The final athiesm and Summa Contra Gentiles

[thinkandmull]

This is my understanding of the new athiests understanding of the universe:

First there was a single point. It was just there, as you say God is just there. It was apart from or seperate from time, but ticked away towards explosive, had a potency to explode apart from time. There was no time before it, so its exposion was the start of eternity. Just as when you have a certain chemical atomic reaction there is an atomic explosion, when matter forms in a certain way there is life, even intellegent life. A material living brain is intelligence by definition. This resulted from the ordered explosion of the point (singularity). Looking at a piece of wood, or a leaf, one has trouble understanding how organized matter can think and feel. However, one is seeing the outside reality of the matter only in that thought, and is in fact thinking about it with inside reality and power of the matter of the brain.

This sounds like Star Wars to me.

Now there is no doubt Aquinas wanted to work out an actual physics argument for God. That is, that without a spiritual first cause, the motion of the universe makes no physical sense. This is apart from probability arguments of teleology. So far, I’ve found no one who pins down what Aquinas’s argument(s) is. So “let’s try again”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is my understanding of the new athiests understanding of the universe:

First there was a single point. It was just there, as you say God is just there. It was apart from or seperate from time, but ticked away towards explosive, had a potency to explode apart from time. There was no time before it, so its exposion was the start of eternity. Just as when you have a certain chemical atomic reaction there is an atomic explosion, when matter forms in a certain way there is life, even intellegent life. A material living brain is intelligence by definition. This resulted from the ordered explosion of the point (singularity). Looking at a piece of wood, or a leaf, one has trouble understanding how organized matter can think and feel. However, one is seeing the outside reality of the matter only in that thought, and is in fact thinking about it with inside reality and power of the matter of the brain.

This sounds like Star Wars to me.

I cannot speak for others, but this is not my understanding.

Now there is no doubt Aquinas wanted to work out an actual physics argument for God. That is, that without a spiritual first cause, the motion of the universe makes no physical sense. This is apart from probability arguments of teleology. So far, I’ve found no one who pins down what Aquinas’s argument(s) is. So “let’s try again”.

Aquinas could not have been able to create any argument based on physics, since the understanding of physics in those times was not just unfounded, but seriously incorrect. People believed in some “absolute” space and “time”, they thought about the universe as a “blob” of matter in some huge empty space. Once Einstein produced the theory of relativity we have a much better understanding of reality (of course it is still evolving). The universe is now understood as 4-dimensional “entity”, with 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Speculations exist that the universe could have more than 4 dimensions, but these are empty speculations.

There is nothing “outside” the universe, there is no “before” the universe, these categories are simply undefined and undefinable FOR the universe, they only exist inside the universe. There is no causality “outside” the universe. The universe is an existential primary. The whole idea of God existing outside the universe and outside the temporal dimension is physically absurd.

Now someone might surmise that the universe is separated into two parts, a physical one (with 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions) and a “non-physical” one, where God “dwells”, where there is no space, no time, no change. There is no reason to take these musings seriously, there is no evidence for them. Moreover the concept has no explanatory value. But it leads to some serious metaphysical problems.

How can the non-physical part interact with the physical one? How can the non-physical part be “active”? Any activity “splits” the existence into a “before”, a “during” and an “after” parts. If the non-physical part (God?) is supposed to be outside of time, then he is a frozen, static existence, unable to do anything. This is metaphysical nonsense.

Of course Aquinas was totally ignorant of physics - as we know it. He had no idea that “motion” or “change” are an integral property of the STEM - space-time-energy-matter. There is no need to presume a “prime mover”. He built upon the ideas developed by Aristotle, who was even more ignorant. Of course one should not blame them for their ignorance. No matter how brilliant people they might have been, they simply did not have the background to know better.

The sorry thing is that millennia after their time, when we have real knowledge of reality (still evolving!) there are people who are unable and unwilling to look at reality, and still cling to age-old unsubstantiated belief systems.

They say that no one doubted God’s existence until some people tried to “prove” it - and it is true. Better leave the whole question to stay in the realm of faith. After all “reason” is supposed to be inferior to faith. “Blessed are ones, who have not seen, yet believe”. “Reason must be trampled underfoot”. Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith". If reason and faith collide, then reason must be abandoned, since faith is a theological virtue.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is my understanding of the new athiests understanding of the universe:

Threads on Atheism are prohibited here. See the thread posted at the top of this forum.

One way this could have been asked is to replace “atheism” with something about a non-religious perspective. Also, it sounds like you are referring to a pop-culture description of the big-bang. The way it was described here doesn’t match the way it is described in scientific materials.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Threads on Atheism are prohibited here. See the thread posted at the top of this forum.

Not any more. The ban has been lifted.

One way this could have been asked is to replace “atheism” with something about a non-religious perspective. Also, it sounds like you are referring to a pop-culture description of the big-bang. The way it was described here doesn’t match the way it is described in scientific materials.

I did not even mention the Big Bang.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is my understanding of the new athiests understanding of the universe:

I can’t say that there do not exists people that would have an understanding that matches what you’ve described. However, that someone labels them self as an atheist or a new atheists isn’t an indicator that the description you gave is their belief or understanding.

The common attribute of people that label themselves as “atheist” is that they are not convinced of the existence of gods/God. There are many subclasifications of these positions ( apatheism, ignosticism, anti-theism, and many more) the “atheist” label by itself doesn’t tell much about what the person thinks about the how things get started. Some will even say the existence of an intelligent entity that got everything started is possible.

 

[Bradski]

This is my understanding of the new athiests understanding of the universe:

First there was a single point…

What you are describing, in simplistic terms as TS has already noted (but then again, none of us are, I believe, theoretical physicists, so relatively simplistic terms are all we are going to be able to understand) is how we understand the beginning of the universe. But why ‘new atheists understanding’?

Would you describe evolution as the ‘new atheists understanding’ of how we came to be here? For a lot of Christians, it is simply the means the method by which God has organised life. So, as best we can understand the start of the universe in a physical sense, why would not that be God’s method?

Your question is like asking about the new atheists concept of gravity or relativity.

Incidentally, I can’t see any comment on the ban on evolution being lifted. Anyone able to link to that?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One can’t summarize the Atheist–new or otherwise–understanding of the universe because…there is no set belief for Atheists on any issue except one.

The only belief all Atheists have in common is that they don’t believe a god exists. Other than that, their views in every other area–science, the universe, morality, the afterlife, biology, abortion, same-sex marriage, politics, the environment, etc-- may differ vastly.

Atheism is not a worldview or a belief system.

It’s just seeing no evidence to a Theist’s claim that a god exists.
Period.

.

Yes and no. On the surface, atheism does not have a systematic group of followers or a creed outside the belief that no God exists.

But the consequences of atheism are generally (if not universally) predictable

Including:

Moral and Intellectual Relativism.

Fatalism.

Pessimism.

Etc.

 

[Gorgias]

Aquinas could not have been able to create any argument based on physics, since the understanding of physics in those times was not just unfounded, but seriously incorrect.

By this reasoning, science is absolutely impotent to posit anything, at any point in time.

After all, if the progress of science is monotonically increasing, then the “understanding of [any branch of science]” at some time X is “seriously incorrect” with respect to the understanding of that science at some time X+n, for reasonably not small values of ‘n’.

Therefore, by your reasoning, science is absolutely incapable of providing any answers.

The whole idea of God existing outside the universe and outside the temporal dimension is physically absurd.

Quite right. Why, then, do (some?) atheists insist on ridiculing God as some sort of “big guy in the sky”? (Especially when believers in God don’t make the claim that He’s a physical entity?)

Now someone might surmise that the universe is separated into two parts, a physical one (with 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions) and a “non-physical” one, where God “dwells”, where there is no space, no time, no change.

No one makes these claims – at least, not reasonably. After all, these claims implicitly posit God as part of the universe, which is not what (Christian) believers posit.

If the non-physical part (God?) is supposed to be outside of time, then he is a frozen, static existence, unable to do anything. This is metaphysical nonsense.

Were God a ‘part’ of the universe, your assertions might work. As He is not, they don’t argue against His existence.

Aquinas … had no idea that “motion” or “change” are an integral property of the STEM - space-time-energy-matter.

Not sure how you make this claim. Aquinas held, with Aristotle, that time was a measure of motion; that is, it is integrally related to objects (i.e., ‘energy’ and ‘matter’) in space.

There is no need to presume a “prime mover”.

If there is no need to presume a prime mover, then your assertions here do not demonstrate that this is the case.

After all “reason” is supposed to be inferior to faith.

Really? That’s not what the Church teaches.

“Blessed are ones, who have not seen, yet believe”.

This simply states that ‘faith’ has value, even in the absence of personal observation; not that reason has no value.

“Reason must be trampled underfoot”.

This might work on a Lutheran site, but you’re gonna have a hard time silencing Catholics based on the philosophy of Luther.

Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith".

Not sure where you’re getting this.

If reason and faith collide, then reason must be abandoned, since faith is a theological virtue.

‘If’ they collide. They don’t.

 

[fhansen]

This is my understanding of the new athiests understanding of the universe:

First there was a single point. It was just there, as you say God is just there. It was apart from or seperate from time, but ticked away towards explosive, had a potency to explode apart from time. There was no time before it, so its exposion was the start of eternity. Just as when you have a certain chemical atomic reaction there is an atomic explosion, when matter forms in a certain way there is life, even intellegent life. A material living brain is intelligence by definition. This resulted from the ordered explosion of the point (singularity). Looking at a piece of wood, or a leaf, one has trouble understanding how organized matter can think and feel. However, one is seeing the outside reality of the matter only in that thought, and is in fact thinking about it with inside reality and power of the matter of the brain.

This sounds like Star Wars to me.

*Or *it sounds like an inadvertent round-about way of describing God: an eternal creative intelligence obviously far greater than our own.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

By this reasoning, science is absolutely impotent to posit anything, at any point in time.

After all, if the progress of science is monotonically increasing, then the “understanding of [any branch of science]” at some time X is “seriously incorrect” with respect to the understanding of that science at some time X+n, for reasonably not small values of ‘n’.

Therefore, by your reasoning, science is absolutely incapable of providing any answers.

Science is not concerned with providing “ultimate”, “cast in stone”, “unchangeable” answers. And that is why science is only interested in physics and not metaphysics. Aquinas (just like other philosophers) attempts to draw “final” conclusions (metaphysics) from a changing phenomena (physics) and that is why they keep on failing. Of course there would be nothing wrong with it, except that most philosophers assert that they have the answers.

 

[utunumsint]

Science is not concerned with providing “ultimate”, “cast in stone”, “unchangeable” answers. And that is why science is only interested in physics and not metaphysics. Aquinas (just like other philosophers) attempts to draw “final” conclusions (metaphysics) from a changing phenomena (physics) and that is why they keep on failing. Of course there would be nothing wrong with it, except that most philosophers assert that they have the answers.

I think what Aquinas and Aristotle were attempting would more appropriately be called metascience today since what was considered physics in their day was much broader than what we now understand as physics. Ironically, one of the first principles of Aristotle and Aquinas for their metaphysics is the phenomena of change itself. Their answer was not just based on their flawed understanding of the four elements, but on all change. How to explain change at all levels of reality.

With regard to the reality of the immaterial, I think the best evidence we have is from the human mind itself. Reductionist philosophies have notoriously failed in explaining human consciousness.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I think what Aquinas and Aristotle were attempting would more appropriately be called metascience today since what was considered physics in their day was much broader than what we now understand as physics.

Yes, this is well known. That was the time when the physicians were called barbers, and with good reason.

Ironically, one of the first principles of Aristotle and Aquinas for their metaphysics is the phenomena of change itself. Their answer was not just based on their flawed understanding of the four elements, but on all change. How to explain change at all levels of reality.

And this is where they slip into irrelevance. Motion and change must be studied by the actual sciences. To try to make a “one size fits all” type of analysis is doomed to fail, and it is useless.

With regard to the reality of the immaterial, I think the best evidence we have is from the human mind itself. Reductionist philosophies have notoriously failed in explaining human consciousness.

I am not aware of anyone who would subscribe to reductionism. Not even the simple phenomena of chemical bonds can be reduced to the laws of physics. People who keep talking about “reductionism” are unaware of the principle of “emergent attributes”. On every level of reality we build upon the previous level, but then we must discover the new attributes, which require further studies. The usual hierarchy is physics → chemistry → biology → social sciences (sociology and economics)… a very crude first approximation, but a good start nevertheless.

Of course, the “mind” is immaterial, but so is walking. They are activities, not ontological objects. But the immaterial aspects of the material reality cannot exist without the material underpinning.

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, this is well known. That was the time when the physicians were called barbers, and with good reason.

LOL

And this is where they slip into irrelevance. Motion and change must be studied by the actual sciences. To try to make a “one size fits all” type of analysis is doomed to fail, and it is useless.

I agree that all sciences must focus on their domains, but change exists within each domain. But there must be a way of unifying this concept of change across each domain. What are its basic characteristics? For example,

• In physics you have actual state A can potentially be in state B.
• In Chemistry you have actual compound element A that can potentially decompose into element B and C or can potentially react with element C.
• In biology, you have actual organism A that has the potential for behaviors X, Y, and Z, or can potentially die and decompose into element A through Z.
• In sociology and economics, you have actual socioeconomic group A that has X, Y, and Z potentialities
• In psychology etc…

Metascience can analyze these patterns and derive basic principles from them about the nature of reality such that act and potency really exist at the core of all change and at every level of reality. In addition, metascience can evaluate different ways in which causation occurs that apply to each level as well.

There are other such laws that Aristotle and Aquinas defend that I think are still defensible today, such as those surounding causation. For example, the principle of causality that any potential, if actualized must be actualized by something actual. And so on.

These principles are very basic and presupposed in all the other sciences. But that does not mean that we cannot thinking about these principles in abstraction from their particular application in the sciences. Mathematics does this all the time.

I am not aware of anyone who would subscribe to reductionism. Not even the simple phenomena of chemical bonds can be reduced to the laws of physics. People who keep talking about “reductionism” are unaware of the principle of “emergent attributes”. On every level of reality we build upon the previous level, but then we must discover the new attributes, which require further studies. The usual hierarchy is physics → chemistry → biology → social sciences (sociology and economics)… a very crude first approximation, but a good start nevertheless.

Well, emergentism is a philosophical idea and cannot be defended on scientific grounds. But that just proves my point. These philosophical discussions are not irrelevant. Aristotle and Aquinas would be the first to agree with you that the results of philosophical investigations are not as certain as those of the physical sciences because the physical universe is what we have the most direct access to. But that does not mean that philosophy is irrelevant.

Of course, the “mind” is immaterial, but so is walking. They are activities, not ontological objects. But the immaterial aspects of the material reality cannot exist without the material underpinning.

Again, this is philosophy, not science talking.

Regards,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t know if someone can live a happy productive life as an atheist. Perhaps. Religion can lead to pessimism, like when St. Augustine said that dead unbaptized babies burn in fire forever. Believing in God is will not keep you from such cultist beliefs in all cases.

However, Thomas Aquinas’s argument in the Summa Contra Gentiles is that since motion is by “pushing and pulling” there could not be a regular uniform motion in the universe without an intelligent first mover. Now science posits different energies and forces. I am sure there are lots of theories. If the world started, Aquinas thought there had to be an intelligent starter of it, and if it was eternal, the motion would not be regular. But is Aquinas’s physics position really the only option? If time was eternal, maybe it was mostly chaotic (to our perception).

I am not disagreeing with Aquinas’s philosophical case, but I don’t see on what argument he can stand on in the physics realm

 

[utunumsint]

I see. You are talking about chapter 20 of book one:

[30] No motion, furthermore, which is from a corporeal mover can be continuous and regular, because in local motion a corporeal mover moves by pulling and pushing. Now, what is pulled or pushed is not uniformly disposed towards its mover from the beginning to the end of the motion, since at times it will be nearer and at other times farther away. Thus, no body can move with a continuous and regular motion. But the first motion is continuous and regular, as is proved in Physics VIII [7]. Therefore, the mover of the first motion is not a body.

But you say this:

If the world started, Aquinas thought there had to be an intelligent starter of it, and if it was eternal, the motion would not be regular. But is Aquinas’s physics position really the only option? If time was eternal, maybe it was mostly chaotic (to our perception).

I don’t think there is enough to go on in the passage. We would have to look at Physics VIII for the details.

God bless,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

It would be neat to show that “first motion is continuous and regular”, that is, that order has primacy over chaos (to our perception) in the universes. But that is not really disagreed with by atheist physicists. I remember when I finished Aristotle’s Physics I thought “wow, a lot said, but he didn’t prove anything”. I can’t remember if he thought a actual willing intelligence was needed as the First Mover. That is what the debate is about. Most atheists are just not going to accept philosophy on this issue. They think its just imaginary ideas in our brain. Anyway, I find the physics arguments interesting

 

[thinkandmull]

Let’s clear the dust for a moment:

First, I won’t except the idea that the world was eternal. Sorry, but that’s that

So the only argument I can see the atheist would have is to say the Bing Bang came from a potential that was apart from or separate from time, but that was not a Person. Now this could be the singularity itself, or a further force that exploded that point, but this only takes it further back. Can there be a force that is non-Personal and outside of time that suddenly goes into time? I imagine it like a ticking bomb, but that the ticks are not measured by time.

Is any of this possible? Is not this what the atheists believe in?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It would be neat to show that “first motion is continuous and regular”, that is, that order has primacy over chaos (to our perception) in the universes. But that is not really disagreed with by atheist physicists.

It would seem that to disagree with an idea the idea would first need to be presented to a person for consideration. I don’t think the works of Aquinas are a typical part of grade school education. The translations of his works may also be difficult for some people to read and they may not find it personally meaningful. So it’s going to be yet another obstacle to the idea getting consideration. For those that start to read it but don’t find it interesting the end result might be that instead of agreeing or disagreeing that the work gets a response of apathy.

Most atheists are just not going to accept philosophy on this issue.

In modern times I don’t get the impression that most people (irrespective of whether or not those people are atheist) have much interest in the writings of Aquinas or even models of the early universe. It seems to be more of a special interest. If you put it in a good movie then more people may consider it. Kind of like how “The Matrix” presented some of the concepts that are described in Plato’s allegory of the cave or Descarte’s Demon to a wider audience in the previous decade.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So the only argument I can see the atheist would have is to say the Bing Bang came from a potential that was apart from or separate from time

Or one could say

• I don’t know where the material in the Big Bang came from
• I don’t know that the current Big Bang model is correct
• I don’t understand the Big Bang Model

There’s lots of other things that one could say, but those come to mind first

Can there be a force that is non-Personal and outside of time that suddenly goes into time? …] Is any of this possible?

We don’t know. There may be some deist that might express compatibility with this idea.

Is not this what the atheists believe in?

For now ignoring some of the ambiguities of the phrase “Believe in” (I’ll just interpret it as a synonym for “evaluates as probably true”) as pointed out by DaddyGirl, Bradski, and myself, there’s not going to be a uniform stance on this. You can find out what various non-religious people think about an issue, and may be able to cluster/classify the responses that you get based on similarities. A result of such an endeavor won’t be the knowledge of what a specific person thinks about the early universe given the information that s/he is an atheist. That an intelligent being was involved in the formation of our universe may even be something that s/he hasn’t removed from consideration for the possibilities.

 

[thinkandmull]

Any details of the Bing Bang are irrelevant. Saying “I don’t know where the material in the Big Bang came from” is to not address the existence of God. Are you saying the human mind is not equipped to address this question?