The Holy Trinity

[decantor]

......However, as well as the initial cause of the Big Bang there is also the question of final causality as sketched out by Thomas Aquinas...... VCC.

VCC, thank you for your words of encouragement. In my youth, I was much taken by Aquinas (found myself reading him on trains, etc), but, while I still admire his intelligence, integrity, and sheer industry, his arguments – including the teleological – are a bit thin when faced with the Dawkins cohort’s demand for hard evidence. Philosophy will not suffice to explain to hard-boiled egg-heads the likes of miracles and resurrection…… nor should it.

That is why I prefer, in my own little way, to carry the argument to the scientists on their own ground, asking them to stretch their own imaginations….. multiverses, multi-dimensions, and so on. These are theoretical constructs, but our maths can cope with them without bending the ‘rules’, and I choose to hope that they might ultimately grant God Lebensraum, even if that is a long way down the road.

Ardcarp prefers SJ Gould’s dualistic NOMA approach (Non-Overlapping MagisteriA). I too find that attractive, but I fear it is a temporary refuge: a sixth sense leading to religious belief cannot really claim diplomatic immunity from investigation, even if science also has little to say at present about the arts and our daily abstracts (love, beauty, justice, etc ). I do think science easily arrogates too much authority to itself; and yet, as a way of understanding the cosmos, it’s the best asset we have. At the same time, it is surely possible that, despite its jaw-dropping revelations to date, science is still actually in its infancy.

[Pabmusic]

decantor

Don't despair.

I've very much enjoyed my jousting with Pabmusic. He argues very strongly and ably.

That is kind. I too have enjoyed it. I am not used to the Apologist’s way of thinking, and it is quite refreshing to encounter it.

He accuses people like us who have little understanding of a complex entity such as the universe, which is presumably not pointless and is there for the sake of an end, of assuming that someone made it.

Well, yes. But aren’t you?

I do take issue with “which is presumably not pointless” – why do you presume that? I don’t know if it is or isn’t, though I’d be very surprised if the universe had a ‘point’. And what might the point be? To provide a suitable existence for humans on Earth? There have been plenty of philosophers that have argued this, of course, though they generally lived before we understood much about the universe.

Consider this. 100 years ago we knew of precisely one galaxy – ours, the Milky Way (even though the Andromeda galaxy was visible below Cassiopeia we thought it was a nebula – an inter-stellar gas cloud). We now know that there are at least 100 billion galaxies (that’s 100,000,000,000 galaxies) in the visible universe, each containing at least 100 billion stars (and that’s very conservative – we estimate at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and that’s by no means much beyond average size).

Now does all this exist with a purpose related to the inhabitants of just one planet orbiting one (averagely medium) star out of the (at least) 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe? Is a creator’s plan so very wasteful that so very many stars are necessary, presumably with their own crop of orbiting planets? After all, we can see only some 2,000 of them with the naked eye.

However, as well as the initial cause of the Big Bang there is also the question of final causality as sketched out by Thomas Aquinas. The argument goes like this: " We see that there are things that have no knowledge such as physical bodies but which act for the sake of an end. But things which have no knowledge do not have a tendency to an end unless they are directed by something that does have knowledge and understanding. An example is an arrow directed by an archer. Therefore, there is some being with understanding which directs all things to their end, and this, we say, is God."

Of course, the scientific consensus is to ignore any such thing as final causality but this supplies the point of the cosmos. There's no point to individual finality if there is not an ultimate point to the whole system and this must be provided by an intelligence outside the system: the archer aiming the cosmic arrow.

Aquinas falls into a trap (several traps, actually) here. In the absence of any empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of a god, he attempts to prove such an existence using nothing but logical arguments. This can never be enough. The main reason why such arguments from logic fail is because their premisses must be umambiguously correct, valid, and not assumed. Each premiss must be demonstrably true. They just aren’t.

But Aquinas gets it wrong anyway. A rock (which I suspect we can all agree is inanimate) has no knowledge, yet ‘ends’ by being worn down into sand by erosion due to the natural laws of physics. No agent is required. That’s just one example. An even better one is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereby all energy within a closed system is converted to less-than-useful forms such as heat. This presumably will happen eventually with the universe, the largest of seemingly closed systems. When all energy is heat and suchlike, then there will be no light, no photosynthesis, no metabolism– in short no possibility of life. Again, no agent is needed – it will happen naturally. (This will be long after our own star has died through the laws of physics – see my post 59 – again, without the need of any agency.)

Aquinas is simply wrong, which is not too surprising from a 13th-century philosopher writing at a time when no one doubted that Earth was at the centre of the universe.

Now, quoting an 'authority' makes something no more true than not quoting one, but I can't resist this quote from Douglas Adams:

"[It] is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

[Richard Tarleton]

Consider this. 100 years ago we knew of precisely one galaxy – ours, the Milky Way (even though the Andromeda galaxy was visible below Cassiopeia we thought it was a nebula – an inter-stellar gas cloud). We now know that there are at least 100 billion galaxies (that’s 100,000,000,000 galaxies) in the visible universe, each containing at least 100 billion stars (and that’s very conservative – we estimate at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and that’s by no means much beyond average size).

Now does all this exist with a purpose related to the inhabitants of just one planet orbiting one (averagely medium) star out of the (at least) 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe? Is a creator’s plan so very wasteful that so very many stars are necessary, presumably with their own crop of orbiting planets? After all, we can see only some 2,000 of them with the naked eye.

Thanks, Pabs, for putting some scientific flesh on the bones of my question - this is exactly what I was trying to ask in my 4th question (5th paragraph). I was trying to keep it short - too short to merit a reply from Magnificat, apparently Love the cat by the way, I'm a big fan of ginger cats

I have tried such questions on gentlemen of the cloth, on the last occasion at a party with glass in hand, but never get anywhere - I usually get something along the lines of decantor's 25th dimension, or that God exists outside time as we know it - it seems to boil down to being unable to settle on terms of reference which we can both agree on. The problem with that IOT appeared to be that all the participants did share terms of reference, namely the existence of God, which meant that the discussion meant nothing (to me). I think it's partly what I might refer to as the faith problem - the moment something requires faith for its acceptance, not to mention if faith is the sole basis for acceptance of it, there seems to be a problem.

[Pabmusic]

Thanks, Pabs, for putting some scientific flesh on the bones of my question - this is exactly what I was trying to ask in my 4th question (5th paragraph). I was trying to keep it short - too short to merit a reply from Magnificat, apparently Love the cat by the way, I'm a big fan of ginger cats

I have tried such questions on gentlemen of the cloth, on the last occasion at a party with glass in hand, but never get anywhere - I usually get something along the lines of decantor's 25th dimension, or that God exists outside time as we know it - it seems to boil down to being unable to settle on terms of reference which we can both agree on. The problem with that IOT appeared to be that all the participants did share terms of reference, namely the existence of God, which meant that the discussion meant nothing (to me). I think it's partly what I might refer to as the faith problem - the moment something requires faith for its acceptance, not to mention if faith is the sole basis for acceptance of it, there seems to be a problem.

Post 36 is relevant to the '25th dimension' point, specifically:

"Here I am reminded about Carl Sagan’s tale of the dragon in my garage. I tell you there’s a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. You (understandably) ask to see it. When we get to the garage, it’s empty. “I should have told you” say I “that the dragon’s invisible”.

“No problem” say you “we’ll put flour down to track its footprints”.

“Nice idea” I say but it floats two feet off the ground”.

“Alright” you say “we’ll install heat sensors that will react to its fiery breath”.

“Good thought” say I “but it breathes heatless fire”.

And so on. Every time you suggest a test, I tell you why it won’t work.

Now, the point is – what is the difference between an invisible, floating dragon that breathes heatless fire and whose presence cannot be tested in any way, and – nothing at all? How can you tell them apart?"

Basically, if a god does not manifest itself in our world, how can we tell it apart from nothing? And if it does, we can test the claims (miracles, answered prayers, etc).

You are right about faith - the belief in something without evidence. Is there any other field of human existence in which we think that 'faith' is sufficient?

[Richard Tarleton]

Thanks for that reminder.

For some reason this hymn sprang unbidden into my mind.....

Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes......


etc. .

[Bryn]

You are right about faith - the belief in something without evidence. Is there any other field of human existence in which we think that 'faith' is sufficient?

General elections? [I'll get me chasuble.]

[Pabmusic]

General elections? [I'll get me chasuble.]

Doh! Silly me...

[Miles Coverdale]

People do say that their prayers have been answered.

Yes, they do, but the cases always seem to me to be relatively trivial and could quite easily be no more than coincidence. There have been a number of cases in the last few years in the US where fundamentalist Christian parents have been prosecuted for allowing their child to die because they preferred to pray over them rather than seek medical help. This, in their view, would be putting the doctors before God. In one case, this had happened not just once, but twice. The parents would say that the death was God's will, which is of course the believer's ultimate get-out clause. The mental gymnastics that these people go through to justify their (in my opinion) deluded beliefs is just staggering.

You may recall what happened a few years ago when the Catholic Church was seeking to make Mother Theresa a saint with unseemly haste. Not only did they reduce the required number of 'miracles' from two to one, but the one they did find was a woman in India who had a stomach complaint which had, apparently, been made better by praying to the now-deceased nun. Never mind that she had been receiving medical attention. No, it was the prayer that did it. Sorry, but this is just nonsense, there is no other word for it.

A personal story if I may. The final nail in the coffin of such belief as I had came a few years ago, when I used to volunteer with a well-known organisation which provides seeks to provide emotional support to people at times of crisis. One evening I was talking to a young woman whose father sexually abused her repeatedly during her teenage years. While the abuse was taking place she prayed that it would stop, which of course it didn't. I remember thinking that if God did exist (which I was very much doubting by this point in any case), he was simply not worthy of worship. When it comes to things which actually matter (as opposed to the mundane and trivial), God is nowhere to be seen.

I'd go along with you and Pabmusic on the question of Christ's/God's suffering on the Cross and The Atonement generally.

The problem with the Christian idea of atonement is that it is essentially one of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice. I will go so far as to say that this is positively immoral, for it negates the idea of personal responsibility.

Anyway, I have things I must do today, so will leave it there for now.

[ardcarp]

For some reason this hymn sprang unbidden into my mind.....

Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes......

Another hymn does ditto to me:

Crown Him, ye morning stars of light
Who fixed this floating ball

I went to the sort of school that sang a hymn in chapel every morning, and a great deal of nudging and winking went on during that verse. But I wondered then whether God had fixed all the other floating balls in the universe, or whether ours was singled out for special treatment.

The science versus religion thing has cropped up a lot. It seems the Big Bang is accepted by the mainstream scientific community, but it was not always so. Not long ago Fred Hoyle's steady state theory held equal sway. The concept that time and space has no beginning and no ending is difficult for human brains to grapple with...but maybe it is less inimical to the existence of an omnipotent being for those who wish to assume one.

Someone upthread mentioned Dawkins. He gets a lot of bad press, but I'd just mention that in The God Delusion he postulates a scale of zero to ten where ten represents an unquestioning believer and zero a total atheist. He puts himself at one (not zero) on the basis that God cannot be proved not to exist. Sounds reasonable to me.

[I may have got the numeric scale wrong, or the wrong way round as I haven't got the book to hand, but I guess I've represented his point.]

[Gordon]

Interesting thread which I have been following avidly. I heard the IOT programme and didn't think much of of it.

My father was a church warden [basically Anglican] for over 35 years and so from an early age I was dragged to church [and Wesleyan chapel too as his family had been Methodists, my mother's family were the Anglicans] several times a Sunday. I also was a Communion server each Sunday at 8.30AM. So I imbibed the liturgy but I knew from about the age of about 13 that it didn't make sense [especially seeing the differences between the CofE and the Methodists and some Catholics at school] and despite a few runs with my father we ended up agreeing to differ. I am somewhere between Atheist and Agnostic but do accept some of the Christian teachings as a basis for living a decent life.

As for Genesis and all that Sophistry from theologians I see no sound sense in it for many of the reasons given in the several posts above. A man Jesus may well have existed and he may have professed some of what we find in the Gospels but most of "Christianity" is a post Jesus construct, perhaps what in modern times we could call "spin". As a teenager growing up I could never reconcile what one finds in the two Testaments. Why did God need Prophets or any other intermediary when he could enter anyone's mind at will? The questions are endless.

As for Science, it is a large set of interconnected Hypotheses that have a strong correlation with what happens in the practical day-to-day world and it is on the whole remarkably reliable in everyday life. Science does not extend where it cannot go [morality eg] makes mistakes and claims no Absolutes [some scientists may be more sure about themselves than others] and at the sharp end there is no end of controversy but it is the open debate of such controversy and the ultimate arbitration of experiment that makes Science so effective. Debate and controversy in the Church for the last 2000 years [including in that Islam] has not led to much more than bloodshed and bitter sectarianism. How can Christians hate each other? Even if there have been personal animosities no Scientists I know of have ever burned colleagues en masse for disagreeing with him/her. How can God be on both sides in a war?

One way to see Science is to take up the invitation to "Seek and Ye shall Find", noting the "shall" not a "will" [assuming that King James' good Scholars paid attention to grammar]. Is experiment anything other than a dialogue with God?

Funny old World. Within 20 years or so all will be clear and if I have been wrong all these past years I am sure that St Peter will tell me the error of my ways as I pass to the Down Escalator - then again........

[ardcarp]

...anyway folks, don't miss next week's Choral Evensong which comes from The Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided TRINITY, Bristol!

[Magnificat]

I do take issue with “which is presumably not pointless” – why do you presume that? I don’t know if it is or isn’t, though I’d be very surprised if the universe had a ‘point’. And what might the point be? To provide a suitable existence for humans on Earth? There have been plenty of philosophers that have argued this, of course, though they generally lived before we understood much about the universe.

Consider this. 100 years ago we knew of precisely one galaxy – ours, the Milky Way (even though the Andromeda galaxy was visible below Cassiopeia we thought it was a nebula – an inter-stellar gas cloud). We now know that there are at least 100 billion galaxies (that’s 100,000,000,000 galaxies) in the visible universe, each containing at least 100 billion stars (and that’s very conservative – we estimate at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and that’s by no means much beyond average size).

Now does all this exist with a purpose related to the inhabitants of just one planet orbiting one (averagely medium) star out of the (at least) 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe? Is a creator’s plan so very wasteful that so very many stars are necessary, presumably with their own crop of orbiting planets? After all, we can see only some 2,000 of them with the naked eye.



Aquinas falls into a trap (several traps, actually) here. In the absence of any empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of a god, he attempts to prove such an existence using nothing but logical arguments. This can never be enough. The main reason why such arguments from logic fail is because their premisses must be umambiguously correct, valid, and not assumed. Each premiss must be demonstrably true. They just aren’t.

But Aquinas gets it wrong anyway. A rock (which I suspect we can all agree is inanimate) has no knowledge, yet ‘ends’ by being worn down into sand by erosion due to the natural laws of physics. No agent is required. That’s just one example. An even better one is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereby all energy within a closed system is converted to less-than-useful forms such as heat. This presumably will happen eventually with the universe, the largest of seemingly closed systems. When all energy is heat and suchlike, then there will be no light, no photosynthesis, no metabolism– in short no possibility of life. Again, no agent is needed – it will happen naturally. (This will be long after our own star has died through the laws of physics – see my post 59 – again, without the need of any agency.)

Aquinas is simply wrong, which is not too surprising from a 13th-century philosopher writing at a time when no one doubted that Earth was at the centre of the universe.”

Pabmusic,

I said that the universe has a point because there is no point to finality of individual parts if there is not an ultimate point to the whole system.

Was Aquinas so wrong?

It was obvious to Aristotle that a stone seeks the earth, not consciously, that is clear, but as an end to which it tends

Modern scientists,on the whole,presume that everything is explained by efficient causality - one billiard ball bumping into another. But we take for granted that things are directed to an end result: strike a match and it produces flame, never ice or the smell of roses.

Final causality is inherent in the properties of things. Try describing an organism and its parts without referring to functions, which is to say, final causes. How would you identify the heart or sexual organs of an unknown creature except by reference to their function? The point or "teleological element" of DNA is precisely what is interesting about it. That is why metaphors from computing are so popular in genetics, for computer programs have a point to them: they are teleological.

The predictable properties of chemical elements exemplify final causality too. In order to form water, oxygen must react with hydrogen. From the point of view of the water produced, the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen is the efficient cause. From the point of view of the elements tendencies the production of water is the final cause.

A description of the world in terms of its being a system of efficient causality is necessarily a system which involves tendencies and is, therefore, a system which involves finality.

Aquinas's Fifth way supplies the point of the whole caboodle the cosmos. and this must be provided by an intelligence outside the system.

I don't suppose we will ever agree on the existence of a creator and the point of the universe. As much as I enjoy these discussions and arguments they are really ultimately futile.

I still feel as I originally said that we will never fully understand this creation because we are part of it.

You say there is no point to the universe because all life will ultimately be destroyed by the laws of physics but life ends everyday for someone.

There are certainly brilliant scientists who find it possible to believe in God and be Christians even though there are some aspects of the faith and doctrine which are difficult to understand.

Why is it that it is only apparently poor and relatively uneducated people who see Visions or experience Miracles? Certainly it never seems to be Nobel Prize winners!

You may say that it is because they are mentally ill or religious fanatics or that it is supernatural tosh but the Roman Catholic church, especially, is very very wary of accepting them and they are vigorously examined and professional scientists and doctors consulted before they are confirmed.

Could it be that the minds of such people are not cluttered up with intellectual baggage and that makes them more open to these things? Just a thought.

VCC

[Serial_Apologist]

Surely only humans have intentions towards conscious ends? Anything else we call anthropomorphistic.

And the other problem is that nothing ever definitely starts or ends, surely? Everything goes back to energy. That's why I used the Buddha's analogy of likening those obsessed with origins and destinations with a man shot through with an arrow who refuses its removal until he knows all there is to know about his assailant.

Wittgenstein was right "in the end": beyond the finally answerables the only questions arising are to do with the nature and uses of language.

[ardcarp]

There is, incidentally, a discussion on The Nicene Creed in the In Our Time archive:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008jglt

[Richard Tarleton]

I don't suppose we will ever agree on the existence of a creator and the point of the universe.

We can agree with JBS Haldane, often quoted as saying that if there is a Creator he has an inordinate fondness for beetles, having gone to the trouble of creating some 400,000 species of arthropod (and counting) over 550 million years. What does Aquinas say about trilobites?