The unexamined life is not worth living for a man — Socrates.
Without theism:
The dysteleological produces the teleological.
Chaos produces order.
Nonlife produces life.
Matter produces mind.
Nonbeing produces being.
The problem with all of this? We know for a fact and from our everyday experience that like produces like. The effect can not be greater than the cause.
I would like to thank my good friend Steve Hoover for telling me about this video.
Here is one of the best discussions and critiques of the presuppositional apologetic method I have seen in a long time. Dr. Jordan Cooper and Dr. Nathan Greeley are Lutheran scholars who seek to revive the Lutheran scholastic method and corresponding classical approach to apologetics.
For about twenty years I have made the point, much to the disappointment of my presuppositional friends, that the presuppositional method is nothing more than Kantian idealism. This video does a very good job of explaining why that is the case. (Note: Dr. Greeley uses the term anti-realism for Kantian idealism, both anti-realism and idealism hold the position that the mind is ultimate in determining reality. So when they speak of anti-realism, they are essentially talking about idealism.)
Idealism is an error because we do not determine reality. Therefore, philosophy and Christian apologetics must start with metaphysics, the nature of reality as it is, and not with theories of knowledge (epistemology). Our knowledge of reality, does not objectively determine reality. Our theories of reality can be wrong.
A couple of terms to know before going into the discussion.
Presuppositionalism (which I have found a few Lutherans to be adherents of) is the idea that mankind is so fallen (due to the noetic effects of sin) that there is no possible intellectual commonality between the Christian apologist and the non-Christian. There is no place for the ministerial use of reason. The apologist must first assume the truth of the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as the proper starting point for doing apologetics. In other words, the apologist must presuppose the very things his non-theistic friend rejects in the first place.
One thing Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley could have pointed out is the circularity of the presuppositional approach. This is a logical fallacy which is formally called the petitio principii (begging of the question). This is an error that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised or vague, in the premises. It is seen as circular because the conclusion is present in the premises, and no real progress is made. (I am aware of Van Til’s and Frame’s response to this critique, but that should really be another post. It is enough to say, here, that when one reasons with correct premises and conclusions, a good and valid rational argument is a virtue and an expression of the ministerial use of reason. Rationality is not an intellectual or moral failing.)
Another term that comes up in the discussion is realism. In metaphysics, realism is the doctrine that Forms, or essences, possess objective reality. In modern philosophy, realism is the concept (contrasted with idealism) that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or theory of reality. For realists, theories of reality, theories of knowledge, and perceptions are logically separate from objective reality itself.
Regarding realism, the name was given to a certain philosophic way of thought first inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle, developed and refined in the Middle Ages, and still living at the present time. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. Reality is objective. 2. These substances and relations which make up the world can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action.
Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics should always start with a firm understanding of realism. As Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley point out, the Lutheran Scholastics understood this point very well.
I could say more but this discussion is too important and just fantastic. Enjoy.
This concludes our series on Lucretius’s poem, The Way Things Are in which we have explored the intimate connection between science and philosophy. In this post, we will make some important concluding comments and connections.
Find part one here.
Find Part two here.
When exploring issues regarding the world we live in, both science and philosophical reflection are necessary. The distinction between essence and substance is why reflection on nature always involves both science and philosophy. Things which are composed of essence and substance have an immaterial and material character to them. Perhaps another example regarding physical reality and metaphysics, drawn from mathematics will help. The concept of numbers can be derived and abstracted from one physical object, two physical objects, etc. One can easily understand that two tables plus two tables equals four tables. However, the principles, axioms, and rules of logic which make algebra, calculus, and geometry are not strictly empirical and require a metaphysical foundation1. In both, substantial objects and mathematical realities, science and philosophy are interacting.
What is to be said of the ideas of cause and substantial change given the principles of induction, uniformity, and the conservation of energy which Lucretius points out? The principles of uniformity and conservation (among others) are properties of Being. Another property of Being is causality or the notion of cause among things that change. The notion of cause or the principle of causality, has both philosophic and scientific implications. As demonstrated, Lucretius is interested in exploring the nature of causation in physical reality. He tells us that he is interested in the causes of events (3), the causes of things (3), and the causes of movement (16) and effects which derive from natural laws (85) which we can understand to be uniformity, conservation, and causation (among other natural laws). In the realm of becoming and physical existence, it is reasonable to think that things exist in a cause and effect relationship. Linguistically, logically, and analytically it does not make any sense to speak of a cause without an effect or an effect without a cause. By definition, an effect is that which has an antecedent cause. Lucretius understands this and holds to a general theory of causation which says that that which comes into being (contingent effects) must have a cause. Events, effects, and created or living things have a cause which explains the nature or reason for their existence. This is why the law of causality is considered an extension or application of the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Actions and events cannot precede themselves just as non-being can not create Being. For something to create itself, it would have to exist prior to its existence which violates the law of noncontradiction. As Lucretius reminds us “nothing comes from nothing” (3). Philosophically and analytically, nothing is not a thing. It is a little weird to try to describe nothing ontologically because it has no existence whatsoever and is completely outside our knowledge of things in this world. The best one can do is call it pure or absolute non-being. It is impossible to think of nothing because if one tries, one is thinking of something and to think of something is not thinking of nothing. In Aristotelian terms, nothing or non-being has no act or potency.
Aristotle describes metaphysics as the study of being and the first principles and highest causes of reality. “Therefore it is of being as being that we also must grasp the first causes” explains Aristotle (Aristotle, Vol. 7, 522). Today, we can count among the first causes of reality the laws of logic, the law of causality, essence or form, the law of uniformity, mathematical truths, and many others. Strictly speaking, metaphysics is the study of transcendent realities which cannot be grasped by means of the senses. But there is an overlap between metaphysics and the physical sciences. Metaphysics points people to the logical structure of the world and in this sense, metaphysics allows people to study the world in the most general way. Metaphysics, as the study of “being as being,” is a body of knowledge about the world. Further, metaphysics shows us how truth is made coherent in any human field (all fields of knowledge want to correctly apply the law of noncontradiction, for example). Lucretius understands that there are basic laws of nature worthy of reflection. He acknowledges many important and foundational principles of reality. Upon reflection, we see that scientific laws are not strictly empirical but rely on metaphysical foundations. In this way, we understand that questions about the nature of the universe always involve both science and philosophy. Both are needed to interpret reality correctly.
Works Cited
Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
Lucretius. The Way Things Are. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 11. Encyclopedia
Britannica, Inc., 1999.
1Mathematics is not always inductive or empirical. It also works deductively. Alan Turing, for example, built a calculating machine based on abstract laws of mathematics and logic (principles of metaphysics). His machine and the theory behind it laid the foundation for generalized modern computing. Metaphysics and logic can have a direct result in the physical world.
In the first part of this series, we examined a few ideas regarding the intersection of philosophy and science that are raised by Lucretius’s poem The Way Things Are. In this part, we will explore the concept of Being. (Part one can be found here.)
Being can be understood as all there is, or the totality of reality. That which is, or Being, can not be denied. As Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) taught us, something must exist, because it is impossible to doubt one’s own existence (Descartes, Vol. 28, 275-276). If I exist, something exists with certainty. In addition, when our cognitive faculties are working correctly, perception is always the apprehension of something that has existence in reality. Being, or reality, cannot be denied and is a first principle for both metaphysics and science. It is a natural impulse, then, to explore the nature and foundational principles of Being. Early in his poem, Lucretius points us to one of his first principles of Being. Lucretius asserted that his philosophical starting point is “nothing comes from nothing” (3) and explains:
… As for us,
Once we have seen that Nothing comes from
nothing,
We shall perceive with great clarity
What we are looking for, whence each thing
comes,
How things are caused, and no “gods’ will”
about it. (Italics in original, Lucretius 3)
In this short passage, we see that Lucretius develops important questions about the first principles of reality. He wants to know the nature of existence in light of the fact that nothing comes from nothing, the causes of events or “how things are caused,” and whether or not a god is involved in the creation of the universe1. Nonetheless, it is important to examine a couple of other basic positions that Lucretius believes to be foundational and which speak to the ultimate principles of physical reality and Being. Throughout The Way Things Are, Lucretius makes the claim, nothing comes from nothing, which is his logical point of departure (3). He grounds this starting point in two basic ideas or assumptions. The first is what can be called the uniformity of nature. Lucretius explains:
Now, if things come from nothing, all things
could
Produce all kinds of things; nothing
would need
Seed of its own. (3)
Lucretius believed that there is a regular order to physical nature which accounts for the uniformity of events such as like producing like, and things coming from their own seed or source. If there is an order to physical nature, then it is reasonable to think that events will have the same degree of inter-connectivity and predictability in the future as they demonstrated in the past or in the present.2 The general idea is, if an acorn is planted into nourishing soil, and nothing prevents it from flourishing, it will grow into an oak tree. There seems to be a regular or general order to nature. According to Lucretius, if there is no order and uniformity to nature, things would be completely unpredictable and chaotic.
Lucretius asserts his second point:
Our second axiom is this, that nature
Resolves each object to its basic atoms
But does not ever utterly dissolve it. (4)
And also,
But matter,
As I have proved before, can never be
Reduced to nothing, so, nor things created
From nothing. (12)
Lucretius’s second axiom is extremely thoughtful and prescient for his day. It seems to correspond with the notion that energy can neither be created; nor destroyed in a closed system, what is often called the scientific principle of conservation. In other words, the total energy of a closed system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. It is fascinating that Lucretius understood this principle long before it was articulated by classical (Newtonian) physicists. Lucretius points out that change can be a mysterious thing. Being always involves becoming or change and yet even among change, there is that which abides. In philosophical terms, temporal things change in the realm of becoming (change is a synonym for Becoming, and is in antithesis to Being—that which is immutable or permanent). Change and the cause of change is still worthy of investigation in light of the fact that there is something which remains throughout the process of change.
This is what Lucretius means when he says,
But if throughout this history, there
have been
Renewals, and the sum of things can stay,
Beyond all doubt, there must be things possessed
Of an Immortal essence. Nothing can
Disintegrate entirely into nothing. (4)
Lucretius recognizes that changing things in the physical world perdure in one form or another but do not disintegrate into nothing. It is important to note that Lucretius draws philosophic insights from empirical induction. He looks at normal everyday objects found in this world and draws ontological conclusions based on their particular objective existence and secondary properties. Here, the Aristotelian philosophical distinction between substance and essence is helpful with understanding what Lucretius is getting at. When substance changes, or what is called substantial change, a thing changes in its manner of being (what is called a “mode of being”) such as when a cat dies and becomes a corpse. The mode of being changes for the animal, but it does not go into non-being due to the principle of conservation. Accidental change occurs when the cat is born, grows, moves around, and changes in shape, color, or breaks a leg due to a fall. Accidental change is dependent on the substantial reality of the cat. When Lucretius speaks of an “immortal essence” of a thing he is highlighting the idea that there is a basic nature or “whatness” to something (such as a cat) that makes it the kind of thing it is. A cat, has basic properties that make it essentially a cat and not a dog or something else, things shared by all cats such as a love for milk, a penchant for chasing mice, and meowing when they want attention. When a cat dies, the essence or “catness” is not destroyed. This is due to the fact that substance is not essence and essence is not substance. This is why Lucretius declares that, in philosophic terms, essence is immortal. When things change accidentally in quality, quantity, or space, they do not completely go away or into absolute non-being. If, however, all reality (Being) were to experience a change into non-being, it would be a negation of all that is, not a substantial change in the mode or manner of Being.
Works Cited:
Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
Lucretius. The Way Things Are. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 11. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
1Sometimes philosophers in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas use Lucretius’s principle that “nothing comes from nothing” as ground for positing a first cause type of argument for the cosmos. As noted in the first part of this series, it is unclear how strict an atomist Lucretius was. For example, he referred to the goddess Venus as the “creatress” in the first page of the poem and continues to refer to her throughout the work.
2Some philosophers of science call this the principle of predictive uniformity.
Recent Comments