The Causal Proof part1
Tue, 01/22/2008 - 16:40 — admin
TEACHER: Well, in the first place, I may not demand as much from the argument as, say, Hume does. In other words, he attacks it on the grounds that it cannot prove the existence of a benevolent Deity, and this is not something I expect from it. Secondly, it can be stated more conclusively than Aquinas did, which does not leave the argument open to some of the criticism which has been leveled against it.
We can unfold these points more as we discuss the pros and cons of the argument itself.
MICHAEL: Hume criticized the argument on the grounds that there is no proof that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. A person is conditioned into thinking that there is such a necessary connection by (1) observing the repetition of a certain sequence of events, and (2) concluding or expecting, therefore, that when the first event in the sequence occurs, the next event will necessarily occur as it has before.18 For example, if every time I pull a rope, the church bell to which it is attached rings, the repeated observation of that sequence causes me to think there is a necessary connection between the pulling of the rope and the ringing of the bell. Therefore, I expect that when I pull the cord in the future, the bell wil1 ring. What reason is there for us to believe this, however, Hume asks, since we cannot see the connection between cause and effect? Is it not just as reasonable to think that the bell will not ring.
TEACHER: As you speak, I cannot help but feel pity for Hume. Where did his skepticism and “reason” lead him? Only into confusion and unhappiness. But that is another subject, so I'll stick to the topic of the moment.
Even if we were to admit that we cannot “see” an entity called the "necessary connection" between a given cause for a specific event and the event itself, I am unable to see how that can possibly affect this argument. After all, no proof has been forwarded which indicates that an effect occurs without being caused. There is a cause for every event. If you pull the rope in the spire tomorrow, and the bell does not ring, there will definitely be a reason or cause for it not ringing. Perhaps it may be due to some young prankster untying the rope to the bell, or perhaps the gong within the bell has been removed. Similarly, if the sun fails to rise tomorrow morning, there will be a definite cause for its failure to do so. In any case, if a sequence of events which is connected by a relationship of cause to effect fails to occurs, it is because of a specific cause.
What's the first thing you would do, for example, Michael, if you pulled the rope and the bell didn't ring?
MICHAEL: I would immediately try to find out why. I would search for the reason for its not ringing.
TEACHER: Yes, you would know there must be a cause.
Everyone is engaged in action. The law of karma means that there are reactions to every action and that a person must endure the reactions to his actions.MICHAEL: You admit that the argument has its defects, but you also say it is respectable. How is this?
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
TEACHER: Well, in the first place, I may not demand as much from the argument as, say, Hume does. In other words, he attacks it on the grounds that it cannot prove the existence of a benevolent Deity, and this is not something I expect from it. Secondly, it can be stated more conclusively than Aquinas did, which does not leave the argument open to some of the criticism which has been leveled against it.
We can unfold these points more as we discuss the pros and cons of the argument itself.
MICHAEL: Hume criticized the argument on the grounds that there is no proof that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. A person is conditioned into thinking that there is such a necessary connection by (1) observing the repetition of a certain sequence of events, and (2) concluding or expecting, therefore, that when the first event in the sequence occurs, the next event will necessarily occur as it has before.18 For example, if every time I pull a rope, the church bell to which it is attached rings, the repeated observation of that sequence causes me to think there is a necessary connection between the pulling of the rope and the ringing of the bell. Therefore, I expect that when I pull the cord in the future, the bell wil1 ring. What reason is there for us to believe this, however, Hume asks, since we cannot see the connection between cause and effect? Is it not just as reasonable to think that the bell will not ring.
TEACHER: As you speak, I cannot help but feel pity for Hume. Where did his skepticism and “reason” lead him? Only into confusion and unhappiness. But that is another subject, so I'll stick to the topic of the moment.
Even if we were to admit that we cannot “see” an entity called the "necessary connection" between a given cause for a specific event and the event itself, I am unable to see how that can possibly affect this argument. After all, no proof has been forwarded which indicates that an effect occurs without being caused. There is a cause for every event. If you pull the rope in the spire tomorrow, and the bell does not ring, there will definitely be a reason or cause for it not ringing. Perhaps it may be due to some young prankster untying the rope to the bell, or perhaps the gong within the bell has been removed. Similarly, if the sun fails to rise tomorrow morning, there will be a definite cause for its failure to do so. In any case, if a sequence of events which is connected by a relationship of cause to effect fails to occurs, it is because of a specific cause.
What's the first thing you would do, for example, Michael, if you pulled the rope and the bell didn't ring?
MICHAEL: I would immediately try to find out why. I would search for the reason for its not ringing.
TEACHER: Yes, you would know there must be a cause.