[Serious] Book reports

[GrandizerII]

Actually, no, should really reword what I said because it isn't reflected like that in the article (too bad cannot edit previous message). The question being asked ultimately in the article:

Do the regularities observed in nature indicate causality in the objective sense, are they mere regularities, or is there a middle ground between the two that needs to be considered?

The author of the article ultimately makes a case for the third option, thus not denying causality (and therefore not contradicting Aristotelianism necessarily) but nevertheless agreeing with Hume to an extent.

[GrandizerII]

In the beginning of the second chapter of Feser's Aquinas, the author prepares the reader for a proper understanding of Aquinas' Five Ways. Feser emphasizes that the Five Ways, as presented in the beginning of the Summa Theologiae, were meant to be summaries rather than full arguments, with these full arguments presented elsewhere in Aquinas' other works. So when atheists are addressing the Five Ways as commonly presented, they need to keep in mind they're merely addressing summaries of the full arguments. Furthermore, Feser informs us that Aquinas does go beyond the Five Ways to show that God is as Aquinas believed him to be (in fact, he attempts to do so later in the Summa Theologiae itself, after the Five Ways were stated).

Richard Dawkins is brought up here, and his critique of the Five Ways (as presented in The God Delusion) is effectively countered. Dawkins, for example, shows a common misunderstanding of the Second Way: that there must be a first cause in the temporal sense. But Aquinas never meant for any of his arguments to imply that the universe must have had a [temporal] beginning. In fact, according to Feser, Aquinas believed that one could not use logic to argue that the universe must have had a beginning, only through divine revelation could one see that the universe did have a beginning.

Next section is specifically on the First Way.

[Belacqua]

@Grandizer

This might be relevant:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati...-in-athens

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Into the last few pages of one of my favorite reads, the Gaea Trilogy, by John Varley. Or as I like to say John FUCKING!!!! Varley.

[GrandizerII]

@Grandizer

This might be relevant:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati...-in-athens

Well, it's an interesting perspective. Whether this should be the right way to look at things, I can't say. Modern science seems to be doing ok explaining material things in terms of particles, and I'm not inclined at the moment to see objects and beings like us and like rocks and water to be fundamental in nature.

With regards to quantum mechanics, I don't see how different their proposed interpretation is to the Copenhagen interpretation exactly. And indeterminism does imply randomness of some sort. It's not the sort of randomness that is distributed equally among all possible quantum paths, but the fact that we have to speak of these outcomes in ontologically probabilistic ways (at least in the case of indeterministic interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation) does suggest randomness.

I also get the feeling the author seems to think the proposals of the block universe and many worlds must deny the examination of the universe from alternate perspectives. That is not the way I personally see it. I'm provisionally all in for a block universe (and many worlds) even while still seeing the need for an account of how various parts of the universe logically connect to each other in a block universe and even while still seeing the need to continue to espouse a first-person perspective that attempts to explain the universe in terms of [apparent] changes and such.

And even if a block universe proposal that only involves a one-world universe is not so satisfactory, proposals of many worlds do provide a satisfactory answer (in my opinion) to the question of why this universe rather than some other. If the universe is just simply the super set of all [meta]physically possible worlds, then there is nothing more to ask about what else may be missing in this universe because the universe is basically all the things that could [meta]physically be.

All that said, I agree that nothing in quantum mechanics (or relativity) must necessitate that Aristotelianism be false on the whole, but in terms of descriptive/explanatory power, it's not clear if we need to resort to an Aristotelian type of explanation to account for what we "observe" at the quantum level. Modern notions of causality seem to be doing just fine in this regard.

Ultimately, it's all about what starting point we go with. Thomists are understandably going to stick to the Aristotelian way of thinking. Based on my own priors, I reason differently by default.

[GrandizerII]

Just finished the rather long section on the First Way. Took me two nights to be done absorbing as much as I could out of this section, just so I didn't continue having a half-arsed understanding of the argument. Even then, I still struggled with some of the stuff Feser said. For example, despite stubborn rereadings of the relevant paragraphs, I still don't quite understand Feser's reasoning for why the so-called "unmoved mover" could not potentially be movable. Feser repeatedly emphasised the need to account for the existence of "first mover", but I'm not sure how relevant that was to the objection he was addressing. And I say this as someone who is inclined to agree that if there is a first cause, it makes more sense that it be unmovable (no potentiality whatsoever to be moved) than it is to be movable. I just didn't understand fully Feser's reasoning.

As for what I think about the argument personally. Aside from the common and boring objection that the argument doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that Aquinas's God exists specifically (which, if I recall him saying, Feser addresses later in the book), the one objection that I can think of that Feser doesn't attempt to address in the section is that there could be multiple "unmoved movers" ultimately actualizing the various changes within reality as opposed to just one "unmoved mover". Each "unmoved mover" is like the most fundamental being, each occupying its own spacetime "niche" and ultimately accounting for all changes within its spacetime "vicinity".

He did argue in the previous chapter, however, that there could only be one "pure act", but I wasn't really convinced by it. Feser would most probably appeal to the principle of individuation to counter the objection I've stated, but I don't see why this should matter anyway if each unmoved mover can be distinguished from one another via their specific fixed locations in spacetime.

And even if these are not "pure acts" in the same way that Aquinas's God is meant to be, they nevertheless have no potency and therefore cannot be reduced to further act. They are each what they actually are, and can do no differently.

ETA: Of course, must give some credit for the objection I bring up to a very effing smart atheist philosopher of religion by the name of Graham Oppy who makes a similar argument (though not exactly identical) to the one I'm making, in his debate with Feser on "Capturing Christianity" YouTube channel. His is more refined and elegant, for sure.

Forgot another thing to add earlier: Feser never addresses the B theory of time in this section, even though I think it's very relevant to the First Way itself with its implication that change is apparent.

[ThinkingIsThinking]

To be a member of an atheist forum do we really need to have a special interest in atheism or religion?

Can't we just be people who--happen to be--atheists who get together to talk together without Jesus being mentioned 2500 times per sentence?

[GrandizerII]

Regarding the Second Way (now that I just got done reading about it in Feser's book):

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.

However, suppose the above isn't exactly parsimonious, and that we're better off appealing instead to a singular "unmoved mover" that is simultaneously the singular "uncaused cause".

Why couldn't something about the universe itself be that singular "unmoved mover"/"uncaused cause" whose essence and existence are identical? I've not really seen a compelling argument for why we need to go beyond the universe itself for a "first cause". If not the whole universe, something about the universe itself does [intuitively] appear to me as if it necessarily exists.

By universe, I mean the whole material world, and not just this local observable [sub-]universe.

[EgoDeath]

To be a member of an atheist forum do we really need to have a special interest in atheism or religion?

Can't we just be people who--happen to be--atheists who get together to talk together without Jesus being mentioned 2500 times per sentence?

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. Most, if not all, of us would simply belong to some topical forum or another, without ever really feeling the need to bring up religion or our lack of belief in any gods. I, too, look forward to the day when this is simply a non-issue, but I think we're generations away from that. Certainly, in my daily life, religion, or the concept of god isn't really something I'm thinking about, unless I'm specifically sitting down to read some material that may be related to, or about religion, which isn't too often.

So, for me, religion mostly is a non-issue in my life. However, I think AF is a place for folks to come and talk about their atheism in a way where they can be honest and free with their words. I think more than a few people on here don't exactly feel comfortable telling the people in their lives that they're atheists; I know of at least one or two people who said they live in the southern region of the USA and don't feel comfortable being "out" as an atheist. So this is, in a way, a sanctuary for some, and that's okay. A lot of people do take an interest in religion as well, even if they don't agree with any of its tenets.

Personally, I do take somewhat of an interest in religion. Even if I find it to be completely useless group of nonsensical ideas, I find it interesting that it influences so many people and has shaped our culture into what it is today. The fact is, plenty of people do find Christianity, for example, to be a deep and rich tradition that provides value and meaning to their lives. But that's the thing... it can be both. It can be a deep and rich tradition to you, and total nonsense to me.

While I've mostly found this thread to be an excuse for Belacqua to talk about how cool Christianity really is (and how all of us atheists are mistaken) I suppose I could contribute a bit.

I am going to be finally cracking open my copy of The Works of Josephus. I'll come back with any thoughts I have.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Into the last few pages of one of my favorite reads, the Gaea Trilogy, by John Varley. Or as I like to say John FUCKING!!!! Varley.

Read half of Dark Lightning, all of Red Lightning and now reading Red Thunder. All by John FUCKING!!!! Varley.

BTW, the proper order is as above, but I read #3, then #2, and now #1. Didn't know it was a trilogy. When I'm done Boss Lady gets them. I told her she had to understand why I want to have John Varley's babies.