Infinite Regress is a Slippery Slope

Last updated on: December 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm by Leah Libresco

Infinite Regress is a Slippery Slope 2012-12-21T14:57:54-05:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A friend of mine, who blogs sporadically as Squelchtoad, had a great response to the NYT review of Krauss’s book A Universe from Nothing that I mentioned in the recent neuroscience post. I’m excerpting Squelchtoad’s commentary, but you should hop over and read the brief piece yourself:

But it occurs to me that the Albert riposte to Lawrence Krauss might also work at least for the more naïve versions of that theological argument. What does it mean for God to be a “necessary being”? Well, some old school theologians would have said it meant He was logically necessary. That is, the proposition “God does not exist” is actually logically impossible. But there’s an Albert Problem: Why are there laws of logic? Aren’t they themselves “something rather than nothing?”

If showing that “God exists” is a necessary proposition within a given logic is enough to prove that God actually exists, the logic itself, it seems to me, must actually exist in some sense akin to the way that the laws of quantum physics exist. This brings us back into Albert territory. The logic is a “something” that really exists rather than “nothing.” Why is there that logic rather than nothing?

…At this point the theologian, I think, is forced to throw up his hands and point out that I can’t ask a “why?” question about things like logic and/or metaphysics, the existence of which are a precondition for causation. Fair enough. But then “Why is there something rather than nothing?” suddenly seems a whole lot less coherent a question overall, so long as the logic and metaphysics are taken to be part of the something.

“Uncaused first cause” is starting to sound like a much better answer than “necessary being.” The theologian may just have to accept that he can’t explain why God exists (uncaused), just that He does. Frankly, I think that ought to be enough. That said, it’s also why I don’t find the “Why is there anything?” argument to be convincing argument for theism. I fail to see how answering “Why is there anything at all?” with “(My specific) God is a brute fact” should be any more persuasive than answering it with “the universe and its laws are brute facts.”

I endorse pretty much all of Squelchtoad’s piece (that’s why I couldn’t resist grabbing such a long pull-quote. Whether theist or atheist, everyone has to bite the bullet at a certain point and accept something without proof or cause. We seem to (mostly) have consensus on some of these things (causality, the existence of matter, the existence of other minds) and diverge radically on others.

Acknowledging this fact doesn’t compel us to throw up our hands and let everyone assert whatever First Cause and knock-on effects that suits them. If you assert a brute fact that isn’t meant as a solution to a problem like the origin of matter or the existence of moral law, there’s no way to contradict you, but your assertion is almost too boring to merit response.

People have proposed a number of different First Cause problem, so we can compare them and try and see if some seem better constructed that others or if (fingers crossed) a couple actually pay rent beyond the problem they were constructed to solve.

If none of them seem better than any other, then you may try just naming the thing you don’t know “First Cause.” But if that seems like cowardice disguised as epistemological modesty, then you have to decide if and when it’s better to choose a solution instead of holding your beliefs in abeyance.

Epistemology/Philosophy

dealing with uncertainty

talkback

Previous Post

April 3, 2012

Heaven Can Wait (in your debate arsenal)

Next Post

April 4, 2012 Evangelicals Pitching Skepticism?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul tell the Philippians to work out with fear and trembling?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Your faith Your calling Your ministry Your salvation