Good morning!
I had an interesting exchange with Anonymous about uncaused causes and the Kalam argument. I want to offer something more for consideration.
1. The presence of uncaused, immaterial entities within our reality would point to a reality beyond our finite, material cause-and-effect universe
2. Numbers exist, and are uncaused and immaterial (they do not require the material world to exist, and would exist whether humans were around to "discover" them or not)
3. The rules of logic exist, and are uncaused and immaterial -- they do not require the material world to exist
4. Therefore uncaused, immaterial entities exist
5. Uncaused entities must be eternal (because a cause would indicate a point-in-time)
6. Therefore eternal, immaterial entities exist
7. Therefore the materialistic worldview assumption of atheists is an inadequate depiction of the reality in which we live, and the materialistic assumptions of science are an inadequate methodology to discover all of reality
Part Two:
8. Logic and mathematics are products of mind
9. Therefore there is an eternal mind
10. Whoever possesses this mind would be characterized by earthlings as "God"
11. Therefore, God exists
It is very interesting that the apostle John refers to Christ as the Logos, a rich term that can be understood as Word, or divine Reason, or Logic even, which would also encompass the rules of mathematics.
In my theist worldview, the mind of God is imprinted in the very fabric of the reality we inhabit. And that is why atheists are, to my mind, "in the dark", and why theism is both superior in its explanatory capabilities and true. The universe is rational for a reason -- because there is a divine reason behind it. And human beings are rational creatures for a reason -- we were created in the image of the One who created the universe.
17 comments:
First off, I'm not an atheist. So you can take the following comments as an exploration of your points and not a dismissal. Let's assume points 1 through 8 are correct. Let's look at points 9 through 11.
First, mathematics is not a product of the mind. Mathematics is simply a perception method that observes elements of material physicality. Being able to distinguish, determine or predetermine numerical quantities of physical doesn't effect that matter any more than hearing an audio signal affects how the audio signal sounds. It just means that one is observing that matter from a different viewpoint.
As for logic, one might say it is a product of the mind. I prefer to think that logic is a byproduct of thought (i.e. smoke is not a product of fire but rather combustion). But, let's not split hairs and just assume that you are correct and logic is a product of a mind.
The idea of a mind is simply a logical perception of how the brain works. Mind itself is a word, a product of thought. If this is the case, then the existence of the mind is based on logic and you end up with circular reasoning. Just as we ask which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the same problem would apply: which comes first, logic or the mind. They are both dependent upon each other.
Even if we choose that the mind exists first, how can it be part of a non-physical reality. If the mind is perceivable to humans (and you are talking about it, so it must be) then how can it be part of a non-physical, immaterial plane of existence? Just because something cannot be touched or quantified does not mean it is immaterial.
My mind produces thought all the time and by your definition, thought itself would be immaterial. But that doesn't mean thought does not exist on a plane of our reality. And even though doctors can map out how a brain acts when a person is thinking, it doesn't mean they are measuring thought. It means they are measuring the processes by which thought is made. Thoughts themselves are impossible to quantify because they are not of a material existence.
And yet, we know thought exists just as we know logic and mathematics exist. They are perceptible to the human condition and therefore not "immaterial" by the philosophical/religious definition of what immaterial means.
But... let's assume that you are correct on all these fronts.
Why would the adoption of any religion matter? Would prayer or religious ceremony or acting in any certain behavior really matter? After all, let's assume that there is a God and let's even go so far as to assume that there is a "Heaven" and they are both immaterial. If they are truly immaterial, than material and the actions of a material world would have to have absolutely zero effect on them. After all, matter can only affect matter, it cannot effect that which is immaterial.
Our existence and our actions on this planet are all physical in nature. If our actions supposedly determine whether we ascend into a Heaven after we die, then that would negate the immaterial nature of God, Heaven and the concept of an eternal soul that has been adopted almost universally by religions. Therefore, what we do on this planet and whether we even believe in God would be irrelevant to whether we could exist on an immaterial plane of existence with this God. And that would negate the relevancy of every religion.
And therefore... the concept of monotheism, polytheism and atheism are all irrelevant anyhow, whether there is a God or not. We can all live our lives happily with whatever religious or non-religious beliefs we hold. It won't matter in the end because we as physical beings cannot affect what happens beyond our lives in either a perceivable means on this planet or a non-perceivable means in an immaterial Heaven with an immaterial God.
The problem is that the axioms are neither self-evident nor based on evidence. Rather they are reifications, assertions believed to exist solely because you can conceive of them. It is quite possible that numbers exist only in the physical universe and do not predate the universe. It, at least, is equally likely.
Two thoughtful posts. Two quick responses:
1. Do animals have minds as well as humans? Just wondering. If so, there are implications regarding logic.
2. Is logic invented by the human mind, or does it emerge as the human mind (supposedly) evolves into being, or does it not in fact exist, fully-formed, waiting to be apprehended by the human mind?
3. The mind as immaterial gets us into the dualism issue. I am a dualist. I believe that the human mind is immaterial (but not eternal); that logic is both immaterial and eternal, because it does not depend on the human mind for existence, and, if all humans were wiped out, If A then B; A, therefore B would still be a fundamental characteristic of reality.
4. I believe that a good case can be made for immateriality of thoughts, which then reside in physical brains. In fact, thoughts can exist outside of minds, in the form of books or documents, in which case the media is paper.
5. Why would the adoption of any religion matter...
I believe your fallacy is to assume that the reality we inhabit is solely material. I believe it is both material and spiritual.
Humans are spirits, possessing souls (mind, will, emotions) and inhabiting a body. As spirits we can interact with God, who is a Spirit. And, as rebellious creatures, we upset the harmony of ultimate reality which is spiritual in nature.
In addition, going the other way, God who is a Spirit and who is eternal, has entered into the material world in the incarnation. And, we killed him. That's an effect. At the same time, he redeemed us to himself -- that also is an effect.
Thirdly, if I am right, God is a person, and, therefore, the ultimate reality of existence is not merely material, but is personal. Since the structure of our reality is not merely material and brute survival (as in darwinism), but also moral in nature, rebellion against the moral order of the universe is rebellion against the universe's creator and governor, God. And, since God is a person and we are persons, there is a personal consequence to this rebellion.
This personal dimension works the other way -- in that's God's response to man's rebellion is, ultimately, one of love and reconciliation.
" It is quite possible that numbers exist only in the physical universe and do not predate the universe. It, at least, is equally likely."
You are right. I should say that numbers, like logic, are immaterial, and therefore the universe we inhabit is both material and immaterial in its nature. Since we have the Big Bang as our current cosmological creation event, we would have to conclude, at a minimum, that the Whatever that caused the universe to pop into place caused an exquisitely unified blend of material-immaterial.
This is at least suggestive of a mind behind the universe. And the possessor of that mind would be God.
You would also have to conclude that this Cause caused a universe which resulted in a) life, b) consciousness, c) moral sense.
This is getting closer to the Christian view of a personal God who creates man in his image - rational thought, consciousness, moral sense, etc.
Surely it would not be irrational to draw such inferences.
I don't understand how so many theists advance a logical argument so well, but then in that last critical step where they need to make a useful conclusion, they instead take a massive, unjustified leap.
Let's, for sake of argument, grant the first part of your argument and its reasonable conclusion that materialism/physicalism/naturalism (whatever name you want to give it) is inadequate to describe all of reality. In fact, this is no different than the claim of the dualist. So, you've advanced a reasonable argument that there is something beyond the material.
Now, to go from C7 to C11, you need to establish, at the least, the following things:
1. There exists immaterial things beyond those that we are aware of - such as our own minds.
2. That there is exactly one of these other immaterial things.
3. That this one immaterial thing is infinitely powerful.
4. That this one immaterial thing is infinitely knowledgeable.
5. That this one immaterial thing is infinitely benevolent.
From there, the jump to religion is even further.
LS - thank you for your insight.
1. There exists immaterial things beyond those that we are aware of - such as our own minds.
I argue that numbers, mathematics, and logic are apprehended by our minds, but are not caused by our minds -- they have independent existence. There are huge problems thinking that mathematics and logic are co-existent with our minds, especially if you adopt a darwinian view of human origins.
2. That there is exactly one of these other immaterial things.
I don't need to argue this. In fact, I believe there is a multiplicity of immaterial things. What there needs to be is a sufficient cause for the reality we inhabit.
3. That this one immaterial thing is infinitely powerful.
Doesn't need to be infinitely powerful, nor did I argue for this -- needs to be sufficiently powerful. In fact, from the evidence one could reasonable conclude imperfectly powerful.
4. That this one immaterial thing is infinitely knowledgeable.
Doesn't need to be infinitely knowledgeable, nor did I argue for this -- needs to be sufficiently knowledgeable to design the universe to exquisite levels of fine-tuning.
5. That this one immaterial thing is infinitely benevolent.
Nor does this follow. Based on evidence apart from revelation, "It" could have a malevolent streak. Maybe "It" likes murder and suffering and has a distaste for kindness and mercy.
That's why, just like air, food, water, we also need revelation. Christians believe the Same Guy who graciously provided the former also provided the latter.
Well no, except that's the standard definition of God (capital 'G'). If your argument is simply that one or more immaterial rational agents exist, that's something else entirely. To claim the existence of 'God' is to claim the existence of the Abrahamic deity - a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.
I would argue that rather differently.
I would argue that, even if we agree that numbers and math are immaterial -- which they aren't, they're merely logical concepts used to quantify real-world phenomenae -- it still wouldn't necessitate an eternal mind.
No eternal mind is necessary to sustain these concepts so long as minds exist. In the absence of the extinction of the human species, there will always be minds to teach these concepts to.
If the human species did go extinct, the logical concepts used to quantify these phenomenae would go extinct with us. But the phenomenae themselves would remain.
Also, nowhere in Richard's argument is it required that only one immaterial mind is necessary for the purpose of religion.
In fact, numerous would be.
So you're saying:
1) Numbers exist
2) therefore materialism is false
3) therefore god exists
4) therefore christianity is true.
(1) is debatable but reasonable.
(2) relies on a caricature of materialism.
(3) doesn't follow from (2).
(4) doesn't follow from (3).
So you're saying:
1) Numbers exist
2) therefore materialism is false
3) therefore god exists
4) therefore christianity is true.
(2) relies on a caricature of materialism. *How so? Doesn't materialism rule out immaterial realities and stress the absolute mindlessness of the cosmos as a fundamental characteristic?*
(3) doesn't follow from (2).
It is more of a reasonable inference than a formal proof. Numbers, and logic, are suggestive of mind.
(4) doesn't follow from (3).
And, I don't believe I made that assertion. For Christianity to be true, you need to have a resurrection from the dead into a transformed humanity. This is what makes Christianity true. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false.
I would argue that rather differently.
I would argue that numbers and math are merely logical concepts used to quantify real-world phenomenae.
The number seven seems to exist even if it is not being used to quantify real a real world phenomena. How about the number 7.0004953291045 -- must it quantify a real-world thing in order for it to exist? I don't think so. 14 - 7 = 7 seems to be true regardless of whether there are 14 "things" or not that it is actually quantifying.
And, If A = B, and B = C, then A = C similarly seems to be true regardless to correspondence with a physical real-world entity.
Logic and numbers both appear to have independent actual existence. And they are, in essence, immaterial.
No eternal mind is necessary to sustain these concepts so long as minds exist. In the absence of the extinction of the human species, there will always be minds to teach these concepts to.
The numbers, and math, and logic I cited above, would, I argue, continue to exist and be true regardless if whether there were sentient humans around, because the reality of numbers and logic did not evolve as man emerged from the slime, they awaited man's arrival so he could apprehend them.
There existence is not "guaranteed" by our apprehension, but are a built-in fabric of the universe.
"Also, nowhere in Richard's argument is it required that only one immaterial mind is necessary for the purpose of religion."
Not sure where you are going with this.
Thanks for the stimulating comment.
I liked this guys response:
http://terminal-atheist.blogspot.com/2009/05/bleh.html
He's clearly no logician, as there are several false assumptions in what he has to say, but he raises some good points too.
Yup - the terminal-atheist blog deals with this garbage very well indeed.
The hoops RKBall seems to be jumping through has gone from the level of mere entertainment to outright batty! Wow - I can't believe the tripe here with these past 3 or 4 posts!
(perhaps RKBall is looking to make a name for himself... other, more sane, blogs have picked up on these latest posts and are all pretty much saying the same thing: that the auther is nuts.)
"The number seven seems to exist even if it is not being used to quantify real a real world phenomena. How about the number 7.0004953291045 -- must it quantify a real-world thing in order for it to exist? I don't think so. 14 - 7 = 7 seems to be true regardless of whether there are 14 "things" or not that it is actually quantifying."
Without a link to something existing materially, this concept would not, effectively be real.
If one uses the number of seven to quantify seven coconuts, those coconuts exist regardless of whether or not a mind exists to quantify them with that particular number which, again, is purely a logical concept.
If there is no real-world context to that number -- to that logical concept -- then it only exists in the mind.
"And, If A = B, and B = C, then A = C similarly seems to be true regardless to correspondence with a physical real-world entity.
Logic and numbers both appear to have independent actual existence. And they are, in essence, immaterial."
Numbers, as a logical concept, clearly have both material and immaterial elements to them.
And therein lies the point. Something that is immaterial cannot objectively be said to exist.
Thanks to the following commentators for their perceptive comments;
Surecure "mathematics is not a product of the mind. Mathematics is simply a perception method that observes elements of material physicality"
And... "The idea of a mind is simply a logical perception of how the brain works. Mind itself is a word, a product of thought."
Pettitji: "The problem is that the axioms are neither self-evident nor based on evidence. Rather they are reifications, assertions believed to exist solely because you can conceive of them. It is quite possible that numbers exist only in the physical universe and do not predate the universe. It, at least, is equally likely."
Patrick Ross: "numbers and math are... merely logical concepts used to quantify real-world phenomenae -- it still wouldn't necessitate an eternal mind.
No eternal mind is necessary to sustain these concepts so long as minds exist."
AND
"And therein lies the point. Something that is immaterial cannot objectively be said to exist."
I am going to post a follow-on post.
Thank you for your insights and critical clarifications.
My personal experience has been magical..beyond description...everytime i leave some problem to God to take care of...miraculously ..its more than solved...now those of you who don't believe in God won't believe me either...so the bottomline is...what you beleive is your reality....
But take my word for it...God has made manifest his wonders in the big desperate times...as well as the trivial issues if my daily life
N.B.-By the way ,try and find logical rational explanations for the healing powers of hypnosis, love relationships, xenoglossy, reiki, meditation,emotions etc
Post a Comment