Tag: Edward Feser

Book Plunge: Irreligion Chapter 1

Does Paulos have the cosmological argument right? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So I started reading another atheist book. This one is by a mathematician named John Allen Paulos. A mathematician? They’re usually smart guys. Surely this one will be better than a lot of atheist material.

Hope swings eternal.

And then comes crashing right back down again.

Let’s start at the beginning, with the cosmological argument.

As I saw he was starting with the first cause, I was uttering that silent hope of “Please don’t say it. Please don’t say it. Please don’t say it.”

He said it.

1. Everything has a cause, or perhaps many causes.

2. Nothing is its own cause.

3. Causal chains can’t go on forever.

4. So there has to be a first cause.

5. That first cause is God, who therefore exists.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (pp. 3-4). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

At this point, and we’re only on page 4, I know this is someone who I can’t take seriously. It will get even worse in this book, but I will save that for when we get there. When we get there, you will know I have no respect for Paulos whatsoever.

For now, let’s note that no intellectual has ever made the ridiculous argument that Paulos put forward. Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Plotinus, Augustine, Leibniz, Aquinas, Descartes, Plantinga, Craig, etc. I don’t care who you are talking about. This is not the argument. I don’t care what an ignorant pastor said from the pulpit one time. I care about what the actual argument is.

This is covered in great detail by Edward Feser here.

The figure with the dunce cap in the article is fitting for Paulos. Feser, after pointing out how no one makes this argument and even professional philosophers arguing against the cosmological argument get it wrong says:

And that, I submit, is the reason why the stupid “Everything has a cause” argument – a complete fabrication, an urban legend, something no philosopher has ever defended – perpetually haunts the debate over the cosmological argument.  It gives atheists an easy target, and a way rhetorically to make even their most sophisticated opponents seem silly and not worth bothering with.  It‘s a slimy debating trick, nothing more – a shameless exercise in what I have elsewhere called “meta-sophistry.”  (I make no judgment about whether Le Poidevin’s or Dennett’s sleaziness was deliberate.  But that they should know better is beyond question.)

Getting back to the dunce, I mean Paulos, he says:

A slight variation of this is the so-called cosmological argument, which dates back to Aristotle and depends on the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe (or some primitive precursor to it). It states that whatever has a beginning must have a cause and since the universe is thought to have a beginning, it must have a cause.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 4). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Except Aristotle doesn’t think this. Aristotle thought the universe was eternal. Even the Christian Aquinas said that reason alone cannot establish that the universe had a beginning. He believed it did, but that was because he saw that in Scripture. Consider Aristotle first in book 8 of his Physics:

(Further, how can there be any ‘before’ and ‘after’ without the existence of time? Or how can there be any time without the existence of motion? If, then, time is the number of motion or itself a kind of motion, it follows that, if there is always time, motion must also be eternal. But so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are in agreement in saying that it is uncreated: in fact, it is just this that enables Democritus to show that all things cannot have had a becoming: for time, he says, is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation of time, saying that it had a becoming together with the universe, the universe according to him having had a becoming. Now since time cannot exist and is unthinkable apart from the moment, and the moment a kind of middle-point, uniting as it does in itself both a beginning and an end, a beginning of future time and an end of past time, it follows that there must always be time: for the extremity of the last period of time that we take must be found in some moment, since time contains no point of contact for us except the moment. Therefore, since the moment is both a beginning and an end, there must always be time on both sides of it. But if this is true of time, it is evident that it must also be true of motion, time being a kind of affection of motion.)

While he did hold to an unmoved mover, he did believe that there was something that was always in motion. That would be the universe. There’s a reason Paulos never quotes anyone who makes the ridiculous argument he claims is the first cause argument.

As for Aquinas:

n the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

That the world had a beginning cannot be proved demonstratively.

Hint Paulos. If you want to argue against a position, it helps to learn what that position is.

Of course, Paulos says “Why can’t the universe be the first cause?” ignoring that Aristotle and Aquinas would both reply because it is in motion and its motion needs to be dependent on something outside of itself that is not in motion. Asking “What caused God?” is the usual question which of course, Paulos never consulted these philosophers on to see what they said. It’s more like “Gotcha! Bet you never thought of that one, huh?!”

No. They did. I have something on this here.

He also goes on to go after Augustine for his answer to this question was “He was creating Hell for people who ask questions like that.” Never mind that that was Carthaginian humor Augustine engaged in. Never mind also that Augustine was the one who said it was a nonsense question because God created time. Also, never mind that Paulos gives no sources. Paulos also says that placing God outside of space and time would preclude divine intervention in worldly affairs. Why? Because I suppose. Paulos doesn’t tell us.

He also quotes Hume saying that A causes B means that whenever we have seen A, we have seen it followed by the effect of B. It seems odd Paulos would say this. If this is the case, we have no basis to trust science. Today, water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Maybe tomorrow it will be 130 degrees. Maybe tomorrow at that temperature it will turn into pink lemonade. Who knows?

As for natural laws, Paulos says either we need to know why God chose the laws the way that He did or if He did choose them, then God Himself is subject to those laws. Why? Again, we don’t know. Paulos sits on his atheist throne and speaks ex cathedra and hopes all his little atheist minions will bow down and say “Brilliant insight!” Those of us who enjoy thinking ask “Why?”

He then quotes Leibniz as saying:

The sufficient reason for the universe, he stated, “is a necessary Being bearing the reason for its existence within itself.” The necessary being is God, the first cause, who caused or brought about not only the physical world but also somehow Himself.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 8). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

No. Leibniz does not believe God brought about Himself.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Based on this, it’s pretty clear why Paulos is an atheist. He does not understand the arguments and he does not read books that disagree with him. Sad, really.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: All One In Christ

What do I think of Edward Feser’s book published by Ignatius Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Edward Feser is one of my favorite writers and this time he has taken up his pen to deal with Critical Race Theory. This might be surprising for a philosopher to write about, but at the same time, a philosopher is quite good at pointing out all the problems in logic that proponents of CRT use. While Feser does write from a Catholic perspective on responding to racism and CRT from that position, Protestants and Orthodox will greatly benefit from this work as well.

Feser starts with defining his terms and making a defense of the value and uniqueness of every human being out there regardless of their race. He looks at the stance that the church has taken historically on issues in relation to race as well. This then builds up easily into looking at slavery which he does next.

In this section, he talks about the way the church handled slavery in the past and how they saw it as an evil. Does this mean that all Catholics everywhere lived this way? No. Does this mean the Church has always been innocent in everything? No. If there was a weakness overall here, I would like to have seen him critique writers like Hector Avalos who has pointed out statements that one could think lend to the idea of the church having problems with racist attitudes in the past.

From here, he critiques Critical Race Theory, CRT for short, and looks especially at writers like DiAngelo and Kendi. If you worry that you will not understand because you are not a philosopher and do not speak in these academic terms, don’t worry about that. Feser writes just for a layman here and when he talks about a logical fallacy, he not only explains what the fallacy is, but he also tells why it is a fallacy. This book is definitely friendly to the person who is a layman in the area.

He also looks at the sociological critiques of CRT and here he relies, rightly and heavily, on writers like Thomas Sowell. For instance, the huge overwhelming majority of human beings in prison in America are men. Since this is a disparity, does this mean that the justice department is sexist against men? Not at all. It just means more men commit these kinds of crimes.

He says that colonialism is wrong, but also that on the other hand, when many people came to colonize, they also brought with them technological advances that even after the colonials were gone, those who were left behind benefitted. He also shows that even when a people have been a minority in a population, they have often had a sizable influence on that population because they take their culture with them often. Germans, for example, wherever they go, they tend to make the best beer. In this, he also looks at immigration pointing out that a country should welcome immigrants, but also do so reasonably in a way they can provide for them and there is no evil in a country having a border and defending it.

Definitely worth pointing out is the damage fatherlessness has had. The black community has been hit hardest by this with the Asian community getting hit least of all. Fatherlessness damages a society which in turn damages an economy and all of this traces back to the sexual revolution, but obviously, one cannot speak against that!

Finally, he points out the damage that has been done by CRT. If anything, emphasizing race more actually makes race more of an issue and tends to lead to more racism. Morgan Freeman one time said one of the best treatments of racism would be to stop talking about it. I entirely concur.

Also, this book is short so you can read it easily, and you should. Go out and get this whether you are Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. You’ll be glad you did.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Evidence Considered Chapter 17

Does atheism have a case with evolutionary computation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look today at the work of Glenton Jelbert. We’re still on the science section which many of you know is not my forte. On this chapter, I cannot comment much because I do not claim to understand the science. What I will comment on is a couple of claims that Jelbert makes that I think can be worth discussing.

Jelbert does rightly say that a goal is central to biological evolution. The goal in biological evolution is the passing along of genes with the end result being reproduction, survival, and food. Jelbert in the chapter says he puts the word goal in quotation marks because goal implies an intent.

The fascinating thing about this is that this is something that fits exactly in line with classical theism. When classical theists talk about teleology, they do not mean intelligent design. Instead, what they mean is that things do indeed act towards an end. This does not mean rational things or divine things. It means anything that is created acts toward an end.

Edward Feser gives a summation of what this means here. Too many atheists will be too quick to jump on their own assumptions. Feser tells us we have to drop everything we’ve heard from the modern ID movement and just look at the argument of Aquinas for what it means to him, not understood in light of modern ideas of teleology. I leave it to the reader to go through Feser’s article as he explains it much better than I can and those intrigued can get his books.

What this means then is that if we have a goal in evolution, then we have a basis for the existence of God. This does not mean that evolution is some entity that has this intent in mind. It just means that if creatures tend to, all things being equal, act toward a certain end, then there is a reasonable case for theism.

At the end of the chapter then, we get to another claim of Jelbert’s that bears relation to this. Jelbert is right that the removal of biological evolution would not require the acceptance of a creator. I agree. One could be an atheist even before Darwin. On the other hand, the acceptance of biological evolution does not require the negation of a creator. (If this is so, and I am sure it is, it makes me wonder why we’re arguing this so much.)

Yet Jelbert says something problematic when he says that Robert J. Marks II, his opponent in this chapter, has not connected a creator to any specific claims theists make, then he has not established theism. At this, he is definitely wrong. Suppose we could take the classical arguments like Aristotle did and establish there is some sort of deity, which is what Aristotle did. Even if we don’t know the nature of this deity in connection to an established world religion, we still have a deity. It seems to be a bizarre universe in which we can say a deity exists and atheism is true. Establishing theism does not mean establishing an Abrahamic religion. It means establishing theism. Establishing theism is necessary to showing an Abrahamic religion is true, but it’s not sufficient. Still, it is sufficient in itself to refute atheism.

We’ll deal with chapter 19 when we return.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

Book Plunge: The Last Superstition

What do I think of this book by Edward Feser? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

TheLastSuperstition

As I finished this book, I must say I was disappointed.

I was thoroughly disappointed since I knew that when I went on Amazon I could only give it five stars. Just five! If only I could have somehow doubled that number!

Now that doesn’t mean I agree with everything Feser says. I don’t think he would even want me to after just a read of his book, but I do think he argues his case very well and quite humorously. As a Protestant Thomist, there are differences, but with much of his philosophy and metaphysics I am right there on his side.

Feser is quite angry in this volume, and he has all right to be. The new atheists are a symptom of the way that our thinking is going downhill. It is not because we are becoming more scientific. No no no. That is all well and good. There is no problem with that. It is because we are becoming more and more anti-philosophical.

This despite the fact that there are some philosophers amongst the new atheists. Yet when they do any philosophy, the results are atrocious. It would have been interesting to see what Feser would have written had “The Grand Design” come out already and there had been a response to Hawking saying “Philosophy is dead.”

With this anti-philosophical bias coming in, we are rapidly losing our ability to think well and becoming a more and more immoral people. Feser also ties this in with the cultural acceptance of redefining marriage and also about how he considers abortion one of the most wicked of all evils.

Feser also brings in some strong polemics to this. Why? He is responding to the new atheists with what they have been dishing out and it adds a nice punch to the work. It’s hard to not be amused when you read that Richard Dawkins would not know metaphysics from Metamucil or that Daniel Dennett should have realized that anyone walking around saying “I’m a bright!” looks like an idiot. Also noteworthy is being told that the sophists are still with us today except they’re called lawyers, professors of literary criticism, and Michael Moore.

Surprising to most atheists will be the bare interaction with Scripture or church tradition that Feser has. The only place I recall Scripture being used is in a section talking about the resurrection. This is really the only place in the book that emphasizes Christ as well. Why is there so little mention of Christ and Scripture? Because Feser is showing that if all you have is just the tools of reason, you still have more than enough reason to hold to the existence of God and deal with the new atheism. It could be that Christianity is false and the new atheists are still wrong after all.

Readers of this book will also see a sustained argument that gives you a brief history of philosophy and why people like Parmenides, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas matter. Feser throughout the work shows that the arguments of the new atheism do not hold water and also lack explanatory scope.

Feser also argues that the teleology that Aristotle says exists in reality is inescapable and the more we deny it, the more and more absurd that we become, including describing a couple known as the Churchlands. This is a pair of philosophers who are husband and wife and wish to speak of us as material beings entirely and I mean entirely.

““She said, ‘Paul, don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting. Pour me a Chardonnay, and I’ll be down in a minute.’ ”

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/12/two-heads

Feser does point out that as the article says, the Churchlands claim to have shared a lot of Oxytocin over the years, yet I’m guessing this is a claim that doesn’t exactly scream romance. Although, it is humorous to imagine being in a singles bar and going up to a lady and saying “Hey babe. How would you like to have a little Oxytocin tonight?

Feser says that this will be the end result of the thinking of the new atheists. In the end, we will lose morality, we will lose free-will, and in fact, we will lose science itself.

If the new atheists have been looking for a powerful opponent, they have found one in Feser and one who can roll with the punches just as good as they do, if not better. Feser’s sharp wit and powerful argumentation provide a powerful counter to the new atheist movement.

If you want to read the best response I have seen to the new atheists, do yourself a favor and pick up this book. You won’t regret it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters