I found this interview on the Website of Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger and speaker who’s the Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron’s Word on Fire Catholic Ministries. Allow me to quote from Vogt’s introduction:
A few months ago, a man named Dave Rubin reached out to us at Word on Fire to ask if Bishop Barron would be open to an interview. (Apparently lots of Dave’s Twitter followers suggested the idea.)
To be honest, we didn’t know much about Dave at the time. But after some Googling, we discovered he’s a well-known comedian and host of the super popular “Rubin Report”, a show that airs directly through YouTube. “The Rubin Report” has over 350,000 subscribers and 100 million views. It’s one of the most popular YouTube channels in the world…
Dave is an interesting guy. One website describes him as a “rising media star” and “the voice of liberals who were mugged by progressives.” It says he’s “a 39-year-old pro-choice, pro-pot, recently gay-married atheist with a strong allergy to organized religion.”
In other words, the anti-Bishop Barron…I encourage you to watch both parts of the interview. Bishop Barron did such a marvelous job. He was smart and eloquent, even when Dave pushed the discussion toward hot-button issues…
So, what do viewers think of this interview? Does anyone feel that the bishop made an interesting case for belief in God?
Ahh! Got it. Thank you.
Ok. Thanks.
What’s the usual argument to try and bridge the gap then?
Ok. Thanks again. I think you summarized my issue and thinking on the subject quite well. I’ve never understood how one gets from the idea of a “first cause” to any sort of living or thinking entity, let alone any entity supposedly resembling some particular religion’s god.
To be honest, I’ve never understood that part. I’ve read Hart’s The Experience of God, and he tries to bridge the gap with some pretty question-begging claims about the nature of consciousness. Needless to say I wasn’t impressed.
Yeah, I don’t see how the argument is supposed to go, either.
For that matter, I don’t even think Aquinas was all that clear on this point. There’s a logical break in his arguments. He’ll give an argument (usually drawn from Aristotle, but improved upon), and then say, “and this everyone calls God”. Well, do they? Must they? Should they? What about those who don’t?
Hi KN, Robin, I am pretty sure that Aquinas does cover that gap but I honestly could not tell you where or how convincing the arguments are..
The arguments for the existence of an intelligence behind the first cause are the effects left behind. Effects like the physical laws that govern the universe to allow every day things to operate without constant intervention- the Ronco “set it and forget it” design. (as opposed to “They [those laws] just are (the way they are.”- Hawking “Briefer History of Time”)- as if saying that absolves materialists). and that those laws are understandable Effects like all of the factors required just to get a habitable planet for intelligent, technologically capable, life. Etc.
Explanations tend to be idealized and often over-simplified. And, sometimes they are only “just so” stories.
That’s far from obvious, and probably false.
It is possible that intelligence is behind physical laws, however how do we know that intelligence is the not contingent on another cause?
You are assuming your conclusion by the assumption that” set it and forget” and “just the way they are” are mutually exclusive therefore intelligence
Even if the universe is fine tuned ,you have not made the argument why the first cause is that fine tuner.
The Fine-Tuning Tuner?
Fine tuning Tuna, if you are a yat from New Orleans
So I went and read a variety of summaries and translations on Aquinas’ argument and it really does appear to boil down the way the KN summarized it. Basically, Aquinas simply jumps from what I consider to be at least a logical argument for a first cause to “God” by stating that, well, an uncaused cause must be what everyone calls “God”. I personally am left unsatisfied by that argument.
ETA: I see Joe offered his standard argument: ‘I can’t imagine that any [insert amazingly rare, complex, orderly, expensive, powerful, etc thing] could come about without some thought or intent” coupled with “…and you can’t show otherwise!” Yawn…equally unsatisfying in my book, to say nothing being the bad theology of “god of the gaps” coupled with an argument from ignorance.
Oh well…I was hopeful. That’ll teach me…
Robin,
Robin, Imagination is not scientific evidence. Knowledge of cause and effect relationships is not ignorance and science mandates design inferences first eliminate blind and mindless processes. That also means that by demonstrating blind and mindless processes are up to the task you refute the design inference.
So tell us, Robin, what is satisfying in your book? Do tell so we know what you will accept But by doing so I will be able to show how ID meets or exceeds your standards. You seem to just accept what Hawking says without flinching. Is that what you call science?
Hi everyone,
For those wanting to learn more about the logic underlying Aquinas’ arguments, and exactly how he reasons his way to God, I’ve written a handy summary here:
It’s an exposition of how Thomist philosopher Ed Feser interprets the arguments, followed by a critique on my part. I hope readers find it helpful. The logic of the Fifth Way (which is supposed to take us to an Intelligent Being) is discussed here:
Cheers.
FWIW
A presuppositionalist would point out that the material world is not separate from the rational and moral order. In fact that order is the order of the materiel world.
It’s obvious that the moral and rational order must come from a Mind rather than from a impersonal force.
IMO Where Aquinas’s followers fall short is in viewing the materiel universe as some how separate and distinct from the rational/moral order that sustains it. They treat things like logic and reason as brute facts rather than things that them self require an explanation.
peace
How about, assuming that effects have only what the causes impart to them, the first cause should be conscious and alive, because we (the effects) are that?
Erik,
Since conscious living beings are a miniscule fraction of the universe (so far as we know) I don’t see what justifies the claim that the cause of the entire universe had to be anything at all like us.
So you are okay to leave some stuff unexplained? When you look for explanations, you explain most stuff that looks like worth it and the rest is “I don’t see what justifies the claim…”? I submit that you don’t see it because you are not really looking for answers. You are okay with half- and non-answers.
For some other people, live and conscious human beings are among the data to be explained. Human beings as a whole, not taken apart into unthinking atoms that randomly bump into each other.
I can see that kind of argument, but I don’t find it well thought out. First, there’s nothing obvious to suggest there are any actual things we call “rational” and “moral”, but rather that they are simply abstract concepts humans used to describe human behavior dynamics. Second, even if one could show they are actual things, there’s no actual entailment to show they are not separate from the material world. So this is a pretty weak argument to me and leaves me no more satisfied with the supposed connection than before.
And then there’s this, which is nothing more than question begging. There’s nothing obvious about such unless one presupposes such, which is just fallacious reasoning.
I happen to think that Aquinas is on the right track there, but then takes a rather vague leap. But YMMV…
This doesn’t strike me as well-thought out either. Few (if any) causes actually impart any of their own characteristics on any effects. A simple example: lightning is not made of fire, but lightning can effect fire under the right conditions. And just for giggles: when two cars run into each other the effect is not more cars…
Why does the first cause have to explain minds and life and not simply explain the material from which minds and life could arise?
So lightning doesn’t burn? It isn’t hot? Fires burn and fires are also hot. So that is at least two characteristics that lightning imparts on fire. Lightning lights up the dark and guess what? Fires also light up the dark.
Artifacts are determined by the work done. The work done is a characteristic of the worker.
We understand cause and effect relationships because causes impart their own characteristics on their effects. Scientists count on it, as do investigators of all stripes.
Is or is not lightning something that ignites? Would you expect fire from rain “under the right conditions”? Well, lightning and rain often go together, so you just might.
What is the cause in that situation? Cars or collision?
And that first cause is…? And it’s first in what sense?
Lightning itself? No. Lightning is an electrostatic discharge (flow of electrically charged particles, usually electrons, between two charged objects). That lightning can ignite other objects is therefore an effect, not a cause.
This is sort a relevant point of distinction in the cosmological argument. If you can’t grasp this particular distinction, I suggest that the cosmological argument is then moot.
Certainly! Growth spurt fires are an actual phenomenon. Might want to look it up.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/can-rain-cause-more-fire
And then there’s this:
http://abc30.com/weather/rain-causes-transformer-fire-in-visalia/328342/
But that’s not what you asked, nor does it address the actual point.
The point is, actual effects don’t usually gain characteristics from their causes. We know gravity is the cause of orbital effects, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to identify specific “gravity characteristics” in any given orbit.
The cause is “two cars contacting one another”. We could go further and speculate on the cause having something to do with the state or attention of one or both drivers. Perhaps it was caused by some other event (like a lightning strike! heh!) That such can be phrased in a variety of ways in a number of languages really only serves to further my point – that “assuming that effects have only what the causes impart to them” would really only work depending on the words one is using. Not a particularly valid approach then, is it?
I would have no idea. It’s not my philosophy. I simply stated I can get on board with the basic logic of the initial argument that all contingent events need a cause and since it’s conceivable there was some point when there were no contingencies, something had to be some kind of necessary first cause.
It was the cause of the initial state of the universe.
Robin,
What? http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/faq/
A giant spark. How can someone not understand that an electrostatic discharge of that magnitude is not the cause of several different effects? For example:
The the cause of the fire was a lightning strike. The effect of the fire was x acres burned
The cause of the electrical damage was a lightning strike. The effect of the damage was widespread as thousands were without power.
Thank you Joe was supporting my exact point. And demonstrating you have no idea what I meant and why your post supports it at the same time!
And..
So, secondary and indirect causes are causes when you want them to be, but when you don’t want them to be causes, then you call them effects and you deny that they are causes. You may want to sort this out before we continue.
As for me, the first cause is not of the relative world anyway. The relative world is the sum total of contingencies that itself needs a cause.
To have any clue of the cosmological argument you need to know the difference between physics and metaphysics. Should be piece of cake for a smart guy like you.
The issue, as far as the CA goes, is one of contingency. My point is that simply “assuming that effects have only what the causes impart to them” doesn’t reflect reality. What “causes” an atomic particle to decay? What’s the decay contingent upon?
Going back to one of my previous examples, let’s say that two cars colliding has the effect of two dented cars. Can you be absolutely certain that the dented cars have only what the cause imparts? How would you know?
And to me, if some secondary and indirect causes are both causes and effects, then the cosmological argument becomes even weaker as an argument because the concept of contingency becomes vague.
I don’t know what you mean by “relative world” here. Do you mean Earth or something like reality? Is is something you think existed before the initial state of the universe and if so, what do you mean by that?
Yes, I’m aware of the difference between physics and metaphysics. I have no problem in principle with the CA being a metaphysically assessment. I still submit that arriving at a “god” (let alone any specific “God”) as being the first cause requires a fallacious leap to a conclusion not in evidence.
ETA: A bit of an elaboration: as I said, I have no problem in principle with the CA being a metaphysical assessment, however I will note that both Aristotle and Aquinas (and a whole slew of philosophers since) have attempted to ground the logic of the argument in the physical world. The basis of the argument – that all contingent events have causes and that if at any point there were no contingent events, then there must have been a non-contingent event that got things started – is not a metaphysical assessment, but a physical assessment. Therefore to attempt to switch at some point down the line in order to arrive at “god” is rather dubious in my book.
The decay demonstrates that atomic particles are contingent.
What else is there? Some uncaused new thing?
No.
If you know the difference between physics and metaphysics, then you know that the relative world is the same thing as the sum total of contingencies. Even more so because I said so as soon as I brought this up. And when you take metaphysics seriously, then you use the word “evidence” (which tends to be of physics) in some other sentence.
You didn’t answer the question: what caused the decay. Aquinas et al are quite specific about the relationships in the CA. That they didn’t know about atomic decay simply suggests that the CA may well be an argument from ignorance as it is proposed. So unless someone can come up with what atomic decay is contingent upon it’s a rather glaring and valid criticism.
I’m not suggesting an “uncaused new thing”; I’m suggesting that your statement above:
How about, assuming that effects have only what the causes impart to them, the first cause should be conscious and alive, because we (the effects) are that?
isn’t well-thought out as it doesn’t reflect reality. I’ll note that Aquinas stated only that the effect must be different and distinguishable from the cause.
Well, then an elaboration might be prudent. Or not, if you don’t care about said CA…
See my add-on above. I don’t see where attempting to make “the entirety of everything there is” an effect requiring some ultimate “all-cause”. For one thing, it doesn’t reflect the CA at all or any of the arguments that any of the philosophers who have attempted to defend the CA have used. For another, it’s less logical than the CA as it suffers significantly from question begging, to say nothing of both special pleading and arguing from ignorance. I’ll pass, thanks.
In scholasticism it’s common sense that everything physical is contingent and must fall apart. Atomic decay would rise no eyebrow. This view of contingency bridges physical causes to transcendent causes and from there to the first cause. Or else:
Spell out what you believe about the cosmological argument and we’ll see if it’s really so.
Did he also permit that the effect can be unrelated to the cause?
I don’t really see why I’m “okay with half- and non-answers” just because I don’t have an explanation for the origins of the universe.
Of course I take living and conscious beings, including human beings, as among the data to be explained. I just don’t think that an explanation of those phenomena requires an explanation of the origins of the universe.
More to the point: I don’t see why the need for an explanation of the fact that some of those contingent beings are living and conscious beings requires that the necessary being is also a living and conscious being.
It certainly means that you are okay with having no explanation for the origins of the universe. Anyway, so you say you don’t have an explanation for the (origins of the) universe. I have no further questions.
In scholasticism, causes cannot impart something they don’t have. In KN-ism, anything goes? Probably not. It’s more like “I don’t see…”
I’m not sure what you mean by things we call rational and moral. An argument can be rational or not an action can me moral or not.
Do you not think that the universe behaves in an orderly fashion?
Again I’m not following when we talk abut a rational argument we are not talking about 2 things but one an argument that is rational. When I say the universe is rational I mean it in the same sense as I do when I say an argument is rational
Of course it’s obvious that rationality doesn’t arise spontaneously out of irrationality. There is no question begging here
If rationality does not require a rational source a valid argument could be made from nonsense. Surely you know that is impossible
I don’t want to denigrate Aquinas. He was a genius
I just don”t think he went far enough with this particular argument.
peace
🙂
Wait, you mean the ball may not be the actual cause of the window shattering?
So if the ball doesn’t shatter, then the shattered window is an effect not present in the cause?
LoL! Try to follow along:
Erik- Is or is not lightning something that ignites?
Robin- Lightning itself? No.
Lightning is a giant spark and a spark from a spark plug ignites the fuel. I would say it is safe to say that lightning is something that ignites. I would also say that specific causes cause specific effects. And that means the characteristics of the cause are imparted onto their effects.
It’s design. Radioactive decay is a great way to ferry in new elements without having to intervene. And it is most likely a requirement for a universe to exist for any length of time. It’s an equilibrium thing.
And that is why ID does not make that leap. Even Behe testified that the evidence for ID was not evidence for God but his faith is what says God is the Designer.
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.
From what I can tell, you seem to think that I must have an explanation for the origins of the universe in order to take a serious interest in the origins of life and of consciousness. I don’t see why that’s the case.
Scholasticism is built, from what I know of it, on Aristotle’s way of being about causes and explanations. I admire Aristotle immensely, and there’s something intuitive about the form/matter distinction that’s central to his philosophy. Nevertheless that’s not at all my approach. I think I am closer to Spinoza, and closer still to process metaphysics.
Why is that a consideration for the designer?
It’s my understanding that Aristotle believed in an eternal universe. So I don’t get the connection. Which argument of Aristotle or even Aquinas relied on the universe having a beginning?
Then why argue against ID?
The two are directly linked.
There’s a reason that scholasticism faded out in the 16th century – it led to positively erroneous understandings of how things work. I don’t much care how a scholastic of the middle ages would view decay as it clearly doesn’t reflect reality.
This view of contingency bridges physical causes to transcendent causes and from there to the first cause.
If you have to prop up a philosophical assessment with clearly erroneous physics, it strikes me as simply wrong, both in terms of attempting to provide valid logic and in attempting to provide valid theology. It’s just a poor approach no matter how you slice in imho.
I have several times, but here’s a summary:
1) all contingent events within the universe require a contingent cause
2) it’s conceivable that at some point there was no universe
3) If there was no universe, there were no contingent causes
4) in order for the universe (or rather, any contingent event, including the universe itself) to exist, there had to be a non-contingent first cause.
He never used the term “unrelated”, simply independent and distinguishable. Decay to does not meet that criteria.
Why in the world would you be relying on a long discarded method of critical thought to support your particular beliefs? Seems a rather weak approach to trying to support your views.
Exactly…a argument is determined to be “rational” or behavior determined to be “moral” if either meets some human understood (and from my understanding, developed) criteria. If, as I hold, both the criteria for “rational” thought and the criteria for “moral” behavior are human inventions, then cause of the material world need not have anything to do with the cause of the criteria for “rational” and “moral” anything.
That’s a great question. I would say there are systems within the universe that exhibit some order in some aspects of their behavior – stable solar systems come to mind here. But solar systems do remain stable in their brief live cycles and other systems – stars for example – are really quite chaotic at many different stages. On the whole I’d say the universes in general cannot be orderly overall, otherwise they would not exist for long.
Which is fine. See above. “Rational” to me simply means it meets some given human defined criteria.
Then to me you mean that the universe behaves in accordance with some human defined criteria. That’s fine in a general sense I guess, but it strikes me as not very useful in terms of understanding the behavior of the universe.
I didn’t say anything about irrationality. Personally I’m not a fan of using terms like “rational” or “irrational” to describe the behavior of the universe because such terms, to me, are specific to assessments of human made arguments against a set of human made rules. So the vast majority of matter and energy can be neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it simply behaves in specifically organized patterns we can easily understand and use to predict future behavior or it behaves in specifically chaotic patterns, in which case future predictions are difficult if not impossible.
All that said, the question beginning comes from your statement, “It’s obvious that the moral and rational order must come from a Mind rather than from a impersonal force.” First, there’s nothing obvious about it; it’s simply definitional based on the fact that we only know “rational” thought and “moral” behavior in terms of human evaluation. Second, in order to have such be properties of the universe, one has to premise a mind in the first place and then use that to build a cosmological argument. That’s question begging.
See above; such is simply definition based on man’s criteria for “rational” thought. Unless and until someone can demonstrate there are other “rational” entities, it makes no sense to me to assume it as a part of the first cause.
Fair enough.
Joe, just give up. Not only is this wrong, it completely misses the point of the CA.
I’ll stick with Erik on this topic.
LoL! More baseless bullshit from Robin. Why is it that Robin never actually makes a case?
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.
Erroneous physics such as…?
How does it not? What is so special about atomic decay? How is it different from example a heap of sand disintegrating in the wind or water evaporating in heat?
Unless you have something better, it cannot be called weak.
I’m not interested in the CA from a argument perspective; I’m interested in the CA from a logic perspective.
If the CA requires a scholastic perspective in order to understand it and to get from it’s initial premises to some “god”, then in my book is simply weak theology. I have no interest in that.
The claim that decay is contingent. It isn’t according to physics. Hence my comment above. If you are going to attempt to handwave a difficulty of your philosophy with erroneous physics, it’s not a very good philosophy imho.
Decay is not distinguishable or independent of any cause. It fact, there appears to be no direct cause of decay at all. It’s not like wind or water affecting sand; no force is blowing or eroding alpha particles off of elements.
I would suggest you read some physics on element structure and then on decay. I would further suggest some readings on quantum research and why physicists think that almost nothing within the quantum realm behaves in terms of contingency.
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”.
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.
Robin,
I think that Erik’s deeper point was that the cosmological argument only makes sense in the context of Scholastic understanding of causation and modality (possibility, contingency, necessity, actuality). I’m not sure the argument really makes sense independent of those background metaphysical commitments.
The demise of Scholasticism is complicated and definitely didn’t happen all at once or the same way in each country. In Protestant countries it was less insisted upon than in Catholic countries, for example. The most radical criticisms of Scholasticism, in Spinoza and Hume, were subjected to fierce backlash and took a long time to become widely accepted.
There were, I think, two distinct lines of influential thought that led to the demise of Scholasticism.
One was the recovery of Greek and Latin texts that led to the revival of humanism, and the discovery of comprehensive metaphysical systems that were genuine alternatives to Christianized Aristotelianism. Stoicism was one, and Epicureanism was another.
There was also, in response to the discovery of pluralism about comprehensive metaphysical systems, a revival of interest in Skepticism (Montaigne, Hume, and to some extent Nietzsche) as well as a sustained interest in refuting or overcoming Skepticism (Descartes, Kant, and Hegel).
Working in tandem (and sometimes opposition) to the discovery of pluralism of metaphysical systems was the rise of mathematical physics. There’s no conceptual space for mathematical physics in Scholasticism. Scholastic physics is qualitative and descriptive, not quantitative and experimental. Galileo is actually quite clear that in doing mathematical physics, he’s using Neoplatonism against Aristotelianism. (There’s even a suggestion of Neoplatonism in Copernicus; it’s been argued that he was inspired by Neoplatonic readings about the sun when he suggested making the sun the center of the system.)
Now, it is true that one could try and cut the baby in half, so to speak, and say that mechanistic/mathematical physics is true of the observable world (“secondary causes”) but that we need something like Scholasticism to make sense of the metaphysics or “primary causes”.
Descartes in fact tried something like that, and building on his efforts, so did Malebranche and Leibniz. Even Locke has something like this — yes, there are real essences (causal powers), but we cannot know what they are. (It’s been argued that this was Hume’s real view as well.)
Hopefully, that was a mildly entertaining digression on my part. Back to the main topics of the thread!
That’s right. To put it simply, either we are talking about the same thing or we are talking past each other. To avoid the latter, we must start by defining the terms. My definition of terms and context is the scholastic tradition.
Scholasticism is quite a bit richer than Christianized Aristotelianism. Most scholastics held various elements of Platonism first and foremost, whereas Aristotelianism was imported (or re-introduced) by means of the Muslim contact and became fashionable. And incidentally, European scholastic metaphysics and philosophical method is fully convertible to Indian scholasticism. They speak the same philosophical language. This is not a small thing.
Yes, and I certainly understand his (and your) point on that. However, as (and you) note, scholasticism can lead to some erroneous conclusions. If scholasticism is only way to get from a fairly sound logical argument of contingencies requiring a first cause to “God” (or at least, the only way of thinking in which “God” makes sense as a first cause), then the CA’s validity and credibility are questionable at best. And I have no use for such questionable assessments.
I do think the exchange was productive though. Erik’s understanding of the world, the interaction of matter, and the properties of certain phenomena is vastly different from mine. As an example from above, as I understand electricity, lightning itself is not hot at all. The movement of the electrical charge, however, creates a great deal of heat by exciting any atoms it passes. So, lightning will cause the air it passes through to get REALLY hot and can therefore cause fire through convection. But the lightning itself contains no fire (fire is, after all, an exothermic chemical process of rapid oxidation and that process does not occur in lightning. It’s simply not a property of lightning.
Given the above, I can understand why he (and FMM for that matter) would think that thought or intelligence has to be a property of the first cause, but the way I understand matter and physical phenomena, such is unnecessary. Intelligence can arise out of system interaction; no initial intelligence required.