What makes people irrational thinkers?

[Fake Messiah]

I think that by "account for its own existence" he means that there is nothing within nature which explains why it exists to begin with. Science describes the causes and effects within nature, but not the cause of nature itself.

You would be surprised what science can describe if you would listen to scientists and not theologians.

[brewer]

I think I remember a challenge, which was responded to in great detail, and now find cherry picking. Not sure why I expected more.

[polymath257]

this bit stood out to me:


"Physical reality cannot account for its own existence for the simple reason that nature—the physical—is that which by definition already exists; existence, even taken as a simple brute fact to which no metaphysical theory is attached, lies logically beyond the system of causes that nature comprises”. 

I think that by "account for its own existence" he means that there is nothing within nature which explains why it exists to begin with. Science describes the causes and effects within nature, but not the cause of nature itself.

To say that nature causes itself, you'd need a strange argument: 

 ~ First no part of nature existed.
 ~ Then a part of nature caused nature to exist. 

If time began with nature, the first statement is false.

Obviously if no part of nature existed, then there is no part of nature which can cause nature to exist. So if someone thinks that nature has a cause, then it needs to be a cause which isn't part of nature. 

So the quote from Hart above seems true to me, although it doesn't go all that far. It just means that the system of causes within nature aren't sufficient to explain why nature is here. 

1. Hart hasn’t shown here that physical reality can’t be causeless and necessary. 

He certainly hasn't in the quote above. Does he address the issue elsewhere in the book? 

2. If nature cannot account for itself by the fact of its very existence, then this seems to also be a problem for God’s existence accounting for itself.

This, too, isn't addressed in the brief quote you give, but is something for which there are other arguments. Very roughly, the idea is that things which can't be self-caused are contingent, and therefore must rely on something necessary. 

If God were seen as a Demiurge or craftsman -- some other contingent, active thingy which puts together nature -- then you're right the same question would be appropriate. What made the Demiurge? Hart's argument is that God is unique in that it is non-contingent and unchanging. It is unlike the material created world in that its essence is identical with its existence. And there are elaborate arguments as to why such a thing is necessary for contingent existence to continue.

So you're certainly right that none of this is addressed in the quote you give, and that reading just the quote we are left with lots of questions. There's a lot more to the book, though.

Can you give quotes where these issues are addressed?

[emjay]

There was a time when it was a completely rationally justified and evidentially supported belief that the earth was the center of the solar system and that all other celestial bodies orbit it, until we learned we were wrong. No tool is perfect, and certainty only speaks to the strength of a particular belief, not to its accuracy.

As I've said before a million times, it only takes playing a game of Mafia to see firsthand, in yourself and others, how unreliable certainty is with regards to truth... it's what happens when confirmation bias is allowed to go to extremes unchecked. For that reason I've always appreciated the game of Mafia not just for the game itself but also for it's usefulness as a kind of psychological/social experiment, and even indeed a kind of allegory/metaphor for real life, except with the bonus that there is a guaranteed 'flip' or 'reveal' at the end, to show just how... more often than not... completely and utterly wrong you were Anyway, I think you played it with me once, so you might remember what it was like, but if nothing else, Mafia is a hotbed for confirmation bias, confined within a limited information environment where only the mod knows the full truth.

My worst experience of the extremes of confirmation bias, in creating an extreme paranoid delusion/conspiracy theory, was one of my earlier games in which after he died in the game, I came to believe, with 100% certainty, that alpha male was still alive, co-controlling the game with the mod, and even when his wife read the thread and told him about my outburst to that effect and he messaged me outside the game in concern, I didn't believe it at the time and thought it was part of the conspiracy... by the end of the game I was literally begging the mod to officially end the game, just to put me out of my misery and reveal the truth. Basically it was the combination of several days of in-game sleeplessness combined with many in-game coincidences that led to this descent into madness/massive and interesting game (Mafia Game #15 - Lost). Also, anyone wanna play? we haven't played in a long time and I guess I'm a glutton for punishment That said though, it is in theory possible to keep delusion and confirmation bias out of the game... depends how level headed you can keep yourself, which was an ongoing challenge for me playing Mafia because it is, or can be, such an immersive game, but was happy of it because, as I said, the game is great for the psychological insight it can provide both in and out of the game.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theistic gods are seen as a demiurge, so there's that. For all the waffling and deference that christians gave dead pagan philosophers (for example), and even though those dead pagan philosophers saw that problem - and even though the later christians knew that.....they couldn't help themselves..because it's instrumental to their claims of their god's (and their shamans) earthly authority.

This is an example of passing the expiration date between just being wrong, and being irrational. When a person understands why some conception of a god is doa, can even state it, and yet still - for whatever reason- insists that it isn't.

[Ahriman]

You can be irrational but still be right, correct?

[Angrboda]

You can be irrational but still be right, correct?

Correct. You won't have a reliable way of knowing that you are correct, though.

[LadyForCamus]

I think that by "account for its own existence" he means that there is nothing within nature which explains why it exists to begin with.

Sure, but as Polymath already pointed out, this begs the question, as it assumes there is a “why” to existence, and it assumes that the facts of physical reality are not a sufficient explanation. These assumptions need to be demonstrated, otherwise he’s simply sneaking his conclusion into his argument. 

Science describes the causes and effects within nature, but not the cause of nature itself.

Hart, himself recognizes the logical mistake of assuming that the rules which apply within our physical reality don’t necessary apply to physical reality as a whole. Therefore it would be a composition fallacy to assume that because causality exists within the universe/physical reality there must necessarily be some cause of it. Again, he needs to show that “stuff exists necessarily” can’t be a possibility. He doesn’t get to just assume it for the sake of his argument. 

To say that nature causes itself, you'd need a strange argument: 

 ~ First no part of nature existed.
 ~ Then a part of nature caused nature to exist.

Or, nature exists necessarily. How can no part of nature exist? How can “nothing” be an existing state of affairs? What is a state where non-existence exists? This is the fundamental problem (IMHO) with theistic “something rather than nothing” arguments. How can nothing have been a possible alternative to something?

1. Hart hasn’t shown here that physical reality can’t be causeless and necessary. 

He certainly hasn't in the quote above. Does he address the issue elsewhere in the book?

No, you’re right. He doesn’t show it. He attempts to reason to it, but his reasoning is fallacious. I don’t know. I have two little ones at home with me and I cannot sit down and read this entire book. From what I understand, you have, so if you’d like to reference his supporting evidence here with a page number I’d be happy to take a look at it.

2. If nature cannot account for itself by the fact of its very existence, then this seems to also be a problem for God’s existence accounting for itself.

This, too, isn't addressed in the brief quote you give, but is something for which there are other arguments. Very roughly, the idea is that things which can't be self-caused are contingent, and therefore must rely on something necessary.

Again, until he can show that physical reality itself can’t exist necessarily, his argument is begging the question.

[Belacqua]

Again, until he can show that physical reality itself can’t exist necessarily, this argument is begging the question.

It isn't begging the question if there are elaborate arguments for it.

I'm also working on other things, so explicating the whole book isn't possible for me right now.

[LadyForCamus]

You can be irrational but still be right, correct?

Sure. But it wouldn’t be because you soundly reasoned to the correct conclusion.