Stak Contra Sethbag: Sam Harris sucks!

[_Stormy Waters]

There's the real bullseye. Sam Harris's primary goal is selling books and increasing his influence rather than actually educating people. I find him eerily similar to Joel Osteen. I preferred Hitchens (although not so much the last ~10 years of his life).

When someone makes large sums of money for speeches and books it often taints what they say for me. Especially when the material consists of reinforcing the beliefs of their target demographic.
Examples like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Maher come to mind. Who knows if they even believe what they're saying.

[_Chap]

Jolly good! Aristotle Smith has just sent me [gist of PM deleted].

Getting it has quite changed my view of the status of the arguments he has made in this thread. I am really terribly, terribly impressed!

[Guest]

(Moderator Note) Post revealing contents of PM and all references to that PM has been deleted.

Dear Mods,

1) If you are going to delete "all references to that PM," then you need to delete Chap's previous reference to such.

2) Barring that I will re-post the PM which I wrote and mistakenly sent to Chap. The purpose for doing this was to let everyone judge if the PM was [deleted] as Chap remarks and to be a stand up guy, I admit when I make a mistake and provide the full context for others to make their own judgments.

[_mikwut]

(stak)I suggest before trying to fake an informed comment, is to learn the basic distinction between things that are necessary and things that are contingent.

(chap)I shall be happy to hear the opinion of any reader of this board who thinks that is an impressive response. (Well, I'll put Mr. S. down as a provisional 'yes', shall I?)

I don't believe impressive or august or extraordinary were descriptions that Stak was seeking when he made the comment. So your reply becomes a red herring - no one would supply the adjective your requesting because it was never intended to be such. I would think stak was simply searching for the readers to understand that his comment was required because it properly requested the basic information necessary to be informed on the topic. Like understanding the phonetic sounds of the letters of the alphabet is primary to speaking them. It is the rare party indeed that doesn't have a simple grasp of the phonetic sounds that would request of his interlocuter's or his own's audience that he/she would be happy to hear the opinion of a hearer that was "impressed" with a criticism of the faulty sounds of the response. That is silly. What would be impressive is if the person that doesn't understand the basics of the alphabet would respectfully say I am ill informed not properly educated and will cordially bow out until I am not. Now that would be impressive.

my regards, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

It's dated philosophy, but you can grant scholastic casual reasoning to accept that a first cause exists without thinking that a case has been made that this first cause is a deity. All of Aquinas's five ways involve a conclusion that says "and this is what we call God." None of those cases effectively establish that what he set out to prove has to be god-like in its attributes. His version of an argument to design is the only one that even plausibly gets you to god-like traits. It's a bad argument, but even then if you grant he proved the existence of an intelligent designer of bodies, it does not follow that such a designer be a "God' in the way the argument requires.

Aquinas's first three ways are the ones that are variations of a contingency argument. But neither a prime mover, nor a first cause, nor a necessary being need or are likely to be a deity in the way the argument requires to be a successful proof of God.

Here's a good reading of what those arguments entail:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

I'll add that if you think this is the best of the best that theology has to offer for theistic justification that atheists need to grapple with, then its straightforwardly the case that even the best attempts at theistic justification are pathetic. That, in of itself, suggests that there is no rational basis for theism to be found out there.

[_Chap]

Thanks EAllusion for laying out in front of us all the actual arguments you intend to rely on. I think anything less is a kind of contempt for one's readers.

In my view you have raised the tone. (But as ever, feel free to ignore my view ...)

[I'd have preferred you to say 'unconvincing' rather than 'pathetic', but then I m just a wuss with inadequate chest hair and, no doubt, chronic testosterone deficiency, both grave handicaps in discussion with some posters here.]

[_EAllusion]

Those are very poor arguments. I'm not required to respect them nor should I be expected to refrain from sharing my opinion of them. In Aquinas's defense, they were written before we discovered that washing your hands is a good idea to prevent disease. I don't have as compelling a reason to forgive those still infatuated with them. And, again, if this is the depths of theology that needs to be grappled with, then the sensible view is that theology has little to offer.

[_Sethbag]

Thanks EAllusion! Are you able to address the assumption that Aristotle put up a better argument than these?

In the meantime, I think the arguments you quoted are self-contradictory, and rely on a bit of hand-waving. To whit:

The First Way: Argument from Motion
...
Therefore nothing can move itself.
...
...
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

So, nothing can move itself, but it is necessary to arrive at something which does move itself? How is that not an absurd result, and therefor proof that this argument is bankrupt?

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
...
Nothing exists prior to itself.
...
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

So nothing exists prior to itself. Except God. Because we said so.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Like what? I don't think we see these things at all. Aquinas surely didn't know that matter and energy are convertible to each other, but there's all kinds of things he didn't know.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

Quite an assumption, and unfounded IMHO.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

What if everything exists of its own necessity? Hmm, never thought of that.

[_Chap]

Those are very poor arguments. I'm not required to respect them nor should I be expected to refrain from sharing my opinion of them. In Aquinas's defense, they were written before we discovered that washing your hands is a good idea to prevent disease. I don't have as compelling a reason to forgive those still infatuated with them. And, again, if this is the depths of theology that needs to be grappled with, then the sensible view is that theology has little to offer.

I share your feelings about the arguments you criticize. But:

(a) Not all premodern arguments are bad just because they are premodern. Many very ancient arguments are still just as good as ever, even though the people who constructed them never flossed their teeth, and may have died of sewage-borne diseases.

(b) One be trenchant without being abusive. But then as I said I am just a wuss, so don't mind me.

[_huckelberry]

It's dated philosophy, but you can grant scholastic casual reasoning to accept that a first cause exists without thinking that a case has been made that this first cause is a deity. All of Aquinas's five ways involve a conclusion that says "and this is what we call God." None of those cases effectively establish that what he set out to prove has to be god-like in its attributes. His version of an argument to design is the only one that even plausibly gets you to god-like traits. It's a bad argument, but even then if you grant he proved the existence of an intelligent designer of bodies, it does not follow that such a designer be a "God' in the way the argument requires.

Aquinas's first three ways are the ones that are variations of a contingency argument. But neither a prime mover, nor a first cause, nor a necessary being need or are likely to be a deity in the way the argument requires to be a successful proof of God.
.

EAllusion, Your pointing out the gap between first cause and what people understand as God is valid to my understanding. I have heard others point it out. Aquinas, not being a real dumb fellow, knew as well. For him what we know as God is known by revelation. The proofs for him are thoughts reasoning about the being, God, first made known by revelation.