Philosophy Now Forum

Oh no, it had to come sooner or later - the causation argument. This one has been on loop for many hundreds of years now, and we are no closer to a resolution, so I propose we park it? It basically goes something like this:

Philosopher 1: God created the universe.
Philosopher 2: But what made God?
Philosopher 1: Nothing, God was always there. He doesn't require a cause.
Philosopher 2: So why does the Universe have to have a cause?
Philosopher 1: Because the Universe had a beginning and contains all the laws of science, which in themselves must have causes.
Philosopher 2: But now you are just modifying the argument to suit your definition of God.
Philosopher 1: No I'm not.
Philosopher 2: Yes you are. You have chosen to define God as eternal and existing outside the laws of science, therefore he doesn't require a cause.
Philosopher 2: What if I define the Universe as having no beginning? Can I then say it has no cause?
Philosopher 1: But what about the Big Bang? That was a beginning.
Philosopher 2: That was a beginning. There could have been many Big Bangs. Who knows, we weren't there?
Philosopher 1: I am trying to use reason to find an answer.
Philosopher 2: I am trying to use evidence.

And so on, ad infinitum. No one is going to win this argument....

You appear to say as much at the end when you say that casual chains are beyond that which science can track. So yes, science doesn't require an initial uncaused cause.

No. What I'm saying is that science by definition speaks only of things that have causes, on the basis of the laws we know govern causality. Things that have no cause would be beyond science: science could not say anything about them, since scientific statements depend on all the original laws and principles governing statements about the universe to already be in place before it can say anything at all.

Anything before that, science has no means of explaining. It needs the causal laws already in place, as its sponsoring presuppostions.

This is quite another thing from saying "therefore science doesn't require anything to start it." In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite: something *has* to start, or set in place, the very laws that science proposes to "read" or from which it interprets its data. It needs an original cause. But this "cause" must be adequate to set in place the causal laws themselves. Therefore it cannot be a product of them. The original "cause" must be "uncaused."

And no, Aidden, I'm not explaining God. I'm not even, for a moment, speaking Theistically. I'm just explaining what is requisite for science itself. It needs an "uncaused" basis of origin.

Immanuel Can wrote:

You appear to say as much at the end when you say that casual chains are beyond that which science can track. So yes, science doesn't require an initial uncaused cause.

No. What I'm saying is that science by definition speaks only of things that have causes, on the basis of the laws we know govern causality. Things that have no cause would be beyond science: science could not say anything about them, since scientific statements depend on all the original laws and principles governing statements about the universe to already be in place before it can say anything at all.

Anything before that, science has no means of explaining. It needs the causal laws already in place, as its sponsoring presuppostions.

This is quite another thing from saying "therefore science doesn't require anything to start it." In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite: something *has* to start, or set in place, the very laws that science proposes to "read" or from which it interprets its data. It needs an original cause. But this "cause" must be adequate to set in place the causal laws themselves. Therefore it cannot be a product of them. The original "cause" must be "uncaused."

And no, Aidden, I'm not explaining God. I'm not even, for a moment, speaking Theistically. I'm just explaining what is requisite for science itself. It needs an "uncaused" basis of origin.

That may be true but science doesn't examine uncaused causes. Uncaused causes require a different methodology not founded in science. Science doesn't rely on casual chains to do its job. It doesn't need or investigate uncaused causes as a starting point. This is the job of metaphysics.

I think we need to get this bit right. You appear to have a Theistic explanation as a starting point for science. This is not correct.

marjoramblues wrote:For those so inclined...

http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress ... /arg4long/

A blog which lays out a set of arguments; considering Christian apologetics from an atheist's perspective.

4. Atheism is Not a “Worldview,” and Presuppositionalism is Incoherent

This post is my ongoing set of arguments answering objections to my Summary Case for Atheism, in which some Christians argue that it is reasonable to believe that non-material things exist. In many cases, this argument is extended to include the claim that atheists subscribe to a “worldview” that arbitrarily excludes the supernatural. This general argument is also extended into a subspecies of presuppositionalist arguments that are designed to show that atheism is internally inconsistent.

I contend that a) atheism isn’t a worldview, b) that my arguments survive the shared worldview both of the atheist and the theist, and c) presuppositionalism is incoherent and thus no argument for theism...

This is so bloody obvious.
Atheism is characterised by its lack of content.
It is the absence of a particular sort of belief.
It is NOT a belief that god does not exist. As to say that would be incoherent.
It is no belief at all.

aiddon wrote:Oh no, it had to come sooner or later - the causation argument. This one has been on loop for many hundreds of years now, and we are no closer to a resolution, so I propose we park it? It basically goes something like this:

Philosopher 1: God created the universe.
Philosopher 2: But what made God?
Philosopher 1: Nothing, God was always there. He doesn't require a cause.
Philosopher 2: So why does the Universe have to have a cause?
Philosopher 1: Because the Universe had a beginning and contains all the laws of science, which in themselves must have causes.
Philosopher 2: But now you are just modifying the argument to suit your definition of God.
Philosopher 1: No I'm not.
Philosopher 2: Yes you are. You have chosen to define God as eternal and existing outside the laws of science, therefore he doesn't require a cause.
Philosopher 2: What if I define the Universe as having no beginning? Can I then say it has no cause?
Philosopher 1: But what about the Big Bang? That was a beginning.
Philosopher 2: That was a beginning. There could have been many Big Bangs. Who knows, we weren't there?
Philosopher 1: I am trying to use reason to find an answer.
Philosopher 2: I am trying to use evidence.

And so on, ad infinitum. No one is going to win this argument....

But the point of the Title of the Thread does not even require an atheist to be concerned about this argument, nor even know about it.
The burden of prove still lies with the Theist, who fails.

But the point of the Title of the Thread does not even require an atheist to be concerned about this argument, nor even know about it.

Exactly! 'S what we keep trying to tell them. I don't need an argument - strong, weak, coherent or other. I don't have 'a case'. Just sayin' you don't have one.

Look at it this way. Atheism is simply saying "I've never met a god I could believe in." Maybe, if I ever do meet a convincing one, faith will suddenly fall on me, or spring forth in my heart, or however faith manifests. Meanwhile, I just don't buy whatever you're selling.

Immanuel Can wrote:And no, Aidden, I'm not explaining God. I'm not even, for a moment, speaking Theistically. I'm just explaining what is requisite for science itself. It needs an "uncaused" basis of origin.

Ginkgo wrote: Uncaused causes require a different methodology not founded in science. Science doesn't rely on casual chains to do its job. It doesn't need or investigate uncaused causes as a starting point. This is the job of metaphysics.

I think that is true. Science is empirical. It is entirely consistent with empiricism to be a bishop and maintain that matter is ideas in the mind of god. (If anyone isn't aware, that was the position held by George Berkeley) Science deals with phenomena, the best known expression of this is Isaac Newton's 'hypotheses non fingo'.
Whether matter or god exists is metaphysics.
Most scientists will have some ontological assumptions, Steven Weinberg, no fan of philosophy, describes a 'rough and ready realism'. All philosophically savvy scientists know that once they finish observing and measuring and get into hypothesising, they are effectively story telling, unless they can attach a prediction of some repeatable phenomenon that is consistent with their story and only their story; otherwise, you may have a good story, but there is nothing to distinguish it from all the other sometimes unfalsifiable stories, which can be made consistent with the observable data. This is the position that all religions find themselves in, and any one might be true, but they don't make claims about the world that cannot be explained by another story, a rival religion for instance.
You are right, Immanuel Can, science can't demonstrate 'first causes', but as Gingko points out, they are nothing to do with science.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:And no, Aidden, I'm not explaining God. I'm not even, for a moment, speaking Theistically. I'm just explaining what is requisite for science itself. It needs an "uncaused" basis of origin.

Ginkgo wrote: Uncaused causes require a different methodology not founded in science. Science doesn't rely on casual chains to do its job. It doesn't need or investigate uncaused causes as a starting point. This is the job of metaphysics.

I think that is true. Science is empirical. It is entirely consistent with empiricism to be a bishop and maintain that matter is ideas in the mind of god. (If anyone isn't aware, that was the position held by George Berkeley) Science deals with phenomena, the best known expression of this is Isaac Newton's 'hypotheses non fingo'.
Whether matter or god exists is metaphysics.
Most scientists will have some ontological assumptions, Steven Weinberg, no fan of philosophy, describes a 'rough and ready realism'. All philosophically savvy scientists know that once they finish observing and measuring and get into hypothesising, they are effectively story telling, unless they can attach a prediction of some repeatable phenomenon that is consistent with their story and only their story; otherwise, you may have a good story, but there is nothing to distinguish it from all the other sometimes unfalsifiable stories, which can be made consistent with the observable data. This is the position that all religions find themselves in, and any one might be true, but they don't make claims about the world that cannot be explained by another story, a rival religion for instance.
You are right, Immanuel Can, science can't demonstrate 'first causes', but as Gingko points out, they are nothing to do with science.

Yes, I would say you are correct. In the end one can always argue that science doesn't needs a starting point because its strength is manifest in how well it predicts events. Not how well it describes objective reality. What ever that might be.

Look at it this way. Atheism is simply saying "I've never met a god I could believe in." Maybe, if I ever do meet a convincing one, faith will suddenly fall on me, or spring forth in my heart, or however faith manifests. Meanwhile, I just don't buy whatever you're selling.

That's fine, Skip: but it's pretty palid. The only rejoinder it requires is, "Well, I have."

Yes, I would say you are correct. In the end one can always argue that science doesn't needs a starting point because its strength is manifest in how well it predicts events. Not how well it describes objective reality. What ever that might be.

Wait a minute: that's irrational. It says, "Science works, therefore science needs no causal explanation." That's a simple category error, and does not follow at all. Premise 1 is a pragmatic observation about the operation of a thing at present, but the conclusion you make is, if the thing "works" we don't need to explain its origin! Someone arguing in the same mode could say, "Cosmic unicorns make the Earth revolve, and so long as they continue to do so, we don't need to explain where these cosmic unicorns come from." Clearly that's not good logic.

Now let me drop a reminder of where we came from: the question, "Who caused God?" Well, if "What's the cause of God?" is taken to be any kind of a scientific question, then does the question itself not presuppose that science requires causes? Since eternal causal chains are both rationally and mathematically incoherent, as well as totally lacking in empirical evidence, in what sense it a claim not to need a first cause "scientific"? I suggest it's not just pure fiction, but 'bad faith' as well.

What you're really pointing to is that science itself is not a comprehensive way of seeing reality. Like a microscope, it's a tool that focuses human attention tightly on certain kinds of observations (i.e. physical/causal ones), but achieves its precision and power by the action of excluding the things that are not amenable to the scienfic method itself. In other words, it's a form of selective attention, nothing more. It permits great achievements in the physical and technological realms, but does so simply by acting as though no *other* realms exist. As you say, it "describes objectively"; but it does so by eliminating from its recognition anything subjective, or anything metaphysical such as mind, consciousness, personhood, meaning, ethics and transcendence.

I think science is a great tool; but I don't mistake it for the total truth of things. To understand it is to realize it is a powerful method for certain kinds of tasks, but utterly useless for others.

That is not an indictment of science, so long as we don't expect more of it than science itself promises to deliver.

It's good at doing what it promises to do. It does not do more.

Skip wrote:Look at it this way. Atheism is simply saying "I've never met a god I could believe in." Maybe, if I ever do meet a convincing one, faith will suddenly fall on me, or spring forth in my heart, or however faith manifests. Meanwhile, I just don't buy whatever you're selling.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's fine, Skip: but it's pretty palid. The only rejoinder it requires is, "Well, I have."

As I said, you don't need faith not to have faith. So what if it's pallid?

Gingko wrote:Yes, I would say you are correct. In the end one can always argue that science doesn't needs a starting point because its strength is manifest in how well it predicts events. Not how well it describes objective reality. What ever that might be.

Immanuel Can wrote:Wait a minute: that's irrational. It says, "Science works, therefore science needs no causal explanation."

It depends what you mean by irrational, but science doesn't need causal explanations. I take it you are not familiar with 'hypotheses non fingo' then. Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what happens very well; you can use it to describe the force a falling apple will hit you with very accurately; you can do real science with it. Newton though had no idea about the causal explanation and said, 'Hypotheses non fingo' 'I make no hypotheses'. Causal explanations don't necessarily make any difference; there are many theories about what the causal explanation of gravity is; apples fall on people's heads regardless of which one is correct.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's a simple category error, and does not follow at all. Premise 1 is a pragmatic observation about the operation of a thing at present, but the conclusion you make is, if the thing "works" we don't need to explain its origin!
Someone arguing in the same mode could say, "Cosmic unicorns make the Earth revolve, and so long as they continue to do so, we don't need to explain where these cosmic unicorns come from." Clearly that's not good logic.

And if you say to that someone 'I have never seen cosmic unicorns.' Would it be good logic for them to say:

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, I have.

Immanuel Can wrote:Now let me drop a reminder of where we came from: the question, "Who caused God?" Well, if "What's the cause of God?" is taken to be any kind of a scientific question,

It isn't.

Immanuel Can wrote:...then does the question itself not presuppose that science requires causes? Since eternal causal chains are both rationally and mathematically incoherent, as well as totally lacking in empirical evidence, in what sense it a claim not to need a first cause "scientific"? I suggest it's not just pure fiction, but 'bad faith' as well.

But it is your fiction that science requires causal chains.

Immanuel Can wrote:I think science is a great tool; but I don't mistake it for the total truth of things. To understand it is to realize it is a powerful method for certain kinds of tasks, but utterly useless for others.

That's true.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wait a minute: that's irrational. It says, "Science works, therefore science needs no causal explanation." That's a simple category error, and does not follow at all. Premise 1 is a pragmatic observation about the operation of a thing at present, but the conclusion you make is, if the thing "works" we don't need to explain its origin! Someone arguing in the same mode could say, "Cosmic unicorns make the Earth revolve, and so long as they continue to do so, we don't need to explain where these cosmic unicorns come from." Clearly that's not good logic.

Now let me drop a reminder of where we came from: the question, "Who caused God?" Well, if "What's the cause of God?" is taken to be any kind of a scientific question, then does the question itself not presuppose that science requires causes? Since eternal causal chains are both rationally and mathematically incoherent, as well as totally lacking in empirical evidence, in what sense it a claim not to need a first cause "scientific"? I suggest it's not just pure fiction, but 'bad faith' as well.

What you're really pointing to is that science itself is not a comprehensive way of seeing reality. Like a microscope, it's a tool that focuses human attention tightly on certain kinds of observations (i.e. physical/causal ones), but achieves its precision and power by the action of excluding the things that are not amenable to the scienfic method itself. In other words, it's a form of selective attention, nothing more. It permits great achievements in the physical and technological realms, but does so simply by acting as though no *other* realms exist. As you say, it "describes objectively"; but it does so by eliminating from its recognition anything subjective, or anything metaphysical such as mind, consciousness, personhood, meaning, ethics and transcendence.

I think science is a great tool; but I don't mistake it for the total truth of things. To understand it is to realize it is a powerful method for certain kinds of tasks, but utterly useless for others.

That is not an indictment of science, so long as we don't expect more of it than science itself promises to deliver.

It's good at doing what it promises to do. It does not do more.

If teapots and unicorns revolve around the sun earth then the burden of proof is with the person making such claim. They need to demonstrate their unicorn or teapot claim. See Russell's argument.

There is no casual explanation needed for science because there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect. Interestingly, science is based on something that has no logical necessity. You may feel the need for psychological necessity, but that's a different explanation.

Science acts if no other realm exists because this is its strength. The other realm is saved for metaphysics. If you want to take about first causes, then that is fine, but you are not talking science you would be talking metaphysics. Almost two thousand years of metaphysics did not give rise to one steam train, one computer or one space rocket.

That's fine, Skip: but it's pretty palid.

It's not my calling to bring colour to your argumentation.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Look at it this way. Atheism is simply saying "I've never met a god I could believe in." Maybe, if I ever do meet a convincing one, faith will suddenly fall on me, or spring forth in my heart, or however faith manifests. Meanwhile, I just don't buy whatever you're selling.

That's fine, Skip

Is it fine though? I'm not so sure. That description seems to me to be far more fitting the label "agnosticism" than "atheism".

Much as I'm loath to impute deception and disingenuousness to Skip - and would therefore suggest that to the extent that this description applies to him, it is not due to conscious and wilful deceptive/disingenuous intent on his part - I think William Lane Craig nails this issue of atheist claims that their position is one of "lack of belief in God" as opposed to "belief in the non-existence of God". Here's his conclusion at that link:

"So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”"

---

Just a couple of comments on the premise of this thread: that atheism is not a worldview. I think this is a debatable notion, depending, as others have said, on how "worldview" is defined. I'd suggest though that at the very least, atheism heavily informs an atheist's worldview. Why? Because of the significant implications of the apparently simple notion that there is no God.

For a start, the atheist has to reconcile the fact that (in his/her view) there is no God with the many, many people who do believe in God, and who live their lives based on this belief, and with the many, many scriptures and other literature which attest to the same thing. The atheist surely must have some view as to what is up with all these people and all the authors of such writing: typically (in my experience) atheists tend to believe that such people are delusional. This, in turn, has implications for one's view of human nature, which is a significant part of one's worldview: to take the view that so many people can be so easily deluded could very easily (and often does, in my experience) jaundice one's view of one's fellow man. Of course, one need not be an atheist to have a jaundiced view of one's fellow man - the apparent ease with which entire populations of people have "fallen under the spell" of bizarre and often dangerous and violence-inducing beliefs unrelated to theism or religion might easily lead one to the same view - but it certainly can contribute significantly to such a thing.

Then there are the metaphysical implications: if there is no God to create the universe and the creatures who inhabit it, then the universe and the creatures within it (including consciousness) must be explicable through entirely "natural"/physical/mechanical means. If this doesn't impact significantly on one's worldview, then I don't know what does.

So, is atheism a worldview? Strictly speaking, probably not, but it sure limits and informs the possibilities (as does theism).

I never claimed to speak for all atheists. I simply stated what I mean by it when I choose to display that label. Normally, I wouldn't bother to wear it, but when challenged, I step up and identify with fellow unbelievers in the face of coercive theism. ... without making any claims about supernatural entities, except to declare my lack of belief in them.


This

"So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

is some bullshit angelic dance contest such as academic theists often favour.
First, what possible difference does it make to your case how many self-described atheists are 'really' agnostic or maybe semi-agnostic, or uncommitted or only a 5, rather than a 7, on the unbelieving scale? Do you think it improves the prospect of their conversion, or looks better in the statistics, or what?

Second, trying to shift the burden of proof onto the negative:
- Lack of any evidence is proof of the not-so-ness of the not-being of the thing I propose to fill the absence of a demonstrable being. So it's your job to prove that absence isn't my god.
Well, guess what! It's not. My responsibility is whatever I take on as a responsibility, not whatever you assign me.

Third, atheism wasn't invented as a world-view or a belief system or a philosophy. It's simply a response to theism. It's a resistance to implausible and unwholesome dogma. In most cases, it's a situational rejection of a specific narrative.

"Here is a Holy Bible for you. God wants you to do as it says."
No, I don't think so.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

So? Ask it as much as you need to. If you get a different answer from mine, you're welcome to it. If you try to force that answer on me, I'll oppose you; otherwise, I don't care.
Nor does it very much matter how many lemmings follow which lunatic off the cliff of his choice. Yes, I do have an opinion as to why so many people believe so many improbable, absurd and downright insane stories and why so many behave in such destructive ways. Observation, reasoning, even some pretty substantial scholarship inform my opinion. And I am still under no obligation to justify my conclusions or even to share them.

Then there are the metaphysical implications: if there is no God to create the universe and the creatures who inhabit it, then the universe and the creatures within it (including consciousness) must be explicable through entirely "natural"/physical/mechanical means. If this doesn't impact significantly on one's worldview, then I don't know what does.

Exactly! You don't know what impacts my world-view and I don't know what impacts yours. We obviously both don't know what caused the universe, and probably never will. I'm okay with that.

Hi Skip,

I may have been a little... provocative... in my last post. If so, I hope something good has come of that in terms of your assertive response.

Skip wrote:First, what possible difference does it make to your case how many self-described atheists are 'really' agnostic or maybe semi-agnostic, or uncommitted or only a 5, rather than a 7, on the unbelieving scale? Do you think it improves the prospect of their conversion, or looks better in the statistics, or what?

It makes no difference to my case, only to my expectations. If a person says s/he is an atheist, then I expect him/her to be able to explain why, in his/her opinion, God does not exist. If that same person says s/he is an agnostic, then I don't have any such expectation. Some people seem to want to have it both ways: to both maintain that God does not exist, and to not be expected to justify that belief.

Skip wrote:Second, trying to shift the burden of proof onto the negative:
- Lack of any evidence is proof of the not-so-ness of the not-being of the thing I propose to fill the absence of a demonstrable being. So it's your job to prove that absence isn't my god.
Well, guess what! It's not. My responsibility is whatever I take on as a responsibility, not whatever you assign me.

Yowsers. I thought I had an agile enough mind, but the number of double negatives in that sentence leaves me wondering just quite what you're trying to say. Whose job is it (or is it not) to prove (or not) what to whom? I gather that your objection revolves around what you perceive to be a burden of proof being unfairly (in your view) imposed upon you.

Well, to repeat my point from above, the only reason I would impose a burden of proof on you is if you defined yourself in such a way that (in my view) entails such a thing - namely, "I am an atheist". That, to me, is a positive position: that there is no God. If you merely "lack belief in God" (whilst at the same time "lack belief in the non-existence of God", as surely such a thing implies, otherwise you would have specified that you have such a belief (in the non-existence of God)), then, in my view, you are an agnostic, and incur no burden of proof. Sure, they might all be "just words", but words have meanings, and in my view it's important to respect the meanings of those words.

Skip wrote:Third, atheism wasn't invented as a world-view or a belief system or a philosophy. It's simply a response to theism. It's a resistance to implausible and unwholesome dogma. In most cases, it's a situational rejection of a specific narrative.

A situational rejection of a specific narrative might be "anti-Christian", or "anti-Muslim", or whatever, but it needn't entail atheism. In many respects I am opposed to Christian, Muslim and Jewish beliefs too, yet I am not an atheist.

Harry: Then there are the metaphysical implications: if there is no God to create the universe and the creatures who inhabit it, then the universe and the creatures within it (including consciousness) must be explicable through entirely "natural"/physical/mechanical means. If this doesn't impact significantly on one's worldview, then I don't know what does.

Skip: Exactly! You don't know what impacts my world-view and I don't know what impacts yours.

Not quite. I think I have a fair idea based on your eloquent prose piece in another thread that, indeed, your atheism *does* inform your worldview to the extent of your positing of a "mechanical" universe.