I'm compiling a list of things we can know with certainty. The list will grow as I think of more examples.
1. "I think therefore I am." Cliché? Maybe, but it's undoubtedly true. In order to doubt my own existence, I would first have to exist in order to doubt it.
2. The laws of logic, in the form of propositions, are necessary truths. Any denial of the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, or the law of excluded middle results in a literal absurdity.
3. No potentiality can actualize itself. This is one of the few causal premises that is not just highly plausible, but can be known with certainty. In order for a potentiality to actualize itself, it would have to be self-caused, and therefore exist and not-exist simultaneously, which is contradictory.
4. Order is more fundamental to reality than chaos. Chaos is intelligible, and since intelligibility presupposes order, it follows that even what is perceived as chaotic must have a level of order behind it. One could not even recognize "chaos" if it were utterly devoid of order. Moreover, chaos does not violate any of the laws of logic.
5. If I experience pain or pleasure, then that experience must be genuine. For even supposing that my brain is being manipulated by a mad scientist so that the sensations of pain or pleasure are illusory, it's still the case that I experience pain or pleasure. Likewise, "I am being appeared to redly" must be true, even if the object in question is actually not red at all. In both cases, it is the experience that is certain, which is independent of the reality (which may or may not correspond to one another).
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Upcoming Books
My first book, Faith and Philosophy: An Introduction to Natural Theology, will be released by Abner Publishing within the next month. In the meantime, I'd like to provide a brief sketch of the next two books I plan on writing. Each of these three books is part of a trilogy that introduces readers to issues that I feel are of the utmost importance. Following Faith and Philosophy will be:
Goldilocks and the Aristotelian Mean: An Introduction to Virtue Ethics and Natural Law. This book will start with the fable of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" as the practical basis for showing how moderation between two extremes is the preferable stance. I argue that actions that proceed from this moderation will necessarily lead one to adopt a form of natural law ethics. I'll provide several uncontroversial examples before tackling the controversies of today: abortion (as well as artificial contraception), sexual ethics (not exclusively related to homosexual acts, but including them as well), and the culture of relativism and what I call "the post-modern problem." I suggest that we do not, in fact, live in a post-modern society that would preclude the possibility of ethics, objective or relative. However, my argument concludes that this is an attitude expressed by many in the form of moral nihilism, which is simply unlivable. Additionally, I offer the plausibility of natural law ethics as a sufficient rebuttal to moral relativism.
Foundation of the Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Historicity of Jesus's Resurrection. This will be the climax of the trilogy, in which I'll argue that we have solid historical reasons to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. In light of the conclusions of Faith and Philosophy, I'll further suggest that the best explanation of this historical fact is that God raised Jesus from the dead, thus exonerating Jesus and his radical claims.
Goldilocks and the Aristotelian Mean: An Introduction to Virtue Ethics and Natural Law. This book will start with the fable of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" as the practical basis for showing how moderation between two extremes is the preferable stance. I argue that actions that proceed from this moderation will necessarily lead one to adopt a form of natural law ethics. I'll provide several uncontroversial examples before tackling the controversies of today: abortion (as well as artificial contraception), sexual ethics (not exclusively related to homosexual acts, but including them as well), and the culture of relativism and what I call "the post-modern problem." I suggest that we do not, in fact, live in a post-modern society that would preclude the possibility of ethics, objective or relative. However, my argument concludes that this is an attitude expressed by many in the form of moral nihilism, which is simply unlivable. Additionally, I offer the plausibility of natural law ethics as a sufficient rebuttal to moral relativism.
Foundation of the Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Historicity of Jesus's Resurrection. This will be the climax of the trilogy, in which I'll argue that we have solid historical reasons to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. In light of the conclusions of Faith and Philosophy, I'll further suggest that the best explanation of this historical fact is that God raised Jesus from the dead, thus exonerating Jesus and his radical claims.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
A simple, yet sound formulation of the argument from change
1. Whatever is changing has an external cause. (Premise)
2. The universe as a whole is changing. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the universe as a whole has an external cause. (Premise)
The argument is logically valid, so what about the truth of its premises?
I defend premise (1) with two distinct arguments - one deductive and one inductive. First, whatever is changing exhibits actuality (its current existence and state of being) and potentiality (what the thing could be). Now, no potentiality can actualize itself. Otherwise, the thing would be self-caused, and exist and not-exist simultaneously in order to cause its own actualization. This is a contradiction.
Secondly, an acorn, for example, cannot continue becoming an oak tree unless there are external causes, such as water, sunlight and soil. If at any point these external causes are removed, then the acorn will cease its change, whither and die.
But why does the cause have to be external? Quantum fluctuations have at the very least material causes, which are internal within the quantum vacuum. The problem with this objection is that the fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces - all exist as external causes of the allegedly externally uncaused changes. Premise (1), therefore, is correct.
As for premise (2), the most common objection is that the premise commits a composition fallacy. Just because every part of a mountain is small doesn't mean the mountain as a whole is small. However, there are just as many instances in which the whole is like its parts. If every part of a mountain is made of rock, then the mountain as a whole must be made of rock. Moreover, the mountain as a whole is externally caused by the forces of nature and various geological processes. Now, if every part of the universe is changing, then the universe as a whole must be changing. Hence, premise (2) does not commit a composition fallacy and is also correct.
Given the truth of (1) and (2), it necessarily follows that the universe has an external cause. Since the universe is the sum total of all physical space, time, matter and energy, the external cause of the universe must be timeless, changeless (for time is a measurement of change) and immaterial, in addition to being very powerful in order to externally cause the change of something as vast as the universe.
Whether you want to call this external cause "God" or not is inconsequential. The argument, if sound, is certainly a defeater of Naturalism. Call it the universe's First Cause if you'd like.
2. The universe as a whole is changing. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the universe as a whole has an external cause. (Premise)
The argument is logically valid, so what about the truth of its premises?
I defend premise (1) with two distinct arguments - one deductive and one inductive. First, whatever is changing exhibits actuality (its current existence and state of being) and potentiality (what the thing could be). Now, no potentiality can actualize itself. Otherwise, the thing would be self-caused, and exist and not-exist simultaneously in order to cause its own actualization. This is a contradiction.
Secondly, an acorn, for example, cannot continue becoming an oak tree unless there are external causes, such as water, sunlight and soil. If at any point these external causes are removed, then the acorn will cease its change, whither and die.
But why does the cause have to be external? Quantum fluctuations have at the very least material causes, which are internal within the quantum vacuum. The problem with this objection is that the fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces - all exist as external causes of the allegedly externally uncaused changes. Premise (1), therefore, is correct.
As for premise (2), the most common objection is that the premise commits a composition fallacy. Just because every part of a mountain is small doesn't mean the mountain as a whole is small. However, there are just as many instances in which the whole is like its parts. If every part of a mountain is made of rock, then the mountain as a whole must be made of rock. Moreover, the mountain as a whole is externally caused by the forces of nature and various geological processes. Now, if every part of the universe is changing, then the universe as a whole must be changing. Hence, premise (2) does not commit a composition fallacy and is also correct.
Given the truth of (1) and (2), it necessarily follows that the universe has an external cause. Since the universe is the sum total of all physical space, time, matter and energy, the external cause of the universe must be timeless, changeless (for time is a measurement of change) and immaterial, in addition to being very powerful in order to externally cause the change of something as vast as the universe.
Whether you want to call this external cause "God" or not is inconsequential. The argument, if sound, is certainly a defeater of Naturalism. Call it the universe's First Cause if you'd like.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
A Simple Formulation of the Fourth Way
The Fourth Way of Thomas Aquinas, known colloquially as the argument from perfection and the argument from gradation has numerous formulations. One easy way to state the argument is like this:
1. A flaw or degree in something cannot be known unless there is a standard of perfection for it. (Premise)
2. There are flaws in truth-claims and degrees of goodness. (Premise)
3. Therefore, there is some Supreme Truth and Supreme Goodness that is the standard of perfection by which the imperfection of other things can be intelligible. (From 1 and 2)
In support of (1), C.S. Lewis is famous for stating that a man would have no idea what a crooked line looks like unless he already knew what a straight line looks like. The fact that there is deviation entails that a thing must deviate from some standard of perfection. Given premise (2), which appears obviously true, it follows that there is some standard of perfection for truth and goodness, which we call God.
1. A flaw or degree in something cannot be known unless there is a standard of perfection for it. (Premise)
2. There are flaws in truth-claims and degrees of goodness. (Premise)
3. Therefore, there is some Supreme Truth and Supreme Goodness that is the standard of perfection by which the imperfection of other things can be intelligible. (From 1 and 2)
In support of (1), C.S. Lewis is famous for stating that a man would have no idea what a crooked line looks like unless he already knew what a straight line looks like. The fact that there is deviation entails that a thing must deviate from some standard of perfection. Given premise (2), which appears obviously true, it follows that there is some standard of perfection for truth and goodness, which we call God.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
50 Million Atheists in the U.S.? Unlikely...
David Silverman, president of the American Atheists organization, is a prolific speaker and debater on the question of God and religion, as well as the appropriateness of religious sentiments in the political sphere.
I'm not interested in attacking the integrity of Silverman (for all I know it's an honest mistake), but he very often makes the spurious claim that roughly 50 million Americans are atheists. Well, the stats prove just the opposite. He gets this figure by recent statistics that state between 15 to 25% of Americans are unaffiliated with any particular religion. Take, for example, this Pew Forum article. Even more striking is a recent Pew poll in which 21% of self-proclaimed "atheists" believe in God! An additional 55% of agnostics believe in God. 92% of the total American population believes in God.
Now let's do some basic math. Let's round up and say the total American population is 315 million. 92% of 315 million is 289,800,000. That leaves the remaining unbelieving 8% at 25,200,000 - half of Silverman's claim. What he would need to rely on in order to back up his claim is a (currently unsupported) psychological factor in which an additional 25 million people just won't admit they're atheists, even on an anonymous survey.
Moreover, that's Silverman's best case scenario. It's not that a full 8% are atheists, but simply lack a belief in God. The new atheists like to define atheism as a mere lack of belief in God, but as even Antony Flew conceded in the 1970's (when he was still an atheist), who popularized this definition, such a definition is entirely novel. And of course, agnostics don't necessarily identify themselves as atheists. Atheism, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is: "The theory or belief that God does not exist."
I'm not interested in attacking the integrity of Silverman (for all I know it's an honest mistake), but he very often makes the spurious claim that roughly 50 million Americans are atheists. Well, the stats prove just the opposite. He gets this figure by recent statistics that state between 15 to 25% of Americans are unaffiliated with any particular religion. Take, for example, this Pew Forum article. Even more striking is a recent Pew poll in which 21% of self-proclaimed "atheists" believe in God! An additional 55% of agnostics believe in God. 92% of the total American population believes in God.
Now let's do some basic math. Let's round up and say the total American population is 315 million. 92% of 315 million is 289,800,000. That leaves the remaining unbelieving 8% at 25,200,000 - half of Silverman's claim. What he would need to rely on in order to back up his claim is a (currently unsupported) psychological factor in which an additional 25 million people just won't admit they're atheists, even on an anonymous survey.
Moreover, that's Silverman's best case scenario. It's not that a full 8% are atheists, but simply lack a belief in God. The new atheists like to define atheism as a mere lack of belief in God, but as even Antony Flew conceded in the 1970's (when he was still an atheist), who popularized this definition, such a definition is entirely novel. And of course, agnostics don't necessarily identify themselves as atheists. Atheism, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is: "The theory or belief that God does not exist."
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Logic as an Object of Desire
God is said to be immutable by classical theists. I've spent hours arguing that God exists and that one of his many attributes is immutability. Still, I'm often asked: if A moves B, then doesn't A necessarily move too? In other words, if God moves (changes) something, then doesn't that require that God also change? The answer is no, and for at least two reasons.
First, it is possible to change something by being an immutable object of desire. While logic does not stand in any causal relations (e.g. it doesn't act on anything), it does passively draw persons to itself. After all, all of us desire to have knowledge and to be reasonable, and logic is a necessary precondition of such rationality. Likewise, God can also change things passively. People are drawn to God, as the Supreme Good, because they themselves desire to be good. Yet, God doesn't have to do anything in order to bring about this change, much less change himself.
Secondly, nobody has ever been able to show a contradiction in the notion that God could immutably will one change at time-1 and another change at time-2. Thus, God does not change things by mere passivity, as logic does, but he changes things with an immutable will for different changes at different times.
First, it is possible to change something by being an immutable object of desire. While logic does not stand in any causal relations (e.g. it doesn't act on anything), it does passively draw persons to itself. After all, all of us desire to have knowledge and to be reasonable, and logic is a necessary precondition of such rationality. Likewise, God can also change things passively. People are drawn to God, as the Supreme Good, because they themselves desire to be good. Yet, God doesn't have to do anything in order to bring about this change, much less change himself.
Secondly, nobody has ever been able to show a contradiction in the notion that God could immutably will one change at time-1 and another change at time-2. Thus, God does not change things by mere passivity, as logic does, but he changes things with an immutable will for different changes at different times.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
My Top Ten Philosophers of All Time
I don't necessarily agree with everything these philosophers have to say, but in terms of their influence, here's how I would list them:
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. St. Augustine
4. St. Thomas Aquinas
5. Rene Decartes
6. John Locke
7. Baruch Spinoza
8. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
9. Immanuel Kant
10. David Hume
Of course, this is a list of western philosophers. A separate list for eastern philosophers could also be compiled. It's also worth noting that while I like Plato, he's not my favorite philosopher. That honor belongs to St. Thomas Aquinas, with St. Augustine and Aristotle coming in at a close second and third. It's just that Plato and Aristotle have probably had the greatest influence on philosophy throughout the past two-thousand years. While Kant and Hume have been enormously influential, I put them at #9 and #10, respectively, because their influence is still fairly recent. Plus, the issues they address can be found at least in kernel form in the ancient philosophers.
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. St. Augustine
4. St. Thomas Aquinas
5. Rene Decartes
6. John Locke
7. Baruch Spinoza
8. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
9. Immanuel Kant
10. David Hume
Of course, this is a list of western philosophers. A separate list for eastern philosophers could also be compiled. It's also worth noting that while I like Plato, he's not my favorite philosopher. That honor belongs to St. Thomas Aquinas, with St. Augustine and Aristotle coming in at a close second and third. It's just that Plato and Aristotle have probably had the greatest influence on philosophy throughout the past two-thousand years. While Kant and Hume have been enormously influential, I put them at #9 and #10, respectively, because their influence is still fairly recent. Plus, the issues they address can be found at least in kernel form in the ancient philosophers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)