|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Special Feature |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
INDEX:
More Questions About "Does God Exist"? From D.D. via e-mail: Although a philosophical theist myself, I wonder if two or three objections can be made to your argument. I'll go from the conventional to exotic: (1) You wrote these crucial paragraphs: "How do we know that the present universe is only a possible universe? We can infer this from the fact that the current order and disorder of the universe might have been other than it is, that is, different from what it currently is. This is both philosophically and scientifically defensible. Whatever might have been otherwise or different is something that also might not exist at all. That which cannot be other than what it is must necessarily exist. And that which necessarily exists cannot be other than it is. Whatever can be other than it is can also simply not be at all. A universe that could be other than what it is could also not exist in the first place. Conversely, a universe that is capable of not existing at all is one that could be other than what it is now." (1) QUESTION: Why cannot one say that the universe can be different in non-essential characteristics, like dimensions, but not different in essential characteristics, like existence? Since a difference of any sort would make this universe "possible," why do we need to conclude that the universe's existence is merely possible, rather than its characteristics? REPLY: "Existence" per se is not a characteristic of anything, simply because it's opposite "non-existence" cannot be a characteristic of anything. A thing either exists or it does not. There are not "different kinds" of existence, strictly speaking, although there can be different "modes," "levels," or "contexts" of existence. At any given point in time, a thing either exists or it does not. Furthermore, any thing that exists will have an "essence," that is that which makes it to be what it is (its essential definition, so to speak), and then whatever accidental characteristics it has which makes it different from any other individual of the same category. The universe, as we know it, could have had different accidental characteristics, but it would still essentially be a universe. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose we have to have a universe in existence; it is possible for this universe to have not existed, that is, there is no philosophic or scientific necessity for the existence of any universe. At least that I am aware of. This is why I say (along with many others) that this universe is only a possible universe, not a necessary one.
(2) QUESTION: In your argument you seem to agree with the widespread view of physicists that there is randomness in the physical world. If there is randomness, couldn't the possible universe we have come from the "inside" instead of the "outside"? I mean by this that it seems that if we "rewound" time, the universe would be different by virtue of the fact that the random movements were of a different nature the second time around. REPLY: There appears to be randomness in the physical world as we experience it. However, it is always possible that what we experience as randomness is actually a planned, intelligently-designed process (leaving aside, for the moment, the matter of free will in human beings). I am not sure what you mean by coming "from the inside instead of the outside." If we "rewound" time, it would seem to me that, yes, we could probably have a different-looking universe (assuming that the randomness is truly random), but the difference would merely be in the accidental characteristics. It would be "essentially" the same universe, just with a slightly difference look. However, the essential characteristics of the universe qua universe would be the same. This, it seems to me, would hold even in a situation where physicists sometimes speak of parallel or multiple universes (although in this situation I personally don't use the term "universe" in the same sense that the physicists do). For me, there can only be one universe, and when physicists sometimes speculate about two or more universes existing at the same time, they are speaking about what I refer to as different "dimensions," "levels," or "contexts." For me, the term "universe" refers to that which contains or includes ALL existence. So, strictly speaking, there could not be universes within universes. This appears to be mainly a definitional problem, however. In sum, even we "rewound" things and began again, the universe would be essentially the same, while possibly accidentally different.
(3) QUESTION: Is it possible that the supernatural cause behind the universe we have now comes from the actions of people, not God? This of course supposes a person willing to believe that the human mind has supernatural powers (in the vein of Adler's "immaterial powers" of the mind). If human choice (free) caused changes in this universe (more minor than the number of dimensions, of course), then we would have an explanation for this possible world. REPLY: I would have no idea how people could "cause" the universe to come into existence, since people would have to be prior to its existence, which, I would argue, is impossible. The universe, it seems to me, would have to exist in the first place before people (at least as I understand the term "people") would come into existence. All that I say (from a strictly philosophical perspective) regarding the existence of the unvierse is that some "force" or "principle" (above and beyond that of physical or natural existence) was necessary to "logically" bring the universe into existence in the first place and then sustain it in its existence. I often refer to this "force" or "principle" as God (again, philosophically) simply because it is convenient to do so. I personally suspect that the existence of the universe is an "act of thought," by a Mind, and that, at least from an all-comprehensive perspective, that the unvierse is essentially "mind-stuff." Now this means that while a real, physical, material, natural, hard-to-the-touch reality exists (which we call physical reality), and therefore the commonsense metaphysical realist is correct to say there is an independent reality which exists whether human minds know about it or think about it, there is still "something" else behind or beyond that physical reality which is not physical itself. Think of DNA, for example. The DNA molecule is a physical entity. Yet, that physical entity in itself cannot explain all that it does, the very complex, mind-blowing processes which occur as a result of the DNA. It seems to me there is some "intelligence," some "mind-stuff," behind or beyond the molecule itself which directs its operations. There are many examples of this in the real world. Just consider, for instance: How do your bodily cells "know" how to fix a cut on your arm? How do some of your bodily glands "know" exactly when to start to function to produce a specific characteristic? I know that biochemists think they can explain some of this by referring to chemicals and electrical activity and so forth. But what is "directing" those chemicals, those electrons, those molecules? Anyway, here I am getting off the main point. Free human acts, I imagine, could possibly cause changes in the universe. If they did, however, it would be changes concerning only the accidental characteristics of the universe. While I would not want to say absolutely that free human acts could not destroy the universe, I cannot think of a way they could do so. But, I suspect, that human thought (the mind working) is potentially much more powerful that we suspect it is. This is a great area for interesting speculation and for further research. (I am, by the way, very interested in the issue of human telepathy and other so-called psychic phenomena -- although I do not have the evidence to offer in these matters -- I do think they are worthy of scientific research.) Questions about God, science, and evidence... Received by e-mail from Brian C.: Hello; Great website. However, I found the many references to the presupposition of God an odd fit with your sites theme. Given the many recent advances in neuroscience, sociobiology, anthropology, etc. and the convincing works of people like Richard Dawkins (Blind Watchmaker, for example), much more plausible theories on the existence of god in the human mind should be considered, rather than just modern versions of traditional, even Biblical, dogma. MY REPLY: Thank you for the compliment, and for your questions. (I -- Jon Dolhenty -- also need to point out that what is said below is my personal response. One of the members of the board of The Center for Applied Philosophy is indeed a self-proclaimed atheist, although he considers the question regarding the existence of a God, Creator, or First Cause to be a legitimate philosophical problem. The "we" used below is an editorial "we" and should be interpreted as such.) First, let me correct you on an initial point. We do not "presuppose" the existence of God. Neither is the major function of our website to argue theological questions (that is, questions having to do with strictly matters of "divine revelation" or "religious doctrine"). Although questions about these matters may come in to a particular discussion now and then, the main purpose of The Radical Academy is to discuss philosophical matters. We do, therefore, deal somewhat with the existence of God (it would be better to say Creator, or supersensible Mind or Intelligence) and the "God" we discuss is the philosopher's God and not the theologian's God. Our arguments for the existence of some Creator or First Cause are philosophical, not theological. And we certainly do not presuppose the "biblical God," whatever that is. Second, Dawkin's works are not at all convincing when he discusses the origin of matter or the origin of life. Dawkins is a scientist, not a philosopher per se, and when he gets into philosophical matters, he commits errors all over the place. Remember, Dawkin's is what we call a promoter of "scientism," that is that science knows all and all questions can be resolved scientifically. We dispute this. Dawkin's is the one guilty of "presuppositions." He presupposes the existence of ONLY a material or physical universe, a presupposition which cannot be proved. It is strictly an assumption on his part, for which he presents no evidence. Furthermore, the empirical sciences such as neuroscience, sociobiology, and so forth, while presenting us with much valuable information, are not themselves equipped to handle the ultimate questions of life, which are in themselves philosophical and not scientific. Science has its proper object of attention and its proper method of investigation, and philosophy has its own proper object of attention and its proper method of investigation. (See my three essays about scientific methods.) Third, I don't know what "plausible" theories on the existence of god in the human mind you are referring to. I know that some "scientists" have proposed that we somehow might "create" God in our own mind, but this is not a theory, merely someone's hypothesis, "guess," or personal bias presented as a "scientific" finding. This is nonsense. There is no evidence I am aware of that supports such a hypothesis. Again, empirical science deals with material or physical reality; any reality beyond that is beyond scientific investigation. One step more, the body of evidence is even more strongly a refutation of the Biblical God. MY REPLY: I know of no scientific evidence that "refutes" the biblical God. I also don't know of any evidence, scientific or philosophical, that provides evidence for the biblical God. The biblical God (and I'm not really sure what you mean here since different religious scholars are not always in agreement who the biblical God is) is a subject for theologians, not for scientists or philosophers. To say, however, that the body of evidence "refutes" the biblical God (if I understand clearly what you are saying) may involve a logical fallacy called the "argument from ignorance." This fallacy was committed by no less a personage than Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivist philosophy, when she asserted that "God did not exist, because there was no proof of his existence." This is an argument from ignorance; just because there is no evidence at this time regarding the existence of some entity, does not mean the entity does not exist. (See my discussion of this fallacy.) The argument that I present regarding the existence of some First Cause is a strictly philosophical argument and must be dealt with on philosophical terms (See my argument about God's existence). The fact is it is at least a rational explanation for the origin of all material or physical reality. This question of "origin" cannot be answered with satisfaction by empirical science; it is outside its proper domain of investigation. And Richard Dawkins, as well as Carl Sagan for example, go way beyond the realm of science when they discuss such matters. Plus, they are not very good philosophers at that. Their understanding of the philosophical enterprise is limited, and I suspect it is because they have had little training in philosophical methodology and not much education about the history of philosophy. I do think there is evidence to support the existence of some Creator or First Cause. Is this evidence conclusive? Maybe not, that's a matter of judgment. But I do think there is certainly a preponderance of evidence in favor of it. Empirical science has no satisfactory explanation for the actual origin of the material universe. At least, I think that classical philosophical realism has provided an adequate explanation as far as it can do so. Philosophy can never give a theological explanation nor define the Creator or First Cause in theological terms. Once it argues for and posits the existence of some initial creative force, philosophy is virtually done with the matter. I (nor any other classical realist I know of) has any argument with the genuine findings of empirical science. In fact, the metaphysics of classical realism provides the only real solid foundation for the legitimacy of scientific knowledge. But, again, scientific knowledge is one thing, philosophical knowledge is another. Let's not confuse the two. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.