The Coherence of the Concept of Causality

[Birdmanman]

(This question is meant particularly for atheists or those who are not Catholics)

1. Does anyone here deny the coherence of the concept of conditionality or causality? I am not asking if you deny that conditionality or causality really exists, or that conditionality or causality can ever be known to exist (as Hume might deny), but whether you deny the very coherence of the concept of conditionality or causality, regardless of whether or not conditioanility or causality actually exist.

For example: does anyone say it is incoherent for me to say, “If this toy factory did not exist, and there were no other possible way of making toys, then my toy bear would not have been made.”, or “The motion of my hand causes this cup to move”.
(Again, I am not asking if these relationships are true or false, only if they are coherent).

1. Does anyone here deny this concept (conditionality or causality) being coherently applied, truly or falsely, to existing things?

For example: Does anyone say it is nonsensical or incoherent to ask “Was this cup caused or not?” or “Upon what was the making of the toy bear conditioned?”

1. If so, can you explain your denial of the coherence of these concepts?

I assert that the coherence of these concepts, and the coherence of their applicability to existing things, is self-evident. [Again, I am not saying (right now) that these concepts are TRUE and their applicability is TRUE, only that they are coherent, they are not nonsense, they can called be true or false.] Does anyone know any arguments that might be made in order to reaffirm the coherence of these concepts? (Besides the fact that thinking that an argument can reaffirm or not-reaffirm something is itself a reliance upon these concepts).

 

[minion]

I actually made a similar thread somewhat recently concerning Hume’s critique of casuality.

I’ve been taking time to distill the essence from Hume’s work (and his critics + CAF posters), but I’m still arranging my thoughts for a solid rebuttal. I believe I’ve refuted it to my satisfaction, but there’s a TON of notes, probably too much for a forum post.

Anyway, what I got from Hume’s critique of causality, in pure layman’s terms is this (ripped from Kreeft’s critique of Hume & my shorthand):

1) The only way we can know non-mathematical, non-contradictory knowledge (ex. eggs → chickens) **is by causality. **

2) The only connection between premise + conclusion depends on such reasoning.

3) Only justification for causal reasoning is habit. (ex. We are used to seeing eggs → chickens, so we assume it is so).
**
4) Every effect is a distinct effect from its cause.**

5) Rational science never has discovered, & will never discover ultimate causes.

The conclusion of most convinced by this line of reasoning undermines arguments of causality. I wouldn’t have picked it up myself, but numbers 3 & 4 have problems, being assumptions not necessarily true.

Also, supporting Hume’s critique is an assumed of premise of Empiricism & Nominalism, and a certain view of epistemology which took me a while to understand (sense experience, “matters of fact,” “relation of ideas,” etc.)

IMHO, the only honestly good arguments against the existence of God I’ve seen is the problem of evil, and Hume’s critique of causality. Problem of Evil I know, so I’m really taking the time to understand and grasp Hume’s reasoning clearly to refute it coherently. Right now I only have a “seat of my pants” rebuttal.

Buf if you want to see my notes, I can upload a PDF file somewhere for viewing

And my devil’s advocate response to your post:

1. Does anyone here deny the coherence of the concept of conditionality or causality? I am not asking if you deny that conditionality or causality really exists, or that conditionality or causality can ever be known to exist (as Hume might deny), but whether you deny the very coherence of the concept of conditionality or causality, regardless of whether or not conditionality or causality actually exist.

For example: does anyone say it is incoherent for me to say, “If this toy factory did not exist, and there were no other possible way of making toys, then my toy bear would not have been made.”, or “The motion of my hand causes this cup to move”.
(Again, I am not asking if these relationships are true or false, only if they are coherent).

Coherent, or only an accustomed relationship we’ve come to link together? Does the hand necessitate the cup moving? Could the hand that moved the cup only be my observation, and actually caused by something else?

1. Does anyone here deny this concept (conditionality or causality) being coherently applied, truly or falsely, to existing things?

For example: Does anyone say it is nonsensical or incoherent to ask “Was this cup caused or not?” or “Upon what was the making of the toy bear conditioned?”

I don’t have to deny it, but I can deny how certain I am of the relationship.

1. If so, can you explain your denial of the coherence of these concepts?

I assert that the coherence of these concepts, and the coherence of their applicability to existing things, is self-evident. [Again, I am not saying (right now) that these concepts are TRUE and their applicability is TRUE, only that they are coherent, they are not nonsense, they can called be true or false.] Does anyone know any arguments that might be made in order to reaffirm the coherence of these concepts? (Besides the fact that thinking that an argument can reaffirm or not-reaffirm something is itself a reliance upon these concepts).

The coherence of cause/effect is an observed relationship, not necessarily self-evident, because we can’t empirically observe the ultimate causes, only the effects.

I can raise objections to my objections too :hypno:

 

[Birdmanman]

I actually made a similar thread somewhat recently concerning Hume’s critique of casuality.

I’ve been taking time to distill the essence from Hume’s work (and his critics + CAF posters), but I’m still arranging my thoughts for a solid rebuttal. I believe I’ve refuted it to my satisfaction, but there’s a TON of notes, probably too much for a forum post.

Anyway, what I got from Hume’s critique of causality, in pure layman’s terms is this (ripped from Kreeft’s critique of Hume & my shorthand):

The conclusion of most convinced by this line of reasoning undermines arguments of causality. I wouldn’t have picked it up myself, but numbers 3 & 4 have problems, being assumptions not necessarily true.

Also, supporting Hume’s critique is an assumed of premise of Empiricism & Nominalism, and a certain view of epistemology which took me a while to understand (sense experience, “matters of fact,” “relation of ideas,” etc.)

IMHO, the only honestly good arguments against the existence of God I’ve seen is the problem of evil, and Hume’s critique of causality. Problem of Evil I know, so I’m really taking the time to understand and grasp Hume’s reasoning clearly to refute it coherently. Right now I only have a “seat of my pants” rebuttal.

Buf if you want to see my notes, I can upload a PDF file somewhere for viewing

And my devil’s advocate response to your post:

Coherent, or only an accustomed relationship we’ve come to link together? Does the hand necessitate the cup moving? Could the hand that moved the cup only be my observation, and actually caused by something else?

I don’t have to deny it, but I can deny how certain I am of the relationship.

The coherence of cause/effect is an observed relationship, not necessarily self-evident, because we can’t empirically observe the ultimate causes, only the effects.

I can raise objections to my objections too :hypno:

Thanks for your response, minion!

Regarding your devil’s advocate responses- the fact that you can understand what I mean by the word “causality”, or that you distinguish between it and merely a relationship we are accustomed in seeing, gives evidence in itself that the concept “Causality” is not incoherent, is not gibberish. Presumably, if “causality” were an incoherent concept, it would be like gibberish, like a non-idea
My question was not whether causality actually exists, just whether it is not a nonsense-concept. (The concept of something can exist without the thing itself existing; I cannot conceive of a square-circle, a circle with no sides and four sides, but I can conceive of a giant unicorn. The concept of the former does not exist, the concept of the latter exists).

Otherwise, I’m happy I’m not the only one fretting about this, and I hope you’re succesful in your attempted refutation of Hume! You could always ask what reason he has for believing that all cause is probable (or non-existent), since a reason seems to be just another type of cause (or is cause, or is somehow related to cause).

 

[minion]

Thanks for your response, minion!

Regarding your devil’s advocate responses- the fact that you can understand what I mean by the word “causality”, or that you distinguish between it and merely a relationship we are accustomed in seeing, gives evidence in itself that the concept “Causality” is not incoherent, is not gibberish. Presumably, if “causality” were an incoherent concept, it would be like gibberish, like a non-idea
My question was not whether causality actually exists, just whether it is not a nonsense-concept. (The concept of something can exist without the thing itself existing; I cannot conceive of a square-circle, a circle with no sides and four sides, but I can conceive of a giant unicorn. The concept of the former does not exist, the concept of the latter exists).

Otherwise, I’m happy I’m not the only one fretting about this, and I hope you’re succesful in your attempted refutation of Hume! You could always ask what reason he has for believing that all cause is probable (or non-existent), since a reason seems to be just another type of cause (or is cause, or is somehow related to cause).

Hume has been a bee in my bonnet for quite a while. Fretting indeed

I think this is getting into epistemology…tricky, tricky area for philosophy noobs like me.

Naturally, I think you are correct of course, but let’s see…

Can I conceive of something existing while not existing? No. So, we exist…right?

Can I conceive a 1+1 not equaling 2? No. So far, so good.

Is causality a nonsense concept? It can certainly be defined.

causality: the principle of or relationship between cause and effect.

Am I currently able to know the nature of the relationship between cause & effect for certain? No.

Where did this knowledge I now possess (effect) come from again (cause)? :hypno:

At this point, I like Peter Kreeft’s quotation of Chesterton to unscramble my head:

Chesterton:

…we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As IDEAS, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears.

Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the “Laws of Nature.” When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC.

It is not a “law,” for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet.

We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception.

All the terms used in the science books, “law,”“necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.

I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs. It is the man who talks about “a law” that he has never seen who is the mystic.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hume has been a bee in my bonnet for quite a while. Fretting indeed

I think this is getting into epistemology…tricky, tricky area for philosophy noobs like me.

Naturally, I think you are correct of course, but let’s see…

Can I conceive of something existing while not existing? No. So, we exist…right?

Can I conceive a 1+1 not equaling 2? No. So far, so good.

Is causality a nonsense concept? It can certainly be defined.

causality: the principle of or relationship between cause and effect.

Am I currently able to know the nature of the relationship between cause & effect for certain? No.

Where did this knowledge I now possess (effect) come from again (cause)? :hypno:

At this point, I like Peter Kreeft’s quotation of Chesterton to unscramble my head:

I own and should be working on Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Logic haha!
(The following is not from Socratic Logic, however).

Cause: A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

When arguing with a friend before, I have defined ‘to cause’ as simply “To make to be”.
The relationship between cause and effect is that the former thing (or things) makes the latter thing (or things) exist.

Existence is not incoherent, making or doing is not incoherent, so I think that we may certainly conclude that ‘to make to be’ is coherent, and, if it ever does apply, must apply to things (and not non-things).

I still hold that you cannot reasonably affirm that cause is incoherent, because if “a cause” and “a reason” are synonymous, then there is not “a reason” as to why you may affirm that cause is incoherent. If there is not “a reason” for a human person doing something, then we call that human person’s action ‘unreasonable’.

And again, I am not talking about whether or not cause actually exists, or whether we can ever know cause with certainty. I am talking about whether the concept itself of cause is coherent, that is, whether cause can be coherently conceived of, unlike a square-circle.

 

[minion]

I must admit you’re losing me, maybe because I agree with cause/effect , and perhaps you need a *real *atheist’s response. But…

**coherent: **

1. logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent
2. having clarity or intelligibility : understandable

to cause: “To make to be”.

It seems to me coherence in this instance is only about definitions, and its clarity. Not really a true or false proposition, just a term.

“to cause” is defined by a relationship. Make → Be

The concept of the link is understood. The nature of the link is not understood.

I can understand the difference between a 103-sided shape and a 104-sided shape.

I cannot imagine a 103-sided shape and a 104-sided shape in my mind.

The definition of “making” is clear. The definition of “being” is clear. It’s the “middle” between them is not understood.

Sorry if I’m being frustrating. To me, the relationship we can comprehend in the term “to cause” is coherent, but the “middle” is incomprehensible, and thus cannot be either coherent or incoherent.

 

[Birdmanman]

I must admit you’re losing me, maybe because I agree with cause/effect , and perhaps you need a *real *atheist’s response. But…

**coherent: **

1. logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent
2. having clarity or intelligibility : understandable

to cause: “To make to be”.

It seems to me coherence in this instance is only about definitions, and its clarity. Not really a true or false proposition, just a term.

“to cause” is defined by a relationship. Make → Be

The concept of the link is understood. The nature of the link is not understood.

I can understand the difference between a 103-sided shape and a 104-sided shape.

I cannot imagine a 103-sided shape and a 104-sided shape in my mind.

The definition of “making” is clear. The definition of “being” is clear. It’s the “middle” between them is not understood.

Sorry if I’m being frustrating. To me, the relationship we can comprehend in the term “to cause” is coherent, but the “middle” is incomprehensible, and thus cannot be either coherent or incoherent.

Thanks for your continued pushback, it is good for me to help me understand this better!

Yes, I am speaking directly about the coherence; the intelligibility or lack of intelligibility of a term. Not whether or not the proposition “causality exists” is true or false. “Square-circle” or “asfouonasfu8h892thr” is not intelligible (except as an utterance that gives an example of situations in which terms are not intelligible).
And you are right, I think, in suggesting the connection between “to make to be” is different from either the term “to make” or “to be”. Just because a part of a term is coherent, does not seem to mean the whole term is coherent; as in the case of square-circle. Square is coherent, and circle is coherent, but their combination “A four sided, no sided, shape” is incoherent.

So, we cannot seem to determine whether to cause, or “to make to be”, is coherent, simply by looking at the coherence of the terms “to make” and “to be”. So…how do we determine whether causality is coherent? Well…I know that 'a square circle" is incoherent 1. Because I cannot conceive of one, and 2. because the terms themselves exclude one another. But a pink unicorn is not incoherent because 1. I can conceive of one, and 2. the terms do not exclude one another (pink, four legged animal with one horn).

The terms “to make” and “to be” are (1) not exclusive of one another…and (2) I conceive of causality all the time (Watering the soil, along with the sun shining and a host of other things, makes the seeds to be large plants). And, as I said before, (3.) if a cause is synonymous with a reason, then a person cannot reasonably hold cause to be incoherent (or nonexistent), since there would be no reason, no cause, to do so. [This third point does not show that caue is either coherent or existent, only that denying cause carries with it a penalty that you and everyone are ‘unreasonable’].

On (1), that 'to make" and “to be” are not exclusive of eachother, if “making” actually exists or is coherent…then of course it cannot be exclusive of ‘to be’, since ‘making’ itself engages in the act of “existing”. I fear, however, that 'to make" is really just a synonym for “to cause”, so this doesn’t help us much.

Actually, all I need is that it is only reasonable to hold the concept of causality to be coherent, and is unreasonable to hold the concept of causality to be incoherent. So, is reason synonymous with cause? “This is the reason that I think of the pink unicorn”, “This is the cause of why I think of the pink unicorn”. What is the distinction?