John finally found a way to force me into writing a blog. Bravo!
So, what do I believe in, huh? Well, let's start with a little bit of personal history.
My parents took me to church when I was a young child. I didn't particularly enjoy the experience growing up. I found church to be extremely boring and would spend the time during the service drawing pictures on the pamphlets they handed out. I don't think there was ever a time in my life where I gave Christianity much credence. I know I had some respect for the idea of a God when I was a child, but I'm pretty sure I was, at the very least, indifferent to the teachings of the Bible.
Now, it should be stated that my parents are not profoundly religious. My dad is some sort of vague spiritualist. He admires Jesus, but I certainly wouldn't describe him as a Christian. My mom, on the other hand, leans towards the skeptical side of the spectrum. Really, the whole reason I was dragged to church was because my parents were involved in some of the "entertainment" aspects of the service. My dad would play the piano and my mom would sing.
As a side note, I would like to say that I never felt pressured to accept or dismiss faith. My parents allowed me to come to my own conclusions on the matter.
My parents stopped taking me to church when I was old enough to stay home on my own. Boy, it sure was nice to sleep in on Sunday! I admit there were moments where I felt a twinge of worry about not going to church. What if the Christians are right and God sends me to Hell for not going to church? Note how the only factor of Christianity that ever motivated me was the FEAR factor.
There was a brief period in my early teens where I identified myself as an atheist. However, I was rather cocky at this point in my life, and eventually came to feel as though I had arrived at atheism for all the wrong reasons. I abandoned the idea of God without really understanding the arguments for or against his existence. Furthermore, I found atheism appealing because it offered me a sense of intellectual superiority.
I decided to adopt the humbler position of an agnostic during my later teen years. There isn't much else to be said about this period of my irreligious development.
So, what do I believe now? Well, let's start with what I hold faith in. I have faith that the material world is real and is not just a figment of my imagination. I have faith my mind is in my body and not inside a vat within a scientist's lab. I have faith that other people have minds not unlike my own. These are called properly basic beliefs, and they are essentially taken for granted by everyone but the most hardcore of skeptics (the kind of skeptic who doubts our ability to know anything). I see them as necessary to function on a daily basis.
Now, on to my current beliefs regarding the divine. While studying the philosophy of religion, I found the arguments for the existence of a non-theistic God to be sound reasons assume his necessity. Specifically, I am referring to the cosmological and teleological arguments.
I am not unquestionably allied to this position. If science could provide adequate explanations for the origins of life and the universe, then I would not stubbornly hold on to my deism.
There you have it. An overview of my experience with religion and irreligion, and a testament to where I stand now.
I thought that Bertrand Russel did a good job offering reason to doubt the cosmological and teleological arguments. Rather than paraphrase, I'll just post a link (great job, internet!):
ReplyDeletehttp://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Thank you Matt. I never bought the arguments against those arguments as presented by Bertrand Russel.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know who he was but I just read some of that and I've heard some of it before.
Anyways I'm not sure I understand the term nontheistic God. I tried to google it but didn't get a consensus.
If I understand it right it's just God but minus personality. In that term God is more of a force than a being.
Tell me if I'm right cause I really don't know.
"I never bought the arguments against those arguments as presented by Bertrand Russel.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know who he was but I just read some of that and I've heard some of it before."
Uhhm... Ok. Are you going to expand on that point? At all?
Would you like to state WHY you "don't buy it", or are you just letting me know, for the record, that you're against it? Because I'm pretty sure that we're all really clear about how that formula works: Doesn't support God = John no likey. No sir, no official "thumbs down" necessary.
But if you wanna talk about why it doesn't seem convincing, I would enjoy the discussion.
Wow, Russell's critiques are surprisingly underwhelming. I expected something a little more interesting from a person regarded as one of the 20th century's top intellectuals. He should have just read off Immanuel Kant's critiques of the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments. At least Kant gave it a better try.
ReplyDeleteI find Russell's "First-Cause" segment to be especially amateurish. However, I'm going to go ahead and guess he wrote this before the infinite universe theory was beaten out by the big bang theory. So, let me get down to the real meat of the problem here. Russell's arguments are, quite simply, out of date.
We know now that the universe is expanding and that it once began as a singularity. We cannot account for what might have caused this expansion or where this singularity may have came from (though some physicists may be close to doing so. For your leisurely enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo ).
We know now how astronomically lucky we are to live in a universe capable of sustaining life. I don't have the data in front of me, but trust me when I say the odds are horribly unsettling.
John, here's an equation for you. Non-theistic God = Intelligent Designer - Silly Mythology.
"I'm going to go ahead and guess he wrote this before the infinite universe theory was beaten out by the big bang theory."
ReplyDeleteYour guess seems to be correct. Wikipedia tells me that the big bang theory originated post-WWII, and "Why I am not a Christian" was written sometime at or before 1932, if I'm not mistaken.
"I don't have the data in front of me, but trust me when I say the odds are horribly unsettling"
I feel like being horribly unsettled. Can you send me a link? I remember Meriwether giving us some kind of calculation about how unlikely it is for life to arise. But even if this is the same, I'd like to brush up. I've thought of that class over the years and been suspicious of that calculation, but I have no basis for criticism, wallowing in ignorance as I am.
In defense of Russell, what you're reading is basically a written version of a speech, intended for lay people. Its assets are not that it accurately describes the origin and nature of universe as it is, but that it points out (in simple terms) the logical fallacy in arguments which claim the necessity of a deity.
ReplyDeleteYou say that the argument against the first cause cosmology argument is amateurish. Ok, maybe so; I'm not certain on what basis to judge. It's certainly old, and unpolished (as I said, it's written as a summary for lay people). However, the scope of his critique is limited to only the logic of argument. Within that tightly contained scope, I think it is satisfactory.
The cosmological argument is a logical fallacy, by it's own terms. It's premise is that "everything has a cause" and forms a chain of cause and effect. Then it's conclusion, that there must therefore be a cause with no cause itself, DIRECTLY contradicts it's own premise. That's a critique of the logic applied in that argument. Old or no, that is still valid.
It doesn't matter what we've learned since about the nature of the universe (astonishing as that knowledge may be), that knowledge does not change the fact that the cosmological argument uses fallacious reasoning. What the true origin of the universe is, I don't try to assert (neither did Russell for that matter, although he did hint at it). But it's not necessary to propose an alternative theory anyway. It's enough to say "this doesn't make sense" without being obliged to offer something else that does.
I do intend to respond I just still havent found the time to do it right.
ReplyDeleteWe know with the advent of the big bang theory that the universe is finite. It had a beginning and may, or may not ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7955379/The-universe-will-expand-forever-new-Nasa-study-on-dark-energy-concludes.html ) have an ending.
ReplyDeleteNow, maybe our universe had a finite cause, and maybe that finite cause had a finite cause, and so on and so forth ad inf....NOPE, not ad infinitum. We cannot have "turtles all the way down."
We know material objects have a cause. We know everything in this universe has a cause. We know this universe has a cause. So, what was it? It won't help us to propose finite conclusions, as doing so would only beg the question of what caused these to occur. So, somewhere down the line we have to infer the interference of an infinite, immaterial entity.
So, when someone employs the cosmological argument, what they are really saying is that everything finite (material) has a cause. An infinite, immaterial entity would not have a cause, by definition. It is a necessary entity by which all contingent entities have ultimately derived from.
Furthermore, when one takes the teleological argument into consideration, it is reasonable to assume that this entity is intelligent. L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell wrote an excellent article on the matter of a fine-tuned universe called, "The Anthropic Teleological Argument." Unfortunately, I was unable to find it online, so I'll just quote something from my textbook.
"Don N. Page of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princton, N.J., recently calculated the odds against the formation of our universe, and the figure was a good deal more than one in a billion [The authors were previously discussing the absurdity of anything happening randomly when the chances of it happening are one in a billion]. His exact computation was in fact one in 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power [I altered the expression of this number as I do not know how to do it as they've done. Don't worry about it if you don't know what I mean. It isn't really important]..."
Such an unfathomable number should certainly suggest that this entity is aware of what it's doing.
Just to clarify, the quote is from "The Anthropic Teleological Argument." The textbook featuring it is the third edition of "Philosophy of Religion: Selected Reading," published by Oxford University Press.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to sum up my counter succinctly is to compare these two statements of yours:
ReplyDelete"We cannot have 'turtles all the way down.'"
and
"somewhere down the line we have to infer the interference of an infinite, immaterial entity"
You first deny the infinite, then reassert it in a form that you're more comfortable with. Maybe the word "immaterial" is the important distinction. That seems like a bit of a copout to me. We can't find an adequate material cause so the answer MUST be the opposite. We can't figure the solution in terms we're capable of measuring and understanding, so we push the solution off into the realm of the "infinite and immaterial".
I don't claim to have the answer here. I don't know whether the universe is infinite and circular or if it has a beginning and an end. But this particular answer (prime mover) strikes me as too simplistic and dependent on semantics to be adequate.
Dungy,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's poor reasoning to say that something either does or does not have a cause.
We have pretty good circumstantial evidence at least that all things have a cause. If all things have a cause, whatever caused them must have a cause, but that leads as Matt said to turtles all the way.
I'm no scientist but if option a is gone and option b remains, the option b is the answer.
Backing up a bit though, I really do want to answer why it's not convincing but I keep confusing myself and running out of break time.
Let me rephrase:
ReplyDeleteThe premise is that all material objects/events have a cause, and in turn create material effects, or a chain of new causes. We're pretty confident that our premise is valid because we can observe this cause and effect and test it at will.
A possible solution (Solution A) of an infinite regression of cause/effect is not seen as acceptable. For one, because there's no observable precedent, for another because we cannot test it, and finally it's difficult for us to fathom as a logical solution.
Another possible solution (Solution B) is the prime mover or uncaused cause. It is seen by you and John as a more acceptable solution, but is it?
Like Solution A, B is not observable or testable. So is it more logically sound? I don't think so. I don't think that a chain of material causality necessitates an immaterial and infinite source. I just don't think that logic necessarily FOLLOWS. Is it easier to fathom? I find it hard to accurately picture either an infinite regress or an infinite and uncaused cause. They both seem equally befuddling in my eyes.
So why immediately cast out A as silly and cling to B as an adequate solution?? I would say they're either both equally adequate or both equally inadequate (I tend toward the latter).
In the interest of honesty I should point out that I have surpassed my "normal" knowledge of this subject, and am researching while composing responses. I don't think this is inherently wrong since I'm still supporting my same general critique (Russel's), however if that critique is directly refuted I'll stop (it would not be honest to restart from another angle of argumentation). It's important to me that I state this openly.
ReplyDeleteSure, maybe the universe we live in is just a part of some unfathomable paradox. Maybe we're just one insignificant effect in an infinite chain of cause and effect? Maybe the eternal recurrence is the reality we live in? Hell, maybe the multiverse hypothesis is true, or maybe the universe sprang out from nothing?
ReplyDeleteNow, are any of these options currently on par with the concept of an intelligent designer? I don't think they are. Why? Because postulating the existence of an intelligent designer has two advantages.
One, an intelligent designer would provide a concrete starting point for a series of events. We would not have to rely on a paradox to explain the origin of our universe.
Two, the fine-tuning of our universe is highly complimentary to the postulation of an intelligent designer. An eternal recurrence or infinite cause/effect chain would not be able to explain this complexity (at the very least, the explanation wouldn't be as obvious).
So, what about the mulitverse hypothesis? Well, besides still primarily existing in the realm of science fiction, the exact same problem would arise when questioning the origin of all these universes.
The "universe from nothing" hypothesis is probably the biggest challenger. I know very little about the hypothesis besides what Lawrence Krauss said in the video I posted. Still, the hypothesis is not particularly widespread among the scientific community. I'm guessing this means the hypothesis still requires a lot more evidence in its favor. Furthermore, I doubt this hypothesis would be able to explain the complexity of the universe.
This is an interesting discussion... Please continue.
ReplyDeleteMy head is buzzing, for a couple of reasons. First, because I feel this debate coming close to an impasse; second, because I feel so compose a response to every point you and I have made. Of course, if I do it would threaten to throw this conversation of the tracks by sending us in a number of directions, losing focus on the important points of contention (a typical result for arguments between our little triumvirate). So I'm going to resist my baser instincts and try to restrain myself to the essentials.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be repelled by the alternatives to intelligent design, for one, because they're highly speculative and do not necessarily have the backing of observational science. I don't deny that, but I must point out that the notion of an Uncaused Cause is an equally speculative notion; it's merely a very old and broadly accepted speculation. It's roots are tied to Plato and Aristotle speculating a possible solution to the problem of causality. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Plato and Aristotle. I merely point this out to refocus this as a metaphysical question and solution, not a scientific one. Our discussion of possible origin theories clouds the fact that this is a metaphysical issue, since any theory that accurately describes a system or method that created our universe as we currently observe it could subsequently be dismissed by a deist/theist by asking "well how did that system/method initially get employed/set in motion?". So the inescapable question is adequately explaining such a metaphysical beginning.
Judging the solution of the Uncaused Cause on it's own merits, I don't see it being any more "concrete" or any less "paradoxical" than the alternatives. It's easier to fit in your head because, linguistically it's simple and elegant. But it only solves the logical predicament by pushing it to the other side of the equation. We can't cope with infinity in our exclusively material world so our source must therefore by infinite and IMmaterial? It's a rhetorical trick (as are many metaphysical notions), bolstered by millenia of popular acceptance.
It hasn't escaped my attention that you've attempted more than once to link the argument from design into our discussion of cosmology. I only ignored this for the sake of keeping the focus on cosmology until it could be resolved, but that seems unlikely so I'll bite. My terminology may be a little bit off, so bear with me. The logic that the universe is fine tuned to the unique needs of life is a reversal or "bottom up" kind of inferrence. If life evolves to the point of observing the universe around us, naturally the universe we observe is going to be capable of supporting that life. It's a kind of tautological fallacy "If things were different, things would be different". Wikipedia tells me that Dawkins once quoted Douglas Adams by calling this "puddle thinking" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddle_thinking#In_fiction_and_popular_culture. In fact, even Mr. Krauss mentions that fallacy at one point in the video.
This is really no different than the logic that intelligent design was responsible for this suitable planet and the life which grew on it, except that particular notion was refuted by observations of natural selection. On this universal scale it's more more difficult to produce a refutation from observation (hence alternatives are dismissed as "speculative"), but the fallacy is the same: argument from lack of imagination. Our particular brand of life arose from the conditions available, is it so difficult to imagine a different kind of life, or animation arising from a completely different universe?? Heh, again I'm speculating...
I found the original article that describes Mr. Page's model. It's a little above my intellectual level, but useful anyway.
ReplyDeletehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v128/ai_3884546/?tag=content;col1
I am conflicted. Part of me wants to concede to the logic of your points. The other part suspects that the postulation of an intelligent designer might still be worth fighting for. My main concern is with using correct reasoning to solve problems, and I admit my reasoning for this argument may be faulty.
ReplyDeleteI need more time to think.
I have good news....this discussion has given me my next blog topic.
ReplyDeleteIt may well be called "Thanking my friend Dungy (And Matt)"
These discussions have been illuminating.
Matt:
ReplyDeleteIf you ask Professor Meriwether for advice, I'm sure he could produce something that would essentially blow me out of the water.
Whatever confidence I have in my own arguments is tempered with the knowledge that he almost certainly has a cogent rebuttal at the ready. My most vivid memories of Phil of Religion are my attempts at criticism being evicerated on an almost daily basis.
I state this openly to counter my fear that you may have already taken this route..
Coming back to this after so long:
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to believe that the human difficulty with the cosmological problem is linked to our concept of beginnings. Human beings have never witnessed a true beginning. We've witnessed links in a chain, the translation of one arrangement of matter into another, but we've never witnessed something spontaneously "begin", or come out of nothing. Our minds demand such a beginning for our world, but on the other hand, we can't imagine something that we've never seen. Our minds demand something that it itself cannot cope with.
Trippy.
Anyway, one thing I am sure of is that this question/paradox is a false path of logic. It's far beyond the range of usefulness for pure reason. Reason will not yield and acceptable solution that is also true. It's just too abstract and metaphysical. In the very long term, perhaps science will have an acceptable answer, gathered from observation rather than philisophical inquiry. But in the short term, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with "I don't know".