Bernard Russell and the First Cause

[4gold]

In arguing why God was no better a reason for the First Cause than the Universe, famed atheist Bernard Russell said, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.”

This was said at a time when Hubble was only making preliminary observations about the expanding universe. Russell had died long before the Big Bang became popular and well-accepted scientific theory.

Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?

[Catharsis]

>>>St. Basil wasn't familiar with Quantum Mechanics but I won't admonish him as being uncultured.<<<

Why would he need to know Quantum Mechanics or Statistics in order to talk about the Creator and spiritual matters?

When attempting to harmonize religious truths and scientific data, one must take into account that these areas of knowledge use different sources and pursue their own specific goals. In science, the source of truth is observation and experimentation. They spawn scientific hypotheses and theories, suggest models and patterns on the basis of some observations or other, and predict the course of events, which in turn must be tested by experiment. Everything that goes beyond the limits of an experiment, that is impossible to check by the scientific method, dares not claim to be science, but belongs to the realm of assumption, philosophy, or metaphysics.

It is distressing when, in their struggle with religion, half-educated people, using the authority of science, make unfounded claims that "science has proven such and such," when in fact they are citing unproven assumptions that often go beyond the limits of science. Similarly, it is sad when shallow theologians who build their "scientific" conceptions on the incorrect interpretation of some word or another in the Bible hostilely attack harmless scientific findings.

The Scripture's objective is to reveal religious and moral truths necessary for man to save his soul. It is mainly about the non-natural and the invisible, about God the Creator and the Provider of the world, about the point of our existence, about right and wrong. It does not attempt to teach people astronomy, cosmology, zoology, or any other science.

[Beto]

>>>St. Basil wasn't familiar with Quantum Mechanics but I won't admonish him as being uncultured.<<<

Why would he need to know Quantum Mechanics or Statistics in order to talk about the Creator and spiritual matters?

When attempting to harmonize religious truths and scientific data, one must take into account that these areas of knowledge use different sources and pursue their own specific goals. In science, the source of truth is observation and experimentation. They spawn scientific hypotheses and theories, suggest models and patterns on the basis of some observations or other, and predict the course of events, which in turn must be tested by experiment. Everything that goes beyond the limits of an experiment, that is impossible to check by the scientific method, dares not claim to be science, but belongs to the realm of assumption, philosophy, or metaphysics.

It is distressing when, in their struggle with religion, half-educated people, using the authority of science, make unfounded claims that "science has proven such and such," when in fact they are citing unproven assumptions that often go beyond the limits of science. Similarly, it is sad when shallow theologians who build their "scientific" conceptions on the incorrect interpretation of some word or another in the Bible hostilely attack harmless scientific findings.

The Scripture's objective is to reveal religious and moral truths necessary for man to save his soul. It is mainly about the non-natural and the invisible, about God the Creator and the Provider of the world, about the point of our existence, about right and wrong. It does not attempt to teach people astronomy, cosmology, zoology, or any other science.

Too bad science doesn't recognize these limitations you're imposing on it. For example, quantum mechanics have begun to explain what you claim to be the "non-natural" and the "invisible". Some people may not enjoy having their eyes pried open, and they will naturally do anything to prevent it.

[McCulloch]

The Scripture's objective is to reveal religious and moral truths necessary for man to save his soul. It is mainly about the non-natural and the invisible, about God the Creator and the Provider of the world, about the point of our existence, about right and wrong. It does not attempt to teach people astronomy, cosmology, zoology, or any other science.

However, it would improve its legitimacy if the statements and references to astronomy, cosmology, zoology, history and other sciences were correct. It is hard to accept uncritically as true the assertions that cannot be verified when the assertions that can be validated are not all that sound.

[QED]

St. Basil wasn't familiar with Quantum Mechanics but I won't admonish him as being uncultured.

Why would he need to know Quantum Mechanics or Statistics in order to talk about the Creator and spiritual matters?

Because at the back of his mind, his concepts of causality were rooted in classical mechanics (whether he knew it or not).

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse.

The above quote is an example of reasoning based on classical mechanics and analogy with the only known model for creation at that time. This kind of reasoning is not at all sound as:

In quantum mechanics, a real result can come from what has not happened. This is a significant departure from classical mechanics, in which all real effects must have real causes.

And we now know that intelligent looking selection does not necessitate intelligent intervention.

When attempting to harmonize religious truths and scientific data, one must take into account that these areas of knowledge use different sources and pursue their own specific goals. In science, the source of truth is observation and experimentation. They spawn scientific hypotheses and theories, suggest models and patterns on the basis of some observations or other, and predict the course of events, which in turn must be tested by experiment. Everything that goes beyond the limits of an experiment, that is impossible to check by the scientific method, dares not claim to be science, but belongs to the realm of assumption, philosophy, or metaphysics.

This sounds like Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria. This notion is hotly disputed, but notwithstanding that, I think you would have a hard time denying that observation plays a large part in people's notions about God as in the extract from Paul's letter above.

It is distressing when, in their struggle with religion, half-educated people, using the authority of science, make unfounded claims that "science has proven such and such," when in fact they are citing unproven assumptions that often go beyond the limits of science.

I sincerely hope that I haven't distressed you

Similarly, it is sad when shallow theologians who build their "scientific" conceptions on the incorrect interpretation of some word or another in the Bible hostilely attack harmless scientific findings.

The Scripture's objective is to reveal religious and moral truths necessary for man to save his soul. It is mainly about the non-natural and the invisible, about God the Creator and the Provider of the world, about the point of our existence, about right and wrong. It does not attempt to teach people astronomy, cosmology, zoology, or any other science.

Sure, but I think it's unfortunate that it always presents itself unequivocally. There is never any hint that it might rest upon a particular interpretation of human experience that has other, equally valid, interpretations. The "saving of souls" can be a good metaphor for the rewards to be gained in this life for living in a socially responsible fashion. More people might respect that kind of message if they didn't feel that they might be being misled about its provenance.

[Catharsis]

>>>Because at the back of his mind, his concepts of causality were rooted in classical mechanics (whether he knew it or not).<<<

So what...


>>>The above quote is an example of reasoning based on classical mechanics and analogy with the only known model for creation at that time. This kind of reasoning is not at all sound as:

On the Elitzer-Vaidman bomb testing problem Joseph Chen wrote:
In quantum mechanics, a real result can come from what has not happened. This is a significant departure from classical mechanics, in which all real effects must have real causes.<<<

Quantum mechanics? I don't think so.

God hides Himself from searching eyes, not allowing Himself to be "tested" or His existence to be "proven."

In 200 years we will advance even further in the field of science, develop and formulate new theories, and discard old ones.


>>>This sounds like Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria. This notion is hotly disputed, but notwithstanding that, I think you would have a hard time denying that observation plays a large part in people's notions about God as in the extract from Paul's letter above.<<<

It's my turn to provide a link:
Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology
http://www.romanity.org/mir/me01en.htm

[Goat]

God hides Himself from searching eyes, not allowing Himself to be "tested" or His existence to be "proven."

If there is any statement that is more likely to turn me from an agnostic theist into an agnostic atheist it is this one.

[Catharsis]

goat, why do you feel offended?

It's not like I came up with this yesterday. This statement comes from the bible.

Even though we are told from the teachings of the Ecclesia that His existence can't be proven using science (no matter how 'sophisticated') or logic -- we repeatedly use these methods, to our detriment. It's equivalent to trying to find God by looking into powerful telescopes.

[Goat]

goat, why do you feel offended?

It's not like I came up with this yesterday. This statement comes from the bible.

Even though we are told from the teachings of the Ecclesia that His existence can't be proven using science (no matter how 'sophisticated') or logic -- we repeatedly use these methods, to our detriment. It's equivalent to trying to find God by looking into powerful telescopes.

Who says anything about being 'offended'. it is just that is seems like such a rationalization for superstition that it makes belief in God FEEL wrong.

[Beto]

goat, why do you feel offended?

It's not like I came up with this yesterday. This statement comes from the bible.

Even though we are told from the teachings of the Ecclesia that His existence can't be proven using science (no matter how 'sophisticated') or logic -- we repeatedly use these methods, to our detriment. It's equivalent to trying to find God by looking into powerful telescopes.

Of course the church tells us it's pointless to search for God. No one would need it as proxy if we did.

[Catharsis]

It's a gross misconception that the (Orthodox) Church teaches that it's useless to search for God.

People are misguided to assume that Christ taught that we should be unquestioning believers; that it was a mistake to believe that we should exert no effort in searching for evidence of the reality of God.