[Serious] Book reports

[Belacqua]

Just as there could be multiple "unmoved movers" instead of one, it seems like there could be multiple "uncaused causes" as well, each with its essence equal to its existence.

I don't know these things...

You've gone past what I can argue, because -- unsurprisingly -- my limits are reached pretty quickly. 

No doubt people have worked on this, and that if you're interested enough you can track down the arguments. It would be wildly conceited for any of us to think we'd identified the one unnoticed flaw in the argument that has been going on for millennia. That's not to say there are GOOD arguments -- obviously if I don't know them I can't judge them.

I can sketch how an objection to multiple movers might go...

First we have to get over the idea of the cause or mover as a demiurge. There certainly could be a pair or committee of demiurges. I think we're supposed to work backwards asking the question "and what is necessary for this to exist?" So we'd ask about the roomful of demiurges, "what is necessary for this group of things to exist?" (Because in Thomas "cause" means "that which is necessary for it to exist.") And the idea is that a roomful of demiurges would still require something more fundamental for their existence. And that this would end up being something like existence itself. And existence itself is singular -- everything that exists shares in existence. So for example if there were multiple movers occupying various niches in spacetime, it would mean that spacetime is (logically, not temporally) prior to them. Which would mean that they aren't the end of the chain, and therefore not the First. 

That's how I see it...

Personally I'm not in a hurry to conclude an answer. "Certainty is absurd," as the man said. I respect anyone who can look into this with genuine curiosity and dispassionate skepticism.

[ThinkingIsThinking]

I hear what you're saying... but I think that we're simply a long way away from that. If that were the case, I think there would be little need for a forum dedicated to atheism in the first place.

Do we need atheist forums? Weren't the atheist forums created during the so-called "New Atheism" movement?

I mean, if we need them then we just need them to find other skeptical people. As, although atheism doesn't guarantee intelligence, and there are plenty of atheists who believe in woo or ghosts, it does correlate with it. It's easier for me to find non-idiots on an atheism forum. So that's why I'm here.

I guess I'm just saying ... atheists don't have to talk about God or religion. I'm more interested in the non-theological stuff like politics, philosophy, etc.

[EgoDeath]

I hear what you're saying... but I think that we're simply a long way away from that. If that were the case, I think there would be little need for a forum dedicated to atheism in the first place.

Do we need atheist forums? Weren't the atheist forums created during the so-called "New Atheism" movement?

I mean, if we need them then we just need them to find other skeptical people. As, although atheism doesn't guarantee intelligence, and there are plenty of atheists who believe in woo or ghosts, it does correlate with it. It's easier for me to find non-idiots on an atheism forum. So that's why I'm here.

I guess I'm just saying ... atheists don't have to talk about God or religion. I'm more interested in the non-theological stuff like politics, philosophy, etc.

I cannot comment on the context in which the forum, or other atheism forums, were created, so I have no clue about the correlation between new atheism and the creation of atheism forums, if there even is one. 

And, if you were just looking for intelligent, skeptical people, why not join a science forum or a philosophy forum? I'm not necessarily challenging you on this so much as I am just honestly asking. There must be something that drew you to an atheist forum over some forum dedicated to scientific discussions or philosophical pursuits... no?

Also, I think theology and politics and philosophy are all a lot more closely related than one might immediately assume. One has influenced the other and vice versa.

[GrandizerII]

Just as there could be multiple "unmoved movers" instead of one, it seems like there could be multiple "uncaused causes" as well, each with its essence equal to its existence.

I don't know these things...

You've gone past what I can argue, because -- unsurprisingly -- my limits are reached pretty quickly. 

No doubt people have worked on this, and that if you're interested enough you can track down the arguments. It would be wildly conceited for any of us to think we'd identified the one unnoticed flaw in the argument that has been going on for millennia. That's not to say there are GOOD arguments -- obviously if I don't know them I can't judge them.

I can sketch how an objection to multiple movers might go...

First we have to get over the idea of the cause or mover as a demiurge. There certainly could be a pair or committee of demiurges. I think we're supposed to work backwards asking the question "and what is necessary for this to exist?" So we'd ask about the roomful of demiurges, "what is necessary for this group of things to exist?" (Because in Thomas "cause" means "that which is necessary for it to exist.") And the idea is that a roomful of demiurges would still require something more fundamental for their existence. And that this would end up being something like existence itself. And existence itself is singular -- everything that exists shares in existence. So for example if there were multiple movers occupying various niches in spacetime, it would mean that spacetime is (logically, not temporally) prior to them. Which would mean that they aren't the end of the chain, and therefore not the First. 

That's how I see it...

Your proposed objection is linked to the Third Way, and when I mused about multiple movers and such, I hadn't yet gotten to the Third Way yet. I think you're misinterpreting my ponderings as definite statements of objection rather than me simply sharing my thoughts on the book as I progressively go through it. I also later on did say perhaps it's not the best counter anyway by appeal to parsimony.

I will say, though, that I could adjust the argument you've proposed this objection to by saying something like each of these entities (which you call "demiurges") could be the niches themselves and so nothing prior to them. It's relatively easy to think up a model of reality that can somewhat make sense. What's difficult is seeing if it actually does map to actual reality.

Personally I'm not in a hurry to conclude an answer. "Certainty is absurd," as the man said. I respect anyone who can look into this with genuine curiosity and dispassionate skepticism.

Certainty is absurd when it comes to matters of metaphysics. I don't think you need to point this out here on an atheist forum. People here generally agree with this.

But it doesn't mean we can't spot potential flaws in arguments based on the evidence that has been observed. Doing so isn't the same as coming up with a knockdown argument. I'm not so deluded as to think that most intelligent arguments for or against God can be knocked down so easily.

ETA: Regarding the "existence is singular" bit of the objection which I missed earlier, I'm not really sure about it. Even if Feser's framework demands this to be the case, I remain unconvinced that this has to be so. And I'm still not even sure how this gels with Feser's belief in a triune God.

I'm well aware, btw, that these sorts of counters have been noted time and time again, and that apologists like Feser have ways to address them in an apparently convincing way. But that doesn't mean they are convincing for the other side. At some point, it ultimately boils down to "well, I don't see it the way you do, so we'll have to leave it at that". This is something I somewhat noticed in the Feser vs. Oppy debate. The problem with Feser's attitude is he is way too convicted that his case must be true.

[GrandizerII]

Going back to the Tom Holland book, finally we have a debate (i.e., exchange of opposing ideas instead of two sides agreeing on the same thing) with Tom Holland in it:






Watching it later today.

[Belacqua]

Going back to the Tom Holland book, finally we have a debate (i.e., exchange of opposing ideas instead of two sides agreeing on the same thing) with Tom Holland in it:






Watching it later today.

I haven't watched this yet either. 

Tim O'Neill, who runs the History for Atheists web site, had a harsh response to this on Twitter. According to him, Grayling repeats the old canards about the Dark Ages, which were popularized by Gibbon but which modern historians reject. 

Holland's publisher has gone all out on publicity -- speaking engagements and reviews all over the place. I hope it can go some way toward a more accurate view of history.