Bertrand Russell's Critique of St. Thomas Aquinas

[TarkanAttila]

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.

Interesting you should say “nothing”, as that’s precisely what Dr. Lawrence Krauss believes the universe came from. He is an atheist, too.

And do not garble scientific terminology. Strings are an hypothesis, not a theory. An hypothesis would have to be testable, never mind tested countless times, in order to have the certainty of a theory. You have the same problem with any multiverse or any origin of the universe hypothesis - they are difficult to test, and therefore verify by scientific methods.

Besides, even if there were such a thing as a “multiverse” (which itself is a misnomer, since anything that exists, wherever it is, is part of the “universe”), or a natural time before time, or even strings, all this presupposes that matter is eternal, and that our matter came from some other matter. If the Big Bang is true, evidently matter cannot be eternal, even outside our universe.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Interesting you should say “nothing”, as that’s precisely what Dr. Lawrence Krauss believes the universe came from. He is an atheist, too.

Not literally nothing, as I recall, in the philosophical sense. He supposes a quantum vacuum existed prior to the big bang.

And do not garble scientific terminology. Strings are an hypothesis, not a theory. An hypothesis would have to be testable, never mind tested countless times, in order to have the certainty of a theory. You have the same problem with any multiverse or any origin of the universe hypothesis - they are difficult to test, and therefore verify by scientific methods.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#/search

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

Besides, even if there were such a thing as a “multiverse” (which itself is a misnomer, since anything that exists, wherever it is, is part of the “universe”), or a natural time before time, or even strings, all this presupposes that matter is eternal, and that our matter came from some other matter. If the Big Bang is true, evidently matter cannot be eternal, even outside our universe.

What? The views that seek to explain the big bang posit that our universe, starting with the big bang, was created by the movements/interaction of objects of several dimensions. We can’t speculate about whether or not these objects are eternal based solely on the properties of matter in our universe.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

*"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. *

I have addressed this hypocrisy of Russell in post # 12.

Russell’s antipathy to all religion made him, in his own mind, a perfect critic of Aquinas.

Moreover, it’s abundantly clear that Russell never read Aquinas much or he would have tackled some of the views of Aquinas that distinguish him from Aristotle. For Russell it was simply a matter of Aquinas not being worth the bother of treating in any kind of respectable depth.

In the same way, Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian” is a glib and superficial dismissal of Christianity. In that essay he gives the impression of being a boy who would place a tack on the seat of his professor’s chair, the professor being Christ himself.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Not literally nothing, as I recall, in the philosophical sense. He supposes a quantum vacuum existed prior to the big bang.

He has said “nothing”. I am agnostic as to whether he meant what you said or not. But I could believe it, as Hawking has made the same misnomer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#/search

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

There is a difference between a mathematical theory and a scientific theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory

String theory is a physics theory, and therefore a mathematical one. Therefore it need not be - and in fact is not - properly a scientific theory, but a scientific hypothesis. Conflating the two is like selling mountain oysters to a man who expects seafood.

What? The views that seek to explain the big bang posit that our universe, starting with the big bang, was created by the movements/interaction of objects of several dimensions. We can’t speculate about whether or not these objects are eternal based solely on the properties of matter in our universe.

First, again, if anything exists, even outside of our known universe, it, too, is part of the universe, properly speaking, because the universe is made up of anything that possesses the trait of existence, whether it existed before the Big Bang or after. That’s what the term “universe” is supposed to mean. There cannot be such a thing as a “multiverse”, properly speaking.

And even if there are areas and entities outside of the known, post-Big Bang universe, those things that are eternal could not be called matter, precisely because matter, as we know it, from our observations of it, is not eternal. It had a beginning. Therefore anything which exists, but which is eternal, is distinct from matter (even if it is not God).

 

[Bahman]

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

Russel is correct with his observation. Consciousness is the essence of any being. Existence however is deduced from conscious act.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Russel is correct with his observation. Consciousness is the essence of any being. Existence however is deduced from conscious act.

Aquinas gives existence priority over essence.

It is the essence of humans that they think. However, they are conscious of existing before they are conscious of the fact that they have thoughts. This is true of all animals. The newborn baby does not think, but rather reacts to its newfound existence separate from its mother with a shriek of discovery.

When asked to identify himself, God did not say, “I think, therefore I exist.”

God said, “I Am that I Am.” Exodus 3:14

 

[AnimalSpirits]

He has said “nothing”. I am agnostic as to whether he meant what you said or not. But I could believe it, as Hawking has made the same misnomer.

It’s in his book- he explains how the matter and such could come to be from a vacuum. But I’d think that there’s a difference between a vacuum and true nothingness.

There is a difference between a mathematical theory and a scientific theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory

String theory is a physics theory, and therefore a mathematical one. Therefore it need not be - and in fact is not - properly a scientific theory, but a scientific hypothesis. Conflating the two is like selling mountain oysters to a man who expects seafood.

This is just an absurd notion. Theories of physics are not mathematical theories. Is gravity a mathematical theory as well?

But you managed to defeat your own argument, actually. The wiki page you linked lists M-theory as an example of a scientific theory.

First, again, if anything exists, even outside of our known universe, it, too, is part of the universe, properly speaking, because the universe is made up of anything that possesses the trait of existence, whether it existed before the Big Bang or after. That’s what the term “universe” is supposed to mean. There cannot be such a thing as a “multiverse”, properly speaking.

And even if there are areas and entities outside of the known, post-Big Bang universe, those things that are eternal could not be called matter, precisely because matter, as we know it, from our observations of it, is not eternal. It had a beginning. Therefore anything which exists, but which is eternal, is distinct from matter (even if it is not God).

Different definition of “universe.” Under your definition it would not be proper to call the big bang the beginning of the universe, since the big bang refers to the expansion of matter /energy/space time from a point- all of which already existed.

Moreover, under your definition of matter, by what logic do you suppose that all string theory and such assume that matter is eternal?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Russel is correct with his observation. Consciousness is the essence of any being. Existence however is deduced from conscious act.

It’s nice to know rocks and trees and electrons are all conscious.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is just an absurd notion. Theories of physics are not mathematical theories. Is gravity a mathematical theory as well?

As a matter of fact, whether you are talking Newton or Einstein, it is.

plus.maths.org/content/how-does-gravity-work

 

[Bahman]

Aquinas gives existence priority over essence.

So he is wrong. Please read the following.

It is the essence of humans that they think.

No. You are that you are. That is your essence which is consciousness. Your existence however depends on a act.

However, they are conscious of existing before they are conscious of the fact that they have thoughts.

That is correct. You need memory in order to reflect and have any thought.

When asked to identify himself, God did not say, “I think, therefore I exist.”

That is the definition of existence which is different from consciousness. Hence Descartes was right in his deduction method because he define existence. Yet we are consciousness and that is not right way of defining consciousness.

God said, “I Am that I Am.” Exodus 3:14

That is very definition of consciousness which apply to every beings, including very you. Hence I guess that Christian misread Jesus’s teaching.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

As a matter of fact, whether you are talking Newton or Einstein, it is.

plus.maths.org/content/how-does-gravity-work

The fact that it includes an equation does not make it a mathematical theory. Heck, that’s not even a cogent statement. In mathematics, theory refers to a sub branch of study (Number theory, operator theory, and so on). The proven statements are theorems. The theory of gravity does what all scientific theories do- provide a well substantiated explanation for some observable phenomena. It does so with an equation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is the definition of existence which is different from consciousness. Hence Descartes was right in his deduction method because he define existence. Yet we are consciousness and that is not right way of defining consciousness.

Descartes was defining himself only, not existence. Not everything that exists has a consciousness of its existence. So Descartes defines himself as a human, not as a rock or a tree.

When he said “I think, therefore I am,” he was putting his cart before his horse.

He might better have said: “I am; therefore I can think.”

The intuition of our being precedes any thoughts we can have about our being.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The fact that it includes an equation does not make it a mathematical theory. Heck, that’s not even a cogent statement. In mathematics, theory refers to a sub branch of study (Number theory, operator theory, and so on). The proven statements are theorems. The theory of gravity does what all scientific theories do- provide a well substantiated explanation for some observable phenomena. It does so with an equation.

You cannot separate E=mc2 from the theory that matter can be transformed into energy.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

You cannot separate E=mc2 from the theory that matter can be transformed into energy.

100% irrelevant. Mathematical theory still refers to a subfield of mathematics, and a scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of the reality. The theory of relativity is a scientific theory with a mathematical formulation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

100% irrelevant. Mathematical theory still refers to a subfield of mathematics, and a scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of the reality. The theory of relativity is a scientific theory with a mathematical formulation.

If you say so!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Russel is correct with his observation. Consciousness is the essence of any being. Existence however is deduced from conscious act.

Russell is wrong. Counsciousness is not the source of anything since it is an act of the soul. It is the soul which is a " thing " and which gives rise to consciousness. Russell was a philosophical boob. he was and is popular because he was a word smith and was the glory of athiests of his day. His popularity was due simply to his audacity and cleverness, not to his philosophical perception, and because he rode the crest of a popular movement which had nothing to do with intellect but with anti-theistic prejudices.

Atheists should be aware that when Islam conquers the West ( if it does ) there will be no more atheists, or anyone else who rejects Allah.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists should be aware that when Islam conquers the West ( if it does ) there will be no more atheists, or anyone else who rejects Allah.

Linus2nd

I have been reflecting on this same thought for several months.

Atheists should be grateful for the Crusades, even when they most hate the Church.

It is the legacy of Christianity that ever since the Crusades, atheists have been far better treated than they would be treated under Islam.

reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210

 

[MPat]

…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] *

And yet he doesn’t bring himself to asserting that such specific series that is discussed by Aquinas actually is infinite? That seems to be exactly the kind of thing that Russell is accusing Aquinas of, only worse. That is, in effect, he is not “going where argument leads him”, but looking for ways, in which an argument could fail, because it reaches a conclusion he considers to be false. But if it is at least imaginable that someone could have a good or somewhat good independent reason for conclusion “God exists.” (let’s say, some private revelation), what good independent reason could be supplied for “God doesn’t exist.”?

And of course, while one can find a series that doesn’t have a beginning, we also have natural numbers or Fibonacci sequence which do have a beginning.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And of course, while one can find a series that doesn’t have a beginning, we also have natural numbers or Fibonacci sequence which do have a beginning.

Einstein had believed, before he developed his theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and eternal. This notion he inherited from tradition science of his youth. But Lemaitre, (being also a Catholic theologian as well as mathematician, had no such bias. He was able to demonstrate that Einstein’s math actually proved the universe was finite and had a beginning in time. Einstein later came to accept the Big Bang, and called his fudging the math of relativity the biggest blunder of his career.

So Russell and Einstein were both capable of the same bias of which Russell accused Aquinas.

 

[TarkanAttila]

It’s in his book- he explains how the matter and such could come to be from a vacuum. But I’d think that there’s a difference between a vacuum and true nothingness.

I concur. A vacuum is just pushing the question of the existence of everything back one step more. It’s still working within natural science and not metaphysics.

This is just an absurd notion. Theories of physics are not mathematical theories. Is gravity a mathematical theory as well?

It is. So is the Big Bang. In fact, the Big Bang, as it was first formulated by Georges LeMaitre, is really just a big, elaborate equation. Mind, that equation is based on our quantitative knowledge of science. As far as we understand physics, it is likely correct. But without ever having seen it, or being able to experiment to verify or contradict the Big Bang, it’s an educated guess, and not based on any direct or even closely related evidence. And how could it be?

Nevertheless, belief in the Big Bang is not an act of blind faith, because it is a conclusion reached through circumstantial evidence and predictions based on more remote evidence. That’s actually rather common in science. There are many things we teach as true based on things other than direct observation and experimentation - tectonic plates, for example.

But you managed to defeat your own argument, actually. The wiki page you linked lists M-theory as an example of a scientific theory.

As the section on physical theories explains, and as theoretical physics does still more explicitly, “theory” means something different in physics, especially theoretical physics models like string “theory”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics#Proposed_theories

Now, that string theory is a physical theory but only a scientific hypothesis doesn’t mean it’s not necessarily true. But testing would be highly desirable before proclaiming this as the certain theory of everything. As for its effect on Christianity, I am agnostic. But if evolution, heliocentrism, and archaeology haven’t killed Christianity yet, I have my doubts any other natural science could.

Different definition of “universe.” Under your definition it would not be proper to call the big bang the beginning of the universe, since the big bang refers to the expansion of matter /energy/space time from a point- all of which already existed.

True. The Big Bang would be the beginning of our corner of the universe, if any other things pre-existed this area, and the universe would encompass everything that has existed before and alongside us, even if it did not come from the Big Bang. If nothing did, this is the universe.

But let’s say, for example, the parallel worlds interpretation of quantum physics was right. What are those parallel worlds in relation to us, if they exist, like we do? Is it correct to call them “universes”? Remember what a universe is defined as.

Moreover, under your definition of matter, by what logic do you suppose that all string theory and such assume that matter is eternal?

The attempt to explain the existence of finite things with other finite things seems to assume we do not need to concern ourselves with infinite things. Like God. And as nothing comes from nothing, and an infinite regress is absurd, it seems to me the natural assumption of naturalism and materialism is that material, in some form or another, is eternal.

In other words, recruiting string theory to disprove or explain away God seems to assume matter has the quality of being eternal. Which, if our Greek forebears are any sign, is an understandable, rational belief.