Adolf Grünbaum is a prominent philosopher of science (specially, a philosopher of time and space).
However, like many other atheist philosophers (like Michael Martin, Sam Harris, etc). he seems incapable of understanding that NO prominent defender of the cosmological argument has ever defended such argument on the grounds that "everything has a cause".
It is astonishing to realize how atheists keep repeating again and again the same fallacy about the cosmological argument. Currently, I'm thinking about the possibility that atheist philosophers misrepresent the argument intentionally, in order to provide psychological comforting to the cognitive dissonance felt by their atheistic readers, because they know that atheists tend to read only or mostly the atheistic literature. (More on this below).
In one of his earliest critiques of the Kalam Argument, Grümbaum says:
The relevant creation argument proceeds from the premise that there is a question as to where everything came from, or of "how" the world came into being, or as to who or what caused everything. Thus the question more or less tacitly assumes some sort of temporal beginning for the physical universe, preceded temporally by a supposed state of nothingness. And the aim of the argument is to show that we cannot understand the supposed beginning or origin of the world without the assumption that there was a creation out of nothing by a creator. More specifically, the argument claims to establish the necessity for postulating creation by starting out with the premise that things have "causes" in the senses granted by common sense or ordinary science, or even by the sceptical common sense of a hard-headed engineer. Thus, the starting point is the following premise:
"Everything has a cause" to the extent to which causes are acknowledged in explanations of ordinary experience or of scientifically explained phenomena.
From the premise that everything has a cause, the following conclusions are then claimed to follow:
The physical universe as a whole had a beginning a finite time ago as a result of an act of creation out of nothing by a single, conscious external CAUSE or agent. And that external cause or creator is then claimed to be the personal God of the biblical theistic tradition.
The confusions of Grümbaum's arguments are astonishing, coming from a philosopher of his stature (this supports the view that atheists don't have good objections against the best theistic arguments. They are forced again and again to misrepresent the argument in order to give some plausibility to the atheistic objection to the cosmological argument).
Let's comment on Grümbaum's argument on more detail:
As William Lane Craig pointed out in his reply to Grümbaum's paper:
This, however, is a gross caricature of the traditional argument. The causal premiss operative in the argument is not that everything has a cause, but that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." This fact has been repeatedly pointed out by theists, but stereotypes seem to die hard. Furthermore, proponents of this argument did not simply assume that the universe began to exist, but presented elaborate philosophical defenses of this premiss, employing arguments against infinite temporal regression such as came to be embodied in the thesis of Kant's first antinomy concerning time. Finally, the identification of the external cause of the universe's inception was not gratuitously assumed to be a personal Creator; rather the proof's proponents argued for this conclusion on the basis of the fact that a temporal effect could not arise from an eternal cause unless that cause were a personal agent... 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. Who are these unnamed theists whose contentions Grünbaum attacks? What philosopher of religion or natural theologian in the history of thought is supposed to be susceptible to these objections? I suspect that Grünbaum is really attacking nothing more than popular misconceptions of the cosmological argument"
As philosopher of religion 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.
One of the defenders of the traditional cosmological argument was Thomas Aquinas. In his book on Aquinas, Feser comments:
"Let us note first (and yet again) that Aquinas does not say, here or elsewhere, that "everything has a cause"; rather, he begins the argument by saying that there are efficient causes and that nothing can cause itself. The implication is that if something is caused, then it is something outside the thing being caused that is doing the causing... Aquinas is committed in particular to the principle of causality, according to which that which comes into being, or more generally, that which is contingent, must have a cause. Needless to say, this is not the same thing as to claim that everything without exception has a cause" (Aquinas, pp 81-82. Emphasis in blue added)
So, Grümbaum's claim that the "traditional" cosmological argument is based on the premise that "everything has a cause" is demostrably false. Grümbaum's egregious misrepresentation of the argument is unworthy of a sophisticated philosopher of his stature (a philosopher who becomes, to his professional embarassment, a sophomore and amateur when arguing about theism).
On the other hand, note that Grümbaum says that the argument "tacitly assumes" a temporal beginning of the physical universe. But as Craig says, the argument doesn't simpy "assume" such a thing, but that such view is explicitly ARGUED for.
Moreover, the current scientific evidence from cosmology supports the view that the universe has a temporal beginning, a fact widely accepted by cosmologists. World's leading cosmologist and atheist Alan Guth even says that only "crackpots" deny the temporal beginning of the universe:
So, far from "assuming" the temporal beginning of the physical universe, the proponent of the cosmological argument ARGUES for such temporal beginning, based on philosophical arguments (e.g. the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite) and scientific evidence (e.g. the evidence for the Big Bang). Grümbaum falsely claims that the cosmological argument claims that a temporal beginning of the universe is "preceded temporally by a state of nothingness".
This is simply and demostrably false. NO defender of the cosmological argument has defended or implied such a thing. "Nothingness" is not an state, but the absence of being. Since "time" is part of being, it is impossible that "non-being" could be "temporally precede" being.
Far from appealing to "nothingness", what the cosmological argument proponent claims is that God precedes ontologically (not temporally) the universe. This notion of ontological, but not temporal, causal priority is perfectly coherent, despite of Grümbaum's unability to understand it (because such understanding would destroy his whole objection).
As atheist Graham Oppy correctly notes "Under the causal relation, causes are prior to their effects. Note that this has nothing to do with temporal priority: if there are non-temporal causes and effects, the causal relation still imposes a priority / posteriority relation on them".
In reply to a commenter's question, Oppy adds: "My comments were neutral on any questions about the connection between time and cause. *In the causal order*, causes precede effects. *In the temporal order*, perhaps -- as far as the argument at issue is concerned -- causes can be preceded by effects, or can be simultaneous with effects. (These are controversial philosophical questions; it is perhaps just as well that they are irrelevant to the present discussion!!"
A sophisticated philosopher like Oppy (contrary, apparently, to Grümbaum) clearly discerns the conceptual and ontological difference between causal priority and temporal priority. This distinction is beyond Grümbaum's insights.
Another atheist philosopher (and critic of the Kalam argument), Quentin Smith, even appeals himself to simultaneous causation in order to make his case, when he said:
"Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events"
CONTEMPORARY ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY AS PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY FOR ATHEISTS' COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
It is my honest, rational assessment of the debate between atheists and theists that atheists have been defeated by contemporary philosophy plus scientific evidence. I think any rational, unbiased and fully informed observer would agree with this assessment. (Note that it has nothing to do with a particular religion; I'm speaking of where the overall scientific and philosophical evidence points out).
The persistent, constant misrepresentation of the cosmological argument by atheists suggest that they're either intellectually incapable of rational understanding, or intellectually dishonest (or both). Since Jime's Iron Law implies that many hard-core atheists are positively stupid, irrational, intrinsically impaired for rational thinking (specially about spiritual matters), one could think that Jime's Iron Law fully explains the continuous misrepresentation of the cosmological argument.
But now I'm strongly doubting that otherwise brilliant and intelligent professional philosophers become sophomores and obviously stupid when arguing about theism. I'm inclined to think that such people are being intentionally misleading, consciously misrepresenting the theistic arguments. I simply cannot believe that a philosopher of the stature of Grümbaum cannot understand that the cosmological argument is not based upon the premiss "everything has a cause".
Therefore, I'm going to suggest another hypothesis (which is complementary of Jime's Iron Law): I think some atheist philosophers suspect, perhaps intuitively, that the case for theism is very strong, but (for psychological or ideological reasons) they cannot allow that the best formulation of these theistic arguments become widely read and known among atheists. Hence, they intentionally misrepresent the arguments in order to convey the impression that the theistic arguments are very bad and weak.
This strategy could be useful because atheists tend to read mainly books or articles by atheists. They believe what others atheists say, but not what theists say. Hence, if a "prominent" philosopher like Grümbaum says that the cosmological argument begins with the premiss "everything has a cause" the common atheist reader will tend to believe him. If such fallacy is repeated by other atheists, like Sam Harris or Michael Martin, then the atheist reader is confirmed in his belief that the "everything has a cause" is the true, actual premiss of the cosmological argument.
Also, when serious, birlliant, sophisticated philosophers like Graham Oppy or J.J.Smart argue that "it is not clear" that the parting of the Red Sea or stars arranged in a way which spelt out the Apostle's Creed, or other miracles are sound evidence for theism, one suspects that such implausible and unfalsifiable naturalistic position is a kind of "last card" for atheists to avoid believing in theism.
Whatever the evidence for theism, the atheist will say that "it is not clear" that God produced it, and hence theism remains unwarranted. Since Oppy has proposed a criterion for sucessful argumentation, one could ask if Oppy's argument that "it is not clear" that the parting the Red Sea is sound evidence for the supernatural or classical theism passes his own criterion of succesful argumentation. Is such position the one that OUGHT to convince all the rational persons, including rational theists and open-minded agnostics? I doubt it.
In conclusion, my opinion is that some atheists are attempting to keep atheism alive, either intentionally misrepresenting the theistic arguments (Martin, Grümbaum, Harris), or providing a kind of ultimate way out or "last card" for atheists, making absolutely unfalsifiable the naturalsitic position, so that no matter what evidence for theism that could ever be presented (Oppy, Smart).
They're preaching to the chorus, creating psychological comfort for atheists who actually feel or could feel strong cognitive dissonance by the best philosophical and scientific evidence for theism (which could cause, eventually, the conversion of some atheists to theism, like happened with Antony Flew).
The way to destroy and expose this astute atheistic strategy of massive self-deception is to make it explicit, provide solid evidence for theism and cogent refutations of the atheistic objections based on the atheist's own premises (used in other contexts), and castigate their abuses of science and their misleading "perhaps" or "it could be" speculations when trying to block conclusions favourable to theism (speculations that they reject if posed against their own cherished beliefs, like materialism or the theory of evolution. For example, no atheist would accept the argument that "perhaps consciousness is ontologically independent of the brain", or "perhaps natural selection is false", posed as serious objections to or living alternatives to naturalism, without proper evidence for such claims).
In order to do that, you have to be extremely familiar (even more than atheists themselves) with the best atheistic literature.
0 comments:
Post a Comment