Can We Rule Out Causality?
In this age of progressive scepticism, some scientists and philosophers have expressed scepticism concerning the Causal Principle - 'whatever begins to exist has a cause’ In particular, they have objected that, even if the Causal Principle applies to things within the universe, it might not apply to the universe entirely or it may not hold with respect to the beginning of the universe. This generates a number of doubts like -
Q. Can The Universe Begin To Exist Uncaused ?
Q. Can Something Come Into Existence From Nothing By Nothing?
Q. Does Causality Apply Outside The Universe?
Scepticism towards the Causal Principle opens the door way for atheists to deny a band of arguments for God that rely on causality. This form of scepticism seems to be trending within atheists/naturalists circles, However is this scepticism valid? Can causality be denied? Do we have arguments to confirm the Causal Principle?
Lets Explore ->
Before sowing the seeds one must first cultivate fertile soil
Just like a farmer has to cultivate fertile soil before sowing the seeds, we must first cultivate fertile grounds by removing all the misconceptions against the causal principle and then present our case.
•Beyond Arrangements -
The causal principle - 'whatever begins to exist has a cause’ applies not only to arrangements but things beyond arrangements too. 'Whatever' refers to all that exists regardless of whether they are things, events, substances, states of affairs or arrangements [1].
•A First Principle Of Metaphysics -
The Causal Principle is a metaphysical principle rather than a law of nature
The philosopher William Lane Craig addresses a trendy but invalid form of skepticism towards the causal principle - "These people [skeptics] tend to be very scientistic in their thinking rather than philosophical. And they think of the causal principle as sort of physical principle akin to say the laws of ideal gasses, the laws of thermodynamics that only apply in and to the universe. They don't understand that the causal principle is a metaphysical principle that applies to being as such and therefore if the universe came into being it's metaphysically impossible that being can arise from non-being... So there is just a fundamental category mistake on the part of these folks in thinking of the causal principle as akin to a law of nature rather than to a first principle of metaphysics." [2]
Henceforth considering the causal principle as a law of nature is a categorical error.
•Science Cannot Rule Out The Causal Principle -
Some skeptics attempt to use particular models within the scientific discipline as exemplar cases to deny the causal principle, however it's important to note before moving further that there is nothing in Big bang cosmology or quantum mechanics that directly entails one to deny or restrict the causal principle from a metaphysical standpoint. Additionally philosophers and scientists even admit that the scientific data at hand is quite underdetermined so far. Henceforth any hasty leaps made using a particular theory is not justified.
None of the current proposals of physical cosmology concerning what happened before the Big Bang are proven given that we do not currently have a well-established verified theory of quantum gravity, without which these proposals are 'strongly speculative, none being based solidly in well-founded and tested physics' [3] (Ellis 2007)
"Contemporary physics (by itself) does not provide a complete description of reality and is not able to rule out a cause or a beginning." - Andrew Loke [4]
The Scientific enterprise itself has to presuppose causal relations, however since the scientific enterprise is limited to observations at hand[5], the scientific enterprise only acknowledges those casual explanations that are within its observations, scope of discovery and methodology (for instance: material causes). Nevertheless there are other casual explanations and relations that remain out of the bounds of the scientific corpus (for instance causal explanations from volition).
The philosopher Andrew Loke highlights this limitation within scientific models - “scientific theories, in their attempts to explain a connected sequence of phenomena by postulating an entity as a cause, face the difficulty that there may be other underlying causes for these phenomena which have not yet been discovered. While causes are necessary conditions for an event, many of them are yet unknown to us, and it is quite impossible for us to state all of them that would be sufficient for an event to obtain. In this way, scientific theories are underdetermined by the observations that purportedly supported them, and other theories for these observations remain possible Given that there may be undiscovered causes for the phenomena we observe, science can never prove that the laws of logic can be violated or that something began to exist uncaused;” [6] (Loke 2022) Henceforth he asserts that “fundamental physics does not exclude efficient causation, and quantum physics has not shown that the Causal Principle is violated…” [7] (Loke 2022)
•Innate Concept Of Causality -
1.The innate concept of causality within us affirms the causal principle.
The position ‘any beginning must have a cause’ is natural and intuitive. Moreover the innate notion of causality does not depend on arguments or evidence, rather this concept is non-inferential and untaught. (Untaught: Not based on information transfer. They are not acquired via information external to your introspection and senses. In other words, they are not learnt via acquiring knowledge.)
A number of psychologists & cognitive scientists conclude that the innate sense of causality emerges naturally since infancy. This conclusion is backed up by a number of studies.
For instance a study by Leslie and Keeble’s (1987) observed that young infants appeared to be to be sensitive to causal roles. This led Leslie and colleagues to conclude (1) that infants perceive causality, and (2) that causal perception may be realized via an innate and possibly modular process in the visual system (see also Leslie, 1986, Leslie, 1988). Leslie and colleagues argue that the notion of causation is rooted in an innate, domain-specific visual module—an “automatic starting engine” that operates “automatically and incorrigibly upon the spatiotemporal properties of events yet producing abstract descriptions of their causal structure” (Leslie, 1988, pp, 186–187, 194).
The journal article - “Perceptual causality in children” By Anne Schlottmann Deborah Allen, Caring Linderoth and Sarah Hesketh affirmed that children can perceive causal structures. - "Even infants in the first year of life are sensitive to causal structure in both contact and no-contact events...These results agree with the view that perceptual causality is available early in development."
Research conducted by Paul Muentener and Laura Schulz (2014) titled- ‘Toddlers infer unobserved causes for spontaneous events’ concluded - “Thus 2-year-olds appear to infer that physical events have causes, and both accept and search for plausible candidate causes of events, even in the absence of covariation cues linking candidate causes and effects…Just as infants may have innate domain specific knowledge about objects and their physical interactions and agents and their goal-directed actions (Spelke and Kinzler, 2007; Carey, 2009), the belief that all events have causes may be part of infants’ core causal knowledge, integrating information across domains and guiding the development of intuitive theories in early childhood.” They posit that the belief in ‘all events having causes’ is natural in infants and further postulate that this also applies to unexplained events. Infants have a default expectation that unexplained events also have causes. “Experiment 4 provides suggestive evidence that toddlers’ belief that unexplained events have causes might guide toddlers’ exploration and discovery of genuinely novel causal mechanisms. Given that physical contact has been shown to facilitate infants’ causal reasoning (Leslie, 1982; Cohen and Amsel, 1998) and appears to be a default expectation in children’s causal reasoning (Kushnir and Gopnik, 2007)”
The academic Olivera Petrovich in her book “Natural-Theological Understanding from Childhood to Adulthood” asserts that - “There is, however, some indirect evidence from research on children's understanding of the origins of natural entities that the may well have ideas about origin in the first or ultimate sense and engage in speculating about the nature of its cause. One source of such evidence is the research on children's teleological understanding (Kelemen, 1999a,b) and the other is that involving their ideas about the origin of species (Evans, 2000):" This implies that children can take their understanding of causal order to an ultimate sense, speculating about the first cause or the ultimate cause. The nature of the ultimate cause however is not restricted to natural causes as psychologist Justin Barrett affirms in his book ‘Born Believers’ 2012 - "The origins of the universe, the laws of nature, the diversity of plants, the whims of the weather, success at raising crops or finding enough food, and many other matters fall outside full human control. Attributing the cause (or blame) for a great many events or conditions to gods or a God strikes many adults as reasonable. But do babies have the same tendency? Do young children look beyond human activity for the causes of what they see around them? Increasingly, evidence from developmental psychology suggests that the answer is yes."
2.Causality is fundamental to human thought and experience
A number of philosophers argue that causality is not a concept derived from experience rather causality is crucial to make sense of experience itself.
“Causality is a priori; knowledge prior to experience. It is a metaphysical concept, that is required in order for us to understand our experiences in the first place. We bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Without causality, we would not be able to have a meaningful understanding of the world.” [8]
Moreover causality is fundamental to human thought and a necessary component of rational thinking. [9]
In conclusion causality is a basic belief
Philosophers consider the law of causality to be in the category of properly basic beliefs. Properly basic beliefs are those bedrock beliefs that need no evidence to support them and upon which our other beliefs must rest.
For instance beliefs like •The reality of the past. •The validity of our reasoning. •The existence of other minds. •The existence of an external world. Etc These are beliefs that need no evidence to support them and upon which our other beliefs must rest.
Note - If the casual principle stems from the category of properly basic beliefs instead of our experiences, then it makes no sense to treat the principle like a law of nature i.e. applying those epistemic standards that can be applied to a law of nature.
•The Causal Principle As A Universal Axiom -
The causal principle is a universal axiom based on our innate notion of causality. The universality of the causal principle can be seen as far back as human recorded history exists. For instance, the ancient philosopher Plato in "Timaeus", c. 360 BC affirms - “everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause."
My colleague Yusuf Ponders summarizes this point concisely - "The scientific method is using this as an axiom, like you have to assume causality in order to go out and explore the world and try to understand it... like everyone's experience in the world is inline with that premise and not just today but as far back as recorded history is that people understand that if 'things begin to exist' that they have causes, that things don't just pop into existence out of nothing...” [10]
The causal principle is universally applied and any ad hoc restriction forced on this principle would require strong justification.
The philosopher Joshua Rasmussen asserts “a universal principle is simpler (and hence, intrinsically more likely) than competing, restricted ones…. So, if we are to restrict a principle, then we will need some reason to restrict the principle. Otherwise, we multiply restrictions beyond necessity.” [11] This implies that a universal principle receives some form of preference over any restricted one because of its simplicity and intrinsically likeliness.
A note for skeptics on ‘who shoulders the burden of proof’ -
Considering the aforementioned points, one can conclude: its not necessary to prove this universal metaphysical principle as one is justified in accepting it as an axiom without any evidence. However a denial or restriction of this principle would require strong evidence. In other words this principle is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.
The default position is the acceptance of this principle rather than a sceptical attitude towards this principle. This also implies that a sceptical attitude towards this position would itself require some justification on the part of the skeptics. So the right question isn't what is the evidence for the causal principle? But what evidence do skeptics have to reject or restrict the causal principle?
•Causality & Time -
Some skeptics assume that causality always has to occur prior in effect in time,
Therefore In absence of time, there is no cause or effect. However first and foremost this alleged restriction would require some proof and justification. Secondly this assumption is invalid as its not necessary that causality has to occur in a temporal setting, we can demonstrate many examples of when a cause and effect occur at the same moment in time.
For instance if you sit on a cushion and the sitting on the cushion causes the indentation of the cushion. This effect occurs simultaneous with the cause. In other words when you sit on a cushion and the cushion depresses, that effect occurred at the same moment as the cause. In this example the cause and affect occurred simultaneously.
We can use another example to show that cause and effect can occur even when time is not a factor.
Imagine an eternal ball on an eternal pillow. The ball causes the indentation of the pillow, but the cause (ball) does not come before the effect (indentation in the pillow); as time is not a factor due to the eternality of the objects [12]. This type of causation is atemporal. On that account it is rationally plausible to assert that causality is not necessarily restricted to a temporal setting and the notion that causality only makes sense with time is unjustified.
Some skeptics maintain that since time began at the Big Bang, we cannot claim something caused the universe because there was no ‘before’ at the beginning of the Big Bang. However this objection can be challenged in a number of ways. [13] 1) One could demonstrate that the base assumption (causality cannot make sense outside of time) within this assertion is invalid and therefore the assertion fails. 2) One could argue that the universe and its cause occurred at the same time. For instance It could be that the moment God brought the universe into existence was the moment the universe came into being. This type of causation is atemporal. This means that the cause (in this case, God’s will and power) occurred prior causally but not prior temporally (in time). The cause and affect occurred simultaneously. 3) The postulation assumes there is a consensus on the notion of time in science. However There are different notions of time in quantum mechanics and general relativity. To assume that there is one conception of time misrepresents the literature. 4) One could argue that the above assertion has no proof, and without proof its not sufficient enough to impose any restriction on the causal principle.
•Theories Of Time & The Causal Principle -
Skeptics can argue that the phrase ‘begins to exist’ in the causal principle cannot make sense in the b theory of time, however ‘beginning to exist’ can be defined in terms of ‘temporal extension’ and ‘boundary’, this definition is compatible with both static (b) and dynamic (a) theories of time. Therefore the causal principle is not ruled out in the b theory of time.
“something has a beginning if it has a temporal extension, the extension is finite, and it has temporal edges/boundaries, that is, it does not have a static closed loop or a changeless/timeless phase that avoids an edge.” [14] For further elucidation refer - (Loke 22, P 39-46)
•God & The Causal Principle -
God in Islam is considered to be an eternal being (always existing/ever lasting) and without a beginning. The causal principle asserts - 'whatever begins to exist has a cause’, since God in Islam is beginningless, it makes no sense to ask what caused God. Put differently, the causal principle cannot be imposed on the existence of God because God’s existence is without a beginning. For further elucidation refer - https://sapienceinstitute.org/who-created-god/
On acquiring fertile grounds, lets sow some seeds -
Arguments for Causal Principle
There are various arguments that make a compelling case for the causal principle. We will explore 5 of them briefly.
1. An Inductive Argument - Abundant Empirical Support [15]
The philosopher William Lane Craig argues that the Causal Principle is what we have more empirical evidence for than anything else in science or any other fields of enquiry. It is constantly confirmed in our experience, and it is a principle that has been most successful in guiding humanity to make discoveries (Craig and Sinclair 2009, pp. 187-189). Others have argued that there are overwhelmingly strong inductive reasons for affirming the Causal Principle, and every success of science in reconstructing the causal antecedents of particular events and classes of events provides confirmation of it (Koons 2000, pp. 108-109).
Skeptics may argue “we haven’t empirically verified the causal principle at play to the universe as a whole or to the beginning of the universe”. However such an objection can have no bearing on the principle, nor does it provide any justification for the restriction of the causal principle. An explosion today would warrant the conclusion that it had a cause; an explosion 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago or 10 million years ago would warrant the same conclusion as well. So why would the conclusion be different for the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, or for what-ever event that preceded it? It is pertinent to note the fact that if a concept is derived in a certain way does not imply that its application is restricted to that way. cosmologists who derived the concept of expansion from particular things have applied it to the Universe similarly (Swinburne 2004, p. 134). It is evident that we can reason deductively and inductively to arrive at justified conclusions regardless of whether we have direct experience of those conclusions.
Philosopher Joshua Rasmussen uses the example of emeralds to drive the point home - “take the principle that every emerald is green. This principle is an extrapolation that goes beyond the emeralds we have observed. It applies, for example, to emeralds in dark, unexplored caves.” [16] As the greenness of emeralds is applied universally to even emeralds that are yet to be seen. The same can be stated for the causal principle.
Furthermore a case for the causal principle can also be formulated in this way — Since every single person of a group requires oxygen, the whole group of people requires oxygen. The argument for the Causal Principle offered here resembles this kind of case: If every part of the universe requires a cause for its beginning of existence, the universe itself, as the whole of these parts, would require a cause for its beginning of existence. (The fallacy of composition does not apply on these types of cases)
Philosopher Craig goes on to ask, Given that the Causal Principle is constantly confirmed in our experience and also used, reasonably, in interpreting our experience, why not accept it as plausible and reasonable—at the very least more so than affirming its denial? (Craig and Sinclair 2009). It strains credulity to think that the billions of stars of our universe together with the highly ordered laws of physics ultimately began to exist without any causally antecedent condition.
2. A Conceptual Argument - An argument from the concept of non-being [17]
The concept of non-being is the absence of anything: no matter, no energy, not even the potential for anything. Therefore it is metaphysically impossible that anything—whether the Universe itself or anything in the phenomena or noumenal world— could begin to exist from non-being
When some scientists propose that the universe could have come from 'nothing', what they mean by 'nothing' is not 'non- being" but rather an energy-possessing quantum vacuum, or at the very least something that can behave according to the equations of quantum physics. Craig argues that we can never have a physics of non-being. If, for example, someone suggests that the emergence of an entity is in accordance with the laws of quantum physics, that from which the entity emerges must have the potential to behave in accordance with these laws, and the existence of the potential would be something and not non-being. Thus, the conclusion that everything that begins to exist has a cause can never in principle be overturned by physics.
Q. Is there any probability for something to come from nothing ?
Mark Nowacki (2007, p. 108) adds that neither could there even be a probability that something will begin to exist without any causal antecedent, for probability requires a positive state description in order to be rendered meaningful: relative to some positive state of affairs it may be possible to calculate the likelihood of some event occurring, but in the absence of anything causally prior to the first event there is no positive state description.
3. A Modus Tollens Argument -Why Do Other States of Affairs Not Begin to Exist Uncaused? [18]
Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive.
The philosopher William Lane Craig writes -
If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Why do bicycles and Beethoven and root beer not pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There cannot be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness does not have any properties. Nothingness is the absence of anything whatsoever. As such, nothingness can have no properties, since there literally is not anything to have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there is not anything to be constrained. (Craig and Sinclair 2009, p. 186)
The Modus Tollens argument can be traced to the American philosopher-theologian Jonathan Edwards, who argues that if there be no absurdity or difficulty in supposing one thing to start out of non-existence into being, of itself without a Cause; then there is no absurdity or difficulty in supposing the same of millions of millions' (Edwards 1830, p. 53).
Q. Can Some States Of Affairs Begin to Exist Uncaused?
Philosophers such as Graham Oppy suggests that the initial state of reality (ISOR) is the only thing that begins uncaused, while later things/ events begins caused (Oppy 2010, 2015). However such a model has been demonstrated to be 'false' and 'entails a contradiction' by Philosopher Andrew Loke (Loke 2017 p.138) (Loke 2022 p. 76)
Loke Formulates The Argument In The Following Manner -
(1.2) the properties of x and the properties of y which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist, and
(1.3) the circumstance is compatible with the beginning of y.
=> there would be no difference between x and y where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned
2. It is not the case that y begins uncaused (e.g. we don't experience a sudden increasing in strength of electric field begin uncaused and killing us)
3. Therefore, it is not the case that something begins uncaused.
Q. Considering the above argument can the causal principle apply outside the universe?
"if the causal principle 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' does not apply outside of the universe and the universe itself begins to exist uncaused, then there would not be any cause which would make it the case that only universe rather than other kinds of things/events begin to exist uncaused.
Moreover, the properties of universe and the properties of other kinds of things which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if the universe begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only the universe begin to exist uncaused. In that case, the beginning of other kinds of things/events would also be uncaused. But this is contrary to my experience.
I (thankfully!) do not experience such events happening without causes such as (say) having to switch on the electric field generator, otherwise I would have been electrocuted to death! Therefore, it is not the case that something begins to exist uncaused, whether inside or outside the universe" - Andrew Loke
4. The Rationality Argument - Deny the Causal Principle, Embrace Absurdity [19]
If the universe began uncaused, an absurd universe is as likely to begin uncaused as a normal universe is; this generates serious scepticism about the reliability of our cognitive faculties, the truth of our sensory inputs, and our past knowledge, thus creating a reductio ad absurdum against the denial of the principle
Reductio ad absurdum - a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.
5. Argument From Fine-Tuning & Order - A deeper and more unified explanation is more plausible than absolutely no explanation
Philosopher Andrew Loke posits that by incorporating the teleological argument for God (design argument), a stronger case can be made for the causal principle concerning the beginning of the universe [20]
Q. What is Fine-Tuning -
Concerning the 'fine-tuning of the universe, Robin Collins explains, The fundamental structure of the universe is 'balanced on a razor's edse' for the existence of life ... This precise setting of the structure of the universe for life is called the 'fine-tuning of the cosmos'. This fine-tuning falls into three major categories: that of the laws of nature, that of the constants of physics, and that of the initial conditions of the universe. (Collins 2009, p. 202)
Q. What is Orderliness -
It is an irresistible fact that the natural world appears to exhibit certain regular patterns of behaviour. When one gazes into the night sky, one cannot help but wonder why the stars and planets move according to a certain order. Likewise, the alternation of seasons, the formation of clouds and rain, the sustenance of life on earth, and so on are also in accordance with a certain order. This order is characterized by law-like regularities which are of a mathematical nature and are predictably the same every- where in the universe.
The astrophysicist Avraham Lob of Harvard asserts - “I am struck by the order we find in the universe, by the regularity, by the existence of laws of nature. That is something I am always in awe of, how the laws of nature we find here on Earth seem to apply all the way out to the edge of the universe. That is quite remarkable. The universe could have been chaotic and very disorganized. But it obeys a set of laws…” [21]
Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne argues that those who work in fundamental physics encounter a world in which large-scale structures and small-scale processes are alike characterized by a wonderful order that is expressible in concise and elegant mathematical terms.
While the the fine-tuning of the universe and the orderliness in the universe can be discussed in much depth further, however the primary focus for this particular argument is to note if such remarkable fine-tuning and spectacular orderliness at the fundamental level of the universe can make sense with an uncaused beginning or caused beginning? Additionally can the governing laws of this universe which are highly ordered since the inception of our universe be purely uncaused? Which hypothesis gives us a deeper explanation ?
Philosopher Andrew Loke asserts that
"The Uncaused Hypothesis fails because unintelligent entities are blind to high degree of order (e.g. organized complex information), therefore it does not render such order probable or expected." [22]
Loke further argues in favor of a caused beginning - "…to many people it is obvious that such highly ordered universe couldn't just ultimately result from something that begins to exist uncaused" [23]
Loke focuses on the implications of the teleological argument to make a noteworthy assessment about the causal principle and the beginning of our universe - "If physical reality has a designer than physical reality has a cause. The high degree of order of physical reality is i think the most obvious evidence discovered by contemporary physics which indicates that physical reality has a designer cause... the design argument is relevant because a designer will be an efficient cause who ordered the physical reality according to his purpose thats the meaning of design... my argument is that physical reality has a high degree of order which indicate that an intelligent cause causing the order, ordering it, now ordering is an efficient cause and it also involves final cause" [24] In simple words an uncaused beginning cannot account for the high order found in the universe and the only alternative is a caused beginning.
"...the point here is that saying that the universe began uncaused and was 'fine-tuned' is even more implausible than saying that the universe began by chance and was 'fine-tuned'." [25] (Loke 2022)
A Few Points To Note:
•A number of objections have been proposed by skeptics to some of the aforementioned arguments, all of them cannot be addressed in this article, however most have been rebutted by Loke, Craig and other philosophers.
( Refer- Loke 2017, Loke 2022, 'On God and the Beginning of the Universe: An Evaluation of Recent Discussions' by Andrew Loke, Reply to reviews and objections to The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited' by Loke (Last update 19/10/2023) )
•There are other objections to the arguments and considerations presented in this article, they do not qualify as defeaters. This means that even if these objections could not be responded to, the causal principle still remains valid.
•In order for one to justify the denial/restriction of the causal principle, one has to rebut all of the arguments proposed above and also provide a compelling counter argument that favours the denial/restriction of the causal principle.
Philosopher Andrew Loke asserts - "While a number of philosophers and scientists have expressed scepticism concerning the Causal Principle, no compelling argument has been offered against it.” [26] (Loke 2017)
Furthermore he mentions - "It should be noted that any one of these arguments would be sufficient for the purposes of the KCA. In other words, a proponent of the KCA does not have to rely on any single one of these arguments. Therefore, even if the objector of the KCA manage to find fallacies in one of these arguments, this does not imply that the KCA has been rebutted. Rather, the objector would need to rebut all five of these multiple independent arguments" [27] (Loke 2022)
Conclusion-
A number of arguments establish the strength of the causal principle. The causal principle is universal and simpler (and hence, intrinsically more likely) than competing, restricted ones.
We don't see any persuasive evidence or arguments that compels us to override, restrict or deny the causal principle. We have good reasons to maintain consistency with the causal principle across the board and any ad hoc attempts to deny or restrict the causal principle seems unreasonable and creates far more problems than it solves.
"the Causal Principle is not only valid for our experiences of reality, but also for reality itself, for if it isn't our experiences would be very different from what they are." [28] (Loke 2017)
Naturalism and the super magical - a forced marriage!
Lastly we need to reflect on what it means to be skeptical about the causal principle and what implications does it have.
In a popular debate between Mohammed Hijab (a muslim theist) and Cosmic Skeptic (an agnostic who is skeptical about the causal principle) Hijab explains what it essentially boils down to if one denies the causal principle -
“We have come here to refute magic, its actually an interesting magic trick where there is no bunny, theres no hat and in fact theres no magician at all. It is the proportion that something can come from nothing, not only from nothing ladies and gentlemen but from nothing and by nothing” [29]
The hardest part to swallow is examining how some naturalists casually commit to the notion of an uncaused beginning of the universe i.e. a beginning from nothing by nothing —essentially the most magical event one could ever think of. Most atheists are naturalists, bearing in mind for the naturalists, nature is the only reality, the "correct" paradigm, and there is no such thing as supernatural, i.e. anything above, beyond, or outside of nature. Naturalists usually mock theists for believing in things beyond the natural world (the supernatural), however if a naturalist himself can commit to the notion of super magical things beyond the universe that can bypass the general naturalistic framework then there seems to be some form of inconsistency. In other words the commitments of the worldview naturalism and the belief in uncaused beginnings don’t seem to go hand in hand. It gives me the impression of a forced marriage. Although naturalists come up with various explanations to deny the inconsistency charges, however if accepting ‘something can come from nothing and by nothing’ is the brilliant alternative to deny a Creator God then the odd shift still remains unfounded.
Sharif Abulaith addresses this point in a discussion - “I find so funny when atheists start denying causality. Its like bro man, you’re the one that was telling me about not believing in magic, yeah, not believing in the supernatural. What is the most supernatural thing you can ever think of ? Its something coming from nothing with no explanation, no reason, no cause, Nothing. Yeah. Thats the most magical thing i could ever think about… So this whole idea of you know atheist turning around and saying “Oh you theists and muslims, you believe in the ‘supernatural’ thing that caused the universe” hold on… yeah you believe in something even more crazier, i am sorry, and you are getting into the state of literal supernatural magical thinking which is fine if thats what you wanna do… but you’ve now abandoned reason, you’ve abandoned logic. You have no anchoring for any of your positions now.” [30]
References -
[1] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page 39
[2] Watch: ‘Who Created and Fine-Tuned the Universe? with Dr. William Lane Craig’
https://www.youtube.com/live/pVknQeKyflk?si=WD5z87HaW_HMF08u
(Time stamp - 7:14 onwards)
[3] “First Light in the Universe: Saas-Fee Advanced Course 36. Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy
[4] Watch: ‘Debate review: Daniel Linford vs Andrew Loke "Does physical reality have a cause or a beginning"’
https://youtu.be/BacyZoXNb98?si=3YAnDvYl1laYo4WW
(Time stamp - 6:00 onwards)
[5] “At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve”
Elliot Sober “Empiricism” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Edited by Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd. 2010, pp. 137-138.
Also check out -
George Gaylord Simpson. The Nonprevalence of Humanoids. 1964. Science, 143:769, Feb. 21.
[6] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page 18-19
[7] Ibid 131
[8] The Divine Reality God, Islam & The Mirage of Atheism, Newly Revised Edition By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, Pages 106-108
[9] Watch - The Rational Thought | The Evidence Course | Session 1 / Part 4
https://youtu.be/Nb7HHZDr5vU?si=F_Drx_KlIBDGWV0B
[10] Watch - Kalam Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Thought Adventure Podcast #21
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZEIr-hTT2ic?si=kSQN-7c6bIaHr_Kp
(Time stamp - 00:38:00 onwards)
[11] ‘DOES EVERY BEGINNING HAVE A CAUSE?’ by Joshua Rasmussen
Joshua L. Rasmussen - Academic Website
[12] This example is adapted from Immanuel Kant. See Kant, I. (1965) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. Kemp Smith. New York: St Martin’s Press, A203.
[13] Watch - What caused the Big Bang? | The Evidence Course I Session 3 / Part 2
https://youtu.be/Fnbwkib8FTM?si=qnvdB07F-WMOvy5j
[14] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page - 39-40
[15] ‘God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument’ by Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Page - 134-136
[16] ‘DOES EVERY BEGINNING HAVE A CAUSE?’ By Joshua Rasmussen
Joshua L. Rasmussen - Academic Website
[17] ‘God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument’ by Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Page - 137-138
[18] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page - 72
And ‘God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument’ by Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Page - 138-153
[19] Miksa, Rad. 2020. Deny the Kalam’s Causal Principle, Embrace Absurdity. Philosophia Christi 22: 239–255.
[20] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page - 71
[21] "Have Aliens Found Us? A Harvard Astronomer on the Mysterious Interstellar Object Oumuamua," Isaac Chotiner, The New Yorker, January 16, 2019.
[22] Watch - DEBATE: In Light of Contemporary Physics, Does Physical Reality Have a Cause or Beginning?
https://www.youtube.com/live/WjVHREd0mvQ?si=z1biieDaecb5eVSU
(Time stamp - 28:00)
[23] Watch - Andrew Loke vs. Graham Oppy: Debate Review w/ Andrew Loke
https://youtu.be/CDS-loZv8k8?si=TuOdvz9XyR1gmMy2
(Time stamp - 1:29:44)
[24] Watch - Debate review: Daniel Linford vs Andrew Loke "Does physical reality have a cause or a beginning"
https://youtu.be/BacyZoXNb98?si=F1hqmv940sHSNJcE
(Time stamp - 14:00)
[25] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page - 133
[26] ‘God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument’ by Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Page - 153
[27] ‘The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited’ by Andrew Loke, Page - 71-72
[28] ‘God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument’ by Andrew Ter Ern Loke, Page - 153
[29] Watch - Islam vs Atheism |I Oxford University Forum Debate
https://youtu.be/1n-zYRZy5NQ?si=IgD4NoRRfCnvs1QD
(Time stamp - 24:00)
[30] Watch - Kalam Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Thought Adventure Podcast #21
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZEIr-hTT2ic?si=pUo85ME5o5_R6Sl9
(Time stamp - 2:06:00)
جزاك الله خيرًا
ReplyDeleteجزاك الله خيرًا
ReplyDelete