Hawking And Atheism

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

I don't think things are THAT easy Mark... I agree, but on the 'assumption (one I take to be VERY reasonable), that the worlds existence is a contingent fact, AND that every contingent fact has a cause.
Hawkings probably denies this, and accepts the causal closure of the physical world, which claims that no physical effect has a non-physical cause. This seems a [i]fairly[/i] reasonable assumption. If it is true, then you have to be committed to the physical world not having a non-physical cause, so basically you are committed to the world causing itself... I think it this is wrong, but is ONLY because I accept that everything contingent effect has a cause. If you doubt that (and MANY people do) then you will think otherwise.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' timestamp='1284295588' post='2172220']
I think it this is wrong, but is ONLY because I accept that everything contingent effect has a cause. If you doubt that (and MANY people do) then you will think otherwise.
[/quote]
In any case, though, causality can't be empirically proven, not disproven. It has to be one of those things we assume either way. Now, once we do make an assumption from sufficient reason that causality does exist as an objective reality, then we can say x caused y empirically, as scientists do everyday. Even scientists have to make this assumption, though. Truly, we all have pretty big assumptions to make. I'm assuming that I'm not dreaming right now. I'm assuming that you all exist. I'm assuming that I'm not plugged into the Matrix. These are sufficiently reasonable assumptions.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' timestamp='1284296910' post='2172222']In any case, though, causality can't be empirically proven, not disproven. It has to be one of those things we assume either way. Now, once we do make an assumption from sufficient reason that causality does exist as an objective reality, then we can say x caused y empirically, as scientists do everyday. Even scientists have to make this assumption, though. Truly, we all have pretty big assumptions to make. I'm assuming that I'm not dreaming right now. I'm assuming that you all exist. I'm assuming that I'm not plugged into the Matrix. These are sufficiently reasonable assumptions.[/quote]Well there you go agreeing with me and Hume! David Hume proposed that causality is an assumption, one that many of us make, and based on some of his less philosophical writings one that he made as well. What I think you are painstakingly thinking is that pointing out flaws to the cosmological argument somehow invalidates it, no. Perhaps you think that putting causality as less certain or as an assumption it invalidates the cosmological argument, no. Perhaps you think that by showing the cosmological argument doesn't necessarily prove or disprove a "first cause", "un-caused cause", or "God" somehow makes it not sufficient for faith, no.[quote][url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm"][b]First Vatican Council[/b][/url] (1869-1870ce)
[b]Canons - On faith.[/b]
[b]5[/b]. If anyone says that the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema.[/quote]The point you make concerning the First Vatican Council is blatantly wrong, I recall having a LENGTHY argument with someone about this matter before, a "[i]self-proclaimed know-it-all[/i]" sort. The argument they made was that faith was inferior to knowledge, knowledge must only come from man, and that we must [i]absolutely[/i] known with "[i]absolute[/i]" certainty from "[i]only[/i]" the things that have been made, by "[i]only[/i]" the natural light of human reason "[i]alone[/i]". When I popped open the First Vatican Council text for this person they were astonish to discover that in these passages regarding reason and certainty, it doesn't list "[i]alone[/i]", "[i]only[/i]", or "[i]absolute[/i]". In fact the Council seems to condemn the notion in the above mentioned anathema. In fact the Council seems to agree faith is superior to knowledge and that faith comes from God, supernatural faith cannot be a product of human endeavors. Knowledge is not sufficient for sanctification for disposing one's self for salvation, but faith is. Likewise, that assent to the Christian faith must be free, otherwise it is not really faith. Personally I have always wondered with threats like "hell" or even "purgatory", how it is completely free, but then again the Council didn't say it must be "[i]completely[/i]" free did they? But nonetheless, must be free.

[b][url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-thomas-aquinas/"]Saint Thomas Aquanis[/url][/b] (1225-1274ce), in his Summa Theologica argues that the existance of God is NOT self-evident... at least not to us. Then he argues that there isn't any kind of evidences or proofs that we can offer for the existence of God. However, he goes about proposing that our faith must be somehow demonstrable in reason, how much? Hes a bit vague but the reader can be left with the distinct impression enough to be sufficient for faith. Which the cosmological argument could be thus used to at least demonstrate in reason the existence of God sufficient for faith. Its not a proof, its not evidence, its not absolute, and its not certainty. Even though the First Vatican Council mentions there must be something in reason to demonstrate some kind of knowledge of God, they don't specify what...

So a Catholic is quite free to disagree with the cosmological argument, as from my experience as many Catholic philosophers and theologians do, for the very reasons I mentioned above. There is nothing sacred about the cosmological argument. HOWEVER, I am glad you agree with Hume and me, its an assumption, causality that is.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

It is one thing to deny the cosmological argument...sure, many great Catholics have. It is quite another thing to deny it because you think there is no causality. How do you explain the beginning of the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, [b][i]Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible[/i][/b]..."

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' timestamp='1284312298' post='2172279']It is one thing to deny the cosmological argument...sure, many great Catholics have. It is quite another thing to deny it because you think there is no causality. How do you explain the beginning of the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, [b][i]Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible[/i][/b]..."[/quote]Err... I didn't deny the cosmological argument or causality, but as a Catholic I am welcome and free to do so... Its not an article of faith nor is it necessary to faith.

Raphael seems to agree that causality is an assumption, which is my opinion on the matter.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' timestamp='1284295588' post='2172220']
I don't think things are THAT easy Mark... I agree, but on the 'assumption (one I take to be VERY reasonable), that the worlds existence is a contingent fact, AND that every contingent fact has a cause.
Hawkings probably denies this, and accepts the causal closure of the physical world, which claims that no physical effect has a non-physical cause. This seems a [i]fairly[/i] reasonable assumption. If it is true, then you have to be committed to the physical world not having a non-physical cause, so basically you are committed to the world causing itself... I think it this is wrong, but is ONLY because I accept that everything contingent effect has a cause. If you doubt that (and MANY people do) then you will think otherwise.
[/quote]

I don't know that I would call Stephen Hawking "dumb." If he is dumb then that can't speak well for my own intelligence level. LOL.

What I do think - and what every so often I recognize about myself for a split second - is that you can become an educated fool. I would tend to think of Hawking as more potentially, a brilliant fool.

First of all, I and most people in the world could never follow this conversation in this thread well, let alone a bunch of cosmological arguments, mathematical models, and related theories. Essentially, wht is required of myself and most people in the world is [i]faith, [/i]be it in Stephen Hawking or conclusions in peer reviewed journals, not to mention faith in the news media that reports on "what scientist have discovered." Newspapers, as all in this thread would agree, aren't good sources to understand science. But most humanity does not know that because the mean level of education for humanity as whole is rather low.

The more advanced your education the more susceptible to intellectual pride you become. One can get lost in that. In Hawking's world there exists no use for the rosary or Lordes. Maybe he's right and we're all suckers, or maybe he's wrong and he's the sucker.

If the rosary does perform a mysterious work, it's value is in that. And if the story of Jesus is true, and St, Bernadette's story true, then all the cosmological truths and theories won't change that. In that sense one has to remain a child to enter into the kingdom of heaven, they must keep that sense of innocence that allows for mystery, faith, that one might find within a peasant girl of France, living illiterate, roughly dressed, in those mountainous regions speaking patios in the 1800's. Maybe faith in the Holy Mother, in Jesus, with a sincere trip to Lordes, may have potentially resulted in a, "Rise and walk," for Stephen Hawking? Maybe. But if it were so, the irony would be his brilliance keeps him confined to a chair and foolish in the end. But that's assumptions. Or faith.

It's possible, arguably, that St. Bernadette [i]understood [/i] more than Stephen Hawking or myself. Accumulation of knowledge and understanding not being the same. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm7lYlNGOdY&feature=fvw"]My link[/url]

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284314103' post='2172289']
Err... I didn't deny the cosmological argument or causality, but as a Catholic I am welcome and free to do so... Its not an article of faith nor is it necessary to faith.

Raphael seems to agree that causality is an assumption, which is my opinion on the matter.
[/quote]

I think that causality is presupposed by some of the articles of the faith...and therefore necessary for anyone who holds the articles of faith to be true.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' timestamp='1284321130' post='2172319']I think that causality is presupposed by some of the articles of the faith...and therefore necessary for anyone who holds the articles of faith to be true.[/quote] Respectfully disagreed. I have always felt the opposite about Catholic theology. But if you can provide an authentic interpreter or representative of Catholic theology directly and explicitly proposing that, I will seriously reconsider.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

How can grace be efficacious (which seems to be a fundamental truth of Christianity) if grace cannot bring about an effect? If grace is truly efficacious (as Christianity holds) there must be causality (what it IS for something to be efficacious is for that thing to be able to bring about an effect, which is simply to say it can cause something to happen); however if there is no causality, then grace cerntainly can't be efficacious, contra Christianity.
I just do not think you can be a Christian and deny causality. Not because one of the articles of the faith is that there is causality, but because the articles of the faith [i]presuppose [/i]that there is causality.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Also it is Church Doctrine that the efficacy of the minister's actions in 'performing' a sacrament does not depend on anything human. Thus, the sacraments are efficacious [i]ex opere operato[/i]...They have honest to God effects on us...How can you accept this (which is required to be a Catholic) AND deny that there is causality? That is accept that the sacraments effect us AND deny that things can produce effects?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Fiat_Voluntas_Tua

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284321859' post='2172327']Respectfully disagreed. I have always felt the opposite about Catholic theology. But if you can provide an authentic interpreter or representative of Catholic theology directly and explicitly proposing that, I will seriously reconsider.[/quote][b]Fiat_Voluntas_Tua[/b], if your right, then it won't be hard to find a source and quotation at all... This isn't the debate phourm. Either you can produce the case or you can't, otherwise its just your perspective.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284323418' post='2172341']
[b]Fiat_Voluntas_Tua[/b], if your right, then it won't be hard to find a source and quotation at all... This isn't the debate phourm. Either you can produce the case or you can't, otherwise its just your perspective.
[/quote]

Seeing that my last reply about the efficacy of grace and the sacraments didn't ring any bells, I'll get a bit more concrete.
[As a side note...can you be a Catholic and deny that pouring water on someones head while saying, "I baptize you in the name of the F, S, and HS," and intend to baptize them but also hold that this action does not actually [i]cause [/i]an instillation of grace..we think there is a REAL change given this action...That is a fundamental truth of catholicism..Baptism changes you in a real way... Here is my "source": [i]The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i]
1262: "Thus the two principal [i]effects [/i]are purification from sins and new birth in the HS." (So baptism does these 2 things, which is simply to say baptism causes these 2 things.)
1266: "The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification. (So baptism gives us sanctifying grace, it causes us to have sanctifying grace.)
1280: "Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign...which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. (Baptism causes us to be Christians!)

To deny that baptism brings these things about is simply to deny that baptism is efficacious, which is only to say that baptism isn't a cause of grace. Therefore, to be a Christian you must acknowledge the reality of baptism (what I quoted above), and given that reality it presuppose that baptism is the cause by which you are made a Christian. Denying causality is incompatible with acknowledging what baptism does. That isn't my opinion, it simply follows from what the Church holds about the [b][i]nature [/i][/b]of baptism, namely it is [i]efficacious[/i]!

If this should be moved to the debate table, I'd respectfully like to ask the moderator to transfer it it, if they see fit.

[Mr.Cat]

Do you know what direct and explicit means?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284327344' post='2172370']
Do you know what direct and explicit means?
[/quote]
yes

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Mr. Cat, your citation from Vatican I is not what I was referring to.

CCC 36, quoting Vatican I's Dei Filius: "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."

Anyway, while I believe causality is an assumption, that is only inasmuch as it cannot be empirically proven. It is an assumption of sufficient reason, something that should be, quite frankly, common sense for us all. Only an empiricist, who in the name of reason ultimately rejets reason, could call it an assumption in any negative sense.

Since empiricism is fundamentally flawed by rejecting certain valid forms of proof as well as revealed truths, logical conclusions, etc., it is a duty of Christian philosophy to reject empiricism. Hume is, quite frankly, unacceptable. As my friend Fiat has point out (and he's too modest to point out that he's working on his doctorate in philosophy, with a specialty in metaphysics, if I'm not mistaken), a Christian cannot disbelieve in causality. If we call God Creator of the world, He is its cause (if not, God said, "fiat lux," and light just happened to appear in an unrelated fashion). If the sacraments work as defined, they are effects of operative causes. Quite frankly, to argue otherwise (or to claim he's not being clear, direct, or explicit enough), is to refuse to draw conclusions tht aren't made perfectly clear, to refuse to make conclusions based on human reason, to refuse to connect the dots of the argument. I would argue that this is one of the motivations for empiricism in the first place: distrust of one's own reason, which ultimately keeps one from thinking or seeing the truth. A Catholic must believe in causality, as it is the basis of many dogmatic teachings of the Church, which, without causality, would be nonsense.