In the video, “The Meaning of Life”, cosmologist, Sean Carroll, proposes atheistic naturalism as consistent with the complete explanation of the universe by the principles of physics. The universe consists of elementary particles obeying the laws of physics. That is all there is. This argument begins with the observation of material reality and ends with the abstract principles which explain motion, which leaves no role for God.
From this perspective of naturalism, theism is superfluous. In the lecture, “God is not a Good Theory”, Carroll explains that theism held sway prior to the development of the science of physics. In Aristotle’s physics, which the science of physics has replaced, an object in motion had to be maintained in motion by an external force. In modern science, an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force. According to Carroll it was this error in physics that prompted Aristotle to conclude there must by a prime or unmoved mover outside of the universe, where this external prime mover of local motion was God.
To perceive the philosophical concept of God, as if it were meant to explain local motion, is a mistake. God, as a prime or unmoved mover, refers not to local motion, but to the transition from potency to act at the level of existence. It does not refer to local motion.
Carroll overlooks Aristotle’s biggest contribution to human understanding: Intelligible principles can be intellectually abstracted from the very nature of material entities whose individual existence is perceived by the senses. The abstraction of these principles is the basis of intellectual knowledge, while the principles remain integral to material entities.
This is also the philosophical basis of the natural sciences,sdxz which seek to determine the abstract mathematical relationships that are characteristic of the measurable properties of material reality.
What is fascinating about Carroll’s lecture is that he proposes that the argument of naturalism is reciprocal. It begins with material reality and leads to the abstract mathematical principles explaining the universe. According to Carroll, the a priori argument from a set of mathematical principles to a universe of material particles, embodying those principles, also demonstrates the lack of any role for God.
The reciprocal argument starts with a priori principles and constructs possible material universes. One possible universe, according to Carroll, is one defined by Newtonian three dimensional space and time with one material particle in motion. This universe, just like the universe in which we live, is completely explained by the abstract principles embodied by its material component, one particle in motion. The argument for atheism is thereby seen to be valid from either direction, both from the material to abstract principle and from abstract principle to the material.
Of course theism is not an explanation of local motion at the level of local motion, i.e. an explanation having any relevance to physics. Carroll’s argument is irrelevant to theism/atheism, whether from material reality to a scientifically principled explanation of local motion or in reverse. What is remarkable about Carroll’s a priori argument for atheism, is that it is not the reverse of an inference from material observation.
The principles of three dimensional space cannot be abstracted from just one elementary material particle, which is the total materiality of Carroll’s possible universe. Location cannot be abstracted from one elementary material particle because the logical concept of mathematical space of even one dimension cannot be abstracted from one elementary particle.
Location of a material particle has meaning only as a relationship to another material particle. Similarly, motion and quantitative time cannot be inferred from one material particle.
If all that exists is a single material particle, it can have no location. It cannot have any movement. It takes two particles to define, and thereby imply, a space of one dimension. Motion in one dimension is possible by a minimum of two particles moving in one dimensional space relative to one another. They could get closer or farther apart in one dimension. Their relative motion would be qualitative time. However, there could be no principle of quantitative time.
The algebraic variable, time, is the quantification of that mutability, which is local motion. However, it takes two distinct motions to identify time as a quantity, because quantified time is the human, logical operation of comparing one motion to another by size.
An a priori universe as the reverse of inference from material observation requires a minimum of three elementary material particles to materialize a possible universe of (a) two dimensions and (b) two motions. The presence of two motions makes possible the logical comparison of one to the other, thereby quantifying their mutability as algebraic time.
For example, two of the three elementary particles could move in concentric orbits around the third particle in a geometric plane of two dimensions. The period of one orbit could be a fraction of the other, thereby permitting the logical comparison of one motion to the other as quantitative time.
Of course, I am not proposing that three material particles are a possible universe in two dimensions and time in the sense that Carroll claims that one material particle in motion can constitute a possible Newtonian universe of three dimensions and time. I am illustrating how the material embodiment of the abstract principles of a Newtonian universe of two dimensions and time require a minimum of three material particles.
The abstract principles of two dimensions and time are reciprocally compatible with three material particles. In contrast, the abstract principles of three dimensional Newtonian space and time are not reciprocally compatible with solely one material particle as Carroll proposes.
In Carroll’s cosmology, rather than being an expression of and integral to the very nature of material entities, the principles of science are external to and are simply obeyed by material particles, which are devoid of intelligibility. This divorce of intelligibility from material reality leads to Carroll’s a priori possible universe, in which scientific principles and material reality are not reciprocally compatible.
This divorce of intelligibility and material reality, which is in vogue in scientism, is reflected in modern ethics. Morality, e.g., is identified as arbitrary and external to sex, rather than as being of the very nature of sex. Rather than being inherently intelligible, human sexuality is viewed as devoid of intelligibility other than that arbitrarily imposed upon it by individuals and by society.
Conclusion
The concept of God has nothing to do with the scientific principles, which can be abstracted from material reality to explain local motion scientifically. This irrelevance is not an argument in favor of atheism. Science is the determination of the mathematical relationships, which can be abstracted from material reality through analysis of instrumentally based measurements of material properties. A good example is the physics of local motion.
In proposing that the knowledge of the scientific principles of the motion of elementary particles can be justified by the a priori construction of possible universes, as well as by inferential observation of material reality, Carroll misidentifies the nature of the intellectual inference of abstract scientific principles. He expects us to accept his claim that the inference of any abstract principle is confined exclusively to those principles inferable from measureable material properties.
Carroll is so impressed with scientific knowledge, because it works, that he arbitrarily disallows, from the observation of material reality, the abstraction of principles of all other knowledge, such as the knowledge of existence and the knowledge of qualities, which cannot be measured.
The three dimensions of Newtonian space and time cannot be inferred from one material particle in motion. Likewise one material particle in motion cannot be the material embodiment of the three dimensions of Newtonian space and time. One material particle in motion cannot be a possible universe in accord with Carroll’s own criteria. Three dimensional space can have no relevance to material reality unless material reality consists of material entities, which, of their nature, have three dimensional relationships to one another.
Sean Carroll’s brief on behalf of atheism is mere prejudice due to his overwhelming interest in academic cosmology. Yet, in his own field of interest he becomes tripped up by his failure to understand, as Aristotle understood, the philosophical necessity of reciprocity between material reality and the intelligible principles, which principles are both inherent in material reality and abstracted from material reality by the human intellect.
Nevertheless Carroll has the audacity to claim that the quantitative principles, which interest him, are those, which alone can be abstracted from material reality. Sean Carroll is not interested, therefore there is no God. In support of atheism, this is the gist of his argument from the material universe to the mathematical principles of local motion. It is also the gist of his invalid a priori argument. It is invalid because one particle cannot be the material embodiment of the logical concepts of three dimensions and time.
In Carroll’s atheistic cosmology, material objects are devoid of intelligibility, blindly obeying external, disembodied laws. In the perennial theistic philosophy, material objects are inherently intelligible, acting in fulfillment of the intelligible forms, which express their natures.
4 thoughts on “An A Priori Argument for Atheism?”
Pingback: Plato, Miracles, and the Reality of Matter - Catholic Stand
Yeah. If we really want to be blunt, Sean Carroll’s problem is even worse.
For one thing, all physics is based on experiment and observation, a fact theorists occasionally forget as they fall prey to the temptation to do physics the way Plato did. However, even a freshman in physics will notice that the observations always come with some uncertainty. I’m not even talking about quantum mechanical uncertainty, which is itself a sort of theoretical abstraction to be tested; I’m talking about “errors” due to the finite precision of any measuring device, the fact that we have to ignore interactions with the rest of the universe (we don’t worry too much about the position of the planet Jupiter when measuring “g” from a pendulum), and we have to truncate the theories we use interpret the observations. (In the pendulum example, we have to make a simple harmonic motion approximation and ignore friction to derive the formula students use. More advanced experiments are of course much more sophisticated, but there is always a truncation of the theory.) And, of course, our observations and experiments are only of a tiny fraction of the whole of space-time. Now physics does an excellent job of providing a foundation for engineering, but already we see it is a somewhat shaky foundation for universal philosophical statements.
On top of that, of course, is the fact that the current state of our knowledge of the laws of physics is known to be seriously deficient. The Standard Model is known to have a problem with reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics, and superstring theory, the most popular candidate for moving beyond the Standard Model, appears to have serious problems with self-consistency, to say nothing of its lack of experimental support. Then there are dark matter and dark energy; suffice it to say that we are still in the dark regarding what particles and fields might constitute about 95% of the universe.
The concept “universe” is not a scientific or physical concept. No scientist has ever studied, tested, felt, tasted, or experimented on “the universe.” Nor have they ever seen it. They assume it exists, but they don’t know where it came from, how it got here, or whete it is going. But God does. Guy McClung, San Antonio
I agree. Another example: for the Kalam argument for the existence of God to be valid, the universe would have to be an entity in itself and not simply a logical concept, a mathematical set, https://catholicstand.com/kalam-cosmological-argument-fails/.