Most in our secular world have put everything marked 'religion' in a box and sealed it. Then they're concerned that if anything prized the lid open, it will be a pandora's box. Where will it end up? — Wayfarer

I think though that the secularism is the symptom of a deeper problem. Secularism is merely a refusal to look at certain aspects of reality - a justification for this refusal in fact. But much more interesting is understanding the spiritual problems that one shields from by this refusal and justification...

(This essay is long, been published a while, but well worth the read. Last line is a kicker.) — Wayfarer

Thanks will have a read! :)

I'm not sure the mathematical example you said works. I forgot to mention it, but the scholastic PSR states: "everything that is has that by which it is." Which is a weaker PSR. It talks about things that exists, real being, not that there is a reason for things like mathematical equations. That would be a rationalist version of it. — Marty

This was might point, "existence", as Jorndoe used it in reference to the PSR, refers to a concept. So we cannot apply the PSR to the thing called "existence", as Jondoe tried, unless we apply it to the concept of existence. This would be to consider the concept of existence as a thing. In this case we would be looking for the reason for the concept of existence, which, like the reason for mathematical equations, is probably the desire to understand, or to know. In any case, the PSR would still apply to concepts if we understand them as things, and there is no exception to the PSR, as Jorndoe suggested.

One is open to believe, and thus believes. The other isn't open to believe, and therefore doesn't believe. — Agostino

I want to raise a mild objection to this categorisation. I have always resisted 'belief' as such; there is something I don't like about 'people of faith'. (On a personal note, that was the main reason I didn't get confirmation). But then, I've never been a materialist, either; I don't believe in 'the scientific worldview' of secular philosophers, which I see mainly as being largely framed by the centuries-long reaction against religion. That was why I sought out alternative and counter-cultural ways of considering these matters. But having done that, to be honest, I have found I am much nearer to Catholicism in terms of philosophy. But I don't feel any compulsion to convert to it, or to accept the dogma; I think it has value because it points to a greater truth, but I don't for one minute believes that it has a monopoly on that truth. I recognise the value of the neo-scholastics and modern catholic philosophers, mainly because they too argue against the shortcomings of scientific materialism, but it is more like 'the enemy of the enemy being a friend'. :-)

I find the comments here highly puzzling. It is not question-begging to use PSR to prove God.

PSR is either true or false. Reasons can be given both ways.

PSR is a premise in the cosmological arguments, one which does not, of itself, imply the conclusion. Hence, not question-begging.

I challenge the LEM and that challenge has not been addressed. It's no big deal. I'm just saying that I think you need the LEM, and that the LEM is problematic. Why? In a word: ambiguity.

LEM?

PSR?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Must the PSR be true or not true? Lots of metaphysical statements can be accused of ambiguity. I tried to give statements in an earlier post that challenged the application of LEM to more abstract propositions.

I agree LEM is not applicable here. Either existents had a cause, or they didn't, there is no half way house. However as I have pointed out, philosophy is unequipped to address the issue to begin with. More so, there is the danger that philosophers might become of the opinion that they are addressing it in developing their complex theories, thus to become deluded. Even while steadfastly employing the tools of logic.

I have always resisted 'belief' as such — Wayfarer

What do you mean? How do you "resist" belief? Also please note that my categorisation was "open to believe" vs "not open to believe". Being open to believe allows you the possibility of believing, whereas not being open to believe doesn't.

there is something I don't like about 'people of faith' — Wayfarer

Why?

But having done that, to be honest, I have found I am much nearer to Catholicism in terms of philosophy. But I don't feel any compulsion to convert to it, or to accept the dogma; I think it has value because it points to a greater truth, but I don't for one minute believes that it has a monopoly on that truth. — Wayfarer

Yes, neither do I.

Being open to believe allows you the possibility of believing, whereas not being open to believe doesn't. — Agustino

But I wanted to know. I didn't want to believe in 'pie in the sky when you die'. I said there was a way of knowing about ultimate truths, not simply standing in the congregation and mouthing the words.

There is a deep tension in Christianity between 'you will know the truth and the truth will set you free' and 'believe, and be saved'. It is a conflict between the gnostic and the pistic orientations. The gnostic is concerned with knowing, not being lead or believing what s/he's been told. That is one of the reasons why the mainstream adopted the pistic orientation - believers are much easier to manage, they're like sheep. 'Believe this!' says the preacher. 'Baa, baa....' say the sheep. Not for nothing all the references to 'flocks and sheep' in scripture.

'In Belief and Truth: A Skeptic Reading of Plato Katja Vogt explores a Socratic intuition about the difference between belief and knowledge. Beliefs, doxai, are deficient cognitive attitudes. In believing something, one accepts some content as true without knowing that it is true; one holds something to be true that could turn out to be false. Since our actions reflect what we hold to be true, holding beliefs is potentially harmful for oneself and others. Accordingly, beliefs are ethically worrisome and even, in the words of Plato’s Socrates, “shameful.” As Vogt argues, this is a serious philosophical proposal. It speaks to intuitions we are likely to share, but it involves a notion of belief that is rather different from contemporary notions. Today, it is a widespread assumption that true beliefs are better than false beliefs, and that some true beliefs (perhaps those that come with justifications) qualify as knowledge. Socratic epistemology offers a genuinely different picture. In aiming for knowledge, one must aim to get rid of beliefs. Knowledge does not entail belief. Belief and knowledge differ in such important ways that they cannot both count as kinds of belief. As long as one does not have knowledge, one should reserve judgment and investigate by thinking through possible ways of seeing things.'

http://katjavogt.com/belief-and-truth/

The Buddha, likewise, is 'one who knows'. The first step on the Buddhist path is not right belief (orthodoxa) but right view (samma ditthi). My intuition about religion in the West, is that this distinction was obliviated in around the 4th century at about the time of the Nicene councils.

And here we are.

However as I have pointed out, philosophy is unequipped to address the issue to begin with. — Punshhh

I don't see the issue, it's straight deductive reasoning, based on inductive premises. First, things which have a beginning have a cause. To dispute this inductive premise you simply need to find things which have a beginning and have no cause. Second, all things have a beginning. To dispute this inductive premise, you need to find things which do not have a beginning. The deductive conclusion, all things have a cause.

It is not the case that philosophy is unequipped to address the issue of the cosmological argument, we have been addressing it for thousands of years. What is evident here, is that some people still refuse to accept the obvious conclusion of the cosmological argument. So instead of assuming the philosophical position which it gives us, and proceeding from there, to make reality intelligible, they waste effort of looking for loop holes, and reasons for denying the conclusion.

Interesting, I will acquire the book - it's as subject I've been interested for a very long time, especially in-so-far as it relates to Plato/Socrates, so thanks for bringing that up.

But I wanted to know. I didn't want to believe in 'pie in the sky when you die'. I said there was a way of knowing about ultimate truths, not simply standing in the congregation and mouthing the words. — Wayfarer

Well it depends on the subject about which you wanted to know. For example, wanting to know in detail about the afterlife is a waste - the focus should be being a good man here on Earth. A vague notion will suffice. So there is something very harmful about an inordinate desire for knowledge - first the fact that it doesn't consider human limitations, second because it is knowledge which is not of importance in this life.

The gnostic is concerned with knowing, not being lead or believing what s/he's been told. — Wayfarer

Sometimes in order to know one must be led, and one must believe. Some knowledge is not achievable except by first making the "leap of faith".

That is one of the reasons why the mainstream adopted the pistic orientation - believers are much easier to manage, they're like sheep. 'Believe this!' says the preacher. 'Baa, baa....' say the sheep. Not for nothing all the references to 'flocks and sheep' in scripture. — Wayfarer

Yes - do you suppose that a society can be organised where everyone adopts a gnostic orientation and wants to know everything through their own experience? Imagine the resulting chaos. The limitations of belief are necessary for order and stability. Knowledge is not necessarily good - it can lead to arrogance, disdain, and a feeling of superiority. "They are sheep, I am not" - that is very harmful.

Beliefs, doxai, are deficient cognitive attitudes. In believing something, one accepts some content as true without knowing that it is true; one holds something to be true that could turn out to be false. Since our actions reflect what we hold to be true, holding beliefs is potentially harmful for oneself and others. Accordingly, beliefs are ethically worrisome and even, in the words of Plato’s Socrates, “shameful.”

Interesting but don't forget about Socrates in the Phaedo - he states that he does not know about the afterlife. There is no certainty. Either there is a soul which survives after death, or there is none. But nevertheless, he believes that there is a soul which survives after death. Why? Because it is beautiful to believe so, and it seems just that it is so - and so his love of the Good makes him believe.

...all things have a beginning...

What is evident here, is that some people still refuse to accept the obvious conclusion of the cosmological argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is what? That there's a beginningless, uncaused cause, i.e. God? That contradicts the initial premise that everything has a beginning (and so a cause).

I agree with you and the rationale, but what does it prove? Does it prove the existence of God, an uncaused cause, or that from the human perspective there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of our known causal existence?

Indeed, is it even addressing existence atall, rather the concept of existence? A concept subject to human frailty.

Who brought up 'the afterlife'? Anyway, I digress, the point was only about 'being a believer'.

Anyway, everyone here should realize 'the uncaused cause' could not exist. All kinds of things exist - why, open any encyclopedia - but 'the uncaused cause' is not there to be found. The point about reasoning to the 'uncaused cause' is to make the bottom fall out of the apparently substantial nature of sensory experience - to realise the illusory nature of what the hoi polloi (that's us) take for granted.

Phenomena exist - what 'exists' is what stands apart, what begins and ends, every particular thing, every particular being. They all exist. The uncaused cause does not exist.

Who brought up 'the afterlife'? Anyway, I digress, the point was only about 'being a believer'. — Wayfarer

Well being a believer means following the practices of a certain religion. What's wrong with that? You don't have to be a sheep to do that...

Anyway, everyone here should realize 'the uncaused cause' could not exist. — Wayfarer

Regarding the link, I find that kind of semantic quibbling to be empty. What's the significance in saying "God is, but God doesn't exist" or something to that effect? It's just pointless wordplay.

"
Phenomena exist - what 'exists' is what stands apart, what begins and ends, every particular thing, every particular being. They all exist. The uncaused cause does not exist."

It isn't that simple though. We don't actually know what exists, or what it means for something to exist, or what existence is, all we've got is our experience of being in some sort of existence, something which we find on the occasion of our birth, again something not understood(in terms of the origin of our being).

Thus to say "the uncaused cause does not exist" is little more than Chitta Chatta in our heads. We don't know what an uncaused cause is, if it could exist, if there is anything which falls outside of our category of existing*, while still impinging in some way on our existing, or not. We don't have a clue how we got here, where we are, what is going on, or if there are any necessary causes that we can conceive of, or know of. Even if we can work out what is logically most likely to be the case we might be mistaken, or the reality might be odd and seemingly illogical.


*our concept of something existing, what it means to exist, is subject to human frailty and may be a pale reflection, or derivative of the reality out there. It could well be wrong headed, deluded, topsy turvy, inside out.

Anyway, everyone here should realize 'the uncaused cause' could not exist. — Wayfarer

That is only if you assume that existence is meant in the same sense for all possible things it is attributed to. However, the scholastics made a difference between the way number 2 exists and the way a chair exists for example. Both of them exist - but in different ways.

First, things which have a beginning have a cause. To dispute this inductive premise you simply need to find things which have a beginning and have no cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what is the cause of the totality? If we can always tell ourselves that we just haven't found a cause yet, then we can avoid a counterexample.

The PSR looks like a pragmatic maxim evolved to succeed in a world of objects. If we find a car parked in front our house that we don't recognize, we assume that someone drove it there. We don't expect cars to just materialize out of then air. But we can conceive of thing. We want causes or necessary/expected relationships so that we can predict/manipulate objects, including other humans. So we all have some vision of human nature as well as object nature. It looks the same with the LEM. Lots of worldly propositions 'must' be true or false. Someone did or didn't fasten their seatbelt.

But all of this gets projected "up" for application to the totality (PSR) and to abstract propositions that admit of ambiguity (LEM.) Yet the strength of these principles (more descriptions or admonitions perhaps) rests on ordinary life.

It's just pointless wordplay ( this).

It's not at all, it has a serious pedigree in neoplatonist and other Western philosophy. There were some seminal texts from around the fifth century AD, now known to scholars as 'pseudo-Dionysius' ('pseudo' because for centuries he was mis-identified as a disiciple of the Apostle Paul.) His texts The Celestial Heirarchy and the Divine Names, were foundational in Christian philosophy, and especially Christian mysticism, for centuries thereafter.

The point of these mystical texts is to reveal how the Divine Simplicity, which is both simple and One, gives rise to the manifold domain of separate beings. I can't possibly do justice to these texts here, but the article I linked to by Bishop (!) Pierre Whalon is based on those premisses. If you read it carefully, it distinguishes between the existence of manifest things, and the reality of their source.

This line of thought was much amplified by Paul Tillich (see http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paul_Tillich#/God_above_God).

The reason I am making this point, is that practically all atheism is based on the misconception of there being 'a God' or of god as 'a being'. That leads to the equation of God with other 'gods', the sky-father of the ancient world. And it's a form of idolatory, a false conception of the nature of God.

So, not word play.

Which is what? That there's a beginningless, uncaused cause, i.e. God? That contradicts the initial premise that everything has a beginning (and so a cause). — Michael

Why must God be beginningless and uncaused?

I agree with you and the rationale, but what does it prove? Does it prove the existence of God, an uncaused cause, or that from the human perspective there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of our known causal existence? — Punshhh

What we have, is a cause which is not within the realm of physical existence, because it is the cause of physical existence. There are many directions which one can proceed from here. The concept of physical existence needs to be analyzed, the concept of causation needs to be analyzed. To conclude an "uncaused cause" is somewhat equivocal, or ambiguous at best. Such a cause is "uncaused" in the sense of a physical, efficient cause, but it is necessarily in another sense, like final cause, that it is a "cause" because it is impossible that it is a physical, efficient cause. So in "uncaused cause", "uncaused" refers to a different sense of "cause" from what "cause" refers to.

Anyway, everyone here should realize 'the uncaused cause' could not exist. — Wayfarer

I agree with the others, this depends on how you define "exist" and I would not define it that way. We still say that non-physical, immaterial things, such as concepts, and even the soul, exist. Is this your claim that these things do not exist? We couldn't say that they have some other type of being, so what could we say about them, like God, what supports their reality if not some type of existence?

So what is the cause of the totality? — Hoo

Which totality, do you mean the inductive principle which classes all caused things together as contingent? The cause of that totality would be the human mind which uses the inductive reason.

But all of this gets projected "up" for application to the totality. (PSR) and to abstract propositions that admit of ambiguity (LEM.) — Hoo

What do you mean by this, "projected 'up'"?

Why must God be beginningless and uncaused? — Metaphysician Undiscovered

I would never have expected that from you. These are the basic attributes of the first cause, they're part of what the term means.

We still say that non-physical, immaterial things, such as concepts, and even the soul, exist.

Using words loosely, they do, but in reality they don't. Think of a number - any number - does that exist? no use pointing to the symbol for the number, because that is a symbol, and it can change. But a natural number is always self-identical and the same for any mind capable of counting (according to the law of identity). So, I say that numbers don't exist, but they are nevertheless real; they're intellectual objects (using the term 'objects' metaphorically). The same can be said for all kinds of mental and intellectual structures and operations; we don't notice them, because they constitute the way we think, but they're also (for that reason) constituents of reality itself; what we see 'out there' is structured according to these.

I think what needs to be understood is the sense in which the 'manifest realm' (the 'ten thousand things' in Chinese terminology), is the domain of phenomena, of existing things. We are conditioned by modern thinking to believe that this is the fundamental real, but no traditional philosophy accepts that. In fact, for virtually all traditional philosophies, Western and Eastern, seeing through the illusory nature of the phenomenal domain is the first step. Modernity has turned that upside down, so that it now accords reality to what is the least real, namely the ephemeral objects of sense perception.

Regarding definition of exist - 'ex-', outside of, apart from; 'ist', to stand.

Which totality, do you mean the inductive principle which classes all caused things together as contingent? The cause of that totality would be the human mind which uses the inductive reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

By totality I mean everything, including the discourse about it that we're having right now. This includes the human mind.

What do you mean by this, "projected 'up'"? — Metaphysician Undercover

One could argue that the PSR and LEM are learned "prejudices," acquired in an everyday context. We project "necessary" relationships (laws of nature, physical and human) in order to map and thrive in the world. If some event surprises us, we look for a "cause" or "law" to put it under. So "everything has a reason" because thinking is largely the construction of a system of such reasons. In that sense, the PSR may be merely descriptive of the kind of thinking that tends to work for us. Similarly, less abstract propositions (there is garlic in this dish) are indeed true or false. But "the real is rational and the rational is real" is perhaps too ambiguous for the LEM. The LEM itself is perhaps to ambiguous for the LEM. So this "projection upward" is just the taking what may be merely useful prejudices as axioms for the derivation of metaphysical truths.

I think what needs to be understood is the sense in which the 'manifest realm' (the 'ten thousand things' in Chinese terminology), is the domain of phenomena, of existing things. We are conditioned by modern thinking to believe that this is the fundamental real, but no traditional philosophy accepts that. — Wayfarer

I'd say rather that this is the common sense foundation of the real or objective. In Plato's time, I'm guessing most Athenians took boats, swords, and olives to be real. To call these things illusions with respect to something mental or immaterial was a bold challenging of common sense. Indeed, we have no choice to but to treat such objects as necessities and/or threats. Perhaps there's a shift toward taking these 10000 things as the only real things.

I would never have expected that from you. These are the basic attributes of the first cause, they're part of what the term means. — Wayfarer

When you define the fist cause as eternal, and mean by "eternal" a beginningless, or unending time, then the first cause becomes beginningless and uncaused. However, I think that the proper way of defining "eternal", in relation to God, is "outside of time". When God is described in this way, then words such as beginning, and cause, which have a temporal reference are inapplicable. But to say that these words are inapplicable is not the same as saying that there is no cause, or no beginning.

That's what I'm saying - in ancient philosophy the primary distinction was been 'reality and appearance' - the 'ordinary people' (the hoi polloi) were always fooled by appearances - prisoners in the metaphorical cave - whereas the philosopher ascended by reason into a greater reality. Much of the 'mystical Plato' has been redacted out of the modern interpretations.