# The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591 "2009-02-12T20:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/361 "2009-02-18T22:22:40Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason. > > Secondly, just saying that your dragon is ephemeral, invisible ext still doesn’t work, because you have made a specific claim that it does interact with the material world through heating. By definition your dragon is not entirely undetectable. > > Calculon. Your reason is that you don’t believe dragons exist. I don’t believe god exists. So I can just dismiss that hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/362 "2009-02-18T22:28:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’d still like to know how Aquinas ever connected the dots from First Cause to Jaysus. You asked that a while back and there has been deathly silence. I’ve been asking it for over 20 years, and have never heard an answer, no matter how implausible. It’s taking a lot longer than we thought. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/363 "2009-02-18T22:28:33Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason. It’s rigorously incorrect to accept any premise without proof. There is no burden to _dis_prove a premise, it’s incumbent one the person asserting it to support it. If you can’t pass that first step, then anything that follows is worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/364 "2009-02-18T22:28:37Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason. Supposing we stop short of saying “The premises are wrong” and just say “We have no reason to think the premises are right”? Come on… let’s not go in circles around this very simple point. Premise 1: **Snarky\_Kong** has a sibling Premise 2: **Snarky\_Kong** has no sisters Conclusion: **Snarky\_Kong** has a brother I honestly have no idea whatsoever as to the truth statuses of those two premises. So why would I let this argument convince me **Snarky\_Kong** has a brother, even if only until some stronger counterargument comes along? Seems to me, the position to take is “That’s a fine argument you have there, but it doesn’t do anything in the way of establishing its conclusion for anyone unless they already have some suspicion that the premises are true. And if you should find someone who doesn’t already have such suspicions, it wouldn’t be laziness on their part; it could just be honest acknowledgement that they have no reason to make a determination about the truth of the premises, either way.” ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/365 "2009-02-18T22:29:05Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Personally? No. That says nothing about whether such chains can exist. There is no reason to believe they can’t. > > Consider the present. It is definitely a start. Are you denying the possibility of an infinite chain of effects in the future? > > Nobody progressed through it, because there was no start. Any individual object only progresses through a finite part of the chain. Just because no individual can “progress through it” doesn’t mean it can’t exist. YES WE HAVE PROGRESSED THROUGH IT!!! Sorry for shouting, but we cannot be at this point in time UNLESS we have gone through the infinite number of causes before this one. Remember that saying that the universe extends infinitely into the past requires that BOTH there is the infinite series AND we have progressed through it to reach now. Saying that there is an infinite future brings with it no assumption that we have, or even that we can reach that infinite future. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/366 "2009-02-18T22:29:27Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason. > > Secondly, just saying that your dragon is ephemeral, invisible ext still doesn’t work, because you have made a specific claim that it does interact with the material world through heating. By definition your dragon is not entirely undetectable. > > Calculon. And gods don’t interact with the material world? Where he at? Feeding his dragon, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/367 "2009-02-18T22:32:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s rigorously incorrect to accept any premise without proof. There is no burden to _dis_prove a premise, it’s incumbent one the person asserting it to support it. If you can’t pass that first step, then anything that follows is worthless. Nah, you can construct an interesting logical system even from incorrect though consistent premises. In a sense, that is what good sf writing is all about. But claiming it has anything to do with the real world is the moral equivalent of expecting Scotty to beam you up any second now. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/368 "2009-02-18T22:34:47Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason. That the premise isn’t demonstrated to hold is a reason. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/369 "2009-02-18T22:54:16Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason. True. However it’s perfectly correct to _reject_ premises without proof. See, there’s a difference between rejecting a premise and proving it false. To prove something false requires work. Rejecting a premise happens when the _other guy_ didn’t do _his_ work. It’s just lazy to assert a premise without giving people reason to accept it. And it’s just completely ignorant to expect anybody to buy an argument with doubtful premises. And, where’s that text linking First Cause to God? (No, I’m not going to quit asking.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/370 "2009-02-18T23:11:56Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > YES WE HAVE PROGRESSED THROUGH IT!!! Sorry for shouting, but we cannot be at this point in time UNLESS we have gone through the infinite number of causes before this one. Remember that saying that the universe extends infinitely into the past requires that BOTH there is the infinite series AND we have progressed through it to reach now. Saying that there is an infinite future brings with it no assumption that we have, or even that we can reach that infinite future. > > Calculon. By this same logic, God can’t exist infinitely into the past because he would have to wait an infinite amount of time before he could create the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/371 "2009-02-18T23:17:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > True. However it’s perfectly correct to _reject_ premises without proof. > > See, there’s a difference between rejecting a premise and proving it false. To prove something false requires work. Rejecting a premise happens when the _other guy_ didn’t do _his_ work. > > It’s just lazy to assert a premise without giving people reason to accept it. And it’s just completely ignorant to expect anybody to buy an argument with doubtful premises. Which all goes to show why elegant logical systems minimize the number of premises. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/372 "2009-02-18T23:50:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > By this same logic, God can’t exist infinitely into the past because he would have to wait an infinite amount of time before he could create the universe. False. Time is part of the physical world. God creates time. Therefore time has no meaning before creation. There is no infinite set of time. God also requires no cause, and therefore there is no infinite chain of causes that needs to happen before God can dop anything. > [@begbert2](#): > > True. However it’s perfectly correct to _reject_ premises without proof. > > See, there’s a difference between rejecting a premise and proving it false. To prove something false requires work. Rejecting a premise happens when the _other guy_ didn’t do _his_ work. > > It’s just lazy to assert a premise without giving people reason to accept it. And it’s just completely ignorant to expect anybody to buy an argument with doubtful premises. > And, where’s that text linking First Cause to God? (No, I’m not going to quit asking.) If a premise truly is doubtful, it should be trivial to show why that is so. To turn it around, if you can’t form an argument as to why my premise is bad, what reason do I or anyone else have to believe that you are correct in rejecting my argument? And with the first cause thing, I’ll make you a deal. You show me how atheism can be true if you accept both Aquinas’ premises, then I will show you how to connect the prime mover to God. Stating that Aquinas doesn’t connect the prime mover to God invalidates his argument is only true if you can show that it is possible for God to not exist while his premises are true. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/373 "2009-02-19T00:08:48Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > And with the first cause thing, I’ll make you a deal. You show me how atheism can be true if you accept both Aquinas’ premises, then I will show you how to connect the prime mover to God. OK, well, ignoring for a moment your disregard for what is commonly called burden of proof (i.e. that it is the one making an assertion who has to justify it, not the one exposed to this assertion who has to try to disqualify it), this I can do. Taking as Aquinas’ premises: (1) Every caused thing is caused by some other thing, and (2) an infinite regress of causation is impossible, it follows that there must be something uncaused that has caused at least one other thing, which is enough to get our chain of causation going. Now, to see how atheism can still be true is to look at what we know about our uncaused cause, which is nothing safe it be uncaused and able to act as a cause. This doesn’t imply supernaturality or godhood, which can be shown by the existence of uncaused things (like radioactive decay) in nature – though even if there were no such example, the assertion that atheism is incompatible with uncaused causes is still an unfounded one, since there is nothing that precludes such things from being perfectly natural; i.e. the set of natural things may well include uncaused causes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/374 "2009-02-19T00:09:26Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > False. Time is part of the physical world. God creates time. Therefore time has no meaning before creation. There is no infinite set of time. God also requires no cause, and therefore there is no infinite chain of causes that needs to happen before God can dop anything. So God hasn’t been here any longer than the universe? Yes, time is a physical property of the universe. Time has no meaning outside the universe. Therefore there is no “before” the universe, and nothing that needs to be gotten through to get here. And your God DOES need a cause. You can’t just handwave it away. It’s a contradiction to say that everything needs a cause except the thing I make up that doesn’t need a cause. > [@](#): > > And with the first cause thing, I’ll make you a deal. You show me how atheism can be true if you accept both Aquinas’ premises, Atheism is not an assertion that can have a truth value. It’s an absence of assertion. Your question is irrelevant since Aquinas’ premises have not been shown to be true, but what you’re asking is how can an uncaused cause not be God? Random fluxuation in the quantum field. Your turn. Connect those dots. > [@](#): > > then I will show you how to connect the prime mover to God. Hop to it. > [@](#): > > Stating that Aquinas doesn’t connect the prime mover to God invalidates his argument is only true if you can show that it is possible for God to not exist while his premises are true. His premises are not true, but just to humor you a little more – how can you prove it wasn’t Wotan? Now connect the dots to Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/375 "2009-02-19T00:13:52Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] If a premise truly is doubtful, it should be trivial to show why that is so. To turn it around, if you can’t form an argument as to why my premise is bad, what reason do I or anyone else have to believe that you are correct in rejecting my argument? [/QUOTE] This, I think, is where the true differences between the theistic and atheistic worldviews come to light. _If there is no reason for me to accept your premise, there is no reason for me to accept your argument!_ This is the case no matter how inviting I find your conclusion, nor how simple and easy-to-swallow I find your premises. Nor, indeed, how beautifully constructed your argument is. The whole thing stands on the premises. It’s also apparent in your comment about showing atheism to be true. “Atheism” is the null hypothesis. We believe nothing until there is a reason to do so. That’s all. Have you ever proven that unicorns and fairies don’t exist? There is no proof in the world that could do so. Nevertheless, you, I, and every adult more intelligent than a dust mop are atheists about unicorns. Well, can you prove it? Or is it up to unicorn proponents to make their case, based on mutually accepted premises, supplemented by evidence and logic? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/376 "2009-02-19T00:17:17Z")
_eh, whatever, why bother?_ ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/377 "2009-02-19T00:19:31Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > _If there is no reason for me to accept your premise, there is no reason for me to accept your argument!_ Indeed, if one is not operating under this stance, there is no need to even make an argument, since the conclusion could just be presented for a priori acceptance, as well as any premise! The whole process of argumentation entails the need of substantiation to accept propositions – to argue that propositions need to be accepted if they have not been proven false is to argue that there is no need for argumentation! ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/378 "2009-02-19T00:21:55Z")
Though it will quickly lead to problems… I haven’t proven false that **Snarky\_Kong** has a brother, nor have I proven false that **Snarky\_Kong** does not have a brother. I suppose I must accept, for the time being, both that **Snarky\_Kong** has a brother and that **Snarky\_Kong** does not have a brother; at least, it follows immediately from those premises, and I can’t prove either of those premises wrong in themselves. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/379 "2009-02-19T00:24:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’d still like to know how Aquinas ever connected the dots from First Cause to Jaysus. It should come as no surprise that he did this by using premises derived from biblical revelation and applying the logic and reasoning described in Aristotle. Yes, it sounds ridiculous from a purely scientific perspective, but this was exactly the point of Medieval Scholasticism. The logic behind much of Aquinas is sound, but the premises are (to a scientific mind) impossible to accept. [The master explains it better than I ever could.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/380 "2009-02-19T00:27:21Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > If a premise truly is doubtful, it should be trivial to show why that is so. To turn it around, if you can’t form an argument as to why my premise is bad, what reason do I or anyone else have to believe that you are correct in rejecting my argument? The argument is “You haven’t given me or any rational sane person one speck of evidence or the tiniest reason to believe your crazy premise, so why on earth should I take your word that it’s true?” This isn’t any different from anything else; if you want people to believe you, you have to convince them. Sometimes, your bald unadorned word is enough; in other cases, it isn’t. For example, were you to tell me you were a theist, I’d probably accept that premise. If you were to tell me you were a millionaire, I’d be doubtful but could be convinced. (Especially if we met in person.) If you were to tell me that you were a talking dog with excellent typing ability for a canine, I wouldn’t buy it without _definitive_ evidence. What do you do if somebody tells you they’re a talking dog? You say “prove it.” But if they say to you, “No prove I’m _not_ a talking dog!”, well, perhaps _you_ run out and try to disprove it the minute they suggest it, but most of the rest of us will just say, “Yeah, right”, presume they were lying or mistaken or deranged about it, and not give it another thought. Which is the same thing we do when you claim that god exists, and then when we ask for the proof, challenge us to prove you wrong. See, it’s called “burden of proof”. You’re the guy who wants to prove something. So you’re the guy who has to back up his claims. If you can’t convince us, it’s not _our_ problem; we just assume that you were making wild claims that you pulled out of your butt, dismiss your argument, and carry along just fine. > [@Calculon](#): > > And with the first cause thing, I’ll make you a deal. You show me how atheism can be true if you accept both Aquinas’ premises, then I will show you how to connect the prime mover to God. Stating that Aquinas doesn’t connect the prime mover to God invalidates his argument is only true if you can show that it is possible for God to not exist while his premises are true. Oh, that’s _easy_. All I have to do is posit something else, that isn’t God, as being the First Cause. The big bang, for example. Or Odin. And actually, if you want to get particular about it, Aquinas doesn’t even demonstrate that there’s only _one_ first cause! He only establishes that, _for any given causal chain_, that there is a first cause. So for some causal chains, the first cause could have been last thursday; perhaps some quark did something perfectly random, which butterfly effected up to causing a tornado to happen yesterday. The arguement allows for it; there are no conditions whatsoever on the first cause, other than it being the earliest cause in some chain of causes. And actually his argument doesn’t exclude the possibility of there being _multiple_ ‘First Causes’, each of a separate chain of causation that merge together. For example, there are several reasons that I buy the list of items I do when I go shopping for groceries, and each of those reasons is likely the result of a melange of other reasons, each with their own causal chain, each with their on first causes, some of which are the ‘original’ first cause (that is, the Big Bang or Odin), and some others of which could be quark events the world over. That’s all allowed under his argument for First Causes. Now, where’s that connection between First Causes and God? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=20)