163 thoughts on “Gay atheist media star interviews bishop: what do you think?”

1. Robin: Intelligence can arise out of system interaction; no initial intelligence required.

   And your evidence for this is what?

   It is amazing what Robin will accept without evidence and equally amazing what Robin will hand-wave away given the supporting evidence.

2. Robin: Note: neither decay nor quantum mechanics nor even special relativity outright invalidates the CA in principle, but they all weaken the concept considerably and do create a valid reason to question any leap to some “god”.

   So you are not invalidating the cosmological argument? Stop wasting time! Get on it. At least tell me how quantum decay or special relativity weaken the argument considerably. It is quite evident that when you say “decay is not contingent” you mean something quite different than what contingency means in metaphysics. (Note: that’s metaphysics.)

   In reality, Wikipedia says things like, “Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy…” Do you not notice the word “unstable” there? Does this not sound like a precondition for decay? And “Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3][4] regardless of how long the atom has existed. For a collection of atoms however, the collection’s expected decay rate is characterized in terms of their measured decay constants or half-lives.” So, decay is unpredictable for an individual atom, but regular in case of a collection of atoms. Looks quite analogous to a heap of sand disintegrating in the wind: The trajectory of a single sand particle and its possible splitting is much harder to predict than the change of shape of the entire heap given a specific stream of air.

   Robin: I personally find humanism and, more importantly for an approach to learning, naturalism and empiricism better. There’s a reason that scholasticism was abandoned by most thinkers of the 17th century for humanism and why later the enlightenment and scientific revolution occurred. Scholasticism was an impediment to actual learning and the spread of knowledge.

   I see it quite differently. In-depth knowledge of scholasticism these days is a mark of learning and knowledge of a philosophical tradition that goes generally unappreciated because it is simply unknown, i.e. people on average are completely in the dark about it. The mainstream narrative is that it has been superseded and deserves no further attention. As a minimum, it deserves as much attention as any historical record, but, if you care about philosophy, it’s worth more, because to be methodologically adequate in philosophy you have to be competent in at least two different traditions or schools of thought.

3. Erik: If you don’t care about scholasticism, then can I take it to mean that you don’t care about the cosmological argument either, because that argument happens to be one of the solid achievements of scholasticism.

   Then scholasticism has achieved nothing of value.

4. Erik: So you are not invalidating the cosmological argument? Stop wasting time! Get on it.

   Hardly. Not my point or intent at all. I am trying to understand how one gets from the very general concept of a first cause and “god”. The former seems straight-forward to me; the latter a rather fallacious leap.

   At least tell me how quantum decay or special relativity weaken the argument considerably.

   This is fairly well trod set of criticisms. In summary, decay does not have contingencies, so that right there creates a problem for a Thomistic understanding of the CA. In Special Relativity, Einstein noted that physics is invariant in all inertial systems. This then leads to Einstein’s assessment of time dilation and it’s effects on events. While it does imply that nothing can move faster than the speed of light (because an outcome cannot precede its cause), there’s nothing preventing a cause and event occurring simultaneously. Thus, there is a reasonable argument for a event causing itself under the right conditions. Lastly, quantum research shows all sorts of anomalies contra the “common sense” understandings of cause and effect, which calls into question the overly simplistic basis that Aristotle, and more importantly, Aquinas are relying on. Basically, it does not appear that reality works in as simplistic mode as Aquinas thought.

   It is quite evident that when you say “decay is not contingent” you mean something quite different than what contingency means in metaphysics. (Note: that’s metaphysics.)

   No I don’t.

   In reality, Wikipedia says things like, “Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy…” Do you not notice the word “unstable” there? Does this not sound like a precondition for decay? And “Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3][4] regardless of how long the atom has existed. For a collection of atoms however, the collection’s expected decay rate is characterized in terms of their measured decay constants or half-lives.” So, decay is unpredictable for an individual atom, but regular in case of a collection of atoms. Looks quite analogous to a heap of sand disintegrating in the wind: The trajectory of a single sand particle and its possible splitting is much harder to predict than the change of shape of the entire heap given a specific stream of air.

   Unstable has a very specific meaning in physics. And no, it’s not remotely analogous to a pile of sand. This would be an example of what I noted earlier; you and I have very different understandings of matter, it’s interaction, and the properties of certain phenomena. Atoms do not behave like billiard balls on a table…at all. The instability of a given atomic nucleus is not itself a cause; it’s outcome of the interaction of atomic particles. Decay is thus not a contingent property of the nucleus and physicists have noted this for years. I will simply note that if your view of reality was true, smart phone touch screens would not work and would never have been invented.

   But I digress…

   ETA: I suppose it’s impossible for me to reconcile the CA with my understanding of reality. Fair enough. I’ll stick with my understanding of reality.

5. Kantian Naturalist: That’s correct — I have no explanation for the origins of the universe. And I don’t think anyone else does, either. That’s what makes me an agnostic.

   But are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? 😉

6. Robin: This is fairly well trod set of criticisms. In summary, decay does not have contingencies, so that right there creates a problem for a Thomistic understanding of the CA.

   Look, I have been asking a bunch of times now where are you getting this. In what way do you think it meaningful or proven (or whatever it is that matters to you) to say that atomic decay has no contingencies? But I guess no answer will be forthcoming.

   Robin: In Special Relativity, Einstein noted that physics is invariant in all inertial systems. This then leads to Einstein’s assessment of time dilation and it’s effects on events. While it does imply that nothing can move faster than the speed of light (because an outcome cannot precede its cause), there’s nothing preventing a cause and event occurring simultaneously. Thus, there is a reasonable argument for a event causing itself under the right conditions.

   And the first cause (i.e. God) is said to be self-caused, if that’s a meaningful thing to say. Given your last sentence, it is. See?

   How does any of this weaken the cosmological argument? Here you are only demonstrating that you don’t care one bit about the fact that the first cause is a metaphysical concept. You speak exclusively about physics, as if that meant something. Sorry, but it doesn’t.

   Erik: It is quite evident that when you say “decay is not contingent” you mean something quite different than what contingency means in metaphysics. (Note: that’s metaphysics.)

   Robin:No I don’t.

   Well…

   Robin:
   This would be an example of what I noted earlier; you and I have very different understandings of matter, it’s interaction, and the properties of certain phenomena. Atoms do not behave like billiard balls on a table…at all.

   So, yes, you do mean “contingency” differently than I do. It’s all crystal clear from your assumption that what you are saying about physics here somehow has any effect on the cosmological argument or on metaphysics in general. It doesn’t.

   It’s the other way round – your metaphysics determines what you take concepts like cause and effect to be. A statement like “The effect can precede the cause” demonstrates lack of metaphysics, i.e. lack of definition for the words you are using.

7. Robin: In summary, decay does not have contingencies

   That isn’t an argument. How do you explain rad decay absent an Intelligent Designer? First you have to be able to explain the elements, which you cannot

8. Erik: Look, I have been asking a bunch of times now where are you getting this. In what way do you think it meaningful or proven (or whatever it is that matters to you) to say that atomic decay has no contingencies? But I guess no answer will be forthcoming.

   I suggested a solution. If you do not wish to read up on decay, preferring instead a truncated Wiki version, there’s not much more I can add.

   And the first cause (i.e. God) is said to be self-caused, if that’s a meaningful thing to say. Given your last sentence, it is. See?

   Apparently you’re missing the point. According to Einstein’s Theory, LOTS of things can be “self-caused”. Thus, no “god” necessary, at least as far as the CA goes.

   How does any of this weaken the cosmological argument? Here you are only demonstrating that you don’t care one bit about the fact that the first cause is a metaphysical concept. You speak exclusively about physics, as if that meant something. Sorry, but it doesn’t.

   Fine…then I dismiss metaphysics as so much quackery and content myself that physics seems to explain things much better. Happy?

   Well…

   So, yes, you do mean “contingency” differently than I do. It’s all crystal clear from your assumption that what you are saying about physics here somehow has any effect on the cosmological argument or on metaphysics in general. It doesn’t.

   Ok. Fine. Then we’re done here. Thanks for your contribution to this point. I’ll move on to someone who can illuminate concepts that fit with reality.

   It’s the other way round – your metaphysics determines what you take concepts like cause and effect to be. A statement like “The effect can precede the cause” demonstrates lack of metaphysics, i.e. lack of definition for the words you are using.

   Well, any metaphysics that concludes that effects can proceed causes is simply erroneous. But you keep telling yourself otherwise…

9. Robin: I suggested a solution. If you do not wish to read up on decay, preferring instead a truncated Wiki version, there’s not much more I can add.

   I’m asking you to add only this much: A single point that would demonstrate its relevance.

   Robin: Apparently you’re missing the point. According to Einstein’s Theory, LOTS of things can be “self-caused”. Thus, no “god” necessary, at least as far as the CA goes.

   That’s one way of putting it. Another way: “… if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” Now, I am not too hopeful about that – “mind of God” in physics has as little to do with any particular religious God (or even God-of-the-philosophers) as lawyers’ “act of God” – but there you have it from a physicist. As long as there is no complete theory, there is some God in the gaps. But when you have the complete theory, you would (as per scholastic and any essentialist philosophy anyway) comprehend the omnipresence of that which is both transcendent and immanent and one-in-all.

   ETA: The last quote is from Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time. He was on the same page with (my kind of) philosophers at that time.

10. Frankie: And your evidence for this is what?

    It’s a logical deduction from atheism. [ETA: No evidence required.] Atheism entails magical things happening all the time.

11. Erik: I’m asking you to add only this much: A single point that would demonstrate its relevance.

    That’s one way of putting it. Another way: “… if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” Now, I am not too hopeful about that – “mind of God” in physics has as little to do with any particular religious God (or even God-of-the-philosophers) as lawyers’ “act of God” – but there you have it from a physicist. As long as there is no complete theory, there is some God in the gaps. But when you have the complete theory, you would (as per scholastic and any essentialist philosophy anyway) comprehend the omnipresence of that which is both transcendent and immanent and one-in-all.

    ETA: The last quote is from Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time. He was on the same page with (my kind of) philosophers at that time.

    I think you grasping at straws, Erik. Hawking has been really forthcoming about not only his personal beliefs, but what he think physics indicates about “God”. To wit:

    “Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

    As for your complaint about my reference to decay, sorry, but Feser et al are wrong. It is the scholastic’s burden to show how decay meets the definition of contingency. Simply saying, “well…according to scholastic tradition, such things are contingent and therefore so is decay” is simply a weak hand wave. Feser knows this as well. I’m not interested in hand waves or arguments to weak and inaccurate ways of assessing why the world or humans are here.

    And I addressed this upstream: our understanding of reality is very different. Given what I know about how physics works (and doesn’t), the CA is invalid to me. That you do not understand or accept those aspects of physics and believe reality can (and does) work differently and thus can accept metaphysical premises that support the CA, that’s fine. Have at it. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. I’m trying to understand how some people get from first cause to “God”. You’ve explained how some folk do that. So I’m good. I can’t buy into it myself, but that wasn’t the point from the beginning.

12. Robin: “Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

    But Hawking doesn’t have a scientific explanation for the existence of gravity. And he also doesn’t have any way to scientifically test his claim.

13. Frankie: But Hawking doesn’t have a scientific explanation for the existence of gravity. And he also doesn’t have any way to scientifically test his claim.

    Oh.MY….Seriously Joe…that’s your rebuttal? Unreal…