# 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:** 8
**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 14, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/141 "2009-02-14T19:07:48Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Oh, no you don’t. You don’t get to shift the burden of proof here. If you’re going to claim that the Big Bang is an uncaused event without any prerequisite conditions, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. > > Remember, you specifically claimed that quantum fluctuations amount to uncaused events. That’s just false, plain and simple. > > “But you still haven’t proven that God created the universe!” one might say. True – but that’s not the issue I’m addressing. Rather, I’m addressing the specific claim that quantum fluctuations amount to uncaused events. They aren’t, regardless of whether God exists or not. > [@stephen hawking](#): > > There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Page 129 in A Brief History of Time. Matter from nothing since the total energy of creation is zero. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/142 "2009-02-14T19:21:26Z")
**JThunder** , would you please get to responding to post #78? This is at least the third thread where I asked you for clarification and you ignored me. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/143 "2009-02-14T20:21:30Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Can you show that there are no such prerequisite conditions at the time of the big bang? If the quantum vacuum is eternal, then they should be. > > Again, it’s just a god of the gaps argument. I don’t know of an uncaused thing, therefore God exists. Call it something other than God then. Why are so many people conflating Aquinas’s arguments? I still haven’t seen anything in this thread that clearly refutes the proof for the Unmoved Mover (let’s call him “Fred”). “The premise is false,” isn’t helpful for me. JThunder, thanks for your cites (and to anyone else who can address the quantum issue). Snarky\_Kong, I’m no physicist, but I don’t think your cite refutes JThunder’s assertion. It sounds cool, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/144 "2009-02-14T21:55:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Call it something other than God then. Why are so many people conflating Aquinas’s arguments? I still haven’t seen anything in this thread that clearly refutes the proof for the Unmoved Mover (let’s call him “Fred”). “The premise is false,” isn’t helpful for me. A) The premise IS false. Or at least not established to everyone’s satisfaction. There is nothing to my knowledge that rules out an infinite chain of movers. That isn’t even addressing the other premise, that every thing needs a mover. B) Aquinas did not prove that there was ONE unmoved mover, but simply that a class of things existed which break the chain of infinite regress. It could have been many of them. There is no reason to suppose that they are supernatural or out of the ordinary at all, except for having no outside mover. C) There is just no way to get to “some things aren’t caused” from the premise that “everything has a cause” without some slight of hand. Others have noted the distinction between natural things that need causes and supernatural things that don’t, but it is curious that Aquinas doesn’t even mention this. Even so, we’ve simply redefined “supernatural” to mean “without a cause” without establishing any other property that this causeless thing may have. It is hasty to call this God, or even Fred, especially considering there may be many of them, and that they may be entirely unremarkable in every other way. ---
**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 14, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/145 "2009-02-14T22:05:00Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Call it something other than God then. Why are so many people conflating Aquinas’s arguments? There’s no conflation. Aquinas called it God. > [@](#): > > I still haven’t seen anything in this thread that clearly refutes the proof for the Unmoved Mover (let’s call him “Fred”). “The premise is false,” isn’t helpful for me. You can say it isn’t helpful all you want, but it stands as the refutation. Aquinas makes two assertions without support. He does not prove that everything needs a cuase (and on the quantum level, we now know it doesn’t), and, probably more significantly, he provides no reason for why a chain of cause and effect can’t be infinite. His failure to _support_ his premises is already enough to invalidate his arguments, but it’s even worse than that for him because his premises are not just unsupported, but actually, demonstrably false. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/146 "2009-02-14T22:11:55Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Quantum fluctuations allow for a measure of randomness in the outcome (at least, according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), but this does not mean that the events are uncaused. Yes, it does. Quantum fluctuations affect particles - in other words, they **move** them without a cause. And it happens all the time, everywhere. So not only is it untrue that there are no uncaused events; uncaused events permeate the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/147 "2009-02-14T22:13:30Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > A) The premise IS false. Or at least not established to everyone’s satisfaction. There is nothing to my knowledge that rules out an infinite chain of movers. That isn’t even addressing the other premise, that every thing needs a mover. An infinite regress would require properties that make the regress self-denying. The regress is composed of moved movers, the only such entities that apparently exist within such a regress as you’re suggesting. An infinite regress, then, is illogical. > [@](#): > > B) Aquinas did not prove that there was ONE unmoved mover, but simply that a class of things existed which break the chain of infinite regress. It could have been many of them. There is no reason to suppose that they are supernatural or out of the ordinary at all, except for having no outside mover. They are supernatural by definition, in that “natural” are the moved movers–everything–that exist in the universe we inhabit. “All that exists,” then, can’t be limited to the universe of moved movers, though that’s all we see through natural means. > [@](#): > > C) There is just no way to get to “some things aren’t caused” from the premise that “everything has a cause” without some slight of hand. Others have noted the distinction between natural things that need causes and supernatural things that don’t, but it is curious that Aquinas doesn’t even mention this. Even so, we’ve simply redefined “supernatural” to mean “without a cause” without establishing any other property that this causeless thing may have. It is hasty to call this God, or even Fred, especially considering there may be many of them, and that they may be entirely unremarkable in every other way. Call this entity or class of entities what you will; by definition they exist in a different realm, one unconstrained by the prohibitions of our detectable universe; this entity or class of entities either are their own cause, or require no cause. Such an entity or entities must exist, or our universe as it works does not. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/148 "2009-02-14T22:16:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s no conflation. Aquinas called it God. But he needn’t have. And this proof doesn’t assign the properties of God, beyond requiring no cause. That’s the conflation–Aquinas deals with that elsewhere. > [@](#): > > You can say it isn’t helpful all you want, but it stands as the refutation. Aquinas makes two assertions without support. He does not prove that everything needs a cuase (and on the quantum level, we now know it doesn’t), and, probably more significantly, he provides no reason for why a chain of cause and effect can’t be infinite. Can you expand on the quantum explanation? > [@](#): > > His failure to _support_ his premises is already enough to invalidate his arguments, but it’s even worse than that for him because his premises are not just unsupported, but actually, demonstrably false. How so? That’s what I’m asking. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/149 "2009-02-14T22:21:14Z")
I am not reading that OP. I have faith that Richard Dawkins is always right. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/150 "2009-02-14T22:25:56Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > B) Aquinas did not prove that there was ONE unmoved mover, but simply that a class of things existed which break the chain of infinite regress. It could have been many of them. There is no reason to suppose that they are supernatural or out of the ordinary at all, except for having no outside mover. It’s been said before–if there’s such a thing as an unmoved mover, then there’s no reason to limit it to being the first mover–such a “Fred” could in fact start things moving anywhere along the chain he wants to. Why is that a problem? Because it means this is untrue: > [@](#): > > Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. And that is essential to Acquinas’ argument that there is one, unitary first mover. It means there’s no infinite regression that must end in a first mover. Acquinas is trying to use classical logical reasoning–offering premises, and then offering an argument. He contends that the argument is valid–if you put in true premises, you get a true conclusion. The problem is that his conclusion is inconsistent with his premises. one premise (actually the conclusion of a previous logical argument) is “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” The conclusion is “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.” This isn’t possible with what logicians call a valid argument–the whole concept of such an argument is that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Invalidity means that the argument itself isn’t proof that the conclusion is true. Here, the premise establishes a rule that all moving things need a mover that is also a moving thing. The conclusion is that “God” exists , and he can move other things without having a mover. If the conclusion is true, the premise is false–there is something that can move other things without having a mover. But that means that the whole structure of the argument fails–as my first comment notes–that it only proves the need for a first mover if it is true that no moving thing can exist unless it has a mover that is also a moving thing. Note well that an invalid argument doesn’t mean that you can’t put in true premises and get a true conclusion-- (e.g. All men have two legs, I have two legs, therefore I am a man), but that it isn’t inevitable that putting true premises in leads to a true conclusion- (All men have two legs, Foghorn Leghorn has two legs, therefore Foghorn Leghorn is a man). ---
**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 14, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/151 "2009-02-14T22:32:14Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But he needn’t have. If he didn’t, then it wouldn’t be a proof of God. > [@](#): > > And this proof doesn’t assign the properties of God, beyond requiring no cause. Not true. Aquinas does not give any such qualified definition, and even if he did, there would be no reason to call it a proof of God. > [@](#): > > That’s the conflation–Aquinas deals with that elsewhere Where? Show me the line of argument he uses to get from Prime Mover to omnimax God. > [@](#): > > Can you expand on the quantum explanation? It’s already been mentioned several times. Quantum events occur all the time with becing “caused.” > [@](#): > > How so? That’s what I’m asking. Quantum physics disproves the first premise, and Newton’s First Law disproves the second. An object in motion will stay in motion forever unles acted on by another force. That means infinite motion is possible even under Newtonian physics. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/152 "2009-02-14T22:32:23Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Call this entity or class of entities what you will; by definition they exist in a different realm, one unconstrained by the prohibitions of our detectable universe; this entity or class of entities either are their own cause, or require no cause. Such an entity or entities must exist, or our universe as it works does not. Isn’t it equally valid to say that the entity is constrained by the prohibitions of our universe–but that our universe does not prohibit unmoved movers? And if we do that, then we have no infinite regression-things can start other things moving, and there’s no first point that starts everything else going–the first mover starts some things going (some of which may stop–some may not), the second mover starts some other things going, and so on and so forth until today, when it’s still happening–such that the first mover is entirely irrelevant as to why things are moving today? Let me be clear: I’m not an unalloyed fan of Dawkins. I haven’t even read his book. But Acquinas’ reasoning is problematic on its own terms. ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/153 "2009-02-14T22:54:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Oh, Dawkins can be insulting, I was just saying the teapot isn’t an example of it. > > While Dawkins can seem dyspeptic, though, it’s probably worth noting that h’s gottenthis way after years and years of trying to debate and have dialogues with creationists. > > I would also point at that religionists constantly insult and villify atheists while seldom getting called on it. While there’s a good deal of truth to all of this and there’s no scarcity of douchebaggery in the world, it doesn’t excuse the way he acts. After all, my point was that it’s his _own_ cause he’s hurting, and as such whether his actions are defensible is irrelevant. Those sorts of demographic struggles against the majority opinion are ultimately won with doses of normality and inspiration, not by being inflammatory. There’s something to be said for being the bigger man. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/154 "2009-02-14T23:09:13Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > An infinite regress would require properties that make the regress self-denying. The regress is composed of moved movers, the only such entities that apparently exist within such a regress as you’re suggesting. An infinite regress, then, is illogical. 😕 I must be missing something. It seems like you’re just asserting that infinite regress is illogical. I’m not seeing your argument. > [@](#): > > They are supernatural by definition, in that “natural” are the moved movers–everything–that exist in the universe we inhabit. “All that exists,” then, can’t be limited to the universe of moved movers, though that’s all we see through natural means. They are not supernatural by definition. They are unmoved by definition, but only supernatural by fiat. Aquinas failed to establish that it is impossible for anything _natural_ to move by itself, and therefore your conclusion that the class of “First Movers” is supernatural is false. > [@](#): > > Call this entity or class of entities what you will; by definition they exist in a different realm, one unconstrained by the prohibitions of our detectable universe; this entity or class of entities either are their own cause, or require no cause. Such an entity or entities must exist, or our universe as it works does not. See above. Here you take the unwarranted leap from “uncaused cause” to “existing in a different realm” and “unconstrained by the prohibitions of our detectable universe”. And the certainty of your last statement is unwarranted as well, considering that we are debating a hypothetical: Namely, that the premises are true, which may be an article of faith on your part, but it has not been shown to be so. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/155 "2009-02-14T23:12:05Z")
Rolken, will you please point out where Dawkins displays this douchebaggery? I’ve yet to see him say anything offensive to anyone, except insofar as to challenge them on their dogmatic beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/156 "2009-02-14T23:20:55Z")
Anybody who dares question religion and isn’t intensely apologetic about it will always be called a douchebag. ---
**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 14, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/157 "2009-02-14T23:33:37Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > They are supernatural by definition, in that “natural” are the moved movers–everything–that exist in the universe we inhabit. Precisely – supernatural by definition only. Just like everything that is green is supernatural if it is thus defined. The problem is just that the definition is pretty much meaningless due to being arbitrary. I’ve asked the question before: given two things, one supernatural, the other natural, how do you determine which is which? If it merely is the one that could be its own cause, in what way then is the term supernatural meaningful in any other way than as a shorthand for ‘things that can be their own cause’? And in what way does ‘things that can be their own cause’ differ from ‘things that are green’ (other than being perhaps a little harder to catch)? In other words, how are you not just putting a couple of things into a box, writing ‘supernatural’ on it, and then claiming that you have proven the existence of the supernatural? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/158 "2009-02-14T23:46:34Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > In other words, how are you not just putting a couple of things into a box, writing ‘supernatural’ on it, and then claiming that you have proven the existence of the supernatural? I see it as slightly different–the argument **stratocaster** is asserting is that (1) “the world couldn’t exist under the rules I propose about how the world works,” and (2) “the world does exist,” (3) “therefore, something outside the rules I propose makes the world exist.” I offer a replacement for (3), which I will call (3’). “Therefore, the rules I propose about how the world works are wrong, and one way of demonstrating that is that the logical implication of the rules I propose about how the world works is that the world doesn’t exist” In this model, the “supernatural” is something that only serves to fix the problem in the conceptualization of how the world works. To put it another way, either the argument is wrong, in which case the world’s existence is consistent with the laws of physics, or logically, we can’t exist unless “the supernatural” makes the world work. I posit that the more reasonable answer is that the argument is wrong. ---
**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 14, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/159 "2009-02-14T23:56:19Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > (3) “therefore, something outside the rules I propose makes the world exist.” I’m maybe not getting you fully (it’s late), but how is saying there’s ‘something outside’ the (arbitrary) proposed rules not essentially the same as what I assert, i.e. taking some assortment of things and putting a supernatural sticker on them? ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/160 "2009-02-14T23:57:10Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Rolken, will you please point out where Dawkins displays this douchebaggery? I’ve yet to see him say anything offensive to anyone, except insofar as to challenge them on their dogmatic beliefs. Calling religious people delusional is not “challenging” their beliefs any more than you would be “challenging” my post by calling me an idiot. It is, in fact, possible to both firmly disagree _and_ maintain civility towards the audience. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=9)