dispatching, since, after all, a “brane” (assuming it exists) is something. Checkmate.
Now one Alex Rosenberg has gingerly stepped onto this vaudeville stage with The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, where scientific reductionism becomes—there is no other term for it—a full-bore reductio ad absurdum. As it happens, the Times Literary Supplement gave the book to the philosopher Anthony Kenny to review, perhaps because he could never be accused of any parti pris in this debate, since he has in the past leveled his own severe criticisms against classical Christian theism for relying on an “outdated Aristotelian cosmology.”
These skeptical conclusions, however, have not led Kenny to a two-fisted atheism; for as he said in his 2004 book The Unknown God: “There is no such thing, I concluded, as the God of scholastic or rationalist philosophy; but of course that is not the only possible conception of God.”
Whatever orthodox believers may think of Kenny’s journey over these decades from classical theism to something vaguer, he is at least an equal-opportunity basher: For his aversion to absolutism can equally well be employed against the New Atheists, who affect an apodictic absolutism in their argumentation that makes them as impregnable to counterevidence as anything found in a creationist textbook.
In his recent book God and the New Atheism, the Georgetown theologian John Haught has usefully captured this quasi-religious absolutism among the New Atheists by summarizing their position as a seven-point “creed”:
1. Apart from nature, which includes human beings and our cultural creations, there is nothing. There is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death.
2. Nature is self-originating, not the creation of God.
3. The universe has no overall point or purpose, although individual human lives can be lived purposefully.
4. Since God does not exist, all explanations and all causes are purely natural and can be understood only by science.
5. All the various features of living beings, including human intelligence and behavior, can be explained ultimately in purely natural terms, and today that usually means in evolutionary, specifically Darwinian terms.
6. Faith in God is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds.
7. Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith than with it.
Freud and Nietzsche no doubt had their dogmatic commitments, but at least they would have recognized the sixth and seventh axioms especially as quite preposterous. They were too familiar with the evil lurking in the foul rag-and-bone shop of the human heart to think it could be expelled by the simple expedient of evicting God.
In that light, what’s really new about the New Atheists is their reliance on an oxymoron: they actually seem to believe in a utopian Darwinism—a faith-based science if there ever was one. Accordingly, I have long felt that the best (if not the only) way of addressing these dogmatisms is just to sit back and let the New Atheists hang themselves by their own rope. Which is where Kenny comes in, as he transposes their assumptions into a kind of atheist Baltimore Catechism:
The main tenets of this philosophy are bracingly summed up in a series of questions and answers: Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto. Why am I here? Just dumb luck. Does prayer work? Of course not. Is there a soul? Is it immortal? You must be kidding. Is there free will? Not a chance! What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
The great value of this boiled-down atheist catechism is that it directly and ineluctably leads Rosenberg to one of the most hilarious conclusions in all of the New Atheist literature; and Kenny has great fun skewering Rosenberg’s eye-popping absurdities:
One of Rosenberg’s more extravagant claims is that nobody ever thinks about anything. […] His argument goes like this: the mind is identical with the brain, so a thought must be an event in the brain. But no clump of neurons can be about anything. Therefore, no thought is about anything.
This cranial absence of referentiality to the outside world would include, of course, all the “thoughts” in Rosenberg’s book. Checkmate again.
Edward T. Oakes, S.J. is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, the seminary for the Archdiocese of Chicago, and author, most recently, of Infinity Dwindled to Infancy: A Catholic and Evangelical Christology (Eerdmans).
RESOURCES
Edward Feser, Not Understanding Nothing
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.3.2012 | 1:11am
John Burford says:
At least Hume tried to decouple cause and effect philosophically, even if his reasoning was faulty. This is just sad.
8.3.2012 | 4:01am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Father Oaks excellent essay should be sent to all the New Atheists, and it's hard to believe that their atheistic faith will remain unwavering after reading it. But since the New Atheism is a type of faith, it may not be so easily fractured by rational scrutiny. One of the more amusing aspects of all of this, is the seemingly clueless philosophical naivete expressed by some of its proponants. For example, Michael Shermer, who's views on the metaphysics of reality have changed enough to give one vertigo, (Christian believer, agnostic, atheist, there might be a "nontheist'' in there somewhere), was debating the great mathematician John Lennox, on the existence of God. Shermer seemed to think that he had what might be a slam dunk, when he pointed out to Lennox that, if one has a stroke in one's left hemisphere, "Broca's area'', that controls speech, all of one's sophisticated language about religion is gone. True, but that doesn't mean that it's gone with a capital G. Lennox retorted that that argument cannot work, because the information contained in the brain is not identical with the physical structure of the brain. He used the example of writing. The information contained in the printed word, is not identical with the ink and paper that contains the information. It didn't seem to convince Shermer, but I hope in a reflective moment, he realized the true conundrum the materialist is in.
8.3.2012 | 4:01am
Don Roberto says:
It's amazing so many people buy into "atheism." If only they could be honest with themselves, they'd open up new worlds (like new universes bubbling off a seed-verse) of peace, fulfillment, and true happiness. There are no real atheists. Those who refer to themselves as such are really neo-pagans who are embarrassed to admit it. †
8.3.2012 | 8:27am
Michael PS says:
Rosenberg is only one of a long line of philosophers to find themselves trapped in an insoluble puzzle of their own making.
From Descartes onwards, philosophers have tended to duplicate the world: for them, there is the world “out there” and there is the image or reflection of that world in consciousness. The puzzle is somehow to connect the two.
I call it a puzzle, rather than a problem, because it only affects those who adopt the two-world model in the first place.
From Descartes onwards, philosophers have tended to duplicate the world: for them, there is the world “out there” and there is the image or reflection of that world in consciousness. The puzzle is somehow to connect the two.
I call it a puzzle, rather than a problem, because it only affects those who adopt the two-world model in the first place.
8.3.2012 | 10:02am
olaf says:
Professor Oakes, I always enjoy your writing. However, I don't understand why you dump on the creationists. Is not the difference between your worldview and theirs a small ditch compared to the chasm between you and the scientific magisterium? For instance, starting from Revelation you hold that the human soul was directly created by God, and that there was a real Adam and Eve. You hold these truths in the face of current scientific theories. Fundamentally, this is all the creationists are doing; they just go further than you. There are some fine scientists in this camp who raise interesting points. For myself, I view these issues the way Etienne Gilson says the early Christians viewed philosophy. The conclusions reached seem to be saying things contradictory to revelation so there must be something wrong there. What it is , the scientists will have to figure out.
8.3.2012 | 10:14am
Sergio Méndez says:
Freud and Nietzsche no doubt had their dogmatic commitments, but at least they would have recognized the sixth and seventh axioms especially as quite preposterous. They were too familiar with the evil lurking in the foul rag-and-bone shop of the human heart to think it could be expelled by the simple expedient of evicting God."
I am not very sure how the 7 axiom is preposterous, at least the first part of it. Actually, it can be argued that morality is probably imposible with a believe in God (the argument of evil), which is one of the most powerfull weapons atheists have ever disposed in our arsenal and to which theist still struggle hard by their own admision.
I am not very sure how the 7 axiom is preposterous, at least the first part of it. Actually, it can be argued that morality is probably imposible with a believe in God (the argument of evil), which is one of the most powerfull weapons atheists have ever disposed in our arsenal and to which theist still struggle hard by their own admision.
8.3.2012 | 10:22am
Sergio Méndez says:
I also forgot to mention the Eutrypho Dilema, which makes the theist claims of exclusivity in the moral terrain, to use Mr Oakes own word, ludicrous.
8.3.2012 | 10:42am
harry says:
If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes. If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a free will. “New Atheists” who are “certain” of this should then also conclude that:
-- They have no choice but to think that, as they have no free will with which to change their minds about thinking that.
-- Their minds may change, but that happening or not happening is beyond their control – they don't have a free will with which to control anything.
-- Any conclusion they reach about anything is meaningless because experiencing “certainty” is just a biological phenomenon that happens occasionally – they have no choice about it; it just happens regardless of whether their “certainty” is rational or not.
-- Others will be certain they are irrational.
-- They have no choice but to think that, as they have no free will with which to change their minds about thinking that.
-- Their minds may change, but that happening or not happening is beyond their control – they don't have a free will with which to control anything.
-- Any conclusion they reach about anything is meaningless because experiencing “certainty” is just a biological phenomenon that happens occasionally – they have no choice about it; it just happens regardless of whether their “certainty” is rational or not.
-- Others will be certain they are irrational.
8.3.2012 | 10:45am
jb says:
As an agnostic, I'm not sure what Rosenberg means when he says that thoughts aren't 'about' anything, except in the sense that cogs moving inside machines aren't "thinking".
Clearly, atheists are showing a heck of a lot of "zealotry" if they claim that consciousness is "nothing". But that's part of the reason I'm agnostic, not an atheist.
Similarly, I find the need for atheists to be able to explain the origins of the universe a bit perplexing - because you're right - even the vibration of a brane is something. My attitude: embrace uncertainty.
Having said that, the same argument can be applied to God - what or who created Him? And if the answer is 'He has always existed' or 'He created Himself', well, that same reasoning seems to apply to branes. But it is absolutely something that I would have to take on faith. Which *I* can do, because I'm agnostic, not an atheist :)
Clearly, atheists are showing a heck of a lot of "zealotry" if they claim that consciousness is "nothing". But that's part of the reason I'm agnostic, not an atheist.
Similarly, I find the need for atheists to be able to explain the origins of the universe a bit perplexing - because you're right - even the vibration of a brane is something. My attitude: embrace uncertainty.
Having said that, the same argument can be applied to God - what or who created Him? And if the answer is 'He has always existed' or 'He created Himself', well, that same reasoning seems to apply to branes. But it is absolutely something that I would have to take on faith. Which *I* can do, because I'm agnostic, not an atheist :)
8.3.2012 | 11:21am
Sam Rocha says:
This is excellent. The New Atheists are not the same as the atheists of old, mostly because the are bred and raised from popular echo-chambers, easily accessible on Twitter, not from philosophical reflection. They tend to be very emotional and strike me as kin to many similarly unreflective evangelical fundamentalists. To put it simply, they do not read. There is also a nice anthology by Michael Palmer entitled "The Atheist Creed" that shows texts from antiquity to the present and the same point arises. The book begins with a creed too. Lastly, I recently read a short book by Bertrand Russell -- "The Art of Philosophizing and Other Essays -- that showed many similarities to the ignorances of the New Atheists. This may seem to contradict my earlier claim, but anyone who has read "Why I Am Not Christian" surely know that, when it comes to religion, Russell is as dull as the next New Atheist.
8.3.2012 | 11:26am
jason taylor says:
Sergio the proper argument is "the concept of morality is incompatible with Philosophical Materialism"(it has a hard fit with Theism. by the way, because of the problem of deciding whether morality is decreed or self-existent) not "Atheists cannot behave reasonably morally". In fact they tend to behave individually as morally, roughly, as theists from the same cultural background and social and economic class with the caveat that they tend to deny the immorality of abortion and fornication.
Of course what they really mean is "prosperous materialist intellectuals from an occidental background who adhere to the values of a specific faction of materialists do not behave in a particularly evil manner as far as they can recognize in themselves."
Of course what they really mean is "prosperous materialist intellectuals from an occidental background who adhere to the values of a specific faction of materialists do not behave in a particularly evil manner as far as they can recognize in themselves."
8.3.2012 | 12:46pm
Nick says:
Sergio and Jason Taylor,
"it has a hard fit with Theism, by the way, because of the problem of deciding whether morality is decreed or self-existent"
The "problem" you are referring to is known as the Euthyphro dilemma, and it is a false one if you accept the idea of divine simplicity. It appears, though, that you are only familiar with theistic personalism and so are obligated to accept one horn of the dilemma unlike the classical theists who circumvent it altogether.
But modern atheism is just fundamentalism without a God, so the expectation that you might actually do the reading isLOW.
"it has a hard fit with Theism, by the way, because of the problem of deciding whether morality is decreed or self-existent"
The "problem" you are referring to is known as the Euthyphro dilemma, and it is a false one if you accept the idea of divine simplicity. It appears, though, that you are only familiar with theistic personalism and so are obligated to accept one horn of the dilemma unlike the classical theists who circumvent it altogether.
But modern atheism is just fundamentalism without a God, so the expectation that you might actually do the reading isLOW.
8.3.2012 | 2:18pm
A. Bailey says:
Nick, I think you fail to grasp the point Jason Taylor was making. Perhaps you should retread his post.
No one but an atheist would disagree with the statement that they are in fact beneficiaries of a Christian culture.
No one but an atheist would disagree with the statement that they are in fact beneficiaries of a Christian culture.
8.3.2012 | 2:42pm
Mark says:
"7. Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith than with it."
Nietzsche certainly would have accepted the first part of this axiom but probably would require clarity on what "behave better" means before accepting the second part. Morality for Nietzsche comes down to what best promotes the interests of you and your social equals and no God has ever been needed to advance the interests of oneself and one's peers! Nietzsche's dogmatic commitment was that whether there was a God or not, universal morality was an absurdity because some humans are self-evidently worth more than others and deserve a higher rank.
On another point, I confess I don't know what the term "utopian Darwinism" means, though, or how it applies to anyone.
Nietzsche certainly would have accepted the first part of this axiom but probably would require clarity on what "behave better" means before accepting the second part. Morality for Nietzsche comes down to what best promotes the interests of you and your social equals and no God has ever been needed to advance the interests of oneself and one's peers! Nietzsche's dogmatic commitment was that whether there was a God or not, universal morality was an absurdity because some humans are self-evidently worth more than others and deserve a higher rank.
On another point, I confess I don't know what the term "utopian Darwinism" means, though, or how it applies to anyone.
8.3.2012 | 2:44pm
Quine says:
Edward Oakes tells us, almost at the start of this essay:
>Thus Lawrence Krauss tries to address the scholastic axiom nihil ex nihilo fit (“nothing can come from nothing”) in his book A Universe from Nothing, where he argues, based on string theory, that a vibration in a ten-dimensional string or “brane” started it all.
It would appear that he has not bothered to read the book. Lawrence Krauss presents the physics behind the possibility of a causeless Universe. However, the evidence does not preclude other possibilities. The point was to show that a Universe without an act of creation is not inconsistent with what is currently known to be true about the physical world.
Dr. Krauss has drawn a great deal of criticism because his "physical nothing" does not match up with the "metaphysical nothing" of Philosophy. This is the case; the axiom “nothing can come from nothing” is definitional re metaphysical nothing. However, when we start doing experiments to find out about the actual physical world, we don't find a physical correlate for "metaphysical nothing." Instead, we find that no amount of "taking things away" from somewhere gets to "no thing" in the metaphysical sense, and something comes from physical nothing, all the time (just cancels out, most of the time). We can have a model in our heads of such a "metaphysical nothing" but like having a model of unicorns in our heads, that does not mean there has to be physical unicorns, somewhere.
>Thus Lawrence Krauss tries to address the scholastic axiom nihil ex nihilo fit (“nothing can come from nothing”) in his book A Universe from Nothing, where he argues, based on string theory, that a vibration in a ten-dimensional string or “brane” started it all.
It would appear that he has not bothered to read the book. Lawrence Krauss presents the physics behind the possibility of a causeless Universe. However, the evidence does not preclude other possibilities. The point was to show that a Universe without an act of creation is not inconsistent with what is currently known to be true about the physical world.
Dr. Krauss has drawn a great deal of criticism because his "physical nothing" does not match up with the "metaphysical nothing" of Philosophy. This is the case; the axiom “nothing can come from nothing” is definitional re metaphysical nothing. However, when we start doing experiments to find out about the actual physical world, we don't find a physical correlate for "metaphysical nothing." Instead, we find that no amount of "taking things away" from somewhere gets to "no thing" in the metaphysical sense, and something comes from physical nothing, all the time (just cancels out, most of the time). We can have a model in our heads of such a "metaphysical nothing" but like having a model of unicorns in our heads, that does not mean there has to be physical unicorns, somewhere.
8.3.2012 | 3:52pm
Mick Leahy says:
@ Sergio:
You appear to claim that only atheists can be moral. Were there no God, I would consider myself a fool to be moralistic, except to the degree it might keep me out of trouble with the law, otherwise why would I not maximise my pleasure and other interests, and to (non-existent) hell with everybody else? However, I do believe, and Fear of God keeps me in line. That Fear, I suspect, is the only effective inducement of morality for quite a proportion of the human race, can't see anything in atheism likely to work for very many.
@ jb;
I might fundamentally disagree with atheists, but I respect their having an ontology. At least they have made a decision and entered the game. Agnostics merely sit on the fence, and flunk participation. If you refuse to confront these realities, can one claim to be fully a Man? Sorry if that comes across as offensive, that is not intended.
You appear to claim that only atheists can be moral. Were there no God, I would consider myself a fool to be moralistic, except to the degree it might keep me out of trouble with the law, otherwise why would I not maximise my pleasure and other interests, and to (non-existent) hell with everybody else? However, I do believe, and Fear of God keeps me in line. That Fear, I suspect, is the only effective inducement of morality for quite a proportion of the human race, can't see anything in atheism likely to work for very many.
@ jb;
I might fundamentally disagree with atheists, but I respect their having an ontology. At least they have made a decision and entered the game. Agnostics merely sit on the fence, and flunk participation. If you refuse to confront these realities, can one claim to be fully a Man? Sorry if that comes across as offensive, that is not intended.
8.3.2012 | 3:57pm
Ray Ingles says:
Wait. Regarding 6, saying that religion causes "innumerable evils" is not at all the same thing as saying religion causes *all* evil. It's perfectly possible to think that things would be better off, on balance, without religion - without thinking that things will be "utopian" without religion.
Regarding 7, even George Washington was willing to concede quite bit "to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure". One can believe that such a structure isn't as "peculiar" as Washington may have supposed. A few centuries ago, literacy was a rare skill possessed only by the most educated. But since then there have been many cultures that have come awfully close to universal literacy. Perhaps morality can be taught to more than a "peculiar" few, too.
It's also awfully hard to get from 6 and 7, however understood, and Kenny's alleged paraphrase, "There is no moral difference between" "right and wrong, good and bad". Somebody's misunderstood something there, and it sure would seem to be Kenny.
Regarding 7, even George Washington was willing to concede quite bit "to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure". One can believe that such a structure isn't as "peculiar" as Washington may have supposed. A few centuries ago, literacy was a rare skill possessed only by the most educated. But since then there have been many cultures that have come awfully close to universal literacy. Perhaps morality can be taught to more than a "peculiar" few, too.
It's also awfully hard to get from 6 and 7, however understood, and Kenny's alleged paraphrase, "There is no moral difference between" "right and wrong, good and bad". Somebody's misunderstood something there, and it sure would seem to be Kenny.
8.3.2012 | 3:59pm
Ray Ingles says:
Jb - "Clearly, atheists are showing a heck of a lot of "zealotry" if they claim that consciousness is "nothing". But that's part of the reason I'm agnostic, not an atheist."
I suppose we might entertain the notion that not all atheists agree with each other. But that would be preposterous, right?
I suppose we might entertain the notion that not all atheists agree with each other. But that would be preposterous, right?
8.3.2012 | 4:46pm
Quine says:
It is true that some writers who criticize religion go too far and assert things that they can't really back up with facts and evidence. However, presenting the extreme positions as the norm is to stack up strawmen to be burnt at the stake. Here is my attempt to restate these in philosophically supportable form:
>1. Apart from nature, which includes human beings and our cultural creations, there is nothing. There is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death.
Apart from nature, which includes human beings and our cultural creations, there is no objective evidence for any deities, souls, or life beyond death.
>2. Nature is self-originating, not the creation of God.
Nature shows the ability to be self-organized without a requirement for divine creation or intervention.
>3. The universe has no overall point or purpose, although individual human lives can be lived purposefully.
Points and purposes are relative to the positions of observers; humans are the only known beings capable of this kind of observation.
>4. Since God does not exist, all explanations and all causes are purely natural and can be understood only by science.
Methodological Materialism is the only known process for the development of reliable knowledge. Other knowledge may exist, but there is no other way to reliably know.
>5. All the various features of living beings, including human intelligence and behavior, can be explained ultimately in purely natural terms, and today that usually means in evolutionary, specifically Darwinian terms.
Progressively more and more of the various features of living beings, including human intelligence and behavior, can be explained in purely natural terms, and today that usually means in evolutionary, specifically Neodarwinian terms.
>6. Faith in God is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds.
Dogma is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds.
>7. Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith than with it.
Morality does not require faith; we can think our way to better behavior.
>1. Apart from nature, which includes human beings and our cultural creations, there is nothing. There is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death.
Apart from nature, which includes human beings and our cultural creations, there is no objective evidence for any deities, souls, or life beyond death.
>2. Nature is self-originating, not the creation of God.
Nature shows the ability to be self-organized without a requirement for divine creation or intervention.
>3. The universe has no overall point or purpose, although individual human lives can be lived purposefully.
Points and purposes are relative to the positions of observers; humans are the only known beings capable of this kind of observation.
>4. Since God does not exist, all explanations and all causes are purely natural and can be understood only by science.
Methodological Materialism is the only known process for the development of reliable knowledge. Other knowledge may exist, but there is no other way to reliably know.
>5. All the various features of living beings, including human intelligence and behavior, can be explained ultimately in purely natural terms, and today that usually means in evolutionary, specifically Darwinian terms.
Progressively more and more of the various features of living beings, including human intelligence and behavior, can be explained in purely natural terms, and today that usually means in evolutionary, specifically Neodarwinian terms.
>6. Faith in God is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds.
Dogma is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds.
>7. Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith than with it.
Morality does not require faith; we can think our way to better behavior.
8.3.2012 | 5:05pm
Edward T. Oakes says:
Let me reassure Quine that I read Krauss's book, from which I will quote:
First, I want to be clear about what kind of “nothing” I am discussing at the moment. This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space. For the moment, I will assume space exists, with nothing at all in it, and that the laws of physics also exist. Once again, I realize that in the revised version of nothingness that [for] those who wish to continually redefine [!] the word so that no scientific definition is practical, this version of nothing doesn’t cut the mustard. However, I suspect that, at the times of Plato and Aquinas, when they pondered why there was something rather than nothing, empty space space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about. (page 149)
It certainly seems sensible to imagine that a priori, matter cannot spontaneously arise from empty space, so that something, in this sense, cannot arise from nothing. But when we allow for the dynamics of gravity and quantum mechanics, we find that this commonsense notion is no longer true. (page 151)
I am more interested here in being true to our current understanding of the universe than in making an apparently easy and convincing case for creating it from nothing. (page 165)
Why is there something rather than nothing? Ultimately, this question may be no more significant or profound than asking why some flowers are red and some are blue. (page 178)
All of these quotes show that Krauss is palming the ace in front of the reader. His book claims to answer Leibniz's question of why there is something rather than nothing. But these quotes show his is like those Three Card Monte players along Times Square in New York. Time and again he pulls a fast one on gullible readers, of whom Quine is apparently one.
First, I want to be clear about what kind of “nothing” I am discussing at the moment. This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space. For the moment, I will assume space exists, with nothing at all in it, and that the laws of physics also exist. Once again, I realize that in the revised version of nothingness that [for] those who wish to continually redefine [!] the word so that no scientific definition is practical, this version of nothing doesn’t cut the mustard. However, I suspect that, at the times of Plato and Aquinas, when they pondered why there was something rather than nothing, empty space space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about. (page 149)
It certainly seems sensible to imagine that a priori, matter cannot spontaneously arise from empty space, so that something, in this sense, cannot arise from nothing. But when we allow for the dynamics of gravity and quantum mechanics, we find that this commonsense notion is no longer true. (page 151)
I am more interested here in being true to our current understanding of the universe than in making an apparently easy and convincing case for creating it from nothing. (page 165)
Why is there something rather than nothing? Ultimately, this question may be no more significant or profound than asking why some flowers are red and some are blue. (page 178)
All of these quotes show that Krauss is palming the ace in front of the reader. His book claims to answer Leibniz's question of why there is something rather than nothing. But these quotes show his is like those Three Card Monte players along Times Square in New York. Time and again he pulls a fast one on gullible readers, of whom Quine is apparently one.
8.3.2012 | 5:51pm
Richard says:
I couldn't agree more, Father Oakes. The critics of theism have used the words "nothing" and "reason," shall we say, loosely. Leibnitz would have demolished them on both imprecisions.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
8.3.2012 | 6:57pm
Mick Leahy says:
"It certainly seems sensible to imagine that a priori, matter cannot spontaneously arise from empty space, so that something, in this sense, cannot arise from nothing. But when we allow for the dynamics of gravity and quantum mechanics, we find that this commonsense notion is no longer true. (page 151)":
Edward, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Krauss made a fundamental mistake in the above quotation? Isn't even 'empty space' something, and he doesn't attempt to tell the reader where it came from?
Edward, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Krauss made a fundamental mistake in the above quotation? Isn't even 'empty space' something, and he doesn't attempt to tell the reader where it came from?
8.3.2012 | 7:25pm
Darren O. says:
They were too familiar with the evil lurking in the foul rag-and-bone shop of the human heart to think it could be expelled by the simple expedient of evicting God.
Thank you for that wonderful sentence. It is the most honest statement about the human condition I have read in sometime. Not because I have never heard it as a truism or platitude, but because I realize how it is particularly true of me and, by extension, others.
Many thanks.
Thank you for that wonderful sentence. It is the most honest statement about the human condition I have read in sometime. Not because I have never heard it as a truism or platitude, but because I realize how it is particularly true of me and, by extension, others.
Many thanks.
8.3.2012 | 7:33pm
Quine says:
Thank you, Edward T. Oakes, for those quotes, and for taking the time to read the book. The page 149 selection is very much what I am talking about. If you had presented Plato or Aquinas with an empty clay jar, and asked them what was inside, and what action was going on, they would have most certainly answered that nothing was inside and no action was present. Of course they did not know that pressurized air was inside, and that the energetic collisions of those molecules was giving rise to the statistical property of temperature, and further that said knocking about was what was keeping the pressure from the outside air from crushing the jar.
From the observation of the "empty" jar came the model in their minds of "nothing" and the idea that if no one came along and opened the jar, that it would remain empty. From induction this generated the idea that "nothing comes from nothing." Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz came after Evangelista Torricelli, and did know about the pressurized air in the jar, but assumed that if you took that out you would be back to the classical "nothing." That process of finding that more and more "stuff" is in what we thought was empty continued (and still continues) through the discovery of atoms and subatomic particles and virtual particles. The result is that we no longer can assume that the classical idea of the truly empty jar (metaphysical nothing) can or ever could exist (as in the quote p.151) outside of our imaginations. (I have written more about this at http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/2012/02/physical-nothing-v-metaphysical-nothing.html )
Getting to the quote from p.178, I am reminded of the lawyer who asks the witness if he has stopped beating his wife, where the other side jumps up and says, "Objection, question assumes facts not in evidence." The question put by Liebniz assumes that a "nothing" of the kind such that "from which nothing can come" is possible. That seemed reasonable in his day, but Lawrence Krauss is putting forth the evidence from physical data in our real world that such an assumption cannot be substantiated. We don't know that there ever was or ever could have been the kind of nothing that would provide the context in which that question would make sense. No trick, just physics you can trace to original sources, yourself.
From the observation of the "empty" jar came the model in their minds of "nothing" and the idea that if no one came along and opened the jar, that it would remain empty. From induction this generated the idea that "nothing comes from nothing." Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz came after Evangelista Torricelli, and did know about the pressurized air in the jar, but assumed that if you took that out you would be back to the classical "nothing." That process of finding that more and more "stuff" is in what we thought was empty continued (and still continues) through the discovery of atoms and subatomic particles and virtual particles. The result is that we no longer can assume that the classical idea of the truly empty jar (metaphysical nothing) can or ever could exist (as in the quote p.151) outside of our imaginations. (I have written more about this at http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/2012/02/physical-nothing-v-metaphysical-nothing.html )
Getting to the quote from p.178, I am reminded of the lawyer who asks the witness if he has stopped beating his wife, where the other side jumps up and says, "Objection, question assumes facts not in evidence." The question put by Liebniz assumes that a "nothing" of the kind such that "from which nothing can come" is possible. That seemed reasonable in his day, but Lawrence Krauss is putting forth the evidence from physical data in our real world that such an assumption cannot be substantiated. We don't know that there ever was or ever could have been the kind of nothing that would provide the context in which that question would make sense. No trick, just physics you can trace to original sources, yourself.
8.3.2012 | 8:06pm
A. Bailey says:
An excellent article with several carefully reasoned responses. Kudos for First Things for encouraging this lively debate.
8.3.2012 | 9:31pm
Fred says:
_A few centuries ago, literacy was a rare skill possessed only by the most educated. But since then there have been many cultures that have come awfully close to universal literacy. Perhaps morality can be taught to more than a "peculiar" few, too._
This strikes me as rather naive. Knowing the good is not willing the good, much less doing the good. As an analogy, who, these days, doesn't know that cigarettes cause cancer? Yet people continue to smoke. Those who smoke do not lack knowledge of the health effects of smoking. They rationalize that they will quit before it happens to them or that their great Uncle Bob smoked until he was 93 and died in a car wreck. Or they care more about immediate pleasure than about effects twenty years or more in the future, or they just don't think about it.
In addition to that problem, even the most brilliant minds in human history have not always agreed about what constitutes morality or even that there is an objective morality. What "morality" is to be taught to the masses? How do we recognize it _as_ morality, and what gives it its force? Those are tough questions to answer in the absence of religion, even for Washington's "peculiar" few. In fact, those 18th century few were still running on the fumes of Christian morality whether they realized it or not.
This strikes me as rather naive. Knowing the good is not willing the good, much less doing the good. As an analogy, who, these days, doesn't know that cigarettes cause cancer? Yet people continue to smoke. Those who smoke do not lack knowledge of the health effects of smoking. They rationalize that they will quit before it happens to them or that their great Uncle Bob smoked until he was 93 and died in a car wreck. Or they care more about immediate pleasure than about effects twenty years or more in the future, or they just don't think about it.
In addition to that problem, even the most brilliant minds in human history have not always agreed about what constitutes morality or even that there is an objective morality. What "morality" is to be taught to the masses? How do we recognize it _as_ morality, and what gives it its force? Those are tough questions to answer in the absence of religion, even for Washington's "peculiar" few. In fact, those 18th century few were still running on the fumes of Christian morality whether they realized it or not.
8.4.2012 | 1:52am
Susan says:
I'm deeply interested in responses to Quine's point about physical nothing vs. metaphysical nothing. It lies at the heart of the issue. Oakes' "checkmate" is premature until it is addressed. Krauss at least makes an effort to apply the evidence to our notions of "nothing".
Fred,
>What "morality" is to be taught to the masses? How do we recognize it _as_ morality, and what gives it its force? Those are tough questions to answer in the absence of religion
I am dying to ask how the presence of religion answers those questions, but it's important to focus on one issue at a time.
What is "nothing" and what does reality say about it?
Fred,
>What "morality" is to be taught to the masses? How do we recognize it _as_ morality, and what gives it its force? Those are tough questions to answer in the absence of religion
I am dying to ask how the presence of religion answers those questions, but it's important to focus on one issue at a time.
What is "nothing" and what does reality say about it?
8.4.2012 | 4:09am
Bret Lythgoe says:
There seem to be two principal problems for the materialist, that he has not been able to successfully answer: why is there something rather than nothing? And if we're merely physical brains, how does one properly address the problem of universals in knowledge?
It may be that Kant was correct that questions such as why there's something rather than nothing, transcend the human mind's capacity to answer. But I must say that, to my mind, Aquinas's answers seem to be rather convincing, at least when he points out that, physical objects, since they rely on other objects to exist, ultimately these contingent physical objects will require a necessary being, who's non-material (God) to explain the existence of you, me, and my cat Lily.
If one is merely a brain, how does one account for the stability of knowledge? If every human brain ceases to exist, (or some other physical structure capable of understanding the universe), do the principles of logic, math, etc., still exist? If matter is all there is, they must not. But this is absurd. It implies that knowledge has no stable ontology, it's just our "creation''. But if math, logic, and so forth, still exist after every material being who can conceive them, ceases to exist, these forms of knowledge must exist in a nonmaterial realm.
One notices that the New Atheists have much to say about what they consider to be the evils of religion, and its logical inconsistencies, and lack of empirical support. And I don't doubt that they do so sincerely, and with integrity. But, at least I haven't heard them provide a satisfactory explanation for how a PURELY MATERIAL reality can make proper sense of the reality of knowledge, or how matter came into existence in the first place.
It may be that Kant was correct that questions such as why there's something rather than nothing, transcend the human mind's capacity to answer. But I must say that, to my mind, Aquinas's answers seem to be rather convincing, at least when he points out that, physical objects, since they rely on other objects to exist, ultimately these contingent physical objects will require a necessary being, who's non-material (God) to explain the existence of you, me, and my cat Lily.
If one is merely a brain, how does one account for the stability of knowledge? If every human brain ceases to exist, (or some other physical structure capable of understanding the universe), do the principles of logic, math, etc., still exist? If matter is all there is, they must not. But this is absurd. It implies that knowledge has no stable ontology, it's just our "creation''. But if math, logic, and so forth, still exist after every material being who can conceive them, ceases to exist, these forms of knowledge must exist in a nonmaterial realm.
One notices that the New Atheists have much to say about what they consider to be the evils of religion, and its logical inconsistencies, and lack of empirical support. And I don't doubt that they do so sincerely, and with integrity. But, at least I haven't heard them provide a satisfactory explanation for how a PURELY MATERIAL reality can make proper sense of the reality of knowledge, or how matter came into existence in the first place.
8.4.2012 | 4:35am
Mick Leahy says:
@ Quine:
"The question put by Liebniz assumes that a "nothing" of the kind such that "from which nothing can come" is possible. That seemed reasonable in his day, but Lawrence Krauss is putting forth the evidence from physical data in our real world that such an assumption cannot be substantiated."
Since proper physics consists of positing a theory and investigating this by experiment and observation, what progress has modern physics made at replicating the appearance of 'something from nothing' in the laboratory?
"The question put by Liebniz assumes that a "nothing" of the kind such that "from which nothing can come" is possible. That seemed reasonable in his day, but Lawrence Krauss is putting forth the evidence from physical data in our real world that such an assumption cannot be substantiated."
Since proper physics consists of positing a theory and investigating this by experiment and observation, what progress has modern physics made at replicating the appearance of 'something from nothing' in the laboratory?
8.4.2012 | 6:14am
Michael PS says:
Harry wrote
“If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes. If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a free will.”
This involves a category mistake, for as Miss Anscombe famously explained to C S Lewis,
“Giving one’s reasons for thinking something is like giving one’s motives for doing something. You might ask me: “why did you half-turn towards the door?” and I explain that I thought I saw a friend coming in, and then realized it was someone else. This may be the explanation although I did not at the time say to myself “Hello! There’s so-and-so; I’ll go and speak to him; oh no, it’s someone else.” So when I give the explanation it is not by way of observing two events and the causal relation between them... The naturalistic hypothesis is that causal laws could be discovered which could be successfully applied to all human behaviour, including thought. If such laws were discovered they would not show that a man’s reasons were not his reasons; for a man who is explaining his reasons is not giving a causal account at all. “Causes,” in the scientific sense in which this word is used when we speak of causal laws, is to be explained in terms of observed regularities: but the declaration of one’s reasons or motives is not founded on observation of regularities. ‘Reasons’ and ‘motives’ are what is elicited from someone whom we ask to explain himself.”
Similarly, we could still point to examples of valid and invalid reasoning, whatever “causal” explanation is offered of the thinking in question.
“If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes. If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a free will.”
This involves a category mistake, for as Miss Anscombe famously explained to C S Lewis,
“Giving one’s reasons for thinking something is like giving one’s motives for doing something. You might ask me: “why did you half-turn towards the door?” and I explain that I thought I saw a friend coming in, and then realized it was someone else. This may be the explanation although I did not at the time say to myself “Hello! There’s so-and-so; I’ll go and speak to him; oh no, it’s someone else.” So when I give the explanation it is not by way of observing two events and the causal relation between them... The naturalistic hypothesis is that causal laws could be discovered which could be successfully applied to all human behaviour, including thought. If such laws were discovered they would not show that a man’s reasons were not his reasons; for a man who is explaining his reasons is not giving a causal account at all. “Causes,” in the scientific sense in which this word is used when we speak of causal laws, is to be explained in terms of observed regularities: but the declaration of one’s reasons or motives is not founded on observation of regularities. ‘Reasons’ and ‘motives’ are what is elicited from someone whom we ask to explain himself.”
Similarly, we could still point to examples of valid and invalid reasoning, whatever “causal” explanation is offered of the thinking in question.
8.4.2012 | 8:52am
Richard says:
The Maverick Philosopher (William Vallicella) has a contemptuous view of Krauss rather similar to Father Oakes.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/04/something-and-nothing-again-krauss-takes-another-stab-at-defending-himself.html
As for Quine's moderate restatements of atheistic broadsides, while not stupid they are not compelling. Neither side has a knockout punch that will put the other out of the game. Atheism and theism are ways of life. You think things through, consult your experience, choose, live and die.
Best,
Richard
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/04/something-and-nothing-again-krauss-takes-another-stab-at-defending-himself.html
As for Quine's moderate restatements of atheistic broadsides, while not stupid they are not compelling. Neither side has a knockout punch that will put the other out of the game. Atheism and theism are ways of life. You think things through, consult your experience, choose, live and die.
Best,
Richard
8.4.2012 | 9:26am
Ray Ingles says:
Fred, I know that "Knowing the good is not willing the good", but what if morality is conceived not as a set of commandments and laws, but rather as an attempt to engineer better ways for humans to get along with each other?
I know Dawkins is always wrong ( :-) ) but his chapter on the "Zeitgeist" in "The God Delusion" is instructive. Or there's Stephen Pinker's "History of Violence": http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker
Certainly there does seem to be a direction of moral progress - not unlike how engineering has progressed - a widening of the circle of who 'really counts' and what treatment they can expect. It's true that there isn't universal agreement about morality among theists (so why demand it among atheists? oh well) but even Sam Harris (another one who's always wrong) has a few interesting points - just like there's no single school of design and engineering in any field, and just like there's no single overarching cuisine, we can nevertheless identify things that *don't* work or that *aren't* food - and perhaps even identify things that are wrong for humans.
Humans have inbuilt talents for language, but there's a critical period where they have to be engaged and developed, or acquiring language will be difficult later. There's evidence that even animals have basic moral reasoning talents (concepts of fairness, for example) which is hardly surprising since other animals form a huge component of the environment animals have to survive in.
I know Dawkins is always wrong ( :-) ) but his chapter on the "Zeitgeist" in "The God Delusion" is instructive. Or there's Stephen Pinker's "History of Violence": http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker
Certainly there does seem to be a direction of moral progress - not unlike how engineering has progressed - a widening of the circle of who 'really counts' and what treatment they can expect. It's true that there isn't universal agreement about morality among theists (so why demand it among atheists? oh well) but even Sam Harris (another one who's always wrong) has a few interesting points - just like there's no single school of design and engineering in any field, and just like there's no single overarching cuisine, we can nevertheless identify things that *don't* work or that *aren't* food - and perhaps even identify things that are wrong for humans.
Humans have inbuilt talents for language, but there's a critical period where they have to be engaged and developed, or acquiring language will be difficult later. There's evidence that even animals have basic moral reasoning talents (concepts of fairness, for example) which is hardly surprising since other animals form a huge component of the environment animals have to survive in.
8.4.2012 | 10:59am
A. Bailey says:
"The more things change, the more they stay the same..." or so it seems to me.
I'm reading one of Reno's suggested books, "A brief history of thought" by Luc Ferry and came across this interesting quote:
"The starting-point for anyone who is to live in accordance with nature is the universe as a whole and its governance. Moreoever, one cannot make correct judgements about good and evil unless one understands the whole system of nature, and even of the life of the gods, not know whether or not human nature is in harmony with that of the universe. Similarly, those ancient precepts of the wise that bid us 'to respect the right moment', to 'follow God', to 'know thyself', and 'do nothing to excess' cannot be grasped in their full force (which is immense) without a knowledge of physics. This science alone can reveal to us the power of nature to foster justice, and perserve friendship and other bonds of affection." Cicero, On Moral Ends, iii,73.
"God", of course was conceived by the Greeks as That which shows the ability to be self-organized without a requirement for divine (in Judeo-Christian terms) intervention.
I'm quite sure Quine can obscure the similarities.
I'm reading one of Reno's suggested books, "A brief history of thought" by Luc Ferry and came across this interesting quote:
"The starting-point for anyone who is to live in accordance with nature is the universe as a whole and its governance. Moreoever, one cannot make correct judgements about good and evil unless one understands the whole system of nature, and even of the life of the gods, not know whether or not human nature is in harmony with that of the universe. Similarly, those ancient precepts of the wise that bid us 'to respect the right moment', to 'follow God', to 'know thyself', and 'do nothing to excess' cannot be grasped in their full force (which is immense) without a knowledge of physics. This science alone can reveal to us the power of nature to foster justice, and perserve friendship and other bonds of affection." Cicero, On Moral Ends, iii,73.
"God", of course was conceived by the Greeks as That which shows the ability to be self-organized without a requirement for divine (in Judeo-Christian terms) intervention.
I'm quite sure Quine can obscure the similarities.
8.4.2012 | 11:22am
Edward T. Oakes says:
I appreciate the comments on my brief set of observations discussing the contradictions of New Atheist arguments; but I am a bit puzzled at the concentration of my critics on the Krauss book, which I mentioned only as a leadl-in to my main point: the "arguments" of Rosenberg that atheism entails an absence of consciousness in the universe. Oddly, he's right! This is why unbelieving philosophers like Daniel Dennett and neuroscientists like the Churchlands struggle to expel what they call the "folk psychology" of consciousness, intentionality, qualia, indeed the entire subject realm of, well, the SOUL
They can take scandal at the fact of consciousness all they want, but it's still there, in all its scandalous splendor. To quote the great G. K. Chesterton: "It was not that I began by believing in supernormal things. It was that the unbelievers began by disbelieving in even normal things. It was the secularists who drove me to theological ethics, by themselves destroying any sane or rational possibility of secular ethics.”
As to Krauss and his defenders, I still insist that his argument depends on changing the meaning of "nothing" to "something," a point obvioius enough from the quotes I adduced above. But I'm hardly the only one to point this out. Not only has Edward Feser done so in the June/July issue of FIRST THINGS, but so has David Albert, a quantum physicist himself and philosoper of science at Columbia, who said: "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted."
In my opinion, the New Atheists have now jumped the shark and have become risible in the process. In their totalizing efforts to replace the arguments of natural theology with their own "natural a-theology" they have reached their end game by completely contradicting not only themselves but reality itself. That for me is one of the great boons of faith in God: it allows one to face reality head-on, and above all without despair. I shall conclude with a final quote from Chesterton's Autobiography:
“When I had been for some time in these, the darkest depths of contemporary pessimism, I had a strong inward impulse to revolt; to dislodge this incubus or throw off this nightmare. But as I was still thinking the thing out by myself, with little help from philosophy and no real help from religion, I invented a rudimentary and makeshift mystical theory of my own. It was substantially this: that even mere existence, reduced to its most primary limits, was extraordinary enough to be exciting. Anything was magnificent as compared with nothing. Even if the daylight were a dream, it was a daydream; it was not a nightmare."
They can take scandal at the fact of consciousness all they want, but it's still there, in all its scandalous splendor. To quote the great G. K. Chesterton: "It was not that I began by believing in supernormal things. It was that the unbelievers began by disbelieving in even normal things. It was the secularists who drove me to theological ethics, by themselves destroying any sane or rational possibility of secular ethics.”
As to Krauss and his defenders, I still insist that his argument depends on changing the meaning of "nothing" to "something," a point obvioius enough from the quotes I adduced above. But I'm hardly the only one to point this out. Not only has Edward Feser done so in the June/July issue of FIRST THINGS, but so has David Albert, a quantum physicist himself and philosoper of science at Columbia, who said: "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted."
In my opinion, the New Atheists have now jumped the shark and have become risible in the process. In their totalizing efforts to replace the arguments of natural theology with their own "natural a-theology" they have reached their end game by completely contradicting not only themselves but reality itself. That for me is one of the great boons of faith in God: it allows one to face reality head-on, and above all without despair. I shall conclude with a final quote from Chesterton's Autobiography:
“When I had been for some time in these, the darkest depths of contemporary pessimism, I had a strong inward impulse to revolt; to dislodge this incubus or throw off this nightmare. But as I was still thinking the thing out by myself, with little help from philosophy and no real help from religion, I invented a rudimentary and makeshift mystical theory of my own. It was substantially this: that even mere existence, reduced to its most primary limits, was extraordinary enough to be exciting. Anything was magnificent as compared with nothing. Even if the daylight were a dream, it was a daydream; it was not a nightmare."
8.4.2012 | 1:41pm
Fred says:
Well Susan, we certainly wouldn't want you to die, so here goes. Talking of morality in the absence of an objective moral order is closely analogous to talking about science in the absence of an objective physical order. It simply makes no sense. In the absence of an objective moral order, "morality" descends to the arbitrary will of individuals or groups.
I've heard various atheist/materialist/relativist arguments for morality without that objective moral order. For example: We can think or reason our way to morality. In fact, we can't. Reason can tell us that certain actions will save or preserve life; it can never tell us that saving or preserving life is a good thing. That is a moral position that must be accepted antecedent to any reasoning on the best way to achieve it. Reason can tell us that theft, rape, arson, and murder must be minimized to the greatest possible extent for society to function; it can never tell us that a functioning society is a good thing. That must be accepted as a moral matter before it can become the subject of moral reasoning. In short, morality, even for atheists, requires faith.
I've also heard the neo-darwinian argument. Ray Ingles made a variation of it on a comment thread on another blog. Human societies develop ways of getting along, what Ray called "Rules of the Game," in order to survive. Those that do not develop those rules do not survive. Therefore, all surviving societies have some sort of cultural idea of morality. That's true as far as it goes, but like his comment on education, it is naive. Various societies have, in the course of their evolution, developed truly horrible rules to equally horrible games. An example that is starkly illustrative of this: In Texas in 1833, a Comanche war party raided the Parker ranch. They killed everyone there except a few women and children they captured for slaves. One of the women they captured (a girl actually; she was 17) was pregnant at the time. By the time the baby was born, she had learned enough Comanche to beg for the child's life. A tribal council decided that taking care of the baby would take the woman away from her slave labor, so a party of warriors took the baby from her, strangled it, and handed it back to her. When it still showed signs of life, they took it back, tied a rope around its neck and dragged it behind a horse through a prickly pear grove. This was not the aberrant act of a few evil individuals. It was completely in accord with the morality of the tribe. By Ray's darwinian definition of morality, there is no basis for condemning this act. It was in accord with tribal mores that had developed by natural selection and that worked quite well for the Comanche (they had an empire that stretched across several modern states, including the largest, Texas; had raided and ruled other Indian tribes at will, had held off Spanish colonization for two centuries, and prevented American colonization for a century). The problem with darwinian or other relativist arguments is that _absolutely any act_ , even torturing a seven week old baby to death, is moral provided it forms a part of some culture's morality. If absolutely any act is moral, morality is meaningless.
So how does religion fit in? At least in the great monotheistic religions, morality does arise from an objective moral order created by a loving God as an integral part of the entire order of the universe. So can an objective moral order exist without God? Unless you're a pantheist, it's hard to see how. Morality is purposive; it is, among other things, meaningful rules directed toward providing the means to live a good life, and contains within it the good toward which life should be directed. How does such a purposive, meaningful order emerge from a meaningless, chaotic, random, mechanical order? It is also non-material. It is therefore, impossible in a materialist metaphysics, unless you believe there are some sort of material moral particles (morons, maybe?) that make up an objective physical moral order. Hopefully, Susan, this will spare your life. It is, after all, the moral thing to do ;)
I've heard various atheist/materialist/relativist arguments for morality without that objective moral order. For example: We can think or reason our way to morality. In fact, we can't. Reason can tell us that certain actions will save or preserve life; it can never tell us that saving or preserving life is a good thing. That is a moral position that must be accepted antecedent to any reasoning on the best way to achieve it. Reason can tell us that theft, rape, arson, and murder must be minimized to the greatest possible extent for society to function; it can never tell us that a functioning society is a good thing. That must be accepted as a moral matter before it can become the subject of moral reasoning. In short, morality, even for atheists, requires faith.
I've also heard the neo-darwinian argument. Ray Ingles made a variation of it on a comment thread on another blog. Human societies develop ways of getting along, what Ray called "Rules of the Game," in order to survive. Those that do not develop those rules do not survive. Therefore, all surviving societies have some sort of cultural idea of morality. That's true as far as it goes, but like his comment on education, it is naive. Various societies have, in the course of their evolution, developed truly horrible rules to equally horrible games. An example that is starkly illustrative of this: In Texas in 1833, a Comanche war party raided the Parker ranch. They killed everyone there except a few women and children they captured for slaves. One of the women they captured (a girl actually; she was 17) was pregnant at the time. By the time the baby was born, she had learned enough Comanche to beg for the child's life. A tribal council decided that taking care of the baby would take the woman away from her slave labor, so a party of warriors took the baby from her, strangled it, and handed it back to her. When it still showed signs of life, they took it back, tied a rope around its neck and dragged it behind a horse through a prickly pear grove. This was not the aberrant act of a few evil individuals. It was completely in accord with the morality of the tribe. By Ray's darwinian definition of morality, there is no basis for condemning this act. It was in accord with tribal mores that had developed by natural selection and that worked quite well for the Comanche (they had an empire that stretched across several modern states, including the largest, Texas; had raided and ruled other Indian tribes at will, had held off Spanish colonization for two centuries, and prevented American colonization for a century). The problem with darwinian or other relativist arguments is that _absolutely any act_ , even torturing a seven week old baby to death, is moral provided it forms a part of some culture's morality. If absolutely any act is moral, morality is meaningless.
So how does religion fit in? At least in the great monotheistic religions, morality does arise from an objective moral order created by a loving God as an integral part of the entire order of the universe. So can an objective moral order exist without God? Unless you're a pantheist, it's hard to see how. Morality is purposive; it is, among other things, meaningful rules directed toward providing the means to live a good life, and contains within it the good toward which life should be directed. How does such a purposive, meaningful order emerge from a meaningless, chaotic, random, mechanical order? It is also non-material. It is therefore, impossible in a materialist metaphysics, unless you believe there are some sort of material moral particles (morons, maybe?) that make up an objective physical moral order. Hopefully, Susan, this will spare your life. It is, after all, the moral thing to do ;)
8.4.2012 | 2:12pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
Krauss feels that Aristotle must have imagined an empty jar to be "nothing." You would think a believer in empirical evidence might have at least collected data on what Aristotle actually wrote.
But of course, Einstein once wrote that space and time were metaphysical intrusions and had no place in empirical science. They were consequences of matter: "Formerly, people thought that if matter disappeared from the universe, space and time would remain. Relativity declares that space and time would disappear with matter." -- Albert Einstein
But of course, Einstein once wrote that space and time were metaphysical intrusions and had no place in empirical science. They were consequences of matter: "Formerly, people thought that if matter disappeared from the universe, space and time would remain. Relativity declares that space and time would disappear with matter." -- Albert Einstein
8.4.2012 | 3:03pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Harry:
“If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes.”
I do not think options are limited between materialistic monism and some traditional form of dualism. It can be argued that while the base of human consciousness is material, the laws governing consciousness are not purely mechanical. See non reductive physicalism of philosopher Donald Davidson, for instance.
Jason:
“Sergio the proper argument is "the concept of morality is incompatible with Philosophical Materialism"”
No question for my part on that one. But then keep in mind not all atheists are materialists, nor are obliged to.
Nick:
I really fail to see how trinatarian version of God saves you in any way from the Eutrypho Dilema. The problem of morality defined in its own terms, as thing-in-itself and not as the capricious decree of a being (composed of 2 o3 persons), is still not solved.
Mick:
“You appear to claim that only atheists can be moral.”
I never claimed that. I claimed that the problem of evil makes very hard for the theist to claim that morality comes from God (or worse,that only God can be the foundation of morality, which is even more complicated when you add the Eutrypho Dilema).
“Were there no God, I would consider myself a fool to be moralistic, except to the degree it might keep me out of trouble with the law, otherwise why would I not maximise my pleasure and other interests, and to (non-existent) hell with everybody else?”
So you follow moral rules not because you think they are good on themselves but only cause you fear punishment? How that doesn´t make your conception of morality a utilitarian one (you are only maximizing your benefit vis a vis eternal life). That is a very sad way to think about good, if you ask me.
“If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes.”
I do not think options are limited between materialistic monism and some traditional form of dualism. It can be argued that while the base of human consciousness is material, the laws governing consciousness are not purely mechanical. See non reductive physicalism of philosopher Donald Davidson, for instance.
Jason:
“Sergio the proper argument is "the concept of morality is incompatible with Philosophical Materialism"”
No question for my part on that one. But then keep in mind not all atheists are materialists, nor are obliged to.
Nick:
I really fail to see how trinatarian version of God saves you in any way from the Eutrypho Dilema. The problem of morality defined in its own terms, as thing-in-itself and not as the capricious decree of a being (composed of 2 o3 persons), is still not solved.
Mick:
“You appear to claim that only atheists can be moral.”
I never claimed that. I claimed that the problem of evil makes very hard for the theist to claim that morality comes from God (or worse,that only God can be the foundation of morality, which is even more complicated when you add the Eutrypho Dilema).
“Were there no God, I would consider myself a fool to be moralistic, except to the degree it might keep me out of trouble with the law, otherwise why would I not maximise my pleasure and other interests, and to (non-existent) hell with everybody else?”
So you follow moral rules not because you think they are good on themselves but only cause you fear punishment? How that doesn´t make your conception of morality a utilitarian one (you are only maximizing your benefit vis a vis eternal life). That is a very sad way to think about good, if you ask me.
8.4.2012 | 4:45pm
Bob Drury says:
“In that light, what’s really new about the New Atheists is their reliance on an oxymoron: they actually seem to believe in a utopian Darwinism —a faith-based science if there ever was one.”
A utopian Darwinism is fully consistent with the basic premise of the New Atheists as exemplified by Richard Dawkins. That basic premise is that human knowledge of material reality is the inference of probability. Darwinism, which is optimistic, follows. An essay in the forthcoming fall issue of the DES Journal asks, “What is modern in the new atheism?” and answers, “The inference of probability” (deltaepsilonsigma.org). What is fascinating is that so many theists accept the inference of probability from material phenomena, most recently, Stephen M. Barr in his essay, “Does Quantum Physics make it easier to believe in God?” (Bigquestionsonline.com).
If, as in Aristotelian Thomism, change is the transition from potency to act, then material reality is inherently intelligible. If, in contrast, change is the transition from probability to outcome, then material reality is inherently irrational. The source of intelligibility defaults to the individual human mind and atheistic relativism is the true philosophy.
A utopian Darwinism is fully consistent with the basic premise of the New Atheists as exemplified by Richard Dawkins. That basic premise is that human knowledge of material reality is the inference of probability. Darwinism, which is optimistic, follows. An essay in the forthcoming fall issue of the DES Journal asks, “What is modern in the new atheism?” and answers, “The inference of probability” (deltaepsilonsigma.org). What is fascinating is that so many theists accept the inference of probability from material phenomena, most recently, Stephen M. Barr in his essay, “Does Quantum Physics make it easier to believe in God?” (Bigquestionsonline.com).
If, as in Aristotelian Thomism, change is the transition from potency to act, then material reality is inherently intelligible. If, in contrast, change is the transition from probability to outcome, then material reality is inherently irrational. The source of intelligibility defaults to the individual human mind and atheistic relativism is the true philosophy.
8.4.2012 | 6:15pm
Sean says:
Quine's argument that we can only imagine nothing, as physical existence doesn't appear to admit of it, needs further consideration
Those who believe in God advance an argument that is more likely to correspond with Quine's argument: God has always been, and creation flowed from Him. There has always been something.
But the atheist makes a case for eternal physical existence, and has yet to establish how the evidence for every physical thing having an origin does not hold with respect to the universe. And if it is possible that the universe is subject to its own laws, and does have an origin, and this origin is not traceable to God, then it must be traceable to nothing.
The atheist's case has a far greater tendency to incline to the possibility of nothing, although the physical evidence posted by Quine militates against such a condition.
And Quine has to now counter the argument in the essay by Edward Feser, quoted by Fr. Oakes, in order to convince us believers that the road of atheism does not lead to nothing. Feser writes (and jb should take note):
"But Krauss simply can't see the 'difference betweenarguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.' The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation."
Those who believe in God advance an argument that is more likely to correspond with Quine's argument: God has always been, and creation flowed from Him. There has always been something.
But the atheist makes a case for eternal physical existence, and has yet to establish how the evidence for every physical thing having an origin does not hold with respect to the universe. And if it is possible that the universe is subject to its own laws, and does have an origin, and this origin is not traceable to God, then it must be traceable to nothing.
The atheist's case has a far greater tendency to incline to the possibility of nothing, although the physical evidence posted by Quine militates against such a condition.
And Quine has to now counter the argument in the essay by Edward Feser, quoted by Fr. Oakes, in order to convince us believers that the road of atheism does not lead to nothing. Feser writes (and jb should take note):
"But Krauss simply can't see the 'difference betweenarguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.' The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation."
8.4.2012 | 7:03pm
Susan says:
>I am a bit puzzled at the concentration of my critics on the Krauss book, which I mentioned only as a leadl-in to my main point:
Perhaps because you claimed to have won the point ("Checkmate.") without having done so, and dismissively placed Krauss's contributions to the discussion on a "vaudeville stage", as though they were no better than schtick. It's difficult to let that one pass, without asking you to develop your argument.
>As to Krauss and his defenders, I still insist that his argument depends on changing the meaning of "nothing" to "something,"
You can insist all you like but you're avoiding the issue. You've completely ignored Quine's point:
>The result is that we no longer can assume that the classical idea of the truly empty jar (metaphysical nothing) can or ever could exist (as in the quote p.151) outside of our imaginations.
I think it's important that you address that. It's easy to play games with "nothing".
Perhaps because you claimed to have won the point ("Checkmate.") without having done so, and dismissively placed Krauss's contributions to the discussion on a "vaudeville stage", as though they were no better than schtick. It's difficult to let that one pass, without asking you to develop your argument.
>As to Krauss and his defenders, I still insist that his argument depends on changing the meaning of "nothing" to "something,"
You can insist all you like but you're avoiding the issue. You've completely ignored Quine's point:
>The result is that we no longer can assume that the classical idea of the truly empty jar (metaphysical nothing) can or ever could exist (as in the quote p.151) outside of our imaginations.
I think it's important that you address that. It's easy to play games with "nothing".
8.4.2012 | 8:31pm
harry says:
harry wrote:
“If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes. If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a free will.”
Michael PS wrote:
“This involves a category mistake …”
The categories I had in mind were the natural and the supernatural. Everything that exists falls into one of those two categories. If there is no incorporeal (supernatural) component to the human intellect, then all that we think and do must indeed be due to natural causes because that is the only category left. And if all we think and do can ultimately be traced back to strictly natural causes then we can't have a free will; it only seems like we do.
Of course, we most certainly do have an incorporeal component to our intellect. How do we know that? Because an immaterial, abstract concept can be communicated to us and we can grasp it, our intellect seizes upon it and it changes us. If the human intellect was strictly physical it couldn't seize upon and be affected by that which is immaterial.
A very sophisticated android might mimic human behavior flawlessly, but ultimately its behavior is a programmed response to stimuli, be that auditory, visual, tactile, or whatever else. It “knows” no more than the image of the person talking on your television set “knows.” The person whose image you are seeing “knows,” not their image. The android is just a three dimensional “image” of a human being. There is no more anyone home in the android than there is in the image on your television set. The android knows no more than your electric can opener knows. Like it, it is just a machine, albeit a very intricate and complex one. It will never seize upon and be affected by an immaterial, abstract concept because there is nobody home to do so. The immaterial can have no effect on its strictly material “brains.” The strictly material android will never know anything.
Our natural bodies without a rational soul, like the strictly material android except that our bodies are much, much more intricate and complex “machines,” would never be able to grasp and be affected by immaterial, abstract concepts. We can grasp them and be affected by them because there is somebody home to do so: our rational soul. Again, the immaterial can have no effect on strictly physical “brains.” That we are affected by the immaterial indicates the presence of our rational soul.
The android can only take the action it was inevitable that it take given its programming and a particular set of stimuli, even if it is programmed to scratch its chin, furrowed its brow, and purse its lips so as to appear to ponder over what to do before it does what it must. Because there IS an incorporeal component to the human intellect, the behavior of which is not merely the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes, we can “know,” “ponder” and make a true choice, exercising our free will.
“If there is no incorporeal component to the human intellect (a “rational soul”) then ultimately all we think and do is deterministic, the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes. If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a free will.”
Michael PS wrote:
“This involves a category mistake …”
The categories I had in mind were the natural and the supernatural. Everything that exists falls into one of those two categories. If there is no incorporeal (supernatural) component to the human intellect, then all that we think and do must indeed be due to natural causes because that is the only category left. And if all we think and do can ultimately be traced back to strictly natural causes then we can't have a free will; it only seems like we do.
Of course, we most certainly do have an incorporeal component to our intellect. How do we know that? Because an immaterial, abstract concept can be communicated to us and we can grasp it, our intellect seizes upon it and it changes us. If the human intellect was strictly physical it couldn't seize upon and be affected by that which is immaterial.
A very sophisticated android might mimic human behavior flawlessly, but ultimately its behavior is a programmed response to stimuli, be that auditory, visual, tactile, or whatever else. It “knows” no more than the image of the person talking on your television set “knows.” The person whose image you are seeing “knows,” not their image. The android is just a three dimensional “image” of a human being. There is no more anyone home in the android than there is in the image on your television set. The android knows no more than your electric can opener knows. Like it, it is just a machine, albeit a very intricate and complex one. It will never seize upon and be affected by an immaterial, abstract concept because there is nobody home to do so. The immaterial can have no effect on its strictly material “brains.” The strictly material android will never know anything.
Our natural bodies without a rational soul, like the strictly material android except that our bodies are much, much more intricate and complex “machines,” would never be able to grasp and be affected by immaterial, abstract concepts. We can grasp them and be affected by them because there is somebody home to do so: our rational soul. Again, the immaterial can have no effect on strictly physical “brains.” That we are affected by the immaterial indicates the presence of our rational soul.
The android can only take the action it was inevitable that it take given its programming and a particular set of stimuli, even if it is programmed to scratch its chin, furrowed its brow, and purse its lips so as to appear to ponder over what to do before it does what it must. Because there IS an incorporeal component to the human intellect, the behavior of which is not merely the inevitable consequence of antecedent material causes, we can “know,” “ponder” and make a true choice, exercising our free will.
8.4.2012 | 10:26pm
Susan says:
Fred,
>Well Susan, we certainly wouldn't want you to die, so here goes.
Thank you, Fred. I appreciate the thought. :-)
I would be grateful if you explained what you mean when you say "good" and/or "moral". If there are objective moral values, how would we know they are objective moral values? Please don't interpret that as a claim that there can't be any. I would just like you to define what "moral" means, what "good" means, how we would know them to see them, and what Yahweh contributes to any of these questions. Please be specific. You're the one making the claim. Unless you make it clearly, I can't know whether it's a reasonable one or not.
Without evidence, Yahweh is another god among thousands. The morality you claim emanates from your chosen god doesn't get a free pass. The very complicated and deeply important discussions humans must have about what we mean when we say "good" and/or "moral" take place in the real world and their merit should be evaluated by their impact on sentient life forms on this planet. Can we agree on that? From there, it can get very complicated but we have shown signs as a species of making progress, at least in some areas.
One can't say that "objective moral values" prove Yahweh and that Yahweh logically exists because there are "objective moral values". This is just another way of circumventing requests for evidence for your choice of a god.
Edward Oakes has packed together in one OP, checkmate claims about "nothingness", "objective moral values", and "consciousness". along with one specific theologian's strategic strawmanning of "the atheist position", and has managed, intentionally or not, to avoid probing any of these subjects in any real depth.
Anyone with an interest in the substance of these arguments (including physicists, neuroscientists and philosophers) knows that many of the words traditionally used in these discussions has forced us to seek further evidence in order to make sense of our questions and that this evidence has impacted our assumptions about what the right question necessarily is. The conclusions that Edward Oakes pretends to have made on any of these subjects is not close to having been made.
All I'm asking for are definitions that are clear, even if tentative, and that the positions we take are in line with the evidence.
Really, this can only be taken on one big subject at a time and if I have to choose, I'd like to start with "nothingness".
What does it mean? What can it mean? If it exists, it's already something by definition or it wouldn't exist. I would like to see Quine's point about nothing addressed.
To be fair though, I've already stuck my nose out on objective moral values.
So have a go, either way.
>Well Susan, we certainly wouldn't want you to die, so here goes.
Thank you, Fred. I appreciate the thought. :-)
I would be grateful if you explained what you mean when you say "good" and/or "moral". If there are objective moral values, how would we know they are objective moral values? Please don't interpret that as a claim that there can't be any. I would just like you to define what "moral" means, what "good" means, how we would know them to see them, and what Yahweh contributes to any of these questions. Please be specific. You're the one making the claim. Unless you make it clearly, I can't know whether it's a reasonable one or not.
Without evidence, Yahweh is another god among thousands. The morality you claim emanates from your chosen god doesn't get a free pass. The very complicated and deeply important discussions humans must have about what we mean when we say "good" and/or "moral" take place in the real world and their merit should be evaluated by their impact on sentient life forms on this planet. Can we agree on that? From there, it can get very complicated but we have shown signs as a species of making progress, at least in some areas.
One can't say that "objective moral values" prove Yahweh and that Yahweh logically exists because there are "objective moral values". This is just another way of circumventing requests for evidence for your choice of a god.
Edward Oakes has packed together in one OP, checkmate claims about "nothingness", "objective moral values", and "consciousness". along with one specific theologian's strategic strawmanning of "the atheist position", and has managed, intentionally or not, to avoid probing any of these subjects in any real depth.
Anyone with an interest in the substance of these arguments (including physicists, neuroscientists and philosophers) knows that many of the words traditionally used in these discussions has forced us to seek further evidence in order to make sense of our questions and that this evidence has impacted our assumptions about what the right question necessarily is. The conclusions that Edward Oakes pretends to have made on any of these subjects is not close to having been made.
All I'm asking for are definitions that are clear, even if tentative, and that the positions we take are in line with the evidence.
Really, this can only be taken on one big subject at a time and if I have to choose, I'd like to start with "nothingness".
What does it mean? What can it mean? If it exists, it's already something by definition or it wouldn't exist. I would like to see Quine's point about nothing addressed.
To be fair though, I've already stuck my nose out on objective moral values.
So have a go, either way.
8.4.2012 | 10:44pm
Susan says:
Sean says,
>And if it is possible that the universe is subject to its own laws, and does have an origin, and this origin is not traceable to God, then it must be traceable to nothing.
How so? How is it that if this "origin" is not traceable to Yahweh, that it must be traceable to nothing?
First, what do you mean by nothing?
>And if it is possible that the universe is subject to its own laws, and does have an origin, and this origin is not traceable to God, then it must be traceable to nothing.
How so? How is it that if this "origin" is not traceable to Yahweh, that it must be traceable to nothing?
First, what do you mean by nothing?
8.5.2012 | 10:51am
A. Bailey says:
Sergio wrote: "So you follow moral rules not because you think they are good on themselves but only cause you fear punishment? How that doesn´t make your conception of morality a utilitarian one (you are only maximizing your benefit vis a vis eternal life). That is a very sad way to think about good, if you ask me."
I hate to go all fundy on you but we would answer that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Given that our culture is particularly adept at divorcing actions from moral consequences, this proverb is more relevant than ever.
Fear is an excellent motivator to change behavior, but it isn't the final answer, as "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:18 ESV)"
I hate to go all fundy on you but we would answer that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Given that our culture is particularly adept at divorcing actions from moral consequences, this proverb is more relevant than ever.
Fear is an excellent motivator to change behavior, but it isn't the final answer, as "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:18 ESV)"
8.5.2012 | 1:24pm
Sean says:
Susan, there are two choices for the atheist, at least as far as I can discern Quine's argument:
1. the universe has always existed, in which case the atheist has yet to establish that the universe is not subject to its own laws, i.e., that the universe is the one physical thing that does not have an origin; or,
2. the universe originated.
If the latter, then it must have come from some non-physical state, because physicality must, in this case, be subject to origination.
And if the originator is non-physical, then it is either spirit or nothing - nothing being the absence of anything.
The atheist does not admit of the Spirit, so the alternative is nothing. If you find this unsatisfying, then I have this question:
What evidence is there that the universe is exempt from all physical law as we know it and is not subject to origination?
Is it possible that universe originated, and if so, from what did it orginate?
1. the universe has always existed, in which case the atheist has yet to establish that the universe is not subject to its own laws, i.e., that the universe is the one physical thing that does not have an origin; or,
2. the universe originated.
If the latter, then it must have come from some non-physical state, because physicality must, in this case, be subject to origination.
And if the originator is non-physical, then it is either spirit or nothing - nothing being the absence of anything.
The atheist does not admit of the Spirit, so the alternative is nothing. If you find this unsatisfying, then I have this question:
What evidence is there that the universe is exempt from all physical law as we know it and is not subject to origination?
Is it possible that universe originated, and if so, from what did it orginate?
8.5.2012 | 4:03pm
Quine says:
I see that many interesting things are now in this thread, so I will try to answer at least a few, and apologize in advance for what I may overlook; I am sure folks will remind me.
First off, I would have very much liked to have responed to the piece by Edward Feser back when it was first posted, but comments were not enabled. I don't think it is fair to derail this thread by doing all that, here and now, but will address some of it, and to the best of my ability, the sections that others have brought into this thread.
Krauss has not "redefined nothing" but rather, told us things about it that were not known in the acient past. No matter how empty the jar, we know from objective empirical evidence that "stuff" (matter-energy) is always roiling away on the quantum level, even though we see that as a statistical wash as viewed from our "big" world. The big point that Krauss is making is that in weighing the mass and positive energy on one side, and the negative gravitational energy from expansion on the other, physicists now have a net-zero in Universal "stuff." Thus, nothing has come from nothing, it's just separated into two piles of plus and minus that don't add up to anything.
As I wrote, earlier, many point out that you have to take out the quantum field (whatever that really is) to get down to metaphysical nothing. The thing is, as Sean picked up above, we only have experimental data about physical nothing, and don't have any justification to support the assumption that metaphysical nothing is possible, anywhere or anywhen.
Sean points out correctly, that the standard theological philosophy also contradicts metaphysical nothing because the postulation of omnipresent and eternal deities means there was never and nowhere a "nothing from which nothing can come." What we are learning of the quantum world is that there may be no physical "laws" when you get down below what is call the "Plank limit" and that everything that can go on down there is going on, and what we model as "physical laws" are what statically washes out as seen from our level.
The bottom line is that we now know that the Universe, in terms of all "stuff" that we have evidence does exist, was in a very small hot space some 13.75 billion years ago. The point where it cooled down enough to become transparent to light is the earliest from which we have direct data (although there may be gravational wave data to be had at some future time when our descendents have big enough gravation wave telescopes). Continuing to run backwards (about 300k years to extrapolated time zero) on our models, we can work out a quantum sized event arising without direct cause, our origin.
It may be that the random quantum events at the smallest scale are the "necessary existance" that the acients attributed to a "disembodied mind." We would not do that, today, because we know so much more about what it takes to have a sensing, processing and effecting system necessary to be the platform of any kind of "mind." You can't sense without a change in state over time, nor process, nor take action. Early people speculated on thousands of deities to act as intentional agents to explain the world around them. Theology came along to try to back-story reason into some of those deities. We did not "redefine lighting" to eliminate Zues, we did experiments and collected objective evidence to find out more about lighting. So it is with the difference between our past ideas of "nothing" and what we are learning, now, from looking at the real world.
First off, I would have very much liked to have responed to the piece by Edward Feser back when it was first posted, but comments were not enabled. I don't think it is fair to derail this thread by doing all that, here and now, but will address some of it, and to the best of my ability, the sections that others have brought into this thread.
Krauss has not "redefined nothing" but rather, told us things about it that were not known in the acient past. No matter how empty the jar, we know from objective empirical evidence that "stuff" (matter-energy) is always roiling away on the quantum level, even though we see that as a statistical wash as viewed from our "big" world. The big point that Krauss is making is that in weighing the mass and positive energy on one side, and the negative gravitational energy from expansion on the other, physicists now have a net-zero in Universal "stuff." Thus, nothing has come from nothing, it's just separated into two piles of plus and minus that don't add up to anything.
As I wrote, earlier, many point out that you have to take out the quantum field (whatever that really is) to get down to metaphysical nothing. The thing is, as Sean picked up above, we only have experimental data about physical nothing, and don't have any justification to support the assumption that metaphysical nothing is possible, anywhere or anywhen.
Sean points out correctly, that the standard theological philosophy also contradicts metaphysical nothing because the postulation of omnipresent and eternal deities means there was never and nowhere a "nothing from which nothing can come." What we are learning of the quantum world is that there may be no physical "laws" when you get down below what is call the "Plank limit" and that everything that can go on down there is going on, and what we model as "physical laws" are what statically washes out as seen from our level.
The bottom line is that we now know that the Universe, in terms of all "stuff" that we have evidence does exist, was in a very small hot space some 13.75 billion years ago. The point where it cooled down enough to become transparent to light is the earliest from which we have direct data (although there may be gravational wave data to be had at some future time when our descendents have big enough gravation wave telescopes). Continuing to run backwards (about 300k years to extrapolated time zero) on our models, we can work out a quantum sized event arising without direct cause, our origin.
It may be that the random quantum events at the smallest scale are the "necessary existance" that the acients attributed to a "disembodied mind." We would not do that, today, because we know so much more about what it takes to have a sensing, processing and effecting system necessary to be the platform of any kind of "mind." You can't sense without a change in state over time, nor process, nor take action. Early people speculated on thousands of deities to act as intentional agents to explain the world around them. Theology came along to try to back-story reason into some of those deities. We did not "redefine lighting" to eliminate Zues, we did experiments and collected objective evidence to find out more about lighting. So it is with the difference between our past ideas of "nothing" and what we are learning, now, from looking at the real world.
8.5.2012 | 4:42pm
harry says:
Susan wrote:
“First, what do you mean by nothing?”
I am not the one Susan responded to with that question, but for whatever its worth, here is what I mean by nothing.
Nothingness, for the purposes of a discussion of the origin of the natural Universe, is the absence of any non-supernatural realities. If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, then I suppose one would say it is the absence of all natural realities.
If God holds the natural Universe in existence, and if the Universe would cease to exist the instant God stopped doing so (as orthodox Catholics and others believe), then the laws of physics, it seems to me, are nothing more than God's consistency in the manner in which He holds the natural Universe in existence. (A miracle is then God's deliberate, temporary inconsistency in the manner in which He does that. He is not limited by the laws of physics – they are limited by Him; His occasional inconsistency, what we call a “miracle,” is to make a point, as the Scriptures often record Him doing, such that we know it is Him Who is making the point.)
Realities that aren't composed of anything at all, no particles or anything else, realities we can't put our finger on, so to speak, like space, time and gravity, are nonetheless real – they aren't nothing. Their reality isn't just as concepts in our minds; they are real because space, time and their curvature which results in gravity (at least their curvature results in gravity according to Einstein), exist as concepts in God's mind, concepts which He consistently applies to the natural Universe as He holds it in existence.
The primary reality is an eternally existing supernatural reality, One Who correctly identifies Himself as “I AM WHO AM,” the One Whose very essence is “to be.” There is really no such thing as true nothingness except in terms of the absence of natural realities, which was the case before God created the natural Universe. Because there is an uncreated being Whose essence is “to be,” there has never been and can never be true nothingness. If there had ever been true nothingness it could have only remained that way since, as the saying goes, you can't get something from nothing. Speaking in terms of the strictly natural, because there is something rather than nothing, if there once was nothing natural (as is suggested by the Universe having a beginning), it should be obvious that the natural can only have its origin in the supernatural. If not, and there was a point at which the natural didn't exist, then the natural could never have been at all because you just can't get something from nothing. The natural must originate in the supernatural.
A brief thought unrelated to nothing follows (by that I don't mean it is related to everything; to some it will surely amount to nothing. ;o)
Thomas Merton pointed out that “God is pure Who.” It is comforting to me to know that the primary, fundamental reality is a “who” and not a “what,” although I would modify Merton's remark and say “God is pure Who, Whose act is to love.” Life's troubles, turmoil and suffering are easier to deal with when we realize that and know that our loving Father, in His wisdom and goodness, has allowed those things and will bring them all to a forever happy conclusion eventually for those who let Him do that. These let Him do that by making good use of His gifts to us, the gifts of being made in His image as a “who” and not a “what,” a “who” in His image because like Him we have an intellect and a truly free will, gifts which make it possible for us to be like Him in another way: we can choose to act in love. It isn't love unless it is our free decision, but we wouldn't have a truly free will if we couldn't also refuse to love and in so doing refuse to let Him bring things to the forever happy conclusion He intends for us; our time comes to an end and our freely made basic decision becomes an eternal one. Hell, I sometimes think, is eternally existing as a “who” with others whose basic decision, like one's own, was not to love – and heaven the opposite.
“First, what do you mean by nothing?”
I am not the one Susan responded to with that question, but for whatever its worth, here is what I mean by nothing.
Nothingness, for the purposes of a discussion of the origin of the natural Universe, is the absence of any non-supernatural realities. If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, then I suppose one would say it is the absence of all natural realities.
If God holds the natural Universe in existence, and if the Universe would cease to exist the instant God stopped doing so (as orthodox Catholics and others believe), then the laws of physics, it seems to me, are nothing more than God's consistency in the manner in which He holds the natural Universe in existence. (A miracle is then God's deliberate, temporary inconsistency in the manner in which He does that. He is not limited by the laws of physics – they are limited by Him; His occasional inconsistency, what we call a “miracle,” is to make a point, as the Scriptures often record Him doing, such that we know it is Him Who is making the point.)
Realities that aren't composed of anything at all, no particles or anything else, realities we can't put our finger on, so to speak, like space, time and gravity, are nonetheless real – they aren't nothing. Their reality isn't just as concepts in our minds; they are real because space, time and their curvature which results in gravity (at least their curvature results in gravity according to Einstein), exist as concepts in God's mind, concepts which He consistently applies to the natural Universe as He holds it in existence.
The primary reality is an eternally existing supernatural reality, One Who correctly identifies Himself as “I AM WHO AM,” the One Whose very essence is “to be.” There is really no such thing as true nothingness except in terms of the absence of natural realities, which was the case before God created the natural Universe. Because there is an uncreated being Whose essence is “to be,” there has never been and can never be true nothingness. If there had ever been true nothingness it could have only remained that way since, as the saying goes, you can't get something from nothing. Speaking in terms of the strictly natural, because there is something rather than nothing, if there once was nothing natural (as is suggested by the Universe having a beginning), it should be obvious that the natural can only have its origin in the supernatural. If not, and there was a point at which the natural didn't exist, then the natural could never have been at all because you just can't get something from nothing. The natural must originate in the supernatural.
A brief thought unrelated to nothing follows (by that I don't mean it is related to everything; to some it will surely amount to nothing. ;o)
Thomas Merton pointed out that “God is pure Who.” It is comforting to me to know that the primary, fundamental reality is a “who” and not a “what,” although I would modify Merton's remark and say “God is pure Who, Whose act is to love.” Life's troubles, turmoil and suffering are easier to deal with when we realize that and know that our loving Father, in His wisdom and goodness, has allowed those things and will bring them all to a forever happy conclusion eventually for those who let Him do that. These let Him do that by making good use of His gifts to us, the gifts of being made in His image as a “who” and not a “what,” a “who” in His image because like Him we have an intellect and a truly free will, gifts which make it possible for us to be like Him in another way: we can choose to act in love. It isn't love unless it is our free decision, but we wouldn't have a truly free will if we couldn't also refuse to love and in so doing refuse to let Him bring things to the forever happy conclusion He intends for us; our time comes to an end and our freely made basic decision becomes an eternal one. Hell, I sometimes think, is eternally existing as a “who” with others whose basic decision, like one's own, was not to love – and heaven the opposite.
8.5.2012 | 4:46pm
A. Bailey says:
Quine, invoking memories of the beliefs of animists and polytheists to argue a case against monotheism just doesn't seem, well, kosher.
8.5.2012 | 5:00pm
Quine says:
I'll shift, now, to the moral issues. All moral or ethical systems have to be built on some basic axioms that can't be objectively proved. This was one of the most withstanding results of the work of David Hume. This is why we are stuck with situations such as Fred put forth, above. Many, many people object to this, but how much we don't like it does not change how it is. We find ourselves in this life, and just as you had no selection of your birth parents, there is nothing about the way the world is that selects how the world should be.
Some people claim to have instruction about how the world should be, given to them by a deity or deities. Sergio points out, above, that such a claim, even if true, does not get past Euthyphro. So, what do we do? Like Euclid, working hard to come up with the least assumptions in his axioms, we can work to come up with the best we can. As soon as we start on that part, some will pop up and start decrying "Utopianism" as a pejorative drum beat. Of course, Utopia is "no where" and it takes no faith or dependence in Utopia, or displaced ideal of the "perfect," to seek to make things somewhat better than they are. We can't make things perfect, but in our lives we can strive to make them better.
So that leads right to the question of what is "better," and right back to those axioms. Sam Harris, in his book "The Moral Landscape" presents a case starting at the worst conditions for human flourishing and shows that we have to be able to use our reason and knowledge of the world to move up from there. He is taking "human flourishing" as axiomatic. Some folks, who would like to see humans go extinct so the rest of the biosphere can flourish, don't agree. We are never going to get complete agreement on the axioms, only some level of agreement of the kind of society we want to live in, and leave to our children.
What kind of society? Gets tough to work through. Most want a balance between individual rights to do as one pleases (protected from the majority will of the group), and group rights to be protected from destructive actions (murder, rape, theft etc.) of individuals or subgroups. Getting people to buy into a reasonable moral system is work to be done, and objections to doing it are just delays in the face of what must be done.
Some people claim to have instruction about how the world should be, given to them by a deity or deities. Sergio points out, above, that such a claim, even if true, does not get past Euthyphro. So, what do we do? Like Euclid, working hard to come up with the least assumptions in his axioms, we can work to come up with the best we can. As soon as we start on that part, some will pop up and start decrying "Utopianism" as a pejorative drum beat. Of course, Utopia is "no where" and it takes no faith or dependence in Utopia, or displaced ideal of the "perfect," to seek to make things somewhat better than they are. We can't make things perfect, but in our lives we can strive to make them better.
So that leads right to the question of what is "better," and right back to those axioms. Sam Harris, in his book "The Moral Landscape" presents a case starting at the worst conditions for human flourishing and shows that we have to be able to use our reason and knowledge of the world to move up from there. He is taking "human flourishing" as axiomatic. Some folks, who would like to see humans go extinct so the rest of the biosphere can flourish, don't agree. We are never going to get complete agreement on the axioms, only some level of agreement of the kind of society we want to live in, and leave to our children.
What kind of society? Gets tough to work through. Most want a balance between individual rights to do as one pleases (protected from the majority will of the group), and group rights to be protected from destructive actions (murder, rape, theft etc.) of individuals or subgroups. Getting people to buy into a reasonable moral system is work to be done, and objections to doing it are just delays in the face of what must be done.
8.5.2012 | 8:23pm
Gail Finke says:
Susan: What are you talking about when you say that Krauss explains how things can come from a "physical nothing" and not a "metaphysical nothing"?
Either things can come from nothing, or they can't. If Kraus means only that things can come from physical nothing, by which he means a lack of matter but not of (say) the laws of physics, then he has made an interesting theory about the physical world that will be proved or disproved -- although probably not any time soon, because is it such an outlandish theory. But that's all he did.
But if he really means "nothing," he has not proved his case at all, because the laws of physics, etc., are "something."
Your insistence on talking about the differences between "physical nothing" and "metaphysical nothing" are as meaningless as the other commenter saying that Plato would have said "nothing" was in an empty jar because he didn't know about air and electrons, or whatever. Metaphysics, as I'm sure you both know, does not depend on current scientific knowledge. Metaphysics is the only thing that makes Krauss's theory interesting, because if he didn't really mean "nothing" in the metaphysical sense of NOTHING AT ALL, hardly anyone would have cared about a book about extremely fanciful, unlikely, and (at this point) impossible to prove or disprove physics.
Either things can come from nothing, or they can't. If Kraus means only that things can come from physical nothing, by which he means a lack of matter but not of (say) the laws of physics, then he has made an interesting theory about the physical world that will be proved or disproved -- although probably not any time soon, because is it such an outlandish theory. But that's all he did.
But if he really means "nothing," he has not proved his case at all, because the laws of physics, etc., are "something."
Your insistence on talking about the differences between "physical nothing" and "metaphysical nothing" are as meaningless as the other commenter saying that Plato would have said "nothing" was in an empty jar because he didn't know about air and electrons, or whatever. Metaphysics, as I'm sure you both know, does not depend on current scientific knowledge. Metaphysics is the only thing that makes Krauss's theory interesting, because if he didn't really mean "nothing" in the metaphysical sense of NOTHING AT ALL, hardly anyone would have cared about a book about extremely fanciful, unlikely, and (at this point) impossible to prove or disprove physics.
8.5.2012 | 10:38pm
Rick says:
It is Oakes' quotation of Krauss that blows me away:
"First, I want to be clear about what kind of 'nothing' I am discussing at the moment. This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space."
This is a professional cosmologist, and all he would have to do is watch the recent PBS Nova series "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to know how absurd that statement is. Moreover, he must know from "classical" Big Bang theory that before the instant the universe started expanding, there was no space or time. The expanding universe created space. So space is obviously something, as both General Relativity and quantum physics assures us.
Nevertheless, I have to agree with those who take exception to Oakes' out-of-hand dismissal of New Athiest creed points 6 and 7 as preposterous. Oakes, in fact, has a bit too much fun painting athiestic arguments as childishly ridiculous or embarrassingly amateurish. They aren't alway that easy to deal with.
A case in point was Charlotte, a committed feminist with a fierce sense of social justice and fair play, who became a close schoolmate friend of mine. She told me she had been an agnostic for some time, but had finally decided to make the leap to athiesm. Of course, I disagreed with her. I gradually discovered, though, that she was one of the most selfless and loyal friends I had ever found. For example, when I mentioned to her that I had to be out of town at the time for scheduling classes at our college, she instantly agreed (without my asking) to make a special trip and do it all for me. I had only to tell her what classes I wanted to enroll in. I don't know what she could have gotten out of this sort of thing, other than the satisfaction of knowing that she was helping a friend. This behavior stands in startling contrast to some of the rather disappointing Christians I've sometimes had to deal with. Since knowing Charlotte, I have been unable to stereotype athiests as vacuous, morally degenerate people.
"First, I want to be clear about what kind of 'nothing' I am discussing at the moment. This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space."
This is a professional cosmologist, and all he would have to do is watch the recent PBS Nova series "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to know how absurd that statement is. Moreover, he must know from "classical" Big Bang theory that before the instant the universe started expanding, there was no space or time. The expanding universe created space. So space is obviously something, as both General Relativity and quantum physics assures us.
Nevertheless, I have to agree with those who take exception to Oakes' out-of-hand dismissal of New Athiest creed points 6 and 7 as preposterous. Oakes, in fact, has a bit too much fun painting athiestic arguments as childishly ridiculous or embarrassingly amateurish. They aren't alway that easy to deal with.
A case in point was Charlotte, a committed feminist with a fierce sense of social justice and fair play, who became a close schoolmate friend of mine. She told me she had been an agnostic for some time, but had finally decided to make the leap to athiesm. Of course, I disagreed with her. I gradually discovered, though, that she was one of the most selfless and loyal friends I had ever found. For example, when I mentioned to her that I had to be out of town at the time for scheduling classes at our college, she instantly agreed (without my asking) to make a special trip and do it all for me. I had only to tell her what classes I wanted to enroll in. I don't know what she could have gotten out of this sort of thing, other than the satisfaction of knowing that she was helping a friend. This behavior stands in startling contrast to some of the rather disappointing Christians I've sometimes had to deal with. Since knowing Charlotte, I have been unable to stereotype athiests as vacuous, morally degenerate people.
8.5.2012 | 10:47pm
Juneau Alaska says:
I didn't bother to read this article after it was clear the author didn't bother to read Krauss.
8.5.2012 | 11:41pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Juneau Alaska: Edward Oaks made it clear that he has read Krauss's book.
8.6.2012 | 1:41am
Quine says:
A. Bailey says:
Quine, invoking memories of the beliefs of animists and polytheists to argue a case against monotheism just doesn't seem, well, kosher.
I was not making any kind of theological argument, but after many years of study I have not found a difference that makes a difference. If you have any evidence that does, I would be interested to hear it (although, perhaps on a thread where that is on subject).
Got evidence?
Quine, invoking memories of the beliefs of animists and polytheists to argue a case against monotheism just doesn't seem, well, kosher.
I was not making any kind of theological argument, but after many years of study I have not found a difference that makes a difference. If you have any evidence that does, I would be interested to hear it (although, perhaps on a thread where that is on subject).
Got evidence?
8.6.2012 | 5:58am
Michael PS says:
Harry
You again miss the point - relationships of ground and consequence and intention and action are not causal relationships at all and no causal description of them can affect our analysis of them, one way or the other.
You again miss the point - relationships of ground and consequence and intention and action are not causal relationships at all and no causal description of them can affect our analysis of them, one way or the other.
8.6.2012 | 8:16am
A. Bailey says:
Let me see if I understand the subtle nuance of Rick's point:
1. Some atheists are extremely nice people.
2. Some Christians are not.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
As far as the physics is involved, I recall Feynman's quote, "it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics". I reserve the right to be skeptical of those that not only claim to, but use such hidden knowledge to disprove the existence of God.
1. Some atheists are extremely nice people.
2. Some Christians are not.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
As far as the physics is involved, I recall Feynman's quote, "it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics". I reserve the right to be skeptical of those that not only claim to, but use such hidden knowledge to disprove the existence of God.
8.6.2012 | 9:16am
Ray Ingles says:
Fred - Oddly enough, I responded to you on that other blog on this exact point, but you never replied. On the other hand, that comment thread got *way* out of hand, and takes a while to load up even with a decent computer and net connection.
Anyway, here's how I replied then:
Chess theory moves on. A grandmaster from the 1800s would struggle against most strong players today because we’ve learned better chess strategies since then. Similarly, we learn better ways of getting along with each other and organizing our societies. Slavery was progress compared to ‘slaughter everyone you conquer’, but we’ve since learned that slavery is a net drain on the society that practices it. (Slaves can’t be creative or solve problems, they have to be supervised and secured, etc. etc.) Even the slavery-in-all-but-name of the communist states prevented them from being able to match the freer societies. We’ve also learned that women are people too, and just as capable as men (even in chess, btw: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/12/23/why-are-there-so-few-female-chess-grandmasters/ )
The rules of the game haven’t changed (the basic laws of physics) but we’ve found better strategies for working within them to achieve human goals.
If absolutely any temperature is above zero (Kelvin), does that mean that no temperature can be better or worse for humans? No, of course not. So while any act can "form[] a part of some culture's morality", it's still possible to differentiate moralities , to note ways they are better or worse than other moralities.
To use the engineering-morality analogy, it's true that steam power ruled for a long time and was quite successful. But we can still say that the internal combustion engine was an improvement. The Comanche did well in their environment for a long time, too. But their society didn't encourage innovation and advancement - no slave-based system can afford to - and they got outcompeted in turn. Look up the concept of 'local optimum' versus a 'global optimum'.
Anyway, here's how I replied then:
Chess theory moves on. A grandmaster from the 1800s would struggle against most strong players today because we’ve learned better chess strategies since then. Similarly, we learn better ways of getting along with each other and organizing our societies. Slavery was progress compared to ‘slaughter everyone you conquer’, but we’ve since learned that slavery is a net drain on the society that practices it. (Slaves can’t be creative or solve problems, they have to be supervised and secured, etc. etc.) Even the slavery-in-all-but-name of the communist states prevented them from being able to match the freer societies. We’ve also learned that women are people too, and just as capable as men (even in chess, btw: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/12/23/why-are-there-so-few-female-chess-grandmasters/ )
The rules of the game haven’t changed (the basic laws of physics) but we’ve found better strategies for working within them to achieve human goals.
If absolutely any temperature is above zero (Kelvin), does that mean that no temperature can be better or worse for humans? No, of course not. So while any act can "form[] a part of some culture's morality", it's still possible to differentiate moralities , to note ways they are better or worse than other moralities.
To use the engineering-morality analogy, it's true that steam power ruled for a long time and was quite successful. But we can still say that the internal combustion engine was an improvement. The Comanche did well in their environment for a long time, too. But their society didn't encourage innovation and advancement - no slave-based system can afford to - and they got outcompeted in turn. Look up the concept of 'local optimum' versus a 'global optimum'.
8.6.2012 | 9:31am
Ray Ingles says:
Sean - "What evidence is there that the universe is exempt from all physical law as we know it and is not subject to origination?"
Hang on. What *exactly* is 'subject to origination'?
Think carefully, now. How about the computer I'm typing this on? Sure, it had an origin point. Somebody mined or pumped the raw materials, other people refined them and arranged them, someone else assembled the component parts, and so forth. Eventually it'll fail and get recycled or thrown out.
But hang on. Looked at a certain way, the 'computer' is an *arrangement* of materials, that exists for a time. Eventually that arrangement is unraveled. But what of the materials themselves? They existed before the computer did, and they keep going after the arrangement we call a 'computer' has dissolved.
It's true of humans, too. "For you are made from dust, and to dust you shall return."
So, *arrangements* have origins. But we've never seen the mass and energy of the universe 'originate' or 'disappear'. Not once. The conservation laws are among the most tested and solid scientific laws we have. Mass/energy meets every test we can devise for being something eternal.
Sure, every *arrangement* has an origin. But it's far from established that *what's being arranged* must be "subject to origination"...
Hang on. What *exactly* is 'subject to origination'?
Think carefully, now. How about the computer I'm typing this on? Sure, it had an origin point. Somebody mined or pumped the raw materials, other people refined them and arranged them, someone else assembled the component parts, and so forth. Eventually it'll fail and get recycled or thrown out.
But hang on. Looked at a certain way, the 'computer' is an *arrangement* of materials, that exists for a time. Eventually that arrangement is unraveled. But what of the materials themselves? They existed before the computer did, and they keep going after the arrangement we call a 'computer' has dissolved.
It's true of humans, too. "For you are made from dust, and to dust you shall return."
So, *arrangements* have origins. But we've never seen the mass and energy of the universe 'originate' or 'disappear'. Not once. The conservation laws are among the most tested and solid scientific laws we have. Mass/energy meets every test we can devise for being something eternal.
Sure, every *arrangement* has an origin. But it's far from established that *what's being arranged* must be "subject to origination"...
8.6.2012 | 9:36am
Ray Ingles says:
harry - "if there once was nothing natural (as is suggested by the Universe having a beginning)"
Wait, do we know that? Last I heard, our scientific models break down a few femtoseconds *after* the Big Bang. We don't know what happened before that, let alone what might have happened or existed *before* the Big Bang.
Wait, do we know that? Last I heard, our scientific models break down a few femtoseconds *after* the Big Bang. We don't know what happened before that, let alone what might have happened or existed *before* the Big Bang.
8.6.2012 | 2:41pm
A. Bailey says:
One last thing for me: this discussion confirms how much like a fish out of water I feel when considering physics, metaphysics, cosmology, and theology. After all, my degrees and training are in biology and the health sciences. Imagine, a biologist with the hubris to believe his degree gave him expertise in all these other fields!
No one can really master and marshall all the evidence against the existence of God without undergoing extensive multidisciplinary training. It's an important academic niche that needs be filled. Might I suggest the new discipline of Atheology? It would take to the modern university setting like a fish to the water.
No one can really master and marshall all the evidence against the existence of God without undergoing extensive multidisciplinary training. It's an important academic niche that needs be filled. Might I suggest the new discipline of Atheology? It would take to the modern university setting like a fish to the water.
8.7.2012 | 1:56am
severalspeciesof says:
Is there any theist willing to define 'nothing' in a metaphysical (beyond physical matter or the laws of nature) sense? How could one even get to that?
8.7.2012 | 7:40am
Roedy Green says:
At at the quantum level, matter pops in and out of existence all the time out of nothing: some matter and corresponding anti-matter that usually quickly annihilates.
If you are going to argue science, at least first study up what it is you are arguing against.
If you are going to argue science, at least first study up what it is you are arguing against.
8.8.2012 | 1:53am
Rick says:
@A. Bailey:
"Let me see if I understand the subtle nuance of Rick's point:
1. Some atheists are extremely nice people.
2. Some Christians are not.
3. Therefore, God does not exist."
Let me see if I understand the subtle nuance of A. Bailey's point:
1. The New Atheist Creed states in point six that moral behavior does not require belief in God.
2. Oakes dismisses this idea as transparently preposterous.
3. Rick rebuts that his personal experience proves to him that some atheists may be highly moral and gives the example of his devoted, loyal friend Charlotte, even though he states that he disagreed with her about her atheism.
4. Rick contrasts Charlotte's behavior with that of some Christians (even missionaries) he has known who were mean-spirited, arrogant, and dishonest.
4. A. Bailey concludes that Rick is arguing for the non-existence of God.
No, no, no. You didn't get the not-so-subtle point at all. But it would be a waste of breath to continue. Obviously, anyone who suggests that atheists aren't ALWAYS wrong will be discredited out of hand.
"Let me see if I understand the subtle nuance of Rick's point:
1. Some atheists are extremely nice people.
2. Some Christians are not.
3. Therefore, God does not exist."
Let me see if I understand the subtle nuance of A. Bailey's point:
1. The New Atheist Creed states in point six that moral behavior does not require belief in God.
2. Oakes dismisses this idea as transparently preposterous.
3. Rick rebuts that his personal experience proves to him that some atheists may be highly moral and gives the example of his devoted, loyal friend Charlotte, even though he states that he disagreed with her about her atheism.
4. Rick contrasts Charlotte's behavior with that of some Christians (even missionaries) he has known who were mean-spirited, arrogant, and dishonest.
4. A. Bailey concludes that Rick is arguing for the non-existence of God.
No, no, no. You didn't get the not-so-subtle point at all. But it would be a waste of breath to continue. Obviously, anyone who suggests that atheists aren't ALWAYS wrong will be discredited out of hand.
8.8.2012 | 3:16am
Mark says:
It looks like the philosophical definition of "nothing" is a moving target. Lawrence Krauss has certainly answered the ex nihilo nihil fit problem that the philosopher Parmenides described in 500 BC, and the news that particles can indeed pop into and out of existence is both amazing and consciousnesraising.
But some contemporary philosophers want to upgrade the expression to include an absence of the laws of physics. This new nothing is a completely separate expression from the classic ex nihlio nihil fit concept, and I think contemporary philosophers should be upfront about changing the problem since the classic expression has been answered.
Anyway, the problem with assuming that out of an abstract philosophical "nothing", comes nothing, is that this philosophical nothing has never been observed. Ever. Quantum foam and physical laws apply throughout all of space and time, which is all we have ever known, and knowledge of the properties where it does not apply is nonexistent.
So, out of abstract, lawless "nothing", does nothing come? Who knows. Could be nothing comes from nothing. Could be fluorescent pink panda bears com out of nothing. We don't have enough data to say.
But some contemporary philosophers want to upgrade the expression to include an absence of the laws of physics. This new nothing is a completely separate expression from the classic ex nihlio nihil fit concept, and I think contemporary philosophers should be upfront about changing the problem since the classic expression has been answered.
Anyway, the problem with assuming that out of an abstract philosophical "nothing", comes nothing, is that this philosophical nothing has never been observed. Ever. Quantum foam and physical laws apply throughout all of space and time, which is all we have ever known, and knowledge of the properties where it does not apply is nonexistent.
So, out of abstract, lawless "nothing", does nothing come? Who knows. Could be nothing comes from nothing. Could be fluorescent pink panda bears com out of nothing. We don't have enough data to say.
8.8.2012 | 6:37pm
Sean says:
Ray Ingles, you're point in response to my post is, I believe, that mass and energy have always existed and origination exists only in their arrangement.
This means that there's a contingent relationship between mass and energy and arrangement - without that relationship we don't have existence beyond mass and energy.
So we see contingency again, which suggests that there must be a contingent relationship between arrangement and something that arranges. Just as, in your example, a computer is arranged by somebody - it doesn't arrange on its own - so would mass and energy not arrange on their own.
Without arrangement there can be no existence beyond energy and matter. But it is impossible for arrangement to be non-contingent. There can be no arrangement without an arranger - unless we want to say that the computer designed and assembled itself, which doesn't hold.
So what is it upon which arrangement is contingent?
This means that there's a contingent relationship between mass and energy and arrangement - without that relationship we don't have existence beyond mass and energy.
So we see contingency again, which suggests that there must be a contingent relationship between arrangement and something that arranges. Just as, in your example, a computer is arranged by somebody - it doesn't arrange on its own - so would mass and energy not arrange on their own.
Without arrangement there can be no existence beyond energy and matter. But it is impossible for arrangement to be non-contingent. There can be no arrangement without an arranger - unless we want to say that the computer designed and assembled itself, which doesn't hold.
So what is it upon which arrangement is contingent?
8.8.2012 | 11:37pm
Susan says:
Mark,
You've got that right. Nobody knows. There is not one example of abstract, philosophical nothing to which humans can refer. I'm hard-pressed to know how we would recognize it if it was there.
So, we get comments like "Has anyone ever produced something from nothing (but it has to be abstract, metaphysical nothing) in a laboratory?"
This strikes me as a) being a thorougly dishonest question or b) being a question from someone who hasn't bothered to learn anything about quantum mechanics. I hear it all the time. It's a language trick. The theist defines the terms to reinforce what they already believe and are inconsistent about the meaning of "nothing".
You're absolutely correct. We have no examples anywhere of metaphysical nothing. There might be some useful philosophical issues to probe there, but if one continues to rely on medieval philosophers who didn't have the benefit of the extraordinary evidence of reality when they examined the issue of "nothing", I'm not sure what sort of progress can be made.
I'm interested in the arguments about "metaphysical nothing" and how (even if it exists), it applies to our best questions.
Quantum fields don't meet the criteria of "nothing" but special pleading applies to Yahweh. There can be metaphysical nothing and also Yahweh, at the same time. You see, he is "supernatural" which means he gets a free pass. For no particular reason other than that christians begin with the a priori assumption that he exists and that supernatural means something.
Then, they sneer at physicists when they actually do the hard work when it comes to examining our assumptions about a word like "nothing".
You've got that right. Nobody knows. There is not one example of abstract, philosophical nothing to which humans can refer. I'm hard-pressed to know how we would recognize it if it was there.
So, we get comments like "Has anyone ever produced something from nothing (but it has to be abstract, metaphysical nothing) in a laboratory?"
This strikes me as a) being a thorougly dishonest question or b) being a question from someone who hasn't bothered to learn anything about quantum mechanics. I hear it all the time. It's a language trick. The theist defines the terms to reinforce what they already believe and are inconsistent about the meaning of "nothing".
You're absolutely correct. We have no examples anywhere of metaphysical nothing. There might be some useful philosophical issues to probe there, but if one continues to rely on medieval philosophers who didn't have the benefit of the extraordinary evidence of reality when they examined the issue of "nothing", I'm not sure what sort of progress can be made.
I'm interested in the arguments about "metaphysical nothing" and how (even if it exists), it applies to our best questions.
Quantum fields don't meet the criteria of "nothing" but special pleading applies to Yahweh. There can be metaphysical nothing and also Yahweh, at the same time. You see, he is "supernatural" which means he gets a free pass. For no particular reason other than that christians begin with the a priori assumption that he exists and that supernatural means something.
Then, they sneer at physicists when they actually do the hard work when it comes to examining our assumptions about a word like "nothing".
8.9.2012 | 1:21am
Giuseppe says:
Only a mind who can conceive of metaphysical nothingness can conceive of God.
Without metaphysical nothingness, there is no need to invent the concept of God.
By envisioning metaphysical nothingness, we need to then have a God who can create ex nihilo. Aquinas's genius was in creating nothing first, then creating God.
Having said that, there is an ineffible experience I have when I come close to glimpsing metaphysical nothingness, and in that moment, because I can conceive of it, I believe that there is a God.
I think 'nothing', therefore God is (at least for me). (It's all an act of faith.)
Without metaphysical nothingness, there is no need to invent the concept of God.
By envisioning metaphysical nothingness, we need to then have a God who can create ex nihilo. Aquinas's genius was in creating nothing first, then creating God.
Having said that, there is an ineffible experience I have when I come close to glimpsing metaphysical nothingness, and in that moment, because I can conceive of it, I believe that there is a God.
I think 'nothing', therefore God is (at least for me). (It's all an act of faith.)
8.9.2012 | 10:02am
Ray Ingles says:
Sean - Wait, how did you get from 'some arrangements don't happen on their own' to "mass and energy [can] not arrange on their own"? You need to establish that "There can be no arrangement without an arranger". You get nice regular salt crystals when seawater evaporates, for example - no 'arranger' needed.
Frequent commenter harry and I have gone over this before; our discussion here might be useful: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/04/fine-tuning-an-argument-and-a-universe/ - in particular the last comment, involving the concept of 'thermodynamically unlikely'.
Frequent commenter harry and I have gone over this before; our discussion here might be useful: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/04/fine-tuning-an-argument-and-a-universe/ - in particular the last comment, involving the concept of 'thermodynamically unlikely'.
8.9.2012 | 10:53pm
A. Bailey says:
@Rick, I still think you have misread and misinterpreted Fr. Oakes' comments regarding articles 6&7 of the Atheist Creed. Maybe a counter-vignette will help explain what he (and we) are getting at.
In the course of my career I have worked at St. Thomas Hospital, Methodist Hospital, Baptist Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, and Jewish Hospital. I have never worked at Sartre Memorial Hospital, Camus Community Hospital, or (a concept that seems totally absurd) Bertrand Russell Institute of Healing Arts.
Atheists utilize the moral framework given to them by the Theistic traditions. Of course atheists can make excellent physicians, but they do so in spite of their atheism, not because of it. Free of theistic influences, they are much more likely to give us the killing fields of Pol Pot than they are the healing arts of the Hippocrates.
In the course of my career I have worked at St. Thomas Hospital, Methodist Hospital, Baptist Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, and Jewish Hospital. I have never worked at Sartre Memorial Hospital, Camus Community Hospital, or (a concept that seems totally absurd) Bertrand Russell Institute of Healing Arts.
Atheists utilize the moral framework given to them by the Theistic traditions. Of course atheists can make excellent physicians, but they do so in spite of their atheism, not because of it. Free of theistic influences, they are much more likely to give us the killing fields of Pol Pot than they are the healing arts of the Hippocrates.
8.9.2012 | 11:46pm
edmond says:
I wonder what atheists would say about the state of nature where God was "nowhere" in society of the brutish? Granted that even if there is a social contract to keep the weak alive, what will the norms or framework of this contract be based on? Between the survival of the fittest and the protection of the weak there has to be an 'equalizer' that keeps the weak from being annihilated. In a state of nature, it is safe to assume that all who survive in that state are atheists.
8.10.2012 | 6:26am
Mark says:
@edmond
There have been many atheistic ancient civilizations that had a highly developed code of morality and ethics. These atheistic belief systems include Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and the Nastika branch of Hinduism. The idea that morality can only come from gods is simply a facet of authoritarianism, without which humanity would be better off.
@Susan.
Thank you.
@A. Bailey
Theistic traditions did not give us a moral framework. A moral framework originated during the 98,000 years that humans were hunter-gatheres, and is seen in the earliest civilizations.The ancient Greeks and Egyptians were very morally sophisticated, yet their religions did not lay down moral commandments. In comparison, the Bible and Koran are less morally sophisticated (i.e. victims compelled to marry their rapists) In summary, theistic traditions are parasitic upon a universal moral framework.
There have been many atheistic ancient civilizations that had a highly developed code of morality and ethics. These atheistic belief systems include Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and the Nastika branch of Hinduism. The idea that morality can only come from gods is simply a facet of authoritarianism, without which humanity would be better off.
@Susan.
Thank you.
@A. Bailey
Theistic traditions did not give us a moral framework. A moral framework originated during the 98,000 years that humans were hunter-gatheres, and is seen in the earliest civilizations.The ancient Greeks and Egyptians were very morally sophisticated, yet their religions did not lay down moral commandments. In comparison, the Bible and Koran are less morally sophisticated (i.e. victims compelled to marry their rapists) In summary, theistic traditions are parasitic upon a universal moral framework.
8.10.2012 | 10:14am
Ray Ingles says:
A, Bailey - http://atheists.org/content/question-atheists-hospitals
"In America, as of 1999, 13% of all hospitals were religious (totaling 18% of all hospital beds); that's 604 out of 4,573 hospitals... Every hospital writes off a certain percentage of medical revenue as charitable care. The religious hospitals aren't the least charitable of hospitals, but they're close to it. For-profit hospitals provided, on average, only 0.8% of their gross patient revenue as charity care; religious hospitals came in with 1.9%. On the other hand, the secular non-profit hospitals had 2% and the godless secular public hospitals provided 5.1%"
"In America, as of 1999, 13% of all hospitals were religious (totaling 18% of all hospital beds); that's 604 out of 4,573 hospitals... Every hospital writes off a certain percentage of medical revenue as charitable care. The religious hospitals aren't the least charitable of hospitals, but they're close to it. For-profit hospitals provided, on average, only 0.8% of their gross patient revenue as charity care; religious hospitals came in with 1.9%. On the other hand, the secular non-profit hospitals had 2% and the godless secular public hospitals provided 5.1%"
8.10.2012 | 10:34am
Ray Ingles says:
Edmond - A lot of atheists disagree about the nature of 'the state of nature'. See, e.g., here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/12/universal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe/
8.10.2012 | 4:33pm
A. Bailey says:
@Mark: Part of the problem is that I'm not sure if you truly believe what you're writing or you're just enjoying the tussle.
To state that the Taoists, the Egyptians and Greeks, perhaps even the Buddists were all atheistic in the contemporary sense of the word is an exercise in post-modernism. The Greeks didn't think they were atheistic, and neither did the Egyptians. The Greeks, and the Stoics in particular, believed that men should live their lives in accord to and in harmony with the Cosmos, the Logos. The Taoists believed much the same thing. This concept is totally foreign to the atheistic view of a multiverse where any and everything is simply a result of a concatenation of random forces.
Medicine can certainly be practiced in a non-monotheistic framework. People have been going to witchdoctors and the like for centuries. However, it took Hippocrates (or the tradition named after him) to reassure patients that the physician was not likely to kill them, at least not on purpose, for someone else's gain.
I'm not at all impressed with the statistics regarding the "godless secular public hospitals". Most of those hospitals have their roots firmly planted in the charitable traditions of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I've paid brief visits to the truly "godless secular public hospitals" of Romania and Ukraine. Sorry, but no thanks. I'll take my chances at St. Thomas.
To state that the Taoists, the Egyptians and Greeks, perhaps even the Buddists were all atheistic in the contemporary sense of the word is an exercise in post-modernism. The Greeks didn't think they were atheistic, and neither did the Egyptians. The Greeks, and the Stoics in particular, believed that men should live their lives in accord to and in harmony with the Cosmos, the Logos. The Taoists believed much the same thing. This concept is totally foreign to the atheistic view of a multiverse where any and everything is simply a result of a concatenation of random forces.
Medicine can certainly be practiced in a non-monotheistic framework. People have been going to witchdoctors and the like for centuries. However, it took Hippocrates (or the tradition named after him) to reassure patients that the physician was not likely to kill them, at least not on purpose, for someone else's gain.
I'm not at all impressed with the statistics regarding the "godless secular public hospitals". Most of those hospitals have their roots firmly planted in the charitable traditions of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I've paid brief visits to the truly "godless secular public hospitals" of Romania and Ukraine. Sorry, but no thanks. I'll take my chances at St. Thomas.
8.10.2012 | 9:00pm
Susan says:
>To state that the Taoists, the Egyptians and Greeks, perhaps even the Buddists were all atheistic in the contemporary sense of the word is an exercise in post-modernism.
My goodness, A. He didn't state anything of the sort. Please read what he wrote. Read it carefully.
>This concept is totally foreign to the atheistic view of a multiverse where any and everything is simply a result of a concatenation of random forces.
An atheist is not a theist. An atheist does not believe that any deity that has been postulated by humans exists. It has nothing to do with multi-verses. While some atheists might find the idea of a multi-verse interesting, even persuasive, many others don't. It's another topic entirely. Nice try, though.
>I'm not at all impressed with the statistics regarding the "godless secular public hospitals".
That doesn't make those statistics any less relevant against your point. You have decided that the good hospitals owe their goodness to Judeo-Christian tradition (without supporting that assertion) and that the "truly godless secular public hospitals" are the bad hospitals. How do you manage to keep this stuff straight?
Sticking "truly" on the front doesn't make it true.
My goodness, A. He didn't state anything of the sort. Please read what he wrote. Read it carefully.
>This concept is totally foreign to the atheistic view of a multiverse where any and everything is simply a result of a concatenation of random forces.
An atheist is not a theist. An atheist does not believe that any deity that has been postulated by humans exists. It has nothing to do with multi-verses. While some atheists might find the idea of a multi-verse interesting, even persuasive, many others don't. It's another topic entirely. Nice try, though.
>I'm not at all impressed with the statistics regarding the "godless secular public hospitals".
That doesn't make those statistics any less relevant against your point. You have decided that the good hospitals owe their goodness to Judeo-Christian tradition (without supporting that assertion) and that the "truly godless secular public hospitals" are the bad hospitals. How do you manage to keep this stuff straight?
Sticking "truly" on the front doesn't make it true.
8.11.2012 | 9:46am
A. Bailey says:
@Susan, yes, I retread Mark's post and am convinced I characterized it accurately.
I'm also sticking to my other comment regarding the enormous debt atheists owe to the Judeo-Christian tradition. If you'd like to learn more about the viewpoint, Dr. John Patrick has recorded two excellent lectures, "The Hippocratic Oath" and "Why are there no Hittites in Canada?". They may be heard at www.johnpatrick.ca/
I'm also sticking to my other comment regarding the enormous debt atheists owe to the Judeo-Christian tradition. If you'd like to learn more about the viewpoint, Dr. John Patrick has recorded two excellent lectures, "The Hippocratic Oath" and "Why are there no Hittites in Canada?". They may be heard at www.johnpatrick.ca/
8.12.2012 | 3:15am
Susan says:
A. Bailey,
OK. Mark said:
"There have been many atheistic ancient civilizations that had a highly developed code of morality and ethics. These atheistic belief systems include Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and the Nastika branch of Hinduism
Which means that there is no deity at the centre of any of these systems. That's why it's reasonable to call them atheistic. And they did have developed moral codes.
Then, he went on to say:
"A moral framework originated during the 98,000 years that humans were hunter-gatherers, and is seen in the earliest civilizations.The ancient Greeks and Egyptians were very morally sophisticated, yet their religions did not lay down moral commandments."
All he said was that these were religions that did not lay down moral commandments and that they were morally sophisticated. He went on to suggest that belief systems that DO lay down moral commandments such as "a woman should have to marry her rapist" were less sophisticated and are "parasitic on a human moral framework". Is he wrong? If so, why?
He did NOT assert that any of these systems are equivalent to your strawman atheist ( that atheists require belief in a multi-verse in order to reject your particular assertion about a deity} There's no such requirement. Your claims of a deity require a clear definition and supporting evidence. So far, you haven't done that.
Why do you think your methodology gets us closer to what is true? What do you mean when you say atheist? Please be specific.
>If you'd like to learn more about the viewpoint, Dr. John Patrick has recorded two excellent lectures
No. I honestly went to that web site and 15 minutes in, all I heard was the assumptions of someone whose premise was firmly entrenched in a particular christian belief without any evidence, whatsoever.
You shouldn't need to link to a two-part video without an argument of your own to make your case about hospital quality. You reject statistics contrary to your position and you have provided none of your own.
All I'm asking for is that the evidence leads persuasively to Yawheh.
Got evidence?
OK. Mark said:
"There have been many atheistic ancient civilizations that had a highly developed code of morality and ethics. These atheistic belief systems include Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and the Nastika branch of Hinduism
Which means that there is no deity at the centre of any of these systems. That's why it's reasonable to call them atheistic. And they did have developed moral codes.
Then, he went on to say:
"A moral framework originated during the 98,000 years that humans were hunter-gatherers, and is seen in the earliest civilizations.The ancient Greeks and Egyptians were very morally sophisticated, yet their religions did not lay down moral commandments."
All he said was that these were religions that did not lay down moral commandments and that they were morally sophisticated. He went on to suggest that belief systems that DO lay down moral commandments such as "a woman should have to marry her rapist" were less sophisticated and are "parasitic on a human moral framework". Is he wrong? If so, why?
He did NOT assert that any of these systems are equivalent to your strawman atheist ( that atheists require belief in a multi-verse in order to reject your particular assertion about a deity} There's no such requirement. Your claims of a deity require a clear definition and supporting evidence. So far, you haven't done that.
Why do you think your methodology gets us closer to what is true? What do you mean when you say atheist? Please be specific.
>If you'd like to learn more about the viewpoint, Dr. John Patrick has recorded two excellent lectures
No. I honestly went to that web site and 15 minutes in, all I heard was the assumptions of someone whose premise was firmly entrenched in a particular christian belief without any evidence, whatsoever.
You shouldn't need to link to a two-part video without an argument of your own to make your case about hospital quality. You reject statistics contrary to your position and you have provided none of your own.
All I'm asking for is that the evidence leads persuasively to Yawheh.
Got evidence?
8.12.2012 | 3:25am
Quine says:
A. Bailey, I am not sure the extent you wish to push "enormous debt," but I would remind you of the logical error in concluding that if Y developed from X, then without X there would be no Y. Here is an example: gun powder came from China; if China had been decimated by plague and all who had any knowledge of gun powder at the invention died, would we be still shooting only arrows and throwing spears, today?
8.12.2012 | 3:29am
Mark says:
@A. Bailey
No, your response doesn't even close to characterizing my post accurately. I said that Taoism, Confuscianism, Buddhism and Nastikans were atheistic religions. And they are. If you disagree, then please name the gods that they worship.
I did not say that ancient Greeks and Egyptians were atheistic. I said that their religions did not lay down moral commandments. And they don't. They were morally and politically sophisticated (democracy originated from Ancient Athens), but that was derived from reason, not religion. This shows you don't need a god-endorsed social contract for a healthy society.
As for my comment being post-modernist, I have to ask what are you smoking? Are you aware that post-modernism refers to a style of art, not Internet comments?
In regards to Hippocrates owing a debt to Judeo-Christian heritage, you must be off your rocker. Hippocrates claim to fame is that he was one of the first proponents of methodological naturalism. He asserted that diseases were due to natural causes, not divine punishment, and he spent some time in prison for stating this. In contrast, the New Testament takes a far more primitive stance, and attributes mental diseases to demonic possession. I guess Jesus never got around to reading Hippocrates work.
No, your response doesn't even close to characterizing my post accurately. I said that Taoism, Confuscianism, Buddhism and Nastikans were atheistic religions. And they are. If you disagree, then please name the gods that they worship.
I did not say that ancient Greeks and Egyptians were atheistic. I said that their religions did not lay down moral commandments. And they don't. They were morally and politically sophisticated (democracy originated from Ancient Athens), but that was derived from reason, not religion. This shows you don't need a god-endorsed social contract for a healthy society.
As for my comment being post-modernist, I have to ask what are you smoking? Are you aware that post-modernism refers to a style of art, not Internet comments?
In regards to Hippocrates owing a debt to Judeo-Christian heritage, you must be off your rocker. Hippocrates claim to fame is that he was one of the first proponents of methodological naturalism. He asserted that diseases were due to natural causes, not divine punishment, and he spent some time in prison for stating this. In contrast, the New Testament takes a far more primitive stance, and attributes mental diseases to demonic possession. I guess Jesus never got around to reading Hippocrates work.
8.13.2012 | 6:43am
Darren says:
I missed the big Atheist canonization event were all atheist decided to have the same opinions on free will, and were the first something came from. I also find it perplexing and lame that Theist so love to sarcastically joke about Atheist's hope that humanity can make a better future for it's self.
8.14.2012 | 2:04am
Susan says:
Dareen,
Yes. Well, if your thinking was as sophisticated as Edward Oakes', you'd accept without scrutiny the conflation of Freud and Nietzche, dismiss them equally without grappling with their distinct ideas. (At least, not in this post.) He simply refers to their ideas as "clumsy" implying without showing his work that anyone who doesn't buy into catholicism or deities in general is a clumsy thinker like Nietzche and Freud.
He then goes on to dismiss Krauss without justifying his own medieval "axioms" of nothingness. That's the trouble with axioms. Evidence trumps inference every time. Axioms about the ether don't stand the test of time well. "Metaphysical nothingness" is sort of like the ether, isn't it?
Then, he quotes Haught in order to define atheists. Unless Haught can define his deity clearly and give evidence for it, Haught has no business saying "without God". If Haught would like to introduce AND produce evidence for his "God", Haught has all his work ahead of him.
Quine's corrections are more accurate and less easily dismissed. If you'd like to argue with "atheists", please deal with Quine's corrections, not with Haught's puffery.
There is no atheist catechism. Oakes efforts to erect one rely on Gish galloping of the worst kind.
Atheist simply means, "I don't believe without evidence what you believe without evidence. I don't believe in your deity. I no more accept your deity than you accept any other deity."
Making light of such important subjects as nothingness, consciousness, free will, nature, matter, etc. without engaging in the discussion and ascribing specific views on each and all of those subjects to people who simply haven't bought your imaginary car is dishonest, evasive and not terribly impressive.
Atheist catechism, my foot. "I don't believe you." How would you get a catechism out of that?
Yes. Well, if your thinking was as sophisticated as Edward Oakes', you'd accept without scrutiny the conflation of Freud and Nietzche, dismiss them equally without grappling with their distinct ideas. (At least, not in this post.) He simply refers to their ideas as "clumsy" implying without showing his work that anyone who doesn't buy into catholicism or deities in general is a clumsy thinker like Nietzche and Freud.
He then goes on to dismiss Krauss without justifying his own medieval "axioms" of nothingness. That's the trouble with axioms. Evidence trumps inference every time. Axioms about the ether don't stand the test of time well. "Metaphysical nothingness" is sort of like the ether, isn't it?
Then, he quotes Haught in order to define atheists. Unless Haught can define his deity clearly and give evidence for it, Haught has no business saying "without God". If Haught would like to introduce AND produce evidence for his "God", Haught has all his work ahead of him.
Quine's corrections are more accurate and less easily dismissed. If you'd like to argue with "atheists", please deal with Quine's corrections, not with Haught's puffery.
There is no atheist catechism. Oakes efforts to erect one rely on Gish galloping of the worst kind.
Atheist simply means, "I don't believe without evidence what you believe without evidence. I don't believe in your deity. I no more accept your deity than you accept any other deity."
Making light of such important subjects as nothingness, consciousness, free will, nature, matter, etc. without engaging in the discussion and ascribing specific views on each and all of those subjects to people who simply haven't bought your imaginary car is dishonest, evasive and not terribly impressive.
Atheist catechism, my foot. "I don't believe you." How would you get a catechism out of that?
8.19.2012 | 3:12pm
Louis says:
@ Mark
Imperial China was a theocracy. The supreme deity in the Chinese Imperial State cult (often described as "Confucianism"), which only ceased in the middle of the second decade of the twentieth century, was known as Huang Tian Shangdi (August Heaven, High Thearch).
Thearch is a neologism coined relatively recently by a sinologist, whose name escapes me, to translate the Chinese term di, which is usually translated in English as "emperor". Thearch (god-ruler) is much closer semantically to the term di.
Imperial China was a theocracy. The supreme deity in the Chinese Imperial State cult (often described as "Confucianism"), which only ceased in the middle of the second decade of the twentieth century, was known as Huang Tian Shangdi (August Heaven, High Thearch).
Thearch is a neologism coined relatively recently by a sinologist, whose name escapes me, to translate the Chinese term di, which is usually translated in English as "emperor". Thearch (god-ruler) is much closer semantically to the term di.
