T
TarkanAttila
Guest
I guess you have not heard out the likes of, say, N.T. Wright?
Of all the religions in the world, I think it must be Christianity that’s not based either on timeless myths or the visions of one man.
- Status
Of all the religions in the world, I think it must be Christianity that’s not based either on timeless myths or the visions of one man.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
You can’t say that it was both improbable for life to arise in this universe and say that God made it not improbable. Was it improbable or not? Are you denying that the science proves it was improbable? Or are you saying there was something behind the improbability, making it not improbability? How do you know that was a Personal Being instead an Ordered Force?
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Nobody is supposing that putting the atomic components of a modern organism in a sealed environment and waiting will result in that fully formed organism popping out. But, given an enormous area filled with the right pieces and a huge amount of time, you might eventually see a basic self replicating collection of molecules- proteins and DNA need not have arisen at this time. RNA, or perhaps an earlier predecessor, could have filled this role. From there, the autonomous entities that did the best at surviving and replicating would see more of their kind. The small random changes that improve survival get locked it, those that don’t fade away.
Thus, there was a “force” guiding the randomness, but not an intelligent one. Just the simple fact that a helpful mutation, by definition, is more able to propagate and thus have more potential offspring to generate further helpful mutations.
Moreover, if we’re going to claim that an intelligent all knowing being came about randomly, and that such is more likely than natural development of self replicating entities on earth, we need to talk about relative probabilities. If the former probability is 1/(10^100), we still can’t posit the divine as a better explanation unless we have some measure for the probability of a divine being existing.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I don’t think I’ve ever read a more perfect example of the strange presumption that if God exists God should only be explained in terms of the laws of physics, biology, and probability.
O
oldcelt
Guest
However, it does confirm itself through the use of divine revelation, does it not? Believe me when I say, I do not find the other world supernatural beliefs to be any more credible.
Oh, why would I consider Wright to be any more relevant to this than any other philosopher,he just happens to be alive,
John
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
A. If the existence of a divine being can’t be discussed using probabilities, then the probability of the naturalistic development for life is irrelevant to the discussion. If you’re going to say “your proposed mechanisms were highly unlikely to result in life, my explanation is better,” then you need to have something comparable. So we have to ask- if the formation of a single self replicating connection of chemicals is unlikely, what is the probability of the formation/existence of an all knowing all powerful sentient being? Of course we can’t abet this question, as we can’t even see the world in which this being is supposed to exist. So, even if the probability of life arising naturally is incomprehensibly small, you can’t posit that a god based explanation is better.
B. Not my presumption. It was a concept introduced by the poster I was responding to in the final sentence of his post.
B
Bradski
Guest
Do you know that African elephants now have smaller tusks, which means that they are less likely to be shot for the ivory? I’ll let you work out how that happens, and when you do you will realise that there is no intelligence involved. Now the process involved doesn’t explain how life started but that’s another question entirely.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
I’d further note that, for the purposes of the second law of thermodynamics, a box of computer parts has no more or less entropy than a computer assembled from those parts. Assuming no temperature changes, the share of usable energy does not change when you put the parts together. You can argue from probability just fine, but nothing is going to run afoul of the second law unless you somehow conclude that life must have reversed thermodynamic entropy.
B
Ben_Sinner
Guest
…and also what do you make of this critique as well in the following paragraph by Russell?
Aquinas’s views of God as first cause, cf. quinque viae, “depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary.”[137] Moreover, according to Russell, statements regarding God’s essence and existence that are reached within the Aristotelian logic are based on “some kind of syntactical confusion, without which much of the argumentation about God would lose its plausibility.”[137]
Aquinas’s views of God as first cause, cf. quinque viae, “depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary.”[137] Moreover, according to Russell, statements regarding God’s essence and existence that are reached within the Aristotelian logic are based on “some kind of syntactical confusion, without which much of the argumentation about God would lose its plausibility.”[137]
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Aquinas was talking about causes, Russell was talking about numbers. Apples and oranges.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well, here’s the problem. Again you are talking apples and oranges. You are speaking of God as if he were a possible existent, rather than a necessary one. God by definition is a necessary existent, therefore there is no “probability of the formation/existence of an all knowing all powerful sentient being.”
Moreover, this business of applying science to God reeks of poor philosophical training.
Do you not understand obvious differences between the protocols of science and theology?
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
It confirms itself through an historical event that is written in divine revelation. Subtle difference.
Here’s an analogue: many atheists take the theory that all people evolved - a (pre)-historical fact, as far as we can tell - as proof that there is no God. And, as a result of the decisive defeat of theism they see in evolution, evolution has kind of been made “holy”, so to speak. That is, it has the atheist’s key to the meaning of their life. At least that’s how they speak of it. “The Origin of Species” is considered to destroy the Bible, the Darwin-fish with legs has “eaten” the Ichthys of Christians, Darwin and Dawkins and Galileo are the saints of evolutionarily inspired atheists.
Do you see what I mean?
Alright. If not the Resurrection, then what?
T
Triflelfirt
Guest
“The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.”
All that matters is if his arguments are sound and valid, and they are (or the vast majority are). As long as the argument is sound and valid, it is not special pleading. It doesn’t matter whether he already believed the conclusions or not. In short, it’s a ridiculous statement, especially coming from a logician like Russell.
“I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.”
If he’s not on their level, then he’s above them. His ability at synthesizing different philosophies is unmatched.
All that matters is if his arguments are sound and valid, and they are (or the vast majority are). As long as the argument is sound and valid, it is not special pleading. It doesn’t matter whether he already believed the conclusions or not. In short, it’s a ridiculous statement, especially coming from a logician like Russell.
“I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.”
If he’s not on their level, then he’s above them. His ability at synthesizing different philosophies is unmatched.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
He’s talking about series, and using numbers as an example. Any series, including points of time in the universe, need not have a first element.Aquinas was talking about causes, Russell was talking about numbers. Apples and oranges.
B
Ben_Sinner
Guest
Moreover, according to Russell, statements regarding God’s essence and existence that are reached within the Aristotelian logic are based on “some kind of syntactical confusion, without which much of the argumentation about God would lose its plausibility.”[137]
…and what was the “syntactical confusion” of this that Russell believe caused a God to lose its plausibility?
…and what was the “syntactical confusion” of this that Russell believe caused a God to lose its plausibility?
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
So I’d note that he’s not arguing against the existence of the divine here- he’s arguing against one particular argument. I could say “God doesn’t exist, no loving being would allow The Matrix sequels to exist”- you could disprove that argument, but it wouldn’t prove god existed. Even if a given thing is true, not every argument for it has to be valid.
But I’d agree that the uncaused cause argument is particularly weak. Even if we accept that such a cause must exist, the argument does not (for example) require that the first cause be sentient- let alone have any of the other traits most religions associate with their deity. The cosmological argument creates a gap that a friendly divine being can fill.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The Big Bang has pretty much put an end to that notion.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Only if you presuppose that nothing at all, anywhere, existed “before” (time is a funny notion) our universe started expanding. There are, in fact, several theories aimed at explaining what caused the big bang. I will not pretend to have the training necessary to begin to fully parse them, let alone compare their relative merits, but the words “membrane” and “string” are frequently bandied about.
I
inocente
Guest
I found that quote, and the others, in Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, some of which is online here.
Two more quotes from that book. First some praise:
“In its general outlines, the philosophy of Aquinas agrees with that of Aristotle, and will be accepted or rejected by a reader in the measure in which he accepts or rejects the philosophy of the Stagyrite. The originality of Aquinas is shown in his adaptation of Aristotle to Christian dogma, with a minimum of alteration. In his day he was considered a bold innovator, even after his death many of his doctrines were condemned by the universities of Paris and Oxford. He was even more remarkable for systematizing than for originality. Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice. When he wishes to refute some doctrine, he states it first, often with great force, and almost always with an attempt at fairness. The sharpness and clarity with which he distinguishes arguments derived from reason and arguments derived from revelation are admirable. He knows Aristotle well, and understands him thoroughly, which cannot be said of any earlier Catholic philosopher.”
But then an amplification of the critique he makes of Aquinas in your OP:
“These merits, however, seem scarcely sufficient to justify his immense reputation. The appeal to reason is, in a sense, insincere, since the conclusion to be reached is fixed in advance. Take, for example, the indissolubility of marriage. This is advocated on the ground that the father is useful in the education of the children, (a) because he is more rational than the mother, (b) because, being stronger, he is better able to inflict physical punishment. A modern educator might retort (a) that there Is no reason to suppose men in general more rational than women, (b) that the sort of punishment that requires great physical strength is not desirable in education. He might go on to point out that fathers, in the modern world [1945], have scarcely any part in education. But no follower of St Thomas would, on that account, cease to believe in lifelong monogamy, because the real grounds of belief are not those which are alleged.”
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It really doesn’t matter what this " syntatical confusion " is because it doesn’t exist in Thomas. Remember that Russell was, in his time, the most adamant and popular atheist of his day. And for that reason he is widely studied in anti-theist philosophy departments throughout the world. In other words both Russell and those who quote him reveal their deep seated prejudice against the existence of God. He is also quoted by some believers who eschew any possibility of proving the existence of God through philosophical efforts.
On the other hand he is highly respected by the Catholic Church, who values his philosophical efforts most highly. Even today his philosophy is studied in seminaries throughout the world as being a solid foundation in theological studies. So who are you going to believe, those who are faithful to the Word of Christ or to those who dismiss him?
It should also be pointed out that every Pope of the later 19th century, and every Pope of the 20th century, including Pope Benedict 16th has had nothing but emphatic praise for the work of Thomas Aquinas, and has reiterated the necessity for seminaries, world wide, to emphasize and teach his philosophy…
One of the posters here has attempted to make hay out of the fact that certain works of Thomas were condemned. But the poster neglected to tell you that the condemnation wss lifted and that the very arguments condemned were used by the Church to help define and explain the doctrine of Transubstantion. So this illustrates the deep seated prejudices of this poster and lack of objectivity.
Pax
Linus2nd
- Status