Albertus Minimus

Flew the (atheist) nest

Professor Antony Flew is a philosopher, and was until very recently one of the main warriors in the army of philosophical atheism. But the evidence that has accrued over recent years, particularly that of design and fine tuning in the structure of the universe, has led him to reconsider. Here is a link to a long but fascinating interview, describing how his views came to change from atheism, to deism, to now, it seems, a weak version of theism.

With thanks to Anselmus at Catholic Blogic for the link.

I can't help myself

Of course, deconstruction is not the only philosophy to disappear up its own fundamental principles when those are applied to itself. Let's take a quick look at materialism. Basically, this espouses this idea that there is nothing but, well, things, or to give it its more modern veneer, we are all quantum events and nothing but these events. Thus my writing this blog entry is completely explicable, at least in principle, by the firing of certain neurones in my brain, and further neurones carrying instructions to my muscles.

Really, dear reader, I couldn't help myself. All those darling little neurones just doing their thang, what was I supposed to do apart from cooperate. In fact, enough of this ridiculous first person. 'I' am simply the sum of my parts, which of course naturally applies to all that I produce as the result of the mechanical interaction of those parts, which means that what you're reading is the result of those processes and bears no relation to truth (a meaningless concept) and... and...

So by its own logic, anything that can be written in favour of materialism is a result of blind natural forces. Our acceptance or otherwise of the argument is the result of those same natural forces. In which case, why don't we invoke some different natural forces and all go and have a nice cup of tea. Because it's certainly not worth thinking or writing about. But of course, that's also up to those forces...

DIY deconstruction

I am, of course, a disciple of deconstruction and to illustrate the profundity and fecundity of my chosen school I suggest you, dear reader caught in the interpretative illusions of this text, click here for an example from one of the masters in the field.

I know, gentle reader, that is hard (without years of expensive academic training, exposure to a reasonably steady stream of mind altering substances and a plentiful supply of nubile undergrads) to fully appreciate what you have just read. But that is not the end. There is no need to read everything, for a simple refresh will reveal new wonders of deconstruction to you. Refresh the page again, and new intellectual vistas will appear. Truly deconstruction is endless, an image of eternity swallowing its own tail.

But whatever you do, don't scroll down to the end of the page. Don't do it. Don't, I said...

Ah, well, you did. Oops. Look, just because it's nonsense doesn't mean it's not true!

Seriously, what a wonderful demonstration of the stupidity of deconstruction. According to its own tenets, all texts subvert truth. Now the great rule of thumb with all nonsensical philosophical and political theories is to take them seriously and apply them. Thus, if all texts subvert truth, then that is true of deconstruction too, and therefore its own narratives are as suspect as any other...

What you see, ladies and gentlemen, is philosophy disappearing up its own fundament. All such theories which seek to absolutise anything other than God eventually turn out to be variations on the theme of self-contradiction, just different ways of repeating, everything I say is a lie. But the bloody uses to which such philosophies have been turned to bring to mind the Decalogue and its ancient prohibition:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me...
Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me.

Generations have paid in blood for the false philosophies of our fathers. Before we fall for another false god, and in the spirit of the title of our philosophy category, I suggest that a sane response to deconstruction is a firm boot to Derrida's derriere.

Who are the sceptics now?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Pretty straightforward, right? Al-Ghazali, the great Sufi sheikh, used the argument to defeat the Aristotelian Avicenna in the intellectual conflicts within Islam during the Middle Ages. At the time the crux of the argument was the second premise, and whether it was possible to prove philosophically that the universe began to exist. On the Catholic side, St Thomas Aquinas held that it could not be proved, while St Bonaventure said that it could. (This raises the interesting side question: in an argument between an angelic doctor and a seraphic doctor, whose side do you choose?)

Anyway, we know now the universe did begin to exist, so the argument has switched to the first premise. Now atheists are attempting to find ways of claiming that, while yes, if a white rabbit suddenly popped into existence in front of you, twitched its whiskers, consulted its pocket watch and declared that it was very late, that would require an explanation, the universe belongs to a whole different category. In the words of Mr Bertrand Russell, the universe is just a brute fact, and one has to accept it.

In fact, Mr Russell was anticipated by the Angelic Doctor, who pointed out that there were only two worthwhile arguments against the existence of God: the problem of evil, and that the universe can exist fine on its own. The second argument he considered to have some strength precisely because he considered it impossible to prove philosophically that the universe had a beginning. But if it was possible to show by other methods that the universe did begin then, well, game over.

But now we know the universe appeared as unexpectedly as any rabbit out of a hat. But that has not stopped Mr Carl Sagan and co repeating their mantra: 'The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.'

So we find ourselves in a curious position: theists are the new sceptics, atheists the new believers. All our experience would indicate that things don't just pop into existence on their own, and as such, why should the universe be exempted from what applies to everything within it? But no, cry the true believers, that's all very well for all the little stuff, but the big one, the universe, you know, that basically, well, just happened. Like.

So who are the true believers now?

It's all relative, innit?

'It's all relative.'

No doubt you've heard the statement as often as I have. But let's continue the dialogue a little further.

'Ah yes, but what about what you just said?' I asked.

'Huh?' the epigrammatist will most likely reply.

'Sure, it's all relative, but what about that?'

'What about what?'

'It's all relative: is it relative.'

'No, course not. It's, like, always true. Stands to reason.'

'Right. So the one thing that's always true is saying that nothing is always true?'

'Yes, sure.'

'Well, can I point out that everything I say is a lie, black cats are always white and England will never win the Ashes.'

Will he, won't he?

Aquinas: makes my head ache.

But of course, being Aquinas, he can also explain why my head aches. It's all to do with how the intellect, the will and the emotions interact and, what's more, it goes a long way to explaining why we do the wrong things in spite of our knowledge of our wrong doings.

‘From the fact that God has understanding, it follows that He has a will’ (Summa Contra Gentiles I.72).

This is the fundamental point in St Thomas’s understanding of the will and, as such, is rather different from the idea of the will widespread today. For St Thomas the will is an appetite for what is good. In principle one cannot will what one knows is bad because that would go against the nature of the will.

How then do we explain those, unfortunately innumerable, instances of men doing evil? This is because while the will wills the good it is up to the intellect to decide what it is that is good. Thus I am currently sitting here blogging because my intellect tells me that it is the best way to keep some of my new readers and because I would like some sort of audience for my writing.

But I am also aware that my understanding of all these issues is by no means complete. So my intellect could decide that a better thing to do right now would be to go to the library and read up some more and try to fix the ideas in my mind.

Then I would decide to stop writing and get on the tube. Or alternatively, while my intellect might know that the best way to finish this post is to get down to some work, my will might decide that it really does not want to think about this at the moment and would much rather happily waste some time surfing the internet.

Then the will would have chosen not to apprehend the intellect’s judgement that it is best to finish this post at the moment but rather to apprehend the intellect’s judgement that a good way to waste a couple of hours is to go on line.

Or if I was in a state of depression and the judgement of the intellect was clouded by that depression I might (wrongly I hope) judge that it is pointless me labouring at this post as I will never understand what on earth St Thomas is talking about and I might as well go and watch some television instead.

Thus the action of the will takes the form of a complex feedback, its operation in human beings often clouded by the passions or choices to apprehend to a lesser and short term good rather than a greater long term good.

There, told you your head would hurt!

'I refute it thus.'

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

That's from Boswell's 'Life of Johnson' which is another on the list of books I must read one day. But it's really an excuse for posting something in my brand new philosophy category: Spanking Buridan's Ass. Before you leap to conclusions of impropriety, may I point out that Jean Buridan was a medieval philosopher who posed a logical paradox. Suppose there is a perfectly rational donkey, standing exactly midway between two equally tasty and nutritious piles of hay. Since there is no basis for choosing one bundle of hay over the other, the rational donkey will be unable to make a decision and therefore he starves to death.

Now, doesn't that donkey deserve a good spanking?