In his debate with William Lane Craig (which you can download in audio here and the Q/A here), atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg was badly beaten according to the official vote results (votes coming from the audience, judges and online viewers). I didn't expect a different result, but since Rosenberg is a philosopher of science, I expected a more sustantive, challenging and fruitful discussion of the scientific matters related to some of Craig's typical arguments for God's existence (specially about the kalam argument, which is based heavily on scientific cosmology and physics).
In his opening speach, sadly Rosenberg exposed himself as someone philosophically and scientifically unprepared to this kind of high-level discussion.
As I will prove in this post, Rosenberg crudely MISREPRESENTED both philosophy and science.
On Philosophy:
Like most village and popular atheists, Rosenberg misrepresented the causal principle of the cosmological argument as positing (in Rosenberg's literal words) that "everything that exists must have a cause" (and falsely attributed such principle to the arguments of Aquinas and Aristotle). You can hear that misrepresentation in the minute 38:20 of the debate. (By the way, and just for philosophers, Rosenberg conflates the principle of sufficient reason with the principle of causality. The latter can be considered a species of the former, but they are not identical. I was astonished by Rosenberg's confusion about this).
Rosenberg is clearly ignorant of the fact that neither Aquinas nor Aristotle (nor any other sophisticated defender of the cosmological argument, for that matter) has EVER argued that "everything that exists must have a cause".
As philosopher Edward Feser comments:
In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended" (emphasis in blue added)
William Lane Craig (who wrote his PhD dissertation in philosophy about the history of the cosmological argument) comments:
No version of the cosmological argument has ever contended that everything has a cause. According to the kalam version we are considering, everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since God is eternal, He requires no cause, whereas the universe, which began to exist, does... These objections are so flimsy that one cannot help but wonder who it is that they are meant to refute... What philosopher of religion or natural theologian in the history of thought is supposed to be susceptible to these objections?
Rosenberg, like internet atheists and sophomoric undergraduates, is wholly ignorant of this. This is absolutely unacceptable in a trained philosopher, specially one who writes about God and debate in an university in front of a bunch of people about the reasonabelness of faith in God.
I attended to the dabate at Purdue University and in the moment in which I heard these misrepresentations by Rosenberg, all the respect that I felt for him (because his book on atheism is an honest, straightforward explanation of naturalistic "scientism and its implications") was gone instantaneously. I don't have intellectual respect for Rosenberg anymore (even if I still would recommend his book on atheism).
Rosenberg seems to be a nice guy (even though he was sometimes rude in the debate), but as a philosopher, I don't have respect for him anymore, and I doubt I'll read anything written by him again.
On Science:
But in addition to misrepresenting philosophy; Rosenberg also misrepresented science, specially physics and quantum mechanics.
Even though in the debate Craig didn't presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument in its standard formulation (but a similar argument), Rosenberg attacked precisely the standard formulation of the kalam argument that Craig has used in other debates (so, Rosenberg actually attacked a straw man).
But even Rosenberg's objections to the standard formulation of the kalam were inept.
In order to refute the causal principle (= whatever begins to exist has a cause), Rosenberg mentions (in minute 38:48) examples of spontaneous quantum events (e.g. the emission of certain quantum particles), for example two uranium atoms, wholly identical, in which one of them produces an alpha particle and the other doesn't. From this evidence, Rosenberg deduces (falsely and with astonishing lack of sophistication and insight) that science has refuted the causal principle.
Now, to philosophers and truth-seekers out there: How exactly such quantum events refute Craig's causal principle Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause? Is not the alpha particle (in Rosenberg's example) caused to exist precisely by the alpha decay of the atom in question? Is not the alpha decay of atoms which produce or cause the emission of the alpha particle in question?
Let's see the evidence:
According to this scientific website:
The reason alpha decay occurs is because the nucleus has too many protons which cause excessive repulsion. In an attempt to reduce the repulsion, a Helium nucleus is emitted. The way it works is that the Helium nuclei are in constant collision with the walls of the nucleus and because of its energy and mass, there exists a nonzero probability of transmission
Is not the presence of too many protons the CAUSE of the excessive repulsion and, as consequence, the emission of the particle?
In another website:
What causes some radionuclides to emit alpha particles? Alpha-decay occurs mainly in the radioactive decay of the heavier elements, particularly in those members of the natural decay series heavier than lead (atomic number 82), such as uranium and thorium. Alpha-particles are emitted with one of a few discrete energies characteristic of the radionuclide from which they were emitted. These energies can be used to identify the radionuclide involved. Alpha-decay occurs when the ratio of neutrons to protons in the nucleus is low. For example: Polonium-210 has 126 neutrons and 84 protons, a ratio of 1.50 to 1. Following radioactive decay by the emission of an alpha particle, the ratio becomes 124 neutrons to 82 protons, or 1.51 to 1.
According to the relevant article in wikipedia:
In contrast to beta decay, the fundamental interactions responsible for alpha decay are a balance between the electromagnetic force and nuclear force. Alpha decay results from the Coulomb repulsion[2] between the alpha particle and the rest of the nucleus, which both have a positive electric charge, but which is kept in check by the nuclear force
Is not the alpha decay consequence and effect of the fundamental causal interactions between the electromagnetic force and the nuclear force?. Does not such alpha decay result from a cause known as the Coulomb repulsion between the alpha particle and the rest of the nucleus?
If so, then how does the hell the alpha decay and the emission of alpha particles is evidence against the principle what whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause?
Rosenberg fundamentally misunderstand physics and science, on behalf of atheism (in this case, on behalf of refusing to accept the causal principle).
Despite this, in minute 1:27: 53, Rosenberg confidently claims "I made the point that the principle of sufficient reason (Jime's correction: the principle of causality) is false, not just that it is not known to be true. It is plain out flat false and it is disconfirmed all over the galaxy... We know that alpha particles come to existence for not reason at all every moment in this room. Why should be assume that the universe is any different?"
As seen above, Rosenberg's view is scientifically false: Alpha particles don't come into existence from nothing. On the contrary, they come to existence from complex physical interactions in the tiny quantum scale. Without such quantum context and enviroment, no alpha particle (nor anything else, including the whole universe) could come into existence.
Out of nothing, nothing comes... and the quantum vacuum is NOT nothing.
In her contribution to the book "Laser Physics At The Limits", atheist physicist Astrid Lambrecht comments:
The quantum vacuum is the arena where fundamental physical processes take place, and is by no means a simple empty space where nothing never happens or a pure quantum abstract concept of quantum field theory... The state corresponds to the fundamental state of the electromagnetic field and is characterized by quantum fluctuations corresponding to mean energy of 1/2 hw per field mode. (p.197)
Atheist and world's leading cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin explains the same about the quantum vacuum:
William Lane Craig explains the same:
Can you see why Rosenberg was badly defeated by Craig in their debate?
Atheists are forced to misrepresent science in order to defend atheism.
A final comment:
One of the virtues of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that it shows that atheism is, as a rule, a commitment of the will, not a position based on evidence, let alone in science. When confronted with the kalam argument, even sophisticated atheist philosophers like Quentin Smith are ready to say that the universe came from "nothingness". Once they have conceded this point, it is obvious that they will accept any explanation (including "Nothingness", which is the most telling possible example of a NON-explanation) as an alternative to God. (By the way, this exposes the hypocresy of atheists who complain that their disbelief is based on that there is no evidence for God. What evidence would they accept, if "nothingness" is better than God?).
Atheism is, for many leading defenders o it, a commitment of the will.
0 comments:
Post a Comment