Bertrand Russell's surprising weakness

I am not a philosopher or a scientist, but a writer and thinker at best. There are many arguments that skeptics make which are challenging to me and my faith, causing me to wrestle with the questions posed.

One of last century's great atheistic intellects was Bertrand Russell. While there are many theistic philosophers whom I would put against Russell in terms of intelligence, I am not one of those.

It is for these reasons and my respect for Russell's mind that I was so shocked at his lecture, "Why I Am Not A Christian" - his very first argument against the existence of God is so weak.

I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. ... 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. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

He should have "wasted" a lot more time on the argument because this one leaves much to be desired, even venturing into the illogical. For someone of Russell's academic stature to simply rehash the old "Who made God" argument is almost embarrassing.

To simply answer the question why the world and not God must have a beginning, I will simply say that you have to stay in the box you start with. The world cannot be eternal because it exists within the realm of the material. It would counteract virtually every law of science to suppose an eternal universe. The laws of thermodynamics shouldn't bend that. Not to mention, the accepted theory of the big bang points to a beginning for the universe.

God would not require a beginning or a cause because He would be, by definition, supernatural and outside of the material realm. If something is supernatural then it would, of course, not be subject to natural laws. Unless Russell is granting a Sagan-like deity status to the universe, he does nothing more than wave at the issue as he drives away into a world of his creation.

It is interesting that he said that our belief in a First Cause was due to the "poverty of our imagination." Is one of the premier atheistic philosophers resorting to an appeal to imagination to move beyond a First Cause? He should not fear, because recently numerous scientists have used little more than "imagination" to argue away from a beginning for the universe.

There have been some interesting and imaginative, if you will, theories that have been bandied about in recent years. None of which approaches any real solution to the problem besides simply throwing other alternatives, no matter how absurd, in the mix.

In looking about the internet in a short period of time, I found several other arguments that supposedly destroy the footing for the First Cause.

Some say that because time began with the universe then the word beginning would have a different meaning and the notion of "cause" would no longer apply before time. This is an absurd word play with no real relevance to the discussion. How you can at the same time argue that time had a beginning, but the universe, which came into existence at the same time, did not? This merely dances around the issue and serves only as a way to muddy the waters.

One of the sillier arguments is that there could be an infinite number of causes, which go back eternally; therefore there is no need for a first cause. This must be where Russell's call for "imagination" must come in. There is no evidence at all for this, merely atheistic wishful thinking. If something requires a cause so that there must be an infinite number of causes, someone or something somewhere had to get the whole thing started.

Others argue that there are things that have had no beginning, no cause. They point to subatomic particles that appear to be moving in random, unexplainable ways. This is where materialists fall into the trap they claim theists dwell - arguing from ignorance. Many skeptics love to point to times when Christians argued that God directly caused things that were at that point in time "unexplainable." The skeptic makes the same mistake here. The particles may appear to move in completely random ways with no causes, but is that true or do we only not know yet what causes the movement. The weight of the scientific evidence lies in the side of a cause. Even if the particles movement is completely random, there is no evidence to suggest the randomness, if it exists, happens anywhere outside the subatomic level. It also does not explain how the universe could have began without a cause.

Another argument is that the First Cause does not have to be God. That is neither here nor there. The First Cause reasoning is not meant as an all-or-nothing expression. It is part of a much larger argument. Simply because the First Cause argument does not require a Christian deity does not mean that either does not exist. The First Cause argument only illustrates that through logic one can find a "creator" or "beginner" of the universe.

But it does establish a First Cause that is consistent with a theistic worldview. By merely establishing a First Cause, we see that the Cause must be supernatural (it is not held by natural laws) and eternal (it existed before everything and does not require a cause). Both of those are true of a theistic God, but it was demonstrated outside of revelatory evidence.

Comments

[seeker]

I'd say his first cause argument is weak. There is no god because first causes must extend infinitely into the past? Wow, I'm on my way to being an atheist with that one ;). NOT.

[Cineaste]

ROFL! Aaron after all that, you're argument against Russell boils down to a bare assertion, "God did it" which is no argument at all.

[Cineaste]

Unless Russell is granting a Sagan-like deity status to the universe...

You mean Spinoza like.

[Aaron]

No, my argument was that Russell's logic against a First Cause is faulty and weak. It doesn't stand up to any rebuttal at all.

A tired "Who made God?" argument that was not even given new window dressing is pretty weak for someone who is supposedly one of the brighest minds.

My argument is not a bare assertion that God did it, but rather the logical conclusion that after examining the facts a First Cause that exists outside of nature must be present for the universe to have come into existence.

Russell gives nothing in this, excepts re-asking a question which has been refuted for ages. You have given better arguments that his, that is not meant to disparage you, but I expected much more from a supposed intellectual heavyweight like Russell. Just as I would hope that you would see my arguments here as the climax of theistic philosophy.

[Aaron]

I didn't gather from his comments that he held to a Spinozian view of the universe, but more of a Carl Sagan "the Cosmos is all that there is and was and every will be" universe.

I don't think he wants to subscribe to either, but he paints himself in a corner with his arguments against a First Cause.

[Cineaste]

I didn't gather from his comments that he held to a Spinozian view of the universe, but more of a Carl Sagan "the Cosmos is all that there is and was and every will be" universe.

Did you click the Spinoza link?

Contrast...

granting a... deity status to the universe

to

Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs as follows:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.

Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.

Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.

Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.

Can you disprove Spinoza's logical proofs?

[Aaron]

I did clink on Spinoza's belief. I will look at it in detail tomorrow, but for now I must say so long to the computer and go home.

[seeker]

Wandering off into the esoteric land of pitting philosophic proofs against one another to prove or disprove God is only useful to those few who (a) have the desire and ability to do so, and (b) who think that such arguments will really resolve the issue.

If we are out in these waters, I'd say no proof either way is really going to do. It comes down to those who limit themselves to reason, and demand such limitations on others, and those who know how to balance healthy faith and reason, science and assumptions, humanistic ethic and divinely revealed morality.

Secularists demand that everyone live wearing their safety helmets because the world of faith is too unpredictable and fraught with the chance of mistakes and abuse. So is love. Too bad for them if they want to live in the bubble of imperfect and sometimes self-decpetive reason. As long as they don't force their fearful little rubric on the rest of us.

[Stewart]

Hey Aaron, I have two responses to your post:

1) It's kind of unseemly to suggest that someone is a greater intellect than yourself, and to then imply that they are lazy and wrong. This entire posts reminds me, ironically, of the old claim that Satan deceives humans by backhandedly complimenting Jesus: "Brilliant teacher and moralist? Of course. Savior? No, no." I mean, it's funny, right? It's such an obvious device, although I'm sure you didn't consciously use it.

2) Russell is not mistaken.

Anything you can claim about the timelessness or non-linear nature of "God" can equally be claimed about the timelessness or non-linear nature of the Universe itself. To posit the existing of a phenomenon that is not bound by the physical passing of time is fine (though totally speculative), but it doesn't require the insertion of an intelligent entity. Whatever you say about God creating the universe from his position outside of space-time, I can say about (if I am so inclined) any other hypothetical, non-linear phenomenon.

You wrote: 'Simply because the First Cause argument does not require a Christian deity does not mean that either does not exist. The First Cause argument only illustrates that through logic one can find a "creator" or "beginner" of the universe.'

This is merely your bias for an intentional creator. Why can't this "beginner" be the Big Bang? Or something else, non-theistic in nature? The only requirement in this argument is generation; there is no requirement for intelligent generation. The argument from a first cause is not a positive argument for the existence of a god. It is merely an attempt to produce an escape from causality, and it does so with an undefended bias for supernatural intelligence.

Additionally, the God-as-a-first-cause argument is absurdly implausible. It's objectively difficult to understand why anyone would be compelled by the argument that there is a timeless, universal, all-powerful entity who created the universe, and who also is jealous, self-centered, and goes through bouts of bitter vengeance. If you are inclined to believe in a "first cause", an unintentional, unintelligent one is far more believable.

[Louis]

Indeed. And, I wonder where this god outside of nature could reside? Where is this supernatural realm anyway? How do we know it exists, and, if it does "exist," what is it? I know I'm being tiresome here, but what evidence do we have that something called the "supernatural" really exists? Beyond the assertions of believers, that is.

There are several different descriptions of this "supernatural" realm extent. Which of them should we believe? Just because we live in a majority Christian culture we are advised to believe that explanation. But why should we? Why not Islamic, or Hindu, or Native American, or Taoist, or Buddhist, or Klingon, or Vulcan, or any other system one could bring to mind? Do any of these provide any evidence at all as to why we should believe them and not others?

This is all really strange to my mind. I seek the Truth. Can anyone provide verifiable evidence as to what the Truth is? Or do you think I should just "believe" under threat of eternal torture? Does anyone anywhere have any evidence that Jesus was God Incarnate, or that Muhammad actually received the Koran from Heaven, or that any of the other numerous myths describe actual events? Why believe one myth over another? Really. I seek a real explanation with real facts and real evidence. Can anyone here provide it? Or am I just once again going to be advised that I just have to believe or else?

It's all so pathetic, especially when I consider how many people have been butchered because of these myths. I think there may be a "spiritual" something (which I call the Mystery to keep it undefined), but I am convince that it doesn't reside in any of the established and organized religions anywhere. For them, I reserve a special contempt.

[Aaron]

It is extremely difficulty to defend and argue against (or for) several issues at one time. I will stick to the topic of the post as leave other questions unanswered for now.

Many of this is battling the same straw man I discussed in the post. I am not saying First Cause nails down that there is a Christian God who loves you and sent His Son to die for your sins.

You are entirely right in that First Cause could be any number of things. Where did I say differently? I'm merely saying that the First Cause argument follows logistically that it must be eternal and supernatural. That is consistent with the Christian God, but is not limited to Him. That was my only point.

As to your assertion that the "Universe" could be eternal, only if it defies the laws of the conservation of energy and only if it can be defined as supernatural. The Big Bang cannot be the ultimate First Cause - what was there to "bang." Where did the material come from that exploded out to create the universe? Something had to be there, unless you want to argue the absurd statement that nothing exploded into everything.

As to my complimenting Russell and then calling him wrong. What should I say? That I think the man is a moron? You leave me with calling him an idiot or agreeing completely with him. That is not a choice I believe I have to make. If I have to make that choice, then surely you have to choose between C.S. Lewis argument of liar, lunatic, Lord.

I think he is a very intelligent man, but I think he came to the wrong conclusions to the important questions of life and I think his answer in this lecture was lazy and sloppy. Can intelligent people not be lazy and sloppy with their reasoning? I believe you and Cineaste have given better arguments than he gives. It was weak, there is no other way around it.

Louis, I think the evidence for Jesus being the incarnate Son of God lies in the resurrection and the aftermath. Of course because that is a supernatural event, it will be dismissed out of hand.

This argument runs in strange circles. Skeptics want supernatural proof that there is a God, but will not accept anything supernatural as evidence because they are skeptical of such claims. Circular reasoning continues to win the day.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

Brief point: you can't sit around arguing about the origins of the Big Bang unless you've got an equally reasonable explanation for where God came from (ie: who were God's parents?). And I know you don't have that.

[Aaron]

Sam, now that is just frustrating. Did you even read my post or any of the comments?

I specifically addressed that issue. That is essentially the weak argument that Russell makes. Who made God is not a question and this post really isn't about verifying there is a god or not, merely a First Cause.

Now, I am not trying to be coy, I believe the First Cause to be the Christian God, but I do not believe proving a First Cause proves the Christian God - only that the First Cause is consistent with the Christian teachings on God.

But to state again the answer to the Who made God meme: You have to stay within the box in which you start. Materialists start in a box that is purely naturalistic in which everything must abide by the natural laws - law of conservation of energy being one. A theist is not confined by that because he believes in the supernatural - something that exists outside of the natural realm, unhindered by natural laws.

So, because God (or simply the First Cause in this case) exists outside of nature - He/it began nature - it is not held to the same laws. The natural must only operate within nature. The supernatural can operate outside of nature. That's what makes it "supernatural."

That's why God doesn't need "parents" or a cause Himself. The First Cause is just that the First Cause. It exists before and outside of the nature that it brought into being. It has to.

[Louis]

The evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead is hearsay at best. It could easily have been manufactured by partisans. The supernatural circumstances surrounding his life could also have easily been manufactured. I note that several other supernatural figures acted in similar ways (including being resurrected), notably Mithra. Why believe the Jesus cult rather than the others? Because his was more successful? Why not believe the Koran?

And how is this "circular reasoning"? I merely ask for straightforward and reasonable evidence and proof beyond mere assertion. I'm open-minded about the supernatural, but I won't accept easy and unsupported explanations.

[Aaron]

I wouldn't ask you to "accept easy and unsupported explanations," but it has to be granted that no one is going to find a YouTube video of the resurrection.

[Stewart]

Aaron, I think we're not really connecting on this argument. You are suggesting that materialists are not allowed to posit a first cause of any kind. This is not a valid argument. One can be a materialist, and still believe that the universe is the product of a previous event, which you would call a "first cause".

The existence of time, as we perceive it, is intrinsically connected to the nature of space and gravity. While it's true that we don't understand how that connection really functions, we know for a fact that the connection exists. Thus, as I suspect you would agree, there is no time outside of the universe. Or if there is time, it is not *our* time.

As a materialist, I do not accept the proposition that there could be supernatural events taking place in this universe. Any event will be explainable (in theory, if not in understood fact) by some physical law. I also believe that the generation of the universe is explainable by some physical law, but I'm not so closed-minded to assume that they are or were the same physical laws that we find ourselves subject to today. In such a way, it's perfectly plausible to imagine that there is some "realm" outside of space-time, from which our current universe was initially spawned.

None of what I just said is contradictory to a naturalistic viewpoint, and none of it points to the existence of an intelligent creator. As we've stated, any intelligent can be replaced (and in our estimation, more plausibly) by an unintelligent phenomenon. The argument from a first cause is simply not a valid argument for any sort of theism, let alone a Christian one.

[seeker]

Where is this supernatural realm anyway?

Perhaps in one of the 11 other dimensions that string theory posits. Maybe in a dimension that we can't measure yet. But if you limit yourself to your own level of understanding, you may reject all sorts of valid phenomenon. Hence the problem with atheism's total reliance on reason.

Why not Islamic, or Hindu, or Native American, or Taoist, or Buddhist, or Klingon, or Vulcan, or any other system one could bring to mind?

Because their faith claims are different, because their fruits are very different, because their historical claims vary in validity, because you can use logic and reason to evaluate them.

Or do you think I should just "believe" under threat of eternal torture?

Absolutely not. That is not belief at all. The real use of such "threats" is to wake people from their stupor to the reality that beliefs have consequences. As the scriptures say, "the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom." Often, due to our hardness, we must be reminded of the consequences so that we wake up. But fear is not an ongoing motivator for the mature person. I don't have time to explain this well, but the threat of consequences is part of telling people the truth.

Why believe one myth over another? Really. I seek a real explanation with real facts and real evidence. Can anyone here provide it? Or am I just once again going to be advised that I just have to believe or else?

You'll have to be more open to what kinds of evidence you accept. For instance, when Jesus says "love your neighbor as you love yourself," do you demand of such a command "why should I? Prove to me that's a good idea?" You'll have to be open to convictions about truth that may extend beyond reason.

I'm sorry for such incomplete answers, have to get back to work.

[Aaron]

Stewart, in attempting to argue for a naturalistic first cause for our universe, you simply push the question further back and farther away.

I have stated why a supernatural First Cause does not need a beginning, how can you explain why a naturalistic does not? You simply push the cause into another "realm."

You have no more proof for your claims than I have of mine. I would say less, but regardless, you must simply trust by "faith" that there is some other something somewhere that would allow natural means to create something that side-steps natural laws.

[Stewart]

Seeker said: 'when Jesus says "love your neighbor as you love yourself," do you demand of such a command "why should I? Prove to me that's a good idea?"'

Of course. There is no imperative statement that can't demand an subsequent, Why? The only reason why you would skip it would be if you already knew the answer. In other words, since there are many compelling reasons to 'love your neighbor', you probably won't need to demand a reason every time it's suggested.

Aaron: I'm not pushing the generation of the universe any further back than you are. Where you proclaim a creator that exists outside of space-time, I suggest the possibility of an unintelligent generator that exists outside of space-time. What you attribute to a god can just as easily be attributed to some kind of unintelligent, natural (albeit non-universal) phenomenon.

And please don't misunderstand me: I'm not promoting any particular theory about the beginning of the universe as we know it. What proof do I need to support my above claims, which you claim I don't provide? My only claim is that the argument from a first cause is not a compelling argument for the existence of a god, let alone a Christian one. I don't much care how it happened, anyway. It is wholly irrelevant to my life. It would only be relevant if accurate knowledge about the origins of the universe had some kind of influence on what happens to me today. And even you, with your specific beliefs about the origin of the universe, don't suggest that's true. After all, whether God created it in six days or twenty, reversed the order, or brought in sub-contractors from Valhalla, your beliefs about Jesus and salvation would remain entirely the same.

[seeker]

since there are many compelling reasons to 'love your neighbor', you probably won't need to demand a reason every time it's suggested.

All right, how about his quote "love your enemies."

[Cineaste]

All right, how about his quote "love your enemies."

There are many things I don't like about Christianity. That quote is what I do like about Christianity. That quote is RADICAL, especially in it's day. To me, that is conclusive evidence Jesus was a hippie.

--------------------------------------------------------
Aaron, I've been thinking about the title of your post, "Bertrand Russell's surprising weakness" a lot. I'll try to sum up where we are now in this conversation then make a comment. The argument goes...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Bertrand Russell dismisses this so easily because, to him and all atheists (Me too), there is a self-contradiction in the argument. One of the premises is that everything needs a cause. But the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks "Who made God?" is really thinking of Bertrand Russell's objection.

The "surprising weakness" theists point out (you too), is that the argument's first premise does not apply to God because He never "began to exist."

Am I correct so far?

Now, my objection to this, and perhaps others here too, is that positing a supernatural God is problematic. Stewart really put this well when he said...

"Anything you can claim about the timelessness or non-linear nature of "God" can equally be claimed about the timelessness or non-linear nature of the Universe itself. To posit the existing of a phenomenon that is not bound by the physical passing of time is fine (though totally speculative), but it doesn't require the insertion of an intelligent entity.

- Stewart

In other words, Spinoza's proofs that "God and Nature were two names for the same reality" must be addressed at this point.

"Whatever you say about God creating the universe from his position outside of space-time, I can say about (if I am so inclined) any other hypothetical, non-linear phenomenon."

- Stewart

"God did it" is not a good argument. I can just as easily and with equal validity say, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (used here to make a point not to mock) did it."

Now, I know you like C.S. Lewis so I'll quote him on this. C.S. Lewis said, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." But you know what? This is not an argument. Yet, this is the sentiment theists use to argue first cause.

[Stewart]

Seeker, I can think of many compelling reasons to love one's enemies. None of those reasons, however, amount to Because Jesus said so. Moreover, if I could not think of compelling reasons, or if such reasons didn't exist, then it would be perfectly valid to ask Why should I?. Surely this answer is no surprise to you.

[Cineaste]

bump