Is it wise to deny what we intuitively perceive?
Isn’t it interesting how some truths are just intuitive and any attempt to deny them is easily and summarily rejected? Like the principle of causation…if we find a package on our doorstep we know intuitively it requires a sender and a deliverer. We would rightly be thought delusional or crazy if we believed it simply appeared without explanation or cause. If we arrive home to find our front door lock broken and the house ransacked, we immediately know an intruder has been there. Can we even imagine being convinced that nothing and no one is responsible? And if we stumble upon a two-bedroom, one and a half bath tree house in the woods, we recognize without question that it didn’t just appear out of nowhere with no explanation. Someone, or someones, built it.
So when a naturalist asserts that the universe – all of natural reality – had no external cause whatsoever…we instinctively know he or she is mistaken. It can’t be. Nothing is more fundamental, it seems to me, than the truth that everything tha
t begins to exist has a cause. And that everything that exists, even if it has existed from eternity past, has an explanation of its existence.
But because the cause of all space, time, and matter must be non-spatial, timeless, and immaterial, and be a personal being with the capability of choosing to create, atheists are forced to propose explanations for the existence of the universe that avoid this obvious conclusion of a God-like being. Some, like physicist Stephen Hawking and philosopher Daniel Dennett, assert that the universe created itself! Dennett calls it “the ultimate bootstrapping trick.” But this is another violation of an intuitive truth – nothing can create itself. That’s just nonsensical and no attempt to support such a proposition can avoid the obvious conclusion of incoherence.
Others, like physicist Sean Carroll, in a debate with philosopher William Lane Craig last year, try and avoid the problem of an explanation for the existence of the universe by arguing that a query for an explanation is not asking the right question. And some atheists assert that there simply is no explanation for it. But is that even a rational conclusion, especially when considering that science, upon which naturalists depend as the source of all truth, is at its core a search for explanations?
Though science has progressed in our understanding of how the universe works, it has yet to provide a coherent naturalistic explanation for why the universe exists at all. Christian philosophy and apologetics is enjoying a progression as well, and I’m excited as we enter 2015 to witness and even be a small part of how science and theism will continue to interact and engage with each other on the most fundamental questions of life. And I am convinced that if both those who champion naturalism and we who defend theism can so engage in an honest, respectful manner, we will see some real progress in ascertaining truth.
But no progress is possible as long as intelligent people are willing to deny fundamental, intuitive principles. You may think that this blog post has no value, but you would be irrational to suggest it has no cause or explanation.
You know how it’s intuitively true that parallel lines never touch and two things can happen at the same time? You know how the concept of ‘solid’ just makes intuitive sense? They’re all false (or, at least, subjective).
LikeLike
Hey, there. So is this a defense of a universe without an explanation?
LikeLike
It’s a rebuttal to the idea that intuitions are reliable.
LikeLike
I would argue that your examples are not intuitive in the same sense as the causal principle. We know instinctively, even if we had never experienced it, that everything has an explanation of its existence. You’re referencing physical realities that we learn by observation which may involve anomalies. They don’t compare to a first principle like the law of causation.
Though I am interested in your explanation of how two things can’t happen at the same time.
LikeLike
One of the consequences of Einstein’s theory of relativity means that which “moment” an event takes place in depends on the observer, meaning it is a subjective phenomena.
LikeLike
Well I can appreciate that, but that doesn’t mean that other things aren’t happening at the same time. And again, our conception of time measurement is not intuitive in the same way as the causal principle.
LikeLike
That intuition is based on pre existing material acting to produce something. That intuition doesn’t extend to a situation with pre existing material.
LikeLike
So, just for the record, do you believe the universe has an explanation of its existence?
LikeLike
An explanation? Yes. Do i believe you have an answer? Do i believe the bible got it right? No.
Be more comfortable not knowing.
LikeLike
1) Quantum mechanics demonstrates that causality breaks down under sufficiently exotic circumstances, and the Big Bang was a pretty darn exotic circumstance. This is why science always demands evidence to back up intuition: all-too-frequently intuition provides an imperfect approximation of reality.
2) Where exactly in the transcript does Carroll make the claim you ascribe to him? I could find nothing that comes close to your description (and it seems rather unlike Carroll). Carroll spends much of the debate correcting Craig’s misrepresentations of Cosmology (a subject that Carroll is an expert in, but Craig has no background in whatsover, in spite of Craig continually lacing his argument with claims from Cosmology).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welcome to the discussion, Hrafn. It’s my understanding that there are about ten different quantum theories which purport to explain the evidence, no consensus on which is most likely true, and some of them are deterministic. The law of causality is intuitive in the same way that the law of non-contradiction is – they are assumed and used as we go about the “business” of doing science. We have plenty of evidence that confirm the law of causality, and none that disconfirm it apart from speculative explanations of anomalies at the quantum level. It’s so fundamental a principle that naturalists are forced to propose incoherent explanations like that something can create itself.
As for Sean Carroll’s comment, I did not take notes as I watched the debate, so my wording was a paraphrase. In the third paragraph of Carroll’s opening speech (in the transcript at reasonablefaith.org), he says, “The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology…There is no need for any extra metaphysical baggage, like transcendent causes, on top of that. It’s precisely the wrong way to think about how the fundamental reality works. The question you should be asking is, “What is the best model of the universe that science can come up with?”
The way he addresses the question of a cause of the universe, I think, demonstrates well the common tack by naturalists today to avoid having to come up with a natural explanation by dismissing it or talking around it.
LikeLike
Caroline:
1) Human intuition is demonstrably fallible. There are whole libraries on the subject of cognitive biases.
2) That ***ANY*** viable quantum hypothesis exhibits non-causality puts the supremacy of the so-called “law of causality” (it is actually more of a working assumption than a scientific law) at doubt. Whilst that doubt exists, it CANNOT be used to disprove anything.
3) What Carroll actually said does not come close to your description of him. (i) Lack of vocabulary is indeed a problem, that causes all sorts of confusion. For example does “universe” mean the space-time continuum created by the Big Bang, or does it include whatever reality might have preceded the Big Bang? It is impossible to expect a straight answer to the question “did the universe have a beginning” until you answer that qustion. Likewise it is impossible to assess the implications of the answer. (ii) “Transcendent causes” cannot be modelled or tested, so scientists (including scientists who are theists) do not include them in their models. (iii) Carroll’s question “What is the best model of the universe that science can come up with?” is a clear endorsement of finding an explanation, not avoiding one. Models are science’s (attempts at) explanation. The “best model” is thus the best explanation (of the universe). What more could you expect from science?
LikeLike
1) We’re not discussing things like “women’s intuition.” We’re talking about the very fundamental intuitive principle that something doesn’t come from nothing. Denying that is a radical concept and nonsensical. Perhaps if one is told repeatedly that it is not, one will believe it. But it remains so nonetheless.
2) The fact that some quantum theories are nondeterministic does not put the law of causality in doubt. I pointed out that not all were to demonstrate that one cannot use the field of quantum physics as evidence of the possibility of non-causal existence because these theories are merely speculative.
3) I like Sean Carroll and thought he did well in the debate with Craig, but I stand by how I paraphrased his comments. If he says that asking about a transcendent cause of the universe is, “precisely the wrong way to think about how the fundamental reality works” and, “The question you should be asking is…,” I believe it’s accurate to say he claims we are asking the wrong question.
His description of transcendent causes as “extra metaphysical baggage” is understandable considering his naturalism. But whether or not a transcendent reality can be modeled or tested, if the evidence points to one, it should be considered instead of dismissed as baggage.
LikeLike
1) The universe is demonstrably counter-intuitive at its most fundamental level (General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, even under the deterministic models, etc). Therefore it is fundamentally illogical to privilege your purported “fundamental intuitive principle” as though it is some cast iron law. ALL SCIENCE IS PROVISIONAL. Either live with this fact, and the fact that even our deepest intuitions may be overturned at some stage, or stop pretending that your musings have anything whatsoever to do with science.
2i) THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC “LAW OF CAUSALITY”! In science it is not a law, it is merely a working assumption. In fact the top Google hits for that phrase leads you to webpages on Christian Apologetics, Ayn Rand and Marxism, not science. Merriam Webster in fact explicitly list it as “a principle in philosophy”. (ii) If there is “doubt” whether a deterministic model or a non-deterministic model of QM holds, and a non-deterministic model of QM contradicts the principle of causality, then as a logical consequence there is doubt that the principle of causality holds. This is true regardless of whether models of QM are speculative or not.
3) Your MISREPRESENTATION of Carroll only works as a paraphrase if you not only conflate “transcendent cause” with explanation (something no scientist would do), but assume that transcendent causes are the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.
4) Science ONLY deals in what (at least speculatively) “can be modeled or tested”. Therefore if “transcendent reality” cannot be modeled or tested (as you do not seem to deny), it cannot play a part in science. Also if it cannot be tested, it is hard to see how “the evidence [can] point” to it — at most you would be able to claim that the evidence does not contradict it.
What I am seeing is a fundamental unwillingness to accept how science actually works, and what limits its empirical basis places upon it.
LikeLike
I agree. The law of causality is not scientific and I don’t believe I presented it as such. It is a philosophical law of logic which the field of science assumes and uses, as I said. Science is not the only source of truth, though it seems that’s where you’re coming from.
Again, I don’t believe your point at (2ii) is logically accurate. A naturalist will dismiss intelligent design theories on the basis that they run counter to scientific facts or laws. He would say that positing a designer contradicts what science has shown to be true, not that it casts doubt on naturalism. My point is that in the same way, simply speculating a refutation of the first principle of causality does not necessitate an acceptance of the refutation’s plausibility.
Regarding your point at (4), as I said…science is not the sole reliable epistemological source. Science assumes philosophical truths that cannot be tested or proved by science. Your claim that, “if it cannot be tested, it is hard to see how “the evidence [can] point” to it” must also then be applied to the multi-worlds hypothesis, the origin of the universe (which can never be observed nor repeated), and even the bold claim of Darwinism that all life forms evolved from a single, simple source. Scientific evidence points to a beginning of all natural reality, meaning that something outside of nature – transcendent to it – must have caused its coming into being. Whether or not we can scientifically test the transcendent cause does not disprove it.
LikeLike
I like your message, Caroline. The unifying element is the search for truth. Encouraging cooperative research in science and biblical studies is so important. Where science has not found sound evidence to explain phenomena, one may rely on intuitive thinking and faith in the divine. I heard Dennett at a conference on consciousness here in Tucson earlier this year and he strikes me as a narrow-minded sensationalist. I prefer Alvin Plantinga and Bishop John Shelby Spong, both of whose lectures, debates and interviews are on Youtube. Each starts from the premise that theism and science are not irreconcilable and is making earnest inquiry to answer the big questions, drawing on both the discoveries of science and cherished religious conviction. Even the physicists and computer scientists who are joining to theorize that “information” is the fundamental property of the universe and that the formation of universes can be explained by a fairly short computer code, do not address where is the “other” – the place apart from the universe where the computer is located – and who is the author of the code and the builder of the computer that set the process in motion. Plantinga asserts that scientific evidence for all aspects of evolutionary theory is wanting, and in these areas creationism is justified. Spong in his biblical research comes to doubt the historicity of the resurrection as a physical occurrence, yet is convinced that some major event occurred, perhaps spiritual manifesting in visions, to inspire the disciples to risk martyrdom in order to spread Jesus’ message. According to Spong, that message is to be open to the ideas of others, love one another and thus, live fully human lives.
LikeLike
Thanks for reading and commenting, Ken. A few things I would like to add in response: As a theist I want to emphasize that arguments for the existence of God are not simply addressing areas where science has no explanation, i.e. a “God of the gaps.” That’s an oft-made charge by atheists (and I’m not implying you’re making it), but we’re arguing that a supernatural, personal being is the best explanation for evidence that scientists credit to natural causes, like the fine-tuning of the universe.
And the resurrection of Jesus, if not factually historical, leaves Christianity worthless and a false religion. A message of love from just another preacher still leaves us in our sins and without hope. But if his disciples only had visions of him alive (hundreds of them seeing the same thing), surely the Romans or Jewish authorities would have produced his body and the movement would have fizzled out quite rapidly. There have been efforts to explain away the resurrection accounts without having to acknowledge a miracle since the first century. But the best explanation remains that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
LikeLike
Plantinga’s “assert[ion] that scientific evidence for all aspects of evolutionary theory is wanting” is worth about as much as an assertion that the moon is made of green cheese. The man is not an evolutionary biologist, nor is he any biologist at all, nor any scientist at all. He is not even a philosopher of science. The man is a philosopher of religion, and a Christian apologist. And it shows. His Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism demonstrates a very superficial understanding of Evolution. It is Plantinga’s understanding of all aspects of evolution that is “lacking” — probably due to his frequenting creationist circles rather than scientific ones.
It is not “physicists and computer scientists” who make the wild and unsubstantiated claim that “‘information’ is the fundamental property of the universe”, it is an itinerant creationist and Christian apologist called William Dembski, and I don’t think even he claims “that the formation of universes can be explained by a fairly short computer code”.
LikeLike
The point I was making is that science and religion can complement one another and give a fuller picture of causality. They need not be seen as warring camps. I do not have an opinion on your characterizations of Plantinga. He does agree that some aspects of evolutionary theory, such as the increasing complexity of species over time, are established by incontrovertible evidence. To me he exhibits an open mindedness in accepting scientific findings that may still be rare in the religious community.
As for the “physicists and computer scientists” who espouse the “information” theory, I refer you to the following link: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2011/09/rebooting_the_cosmos_is_the_universe_the_ultimate_computer/
Caroline, I don’t regard contemporary scientific research, as limited, mechanistic, and materialistic as it may be, as effort to disprove the existence of God. That may have been the case in Darwin’s time, when naturalism was marshaled in opposition to the power of the established church, but we don’t need to go there today. Craig and his debating partners have a lively road show going, which in my opinion does little to bring people together in a sincere quest for truth.
As for a “physical” resurrection, while acknowledging the centrality of the tenet to Christianity, a doubter like Spong still considers himself a devout Christian and sees no incompatibility. Questioning the “physical” resurrection does not in his or my opinion render Christianity worthless or relegate Jesus to the status of a preacher without holy mandate. I personally do not have a view on whether Jesus’ resurrection was physical, or perhaps a manifestation from the spiritual realm. I agree with Spong that some life-changing event occurred, which inspired the rise of Christianity. Moreover, if the appearances took some form other than physical, I do not understand why we are left “in our sins and without hope.” But this is a topic outside the scope of my comment. Spong points out that the Lazarus story did not appear until John’s gospel and doubts the historicity of the resurrection of Lazarus’ decaying body, although he ascribes symbolic importance to the story per John. If such a profound, miraculous event did occur, why asks Spong, was it omitted from the Synoptic Gospels? Your post generated some interesting discussion. Keep up the good work.
LikeLike
Ken, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, as he predicted before his death and implied post-resurrection (by inviting Thomas to put his hands in his wounded side and eating with his disciples, and demonstrating that his was now a glorified body by walking through walls), then he would be a charlatan. But he claimed to be God. And Christianity would be a religion founded on a deceiver. And as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:17: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” Because Jesus’ resurrection was evidence of God’s acceptance of his payment for the sins of all. And of his own identification as the Son of God.
Why is the fact that the raising of Lazarus is only in John’s gospel evidence of its implausibility? Matthew, Mark, and Luke record other instances of Jesus raising someone from the dead, and were not meant to be complete biographies of his life. Perhaps John wrote his gospel precisely because there were important events and teachings that were omitted from the others. Of course Spong doubts the resurrection of Lazarus because it was a miracle and he doesn’t believe in them.
The resurrection as traditionally understood is, as you say, a central tenet in Christianity, but more so an essential one. William Lane Craig has made it one of his concentrations. Here’s an article by him about it if you’re interested in reading a good argument for the historicity of Jesus’ literal, physical resurrection.
I really appreciate your input and your encouraging words, Ken. They help in “keep[ing] up the good work.”
LikeLike
Kenneth:
The problem is that the examples you cited do not support your contention “that science and religion can complement one another”, let alone that religion may provide any assistance in “giv[ing] a fuller picture of causality”.
In particular, I would suggest that a scientifically-detached, pseudoscience-friendly Philosopher of Religion, such as Plantinga, offers the worst possible authority for such a complementarity, particularly as his activities as a Christian apologist gives him a massive conflict of interest in terms of offering an unbiased assessment. Plantinga is part of the disconnect, not of any ‘bridge’, between science and religion.
Nor do I think that ‘Digital Physics’ (itself an *entirely* speculative fringe field of physics, wholly lacking any testable hypothesis, and having difficulty making itself conciliatant with the findings of more well-established physics) gives any real potential for complementarity (unless you are willing to, completely heretically, redefine God as some sort of pantheistic universe-computer).
LikeLike
Pingback: God’s love – a case from reason | a reasonable faith
Pingback: # 4 God’s love – a case from reason | a reasonable faith