Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas, who tried to prove by logic the possibility of creation "ex nihilo" (from nothing). His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of "uncaused causation" to be created in the first place.One does not explain what does not need explaining. Uncaused causes are not caused by anything. They are not created. They are where explanation end. And to refer to Aquinas as superstitious is itself deeply superstitious.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
They Know That You Can't Know
At Slate, a defense of a "humble agnosticism". No doubt to be jumped all over by New Atheist "skeptics". It does contain this bit of inanity:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have far more respect for even the typical internet atheist (*) that for the typical 'agnostic.'
(*) at any rate, until they start trying to redefine atheism as agnosticism.
One might also mention that Thomas did not attempt "to prove by logic the possibility of creation 'ex nihilo.'" He actually stated that temporal creation could not be metaphysically proven but must be taken as a tenet of faith. Aristotle himself believed that the universe was eternal and without beginning. This of course is not the same as to say it is without cause. To speak thus would be to render the universe/Big Bang itself the much maligned uncaused cause.
"One might also mention that Thomas did not attempt "to prove by logic the possibility of creation 'ex nihilo.'" He actually stated that temporal creation could not be metaphysically proven but must be taken as a tenet of faith."
I don't know enough to know how closely that captures Aquinas' thought.
But, I do know that -- due to the dedicated efforts of many persons over many years to muddle the meaning of the word 'faith' -- what you're written will be understood to mean something bearing no relationship to anything Aquinas would ever have said.
Further, according to Edward Feser (and I have no reason to doubt him), Aquinas' arguments make no assumptions or commitments whatsoever about whether the universe began to exist.
"Aristotle himself believed that the universe was eternal and without beginning. This of course is not the same as to say it is without cause."
Indeed.
Let us imagine some world in which there is a song which has never not been sung; the song is “without beginning.” Is the song thereby without cause? Of course not! If there is a song, there is a singing and a singer. The song is continuously caused by the continuous act of the singer in singing the song.
To speak of the cause of a thing is a very different act and concept than to speak of the duration of the thing.
Post a Comment