Is Angler Better at 'Critical Thought' Than Aquinas?

[Macrobius]

This exchange intrigued me:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63174&page=7



Originally Posted by beachstud90210
That's right Augustine, Aquinas, St. Anselm, Pascal, etc. are all just dishonest morons who were employing a "defense mechanism," meanwhile you're wiser because you saw a PBS special about DNA.

With the exception of the crap about the PBS special, what you say here is basically correct. I am a better critical thinker than any of those people were. Granted, some of my critical thinking ability had to be self-inculcated, and perhaps the aforementioned figures could have done the same if they'd cared to do so. My IQ was just as high as a Christian as it is now; what's different is that with age I've acquired a better understanding of how to avoid fallacious thinking, and I strive harder to do so.


So, a post-Christian of Angler's ilk has, necessarily, better 'critical thinking skills' compared to some of the generally acknowledged geniuses of the past.

I believe this point is debatable.

As an ordinary person of average intelligence (compared to Aquinas or Angler, say), I have a couple presuppositions about what it means to [consistently] make such a claim.

(1) I assume that Angler knows what 'critical thinking' is and can define it for us; and

(2) That he has some evidence for his beliefs enunciated above, which pass muster on his own definition of 'critical thinking'.

Do tell.

[kevinwalsh]

This exchange intrigued me:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63174&page=7



So, a post-Christian of Angler's ilk has, necessarily, better 'critical thinking skills' compared to some of the generally acknowledged geniuses of the past.

I believe this point is debatable.

As an ordinary person of average intelligence (compared to Aquinas or Angler, say), I have a couple presuppositions about what it means to [consistently] make such a claim.

(1) I assume that Angler knows what 'critical thinking' is and can define it for us; and

(2) That he has some evidence for his beliefs enunciated above, which pass muster on his own definition of 'critical thinking'.

Do tell.

This sounds like an attempt to start a flame against Angler. Before we consider whether his critical thinking skills are any better or worse than those of St. Thomas Aquinas or any other genius of the ancient or medieval world, let's just remember one thing: What an intellectual, ancient, medieval, or modern, writes is not always what that intellectual honestly believes. Intellectuals have always been financially dependent upon the ruling class, and they usually recognise that it's in their interests to have a line that serves that class. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Whether Aquinas was spewing bull shit and whether he actually believed his own bull shit are two separate questions. The answer to the latter we will probably never know.

[Angler]

So, a post-Christian of Angler's ilk has, necessarily, better 'critical thinking skills' compared to some of the generally acknowledged geniuses of the past.

I believe this point is debatable.

As an ordinary person of average intelligence (compared to Aquinas or Angler, say), I have a couple presuppositions about what it means to [consistently] make such a claim.

(1) I assume that Angler knows what 'critical thinking' is and can define it for us; and

(2) That he has some evidence for his beliefs enunciated above, which pass muster on his own definition of 'critical thinking'.

Do tell.I have little interest in participating in a thread that has no purpose other than to "take me down a notch" -- especially when I freely admit that there are many people alive today, not to mention throughout history, who are smarter than I am. Thus, I'm going to keep this short.

Regarding your points:

(1) I concur with the following definition of "critical thinking" (the added emphasis is mine):

As specified in the University General Education criteria, "critical thinking skills include being able to identify, analyze, evaluate, and present oral and written arguments; distinguish fact from judgment and belief from knowledge; and embody intellectual standards such as accuracy, evidentiary support, clarity, logicalness and fairness."
http://www.csulb.edu/~rcelsi/what_is_critical_thinking.htm

(2) One key point against the aforementioned thinkers has been put in bold above: they were frequently unable to distinguish belief from knowledge.

If you want specific examples of poor critical thinking on their part, I'll give you two here: Pascal's Wager and St. Anselm's ontological argument. Even as a Christian I recognized these as flawed as soon as I read them.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe that I'm any smarter now than I was when I was a Christian. The only real difference is that I'm a more careful thinker, and I don't allow my emotions to get in the way of my judgments about arguments for or against God.

[Macrobius]

I have little interest in participating in a thread that has no purpose other than to "take me down a notch" -- especially when I freely admit that there are many people alive today, not to mention throughout history, who are smarter than I am.


I would say your opening statement is a blatant attempt to rhetorically sway your audience by cynically gaging their ethos and appealing to a scurrilous (and fictitious) attack on your character, to misdirect them from the sheer ludicrousness of what your very own highly developed critical faculty prompted you to say, bareheaded and with your own tongue, not mine. Your subterfuge is commonly called 'poisoning the well', followed by a veiled ad hominem. I believe more your initial self-report of your high opinion of yourself more than the (false) modesty which you now conveniently trot out for show and applause.

My motives, as any critical thinker knows, are irrelevant to the validity of the argument, which was in any event a request for a definition and some evidence. We'll see if you provide the latter.


Thus, I'm going to keep this short.


Refusing to argue is, or arguing more shortly than the question requires, is as all critical thinkers know, a fallacy called ignoratio elechi, or more picturesquely, ad lapidem (after an episode in which Bishop Berkeley and Samuel Johnson famously engaged, and Johnson cut the argument short by kicking a rock with the words 'I refute it thus'.)

Let's chalk that up to two fallacies out of the gate, and ignore them, since we are only offering points on this thread for 'critical thought', not rhetorical appeals to the benches.

Your next point at least attempts to stipulate something, if not elaborate or provide evidence for it:



Regarding your points:

(1) I concur with the following definition of "critical thinking" (the added emphasis is mine):

....distinguish fact from judgment and belief from knowledge....


Good. So what are fact, judgment, belief, and knowledge, respectively, and how do you distinguish them? I have to assume you know, since the matter is simple, apparently. I presume your argument will then go on to show that you know what these are, and have a better understanding of their relationship, than Aquinas did.

And further, you will show us instances of your thought in which Aquinas is wrong about this, and you are right, and tell us what the right parts are, contrasted with what the wrong parts of Aquinas are.


(2) One key point against the aforementioned thinkers has been put in bold above: they were frequently unable to distinguish belief from knowledge.


Ok. A claim. Now critical thought' requires evidence, eh? Or does one just make claims when using it? I'm a bit confused about this new (post-Kantian) 'critical thought' and how it works.


If you want specific examples of poor critical thinking on their part, I'll give you two here: Pascal's Wager and St. Anselm's ontological argument. Even as a Christian I recognized these as flawed as soon as I read them.


Right. But I mentioned Aquinas, not Pascal or Anselm. One example to support your claim about him will suffice for discussion. You seem to have been pretty sharp 'even as a Christian' -- but I have to ask, how does that help your case? Examples you knew were fallacious 'even as a Christian' can hardly be evidence for your current advance, can they? This new 'critical thinking' stuff is really rather confusing, it seems. It leaves you simultaneously better off, and exactly 'as you were'.

If you wish to develop the latter two [and Anselm I don't think wasmentioned before], I'm intrigued, and accept the proposition of your wager.

Nothing hazarded nothing gained, you know. Unless the operational definition of 'critical thought' is 'smug self-congratulation' which seems to me to flout the plain sense of it.

I'm disinclined to accept 'Pascal' as an example though. Believing 'Angler has critical thought because I have no evidence to the contrary and there is some utility in so believing' seems a bit self-serving to me. Personally, I'd like a bit of evidence before betting real money here.


Like I said earlier, I don't believe that I'm any smarter now than I was when I was a Christian.


I'm interested in how you distinguish 'smart' in the sense of 'intelligent', and 'critical thought'. Is critical thought different from intelligence? If so, how? If 'critical thought' is less equally intelligent but better, in what non-intelligent way is it better? And if the reason is that intelligence is sometimes non-useful, why would anyone value it? It would seem to me you are about to make an argument for the superior utility of a sort of non-rationality -- which I would find a curious idea for a scientist.


The only real difference is that I'm a more careful thinker, and I don't allow my emotions to get in the way of my judgments about arguments for or against God.

The evidence of your argument so far is rather to the contrary. You seem to be clouded by fallacies and emotional appeals to fluff and grandstanding, and not engaging the actual question at all, to me. (Forgive me for pointing all this out -- critical thought must not be left defenceless when rhetorical evasions such as what you offer are about! Aristotle teaches that we must argue not only correctly, but in the service of correctness, persuasively!)

It was a simple question, and I will ask it again. What evidence do you have that your 'critical thought', as you have chosen to define it, is superior to Aquinas?

And indeed what do you mean by 'critical thought' as distinct from intelligence? So far, I'm inclined to believe it is a wily sense of making bathetic appeals in a debate, and not a matter of Science or Truth at all. You've answered with vague generality, and posited a definition [which like a good scholastic I'll accept 'for the sake of argument' -- meaning as the hypothesis of an argument to be given and to be valid -- but no argument followed to reward my patience here!].

The only evidence presented was a couple of non-germane and ad hoc metaphysical fallacies and old saws that count for little. Do you mean to say that the whole weight of your modern superiority rests on not falling for the 'fallacy' (which you don't explain) of Pascal's wager or the Ontological Argument? Things you knew already, as a Christian? You've sold your house but now you are richer because when you had a house the house was just as valuable as what you have now. I see. A sort of new-fangled Critical Wealth.

I submit your definition of 'critical thought' is tendentious. In plain simple English you mean 'I define critical thought to be a rigid disbelief on my part in a Supreme Being. I call this belief of mine "Fact"'. After all, your examples are hardly chosen at random. They all tend to a single end -- don't they? Perry Mason asks, pointedly. When you were there, at the scene of the metaphysical crime, you Wanted to Kill God. Didn't you?

But then of course, if you define your objective to be exactly the very same thing your conclusion is, you will hardly fail to agree with yourself, but you will also make no progress towards the Truth in any Scientific or 'critical' sense.

Wasn't that the substance of the Ontological Argument, as we usually critique it? Yet here you are, positing God's Non-Existence as the sole focus of your Belief system (or was that what you meant by 'Critical Thought'?). 'Critical Thought is that which supposes God does not exist' and like Anselm you produce your conclusion. Perhaps there is more similarity here than you suppose. You recognised the fallacy of Anselm as a Christian, but now as an Atheist you have fashioned the very same argument for yourself, and believe it as well, along with your own superiority in doing so!

I asked for something to enlighten us on Critical Thought, and yet I get in return a Metaphysical Non-Ontological non-Argument for the non-Existence of God. Even Kant (who invented the term you use) thought the Ontological Argument undecidable, not 'known in the negative to be true'. He was, however, less a friend of Metaphysics than your Atheism, it seems. More of a Free Thinker.

So please do enlighten us. What is this 'Critical Thought' about that is different, in some essential respect, from a Metaphysical Trick like the Schoolmen pull? Is it just we are supposed to Trust Authority when it comes to Atheists? Seems a bit trite to me - meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Argument and evidence, man, that's what you are lacking here.

[Opus131]

All genius is metaphisical. "Critical thinking" is by necessity below creative thinking. Weininger said that a scientist could enver be a genius, and most people today could never understand why. Materialistic thinking is sort of an easy cop out, because creative thinking is just too damn hard.

[Angler]

Right. But I mentioned Aquinas, not Pascal or Anselm. One example will suffice for discussion. If you wish to develop the latter two [and Anselm I don't think wasmentioned before], I'm intrigued, and accept the proposition of your wager.Did you forget that you highlighted Pascal and Anselm in your original post?

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or patience to deal with this, especially the shotgun argumentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_argumentation) of your previous post. If there's a specific question of reasonably narrow scope that you want to debate, I can be more obliging in that regard.

Oh, by the way:

Refusing to argue is, or arguing more shortly than the question requires, is as all critical thinkers know, a fallacy called ignoratio elechi, or more picturesquely, ad lapidem (after an episode in which Bishop Berkeley and Samuel Johnson famously engaged, and Johnson cut the argument short by kicking a rock with the words 'I refute it thus'.)It's interesting that you say all critical thinkers know that, since ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad lapidem are not even the same fallacy. You are referring to the latter here. More important, one does NOT commit the ad lapidem fallacy solely by declining to engage in a debate. The fallacy is committed by one who claims that a statement is false, then refuses to demonstrate that it is false.

[Warka]

Note to all forum members:

This thread is located in the Formal Debates subforum, thus only Macrobius and Angler should be posting.

[Member 198]

Note to all forum members:

This thread is located in the Formal Debates subforum, thus only Macrobius and Angler should be posting.

Not quite. Here are the rules for threads posted in the Formal Debates subforum:

In order for the moderators to approve a formal debate, the debate proposal must address the following ten parameters:

1) The topic of the debate.
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
3) The scope of the debate.
4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.
5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
6) The maximum length of each statement.
7) The time limit between statements.
8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.
9) The starting date of the debate.
10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

If anything, this thread should be moved to a different subforum, since it does not appear to follow most of the rules of this subforum.

[Warka]

It has always been understood that formal debates on the Phora are not the typical free-for-all everyone welcome threads found elsewhere. Only those invited or challenged to the debates here, whether soley or as members of a team, are to participate. Macrobius challenged Angler- let them debate without interference.

Having said that, the posted rules likely need updating to make this clear for newer members if we are to allow and encourage formal debates.

[kevinwalsh]

It has always been understood that formal debates on the Phora are not the typical free-for-all everyone welcome threads found elsewhere. Only those invited or challenged to the debates here, whether soley or as members of a team, are to participate. Macrobius challenged Angler- let them debate without interference.

Having said that, the posted rules likely need updating to make this clear for newer members if we are to allow and encourage formal debates.

Last time I challenged someone to a debate there, it was a free-for-all with many people posting. I don't see why this should be any different.

[Angler]

There's really nothing to debate here. I stated an opinion that Macro disagrees with. Fine. But what's the point of having a formal debate about a question like "Is Angler Better at 'Critical Thought' Than Aquinas?" How is such a question to be decided? What arguments or evidence could I possibly provide that would allow me to prevail in such a debate? Am I supposed to just endlessly field questions like "what are fact, judgment, belief, and knowledge, respectively, and how do you distinguish them?" and then hope in vain that Macrobius deems my answers worthy? Sorry, but that's a waste of time, and I think most will realize that.

[Crowley]

There's really nothing to debate here. I stated an opinion that Macro disagrees with. Fine. But what's the point of having a formal debate about a question like "Is Angler Better at 'Critical Thought' Than Aquinas?" How is such a question to be decided? What arguments or evidence could I possibly provide that would allow me to prevail in such a debate? Am I supposed to just endlessly field questions like "what are fact, judgment, belief, and knowledge, respectively, and how do you distinguish them?" and then hope in vain that Macrobius deems my answers worthy? Sorry, but that's a waste of time, and I think most will realize that.

I suggest a poll.

[Angler]

I suggest a poll.That wouldn't answer the question, though. It'd only be a de facto popularity contest between Christianity and my points of view.

[Ahknaton]

Well, looks like Aquinas is a no-show, so we're going to have to award the victory to Angler.

[Crowley]

That wouldn't answer the question, though. It'd only be a de facto popularity contest between Christianity and my points of view.

I was joking, but you'd win handily.

[Macrobius]

That wouldn't answer the question, though. It'd only be a de facto popularity contest between Christianity and my points of view.

Certainly not a popularity contest. No one is (or should be) appealing to any other aspect of the question than reason. It wasn't my claim, so I am not obliged to take the affirmative side. You are free to abandon your claim, or admit it was incoherent, or whatever you like, fine. But if you wish to assert it, and support it, you should do so using 'critical thinking', not excuses.

The assertion is that there is an A/B experiment, in which A is the control ('Christian thinking'), and B is the treatment ('Atheist thinking'). The Null hypothesis is that there is no difference, and your assertion is that (1) you became an Atheist and (2) the treatment variable improved your 'critical thought'. The claimed magnitude of the effect on the response variable is 'it made me smarter than Aquinas'. Perhaps you claim it made you smarter than Pascal, Augustine, and Anselm combined as well. The point is you claimed a certain treatment had a positive and large effect.

Naturally, I asked you what 'critical thought' was, then, given your statement your intelligence was the same, and to provide evidence for the alternative hypothesis, which apparently you support.

You have presented evidence for the null hypothesis only, which is rather unlikely to engage support for your assertion. In fact, it tends to refute it. I'm inclined to believe your assertion was not the result of 'critical thought' but of wishful thinking. Perhaps I have even presented evidence for my position.

It is not I who needs to clarify how you might prove your assertion. It is you who needs to retract it.

[kevinwalsh]

Certainly not a popularity contest. No one is (or should be) appealing to any other aspect of the question than reason. It wasn't my claim, so I am not obliged to take the affirmative side. You are free to abandon your claim, or admit it was incoherent, or whatever you like, fine. But if you wish to assert it, and support it, you should do so using 'critical thinking', not excuses.

The assertion is that there is an A/B experiment, in which A is the control ('Christian thinking'), and B is the treatment ('Atheist thinking'). The Null hypothesis is that there is no difference, and your assertion is that (1) you became an Atheist and (2) the treatment variable improved your 'critical thought'. The claimed magnitude of the effect on the response variable is 'it made me smarter than Aquinas'. Perhaps you claim it made you smarter than Pascal, Augustine, and Anselm combined as well. The point is you claimed a certain treatment had a positive and large effect.

Naturally, I asked you what 'critical thought' was, then, given your statement your intelligence was the same, and to provide evidence for the alternative hypothesis, which apparently you support.

You have presented evidence for the null hypothesis only, which is rather unlikely to engage support for your assertion. In fact, it tends to refute it. I'm inclined to believe your assertion was not the result of 'critical thought' but of wishful thinking. Perhaps I have even presented evidence for my position.

It is not I who needs to clarify how you might prove your assertion. It is you who needs to retract it.

Atheist thinking is the null hypothesis. Christian thinking is the unproven assertion and unprovable assertion. The obvious conclusion is that Aquinas's reasoning is either fatuous or dishonest. Whether or not Angler has better critical reasoning skills than Aquinas had is untestable and irrelevant.

[Vindex]

Yes Angler understands Christianity is bullshit. That puts him far above. And is not using his intellect to rationalize belief in a jewish rabbi in the sky as real.

[Macrobius]

Yes Angler understands Christianity is bullshit. That puts him far above. And is not using his intellect to rationalize belief in a jewish rabbi in the sky as real.

Sure Vindex. That's why, when asked to frame a 'critical thought' argument -- to define some things and give us a few syllogisms, he bitches at the prospect and claims he will be 'unfairly judged' if he attempts the project. In fact, it is so far beyond the Atheist mind, it appears unreasonable. Remind you of any particular race in school? An intelligent atheist is just as much a fantasy. The evidence is that you get dumber.

So far, it has been suggested

1. That economics determines truth and falsity so why bother.

2. Maybe we should invoke 'the rules' (intended for two participants capable of 'critical', dialectic, rational, thought) and quash this whole 'argument thing' by fiat -- confirming view #1 that if only the moderators would hide the fact of Atheist non-intelligence and uncritical thought, its absence could remain a secret.

3. Suggestion we use a popularity poll rather than reason, to decide the issue.

4. A joke.

5. Suggestion we change the null hypothesis to be the opposite of what it is, so Affirmative can win by default, now being Negative.

6. Suggestion we throw a bit of bullshit around about Atheist 'critical capacity' being superior, and win by swagger when no one is looking.

I can't help thinking that Aquinas, for all his supposed deficiencies, might have managed the operational, empircial task of evidencing an actual 'critical' argument before our very eyes, in proof of his claims. I suspect he would have defined his terms, made some solid points, and refuted a few objections along the way.

But that could be my bias, rather than the plain evidence of my eyes.

[Angler]

Certainly not a popularity contest. No one is (or should be) appealing to any other aspect of the question than reason.As you can see, I was referring to bardamu's suggestion of a poll (even though he was joking).

It wasn't my claim, so I am not obliged to take the affirmative side. You are free to abandon your claim, or admit it was incoherent, or whatever you like, fine. But if you wish to assert it, and support it, you should do so using 'critical thinking', not excuses.I've already given evidence to support my belief that I'm a better critical thinker than Pascal or Anselm were: they made arguments that I easily recognized as flawed. What more do you want? Shall I write thousands of pages examining every argument these people and Aquinas ever made and pointing out all the flaws?

The assertion is that there is an A/B experiment, in which A is the control ('Christian thinking'), and B is the treatment ('Atheist thinking'). The Null hypothesis is that there is no difference, and your assertion is that (1) you became an Atheist and (2) the treatment variable improved your 'critical thought'. The claimed magnitude of the effect on the response variable is 'it made me smarter than Aquinas'. Perhaps you claim it made you smarter than Pascal, Augustine, and Anselm combined as well. The point is you claimed a certain treatment had a positive and large effect.

Naturally, I asked you what 'critical thought' was, then, given your statement your intelligence was the same, and to provide evidence for the alternative hypothesis, which apparently you support.

You have presented evidence for the null hypothesis only, which is rather unlikely to engage support for your assertion. In fact, it tends to refute it. I'm inclined to believe your assertion was not the result of 'critical thought' but of wishful thinking. Perhaps I have even presented evidence for my position.To the extent that I can make sense of what you're saying here, you seem to be misrepresenting my position. There was no "experiment" and no "control" -- not even in a figurative sense. Above all, I did not claim that becoming an atheist improved my critical thinking ability. I did not even claim that I became an atheist, since I'm not one!

My position is very clear. I was once a Christian, and I was just as "smart" (in the sense of raw mental ability) then as I am now; however, my critical thinking skills were inferior. In particular, I allowed my emotions and desires to interfere with my dispassionate examination of the (very limited) evidence and arguments in favor of Christianity. I also possessed a weaker ability to identify logical fallacies when I saw them -- or to avoid using them in my own reasoning. I realized that I had been willfully blind to the circular reasoning and question-begging that's ubiquitous in Christian apologetics.

It is not I who needs to clarify how you might prove your assertion. It is you who needs to retract it.I don't need to retract anything. I made a statement of opinion based on my personal judgment of certain arguments made by Pascal, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. To be fair to them, I haven't read everything they've written -- not even close. Time has never allowed it. But when an author makes even a single badly flawed argument (like Anselm's ontological argument), that tends to make me believe that his other arguments are also suspect.

[Crowley]

Macrobius,

Do you consider Christianity a reasonable proposition?

[kevinwalsh]

Sure Vindex. That's why, when asked to frame a 'critical thought' argument -- to define some things and give us a few syllogisms, he bitches at the prospect and claims he will be 'unfairly judged' if he attempts the project. In fact, it is so far beyond the Atheist mind, it appears unreasonable.

So far, it has been suggested

1. That economics determines truth and falsity so why bother.

2. Maybe we should invoke 'the rules' (intended for two participants capable of 'critical', dialectic, rational, thought) and quash this whole 'argument thing' -- confirming view #1 that if only the moderators would hide the fact of Atheist non-intelligence and uncritical thought, its absence could remain a secret.

3. Suggestion we use a popularity poll rather than reason, to decide the issue.

4. A joke.

5. Suggestion we change the null hypothesis to be the opposite of what it is, so Affirmative can win by default, now being Negative.

6. Suggestion we throw a bit of bullshit around about Atheist 'critical capacity' being superior, and win by swagger.

I can't help thinking that Aquinas, for all his supposed deficiencies, might have managed the operational, empircial task of evidencing an actual 'critical' argument. I suspect he would have defined his terms, made some solid points, and refuted a few objections along the way.

But that could be my bias, rather than the plain evidence of my eyes.
You are the one who switched the null hypothesis. The idea that there is no god is the null hypothesis for obvious reasons. Those who claim that Christianity, Islam, Paganism, or any other religion is true have the burden of proof.

[kevinwalsh]

All genius is metaphisical. "Critical thinking" is by necessity below creative thinking. Weininger said that a scientist could enver be a genius, and most people today could never understand why. Materialistic thinking is sort of an easy cop out, because creative thinking is just too damn hard.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are mutually necessary. They play a complementary role. Obviously without creative thinking (and, yes, scientists DO need that), no one has any original ideas, and human progress is impossible. Without critical thinking, however, no one knows which creative ideas have merit and which do not, requiring people to believe contradictory things (e.g. requiring one to be, at the same time, a trinitarian Christian and an anti-trinitarian Muslim, not being able to think critically about either proposition).

[Bronze Age Pervert]

The audience will note that Macrobius' original post or challenge was actually my own challenge to Angler in another thread. Macrobius, however, wishes to distance himself from me and the audience will note he has been attacking me throughouth... :P

Now, why did I ask Angler this question in the first place? It was not because of his atheism but because of the arrogant way in which he dismissed believers, as if they were all morons motivated by fear and vanity. That's why I brought up those examples of men who are far superior in intellect and spiritual power to the modern run of atheist rabble, who are, after all, vile conformists.

There is serious disagreement on this matter of revelation versus reason in the history of the West, but the smug, empty-headed materialists who are prancing around now declaring their freedom from a system of thought that has been moribund for about two hundred years have nothing at all to contribute to that debate. Angler and others are always engaged in an exercise of moral preening and self-congratulation; in another era they would be coarse-handed priests of the type who burned the noble Giordano Bruno, a saint for us.

[Macrobius]

It's interesting that you say all critical thinkers know that, since ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad lapidem are not even the same fallacy. You are referring to the latter here. More important, one does NOT commit the ad lapidem fallacy solely by declining to engage in a debate. The fallacy is committed by one who claims that a statement is false, then refuses to demonstrate that it is false.

Works for me. You asserted 'it is not the case I am not smarter than Aquinas in my critical thought capacity, consequent on my becoming a non-Christian'. Feel free to not prove your non-assertion any way you like. Propositions are usually stated in the affirmative, however, in formal debates. This is not a requirement of logic, however, it will still be a fallacy to make a self-evidently false claim and refuse to prove it, while holding it simultaneously to be true.

[Angler]

Now, why did I ask Angler this question in the first place? It was not because of his atheism but because of the arrogant way in which he dismissed believers, as if they were all morons motivated by fear and vanity.On the contrary, I went out of my way to explain that believers are NOT all morons by pointing out that my intelligence (at least its innate component) is no higher now than when I was a believer. Why do you have difficulty understanding this simple point?

That's why I brought up those examples of men who are far superior in intellect and spiritual power to the modern run of atheist rabble, who are, after all, vile conformists.What is "spiritual power"?

"Far superior in intellect?" I don't think so.

"Vile conformists"? Non-believers are in the minority, so how can they be "conformists"? :tard:

There is serious disagreement on this matter of revelation versus reason in the history of the West..."Revelation" is not a means to knowledge because it's not testable. If I told you that I had a "revelation" from the space-god Zaxxon telling me that I have a duty to murder children at a daycare center, you'd be a fool to believe me. Why is it any different for any other revelation?

...but the smug, empty-headed materialists who are prancing around now declaring their freedom from a system of thought that has been moribund for about two hundred years have nothing at all to contribute to that debate. Angler and others are always engaged in an exercise of moral preening and self-congratulation; in another era they would be coarse-handed priests of the type who burned the noble Giordano Bruno, a saint for us.This is just retarded.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

On the contrary, I went out of my way to explain that believers are NOT all morons by pointing out that my intelligence (at least its innate component) is no higher now than when I was a believer. Why do you have difficulty understanding this simple point?


This is what you say now because your absurdity has been exposed, but it's not what you said in the post that prompted my reply, which Macrobius quotes...

[Angler]

Works for me. You asserted 'it is not the case I am not smarter than Aquinas in my critical thought capacity, consequent on my becoming a non-Christian'.I stated that that is my opinion, but it's not a provable statement.

Feel free to not prove your non-assertion any way you like.I've given you a brief explanation for why I believe it. I'm not going to give you more than that, since I really don't see any need to sway you to my opinion on this.

Propositions are usually stated in the affirmative, however, in formal debates.I never agreed to a formal debate.

This is not a requirement of logic, however, it will still be a fallacy to make a self-evidently false claim and refuse to prove it, while holding it simultaneously to be true.It's only fallacious to refuse to back up an assertion in the context of a formal or informal debate. A person does not commit a fallacy by simply declining to discuss an opinion he holds (though I have said a few words in support of my opinion).

[Angler]

This is what you say now because your absurdity has been exposed, but it's not what you said in the post that prompted my reply, which Macrobius quotes...Bullshit. The post that prompted your reply is right here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=874451&postcount=53

As everyone can see, nowhere in there did I say that believers were stupid. If I had said that, then I would have been accusing myself of stupidity, since I was once...oh, never mind, just STFU.

[Macrobius]

I've already given evidence to support my belief that I'm a better critical thinker than Pascal or Anselm were: they made arguments that I easily recognized as flawed.


Well, we were talking about Aquinas. As I said, I'd have to think about Pascal but might agree with you. Anselm is dicier, since Descartes and Kant presented versions of his argument. I don't believe you saw the depth of the argument, and rejected it soundly, even if you happen to be right and I happen to agree, it doesn't prove you had sound reasons for your beliefs in either case.

More to the point, you seem to miss the fact that if you were correct to reject them as a Christian, this doesn't count as evidence, in critical thought, of your improved state upon becoming a non-Christian. Your continued failure to see this point, even when made repeatedly, argues in the negative, in fact.


What more do you want? Shall I write thousands of pages examining every argument these people and Aquinas ever made and pointing out all the flaws?


I thought, since you made a particular claim, and it was the topic of discussion, you could give us one example in support of your claim.


To the extent that I can make sense of what you're saying here, you seem to be misrepresenting my position.


It may be hard because I used the terminology that is more common medicine or social science than our shared field of physics.


There was no "experiment" and no "control" -- not even in a figurative sense.
Above all, I did not claim that becoming an atheist improved my critical thinking ability. I did not even claim that I became an atheist, since I'm not one!


Well, consider 'Atheist' in my arguments as a variable for the treatment you subjected yourself to, then -- the one that improved your critical reasoning.

But don't be coy. You don't mean it was becoming a non-Christian that made you un-deluded. If you had become a Muslim you wouldn't be arguing as you do. It was because of your non-belief in God, and rejection of all faiths, in some manner you haven't specified but about which you have made a claim, that you cite as the critical factor in your re-assessing various propositions critically.

You may name yourself as you please but it will be some species of infidel that you name.


My position is very clear. I was once a Christian, and I was just as "smart" (in the sense of raw mental ability) then as I am now; however, my critical thinking skills were inferior. In particular, I allowed my emotions and desires to interfere with my dispassionate examination of the (very limited) evidence and arguments in favor of Christianity. I also possessed a weaker ability to identify logical fallacies when I saw them -- or to avoid using them in my own reasoning. I realized that I had been willfully blind to the circular reasoning and question-begging that's ubiquitous in Christian apologetics.


Well, being ubiquitious and having named the man, you should be able to come up with a single instance of a petitio from Aquinas, that is known to you.


I don't need to retract anything. I made a statement of opinion based on my personal judgment of certain arguments made by Pascal, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. To be fair to them, I haven't read everything they've written -- not even close. Time has never allowed it. But when an author makes even a single badly flawed argument (like Anselm's ontological argument), that tends to make me believe that his other arguments are also suspect.

I'll be happy with a single example from Aquinas, and what you find flawed in it (that you already knew when you made your assertion). We can also do Anselm in depth, if you like, as I said.

In any event, presenting an opinion as if it were fact is not exactly proof of critical thought (which I believe we defined as knowing fact from belief -- though we never defined those!).

The Justice Selden, in his Table-Talk, once said that there is a difference between a man having a fancy and having an opinion. They are not the same thing (and he knew how to judge these things). He said, when a man holds forth an *opinion*, he intends all the would should believe it to be true. That is, Science is about Opinion (doxa) -- probable, not certain truths. If anyone can have a private Opinion, then anyone can have a private Nuclear Physics of their very own, and it won't conflict with anyone else's. The standard for having, and writing, if you are a judge, an Opinion, is the same as for Science. There should be a preponderance of the evidence -- in fact, there should be *some* evidence.

Now I have to ask, was it an opinion you were rendering -- a probable truth we all ought to believe -- or some fancy of yours, that critical thought improves consequent upon apostasising? Or were you asserting 'it just happened to me -- I don't know if it's true in general. But I swear, one day I ended up smarter than Aquinas'. And if you are capable of critical thought, why do you consider having vain fancies or induction from a singular datum conclusive of anything?

Or do you wish to support your Opinion?

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Bullshit. The post that prompted your reply is right here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=874451&postcount=53

As everyone can see, nowhere in there did I say that believers were stupid. If I had said that, then I would have been accusing myself of stupidity, since I was once...oh, never mind, just STFU.

Yes and that post says that you believe people are Christians out of stupidity, conformism, and fear. Why don't you just quote it? Then I brought up some examples of Christian geniuses and you changed your tune so you wouldn't sound so blatantly absurd. But in fact you only wanted to SOUND less absurd since apparently you still won't concede the thinkers I named are your intellectual and spiritual superiors, or that a believing Christian could be. You only say that you don't believe all Christians are stupid because YOU were once a Christian (or thought you were) and you changed your mind. In other words you're implying that only Christians who change their minds are possibly as smart as you, and that those who remain Christians are idiots motivated by fear and vanity.

Again I point to the clear testimony of history that people who were far superior to you by any measure of intelligence or "critical thinking" (what, aside form intelligence or reason does that mean?), including scientists, remained Christian.

I don't say this as a Christian, but as a student of philosophy and science, which you're obviously not. You may practice a technical art, but merely having a catalogue of monkeys doesn't make you a cultivated man.

And don't give the "non-believers are in the minority" line, that's very lame. It's like a PC academic groupthink sheephuman pretending she's an avant-garde thinker because she doesn't watch NASCAR or go to Church.

[Angler]

I'll be happy with a single example from Aquinas, and what you find flawed in itOkay, let's take his "First Cause" argument:

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."This argument is weak because it exempts God from the causality requirement without any justification. Even if we acknowledge (as I do) that something must be self-existent and the cause of all other things, Aquinas' argument does not consider the possibility that something apart from a God is the first cause.

[Angler]

Yes and that post says that you believe people are Christians out of stupidity, conformism, and fear. Why don't you just quote it?Because people can click on it if they want to read it? :tard: And it does not say that Christians are stupid. My own parents are Christians, and they're far from stupid. They're misguided, but that's never really caused any tension between them and me.

Then I brought up some examples of Christian geniuses and you changed your tune so you wouldn't sound so blatantly absurd.I don't consider those people geniuses. There have certainly been Christian geniuses, though.

But in fact you only wanted to SOUND less absurd since apparently you still won't concede the thinkers I named are your intellectual and spiritual superiors, or that a believing Christian could be. You only say that you don't believe all Christians are stupid because YOU were once a Christian (or thought you were) and you changed your mind. In other words you're implying that only Christians who change their minds are possibly as smart as you, and that those who remain Christians are idiots motivated by fear and vanity.Why don't you keep telling me what I really meant? I'm sure you know better than I do. :rolleyes:

Again I point to the clear testimony of history that people who were far superior to you by any measure of intelligence or "critical thinking" (what, aside form intelligence or reason does that mean?), including scientists, remained Christian.You have not demonstrated that the people you mentioned are smarter than I am by any measure. And it doesn't surprise me that you don't know the difference between critical thinking and intelligence.

I don't say this as a Christian, but as a student of philosophy and science, which you're obviously not. You may practice a technical art, but merely having a catalogue of monkeys doesn't make you a cultivated man.LOL, you know nothing about science and probably nothing about philosophy as well. You're just a pip-squeak fuh fuh fuhing on the Internet.

And don't give the "non-believers are in the minority" line, that's very lame.It's also true. Sorry if you think it's lame to have your childish insults so easily refuted.

It's like a PC academic groupthink sheephuman pretending she's an avant-garde thinker because she doesn't watch NASCAR or go to Church.Your foaming-at-the-mouth mental retardation is becoming tiresome. Quit humping my leg.

[Hippias]

Okay, let's take his "First Cause" argument:

This argument is weak because it exempts God from the causality requirement without any justification.

He says that we find an order of efficient causes in the world of sense; God is supersensible.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Because people can click on it if they want to read it? :tard:

I don't consider those people geniuses. There have certainly been Christian geniuses, but they weren't among them IMO.


Wrong, you don't quote it because it shows what I say is true and you know not everyone will click on it.

Now, Pascal was not a genius? Just considering his mathematical and other scientific contributions? You program Java or C++, or whatever menial task you perform under the name "science," and because of this and because you watch Bill Maher's show you believe you're superior in "critical thinking" to Pascal?

If you say that there were Christian geniuses, can you name one, and do you also believe you are superior to him in "critical thinking"?

[Vindex]

I did, Angler does not waste his intellect trying to rationalize having a invisible all knowing and seeing friend.

All this other filler is a smoke screen you bring up as away around this fact.

Talking snakes, rib women or magical damnation apples, anyone?

Sure Vindex. That's why, when asked to frame a 'critical thought' argument -- to define some things and give us a few syllogisms, he bitches at the prospect and claims he will be 'unfairly judged' if he attempts the project. In fact, it is so far beyond the Atheist mind, it appears unreasonable. Remind you of any particular race in school? An intelligent atheist is just as much a fantasy. The evidence is that you get dumber.

So far, it has been suggested

1. That economics determines truth and falsity so why bother.

2. Maybe we should invoke 'the rules' (intended for two participants capable of 'critical', dialectic, rational, thought) and quash this whole 'argument thing' by fiat -- confirming view #1 that if only the moderators would hide the fact of Atheist non-intelligence and uncritical thought, its absence could remain a secret.

3. Suggestion we use a popularity poll rather than reason, to decide the issue.

4. A joke.

5. Suggestion we change the null hypothesis to be the opposite of what it is, so Affirmative can win by default, now being Negative.

6. Suggestion we throw a bit of bullshit around about Atheist 'critical capacity' being superior, and win by swagger when no one is looking.

I can't help thinking that Aquinas, for all his supposed deficiencies, might have managed the operational, empircial task of evidencing an actual 'critical' argument before our very eyes, in proof of his claims. I suspect he would have defined his terms, made some solid points, and refuted a few objections along the way.

But that could be my bias, rather than the plain evidence of my eyes.

[Macrobius]

Okay, let's take his "First Cause" argument:

This argument is weak because it exempts God from the causality requirement without any justification. Even if we acknowledge (as I do) that something must be self-existent and the cause of all other things, Aquinas' argument does not consider the possibility that something apart from a God is the first cause.

I fail to see your quarrel with Aquinas. You admit his conclusion, but object to his naming the First Cause God? That sounds like a semantic disagreement, not an argument in which 'critical thought' plays some role.

At this stage of the argument, if you wished to assert the first principle was the named 'The First vacuum State before the Singularity Brought Forth', or 'Arbitrary Thing X', he would consider you contentious for not using the common name (in his time) for the First Cause, but have no fundamental quarrel as yet -- your quarrel would come later when you disagreed over some property the First Vacuum had or didn't have, which would warrant a real, not nominal distinction.

In any event, in agreeing with his conclusion, how does his circular reasoning differ from yours? All arguments (says Aristotle, whom he followed) are circular. There is no way to prove everything starting with nothing -- and for axioms, which are evident, there is no need to try, and it is proof of a defect in thought to attempt it.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Again, I think this debate is misguided. The issue isn't whether some people disagree with Aquinas, etc., on particular points, but whether atheists of the modern variety have a right to dismiss all past thought with such arrogance that all believers are to be considered stupid, fearful, vain people who weren't enlightened enough to parrot lines from PBS Nova specials and Chris Hitchens.

[Crowley]

Again, I think this debate is misguided. The issue isn't whether some people disagree with Aquinas, etc., on particular points, but whether atheists of the modern variety have a right to dismiss all past thought with such arrogance that all believers are to be considered stupid, fearful, vain people who weren't enlightened enough to parrot lines from PBS Nova specials and Chris Hitchens.

Of course not to the above but how about reasonable? Can Christian thought be categorized as the product of reason?

[Angler]

Wrong, you don't quote it because it shows what I say is true and you know not everyone will click on it.Fine, I'll quote it if you insist:

Anyway, let's get back to the OP:

This isn't a debunking thread; I'm sincerely interested in a pragmatic, reasonable explanation as to why I and everybody else should look at the world this way. I'm familiar with Christianity (obviously - as both a cosmology and as an ethical system) and I still struggle to see its value, outside of the 'nod-nod-wink' purpose as a myth employed to coerce large groups of average and low-intelligence people to care about the consequences of their behaviour.

The reason I post is that I've noticed that there are a lot of intelligent and aware people who subscribe to this story and proudly proclaim that they are committed to it; and I find myself increasingly baffled as to why. I don't believe in the god of the bible myself, but there is the nagging sense that I may be ignoring something important.
I think people believe in Christianity for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with evidence or sound reasoning. One such reason is simply the fact that a lot of other people believe in it and have believed in it for a long time. When huge numbers of people believe a thing, that makes that thing seem more plausible -- so plausible, in fact, that deeper investigation into the belief seems unwarranted.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, fear is also a major motivating factor: fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of a life without some kind of ultimate meaning imposed from outside. Religion is a mental crutch that helps people to live with these fears. It's a defense mechanism. And of course there's the fear of hell, which is the ultimate "stick" in contrast to the ultimate "carrot" of heaven. Many people are afraid, even as adults, to question the beliefs they imbibed with their mother's milk, lest they end up in hell for not believing the right things. The adoption of the pagan concept of hell by the early Christians was a brilliant move on their part. I can think of no other means by which a mind can be more effectively terrorized into submission.Now, liar: show me in there where I said Christians are all morons.

Now, Pascal was not a genius? Just considering his mathematical and other scientific contributions?He was undoubtedly a mathematical genius. But I don't believe intelligence is unitary, and I think his power of thought in other areas seems to have been lacking. How else do you explain Pascal's Wager? Why don't you tell me, smart ass: Do you think Pascal's Wager is an example of good reasoning? Why or why not?

You program Java or C++, or whatever menial task you perform under the name "science"I'm doing bona fide research that might help save your stupid life someday. You're welcome.

...and because of this and because you watch Bill Maher's show you believe you're superior in "critical thinking" to Pascal?Your crystal ball is broken. I don't watch or like Bill Maher. I already told you why I think Pascal was deficient in his critical thinking. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you'll get it?

If you say that there were Christian geniuses, can you name one, and do you also believe you are superior to him in "critical thinking"?Sure: Newton. And while he was clearly a far greater scientist than I'll ever be, that doesn't translate to superior critical thinking in all areas.

As I've said over and over, critical thinking is not the same thing as innate intelligence. You can be smart enough to graduate from college at the age of 10 and still be a poor critical thinker in certain respects. You keep trying to equate the two so you can dishonestly accuse me of thinking that I'm smarter than every Christian who ever lived.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Of course not to the above but how about reasonable? Can Christian thought be categorized as the product of reason?

Reason is the "handmaiden" of theology in the Christian tradition and therefore secondary to revelation, but it was only within Christian civilization that the distinction and therefore tension and competition between the two was even preserved. Just look at what happened to science and philosophy in the Jewish and Muslim medieval world...after a brief flourishing, reason was squashed by the end of the 1200's and "philosopher" became purely a term of abuse. Therefore the partisans of reason ought to have some historical sense and modesty in seeing that it was only Christian/Alexandrian civilization that preserved a place for reason and philosophy (at that time indistinguishable from natural science). It was also the habits of study and of intellectual discipline of Christian civilization that allowed for the development of modern science.

In the end I would say Christianity is not a product of reason, but reason can't tell you the right way to live, and what to do. The issue at hand, anyway, is whether a non-believer has any right to lord it over believers just because he's an atheist. Arguments about cowardice and psychological shortcomings can be made in both directions.

[Angler]

I fail to see your quarrel with Aquinas. You admit his conclusion, but object to his naming the First Cause God? That sounds like a semantic disagreement, not an argument in which 'critical thought' plays some role.

At this stage of the argument, if you wished to assert the first principle was the named 'The First vacuum State before the Singularity Brought Forth', or 'Arbitrary Thing X', he would consider you contentious for not using the common name (in his time) for the First Cause, but have no fundamental quarrel as yet -- your quarrel would come later when you disagreed over some property the First Vacuum had or didn't have, which would warrant a real, not nominal distinction.Do you think that Aquinas would have accepted a description of God as an impersonal and even naturalistic entity? If he would, then you're correct -- he and I have no quarrel after all (at least with respect to the present argument). But I tend to doubt that's the case, and that's why I believe Aquinas is making an unjustified leap in his argument.

In any event, in agreeing with his conclusion, how does his circular reasoning differ from yours? All arguments (says Aristotle, whom he followed) are circular. There is no way to prove everything starting with nothing -- and for axioms, which are evident, there is no need to try, and it is proof of a defect in thought to attempt it.The fact that an argument is based on unproven axioms does not necessarily make that argument circular.

[Macrobius]

Of course not to the above but how about reasonable? Can Christian thought be categorized as the product of reason?

I haven't been ignoring your persistent and reasonable request for an answer here for any reason other than expediency in the order of presentation. Since we have likely exhausted the preliminary part of the argument, let's pursue this more promising line of real engagement in rational argument among men.

Christians (in common with other groups in the Greco-Roman world), believe there is a sort of Intellection in the human psycho-logical constitution, behind and superior to what you are likely to call Reason. This Intellection (or nous), is a faculty in addition to Intelligence (dianoetic faculty) -- what you and Angler like think of as your seat of Reason.

So, the disagreement between Christians and modern non-believers is partly about the mere existence of nous. Since Aristotle (who laid down the laws of logic and rule book for debate - eristic or dialectic) held that failure to have such a nous marked one out as non-Rational and thus not qualified to debate, modern 'debates' with Christians -- or Platonists for that matter -- have a never-never feel in which some of the participants are walking about claiming they don't have Mind and it is Irrational to think they might.

So the strict answer to your question is, it depends on what the facts are. However, I will tell you, I've very seldom seen any real scientific discussion of whether humans, in fact, have a noetic faculty distinct from the calculative/conceptive apparatus.

[Crowley]

I haven't been ignoring your persistent and reasonable request for an answer here for any reason other than expediency in the order of presentation. Since we have likely exhausted the preliminary part of the argument, let's pursue this more promising line of real engagement in rational argument among men.

Christians (in common with other groups in the Greco-Roman world), believe there is a sort of Intellection in the human psycho-logical constitution, behind and superior to what you are likely to call Reason. This Intellection (or nous), is a faculty in addition to Intelligence (dianoetic faculty) -- what you and Angler like think of as your seat of Reason.

So, the disagreement between Christians and modern non-believers is partly about the mere existence of nous. Since Aristotle (who laid down the laws of logic and rule book for debate - eristic or dialectic) held that failure to have such a nous marked one out as non-Rational and thus not qualified to debate, modern 'debates' with Christians -- or Platonists for that matter -- have a never-never feel in which some of the participants are walking about claiming they don't have Mind and it is Irrational to think they might.

So the strict answer to your question is, it depends on what the facts are. However, I will tell you, I've very seldom seen any real scientific discussion of whether humans, in fact, have a noetic faculty distinct from the calculative/conceptive apparatus.


Thanks much to both you and beach for your answers. They were as good as one could possibly expect. I would guess that the reason the noetic isn't discussed amongst scientists is the likely impossibility of quantifying such a faculty.

[Angler]

Welcome to the Angler-bashing thread, Hippias. :D

Okay, let's take his "First Cause" argument:

This argument is weak because it exempts God from the causality requirement without any justification.He says that we find an order of efficient causes in the world of sense; God is supersensible.But even if we accept those further assertions without argument, the conceptualization of God as supersensible doesn't remove the need to demonstrate that the first cause is a supersensible Being rather than a naturalistic entity.

Let me break it down abstractly in case the above is vague. We can't make the following argument:

The first cause cannot be X unless A is a property of X.
A is a property of X.
Therefore, the first cause is X.

X is God, and A is supersensibility. You can see the problem here. Broken down even further, the form of the argument is

X --> Y
Y
Therefore, X

As you know, this is invalid.

[Macrobius]

Do you think that Aquinas would have accepted a description of God as an impersonal and even naturalistic entity? If he would, then you're correct -- he and I have no quarrel after all (at least with respect to the present argument). But I tend to doubt that's the case, and that's why I believe Aquinas is making an unjustified leap in his argument.


I'm not sure what colouring you are trying to load into 'naturalistic' -- which has the form of words from the early 19th century, and would not be intelligible to Aquinas. He certainly believed God had a Divine Nature, and the word natura would be the correlate of Greek physis, 'physical'. That is, the Divine Nature was a Physical Nature in the sense of Aristotle, and God was thus a Physical Entity. The belief that only the 'lowest story' of reality was physical or natural, and denying the existence of other stories, is an idea that is maybe 200 years old or a bit more, in its current form. The Aquinas four layer model [for defining Natural Law] was used by the first US Supreme court, and was standard even that late. The subsequent view originated as a common belief around the time of the French Revolution, whence it spread to you, so that it became 'obvious'.

He would certainly disagree with you over whether the Primal Entity had a persona -- that is part of revealed Christianity and he is Christian. However, in the passage you happened to cite, Aquinas is doing 'Natural Theology' which he believes is held by all rational men, independent of Christian revelation. He is looking for common ground held by all rational men, in so far as they are rational, not 'Defending the Faith' and certainly not against 'Atheism' (he had a whole different book on that). The proper way to say 'Atheist' in his day would have been 'Epicurean'.

Here is a page from a website I was linking earlier today:

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/nattheol.html

[Macrobius]

Thanks much to both you and beach for your answers. They were as good as one could possibly expect. I would guess that the reason the noetic isn't discussed amongst scientists is the likely impossibility of quantifying such a faculty.

They were common topics of discussion among scientists as recently as the Scottish Enlightenment and 'Common Sense' school -- whose scientists included William Rowan Hamilton and (a late bloomer) James Clerk Maxwell. Newton, of course, lived in a period in which Nous was still part of Natural Philosophy [what we would now call physical science].

The excision of Nous and introduction of naturalism, in the Anglo-American world, was accomplished by the Utilitarians and Liberals [what we now call 'Old Liberals' as there views seem positively Conservative]. They consolidated the view of the Radicals on the European continent and eventually spread it to our universities, using the age old technique of declaring victory and taking the academic chairs as plunder. (Kevin makes a point here -- these are the postulants of the Bourgeoisie, at the height of its power).

The older 'Enlightenment' had the sort of sensibility we now call Academic and Scientific. Their key project was the Encyclopedia Britannica, before it was turned into a reference book for children. Academics today -- including Scientists -- mostly as if the Scottish views about Mind and Reason are true, but interpret them Naturalistically, after the manner of the French Revolution. Thus, 'Reason' is a rather loaded, polemic term. Today it means pretending, as an academic, to the superiority of the Scottish position and fruits of its science, while simultaneously believing rubbish about 'Libertarianism' or, worse, some bastard child of Marxism.

Alasdair MacIntyre's analysis of academia today (as representative of the 'rational' enterprise most would point to for 'reason' -- and Angler cites for 'saving our livings') -- is an armed camp with three mutually unintelligible notions of 'Reason'. The older Aquinas one, the Nietzschean or pseudo-Nietzschean Genealogists [the majority - named for the Genealogy of Morals], and the old remnants of the Encyclopedia project, to whom they pay lip service, but which no one actually believes.

See 'Whose Justice, Which Rationality' for a discussion of what 'Rational argument' becomes in such a situation. It's the middle book of a trilogy.

In any event, two of the three participants are well versed in 'Nous' and have non-trivial commitments to it. I'm not sure the 'Genealogist' majority has a coherent notion of reason at all, noetic or otherwise -- and rather suspect Nietzsche would disown them as his progeny, for cause, whatever *his* view of the matter might have been.

[Macrobius]

Welcome to the Angler-bashing thread, Hippias. :D


Well, I'll answer for him. ;) Any Angler-bashing is likely to be self-inflicted, like your original statement was. No one's out to get you beyond the natural, physically implied consequences of what you say.


But even if we accept those further assertions without argument, the conceptualization of God as supersensible doesn't remove the need to demonstrate that the first cause is a supersensible Being rather than a naturalistic entity.


'Supersensible' is not particularly mysterious. The opposite of 'sensible' is 'intelligible' - which includes the objects of mathematics as a low-end example. E.g., an equilateral triangle is intelligible (an object of thought), but does not exist as such physically. It is not sensible unless we have a 'physical triangle' which is the shape of some physical entity, which is formally triangular. Perhaps a yield sign.

What distinguishes a pure intelligible mathematical entity from a measurable and naturally occurring 'physical entity' is that the mathematical construct has to get physical dimensions somehow, allowing it to be realised in the world -- in spacetime. Thus there is a 'real, physical' triangle defining the Earth's orbit (three points in physical space, approximately the middle of the Sun, the middle of the Earth, and the other focus of the ellipse). Aquinas would call this case materia signata (dimensioned material [object]).

Thus, a hypothetical triangle with side '2 million, a pure number' is a mathematical intelligible, and it is not really possible to 'think of it' except in the abstract. Now, Aristotle, Plato and everyone else until quite recently spoke of *both* dianoetic entities like triangles and the 'objects of the noesis' -- the Forms, also called 'Species' -- down until Darwin hijacked that particular word and made only biological beings have it. ;)

So your real beef is likely with 'Essentialism', not with Aquinas 'critical reasoning', but it seems non-Supreme Personal Beists or whatever we are calling you have quite forgotten their own history, and know longer know *why* they have the prejudices they do, or how to frame the old arguments they have 'won'.

The 'signation' is what a scientist would call getting dimensions -- the older view was that there were monads [what we call 'units' in English] and then there was a number-ratio by which one found a Ratio -- called a Logos -- of the whole mathematical object to the Monad. This, of course, would be 'the Logos of the One'. Clearly some parts of Natural Theology are going to turn out analogous to what we are now pleased to call 'Science'.

A good example is the formula (logos, ratio) for water. Water is H2O. Physically, to have a water molecule, you need to have two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. That is, there are two distinct species of atom that must be composed -- 'compounded' -- into a single entity, which has a certain internal constitution, a physically occurring logos of two [monad-hydrogens] to one [monad-oxygen]. We should not be blind to the fact that real, physically existent water is not just an 'abstract mathematical ratio', but counts *real objects* that really and physically exist. Water has a real definition, its logos, and if we claim water is present but cannot 'find' two hydrogens and an oxygen also present, really and physically, we are mistaken. The real occurrence is not a matter of 'arbitrary definition', but of physical necessity and science. The Logos of water exists, and it exists in a ratio of 2:1. I could add, 'which we commonly call water' to the end of a scientific treatise on the properties of hydrogen oxide.

Aquinas is not giving a verbal definition of God, and trying to win an illicit point. He is giving a real definition. That means he is making (or believes he is making) real scientific commitments about the First Cause, which he believes his fellow Scientists will agree on, despite diverse and technically different viewpoints. He is contructing 'Physical Theology' as a scientific discipline, prior to Christian revelation.

In any event, if we transpose your argument about what distinctions must be made about God into an argument about (say) the Wheeler-DeWitt Wave Function of the Early universe -- a pure 'suprasensible' intelligible, your revised sentence reads


the conceptualization of Wheeler-DeWitt Wave Function as Mathematical Construct doesn't remove the need to demonstrate that the first cause is a pure, undimensioned Mathematical contruct rather than a physical entity.


I'm not sure you would find this just as evident -- though if you make a logical claim about the 'doesn't remove the need to demonstrate' one would expect some sort of logical cogency to be involved. Logical statements are valid *by form* and changing the entities around shouldn't affect validity.

I'm just pointing out that your random hacking in the direction of Aquinas can, and probably will, amount to substantive claims about the relation of mathematics to the universe and what we 'have to' demonstrate about such objects, if you press arguments about 'logical flaws' where in fact there are none.

I don't believe Aquinas would have formalised any part of his argument as you do below, and would have seen the fallacy as easily as you do -- such knowledge was commonly taught in the 'Trivium' in those days, to boys aged approximately 15. Aquinas had years of sharp practice on top of that.

For one thing, in his day there were '10 things predicated' (the categories) and '5 things that can be predicated'. 'Properties' was one of the five predicables [species, genera, accidents, and differentiae being the others]. Properties were 'things predicated of a species within a genus that were invariably associated with the substance' -- proper to it, as we say. This could be 'accidental' or 'essential'.

So I'll play along. You might be saying something like, 'For all individuals X, X cannot be the First Cause unless X has Personal Divinity as a property. (Picking your A for you). But Aquinas is arguing nothing about 'Personal Divinity' or any 'specific' A like that. He is doing Natural Theology.


Let me break it down abstractly in case the above is vague. We can't make the following argument:

The first cause cannot be X unless A is a property of X.
A is a property of X.
Therefore, the first cause is X.


But I'm not sure you beef with 'suprasensibility' will hold.

Rewriting:


The first cause cannot be the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation unless having assigned dimensions is a property of (it).
Having assigned physical dimensions is a property of Wheeler-DeWitt Equation.
Therefore, the first cause is the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation.


The problem would not seem to be the form of argument (which is quite silly but then I'm playing along). It would seem to be a failure to make 'level distinctions' between a mathematical model and what it is describing. There is nothing wrong with using 'suprasensible entities' to describe to the First Cause. Nor is there really anything surprising about what the argument is discussing.

The problem is we have a Form -- a mathematical dianoetic object since we affect to ignore the noetic ones -- and we have a Monad [physical scale units of the universe] -- and we have a Logos [dimensioned ratios assigning 'physical meaning' connecting the units and the mathematical form]. Yet if we confuse the Monad, the Logos, and the Forms we get ourselves in a mental muddle. That's hardly the problem of the Forms or Intelligibles, in the case of Wheeler-DeWitt though. It's our silly formulation.

Aquinas would say that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is the Species [essential form, Natural Law] of the early universe, in this example.


X is God, and A is supersensibility. You can see the problem here. Broken down even further, the form of the argument is

X --> Y
Y
Therefore, X

As you know, this is invalid.

If lasers are on, they emit a red beam. I see a red beam. Therefore I infer the laser is probably on. Looks like inductive reasoning to me. However, you are correct it is invalid for a formal deduction from axioms, but then physical science seldom has that form. But this presupposes a solid grasp of how induction and deduction relate to each other, and the scientific method (of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, or more recent expositions). Aquinas was an expert in that field, by the way.

So let's try out your notion of sensibility, only this time with physical and sensible existing objects:

If something exists physically (X), then it is sensible (Y).
I can sense this (Y).
Therefore, it exists physically (X).

You do see the argument is invalid in form, don't you?

[Petr]

Alasdair MacIntyre's analysis of academia today (as representative of the 'rational' enterprise most would point to for 'reason' -- and Angler cites for 'saving our livings') -- is an armed camp with three mutually unintelligible notions of 'Reason'. The older Aquinas one, the Nietzschean or pseudo-Nietzschean Genealogists [the majority - named for the Genealogy of Morals], and the old remnants of the Encyclopedia project, to whom they pay lip service, but which no one actually believes.
An unholy trinity, eh?

Could we apply Seraphim Rose's nihilism-scale and call the Aquinas folks as "realists", Genealogists as "vitalists" and Encyclopedists as "liberals"?


Petr

[Bronze Age Pervert]

An unholy trinity, eh?

Could we apply Seraphim Rose's nihilism-scale and call the Aquinas folks as "realists", Genealogists as "vitalists" and Encyclopedists as "liberals"?


Petr

This is getting ever more bizarre. American universities are not full of "Nietzschean" "vitalists" or Encyclopedists, etc., or anything aside from science professors with, in some cases, genuine expertise in a narrow area, and complete mediocrities and hacks in other departments. Hardly anyone reads Aquinas but Thomists, and Nietzsche is not the founder of any academic tradition whatsoever.

You have a petty mind that fixes itself on categories invented by people like this "Rose," how about reading the original authors.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Macrobius is once again trying to pretend that philosophy doesn't exist apart from Christian theology or that it exists only in the form of therapeutic conspiracies on the part of "Epicureans" and "Doctors."

I wish you would just declare philosophers to be blasphemers and wouldn't try to hijack Plato!

:starwars:

[Petr]

This is getting ever more bizarre. American universities are not full of "Nietzschean" "vitalists" or Encyclopedists, etc., or anything aside from science professors with, in some cases, genuine expertise in a narrow area, and complete mediocrities and hacks in other departments. Hardly anyone reads Aquinas but Thomists, and Nietzsche is not the founder of any academic tradition whatsoever.

You have a petty mind that fixes itself on categories invented by people like this "Rose," how about reading the original authors.
You yourself are being petty and shallow in not recognizing that "Aquinas, Nietzsche and Encyclopedia" are here used as mere symbolical markers, not as literal descriptors.

Many liberal postmodernists share Nietzsche's relativist-evolutionist contempt of absolute truth (and consequent denigration of reason), even if they do not dare to pursue his line of thought consistently all the way through.

After all, Nietzsche himself went insane when he tried to do that.


Petr

[Macrobius]

This is getting ever more bizarre. American universities are not full of "Nietzschean" "vitalists" or Encyclopedists, etc., or anything aside from science professors with, in some cases, genuine expertise in a narrow area, and complete mediocrities and hacks in other departments. Hardly anyone reads Aquinas but Thomists, and Nietzsche is not the founder of any academic tradition whatsoever.


I quite agree with you about Nietzsche (to the extent I've read anything by him, and from a simple description of his biography, he seems unlikely to anoint academic successors). What you say about Aquinas is true since 1850, say.

I was summarising the thesis of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Rival-Versions-Moral-Enquiry/dp/0268018774

I would be happy to discuss my differences with his presentation some other time. The context was I was explaining to bardamu the point at which Nous dropped out of the scientific curriculum. It gave me a convenient schema for summarising a complex phenomenon (in the history of ideas).

I'm not sure why MacIntyre finds his Genealogists persuasive -- though from my own observation a lot of the shoddy thinking tucked away in odd departments does come from persons who pick some recent figure from the 19th century for their patron, and kookify the thought.

In any event, Fr. Seraphim Rose was well-informed and perceptive here, and I see broad alignment with MacIntyre's attempt to classify.

I don't believe it is incorrect to relate the current project of Science to the older Encyclopedist one, which engaged the mid-Victorians. They certainly did exist, and certainly had a Philosophy of Mind relevant to our side discussion on Nous. In Anglo-America, it would be hard to claim that the current Scientific community developed independently of Hamilton and Maxwell, Young, or Lord Kelvin. Many others could be cited.

They are an unfamiliar footnote now that the likes of the mid-Victorian liberals Mill, Spencer, Huxley, and of course Darwin have centre stage. The decades from 1830 to 1870 saw an incredible change in academia, but were formative. By 1879 we have Frege's Begriffsschrift and Einstein is born, so the time between the swan song of the Encyclopedists and their outliers, and the central concerns of the early 20th century, is perhaps a mere 20-30 years, with another 20 to transition.

[Hippias]

Welcome to the Angler-bashing thread, Hippias. :D

:vuvu:

But even if we accept those further assertions without argument, the conceptualization of God as supersensible doesn't remove the need to demonstrate that the first cause is a supersensible Being rather than a naturalistic entity.

Aquinas starts out (in the passage you quoted) by stating that we find an efficient order of causality in the world of sense. I.e., the objects of experience come into existence or change due to some prior cause. Naturalistic entities belong to the world of sense. Hence the first cause cannot be a naturalistic entity.

The world of sense is ordered by a chain of efficient causes.
All naturalistic entities belong to the world of sense.
Ergo, naturalistic entities have efficient causes.

Thus a naturalistic entity cannot be its own cause.

Let me break it down abstractly in case the above is vague. We can't make the following argument:

The first cause cannot be X unless A is a property of X.
A is a property of X.
Therefore, the first cause is X.

X is God, and A is supersensibility. You can see the problem here. Broken down even further, the form of the argument is

X --> Y
Y
Therefore, X

As you know, this is invalid.

That's correct, but I was only trying to show why God escapes the order of efficient causality. I wasn't trying to go further than that.

[Prybylowski]

Many liberal postmodernists share Nietzsche's relativist-evolutionist contempt of absolute truth (and consequent denigration of reason), even if they do not dare to pursue his line of thought consistently all the way through.

After all, Nietzsche himself went insane when he tried to do that.


Petr

Any belief in "absolute truth" is a "consequent denigration of reason" because nothing can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. In reality, any belief-system is composed of a series of empirico-deductive propositions which approximate actual conditions in the external world with varying degrees of accuracy, verifiability and statistical probability.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

After all, Nietzsche himself went insane when he tried to do that.
You're in great form these days. But just a minor correction: the idea that Nietzsche got syphilis and went insane is merely a rumor spread by his competitor. His hospital records show that he died of a concussion (probably from falling).

[Kuniklo Nigra]

You can't prove God by theorems, only by practice. Atheists are honest that they don't see God, but they are dishonest in that they refuse turn around and look, i.e., take up the practices which are necessary to see Him.

With the Gulf of Mexico oil spill still raging on, you may ask yourself when you'll wake up and get continent, before incontinence completely wrecks your country.

[Prybylowski]

You're in great form these days. But just a minor correction: the idea that Nietzsche got syphilis and went insane is merely a rumor spread by his competitor. His hospital records show that he died of a concussion (probably from falling).

I was always suspicious of that allegation that Nietzsche died of syphilis; in fact, his manner of death is quite controversial to say the least, but I think most of his post-mortem investigators agreed that whatever he may have died from, syphilis was definitely not the cause of his demise.

Besides, wasn't Nietzsche a virgin who hated women?

[mladikov]

I was always suspicious of that allegation that Nietzsche died of syphilis; in fact, his manner of death is quite controversial to say the least, but I think most of his post-mortem investigators agreed that whatever he may have died from, syphilis was definitely not the cause of his demise.

Besides, wasn't Nietzsche a virgin who hated women?
Some believe it was brain cancer, not syphilis, which caused his mental infirmity. See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

[Angler]

Aquinas starts out (in the passage you quoted) by stating that we find an efficient order of causality in the world of sense. I.e., the objects of experience come into existence or change due to some prior cause. Naturalistic entities belong to the world of sense. Hence the first cause cannot be a naturalistic entity.

The world of sense is ordered by a chain of efficient causes.
All naturalistic entities belong to the world of sense.
Ergo, naturalistic entities have efficient causes.

Thus a naturalistic entity cannot be its own cause.I agree that a naturalistic entity cannot be its own cause. But I see no reason why a naturalistic entity could not have existed from eternity, without ever having been caused. Perhaps this entity exists independent of time itself? It's even possible that time itself didn't exist "before" the Big Bang -- i.e., there was no "before the Big Bang," just as there's no "North of the North Pole."

Aquinas can therefore be said to have made an argument from ignorance. In effect, he said, "I cannot conceive of a naturalistic entity without a cause. Therefore, the first cause cannot have been a naturalistic entity." This doesn't follow. It's true that no person has ever seen a self-existent natural entity. But no person is known to have seen any supernatural entity, either.

That's correct, but I was only trying to show why God escapes the order of efficient causality. I wasn't trying to go further than that.Understood.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

I was always suspicious of that allegation that Nietzsche died of syphilis; in fact, his manner of death is quite controversial to say the least, but I think most of his post-mortem investigators agreed that whatever he may have died from, syphilis was definitely not the cause of his demise.

Besides, wasn't Nietzsche a virgin who hated women?
I remember a report when I was in Ohio, made at a university there. Someone (I think it was reported at "the scotsman" or some Scottish news agency) that they had access to his medical records. Brain cancer or concussion, something like that. Certainly no syphilis. The report went on to find out where the first reports of syphilis came from, and they were apparently started by a philosopher competitor of his, whose name nobody knows now.

I've read his works many times, and he's never come across as being the sexual type. If you said he died a virgin, I could believe that.

[Man of Ash]

I agree that a naturalistic entity cannot be its own cause. But I see no reason why a naturalistic entity could not have existed from eternity, without ever having been caused. Perhaps this entity exists independent of time itself? It's even possible that time itself didn't exist "before" the Big Bang -- i.e., there was no "before the Big Bang," just as there's no "North of the North Pole."

Aquinas can therefore be said to have made an argument from ignorance. In effect, he said, "I cannot conceive of a naturalistic entity without a cause. Therefore, the first cause cannot have been a naturalistic entity." This doesn't follow. It's true that no person has ever seen a self-existent natural entity. But no person is known to have seen any supernatural entity, either.

Ah, an uncaused entity outside of space and time. But whatever we do, we'd better not call it "God". It's much more comforting to keep calling it "naturalistic", even though that label, by the time we apply it to uncaused, immaterial entities, has lost any meaning it ever had.

[Macrobius]

I agree that a naturalistic entity cannot be its own cause. But I see no reason why a naturalistic entity could not have existed from eternity, without ever having been caused. Perhaps this entity exists independent of time itself? It's even possible that time itself didn't exist "before" the Big Bang -- i.e., there was no "before the Big Bang," just as there's no "North of the North Pole."

Aquinas can therefore be said to have made an argument from ignorance. In effect, he said, "I cannot conceive of a naturalistic entity without a cause. Therefore, the first cause cannot have been a naturalistic entity." This doesn't follow. It's true that no person has ever seen a self-existent natural entity. But no person is known to have seen any supernatural entity, either.


I'll mention again that Aquinas was doing 'Natural Theology'. He was deliberately limiting the scope of his argument to what you are calling 'naturalistic entities' (the objects of *Natural* Theology), and avoiding claims he thought could only be made rationally on the basis of revelation and faith -- namely, the parts you object to. He's going more than halfway, specifically to meet scientific objection. Hence, he does not deny God is a Naturalistic Entity' and certainly does not attempt to prove He is not one, in that argument. You misconstrue both his intent and his line of argument, and fail to understand both what Natural Theology is, and how Aquinas is using it.

Your points about the 'Eternal Naturalistic Entity' existing outside time and the 'singularity' not having a north to be north of, simply show you agree with the conclusions of his Natural Theology, I might add. The First Cause was a Naturalistic Entity and *did* exist 'eternally outside spacetime' prior to the Creation event. That is the only claim made, and you paraphrase it and extend it in a Christian direction, I might add.

I don't see that your first paragraph contradicts his Natural Theology. I think you agree. You just don't like the word he uses. However, since he is explicitly doing natural and not revealed Theology, he is entitled to prove the naturalistic entity exists (and is unique and has certain other properties) and then to make the correlation with revealed theology by adding at the end 'Entity X in Natural Theology is the entity G we conventionally call God [in Revealed Theology]'. He does not contend this 'by the way' advance the conclusion of Natural Theology into the scope of Revealed. It is a contingent accident, relative to the necessary conclusions of Natural Theology (from a logical point of view).

Since neither the name nor the identification was a point of dispute between Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and hardly with Neo-Platonist Gentiles ('Pagans') either, he really has no loss of generality, for polemic purposes. He is not arguing against Atheists -- Epicureans were rare and silent in his era, and post French Revolution style Materialist Atheists and their fellow travellers, rarer. ;)

[Prybylowski]

I'll mention again that Aquinas was doing 'Natural Theology'. He was deliberately limiting the scope of his argument to what you are calling 'naturalistic entities' (the objects of *Natural* Theology), and avoiding claims he thought could only be made rationally on the basis of revelation and faith -- namely, the parts you object to. He's going more than halfway, specifically to meet scientific objection. Hence, he does not deny God is a Naturalistic Entity' and certainly does not attempt to prove He is not one, in that argument. You misconstrue both his intent and his line of argument, and fail to understand both what Natural Theology is, and how Aquinas is using it.

Your points about the 'Eternal Naturalistic Entity' existing outside time and the 'singularity' not having a north to be north of, simply show you agree with the conclusions of his Natural Theology, I might add. The First Cause was a Naturalistic Entity and *did* exist 'eternally outside spacetime' prior to the Creation event. That is the only claim made, and you paraphrase it and extend it in a Christian direction, I might add.

I don't see that your first paragraph contradicts his Natural Theology. I think you agree. You just don't like the word he uses. However, since he is explicitly doing natural and not revealed Theology, he is entitled to prove the naturalistic entity exists (and is unique and has certain other properties) and then to make the correlation with revealed theology by adding at the end 'Entity X in Natural Theology is the entity G we conventionally call God [in Revealed Theology]'. He does not contend this 'by the way' advance the conclusion of Natural Theology into the scope of Revealed. It is a contingent accident, relative to the necessary conclusions of Natural Theology (from a logical point of view).

Since neither the name nor the identification was a point of dispute between Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and hardly with Neo-Platonist Gentiles ('Pagans') either, he really has no loss of generality, for polemic purposes. He is not arguing against Atheists -- Epicureans were rare and silent in his era, and post French Revolution style Materialist Atheists and their fellow travellers, rarer. ;)

You do realize that you're justifying your belief in a Christian god using the arguments of the "pagan" Aristotle?

[Cadavre Exquis]

You do realize that you're justifying your belief in a Christian god using the arguments of the "pagan" Aristotle?
Why are the two mutually exclusive? They were never thought to be by Aquinas and a host of other important philosophers.

[Angler]

Ah, an uncaused entity outside of space and time. But whatever we do, we'd better not call it "God". It's much more comforting to keep calling it "naturalistic", even though that label, by the time we apply it to uncaused, immaterial entities, has lost any meaning it ever had.But that's not my position. My position is that the uncaused entity may or may not be some kind of Supreme Being. I'm agnostic on the question.

However, I find the idea of a personal God of the sort described by the Abrahamic religions to be extremely implausible (if not logically impossible) for several reasons that I've mentioned a number of times elsewhere. The primary reason is that no one has ever resolved the Problem of Evil to my satisfaction. Free will does not solve the problem, since the will of a creature -- which is merely synonymous with its strongest desires -- must be traceable to God. Thus, if Lucifer rebelled against God, that happened because of flaws in Lucifer's character that must have been put there by God. Where else could they have come from?

In addition, the existence of natural evils, such as unnecessary suffering by non-human animals, is not explained by human free will and is incompatible with a perfectly good God.

[Man of Ash]

But that's not my position. My position is that the uncaused entity may or may not be some kind of Supreme Being. I'm agnostic on the question.
Huh? Your position as described above is that the first cause might be a "naturalistic" entity (rather than "God"). I'm wondering if you can provide a definition of "naturalistic" that includes uncaused, eternal, immaterial entities, but excludes anything that might be called "God". Good luck!
However, I find the idea of a personal God of the sort described by the Abrahamic religions to be extremely implausible (if not logically impossible) for several reasons that I've mentioned a number of times elsewhere. The primary reason is that no one has ever resolved the Problem of Evil to my satisfaction. Free will does not solve the problem, since the will of a creature -- which is merely synonymous with its strongest desires -- must be traceable to God. Thus, if Lucifer rebelled against God, that happened because of flaws in Lucifer's character that must have been put there by God. Where else could they have come from?

In addition, the existence of natural evils, such as unnecessary suffering by non-human animals, is not explained by human free will and is incompatible with a perfectly good God.
But that's all completely irrelevant. The point is, as Macrobius has pointed out, that you are actually in agreement with the argument from Aquinas that you presented as an example of his flawed thinking - which tells us something rather significant about your claim to be a better "critical thinker" than he.

[Angler]

Huh? Your position as described above is that the first cause might be a "naturalistic" entity (rather than "God"). I'm wondering if you can provide a definition of "naturalistic" that includes uncaused, eternal, immaterial entities, but excludes anything that might be called "God". Good luck!By "naturalistic" I'm simply referring to anything that isn't supernatural or "transcendent." Obviously I can't provide a definition of "naturalistic" that refers to an uncaused and eternal entity, since I don't know if any natural entity (or entities) exists that fits those criteria. That's my whole point.

As for "immaterial," that's kind of a vague term. Is energy immaterial? How about momentum? Regardless of the answer, it's clear that energy and momentum are part of the natural universe.

But that's all completely irrelevant. The point is, as Macrobius has pointed out, that you are actually in agreement with the argument from Aquinas that you presented as an example of his flawed thinking - which tells us something rather significant about your claim to be a better "critical thinker" than he.As I've already said, I'm in agreement with Aquinas with respect to that particular argument IF Aquinas was merely applying the label "God" to the first cause. I personally don't agree with the use of that label in the absence of greater knowledge about the nature of that first cause, but if that's the extent of the difference between his position and mine, fine. And no, that casts no negative light on my critical thinking ability; at worst, it reflects a hole in my factual knowledge regarding Aquinas' use of language. (I'd be interested in seeing a source for the claim, though.)

Besides, that's only one of Aquinas' many arguments. It may not be flawed, but what about his numerous faith-based arguments? Does the acceptance of "truths" on faith reflect critical thinking? Isn't that actually the opposite of critical thinking?

Summa Theologica can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html

Read through some sections at random, and note the number of times Aquinas uses statements in the Bible as premises. For example:

It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons. First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God's sake, according to Luke 1:52: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself even to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence it is said in His Person (Psalm 138:2): "Thou hast known," i.e. approved, "my sitting down," i.e. My humiliation and Passion, "and my rising up," i.e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds.

Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in Christ's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according to 2 Corinthians 13:4, "although He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." And therefore it is written (1 Corinthians 15:14): "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our [Vulgate: 'your'] faith is also vain": and (Psalm 29:10): "What profit is there in my blood?" that is, in the shedding of My blood, "while I go down," as by various degrees of evils, "into corruption?" As though He were to answer: "None. 'For if I do not at once rise again but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,'" as the gloss expounds.

Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:12): "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?" And (Job 19:25-27): "I know," that is with certainty of faith, "that my Redeemer," i.e. Christ, "liveth," having risen from the dead; "and" therefore "in the last day I shall rise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom."

Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Romans 6:4: "As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life": and further on; "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive to God."

Fifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because, just as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying that He might deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things; according to Romans 4:25: "He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification."http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4053.htm

Since the Bible has never been proven to be an infallible source of knowledge, Aquinas assumes facts not in evidence by relying on the Bible. This is poor critical thinking. It's no different from a mathematician who tries to prove a theorem using unproven propositions.

Then again, perhaps I overlooked the part where Aquinas (or someone else) proved that the Bible is the infallible word of God. If so, feel free to point it out to me.

[Prybylowski]

Why are the two mutually exclusive? They were never thought to be by Aquinas and a host of other important philosophers.

It does demonstrate that much Christian theology, including some portions of the New Testament, are the direct product of pagan Greek philosophical thought, rather than "pure revelation" as most Christians claim.

[Apocales]

It does demonstrate that much Christian theology, including some portions of the New Testament, are the direct product of pagan Greek philosophical thought, rather than "pure revelation" as most Christians claim.

hello kane!

[Man of Ash]

By "naturalistic" I'm simply referring to anything that isn't supernatural or "transcendent."
"Natural" means "not supernatural"? Well, thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: Regarding "transcendent", we have already established that the first cause "transcends" space and time. What more is required to call it "transcendent"?
Obviously I can't provide a definition of "naturalistic" that refers to an uncaused and eternal entity, since I don't know if any natural entity (or entities) exists that fits those criteria. That's my whole point.
No, that doesn't make any sense. You said that the object of Aquinas' second way, an uncaused entity outside of space-time, might be "naturalistic". So you must have a definition of "naturalistic" that includes such possibilities.
As for "immaterial," that's kind of a vague term. Is energy immaterial? How about momentum? Regardless of the answer, it's clear that energy and momentum are part of the natural universe.
By immaterial, I simply meant "having no extension in space". Are you suggesting that matter or energy can exist outside of space and time?
As I've already said, I'm in agreement with Aquinas with respect to that particular argument IF Aquinas was merely applying the label "God" to the first cause. I personally don't agree with the use of that label in the absence of greater knowledge about the nature of that first cause, but if that's the extent of the difference between his position and mine, fine. And no, that casts no negative light on my critical thinking ability; at worst, it reflects a hole in my factual knowledge regarding Aquinas' use of language. (I'd be interested in seeing a source for the claim, though.)
That's obviously what Aquinas was doing. This Aristotelian argument goes only as far as "the God of the philosophers". You see, it might behoove you to acquire a passing familiarity with the philosophical tradition before strutting about making ludicrous claims about yourself. This was the one passage you chose with which to demonstrate your superiority to him, but it turns out you didn't even understand it. The very fact that you thought you understood it, but didn't, indicates a tendency to jump to your preferred conclusion, and this does reflect upon your "critical thinking" skills - and in particular, your claim to be superior in that regard to the author of said passage.
Besides, that's only one of Aquinas' many arguments. It may not be flawed, but what about his numerous faith-based arguments? Does the acceptance of "truths" on faith reflect critical thinking? Isn't that actually the opposite of critical thinking?

Summa Theologica can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html

Read through some sections at random, and note the number of times Aquinas uses statements in the Bible as premises. For example:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4053.htm

Since the Bible has never been proven to be an infallible source of knowledge, Aquinas assumes facts not in evidence by relying on the Bible. This is poor critical thinking. It's no different from a mathematician who tries to prove a theorem using unproven propositions.

Then again, perhaps I overlooked the part where Aquinas (or someone else) proved that the Bible is the infallible word of God. If so, feel free to point it out to me.
The Summa, I understand, is an exposition of Christian theology. It begins with a short section on natural theology, but it is not an apologetic work contra Epicureanism. The section you have quoted enumerates the reasons for the Resurrection given in scripture. It has nothing to do with any of the issues you have mentioned. I don't know where, or if at all, he addresses those issues. But if you're certain he gives no good reasons for accepting revelation, I'm sure that's because you know his corpus inside out, no?

Anyway, I did not enter this thread to discuss Thomism, which, unlike you, I am hardly qualified to do, but to question your use of the categories "natural" and "supernatural", which you apparently regard as self-evident, although they are not. So again, I'll ask if you wouldn't mind defining them.

[Hippias]

But that's not my position. My position is that the uncaused entity may or may not be some kind of Supreme Being. I'm agnostic on the question.

However, I find the idea of a personal God of the sort described by the Abrahamic religions to be extremely implausible (if not logically impossible) for several reasons that I've mentioned a number of times elsewhere. The primary reason is that no one has ever resolved the Problem of Evil to my satisfaction. Free will does not solve the problem, since the will of a creature -- which is merely synonymous with its strongest desires -- must be traceable to God. Thus, if Lucifer rebelled against God, that happened because of flaws in Lucifer's character that must have been put there by God. Where else could they have come from?

In addition, the existence of natural evils, such as unnecessary suffering by non-human animals, is not explained by human free will and is incompatible with a perfectly good God.

The validity of the cosmological argument doesn't commit you to Christianity. At best, it commits you to deism. The validity of the cosmological argument is consistent with a valid POE argument.

[Prybylowski]

Arguments about whether god exists or not are pointless; the matter cannot be proven either way. However, it must be admitted that, because science is based on both the synthesis and systematization of empirical knowledge, those who would argue that the universe began as a singularity make the strongest argument. Hence, the wisest position is one of agnosticism, but there is a much greater probability that god does not exist, rather than that he does.

[Macrobius]

You do realize that you're justifying your belief in a Christian god using the arguments of the "pagan" Aristotle?

I'm shocked, shocked, to find that Science uses Aristotle. Do you think we should loot the Smithsonian and burn the universities to the ground?

[Prybylowski]

I'm shocked, shocked, to find that Science uses Aristotle. Do you think we should loot the Smithsonian and burn the universities to the ground?

Only the medieval Christian theology of the Catholic Church uses Aristotle, in the form of Thomism. And of course, the simple belief in god made a great deal of sense in a world where men believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that one's mood and health were regulated by the four humors. Whereas Aristotelianism revolved around the Prime Mover, modern science revolves around deductive logic and empirical observation; it therefore has no use for god. And I have no use for god who is a crutch for the weak and the simple.

BTW, we shouldn't burn the Smithsonian or the universities down, but I wouldn't have any problem with all of the churches and theology departments being burnt to the ground.

[mladikov]

Only the medieval Christian theology of the Catholic Church uses Aristotle, in the form of Thomism. And of course, the simple belief in god made a great deal of sense in a world where men believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that one's mood and health were regulated by the four humors. Whereas Aristotelianism revolved around the Prime Mover, modern science revolves around deductive logic and empirical observation; it therefore has no use for god. And I have no use for god who is a crutch for the weak and the simple.

BTW, we shouldn't burn the Smithsonian or the universities down, but I wouldn't have any problem with all of the churches and theology departments being burnt to the ground.

Yawn. Do you really have nothing better to offer than this bundle of bitter infidel commonplaces? What do you think you're accomplishing with your oh-so-original statements about God being a psychological crutch for the scientifically illiterate?

[guy]

Yawn. Do you really have nothing better to offer than this bundle of bitter infidel commonplaces? What do you think you're accomplishing with your oh-so-original statements about God being a psychological crutch for the scientifically illiterate?
What would be an example of an original statement about God?

[Prybylowski]

Yawn. Do you really have nothing better to offer than this bundle of bitter infidel commonplaces? What do you think you're accomplishing with your oh-so-original statements about God being a psychological crutch for the scientifically illiterate?

They're certainly not "commonplaces" in a world still dominated by pathological religious bigotry and ignorant superstition. And god is a crutch for the weak and the scientifically illiterate; it's not merely an assertion, but a well-established fact supported by an enormous body of historical evidence and sociological research. Which reminds me: do you have nothing better to offer other than purely negative criticism? You do realize that anybody can criticize, don't you? The point is not only to criticize, but to criticize constructively, beginning with yourself, a process which involves a great deal of the most personal introspection and self-awareness.

[mladikov]

What would be an example of an original statement about God?

I'll oblige.

Emil Cioran, Tears and Saints:

God's advent coincides with the first quiver of loneliness. He finds his place in the emptiness of a tremor. Divine infinity thus equals all the moments of loneliness endured by all beings. Nobody believes in God -- except to avoid the torment of solitary monologue. Is there anyone else to speak to? He seems to welcome any dialogue, and does not resent being the theatrical pretext of our solitary sorrows.

Loneliness without God is sheer madness. At least our ravings end in him, and thus we cure our mind and soul. God is a sort of lightning rod...for God is a good conductor of sorrows and disillusions.

Cioran's aphoristic, despairing atheism is more original, and more honest (hence, more refreshing) than the angry humanism of today's godless Westerners, this Prybylowski fellow included.

[Macrobius]

Only the medieval Christian theology of the Catholic Church uses Aristotle,

*cough* Linnaeus *cough* the French Histological school *cough* Darwin *cough* *cough*

There was an Aristotelian renaissance in the 1780-1820 period that was critical for the modern world and especially in Biology. It ended with a reaction against 'teleology' to be sure, but it happened and you may read about it in any 'History of Biology' text.

Also: The other untold story of Fascism and modern genetics: http://libcom.org/history/emergence-modern-genetics-spain-effects-spanish-civilwar-1936%E2%80%931939-its-development

[Prybylowski]

I'll oblige.

Emil Cioran, Tears and Saints:

Oh right. God as eternal comforter. And this is supposed to be original? These are trite platitudes found in any system of religious dogma. There is nothing original which can be said about "god," other than to anthropomorphize him or treat him as some sort of metaphysical unknown.

[Hippias]

Whereas Aristotelianism revolved around the Prime Mover, modern science revolves around deductive logic and empirical observation; it therefore has no use for god.

The 'prime mover' wasn't Aristotle's methodology; it was the ultimate source of all motion. The methodology of modern science, as you have it, isn't all that different from Aristotelianism.

[guy]

I'll oblige.

Emil Cioran, Tears and Saints:



Cioran's aphoristic, despairing atheism is more original, and more honest (hence, more refreshing) than the angry humanism of today's godless Westerners, this Prybylowski fellow included.
Well, I'm not sure if a quote can be considered original, since, you know, it was already stated by someone else. Anyway, didn't Augustine speak of a God-shaped void 1.5k years before this particular quote came to be?

[Prybylowski]

*couch* Linnaeus *cough* the French Histiological school *cough* Darwin *cough* *cough*

There was an Aristotelian renaissance in the 1780-1820 period that was critical for the modern world and especially in Biology. It ended with a reaction against 'teleology' to be sure, but it happened and you may read about it in any 'History of Biology' text.

Nonsense. The development of modern science only got under way with the rejection of Aristotelianism, which of course involved the rejection of Christian scholasticism as well. Sure, there were Aristotelian holdovers from the medieval period, such as Linnaeus' usage of the "great chain being" in the formulation of some aspects of his taxonomic hierarchy; OTOH, Darwin had no use for Aristotle, as this philosopher argued that the world was eternal. But ultimately, Western culture progressed because of the gradual abandonment of Aristotle and the Church, which believed that the fundamental principles of the world could be inferred by means of metaphysical logic.

[Prybylowski]

The 'prime mover' wasn't Aristotle's methodology; it was the ultimate source of all motion. The methodology of modern science, as you have it, isn't all that different from Aristotelianism.

Wrong. The "prime mover" was Aristotle's explanation for the ultimate origin of motion and being. The last time I checked, science isn't based on any concept of an "unmoved mover" or a first cause. That's a pretty medieval way of thinking.

[mladikov]

They're certainly not "commonplaces" in a world still dominated by pathological religious bigotry and ignorant superstition. And god is a crutch for the weak and the scientifically illiterate; it's not merely an assertion, but a well-established fact supported by an enormous body of historical evidence and sociological research. Which reminds me: do you have nothing better to offer other than purely negative criticism? You do realize that anybody can criticize, don't you? The point is not only to criticize, but to criticize constructively, beginning with yourself, a process which involves a great deal of the most personal introspection and self-awareness.

Yes, personal introspection and self-awareness are primary values for intellectual activity (as Sertillanges knew). This is why there is irony in your uncritical regurgitation of secularist recieved wisdom, which evinces a complete lack of those values. From your previous remarks, God's existence is unprovable, even by science, but now you suddenly seem convinced that the Ernst Renans and Bart Ehrmans of the world have definitively banished God to the realm of social fiction. It's a 'well-established fact'!

Then you have the gall to attack me for being a negative nancy after you've spent the better half of your posting career insulting Christians and the Church, and little else. At least I have an excuse for being negative...I'm a nihilist (like all Christians, according to Nietzsche). What's your excuse?

Oh right. God as eternal comforter. And this is supposed to be original? These are trite platitudes found in any system of religious dogma. There is nothing original which can be said about "god," other than to anthropomorphize him or treat him as some sort of metaphysical unknown.

Not God as eternal comforter. God as eternal spectator of the tragic drama we call human existence, which is considerably more profound. Moreover, the man who wrote those words was a leading fascist intellectual and a Nietzsche scholar, which should have elevated him in your eyes...but no, he's just spouting unoriginal 'religious dogma'. Personal introspection and self-awareness, indeed.

[Ahknaton]

Hence, the wisest position is one of agnosticism, but there is a much greater probability that god does not exist, rather than that he does.
How exactly would you go about calculating this probability?

(Number of Universes created by a God) / (Total Number of Universes)?

It seems like a totally meaningless statement. There is no way of quantifying the probability of the existence of God, or confidently stating that it is less than the chance of God not existing.

[Hippias]

Wrong. The "prime mover" was Aristotle's explanation for the ultimate origin of motion and being. The last time I checked, science isn't based on any concept of an "unmoved mover" or a first cause. That's a pretty medieval way of thinking.

You contrasted modern science with Aristotelianism, saying they "revolve around" different methodologies. Aristotelianism doesn't "revolve around" the prime mover in the same way science "revolves around" observation. It's misleading to contrast them that way. It makes it sound as though the prime mover is behind Aristotle's theory of knowledge. It's not. It's an inference from it. Aristotle couldn't start out with a prime mover and then form scientific hypotheses; that would be reasoning backwards.

[Prybylowski]

Yes, personal introspection and self-awareness are primary values for intellectual activity (as Sertillanges knew). This is why there is irony in your uncritical regurgitation of secularist recieved wisdom, which evinces a complete lack of those values. From your previous remarks, God's existence is unprovable, even by science, but now you suddenly seem convinced that the Ernst Renans and Bart Ehrmans of the world have definitively banished God to the realm of social fiction. It's a 'well-established fact'!

And you're uncritically regurgitating Christian religious doctrine, which is not even synthesized by means of the hypothetico-deductive method, but is based entirely on a blind and irrational faith. And you accuse me of being uncritical? Your sanctimonious bigotry is appalling and your scientific illiteracy is glaringly obvious. Do you realize that your holy book has been demythologized and your childish faith in god has been psychoanalyzed and explained in a rational manner by a new generation of scholars trained in the art of textual exegesis and biblical hermeneutics?

It's time to step out of the Middle Ages and learn how to think for yourself.

Then you have the gall to attack me for being a negative nancy after you've spent the better half of your posting career insulting Christians and the Church, and little else. At least I have an excuse for being negative...I'm a nihilist (like all Christians, according to Nietzsche). What's your excuse?

Christianity is a stain on the reputation of man; it is a slave morality that appeals to little more than children and women. It is a religion which veils everything it touches in the purest intellectual darkness; indeed, Christianity is a religion of darkness and the age most associated with this most effeminate and ignorant of religious creeds is the Dark Ages. I owe it to the future of mankind to stamp out this "mind virus" once and for all.

Not God as eternal comforter. God as eternal spectator of the tragic drama we call human existence, which is considerably more profound. Moreover, the man who wrote those words was a leading fascist intellectual and a Nietzsche scholar, which should have elevated him in your eyes...but no, he's just spouting unoriginal 'religious dogma'. Personal introspection and self-awareness, indeed.

And this has all been said before, as in "god is omniscient, all-seeing etc." How is this in anyway profound? This has been said over and over again down throughout the centuries. You have a very strange definition of "originality." Even Feuerbach's description of god as the idealized outward projection of human nature is infinitely more profound than the absurdities you previously quoted. You're one to talk about introspection and self-awareness, considering your blind acceptance of medieval Christian superstition.

[Macrobius]

Nonsense....OTOH, Darwin had no use for Aristotle, as this philosopher argued that the world was eternal.

I have to say, I am not acquainted with Darwin's proof that the world was not eternal, contra Aristotelem. Do tell.

[Prybylowski]

You contrasted modern science with Aristotelianism, saying they "revolve around" different methodologies. Aristotelianism doesn't "revolve around" the prime mover in the same way science "revolves around" observation. It's misleading to contrast them that way. It makes it sound as though the prime mover is behind Aristotle's theory of knowledge. It's not. It's an inference from it. Aristotle couldn't start out with a prime mover and then form scientific hypotheses; that would be reasoning backwards.

Aristotle was about uncovering the fundamental principles of the universe by means of metaphysical logic, which eschewed empirical observation; the concept of a "scientific hypothesis" didn't exist in the ancient world precisely because of this rejection of observation as a means of acquiring knowledge of the physical universe. My point was that Aristotelianism, like all Christian theology, is founded on a series of demonstrably false assumptions about the external world which are by there very nature, either unprovable or contradict the essence of reality itself.

[Macrobius]

How exactly would you go about calculating this probability?

(Number of Universes created by a God) / (Total Number of Universes)?

It seems like a totally meaningless statement. There is no way of quantifying the probability of the existence of God, or confidently stating that it is less than the chance of God not existing.

Careful. You need to include the Laplace correction like a good Bayesian.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~billw/mldict.html#experrest

Run your classifier again on universes with and without God (as indicated in the data) and this will give you an upper bound on your uncertainty. Universes created by God will be within the error bounds, independent of data, unless you have personally observed all possible universes yourself.

[mladikov]

And you're uncritically regurgitating Christian religious doctrine, which is not even synthesized by means of the hypothetico-deductive method, but is based entirely on a blind and irrational faith. And you accuse me of being uncritical? Your sanctimonious bigotry is appalling and your scientific illiteracy is glaringly obvious. Do you realize that your holy book has been demythologized and your childish faith in god has been psychoanalyzed and explained in a rational manner? It's time to step out of the Middle Ages and learn how to think for yourself.

Chrisitianity is a stain on the reputation of man; it is a slave morality that appeals to little more than children and women. It is a religion which veils everything it touches in the purest intellectual darkness; indeed, Christianity is a religion of darkness and the age most associated with this most effeminate and ignorant of religious creeds is the Dark Ages. I owe it to the future of mankind to stamp out this "mind virus" once and for all.

For all your anti-Christian pretensions, you sound like a raving priest. You demand that I profess your rationalist creed (faith bad, reason good) and convict me of blasphemy against the Holy Science (the "hypothetico-deductive method"), then you tell me I need to learn how to think for myself?


And this has all been said before, as in "god is omniscient, all-seeing etc." How is this in anyway profound? This has been said over and over again down throughout the centuries. You have a very strange definition of "originality." Even Feuerbach's description of god as the idealized outward projection of human nature is infinitely more profound than the absurdities you previously quoted. Your one to talk about introspection and self-awareness, considering your blind acceptance of Christian dogma.
The quoted passage is actually somewhat closer to Feuerbach's thesis than to cataphatic pronouncements of God's omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Cioran, an atheist, is obviously not making statements regarding the latter.

[Prybylowski]

I have to say, I am not acquainted with Darwin's proof that the world was not eternal, contra Aristotelem. Do tell.

My point was that Aristotle had such a radically different view of the world than Darwin, that it would be nothing short of preposterous to assert that Darwin somehow was dependent on Aristotle for his evolutionary theory or anything else.

[mladikov]

My point was that Aristotle had such a radically different view of the world than Darwin, that it would be nothing short of preposterous to assert that Darwin somehow was dependent on Aristotle for his evolutionary theory or anything else.

Every scholar stands on the shoulders of giants, including Darwin, and Aristotle was one such giant. How could it be otherwise? Did he receive Origin of Species from tablets that fell from the sky?

[Prybylowski]

For all your anti-Christian pretensions, you sound like a raving priest. You demand that I profess your rationalist creed (faith bad, reason good) and convict me of blasphemy against the Holy Science (the "hypothetico-deductive method"), then you tell me I need to learn how to think for myself?

Now you're being positively absurd. The only way to make meaningful, verifiable statements about external phenomena is by gathering data about the physical universe and falsifying it by means of experimentation. What I have outlined is purely methodological. There is no creed as you put it, because there is no truth a priori; just a series of hypotheses which more or less approximate the structure of reality, with the most workable hypotheses being those which accord the most with the operations of the universe.

The quoted passage is actually somewhat closer to Feuerbach's thesis than to cataphatic pronouncements of God's omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Cioran, an atheist, is obviously not making statements regarding the latter.

If you would actually sit down and think about your own position for a moment, you would realize the inherent irrationality of belief in god. God is a being who exists outside space and time, so how is it possible to ascribe characteristics such as omniscience etc. to a thing which lies outside 3-dimensional space? The whole notion of god is an absurdity which is not even worthy of consideration.

[Prybylowski]

Every scholar stands on the shoulders of giants, including Darwin, and Aristotle was one such giant. How could it be otherwise? Did he receive Origin of Species from tablets that fell from the sky?

And Aristotle was one of these giants? You're being absurd! Aristotle's teachings were a mass of superstitions and falsehoods that had to be overthrown by first astronomers and then physicists, so deeply entrenched was Aristotelianism in medieval church dogma. There is no connection between Aristotle and Darwin and Aristotle is certainly not one of the giants of the modern age.

Remember what I said about stepping out of the medieval world?

[Petr]

If you would actually sit down and think about your own position for a moment, you would realize the inherent irrationality of belief in god. God is a being who exists outside space and time, so how is it possible to ascribe characteristics such as omniscience etc. to a thing which lies outside 3-dimensional space? The whole notion of god is an absurdity which is not even worthy of consideration.
You are such an utterly banal thinker.


Petr

[Man of Ash]

Angler, I guess you haven't had time to respond, which is fair enough. But I'm going to be more or less offline for a few weeks, so I wanted to finish this up.

First of all, there was one of your points which I did not directly address:
Does the acceptance of "truths" on faith reflect critical thinking? Isn't that actually the opposite of critical thinking?
I assume you're referring here to the criterion given earlier for "critical thinking": the ability to distinguish between "facts" and "belief". You declined to define those terms, and their meaning is not self-evident, but they seem to correspond to the distinction in Aquinas between propositions derived from reason and those derived from faith. I believe the Angelic Doctor is actually quite famous for the clarity of his distinction in this regard.

A man who says, "I believe on the basis of reason in a transcendent first cause, and I believe on the basis of faith in the infallibility of scripture" can hardly be accused of failing to make this kind of distinction. "Critical thinking" does not simply mean "not religious", however much you would like to define it that way.
"Natural" means "not supernatural"? Well, thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: Regarding "transcendent", we have already established that the first cause "transcends" space and time. What more is required to call it "transcendent"?

...

By immaterial, I simply meant "having no extension in space". Are you suggesting that matter or energy can exist outside of space and time?

To provide my own answer to this last question: they cannot. It makes no sense to speak of matter without dimensions. All energy, as far as I'm aware, implies motion through space, potential or actual. (EDIT: Or, alternatively, refers to the state of some object or system of objects occupying space.] If we use the word "energy" to apply to something beyond space-time, we are not using the word as physicists do, but in some other sense, perhaps as metaphysicians, theologians or esotericists might do.

So, having accepted Aquinas' second way, we can reason as to the nature of the first cause, that it is beyond, or "transcendent" to, the world of space, time, matter and energy. If the latter is described as the "natural" world, then the first cause is "supernatural". It is uncaused, timeless, dimensionless and immaterial.

Let us be quite clear: at this point you have wandered off the secular ('worldly') reservation. You are no longer in the market for any kind of atheism, naturalism, materialism, physicalism or Epicureanism. Nor is the agnostic dodge any longer a reasonable option, now that you are in possession of a sound argument for the existence of a self-existent, timeless and transcendent source of all that is. This is not a personal god, by any means, but at the very least the "Monad" of Pythagoras or "One" of Plotinus (or even the Indian "Brahman" or Chinese "Tao" - which correspond, by the way, to the "God beyond God" of the Dominican Meister Eckhart, and perhaps even the "essence" referred to in the Nicene Creed).

Congratulations! You are a philosophical theist. You believe in something "transcendent". Welcome to the club. I hope that in the future we can have profitable discussions about the nature of the transcendent source of the universe.

[Prybylowski]

You are such an utterly banal thinker.


Petr

What ever happened to "turning the other cheek" and "loving the world"? It's Christians like you who preach love and brotherhood every Sunday in church, yet in your day to day lives, your true religion is one of hatred and rage against others, especially the weak and the vulnerable. Christianity is an insult to the dignity of humanity; its a Jewish religious cult that has long ago out-served its purpose and has no place in the modern world.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

The greatest Jewish cult is formerly known as the Wankerites of the Holey Porn Prostitutes.

[Transcendentally Challenged]

And Aristotle was one of these giants? You're being absurd! Aristotle's teachings were a mass of superstitions and falsehoods that had to be overthrown by first astronomers and then physicists, so deeply entrenched was Aristotelianism in medieval church dogma. There is no connection between Aristotle and Darwin and Aristotle is certainly not one of the giants of the modern age.

Remember what I said about stepping out of the medieval world?

Ever heard of Aristotle's logic? Or of Aristotle's mechanics, which gave way to Newton's mechanics?

'A mass of superstitions and falsehoods'. You are so out of your league, wiseass.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

Christianity could use a good de-Jewification, which would make it far more logical.

[Dreadnought]

Christianity could use a good de-Jewification, which would make it far more logical.

Judaism, being a very primitive religion, ignores the fundamental philosophical problems that Christians try to deal with - theodicy and the like. I'm not sure Jewish influence on modern Christianity has much to do with how its internal logic operates.

[Get with the Pogrom™]

How can you think without a mind?

Anybody figure that one out?