toldailytopic: Which requires the greater faith, atheism or theism?

[alwight]

Because I want to live beyond my physical body in a state of eternal happiness with God. Isn't that a better thing than blank oblivion?

I'm scared of death, and I have been ever since I watched a loved one dying. Somehow, holding on to what I know is easier than letting go for something I don't. Saying that might send some of my Catholic and/or Christian friends reaching for their antacid medication, but it's where I'm at. I don't look at Christianity as giving me a sense of invincibility, not at all. So even though I hold to my faith, I'm can understand where an atheist is coming from, and sometimes trying to explain faith to an atheist... it sounds trite even to me, let alone the atheist - even though it's a mind-blowingly enormous idea.

You're always good for an alternate view, PureX.

I just wanted to say that it is refreshing to read that a theist and "someone-on-the-internet" can get by, at least, without claiming an absolute certainty in their faith. A rather more honest position imo than some who will not admit to any doubt ...on-line at least. :e4e:

 

[PureX]

As for what about "me" is so important...nothing at all, really, except to those who love me, and most importantly, to the God who loved me enough to die for me and to give me a name that is mine alone, who is willing to come search for me when I wander away, and who waits for me when I rebel.

That's a very powerful witness, and I would never stand in contention with it.

 

[zippy2006]

That's an interesting distinction. I think that it causes some problems for some of the traditional arguments in favor of Christianity or theism in general, as they do have rather large areas of faith that must be fairly blind. Take the Cosmological argument, for example. It implies that God created the Cosmos by some special capability that he has by virtue of his nature, but it does leaves unanswered and fundamentally unanswerable how that might work. To me, that hides most of the relevant question behind a leap of faith which is, if not blind, then at least visually impaired.

At the core, I think all Cosmological arguments for the existence of a God boil down to asking if the Cosmos requires some special bootstrapping process, and answers in the affirmative. It seems to me that once you have crossed the bridge of introducing special rules, you've almost given up the scientific process, because there is basically no way to examine or understand them, and thus you have left yourself with only blind faith.

Obviously, there are more examples to give, but I think in the interests of being brief, I'll leave them off in the hopes that you see what I'm getting at.

By ignoring metaphysics and appealing to science you are begging the question. Cosmological arguments could be said to be pointing to the inadequacy of science as a final explanation, since science by definition deals only with intermediate realities.

Cosmological arguments are not fundamentally Christian in nature, at the latest they begin with Aristotle. But according to one version the OP could be restated, "What is more rational, God or an infinite regress?"

 

[PureX]

That's an interesting distinction. I think that it causes some problems for some of the traditional arguments in favor of Christianity or theism in general, as they do have rather large areas of faith that must be fairly blind. Take the Cosmological argument, for example. It implies that God created the Cosmos by some special capability that he has by virtue of his nature, but it leaves unanswered and fundamentally unanswerable how that might work. To me, that hides most of the relevant question behind a leap of faith which is, if not blind, then at least visually impaired.

At the core, I think all Cosmological arguments for the existence of a God boil down to asking if the Cosmos requires some special bootstrapping process, and answers in the affirmative. It seems to me that once you have crossed the bridge of introducing special rules, you've almost given up the scientific process, because there is basically no way to examine or understand them, and thus you have left yourself with only blind faith.

Obviously, there are more examples to give, but I think in the interests of being brief, I'll leave them off in the hopes that you see what I'm getting at.

I'm not sure that you're understanding the cosmological argument.

The substance of the argument is not in it's filling in the "gap", it's in the fact that the gap is there. The "gap" is there because we intuitively recognize that something cannot have sprung from nothing, and that there is no evidence to be found in this universe of it's perpetuity. We are thus pushed by the nature of the universe, and by the nature of our own intellect, into that conceptual "gap" of inexplicable origin.

The questions remain unanswered, but the mystery is real. And that's the substance of the cosmological argument. "God" is simply the term we use to refer to that great mystery source of origin and sustenance (and therefor, purpose), and to the various images and concepts that we humans tend to then transpose onto it. Most atheists only manage to object effectively to the images and the concepts being transposed onto this "God of the gap", but fail to actually negate the argument.

And as zippy2006 pointed out above, you can't negate the cosmological argument with science because science has neither resolved the mystery or removed it. In fact, science is totally concerned with it! Which only lends it credibility. The cosmological argument is that the gap IS "God", and the gap IS real.

 

[rexlunae]

What appeals to me is the idea that life doesn't stop at material death,

I can understand that somewhat without really agreeing. Sometimes life stops long before material death, in fact, and that really is a horror.

that there's something waiting beyond to give purpose and meaning to the things that happen in this life.

I actually feel that it is the finitude of life that gives it meaning. Any single point, measured against an infinite rule, fades away as an infinitesimal speck. All the good times, and all the bad times are nothing compared to the total. But I also suspect that attitudes about meaning like this tend to follow rather than lead religious belief. What is clear to me is that most people find, and many struggle to find, meaning in their lives, and that it doesn't necessarily matter what belief systems we cleave to.

The idea that when I die I cease to exist in any way is an awful thing to contemplate.

I think that's natural, though I've never been able to stop myself from contemplating things just because they are horrible. And honestly, I've often found that horrible things don't seem as bad upon contemplation.

How did you come to spend so much time with ministers in the past week?

I've spent most of the past week caring for my grandmother following a fall in which she broke her hip. Her pastors, Lutheran ministers, who have been very good to her and to all the family, have visited her nearly every day, and since I've been the only one caring for my grandmother aside from the nursing staff, I've been seeing them pretty regularly too. They're very good, giving folks, but certainly not people I would normally spend a lot of time around in other circumstances.

Was there a time when you believed in God, or have you always been an atheist?

I considered myself to be a Christian, of the born-again flavor, when I was a teenager. I gave that up when I was nineteen when I realized that I simply couldn't believe in it any more. Prior to that, I had unspecific, but sometimes theistic beliefs. I was raised a Lutheran, which has never resonated for me, and it wasn't until I started dating a girl who was the daughter of two minsters that I found churches that had more interest for me. But I stuck with it for some years after she and I broke up.

 

[Town Heretic]

Which requires the greater faith, atheism or theism?

Rationally, neither. It's a matter of context and either is defensible, but outside of the experiential, as a pure consideration, I'd say theism is the demonstrably more beneficial choice and atheism the more difficult context, harder on a person, needless and working against him on a number of levels.

 

[rexlunae]

By ignoring metaphysics and appealing to science you are begging the question. Cosmological arguments could be said to be pointing to the inadequacy of science as a final explanation, since science by definition deals only with intermediate realities.

Keep in mind that the Cosmological arguments are all attempts to infer the metaphysical from the physical observed cosmos. I'm not ignoring the metaphysical, but I am saying that I won't believe in it until I see that inference as likely.

What, would you say, could take over from science at the threshold of its empirical reach? I would assert that there's nothing in our entire mental toolbox that could.

Cosmological arguments are not fundamentally Christian in nature, at the latest they begin with Aristotle. But according to one version the OP could be restated, "What is more rational, God or an infinite regress?"

Indeed. Nor are objections to them.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm not sure that you're understanding the cosmological argument.

Given what followed, I'd say 'likewise'. But we'll see.

The substance of the argument is not in it's filling in the "gap", it's in the fact that the gap is there.

I don't think I follow. The fact that there are gaps in our understanding of the Universe is not surprising. I don't think there's much to be inferred by the existence of the gaps other than that we need more funding for basic research.

The "gap" is there because we intuitively recognize that something cannot have sprung from nothing,

In this case, our intuition is wrong.

and that there is no evidence to be found in this universe of it's perpetuity.

Well, we might infer perpetuity if we were unable to detect an origin or an impending end. As it turns out, it does appear that the Universe began, although it isn't clear that it will have an end so far, other than growing colder and sparser forever. What we don't know, so far, is how much of the Universe came into existence with the Big Bang, and what might have been prior.

We are thus pushed by the nature of the universe, and by the nature of our own intellect, into that conceptual "gap" of inexplicable origin.

So? Weren't we talking about Cosmological arguments here?

The questions remain unanswered, but the mystery is real. And that's the substance of the cosmological argument.

No, it's not. The Cosmological arguments seek to positively infer the existence of the metaphysical by the state of the physical Cosmos. They are not arguments from ignorance, which is what you are advancing here.

"God" is simply the term we use to refer to that great mystery source of origin and sustenance (and therefor, purpose), and to the various images and concepts that we humans tend to then transpose onto it.

Not only an argument from ignorance, but a demonstration of the infinite mutability of the word "God". And I think it's interesting that you hop from origin and sustenance (ignoring when the Cosmos fails to sustain) to purpose, which is a theistic presumption, but not justified by any argument that you've even suggested. How can you possibly know that, especially given your admission that God is a mystery? You're making the same strong anthropic mistakes that theists make, while apparently denying any specific knowledge of God.

Most atheists only manage to object effectively to the images and the concepts being transposed onto this "God of the gap", but fail to actually negate the argument.

As long as we're talking about what "most atheists" do, you should read A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. My objection to the Cosmological arguments has little to do with the overlays that various faiths place upon the subject. I'd go further into that, but nothing that you've presented so far resembles in any way that I recognize any Cosmological argument ever written, so I really don't have anything to respond to.

And as zippy2006 pointed out above, you can't negate the cosmological argument with science because science has neither resolved the mystery or removed it. In fact, science is totally concerned with it! Which only lends it credibility. The cosmological argument is that the gap IS "God", and the gap IS real.

As I mentioned earlier, that is an argument from ignorance, and the Cosmological arguments are not. Honestly, if you believe that "The cosmological argument is that the gap IS "God", and the gap IS real," I don't think you've read and understood a cosmological argument.

 

[PureX]

rexlunae,

I looked up "cosmological argument" on wiki and here is what I found:

"The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentially), in fieri (becoming), and the argument from contingency.
The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God. It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greeks Plato and Aristotle to the medievals (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas) and beyond. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God."​

Please explain how this varies from what I posted in some significant way. And note the following quote: "The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God."

It is built into the nature of the universe as we understand it, to seek the mystery of it's origin because 1., it's origin is not evident within it's nature, and 2., because it's nature as we understand it is that of time relative interlocking cause/effect. And this expression of universal nature intuitively directs us toward it's beginning and it's end, as well as to the question of it's possible purpose (what is it an effect of, or intended cause for?), none of which are apparent to us via it's nature. So the cosmological argument is in essence the observation that the nature of existence, itself, leads us to the question of it's origin, it's end, and possible purpose, and then denies us that which we were led to seek by the means that led us to seek it. Thus, whatever lies in that "gap" in our apprehension must be of some supra or ultra natural attribute.

With me so far?

 

[Selaphiel]

As long as we're talking about what "most atheists" do, you should read A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. My objection to the Cosmological arguments has little to do with the overlays that various faiths place upon the subject. I'd go further into that, but nothing that you've presented so far resembles in any way that I recognize any Cosmological argument ever written, so I really don't have anything to respond to.

That book by Lawrence Krauss has been heavily criticized for a profound ignorance of philosophy and theology. The title of the book is misleading to say the least, since he is not talking about nothing in the sense that philosophers and theologians talk about nothing.
It is the same as when Hawking claimed that it was possible to imagine the universe emerging from nothing given the law of gravity. That is not nothing and it carries with it a set of philosophical problems. First of all, what is the law of gravity? If the law of gravity is an objective reality, as it is for a realist, then you have famous platonic problem, in what reality does it exist? ("where" does it exist if you neglect the spatial connotations in "where"). Traditionally that problem was solved by saying that the abstract realities existed within the mind of God. If you are a nominalist, your problem almost becomes more severe. For a nominalist the law of gravity is simply something we impose on reality in order to describe relationships between entities, but the existence of the entites is explained by the law by Hawking and you have a circular argument.

As I mentioned earlier, that is an argument from ignorance, and the Cosmological arguments are not. Honestly, if you believe that "The cosmological argument is that the gap IS "God", and the gap IS real," I don't think you've read and understood a cosmological argument.

I agree with what you are saying to PureX in general. The cosmological argument has consequences for how we must understand the first cause (especially when you include the prime mover argument which is not just an argument for a first cause in time, but for an absolute wellspring of all being that holds every being in existence at all times and thus would be valid even if the universe was eternal). However, there is a difference between these arguments and the regular god of the gaps arguments. This is a metaphysical gap, not a physical one. God of the gaps, as it is typically understood, is understood as a gap in physical reality which we do not have sufficient evidence or a satisfactory theory to understand. The metaphysical gap is different, it is based on a more rationalistic approach, it is based on the idea that the reality described by science is by definition contingent and thus can never, even in principle, fill this gap, therefore it is metaphysical.

 

[rexlunae]

"The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God."

Well, previously you said this:

The cosmological argument is that the gap IS "God", and the gap IS real.

Frankly, there's some resemblance to the second clause, which is essentially a semantic argument, but it contains no part of the first, which is the meat of the CA. If you don't see the difference, I don't think I can help you.

Thus, whatever lies in that "gap" in our apprehension must be of some supra or ultra natural attribute.

Why? That doesn't follow from any of the rest of your paragraph.

 

[zippy2006]

Keep in mind that the Cosmological arguments are all attempts to infer the metaphysical from the physical observed cosmos. I'm not ignoring the metaphysical, but I am saying that I won't believe in it until I see that inference as likely.

Okay. But it does seem that we are at a point where we can mutually say that such a thing is not "blind faith" as you claimed earlier, no?

What, would you say, could take over from science at the threshold of its empirical reach? I would assert that there's nothing in our entire mental toolbox that could.

What could take over to the end of furthering knowledge about reality? The empirical reach of science is quite limited. Things such as philosophy in general, epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, semiotics, and philosophy of science seem like obvious candidates. The secular crowd sometimes deifies science, but science itself requires an explanation and makes substantial metaphysical assumptions. For example, empirical science cannot even justify its own inductive methods.

 

[PureX]

Originally Posted by PureX (from wiki):

"The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God."​

Originally Posted by PureX:

The cosmological argument is that the gap IS "God", and the gap IS real.​

Frankly, there's some resemblance to the second clause, which is essentially a semantic argument, but it contains no part of the first, which is the meat of the CA. If you don't see the difference, I don't think I can help you.

Well, I find this comment puzzling because I also wrote this:

"So the cosmological argument is in essence the observation that the nature of existence, itself, leads us to the question of it's origin, it's end, and possible purpose (via it's timed cause/effect nature), and then it denies us that which we were led to seek by the very means that led us to seek it. Thus, whatever lies in that "gap" in our apprehension must be of some supra or ultra natural attribute."​

The reason we look for a 'first cause' and 'end result' is because the nature of the universe as we understand it invites us to do so by expressing itself to us through timeline cause/effect. Yet it is that very nature that then denies us apprehension of it's ultimate origin and result (purpose?). So that we must surmise that whatever lay beyond that cause/effect timeline (in that gap in our apprehension), must be something other than/external to/apart from and ultimately transcendent of the 'natural' universe within which we are bound. Thus, the "God" of the gap.

The cosmological argument is more than just an assertion of 'god of the gaps', or a 'first cause' argument, it's a synthesis of these being drawn from reasoned cosmological observation. What gives the idea it's force (and persistence) is that it is being drawn from observations of cosmic existence as we intuitively perceive it it.

 

[rexlunae]

That book by Lawrence Krauss has been heavily criticized for a profound ignorance of philosophy and theology. The title of the book is misleading to say the least, since he is not talking about nothing in the sense that philosophers and theologians talk about nothing.

Well, Dr. Krauss is a physicist and cosmologist, and he wrote a book about science, not about philosophy or theology. That's not to say that philosophers and theologians can't have something to say about it, but the cosmological argument starts out on science's home turf, and what matters for the sake of satisfying it's challenge is not that it arrive at some "nothing" that satisfies a hypothetical "nothing" that a philosopher cooks up, but one that answers the question of the origin of the Cosmos in a way that's consistent with observation. It's a question that could well start and end in the physical Cosmos.

And it's not as if he ignored the question of what 'nothing' is.

It is the same as when Hawking claimed that it was possible to imagine the universe emerging from nothing given the law of gravity. That is not nothing and it carries with it a set of philosophical problems.

It's not clear what gravity is right now. It could be a product of other forces, or it could be the most fundamental thing that exists.

I'm curious, how would you define nothing?

First of all, what is the law of gravity? If the law of gravity is an objective reality, as it is for a realist, then you have famous platonic problem, in what reality does it exist? ("where" does it exist if you neglect the spatial connotations in "where"). Traditionally that problem was solved by saying that the abstract realities existed within the mind of God.

Seems to me like you can ask where the mind of God is just as well. At some point, it seems to me that you must come to something that is fundamental. Perhaps this is the mind of God, or perhaps it is a quantum field, but there's no reason that the mind of God should be the only candidate.

If you are a nominalist, your problem almost becomes more severe. For a nominalist the law of gravity is simply something we impose on reality in order to describe relationships between entities, but the existence of the entites is explained by the law by Hawking and you have a circular argument.

Well, I think what Hawking was referring to was gravity operating on quantum fluctuations. But that's just my hunch.

I agree with what you are saying to PureX in general.

Thank you :e4e:. I was actually considering seeing if I could recruit you and Zippy to try to clear up what the argument really was for him, because it seems like there's some genuine misunderstanding on his part.

The cosmological argument has consequences for how we must understand the first cause (especially when you include the prime mover argument which is not just an argument for a first cause in time, but for an absolute wellspring of all being that holds every being in existence at all times and thus would be valid even if the universe was eternal). However, there is a difference between these arguments and the regular god of the gaps arguments. This is a metaphysical gap, not a physical one. God of the gaps, as it is typically understood, is understood as a gap in physical reality which we do not have sufficient evidence or a satisfactory theory to understand. The metaphysical gap is different, it is based on a more rationalistic approach, it is based on the idea that the reality described by science is by definition contingent and thus can never, even in principle, fill this gap, therefore it is metaphysical.

It seems to me that if Dr. Krauss is right that the Universe could have come from nothing, then we've made a lot of progress filling that fundamental gap.

 

[rexlunae]

Okay. But it does seem that we are at a point where we can mutually say that such a thing is not "blind faith" as you claimed earlier, no?

Much of the reasoning around the Cosmological arguments is fairly rational. However, what I was referring to as blind faith was accepting that God just magically solves the problem of First Cause without further explanation or mechanism.

What could take over to the end of furthering knowledge about reality? The empirical reach of science is quite limited. Things such as philosophy in general, epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, semiotics, and philosophy of science seem like obvious candidates.

A lot of those are pretty tenuous, and they don't exactly have a good track record for reliably revealing truths. Is there a reason to expect better results from them when we can't use science to check their output? We only know about the Big Bang because of science, which defied all the creation myths ever produced by every religion, not to mention the intuition of such minds as Albert Einstein.

The secular crowd sometimes deifies science, but science itself requires an explanation and makes substantial metaphysical assumptions. For example, empirical science cannot even justify its own inductive methods.

Well, I know what you mean, and it's one place where I frequently have a problem with Dawkins. But, while I wouldn't say that science is the only source for truth, I would say that it is one of the most reliable, and also that any other potential source for information about the real world ought to be expected to prove its accuracy before we put a lot of stock in it. So far, there aren't really a lot of contenders here.

 

[Selaphiel]

Well, Dr. Krauss is a physicist and cosmologist, and he write a book about science, not about philosophy or theology. That's not to say that philosophers and theologians can't have something to say about it, but the cosmological argument starts out on science's home turf, and what matters for the sake of satisfying it's challenge is not that it arrive at some "nothing" that satisfies a hypothetical "nothing" that a philosopher cooks up, but one that answers the question of the origin of the Cosmos in a way that's consistent with observation. It's a question that could well start and end in the physical Cosmos.

I won't disagree that science certainly is central when it comes to cosmology. However, I think both Krauss and Hawking should be criticized for their derrision of philosophy, the borderline between science and philosophy in a discipline like cosmology is fuzzy at best. As far as I understand it, the models they are operating with are more mathematical than empirical.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the controversy regarding the New York Times review of the Krauss' book? Professor David Albert, who is a professor in philosophy that also holds a PhD in theoretical physics heavily criticized Krauss and Krauss more or less attacked philosophy in general and referred to Albert as a "moronic philosopher", apparently not realizing that Albert himself sits on a rather significant understanding of the scientific material Krauss presents in his book. The controversy also involved Massimo Pigliucci who gave a rather crass reply to Krauss.

The original review: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

It's not clear what gravity is right now. It could be a product of other forces, or it could be the most fundamental thing that exists.

Granted. I'm merely problematizing seeing the law as the fundamental thing of the universe, because it is not really clear at all what a law really is. Another question would be whether the the law of gravity really is a necessary, in the metaphysical sense, constant or whether it is variable (as in it being possible that it had other values), because then I would argue that it is contingent.

I'm curious, how would you define nothing?

In this case, simply the absence of the quantum fields and the law of gravity.

Seems to me like you can ask where the mind of God is just as well. At some point, it seems to me that you must come to something that is fundamental. Perhaps this is the mind of God, or perhaps it is a quantum field, but there's no reason that the mind of God should be the only candidate.

If we are realists about the laws of nature, they are real abstract objects. I think it makes sense to think of abstract objects existing within a mind, it is hard to imagine it existing outside a mind except as imposed by this mind. The other alternative would be a nominalist conceptions of law, but then the law in itself does not exist, it exist in our minds as a description of the relationship between entities. Keep in mind that "God" here does not refer to some fleshed out particular theology, but to a rather minimalist doctrine of God as necessary being and prime mover, the absolute reality.

Well, I think what Hawking was referring to was gravity operating on quantum fluctuations. But that's just my hunch

That is fine, but that does not explain the quantum fluctuations. I'm having a hard time imagining quantum fluctuations as the necessary reality, it is changing for one thing.

It seems to me that if Dr. Krauss is right that the Universe could have come from nothing, then we've made a lot of progress filling that fundamental gap.

But I do not think that he is able to do that. He employs things, such as quantum fields and laws of nature to explain it, things that are arguably contingent and thus not self-explanatory.

My main point in these two posts is that I think that Krauss is a bit bombastic in his statements. I surely do not wish to say that science is not important when thinking about cosmology, it most certainly is. However, I see the area of cosmology as a highly abstract and theoretical area of science that the borderline between science and philosophy is blurred at best. I think he is very wrong when he (Hawking as well) dismisses philosophy as something outdated and dead. Concepts like nothingness and laws are just examples of the many ambiguities involved in the endeavor of cosmology. And of course, Krauss more or less only considers scholastic theology and its classical theism. There are other forms of theism as well, even forms of theism that outright dismisses creatio ex nihilo. So I would not rule out theology from cosmology as well, if theology is understood in the academic sense of the discipline rather than its confessional variant.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

But I do not think that he is able to do that. He employs things, such as quantum fields and laws of nature to explain it, things that are arguably contingent and thus not self-explanatory.

I agree. A while back the History Channel did a show about God and the discussion was largely based on Hawking. They talked about how the universe could have been started from nothing, thus relieving God of his necessity in creating it. However, their "nothing" didn't really seem like nothing. :idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

Much of the reasoning around the Cosmological arguments is fairly rational. However, what I was referring to as blind faith was accepting that God just magically solves the problem of First Cause without further explanation or mechanism.

Again, the nature of most cosmological arguments is pointing to a problem in the scientific or intermediate methods being able to give complete answers. To quote Aquinas, "...and this all understand to be God." God isn't another finite being in the chain, he is the answer to the very rational and scientifically unanswerable question, he is the necessary ground of being, the non-contingent anchor that is the only way around the infinite regress. Your "magical" talk is just your own inability to disassociate your fairy tale versions of God from a philosophical concept.

A lot of those are pretty tenuous, and they don't exactly have a good track record for reliably revealing truths.

In what sense? According to your axiomatic scientific criteria that precariously hang suspended in thin air, presumably unsupported and yet heavy with complexity? Although I think that is fairly obviously false, we can take something as simple as logic, one of the many meta-scientific tools science leans on. What do you think of logic? Is it also useless? And do you think the success of something like logic ought to be measured in the same way the success of something like science is measured?

Is there a reason to expect better results from them when we can't use science to check their output?

Of course we can't use science to check their output, science doesn't even begin to exist until they do. This is not only a logical fact, it is also historical. It is so bizarre to talk to modern science-worshippers. It is curious that many of the premiere scientists of old were also respected philosophers and theologians, aware of and concerned with the non-scientific disciplines that science relies upon.

We only know about the Big Bang because of science

I strongly disagree. Maybe you ought to try to define science. Is it mathematics, theoretical astrophysics? You keep speaking of empirical data and yet the things you are trying to label "science" are quite far away from empirical data. What is science?

The secular crowd sometimes deifies science, but science itself requires an explanation and makes substantial metaphysical assumptions. For example, empirical science cannot even justify its own inductive methods.

Well, I know what you mean, and it's one place where I frequently have a problem with Dawkins. But, while I wouldn't say that science is the only source for truth, I would say that it is one of the most reliable, and also that any other potential source for information about the real world ought to be expected to prove its accuracy before we put a lot of stock in it. So far, there aren't really a lot of contenders here.

If you know what I mean, then how do you go on about the reliability of science? Is the induction principle sound or isn't it?

 

[rexlunae]

I won't disagree that science certainly is central when it comes to cosmology. However, I think both Krauss and Hawking should be criticized for their derrision of philosophy, the borderline between science and philosophy in a discipline like cosmology is fuzzy at best. As far as I understand it, the models they are operating with are more mathematical than empirical.

One thing I've noticed about Dr. Krauss is that he doesn't handle criticism very well. He often seems to react emotionally rather than rationally when he's speaking off the cuff, even when I'm reasonably certain he could respond better given the time to think through his response clearly. It's a very natural human way to respond, but it makes him poor at debates where an opponent has a real chance of challenging him in a way that he doesn't immediately know how to respond to.

I haven't heard much from Hawking about philosophy, so I can't really comment on that.

That said, I also agree with challenging the philosophical approach, which often seems to place more emphasis on human-created concepts than following the evidence and making models that fit.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the controversy regarding the New York Times review of the Krauss' book? Professor David Albert, who is a professor in philosophy that also holds a PhD in theoretical physics heavily criticized Krauss and Krauss more or less attacked philosophy in general and referred to Albert as a "moronic philosopher", apparently not realizing that Albert himself sits on a rather significant understanding of the scientific material Krauss presents in his book. The controversy also involved Massimo Pigliucci who gave a rather crass reply to Krauss.

The original review: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

I hadn't seen it, but it's in line with criticisms that I have seen. I try to keep my distance from the personal drama that occurs between individual advocates, because it really isn't that relevant. It sure wouldn't be the first time I heard Dr. Krauss say something absurd when he's backed into a corner. He brings up some interesting points, but it seems like he is expecting something of the book that it didn't set out to do, and that isn't especially important. There's no need to trace the Universe back to the kind of "nothing" that he's talking about.

Granted. I'm merely problematizing seeing the law as the fundamental thing of the universe, because it is not really clear at all what a law really is. Another question would be whether the the law of gravity really is a necessary, in the metaphysical sense, constant or whether it is variable (as in it being possible that it had other values), because then I would argue that it is contingent.

I suspect you are right that it is reasonable to consider something contingent if it is possible for it to be variable.

In this case, simply the absence of the quantum fields and the law of gravity.

Interesting. Do you allow for other laws than gravity?

I listened to a debate/discussion on YouTube a couple of weeks ago, where Dr. Krauss and a few others were trying to define "nothing", and the most interesting definition that came out was "a state of zero degrees of freedom" (paraphrasing a bit, I think).

If we are realists about the laws of nature, they are real abstract objects.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think they could be viewed descriptions of properties of real objects. And I'm not sure how an object could be both real and abstract, unless you assume Platonic realism. I've never put much stock in Plato's Universals myself. I actually think the whole concept is demonstrably errant.

I think it makes sense to think of abstract objects existing within a mind, it is hard to imagine it existing outside a mind except as imposed by this mind. The other alternative would be a nominalist conceptions of law, but then the law in itself does not exist, it exist in our minds as a description of the relationship between entities. Keep in mind that "God" here does not refer to some fleshed out particular theology, but to a rather minimalist doctrine of God as necessary being and prime mover, the absolute reality.

I guess I don't see how this connects to the science, and I think that may be part of the disconnect between the scientific descriptions of the origin on the Cosmos and philosophical discussions.

That is fine, but that does not explain the quantum fluctuations. I'm having a hard time imagining quantum fluctuations as the necessary reality, it is changing for one thing.

Well, it wouldn't so much be the fluctuations that are, to use the term from the CA, necessary, but perhaps the fields that they occur in. But I don't know that the concepts of necessary and contingent even make a lot of sense in this context.

But I do not think that he is able to do that. He employs things, such as quantum fields and laws of nature to explain it, things that are arguably contingent and thus not self-explanatory.

Hence M-theory. Not well-developed at this point, but one possible way to take current theories to a more fundamental level. But it is entirely possible that there will never be any way to do more than speculate about what might be necessary.

My main point in these two posts is that I think that Krauss is a bit bombastic in his statements.

I don't think that's unfair or untrue, however it does not distinguish him from most of the other people who take part in these discussions. Bombast isn't destructive to the discussion in the long run, although it does cause drama.

I surely do not wish to say that science is not important when thinking about cosmology, it most certainly is. However, I see the area of cosmology as a highly abstract and theoretical area of science that the borderline between science and philosophy is blurred at best. I think he is very wrong when he (Hawking as well) dismisses philosophy as something outdated and dead. Concepts like nothingness and laws are just examples of the many ambiguities involved in the endeavor of cosmology. And of course, Krauss more or less only considers scholastic theology and its classical theism. There are other forms of theism as well, even forms of theism that outright dismisses creatio ex nihilo. So I would not rule out theology from cosmology as well, if theology is understood in the academic sense of the discipline rather than its confessional variant.

:e4e:

Well, I'll say that we'll see. It's no doubt to me that science owes a debt to the legacy of thought that philosophy and theology have provided, but I think it's also true that Cosmology as a dedicated field has far outrun them, to the point that it is very difficult for people to be significant players in both. It remains to be seen if there are more contributions to be made by these fields though.

:cheers:

 

[rexlunae]

Again, the nature of most cosmological arguments is pointing to a problem in the scientific or intermediate methods being able to give complete answers.

That's actually not the CA. The CA seeks to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural by the incompleteness of the natural Cosmos. It is not about the methodological limitations of science.

I'm going to quote something Selaphiel said early, because it addresses this confusion directly.

The cosmological argument has consequences for how we must understand the first cause (especially when you include the prime mover argument which is not just an argument for a first cause in time, but for an absolute wellspring of all being that holds every being in existence at all times and thus would be valid even if the universe was eternal). However, there is a difference between these arguments and the regular god of the gaps arguments. This is a metaphysical gap, not a physical one. God of the gaps, as it is typically understood, is understood as a gap in physical reality which we do not have sufficient evidence or a satisfactory theory to understand. The metaphysical gap is different, it is based on a more rationalistic approach, it is based on the idea that the reality described by science is by definition contingent and thus can never, even in principle, fill this gap, therefore it is metaphysical.

The CA is not a God-of-the-gaps argument in the sense of arguing from ignorance, nor does it rely on the limitations of science. It is an argument that the physical Cosmos requires that there be some non-physical First Cause.

I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.

To quote Aquinas, "...and this all understand to be God."

I don't.

God isn't another finite being in the chain, he is the answer to the very rational and scientifically unanswerable question, he is the necessary ground of being, the non-contingent anchor that is the only way around the infinite regress.

That's just special pleading, Zip. You can't just heap a bunch of properties upon God and declare that he alone is allowed to have them.

Your "magical" talk is just your own inability to disassociate your fairy tale versions of God from a philosophical concept.

What I mean by "magical" is that it is opaque to further examination. Can you explain how an unmoved mover moves moving things without itself moving?

In what sense? According to your axiomatic scientific criteria that precariously hang suspended in thin air, presumably unsupported and yet heavy with complexity?

I'm not opposed to answering, but could you narrow down the list a bit, just for the sake of brevity? It's a bit of a laundry list, and I can't imagine that I'll be able to write a response that does justice for each and every one of the things you suggested here before losing track of and interest in the thread. Specifically, what epistemological system do you propose to use to understand the origin of the Cosmos and how?

Although I think that is fairly obviously false, we can take something as simple as logic, one of the many meta-scientific tools science leans on. What do you think of logic? Is it also useless? And do you think the success of something like logic ought to be measured in the same way the success of something like science is measured?

Logic is fine, as far as it goes. But the danger in logic is that it is perfectly capable to creating abstractions that are beautiful and elegant and simple and self-consistent, and also that have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Of course we can't use science to check their output, science doesn't even begin to exist until they do. This is not only a logical fact, it is also historical. It is so bizarre to talk to modern science-worshippers. It is curious that many of the premiere scientists of old were also respected philosophers and theologians, aware of and concerned with the non-scientific disciplines that science relies upon.

I wasn't asking if you could use science to check their output. I was asking why we should trust epistemologies that produce errant conclusions so regularly when we can check them with science?

I strongly disagree. Maybe you ought to try to define science. Is it mathematics, theoretical astrophysics? You keep speaking of empirical data and yet the things you are trying to label "science" are quite far away from empirical data. What is science?

Physics is largely mathematics plus real-world confirmation. The Higgs Boson was predicted on the basis of little more than the fact that it made the math for the Standard Model work out, and we went and built the LHC to test it. But as for the Big Bang, there's lots of empirical evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence

If you know what I mean, then how do you go on about the reliability of science? Is the induction principle sound or isn't it?

Well, science works. There aren't a lot of other things that work nearly as well.