Friday, July 15, 2011

Ed Feser on God' s creation

Ed Feser is my favorite philosopher, except for Aristotle and Aquinas (!).  He is a master of clarity and profundity-- not an easy feat. His books on Thomism and atheism and the mind are among the best I've read.

Feser is a former atheist and now conservative Catholic (you can see why I like him).

Feser on God as Creator:

For the Thomist, to say that God is the First Cause of things is, first and foremost, to say that He is the cause of their existence at every moment at which they do exist. God creates things out of nothing precisely in the act of conserving them in being, and apart from His continual causal action they would instantly be annihilated. You, the computer you are using right now, the floor under your feet, the coffee cup in your hand – for each and every one of these things, God is, you might say, “keeping it real” at every instant. Nor is this causal activity something anything else could either carry out or even play a role in. Creation – which for Aquinas means creation out of nothing – can be the act of God alone.



Where creation is concerned, then, God is “first” cause not in the sense of coming before the second, third, and fourth causes, but rather in the sense of being absolutely fundamental, that apart from which nothing could cause (because nothing could exist) at all. As serious students of the Five Ways know, the sorts of causal series Aquinas traces to God as First Cause are causal series ordered per se, not causal series ordered per accidens. In the former sort of series, every cause other than the first is instrumental, its causal power derived from the first.... But where creation is concerned, Aquinas’s talk of intermediate or instrumental causes is only “for the sake of argument”; his point is that even if there were intermediate causes of the being of things, the series would have to terminate in a First Cause. In fact there is and can be only one Creator and He cannot in principle create through intermediaries. (That is not to say that God does not work through intermediaries in other respects. We’re only talking here about His act of causing the sheer existence of a thing or creating it out of nothing.)

Feser observes that a genuine understanding of God's creative power is utterly inconsistent with Deism. God is the cause of existence here and now, not merely the cause of the Big Bang, etc. He is the ground of existence, and His power of creation is unique; he does not assemble. He brings everything into existence out of nothing, and maintains everything in existence.

This understanding of God's creative power, expressed perhaps most fully by Aquinas, explains the Lord's answer to Moses from the burning bush. When Moses asked God his name, the Lord replied : "I Am."  God is not a "thing". He is not a part of creation. He is Existence Itself.  In Aquinas' words, God's essence is existence.

Feser:
So, while popular images of God as First Cause have Him knocking down the first domino billions of years ago, and while even Aquinas might seem to make of Him the distant terminus of a regress of simultaneous currently operating causes, nothing could be further from the truth. God’s relationship to the world is in Aquinas’s view much more intimate than that, indeed, as intimate as possible. At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. He is, as the Muslims say, “closer than the vein in your neck.”

32 comments:

  1. So why does "existence" constantly need my praise and affirmation? Prayer seems to be more suited to the invisible-old-man idea. These more abstract metaphysical concepts don't play well with Catholicism in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, Ed Feser. The guy who knows an awful lot about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr Egnor,
    Inspiring post. Literally!
    You have inspired me to dust off 'Summa' and give her another twirl. It has been quite a while. Feser I have only read excerpts etc. Hearing such praise will get him on 'the list'. Cheers for that.
    But for now, I will tuck into some Quinque viæ ASAP.

    Anon wrote
    "These more abstract metaphysical concepts don't play well with Catholicism in my opinion."

    Good thing you're not a Catholic then, isn't it? In fact if abstract metaphysical concepts 'don't play well' with you, then naturally you will stick to monistic materialism (IE GNU Atheism)like glue...or perhaps a fly on his favourite supper.
    Anon, what is the " the invisible-old-man idea"?
    I have noted in my many conversations with self professed Atheists (including friends) that there is a great deal of 'daddy' issues/baggage. Is that what I am reading here?
    Is the invisible old man your father/grandfather/uncle/big brother?
    Or do you mean 'God the Father'? If so I find it very interesting you should imagine Him as an invisible old man!
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...sometimes it's your package hanging out.
    Know what I mean, Anon?
    Maybe your beef with the 'Old Man' is the same as the one you have with God, creation, and the wonder that is life.
    But you did ask a question, and I will try to answer it. I must remember, however, to keep it childishly simple - as your understanding of basic Christian thinking(and probably Theism in general) is very prejudiced.
    Anon asked:
    "So why does "existence" constantly need my praise and affirmation? "
    Very simply put, "existence" does not need your praise and affirmation; "existence" just is.
    He does not need your personal adoration, quite the opposite.
    YOU need the 'affirmation'. You need (spiritually, mentally, and physically) to make a bond with "existence".
    You need to organize those feelings and thoughts in your head. The rites of religion are tools by which to to do this. Prayer is an incredibly powerful one.
    You may ask: Okay then, Does God expect and deserve our prayers and praise?
    As a Christian, I believe he does.
    On the other hand if your original question was rhetorical, and you simply observe that nobody seems to be able to tell you why God is, why there is "existence", why prayer, chants, hymns, and even meditations seem to hold so much power, or what death actually is; then you simply expect too much.
    Such concepts cannot simply be spoon fed to you, Anon. They must be experienced. They are experiential. Nobody can tell you what it is like to have and raise children, nobody can tell you what it is like to bury your loved ones. Same kind of thing. No one can explain moments of communion, of deep prayer, of epiphany.
    You have to BE.
    Want to understand religious rites? TRY them.
    Live a righteous life for a while, and see if you want to go back to directionless and selfish futility, victim-hood, and self pity.
    You need to find those answers personally in this journey we all call 'life'.
    Only intellectual laziness or fear can prevent you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon, what is the " the invisible-old-man idea"?

    Does "Father, / hallowed be your name. / Your kingdom come." ring a bell?

    [...] if you want to go back to directionless and selfish futility, victim-hood, and self pity.

    I am not the one begging "and forgive us our sin, / for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us / And lead us not into temptation.". You are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For "anonymous" is a living saint, without sin, completely fulfilled in every important respect. No thirst for Heaven, because this life contains absolutely everything anyone could want, in unspeakable plenitude.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Anonymous:

    [Anonymous said...
    So why does "existence" constantly need my praise and affirmation? Prayer seems to be more suited to the invisible-old-man idea. These more abstract metaphysical concepts don't play well with Catholicism in my opinion]

    You make a good point. The finer details of theology don't necessarily lead to worship or love. Christians don' t love "the ground of existence". We love Christ, who is the ground of existence, the prime mover, etc.

    That love is strengthened through prayer, reading the Bible, reflecting on His mercy and love and decency and courage and humor (all of these qualities become apparent in reading the bible and in prayer). When I think of my sins and of the fact that He died for me even when I was (and still am) a sinner, it gives me chills.

    Love for and worship of God is a personal relationship, similar in some ways to love for one's wife, or kids, etc. If fact, in Catholic theology, the family is the image of God's love.

    Technical theological insight is fascinating, but Christians love and worship God for many reasons, some of them quite personal and emotional. Faith in Christ is a relationship, not a correspondence course. Many if not most Christians throughout history have had little theological learning, but loved God intensely. He has a special love for the humble (Blessed are the poor in spirit... the meek... the merciful..."

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  7. So we both agree that Catholicism is about acknowledging the existence of a higher *being*, referred to as "the Lord", following *his* rules to avert his punishment of eternal torture? Because it seems that Mr. Fraser is talking about something else entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @oleg:

    [Ah, Ed Feser. The guy who knows an awful lot about nothing.]

    Ignorance of philosophy, especially by scientists, is not "nothing". It is a very serious error, capable of causing much damage to our culture.

    Darwinism, which is a deeply ignorant philosophical error, has been a catastrophe for mankind (eugenics, etc). I would call Darwinism a scientific error as well, but it's such a witless scientific theory ('survivors survive because they ... survive) that it's difficult to call it "science".

    It's more a rudimentary philosophical error (materialism) promulgated by people who are too philosophically ignorant to understand that it's hardly even science.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike, you have to follow the link to appreciate the pun.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It bears pointing out that your attempt to summarize of Darwin's theory, ('survivors survive because they ... survive) is a FAIL. Try reading Wikipedia before you post nonsense next time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Anonymous:

    [Anonymous said...
    So we both agree that Catholicism is about acknowledging the existence of a higher *being*, referred to as "the Lord", following *his* rules to avert his punishment of eternal torture? ]

    We all have to follow rules-- try ignoring the law of gravity, and see how happy you are.

    Christian theology does not view hell as "eternal punishment" for rule-breaking. Hell is eternal separation from God because we have chosen it.

    You are not required to "follow all the rules" to spend eternity in God's embrace (heaven). None of us have, or can, follow all the rules. Our salvation is by acceptance of God's sacrifice of Himself on the cross for us.

    Salvation means that you are saved by Another, through no merit of your own, because He loves you that much. Christians try to follow as many of the rules as we can out of love and gratitude.

    Rule-following is not the path to salvation. (St. Paul wrote some very emphatic letters about that). Faith and love for Christ is our salvation. If you go to hell it is because you chose to love your own will rather than love God. He lets you be free, even if it breaks his heart, because he created you in His own image, and He is free.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  12. @oleg:

    [oleg said...
    It bears pointing out that your attempt to summarize of Darwin's theory, ('survivors survive because they ... survive) is a FAIL. Try reading Wikipedia before you post nonsense next time.]

    So you don't think natural selection is a tautology? Cite me an example in biology in which natural selection cannot be invoked?

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1) If god is everything, as Fraser says, how can I be separated from it?

    2) What is this gobbledygook about "God is not a 'thing'". It obviously is. Elementary logic dictates that "The Lord" is The Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Natural selection is not a tautology if you use a proper definition, and not a clumsy creationist version you provided.

    And of course I can point out situations when natural selection does not work. In small populations, genetic drift is much more important.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Anon:

    [Anonymous said...
    1) If god is everything, as Fraser says, how can I be separated from it?]

    I presume you mean Feser, not "Fraser". God is not 'everything'. He isn't a "thing" at all. He is the "ground" of all things. In Thomist terms, His essence (what He is) is existence. Aquinas pointed out that our understanding of God must necessarily be by analogy, because He transcends our language.

    [2) What is this gobbledygook about "God is not a 'thing'". It obviously is. Elementary logic dictates that "The Lord" is The Lord.]

    Analogy again. We speak of Him in some ways as if He were part of creation, but we do so because that is the only way we can try to understand Him. He transcends our categories.

    The Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity makes understanding Him easier, because He became flesh. He humbled Himself to take our form, out of love for us and to save us.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  17. @oleg:


    [Natural selection is not a tautology if you use a proper definition, and not a clumsy creationist version you provided.]

    Oh, gee, I must have missed the "proper" definition. What is it?

    [And of course I can point out situations when natural selection does not work. In small populations, genetic drift is much more important.]

    Survivors survive, whether you call it drift, or selection, or whatever. "Drift" implies that the trait didn't aid reproduction. But how do you know that? You speculate. The only thing certain is that... survivors survive.

    Real scientific theories postulate an intrinsically highly improbable natural occurrence that turns out to be true. Newton's inverse square law of gravitation turns out to be true, but it wasn't logically necessarily. It could have been inverse cube, or directly proportional, or whatever.

    Natural selection is logically necessary (a tautology), so it's scientific usefulness is minimal. It's like the discovery that 'heat is hot'. True, for sure, but hardly science.

    Philosopher Jerry Fodor (http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/0374288798) pointed out the weakness of Darwinian "science". I point out that Fodor is an atheist, but Darwinian b.s. is even too much for him.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  18. You can't see a difference between natural selection and genetic drift? Then better stick to abortion and internecine squabbles between evolutionists. That is so much easier!

    And how are our friends Aristotle and Heisenberg doing? Any chance we hear from them in the near future?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @oleg:

    [You can't see a difference between natural selection and genetic drift?]

    Sure I see the difference. Genetic drift is when survivors survive because of factors other than the posited genetic variation, and natural selection is when survivors survive because of the posited genetic variation.

    Because a complete understanding of factors determining survival is impossible, the difference between genetic drift and selction is merely the biologists hypothesis about the selection pressure (or lack) on a particular mutation.

    The biologist's hypothesis is a story, like a just-so-story, speculating whether a mutation in gene x influenced survival or not.

    The fact that the science reduces to a just-so-story is what makes it evolutionary biology.

    I love stories. Don't you?

    [Then better stick to abortion and internecine squabbles between evolutionists. That is so much easier!]

    I don't blog much on internecine squabbles between evolutionists. They give me headaches.

    [And how are our friends Aristotle and Heisenberg doing? Any chance we hear from them in the near future?]

    When I can. Read Feser yet?

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sure I see the difference. Genetic drift is when survivors survive because of factors other than the posited genetic variation, and natural selection is when survivors survive because of the posited genetic variation.

    * Facepalm *

    Genetic variation happens in both cases. Try again, Mike.

    Because a complete understanding of factors determining survival is impossible, the difference between genetic drift and selection is merely the biologists hypothesis about the selection pressure (or lack) on a particular mutation.

    You need not have a complete theory to test its predictions. This happens in any science. (Quarks were found on the basis of an incomplete theory that only defined their symmetry properties. Quantum chromodynamics, detailing their interactions, came later.)

    We know enough about natural selection and genetic drift to say that the former dominates in large populations and the latter in small ones. There is excellent quantitative theory of these effects. These claims are empirically testable.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @oleg:

    [Genetic variation happens in both cases. Try again, Mike.]

    That's what I said. Read it again. What I said is that genetic drift occurs when the genetic variation does not influence survival (that's the definition of genetic drift), and natural selection occurs when genetic variation does influence survival (that's the definition of natural selection).

    The diffuculty is that in both scenarios... survivors survived. Traits 'acquired' be genetic drift and traits 'acquired' by natural selection are indistinguishable, except for the biologists' speculation about the trait influenced survival.

    That speculation generally takes the form of a just-so-story, perhaps true, perhaps not, always speculation.

    [You need not have a complete theory to test its predictions. This happens in any science.]

    Right. The problem with Darwinian 'science' is that it doesn't explain anything. The trait is the same whether it is preserved by drift or selection. The process by which it is preserved is always the same as well-- the organism survived.

    The 'contribution' from the evolutionary biologist is 'why' the organism survived-- because of the trait (selection) or not because of the trait (drift).

    However, the 'why' of survival is a very deep question, almost a metaphysical question, which leads to all kinds of fanciful speculation, clever stories, just-so-stories, etc.

    In the end, the evolutionary story contributes nothing of real value to understanding the trait.

    The evolutionary story becomes a narrative gloss, in Phil Skell's deathless phrase.

    [We know enough about natural selection and genetic drift to say that the former dominates in large populations and the latter in small ones. There is excellent quantitative theory of these effects. These claims are empirically testable.]

    Bullsh*t. This is a risible example of evolutionary biology's exaggeration of it's own profundity. The distinction between a trait that is 'neutral' and the exact trait that is 'selected' is merely the biologists' guess as to whether it influenced survival. The 'quantification' of evolutionary theory is the post-hoc application of a mathematical model to these speculative guesses, and the mathematics has no more meaning than the guesses fed into it. GIGO.

    Pretentious cr*p.

    Try this, oleg (I presume that you're a physicist of some sort): try telling your hard science colleagues that physics is as well-tested as Darwin's theory. You'll get laughed out of the room.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  22. I presume you mean Feser, not "Fraser". God is not 'everything'. He isn't a "thing" at all. He is the "ground" of all things. In Thomist terms, His essence (what He is) is existence. Aquinas pointed out that our understanding of God must necessarily be by analogy, because He transcends our language.


    Fair enough. Admitting that you cannot put your point across because language doesn't allow it is a valid way to end the conversation, but you have to acknowledge that it isn't very convincing. Also one has to wonder about the point of blogging about it is then.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Anon:

    [Fair enough. Admitting that you cannot put your point across because language doesn't allow it is a valid way to end the conversation, but you have to acknowledge that it isn't very convincing.]

    I'm just telling you the truth. Why would you imagine that the fundamental reality of existence would be something we can describe completely by ordinary language? As Aquinas points out, a logical understanding of the Prime Mover demonstrates that the Ultimate Reality must be Something that transcends ordinary experience.

    [Also one has to wonder about the point of blogging about it is then]

    To make these truths known, and to discuss them. There is much we can know about God by analogy; direct knowledge of Him will have to wait.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Anon:

    And of course, if you really want to know about God, reading theology is just one way, and not the best.

    The best way to know about Him is to get on your knees, and ask Him.

    You must never forget that when you deal with God, you are dealing with a Person, not a concept. He longs for us to know Him, and will reveal Himself, on sincere request.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  25. The only thing that would prevent Natural Selection from being a tautology would be the ability to calculate/measure "fitness" without reference to "survival" (understood as a synonym for "reproduction"). Otherwise one is stuck with the following:

    "The fittest survive!"

    "And how, precisely, do you measure or calculate fitness?"

    "By seeing who survives!"

    "Ahhh. So the survivors survive. I already knew that."

    Darwinism is the only [alleged] scientific theory that cannot place a quantifiable absolute number on its main parameter.

    Entropy? Calculable. The universal gravitational constant? Measurable. Planck's constant? Measurable. The permitivity of the vacuum? Measurable.

    Fitness? Not so much.

    And the "s" parameter of population genetics doesn't count, since it's an entirely relative theoretical-only measure that assumes some sort of lucky mutation somehow arrived and miraculously has enough positive effect to lift survivability out of mere random noise (Cue atheist shouting about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, in which 's' has nothing whatsoever to do with improved functioning, but only to do with the lucky fact that particular malfunctions result in survival; hardly an argument for the building up of biological systems from simpler percursors).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Matteo, you are demonstrably wrong.

    In 1811, Avogadro proposed that equal volumes of gas contained equal numbers of molecules. There was no way to either measure or calculate Avogadro's number at the time. The first estimate was provided by Loschmidt in 1865 and was off by more than a factor of 10. But even though molecules could not be counted, the kinetic theory of gases was a success. There were experimentally verifiable consequences, and they were checked.

    This is of course not the only example.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So within about 50 years they were within an order of magnitude on an important physical quantity. Not bad. It's amazing what progress a genuine science can make.

    And after 150 years we have (?) for absolute fitness measured independently (and therefore non-tautologically) of simple observation of survival.

    Just how many orders of magnitude is (?) from the correct number?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Matteo,

    The atomic hypothesis did not begin with Avogadro. As a philosophical concept, it can be traced to ancient Greece. The idea has remained undeveloped for centuries, until quantitative experiments could be performed.

    Biology was a qualitative science for quite a while. Don't worry, however. Quantitative biology is here. People work with the concept of fitness both theoretically and experimentally. Find yourself some other bone to pick.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So perhaps in a couple of thousand years we'll have a good, solid, calculated, non-tautological measure of fitness.

    Thanks for the timetable.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Matteo,

    Who imposes an arbitrary time limit on science?

    Take the universal gravitaional constant G you mentioned above. It was introduced by Newton in 1686 and measured experimentally only in 1798, more than a hundred years later.

    You are completely off base on this.

    And on the subject of fitness? It is wrong to say that it cannot be measured independently of the survival. Here is one work in which it was done.

    Y. Hayashi et al., "Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space," PLoS ONE 1, e96 (2006); doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000096.

    ReplyDelete
  31. oleg, do you think natural selection is some sort of cause with effects?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Astounding!
    Anon's "invisible old man" is supposed to be God.
    Now it can be honestly written that I know of several 10 year old children with a deeper grasp of the non-material. No wonder you fail to come to grips with implications of design. Could it be that I actually own CD's older than you? Or are you just playing the dunce and looking for angry blunders?

    in response to my characterizing a materialist lifestyle as one of " selfish futility, victim-hood, and self pity', Anon continued with:
    :"I am not the one begging "and forgive us our sin, / for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us / And lead us not into temptation.". You are."
    Well 50% for effort. I do say this prayer, you correct. Every day. At least once. BILLIONS do.
    But to the 'substance' of your comparison. Asking for forgiveness is selfish futility? Forgiving other's debts and grievances is victim-hood? Avoidance of evil and temptation is self pity?Devil's Advocate indeed! Let's just hope he doesn't tip to generously.  Perhaps, you may protest,  it was some other comparison you sought to draw? So asking for forgiveness is self pity, or victim-hood? Mix and match all you want: They are all just as absurd.
    How does a section in a prayer equate to any of the above mentioned materialistic mainstays? Atonement/Penance is about introspection and communion with the Creator. Forgiving (debt and/OR transgressions) is an altruism intended to fulfil AND the Grace of God, the Creator. Being delivered from Evil and Temptation have to do with free choice and the will to be good. These concepts may seem obscure to the materialist mentality, but they are quite obvious to any open, properly developed mind.
    Anon, would you consider for a moment that you may be all wrong about this? Consider: The prayer, and the billions who say it everyday have meaning and purpose.
    If they are right (unprovable either way under your terms), could it simply be that you are too prideful to say sorry? Or perhaps too envious of those who are not, and who do repent,  to see clearly on these issues?
    Or maybe you are just too greedy to give up your vices (and thus be able to honestly repent), or too slothful (lazy/slow) to be bothered learning the truth? Or ALL of the above?
    If by recognizing these sins (you would call flaws) and coming to grips with them (through the contemplations and prayer) you could make better your life and the life of your family, why wouldn't you?
    Don't give me some song and dance about 'truth', you side with moral relativity and evolutionary psychology. There is no objective and we are all deluded in that dogma, so leave 'truth' to those who believe in it.
    No I think I have a better scientific explanation that 'truth' for this uniquely dense line of attack on the Lord's Prayer! In modern terms,  it could be you are suffering from metaphysical ego complex, combined with existentialist 'sour grapes', an addictive personality, theological apathy/malaise, and an obsessive compulsion towards 19th century biological theories.
    Could we get a tautology on the development of these syndromes / disorders? Maybe we could even find 'the gene'!
    You have some important 'wires crossed' (materialist translation for you), friend. You may need to 'defrag' that C drive of yours.


    Matteo does an excellent job of exposing the promissory materialist doctrine of GNU Atheism. Science will 'come one day' that will 'fill the gaps'. It's an abyss, actually. In a matter of 3 comments it becomes quite clear that Oleg believes in 'Atheism of the Gaps'. Keep those fingers crossed, Oleg. 

    ReplyDelete