Hawking And Atheism

[Winchester]

Let's do an over/under on the number of posts before someone gets called an "answering machine."

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' timestamp='1284329551' post='2172379']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.[/quote]Err... Then tell me why a Doctor of Catholic Theology and the Doctor of Philosophy, both good Catholics, would disagree with you? Its an assumption, neither the cosmological argument or causality must be held by a Catholic to be a good Catholic.

Besides, the only time in the whole of the First Vatican Council that I can find that the phrase "[i]natural light of human reason[/i]" appears is in the Canons, "[i]If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.[/i]" The document "Dei Filius" is attached to the EWTN [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm"]link I provided above for the Council text[/url], since it is the dogmatic Constitution from the Council. The translation in the Catechism of John Paul II does seem to support your idea although... But doesn't explicitly and directly call upon Catholics to accept causality or the cosmological argument, perhaps indirectly and and implicitly it does.

But considering I don't reject causality, I don't see the purpose of discussion.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284317210' post='2172305']
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.


[/quote]
Yeah, saying he is dumb is probably a bit harsh. But I always considered atheism a bit dumb based on my own experiences where I have seen as much evidence for God as I have for the physical existence. I'm cool with agnosticism because not everyone has experiences of the spirit and I can see their point of view. But for a scientist to say that there is no God is being unscientific. There is no empirical evidence to conclude that there is no God, just as we cannot know if we are not in fact just a mind imagining physical reality. Go down to the subatomic quarks and we are talking point forces, a matrix!!! I would say Mr Hawking is very smart in his field, even much of what is discussed here is beyond my comprehension. I can understand Einstein's relativity, but I'm hopelessly lost on string theory and multiple dimensions. Each to his own, I suppose.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1284330901' post='2172386']
Yeah, saying he is dumb is probably a bit harsh. But I always considered atheism a bit dumb based on my own experiences where I have seen as much evidence for God as I have for the physical existence. I'm cool with agnosticism because not everyone has experiences of the spirit and I can see their point of view. But for a scientist to say that there is no God is being unscientific. There is no empirical evidence to conclude that there is no God, just as we cannot know if we are not in fact just a mind imagining physical reality. Go down to the subatomic quarks and we are talking point forces, a matrix!!! I would say Mr Hawking is very smart in his field, even much of what is discussed here is beyond my comprehension. I can understand Einstein's relativity, but I'm hopelessly lost on string theory and multiple dimensions. Each to his own, I suppose.
[/quote]

I agree, Mark.

But you know.... I have question. It's not really pertaining to cosmology as much as biology. Put the concept of God aside. What purpose or reason do the Catholic incorruptibles fulfill in the theory of evolution? Both evolution and cosmology are suppose to be predicated on natural laws, so, maybe even a cosmologist might offer an educated opinion on that. (even though we study life systems only on one planet and extrapolate laws on the universe as a whole)

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284329990' post='2172381']
The translation in the Catechism of John Paul II does seem to support your idea although... But doesn't explicitly and directly call upon Catholics to accept causality or the cosmological argument, perhaps indirectly and and implicitly it does.
[/quote]
Mr Cat,
First, I am not sure why you [i]require [/i] a source or quotation from me in support of my argument...I have stated some clear fundamental truths of the Catholic faith...to demand an "authority" who argues what I hold is to commit a kind of strange reverse [i]ad hominum[/i] fallacy. Also, I am happy to say that a good standing catholic can deny the cosmological argument...that isn't the question. The question is whether you can deny causality in general.

Second, If the Church [i]explicitly [/i]and [i]directly [/i]say's that you have to believe X in order to be a Catholic and it follows by logic alone that a [b][i]necessary [/i][/b]condition for believing X is for Y to be true, then on the pain of having the Church allow the faith to believe contradictions, it follows by logic that you have to believe Y. (This I am POSITIVE holds..the church never permits the faithful to believe anything to contradicts, or is incompatible to the faith, whether the church has explicitly or directly announced it so.)

I have shown that baptism requires causation as a necessary condition...if you want to say this is "implicitly" and "indirectly" shown, that's fine... but the matter of fact is that it follows by logic that causation is a necessary condition for baptism according to the Church...without causation there is no baptism (this is true whether explicit or implicit, direct or indirect). The Church could never allow any faithful to believe something which would be incompatible to these truths of baptism; to deny causality is incompatible with the truths of baptism (as I argued above).

It is a directly and explicitly taught by the Church that baptism causes a change in us...denying causation would hold that baptism does not cause these changes. Thus, there is CLEARLY a conflict here.

p.s. this is my last post on this topic... I think the point I made is sufficiently obvious. Feel free to respond, but I unfortunately won't have to time to reply back. Thanks for the engaging conversation. God bless you all in your pursuit of truth [i]via[/i] reason.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' timestamp='1284333032' post='2172399']Mr Cat,
First, I am not sure why you [i]require [/i] a source or quotation from me in support of my argument...I have stated some clear fundamental truths of the Catholic faith...to demand an "authority" who argues what I hold is to commit a kind of strange reverse [i]ad hominum[/i] fallacy. Also, I am happy to say that a good standing catholic can deny the cosmological argument...that isn't the question. The question is whether you can deny causality in general.

Second, If the Church [i]explicitly [/i]and [i]directly [/i]say's that you have to believe X in order to be a Catholic and it follows by logic alone that a [b][i]necessary [/i][/b]condition for believing X is for Y to be true, then on the pain of having the Church allow the faith to believe contradictions, it follows by logic that you have to believe Y. (This I am POSITIVE holds..the church never permits the faithful to believe anything to contradicts, or is incompatible to the faith, whether the church has explicitly or directly announced it so.)

I have shown that baptism requires causation as a necessary condition...if you want to say this is "implicitly" and "indirectly" shown, that's fine... but the matter of fact is that it follows by logic that causation is a necessary condition for baptism according to the Church...without causation there is no baptism (this is true whether explicit or implicit, direct or indirect). The Church could never allow any faithful to believe something which would be incompatible to these truths of baptism; to deny causality is incompatible with the truths of baptism (as I argued above).

It is a directly and explicitly taught by the Church that baptism causes a change in us...denying causation would hold that baptism does not cause these changes. Thus, there is CLEARLY a conflict here.

p.s. this is my last post on this topic... I think the point I made is sufficiently obvious. Feel free to respond, but I unfortunately won't have to time to reply back. Thanks for the engaging conversation. God bless you all in your pursuit of truth [i]via[/i] reason.[/quote]Acceptance of causality is not necessary to accept what you have listed, at least I don't see how it would be necessary... Maybe I don't understand.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Mr. Cat, I don't know who this philosopher and theologian are, but they are gravely mistaken. Of course, if you will not see how Creator means Cause, or how ex opere operato signifies cause and effect, or how the divine providence of God, who makes all things happen by His decrees, shows that He is the cause of all, then I, for my part, can only question whether you are giving the facts an honest examination. I would ask you this: in what way could these dogmas of the faith be explained that would not require causality? If God commands the universe to come into being, and then the universe does so of its own power regardless of His command, then He ceases to be Creator and becomes merely a prophet of things to come. The same with regard to divine providence. The sacraments likewise would have the power to confect themselves, a grave error. How shall we deal with criminals if they were neither caused to commit a crime, nor did their actions cause any wrong-doing to occur? How unjust is the Fall from Grace or the Final Judgment if my sins did not cause my fall?

No, nothing in Christian faith can be held without causality.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' timestamp='1284342031' post='2172471']Mr. Cat, I don't know who this philosopher and theologian are, but they are gravely mistaken. Of course, if you will not see how Creator means Cause, or how ex opere operato signifies cause and effect, or how the divine providence of God, who makes all things happen by His decrees, shows that He is the cause of all, then I, for my part, can only question whether you are giving the facts an honest examination. I would ask you this: in what way could these dogmas of the faith be explained that would not require causality? If God commands the universe to come into being, and then the universe does so of its own power regardless of His command, then He ceases to be Creator and becomes merely a prophet of things to come. The same with regard to divine providence. The sacraments likewise would have the power to confect themselves, a grave error. How shall we deal with criminals if they were neither caused to commit a crime, nor did their actions cause any wrong-doing to occur? How unjust is the Fall from Grace or the Final Judgment if my sins did not cause my fall?

No, nothing in Christian faith can be held without causality.[/quote]So that is your great defense for causality, social order would break down and we couldn't believe in the doctrines of the Church, will the Earth also implode and crack apart?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284343166' post='2172482']
So that is your great defense for causality, social order would break down and we couldn't believe in the doctrines of the Church, will the Earth also implode and crack apart?
[/quote]
-1.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1284346287' post='2172498']-1. [/quote]Stop ruining my fun and games...

[Hassan]

[quote name='Raphael' timestamp='1284228058' post='2171906']
Copy and Paste from my FB status:

Hawking's argument for atheism: "science now shows the universe was created from nothing." My response: "yeah, created ex nihilo, duh. The Church has been teaching that for 2,000 years. The question, doc, is created by whom? The universe can't have created itself; something that doesn't yet exist can't do anything, much less create itself. Epic metaphysics fail."

Discuss.
[/quote]


This is a fail on a number of levels. A fail for not understanding Hawkings argument. A fail for trying to twist literalism into his words to make an actual point. A fail for taking archaic metaphysics seriously. A fail for trying to make this posting on facebook and in the status update section. A fail for so many fails in one at once.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Hassan

[Brother Adam]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo[/media]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1284362866' post='2172571']
you're an attraaaactive laydee*hic*[/quote]

[Mark of the Cross]

I've heard of Stephen Hawkings wheelchair and synthesiser, but who is the Stephen Hawking? From BAs clip, if he can make gravity (Caused by distorted space energy, not nothing) defy logic why can't he get up out of his wheelchair? Answer, because then he wouldn't be famous.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1284329744' post='2172380']
[quote]you're an attraaaactive laydee*hic*[/quote]

[/quote]
What's a lay d? is that an uneducated unqualified d?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Mark of the Cross