Aronra Isn’t Rational
By: Maximus Confesses
Tags: Apologetics, Religion, Aronra, Christianity, Faith And Reason

Aronra Isn’t Rational

A Response to his video, Theism is Not Rational

The following post is an edited compilation of three much older posts. The formatting should not reflect how I currently, or will, format my posts. The post should also not be construed as supporting the arguments defended.

While I would like to believe Aronra is coming from a place of stupidity, there are some arguments he puts foreword that cause me to think he is acting in malice.

Then again it could be both. In this video, Philosopher Peter Kreeft is using two arguments, one from motion and the other the Kalam, to prove God’s existence. Both of them can be found here and here. I will go through his counter arguments and give them a time stamp for efficiency. They will give an approximation, so you might not find the exact moment where it start.

Aronra starts opening his mouth and it already goes down hill at 00.20. His first argument to show why theism is irrational by claiming that it was thought up by primitive man. The problem with this argument is it commits the genetic fallacy, since it attacks the origins of the idea rather than the idea itself. It would be no different in attacking the truth of the results from Nazi science experimentation because they were gained by unethical means. Sure their origins were atrocious, but it does not make them factually wrong. Furthermore, he provides little evidence in this video for such a claim.

The next set of arguments come from citing (or more accurately cherry picking) various dictionaries, scriptures, hymns and sermons. I will tackle them one at a time, but they start coming at 00.50. Here Aronra is giving arguments that faith and reason are contrary to one another, and is espousing fideism as the only true definition. While this is one of the three positions I described in one of my video here, it is not the only. Fideism is defended elsewhere (by reputable church theologians like Tertullian and Chrysostom), but not as poorly as Aronra does.

The first string of sources are dictionaries, while I could not make out where the last one was from, I know the other sources and where they are from. I will inspect all but the one from Encarta.com as it is dead. The first one is from Dictionary.com ,

Confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that does not rest on a logical proof or material evidence.

The problem is that this definition is not on the page. I figure this is because the website has been updated. However, there are definitions that speak about faith being apart from, or without reason. Yet, there are also definitions like the following,

(Christianity) trust in God and in his actions and promises

This one actually shows how faith is taken in the context of Christianity. The next source does not even tell us about the relationship of faith and reason. Why he brings this up I don’t understand,

1. Confidence or trust

2. Strong Belief in a religion

3. System of religious beliefs — Ask Oxford

The next definition is one that’s just cherry picked,

Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another,resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony — Accurate and Reliable Dictionary

If Aronra spent any time looking on the page, he would have seen other definitions like the following,

The reason it seems that Aronra rejects this definition is most likely that they conflict with his reason and faith are opposed viewpoints. The last definition is from Merriam-Webster. The one Aronra uses is as follows,

But it is not the only one. There is again another one that emphasizes faith as a form of trust.

This definition of faith as a form of religious trust is even found in the Koine Greek (which the New Testament is written). Faith means Pistos, which Strong’s Greek concordance defines as “trustworthy, faithful, believing”. I would think that someone who is into researching faith would have touched on the Greek New Testament meaning. Speaking of which, let us get to the scriptural examples.

The first one is John 20:29.

Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (NASB)

This verse was said to Thomas after he did not believe in the testimony of his brothers with regards to Jesus. The implication being that one is supposed to believe as a matter of fact, without any evidence. The problem is that Thomas did have evidence and was in an intellectual position to believe. If the narrative is correct, Thomas would have witnessed miracles, Thomas had the testimony of people who would have had no excuse to lie and yet Thomas still required further justification. Jesus knew that there would be those who would still trust him without seeing the resurrected body, but it does not entail that they have no evidence to believe, or ought to require no evidence.

This next verse (Romans 1:20) is actually one that makes a claim about the world, so I do not see how it says faith and reason are separate.

20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats [a]and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have [b]as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin (NASB).

The point is not to say faith exists apart from reason, but that it is contrary to faith to eat and drink when it means your brother stumbles.

1st Corinthians 4:18 is also taken out of context. The chapter in question deals with the spiritual renewal that is given to Christians. Especially in the face of hardship.

16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (NASB)

That which is unseen is God, who does have evidence for his existence (as Romans 1:20 says). So, again, no sign that faith is apart from reason.

The next verse (2 Corinthians 5:7), while seeming damnable, is explicable by looking at the preceding verse.

6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord — 7 for we walk by faith, not by [c]sight (NASB).

This chapter deals with the resurrection of the body. It is about our own eyesight not being needed. This is because through faith, our spirit is given new life and no longer needs the corrupted body. Lastly we have Hebrews 11:1.

Now faith is the [a]assurance of things [b]hoped for, the [c]conviction of things not seen (NASB),

This verse is different from the previous ones because the author here is defining faith. The problem is it still does not say faith is contrary to reason. All it says is that the outcomes are not immediately evident. But we are rational in accepting the existence of the universe 500 years from now, despite it not being seen.

Further, if one reads the rest of the book, one sees all the benefits people gained by having faith and trust in God. The author is also giving evidence for this by way of pointing to people of the past for faith. This is because we can have faith in things with evidence, or without. The fact of the matter is the distinction is drawn from looking rationally at the evidence.

I wonder why Aronra does not give verses that go against his conception of faith.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 — But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good

This verse shows that we must be careful in accepting any belief 1 Corinthians 15:14 — and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain

This verse actually shows that there are is falsifiable evidence for one’s faith.

The next is a bunch of irrelevant sources.

Dan Barker (an atheist ex-pastor)

Michael Card (a Christian folk singer)

William Bryan Jennings (a lawyer and politician)

Peter LaRuffa (a pastor)

None of the above are influential religious theologians.

The only exception was Martin Luther, and that is a good figure. However, that too was an incorrect understanding of Luther. I will bring up the verse,

One has to note that Luther does not attack reason point blank. Faith and reason have to work in tandem. Reason is the instrumental in that it works for the ends of the person. Luther complains that his opponents don’t listen to reason in the very same work.

Like Paul, we struggle with the Word of God against the fanatical Anabaptists of our day; and our efforts are not entirely in vain. The trouble is there are many who refuse to be instructed. They will not listen to reason; they will not listen to the Scriptures, because they are bewitched by the tricky devil who can make a lie look like the truth.

For Luther, reason unsupplemented by faith (i.e.given by God), makes people seek out justification by the law. For a better view on Luther’s take regarding faith and reason, let’s consult the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy.

Now, how about we give some evidence for the praise reason is given from theologians.

Not to mention,

Not only does the will need to be ready to obey but also the intellect needs to be well disposed to follow the command of the will, even as the concupiscible faculty needs to be well disposed in order to follow the command of reason; hence there needs to be a habit of virtue not only in the commanding will but also in the assenting intellect — Saint Thomas Aquinas

With regards to the Catholic Church’s current take on Fideism, we have settled on the following,

Now that we have moved passed Aronra’s cherry picking, we will address the argument from motion. Although, so far we only addressed a minute of his video, now we will cover more.

Let’s skip over to around 1:50. It is here where Aronra shows he does not know how logical fallacies work. When making an argument, it is divided into premises and a conclusion. If something is wrong with the premise (it makes a fallacious inference), it follows that you reasoned poorly to your conclusion. It does not mean your conclusion is wrong (that would be the fallacy fallacy). It just means the way you go about getting that conclusion is improper.

Now, what Aronra calls Kreeft out for is question begging after Kreeft declares that one is able to find the fingerprints of the designer in the universe.The problem is that Kreeft is not giving a premise, but explaining what conclusion he hopes to draw out from his argumentation. But the fun does not stop there.

Aronra continues at around two minutes and says “statistics say the more you know the less you believe”. We have 2 problems

A belief is holding a proposition to be true regardless if it is. When a belief becomes a form of knowledge, it is because it is true, and/or justified (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/) Further, he references statistics but does not give any

Next up are some of Aronra goes over how scientists agree with him about there being no God and they would be in the best position to know. A few more problems,

This is a metaphysical argument, not one about the physical world (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#WorMetConMet) This is a textbook case of an argument from authority

Also, it does not address Kreeft’s premises as he is not using scientific facts at this point.

At 3:50, Kreeft outlines his argument and it can be summed up as follows.

P1 — Anything in motion does not have any causal power to change or obtain a new state without another antecedent mover

P2 — This chain of things in motion cannot go on forever

In conclusion — there is a first mover that is not in the chain of motion (i.e. unmoved).

Before getting to Aronra’s response, I’ll further explain the argument and what is meant by “motion”. Motion in this context comes from seeing in the world a series of act and potency. When we are speaking of something, it is divided into two aspects.

what a thing is what a thing can be

In his book Aquinas; A Beginner’s guide, the Thomist philosopher Edward Feser gives us the following summery,

Take any object of our experience: a red rubber ball, for example. Among its features are the ways it actually is: solid, round, red, and bouncy. These are different aspects of its “being.” There are also the ways it is not; for example, it is not a dog, or a car, or a computer. The ball’s “dogginess” and so on, since they don’t exist, are different kinds of “non-being.” But in addition to these features,we can distinguish the various ways the ball potentially is: blue (if you paint it), soft and gooey (if you melt it), and so forth. So, being and non-being are not the only relevant factors here; there are also a thing’s potentialities. Or, to use the traditional Scholastic jargon, in addition to the different ways in which a thing may be “in act” or actual, there are the various ways in which it may be “in potency” or potential. Here lies the key to understanding how change is possible. If the ball is to become soft and gooey, it can’t be the actual gooeyness itself that causes this, since it doesn’t yet exist. But that the gooeyness is non-existent is not (as Parmenides assumed) the end of the story, for a potential or potency for gooeyness does exist in the ball, and this, together with some external influence (such as heat) that actualizes that potential — or, as the Scholastics would put it, which reduces the potency to act — suffices to show how the change can occur. Change just is the realization of some potentiality; or as Aquinas puts it, “motion is the actuality of a being in potency” (In Meta IX.1.1770), where “motion” is to be understood here in the broad Aristotelian sense as including change in general and not just movement from one place to another (16).Thus, whatever change happens (the realization of some potency) is the result of a potency being brought out of something which has act in someway.

To believe a potency is realized without existing prior in some act is tantamount to saying a thing was realized from nothing, which was what Kreeft was getting at. As for radio active decay, Kreeft is correct, just because a theory does not make a reference to a cause does not mean there isn’t one. All it means is that the effect from cause is not yet determined (or, to go further, causally random like the halting problem), not uncaused.

Returning back to Arora’s lame ass attempts. he begins to pimp his boy Krauss who is not an expert and is not saying anything relevant to the discussion. Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing, is not talking about nothing in the sense of how philosophers are using it (the absence of anything). But is merely claiming that we can get a universe from a quantum vacuum. The philosopher and physicist David Albert goes into more detail about this here. So considering this is irrelevant and from a non-relevant expert, this is dismissable as an argument from authority.

The next point Aronra brings up, which is the first good point he makes, is how is God able to create ex-nihilo as that would be something coming from nothing. However, this is not the case, as Michael W. Tkacz explains,

Strictly speaking, points out Aquinas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of Creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist — it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates — not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

God, without need of anything outside his very existence, sustains the world from Time T1 and onward. This way we have God, who is unmoved, and a chain of motion that is creation. Thus, the whole of the universe’s potential exists within Gods pure act of existence.

From 05:05–05:20, Aronra cites verses claiming what God is doing is magic and in defence of this claim he sites the following bible verses,

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the [a]worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible (NASB)

Psalm 33:9

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (NASB)

Even if we were to grant this to Aronra, this would be a bad reflection on the Bible, not the argument itself. It could still be the case we have an unmoved mover. This was the kind that Aristotle argued for in his work The Metaphysics. Aristotle himself believed in an eternal universe and God as the sustaining God of said universe (Weller, 2–4).

However, the Christian can give an alternative interpretation. Hebrews 11:3 could be a reflection of John 1 and the word is in reference to Christ. As for Psalm 33:9, that could be in reference to God’s sovereignty over the nations. Which would make more sense considering the surrounding verse.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples (NASB).

The next verse he mentions is Genesis 2:7 (where Adam is breathed life into). This according to Aronra is a golem spell. Too bad he makes no point in giving a source, or even explaining how the golem spell was not just inspired by Genesis 2:7 and not the other way around as Aronra claims. Even if we grant him this point, it is still another Red Herring as it would only be a bad reflection on the Bible and not effect any premise of the argument above.

The next brilliant argument Aronra brings out is your typical philosophy 101 who created God argument of “who created God” at 5:37. Remember, we are arguing for an unmoved mover. This is a being who cannot be actualized in any further way. Since coming into being is the actualization of some potential, asking the question of who created the unmoved mover is tantamount to asking what makes makes a rectangle a four-sided figure. If we are deducing from some property of the universe that it is in some way dependent on an unmoved mover, then we are committed to one exists. This comes from not defining what God is, but from properly conceptualizing the nature of the universe and agreeing the universe is a effect to some existing cause.

At 5:50 we have the worst straw man ever. This claim is “since God is beyond reality he must not be real” The theist does not claim God is outside reality, but space and time. All the theist maintains is that God is the one thing in reality that all other things depend on.

At 6:00 Kreeft concludes his argument by showing secondary lines of motion are contingent upon a prime mover. and at 6:20, Aronra continues to straw man by claiming God is in time (which the argument establishes he is not), claims the argument is circular (it is not, Aaron Ra misunderstands the argument), Claims God of the Gaps (it is not, as Gods properties are deduced and not induced from ignorance).

If God was in time, he would require actualization at every Time T that passes. The argument is not circular as none of the premises holds the conclusion (earlier on he misrepresents an introduction into the argument as a premise). Lastly, God of the Gaps is when we claim in not knowing what happens, throw in God as the explanation. However, the argument does not make the claim in any of its premises that science is wrong, therefore God. God is not an explanation, but the result from a proof. An explanation is when we are giving an account, a proof is present as a conclusion via mathematics, or logic. It is only God of the Gaps if we are using God as an explanation. Remember, science does not prove anything.

At 7:00, Aronra asks a good question. Why is God the prime mover. I will defer to Feser again.

As we have said, at least when the proofs are read in light of Aquinas’s general metaphysical commitments, each of the Five Ways can be seen, if successful, to demonstrate the existence of a being who is Pure Act or Being Itself. Does this mean that they all converge on one and the same being, or might the existence of five distinct “gods” be proved via Aquinas’s arguments? Aquinas’s answer should be clear from what was said in chapter 2 about his doctrine of essence and existence.For the reasons we examined then, on Aquinas’s view there can in principle be only one being whose essence and existence are identical, and thus which is Pure Being. Hence it is necessarily one and the same being on which all five proofs converge. This would obviously entail, for the same reason, that there is and can be only one God. For there to be more than one God, there would have to be some essence that the distinct “Gods” all share, each with his own individual act of existence. But since God is that being in whom essence and existence are identical, who just is existence or being itself, there is no sense to be made of the idea that he shares an essence with anything else, or has one act of existing alongside others (ST I.11.3).Aquinas also gives two other reafections and privations are just different ways in whichsomething could fail to be in act or actual. Hence there can be no way even in principle to distinguish one such being from another, and thus there could not possibly be more than one (ST I.11.3).Furthermore, the order that characterizes the world gives it a unity that is explicable only if there is also unity in its cause (ST I.11.3).The unity or oneness of God is only one of many divine attributes that Aquinas thinks can be established via pure reason without recourse to divine revelation. We have space here only to provide a brief survey, but Aquinas himself pursues the matter at great length and by deploying a wealth of arguments both in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, thus exposing as a kind of urban legend the commonly made allegation that even if one were to accept the existence of a first cause, unmoved mover, and so on, Aquinas does nothing to show that such a being would have the otherharacteristics traditionally ascribed to God.sons for holding that the being whose existence is argued for in the five ways (69–70).

The last part up until 8 minutes deals with big bang cosmology. That has more to do with the Kalam style argument that comes next. For now, I will deal with the question of a past eternal set of movers. The reason we don’t have one is that if there were an infinite number, nothing would ever get actualized. movers (unlike causes) use one another to realize potentials. If everything required a mover, nothing would ever result. It would be similar to an electrical current that takes an eternity to give you a shock. However, if all points of the circuit were conducted by an outside conductor, all points of the circuit could be lethal. No reference to a beginning needed.

Kalam cosmological arguments are ones that show God’s existence from the beginning of the universe and thus draw the existence of a creator God. While this will not be an extensive look at the Kalam, I will show why Aronra fails at debunking the argument. I do hold my own version of the Kalam, but I will use Kreeft’s response since that was what Aronra was responding to. I will say in advance that this part of the video does have Aronra making the most sense. This is because Aronra is speaking about science. However, whenever he touches upon philosophy he fails and terribly.

I will say this about the video, it does not transfer well between the kalam and the argument from motion, since Kreeft is using the same defence to tackle an objection made against both arguments. The objection being “why can’t there be a past eternal universe”. The traditional response for the argument from motion was to distinguish between instrumental and essential infinities. Thus, the notion of a beginning for the universe is not needed. However, if there was a beginning, the person making the argument could just as well argue, there would be nothing of prior potency to enact the universe, so we need a prime mover to sustain things from the outside. Kreeft I believe has fallen for a pop conception of the big bang.

At the 8:15 mark, Aronra makes the same mistake that Stephen Hawking does in equivocating philosophical and physical conceptions of time. The basic points are that time is not taken as purely a physical measurement, but rather state A transferring over to state B. Also, both Aronra and Hawking assume God acts in time, as opposed to being an atemporal sustainer who sustains all points of time.

At the 8:57 mark, Aronra asks again (pertaining to the Kalam) — what caused God to exist if the universe requires something to exist? In this case, the fact God is not proven to have (unlike the universe) a beginning.

Aronra makes good points about the multiverse theory and Kreeft’s defence of God over multiverse being the cause of the beginning are lacklustre. However, this is short lived when best part of this video comes at 12:50. Aronra makes the following awesomely awesome argument ever.

P1 — Miracles defy the laws of physics

P2 — [Given p1] Miricals are physically impossible

C — therefore God is impossible

The refutations are many, they are as follows

The laws of physics are descriptors, if miracles could happen, they would just be part of the laws of physics Miracles are not dependent on the laws of physics, but would be a result of superseding these laws P1 begs the question against the theist as it assumes the primacy or sole existence of the physical world fallacy of equivocation, physical impossibilities do not render a logical impossibility God is not contingent on preforming miracles

Aronra then doubles down on his fidest nonsense at 13:45. In response to Kreeft saying that that believing in God does not require faith, Aronra points to this webpage and calls Kreeft a liar. Here are the problems with this line of argumentation.

Peter Kreeft is not saying religion does not require faith, just that God’s existence can be known without prior trust since it can be known via unaided reason. Aronra is again cherry picking and deliberately hiding his source, as he cuts off the bottom of the cited webpage where there is a distinction between faith and “blind faith”. His own source says he is wrong. I don’t know how he can be so stupid, I think this is an example of him being a liar. Even if it did say what Aronra wanted to say, it would be one unacademic source on the internet and an appeal to false authority.

At the 14:14 mark, Aronra goes on about his anti-faith stance and claims he rejects faith as the most dishonest position one could have. He proceeds to stroke his ego on logical fallacies, despite failing to catch a lot of his own.

At the 15:20 he calls Kreeft a liar, despite not proving malice, and seeming like the much bigger liar himself. Lastly, he goes on to brag about how much he does not charge to speak at speaking engagements as opposed to Kreeft. However, considering the quality of his work here, I understand why he comes so cheap.

Sources cited

Feser, Edward. Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009. Print.

Further sources on faith and reason

http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/