Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 10-18-2002, 06:44 AM

Hi all,

I was wondering where to fit this thread, but I've been reading Peacocke's book "Paths from Science towards God" and am not sure how to classify his argument. He writes:

Quote:

The best explanation to be inferred from the existence of the world and the fundamental laws of physics which it instantiates is that the whole process, with all its emerging entities, is grounded in some other reality which is the source of its actual existence. Such a reality cannot but be, by definition, ultimate - it must be self-existent, the only reality with the source of its being in itself, the Ground of Being. It is not a 'cause' in the scientifically observed nexus of events, for that would lead to the notorious infinite regress of causes and events ad infinitum. The 'mystery of existence' thus points to an Ultimate Reality (the capitals denote its uniqueness) which in some sense gives existence to all-that-is - the words 'strain, crack, and sometimes break, under the burden' of striving to express and refer to such a Transcendent. That such an Ultimate Reality is and was and always will be is, I am urging, the best explanation of the very existence of all-that-is. This Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to all matter-energy-space-time in their manifold forms. (pp.39-40)

Peacocke, A. 2001, Paths from Science towards God: The End of all our Exploring Oneworld Publications.

All emphases are his own, and the quote is from T.S. Eliot's Burnt Norton. He does seem a bit mystical and new age, but is in fact a biochemist and Christian theologian. What I'm wondering, is firstly, what class of argument is it, and secondly, why is his "Ultimate Reality" not a cause? He asserts that it isn't but doesn't give any explanations. I haven't found any rebuttals in the II library, but this book did win the 2001 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, so I'm assuming it's an important theistic argument. Anyone encountered this argument before?

sir drinks-a-lot · 10-18-2002, 09:33 AM

It seems like a weak argument that need to be fleshed out a bit. It is almost as if he is being deliberately vague at times to avoid making statements that can be discredited.

As for why his Ultimate Reality is not a cause, it is simply beacuse "that would lead to the notorious infinite regress of causes and events ad infinitum." So, to avoid all that, he just says "it's not a cause."

It doesn't seem to interesting based on the quote you've provided. How is the rest of the book?

Jobar · 10-19-2002, 10:31 AM

Has all my arguing pantheism with ReasonableDoubt been in vain? Try thinking of cause/effect as the two poles of a unity. How do you describe that unity? What do we call it?

See how the words "strain and break"? He's saying that language cannot contain reality. It's the other way around. The universe contains words, but words cannot contain the universe.

B. H. Manners · 10-20-2002, 08:14 PM

See how the words "strain and break"? He's saying that language cannot contain reality. It's the other way around. The universe contains words, but words cannot contain the universe.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Correct

Celsus · 10-21-2002, 06:01 AM

sir drinks-a-lot wrote:

Quote:

It doesn't seem to interesting based on the quote you've provided. How is the rest of the book?

Not sure yet, still reading it. He adopts a very specific (and sometimes redundant) self-invented jargon. He doesn't refer to the universe, he refers to "all-that-is", and we've already seen terms like "Ground-of-being" and "Ultimate Reality". Perhaps he hopes to set up a new toy franchise. He is a liberal Christian, i.e. he accepts evolution, does not believe in Biblical inerrancy, etc.

The problem is that on this fairly flimsy assertion that I quoted, he then goes on to explain why his "Ultimate Reality" should be omniscient, omnipotent (as long as it is logically possible), omnipresent, personal, etc. All the expected Christian traits of God.

Jobar wrote:

Quote:

Has all my arguing pantheism with ReasonableDoubt been in vain? Try thinking of cause/effect as the two poles of a unity. How do you describe that unity? What do we call it?

Sorry, I don't frequent this board much. Is the answer to your question "praxis"? Not quite sure what you mean.

As for Peacocke, he's quite interesting in that he valiantly defends evolution (he's one of the critics in Robert Pennock's book Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, then comes up with this sort of argument from assertions or something. He says he's using the IBE (inference to the best explanation) method of deduction, and seems quite concerned with getting theism to withstand the postmodernist challenge the same way that science has.

I think (based on what I've read so far) that he is a panentheist i.e. the universe is part of God, but God is more than the universe. That still doesn't seem to solve the infinite regress of causes problem. Perhaps Jobar is banging his head against the wall right now.

After all, the starting part of the bit I quoted is:

Quote:

The best explanation to be inferred from the existence of the world and the fundamental laws of physics which it instantiates is that the whole process, with all its emerging entities, is grounded in some other reality which is the source of its actual existence.

and we could substitute our own words into:

Quote:

The best explanation to be inferred from the existence of the Ultimate Reality and the fundamental characteristics which it instantiates is that the whole process, with all its emerging entities, is grounded in some other reality which is the source of its actual existence.

And we are back to the infinite regress.

If anyone's interested, this is the part that follows after the OP quote:

Quote:

But what this Other, this Ultimate Reality, is is bound to be inexpressible and of a nature that, by definition, can be referred to only by metaphor, model, analogy and extrapolation.

Philosophical enquiry has unpacked further the implications of postulating the existence of this Ultimate Realiy that is the source of all being and to which IBE, when applied to all-that-is, has led us. To be a coherent notion, there can only be one such Ultimate Reality, for the universe discovered by the sciences is an interlocking network of multifarious entities universally related by the same regularities and laws - it is indeed one world. Furthermore, if the putative Ultimate Reality were itself multiple and divisible into separate realities, we would be bound to ask the origin of this multiplicity, for it would not then be ultimate. All entities, structures and processes in the world, including humanity, are too interlocked - mutually and reciprocally linked and subject to common laws - for any proposal that there is a multiplicity of originating realities to be feasible or coherent.

A major assumption he makes is that the universe is rational. He does admit that sometimes it is counter-intuitive, but then he never really notices how that might be a problem for his theism based entirely on IBE.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 09:33 AM	#2
sir drinks-a-lot Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 665	It seems like a weak argument that need to be fleshed out a bit. It is almost as if he is being deliberately vague at times to avoid making statements that can be discredited. As for why his Ultimate Reality is not a cause, it is simply beacuse "that would lead to the notorious infinite regress of causes and events ad infinitum." So, to avoid all that, he just says "it's not a cause." It doesn't seem to interesting based on the quote you've provided. How is the rest of the book?

10-19-2002, 10:31 AM	#3
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Has all my arguing pantheism with ReasonableDoubt been in vain? Try thinking of cause/effect as the two poles of a unity. How do you describe that unity? What do we call it? See how the words "strain and break"? He's saying that language cannot contain reality. It's the other way around. The universe contains words, but words cannot contain the universe.

10-20-2002, 08:14 PM	#4
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	See how the words "strain and break"? He's saying that language cannot contain reality. It's the other way around. The universe contains words, but words cannot contain the universe.[/QB][/QUOTE] Correct

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.