Atheists are raising all kinds of interesting questions these days, and I'm glad to see those being debated in the public square. After a while it is tiresome to debate politics, politics, politics. We could use a broadening of the national agenda.
One question raised by the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris is: who made God? After all, one of the traditional arguments for God is that the chain of causation in the universe points to a first or ultimate cause. This argument was given its most clear expression by Aquinas.
Dawkins and Harris raise the problem of infinite regress. Why can't the chain of causation stretch back infinitely? Or if God made the universe, then who made Him? The neo-atheists think they have scored a very clever point. Take that, Aquinas!
In my Townhall column this week, I explore whether this critique of Aquinas works. Actually it does not. But to assess all this fairly you have to consider the arguments with an open mind. You can read more about the Aquinas-Dawkins showdown here. Hint: Aquinas retains the title.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 8)
16. The real force of Aquinas’ argument is not that every series must have a temporal beginning but that every series, in order to have being or existence, must depend on something outside the series. It is no rebuttal to say that since everything must have a cause, therefore God Himself requires a cause. Aquinas’ argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything that exists in the universe needs a cause. God is not part of the series and therefore the rules of the series, including the rules of causation, do not apply to Him.
The claim that "the rules don't apply to God" is irrelevant to whether I know that God exists, because the claim "the rules don't apply to God" includes the idea that God exists. The premise contains the same meaning as the conclusion. It is like saying: "I know that God exists, because I know that God exists."
And what do you mean by "God?" Some kind of intelligent being?
There are four options:
1. Matter is finite. No intelligent being caused matter to exist. And I don't have a perfect understanding of causation. Consider quantum mechanics.
2. Matter is infinite. Maybe there are more universes than ours.
3. Matter is finite. And an intelligent being that has existed for eternity (whatever the hell that means) contributed to the existence of the known universe.
4. Matter is finite. And a finite intelligent being contribute to the existence of the known universe.
One seems the most reasonable to me, partly because I haven't experienced anything remotely similar to an intelligent being that caused the known universe to exist.
Wes at 6:34PM on Jun 12th 2007
17. eM wrote: "The funny thing is, religion and atheism will always have something in common: both require belief.
Nothing illustrates this argument better than these very energetic posts."
But there either is a God or there isn't. Specifically, either one or more intelligent beings contribute to the existence of the known universe or they did not and do not exist. And that latter seems more reasonable to me.
Wes at 6:38PM on Jun 12th 2007
18. And that's fine, Wes. You stated the point very simply and I completely agree. But you can't deny that you have come to that conclusion by believing/ trusting in your own reason and experience.
eM at 6:43PM on Jun 12th 2007
19. And that's fine, Wes. You stated the point very simply and I completely agree. But you can't deny that you have come to that conclusion by believing/ trusting in your own reason and experience.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean. But sometimes I'm right. Or at least it seems that way. For example, I'm quite sure that the earth is not a flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. And I'm quite sure that a particular person gave birth to me. So sometimes my faculties can help me arrive at reasonable conclusions.
Wes at 6:47PM on Jun 12th 2007
20. Exactly. Therefore, if religion or spirituality were based solely on visible proof, nearly everyone would be of the same belief/religion, right? DNA evidence would be especially helpful in this matter. But it's not applicable here. So, in either case you have to rely on your own reasoning/ experience.
Interestingly, I actually came to a belief in God through the writings of someone who used to be an atheist. He very logically thought things through, from a both a cultural and universal perspective, until he finally came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Based on his own logic.
Rest assured, I'm not trying to change your mind or your belief. I'm just saying that it is just that: a belief. I'm all for everyone thinking things through for themselves and coming to their own conclusions! Religion can only become dangerous when UN-thinking people ascribe to it and use it for their own ends.
eM at 7:04PM on Jun 12th 2007
21. Too bad. Aquinas loses. Quantum Mechanics. Nice try though. Hawkins is right on the regression theory. Sorry folks, if may give you comfort to think you are going to a nice heaven and see your family when you die, but there is no God.
Betty at 7:09PM on Jun 12th 2007
22. See Knight, I said when I had the time I would get back to your point. I hope that helped clarify things a bit.
;)
Ken Berg at 8:12PM on Jun 12th 2007
23. "Keep in mind that the fact that one does not understand something completely, does not mean that it does not exist."
Keep in mind that if you claim something exists and want to talk about it, you should tell others that it's incomprehensible to begin with, since that invalidates all of your claims about it!
Knight_of_BAAWA at 8:38PM on Jun 12th 2007
24. "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
What do you suppose he meant by that Knight?
Nothing. He was being rhetorical.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 8:40PM on Jun 12th 2007
25. I AM NOT ONE WHO WOULD BE CALLED SMART OR RELIGOUS.BUT ONE DAY LISTENING TO AN ATHEIST GO ON AND ON ABOUT "EVOLUTION" AND WHO MADE "GOD'?,ETC ETC.
A THOUGHT STRUCK ME AS A BOLT OF WHITE LIGHT.
"TIME" IS MANS DOMAIN.!!!NOT GODS!!!WHAT IS A BILLION YEARS TO US,WOULD NOT EXIST TO HIM.
WHEN HE SAID "I AM THAT I AM" TELLS ME HE HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END.
SINCE MAN LIVES BY "TIME" WE COULD NOT COMPREHEND SUCH A THING AS "NO" TIME.THERFORE "SOME" REJECT HIM OUT OF FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN.
MEL at 8:51PM on Jun 12th 2007
26. @ MEL (COMMENT 25)
If God made the universe and everything... HE did it at a particular TIME... then HE did various things througout the Bible at particular TIMES...
Finally, he sent HIS Son, who did nothing, if not go on and on about TIME and how his TIME here was limited and such.
If God does not exist in TIME... then HE does not exist. How else would one thing happen after another for God?
HE IS THAT HE IS, EH? Well MEL... you are that you are too, and I am that I am... so what?
If you believe that God said that... where's the tablets with the COMMANDMENTS, MEL, never mind Noah's Ark... where's the stone tablets at?
pboyfloyd at 9:36PM on Jun 12th 2007
27. eM wrote: Exactly. Therefore, if religion or spirituality were based solely on visible proof, nearly everyone would be of the same belief/religion, right? DNA evidence would be especially helpful in this matter. But it's not applicable here. So, in either case you have to rely on your own reasoning/ experience.
Interestingly, I actually came to a belief in God through the writings of someone who used to be an atheist. He very logically thought things through, from a both a cultural and universal perspective, until he finally came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Based on his own logic.
Rest assured, I'm not trying to change your mind or your belief. I'm just saying that it is just that: a belief. I'm all for everyone thinking things through for themselves and coming to their own conclusions! Religion can only become dangerous when UN-thinking people ascribe to it and use it for their own ends.
That someone has a given belief is unimportant to whether I'm warranted in inferring that the belief is true. For example, some people believe that the known universe is less than 10,000 years old. I'm quite sure it is quite a bit older than that. So that one believes that an intelligent being contributed to the existence of the known universe is not important to whether I'm warranted in inferring that such a being exists, or did exist at one time.
I'm not certain that an intelligent being didn't contribute to the existence of the known universe. But I believe that such a being does not exist -- and never existed. And, at least in my view, my belief that such a being does not exist (and never existed) is more warranted than the converse.
Wes at 10:01PM on Jun 12th 2007
28. Wes: "I believe that such a being does not exist -- and never existed. And, at least in my view, my belief that such a being does not exist (and never existed) is more warranted than the converse."
My point proved completely... yours is as much a belief as those who choose faith that God "is" or "was." In a way, I don't think we were ever really disagreeing. You also have a good point -- whether or not we choose to believe something is irrelevant to the actual truth of the matter -- in this case, the existence or non-existence of God.
eM at 10:26PM on Jun 12th 2007
29. My point proved completely... yours is as much a belief as those who choose faith that God "is" or "was."
There is good reason to believe that it is a true belief. At this moment in time, I don't know for certain that there is no God. But there is good reason to believe that there is not. Similarly, I don't know for certain that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. But there is good reason to believe that he did act alone. It's a comparative issue. And the one hypothesis is more plausible than the other.
I wouldn't be surprise if one day the descendants of some of the humans alive today will know whether an intelligent being caused the known universe to exist. What about in 20 million years? What about in 40 million years? Hopefully some of the people alive today will have descendants alive in 40 million years.
At this moment in time, I don't know for certain that an intelligent being did not cause the known universe. But the claim that there is no God is MORE PLAUSIBLE than the belief that there is.
Wes at 10:42PM on Jun 12th 2007
30. Am I certain that an intelligent being did not contribute to the existence of the known universe?
No.
Am I certain of anything?
Is it more plausible than not that an intelligent being did not contribute to the existence of the known universe?
Yes.
Wes at 10:47PM on Jun 12th 2007