Not So 'Bright'

"We have always had atheists among us," the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," "but now they have grown turbulent and seditious." It seems that in our own day some prominent atheists are agitating for greater political and social influence. In this connection, leading atheist thinkers have been writing articles declaring that they should no longer be called "atheists." Rather, they want to be called "brights."

I assume we agree that there is a cause for everything

If you described cause the way I describe cause, we would probably agree, but I suspect you describe cause in the usual way, and in that way I do not agree everything has a cause.

This is hardly a quibble, as you put it. The entire philosophical world considers the question paramount (though it offers no solution except the kind Hume offers, which is to deny cause itself.) If cause in the usual sense is true, then, just as you say, everything has a cause, that is, every event is caused by some preceding event and every event causes some succeeding events, so that any event at any time must be what it is because of whatever caused it. The universe then is determined by those natural laws that determine what all events are.

This is not what I say, but this is the commonly held view of what cause and effect are. Obviously, one holding this view is hard pressed to explain how volition, or even reason are possible. The usual explicit (or implicit) method of escaping the problem is either to deny that everything is causal, to assume something else is injected into the stream of causation (like the will of God), or that ignorance somehow provides an escape from it, (if you don't know what is going to happen it is not caused). This last seems absurd, but is essentially the one used by all those who suppose quantum uncertainty provides an escape from determinism. Ask Alamo-Girl or betty boop.

(Note to Alamo-Girl and betty boop: I only pinged you because I took your names in vain on this thread and don't believe in talking about people without their knowing it. You need not respond. Of course you are welcome to.)

Hank

"On the other hand, C.S. Lewis provides elegant rational arguments for his belief in God.."

Kudos, C.S. Lewis is someone I admire greatly.

Human Science, at least to me, is man's volume of understanding of the reality we live in. This may be much different than another species not of this earth, or reality. Much of human science (that is provable through experimentation) dictates what we believe to be true for things that can't be proved. We as a species are extremely limited in our knowledge about our current reality; thus most of our science (or what is told to us is science), about why things are the way they are, is based on theory.

To me faith is a measurement of how strongly one believes; a belief is an object of faith. Many scientists display faith in their beliefs (which may not be provable), like a Christian displays faith in God. Faith is spiritual in nature; in many ways faith it is displayed by both parties. Although this may not be the proper use of the two terms, it is a way I can attempt to demonstrate how I interrupt them.

The phrase "before the universe came to be" alludes to the reality in which mankind lives and attempts to understand. I don't believe that current state of the "Universe", for lack of a better word, is static. I believe it is dynamic and ever changing. I believe mankind's reality will have a beginning and an end. I believe God was there at the beginning and will be there at the end. God's existence is infinite, human existence is not. God is the beginning and the end.

My faith is based on believing that God is the intelligence behind all things. What you call the universe, and all that governs it, I call a manifestation of God. He is the "universe" and more; He is all things known and unknown.

I also believe that humans are born with a spirit that transcends the reality we live in. I also believe Jesus was a manifestation of God, in our small corner of reality.

Much of what I believe may be thought of as superstitious or unprovable nonsense. However, just because it cannot be proved does not mean that it will not eventually be proven true.

I am not at odds with science; the more we know and understand about our current reality only serves to strengthen my belief that man is not here by pure chance.

Much of what I believe may be thought of as superstitious or unprovable nonsense. However, just because it cannot be proved does not mean that it will not eventually be proven true.

As I said, it is not what one believes that determines if what they believe is rational or irrational, but the basis for their beliefs. If what you believe is based on the best reason you are capable of using the best evidence you can find, and you allow no contradictions in your reasoning process, what you believe is rational, even if it is incorrect. If what you believe is "just believed," or "accepted" on the basis of some supposed authority's word, or what one "always believed," or what one's family, or friends, or neighbors believe, or if there are any contradictions in what is believed, those beliefs are irrational and superstitious, even if some of them are correct.

It is not necessary to know everything, to be right about everything, to never make a mistake, to be rational. It is only necessary to insure one never allows their feelings, whims, passions, or desires to determine what they think and undestand. Anything one holds to be true by any means other than reason is by definition, irrational, and irrationality is superstition.

There are atheists and scientists whose atheism and science are totally supersitious. There are Christians whose Christianity is totally rational (but not many).

Hank

If you described cause the way I describe cause, we would probably agree [with PH's statement: "I assume we agree that there is a cause for everything.], but I suspect you describe cause in the usual way, and in that way I do not agree everything has a cause.

We're both using somewhat different concepts for the word "cause." As you put it:

Common usage: ... everything has a cause, that is, every event is caused by some preceding event and every event causes some succeeding events, so that any event at any time must be what it is because of whatever caused it. The universe then is determined by those natural laws that determine what all events are. ... Obviously, one holding this view is hard pressed to explain how volition, or even reason are possible.
Hank Kerchief's usage: [not really given in the prior post]

When I say that "there is a cause for everything" I'm not speaking in terms of strict determinism. What I mean is that things unfold in causal sequences, and any event can be traced back, at least in principle, to some prior events which function as a cause. There may be events with a cause (so described) where the consequences aren't determined, such as Einstein's famous example of a single photon which encounters a half-silvered mirror. At least so far as we know the path of the photon isn't pre-determined. But the sequence of events -- photon is fired, it goes through or it bounces -- this is a caused sequence, as I use the term "cause." To get specific, I mean it's not a miraculous event. By definition, a miracle is an event without any natural cause whatsoever.

Perhaps I'm babbling here. I really should avoid QM. Anyway, the purpose of this is to say that volition (or free will) isn't, to my thinking, a miracle. It's got a cause (whatever that may be), and the consequences aren't pre-determined.

Anyway, the purpose of this is to say that volition (or free will) isn't, to my thinking, a miracle.

On this we agree. There is no reason or necessity to appeal to QM, however, for this belief (nor does it solve anything anyway).

I never use the expression, "free will," because it comes from theology and is loaded with concepts that are incompatible with the meaning of volition. (The wrong meaning of "free will" comes mostly from Augustinianism and Calvinism.)

By volition, I mean that aspect of human consciousness that requires human beings to live and act by conscious choice. There is no question of whether human beings can choose. Human beings must choose. A human being cannot think, or act.

Here's something from The Autonomist, "Philosophy - What Is It?", that explains what I mean:

The Nature of Choice

It is the rational-volitional nature of man that requires everything we do as human beings to be done by conscious choice. Even to do nothing requires a choice.

Before we go any further, let's get something out of the way. As soon as you mention choice, someone will bring up the question of, "free will." Don't ever get caught in that trap. The meaning of that expression is hopelessly muddled and has nothing to do with this matter of choice.
"Do you really believe people have free will?" you will be asked. "You can't do just anything you want," it will be argued. "People's behavior is determined by many things, their heredity, their subconscious, their environment, their education, their economic status....blah, blah, blah."
All of that has nothing to do with the fact that to do anything, you must choose to do it. You do not have to study psychology and philosophy for a million years to know this is true. You can test it for yourself, once and for all, and never have to worry about this question again.
Sit down in a chair somewhere. (You'll have to choose to do it.) Now make one more choice. Choose not to choose anything else. Just sit there and let your heredity, or your subconscious, or environmental influences, or your education, or your money determine your actions.
What happens when you do that? Nothing!
If you never choose anything again, you will never do anything again; but notice, even to not choose you must choose.
The ability to choose, which we call volition, is not about what can be chosen, or how one chooses, or why one chooses, but the fact that a human being not only can choose, but must choose, and that this necessity of choice cannot be avoided or bypassed so long as one is fully conscious.

I would post something about the true nature of cause, but to do it justice would require something very long. As a short answer, the best I can do is to say, cause is not events causing events. The nature of cause is based on the principle that a thing is what it is, A is A, which means all existents have a specific nature that determines what they do. Since all events are only entities doing something, and what an entity will do is determined by its specific nature, the true nature of cause is in the nature of entities, not events. Cause is the expression of the fact that no entity can violate its own nature.

(Since these things certainly pertain to a discussion on the nature of man, I think I will also post this to the other thread. You may want to respond there, if you choose to respond at all.)

Hank

Thank you so much for the heads up! I do wish to clarify one point. You said:

The usual explicit (or implicit) method of escaping the problem is either to deny that everything is causal, to assume something else is injected into the stream of causation (like the will of God), or that ignorance somehow provides an escape from it, (if you don't know what is going to happen it is not caused). This last seems absurd, but is essentially the one used by all those who suppose quantum uncertainty provides an escape from determinism. Ask Alamo-Girl or betty boop.

Although superposition is one interesting manifestation of it, the actual object of my musings is dimensionality. Within a four dimension block, we cannot see what will happen in the future, etc. We see the movie one frame at a time.

From a higher dimension view the entire movie is seen at once - the entire 4D block. And within the dynamics of such a higher dimension, all of the events within the 4D are malleable. That is where I see free will being manifest to change the script, so to speak. But it is the dynamics of the higher dimension, the will of God, which allows the free will to actualize in 4D - i.e. change the course of events from our 4D view.

And following betty boop's proposal that one or more of the higher dimensions is an extra time dimension - what appears as a timeline to us in the 4D is actually a plane (or brane) and thus also malleable in the same fashion, e.g. superposition, non-locality, etc.

Hank,

When I said:

Cause and reason, or cause and no reason – but there must be cause for our reasoning.

Followed by the tag line(which apparently doesn’t hit as hard as a punch line):

…or there is no reason for our cause… wouldn’t that be ‘bright’…

I was engaging in 'wordplay' and due to the limited amount of ‘word players’, some were playing dual roles. Sure, you have your ‘reasons’ for taking issue with a couple of the players, but don’t discount the possible ‘cause’ being my direction of the ‘wordplay’.

This forum is just a stage, and all the words are merely, players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one word in its’ time plays many parts…
as you like it.

Unfortunately I cannot use sock puppets here, but once again:

The deist/theist states we are here by design and the atheist states we are here due to mindlessness i.e., no design. Our universe is designed or just a mindless, dumb luck occurrence.
Is consciousness subsumed by mindlessness i.e. lack of design and intelligence?

Cause and reason no longer come into play... unless...

Heart

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.