Uncaused cause

Uncaused cause

Ernest Hepnar photo: Rome 2019

Preface

Main source for this article:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014) (2017), The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

In evangelical circles I hear (read) the terms uncaused (first) cause, used in terms of God.

I am not in disagreement. I will usually academically use the terms such as infinite, first cause, and necessary and contingent. Interestingly from Stanford University (non-exhaustive) as my main source for this article.

Stanford

Stanford University: Cosmological Argument

Cited

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.

Cited

I do not embrace any classic cosmological argument. I do not define my views as a cosmological argument (s). I have supported first cause arguments:

Among these initial facts are that particular beings or events in the universe are causally dependent or contingent, that the universe (as the totality of contingent things) is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, that the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact possibly has an explanation, or that the universe came into being. From these facts philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal is to provide evidence for the claim that God exists.

Cited

Both theists and nontheists in the last part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century generally have shown a healthy skepticism about the argument. Alvin Plantinga concludes “that this piece of natural theology is ineffective” (1967: chap. 1).

Richard Gale contends, in Kantian fashion, that since the conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an impossibility, no cosmological arguments can provide examples of sound reasoning (1991: chap. 7). 

Cited

Once Aquinas concludes that necessary beings exist, he then goes on to ask whether these beings have their existence from themselves or from another. If from another, then we have an unsatisfactory infinite regress of explanations. Hence, there must be something whose necessity is uncaused. 

As noted in several articles on this website, a vicious regress provides philosophically fatal (unreasonable) premises.

As Kenny points out, Aquinas understands this necessity in terms of being unable to cease to exist (Kenny 1969: 48). Although Aquinas understands the uncaused necessary being to be God, Rundle takes this to be matter/energy itself.

Infinite matter/energy seems a highly unlikely premise for a universe that is scientifically reasoned to have begun with a big bang. This defines as finite matter/energy. Time and space, also being finite.

Cited

One question that arises with Rundle’s view is whether there could have been more or less matter/energy than there is. That is, if there is nn amount of matter/energy in the world, could there be a possible world with +n+n or −n−n amounts of matter/energy? We do not know how much matter/energy existed in the first 10−3510−35 seconds of the universe. Even if the universe currently operates according to the principle of the Conservation of Matter and Energy, Rundle’s thesis depends on the contention that during the very early phase of rapid expansion, a period of time we know little about, this principle held. 

Philosophically, how is there rapid expansion of something infinite?

Cited

A second significant problem concerns what follows from the existence of necessary beings. If the matter/energy nexus constitutes the necessary being, what causally follows from that nexus is itself necessary, and contingency, even in the composing relations within the universe, would disappear. Everything in the universe would be necessary, which is a disquieting position. 

An infinite universe again is problematic. The universe simply would be, no big-bang, no expansion, no evolution.

Cited

Third, O’Connor (2004) argues that since the necessary being provides the ultimate explanation, there is no explanation of the differentiation of the kinds of matter or of contingencies that matter/energy causally undergo, for example, in terms of space-time location. 

Perhaps one way to rescue Rundle’s thesis would be to invoke an indeterministic presentation of quantum phenomena, which would allow contingency of individual phenomena but not of the overall probabilistic structure.

The lack of a deterministic first cause, also leads to vicious regress. A regress of indeterministic causes.

From my PhD

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Links for both papers

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives

Plantinga reasons that for Kant the intellectual problem is not that persons cannot think about God but that persons cannot come to speculative metaphysical knowledge of God. Plantinga (2000: 9).

Again from my PhD:

Plantinga reasons that aspects of Aquinas’ presentation are reasonable, but overall the argument is unsuccessful. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80). In contrast, this does not render all arguments for first cause unsuccessful, but Plantinga points out difficulties with Aquinas’ approach, which is perhaps too extensive. Aquinas’ presentation although classic and important, is very speculative and Plantinga has disagreements with his overall work. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80). Geivett reasons Plantinga is too negative concerning natural theology as possibly working. Geivett (1993: 59-60). 

End citations

As a theistic, philosopher of religion, I grant this point to Geivett.

The noumenon realm can only be understood through rational intuition in Kantian thought, and not empirically. I very much agree that God cannot be personally known (in a New Testament biblical context) via speculation, but I reason that within the academic discipline of philosophy of religion (rationalism) there can be true premises in regard to the existence of the first cause, implied as God. For God to be known personally requires divine revelation, in other words the infinite reveals to the finite. Which I support as reasonable in contrast to Kantian thought. A classic example of divine revelation below...

New American Standard Bible

Genesis 1: 1 a 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

---

Bibliography

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province. http://www.op.org/summa/

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014) (2017), The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Stanford University: Cosmological Argument

Selected Stanford References (Authors I have referenced in my academic career, not necessarily the articles listed on the Stanford website)

Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. 1. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. [Summa Contra Gentiles available online] –––, [ST] Summa Theologica, I, q. 2. [Summa Theologica available online] 

Copan, Paul, 2017, 2019, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (2 vols), New York: Bloomsbury. 

Copan, Paul and William Lane Craig, 2004, Creation out of Nothing, Grand Rapids: Baker.

Craig, William Lane, 1979, The Kalām Cosmological Argument, London: Macmillan.

 –––, 1980, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, London: Macmillan.

 

–––, 1992, “The Origin and Creation of the Universe: A Reply to Adolf Grünbaum”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43(2): 233–40. doi:10.1093/bjps/43.2.233. 

–––, 1997, “In Defense of the Kalām Cosmological Argument”, Faith and Philosophy, 14(2): 236–47. doi:10.5840/faithphil19971422 [Craig 1997 available online] 

–––, 2002, “Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder”, Faith and Philosophy, 19(1): 94–105. doi:10.5840/faithphil20021917 

–––, 2010, “Taking Tense Time Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston”, Faith and Philosophy, 27(4): 451–56. doi:10.5840/faithphil201027445

–––, 2018, “The Kalām Cosmological Argument”, in Jerry Walls and Trent Dougherty (eds.), Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God, New York: Oxford University Press. 

Craig, William Lane and James P. Moreland, (eds.), 2009, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, London: Blackwell.

Craig, William Lane and James D. Sinclair, 2009, “The Kalām Cosmological Argument”, in Craig and Moreland 2009: 101–201. [This contains an exhaustive bibliography on the Kalām cosmological argument.] [Craig and Sinclair 2009 preprint available online] 

Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith, 1993, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263838.001.0001 

Davis, Stephen, 1997, God, Reason & Theistic Proofs, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 

Flew, Anthony and Alasdair C. MacIntyre (eds.), 1955, New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London: SCM. 

Gale, Richard M. (ed.), 1991, On the Nature and Existence of God, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316499054 

Gale, Richard M. and Alexander R. Pruss, 1999, “A New Cosmological Argument”, Religious Studies, 35(4): 461–476. Reprinted in Gale and Pruss 2003: 365–80. [Gale and Pruss 1999 available online] 

–––, 2002, “A Response to Oppy, and to Davey and Clifton”, Religious Studies, 38(1): 89–99. doi:10.1017/S0034412501005923 

––– (eds.), 2003, The Existence of God, Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Hick, John, 1960, “God as Necessary Being”, Journal of Philosophy, 57(22/23): 725–33. 

Hume, David, 1779, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, London. Reprinted Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980. [Hume 1779 available online] –––, 1748, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, London. Reprinted Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993. [Hume 1748 available online] 

Kant, Immanuel, 1781/1787, Critique of Pure Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. [Kant Critique available online] 

Kenny, Anthony, 1969, The Five Ways, New York: Schocken Books.

Mackie, John L., 1982, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Plantinga, Alvin, 1967, God and Other Minds, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Pruss, Alexander R., 1999, “The Hume-Edwards Principle and the Cosmological Argument”, in Gale and Pruss 2003: 347–63. 

–––, 2006, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

–––, 2009, “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”, in Craig and Moreland 2009: 24–100. [Pruss 2009 available online] 

–––, 2018, Infinity, Causation, and Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Quinn, Philip, 2005, “Cosmological Contingency and Theistic Explanation”, Faith and Philosophy, 22(5): 581–600. doi:10.5840/faithphil200522520 

Reichenbach, Bruce R., 1972, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment, Springfield: Charles Thomas. 

–––, 2004, “Explanation and the Cosmological Argument”, in Michael L. Peterson and Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, London: Blackwell, pp. 97–114.

Rowe, William L., 1962, “The Fallacy of Composition”, Mind, 71(281): 87–92. doi:10.1093/mind/LXXI.281.87

–––, 1968, “The Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason”, Man and World, 1(2): 278–92. doi:10.1007/BF01258405

–––, 1975, The Cosmological Argument, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

–––, 1997, “Circular Explanations, Cosmological Arguments, and Sufficient Reasons”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 21(1): 188–99. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1997.tb00523.x

Rundle, Bede, 2004, Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing?, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Russell, Bertrand, 1937, The Principles of Mathematics, second edition (first edition 1903), London: George Allen & Unwin. 

Russell, Bertrand and Frederick Copleston, 1948, “Debate on the Existence of God”, Reprinted in John Hick (ed.), 1964, The Existence of God, New York: Macmillan, pp. 167–90.

Swinburne, Richard, 1977, The Coherence of Theism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

–––, 1979, The Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

–––, 1983, “Mackie, Induction, and God”, Religious Studies, 19(3): 385–91. doi:10.1017/S0034412500015316 

–––, 1993. The Coherence of Theism, revised edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

–––, 1996, Is There a God? Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

–––, 2001, Epistemic Justification, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

–––, 2004, The Existence of God, revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

–––, 2007, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212460.001.0001 

–––, 2010, “God as the Simplest Explanation of the Universe”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2(1): 1–24. 

–––, 2012, “What Kind of Necessary Being Could God Be?”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 4(2), 1–18.

–––, 2016, The Coherence of Theism, 2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198240708.001.0001

van Inwagen, Peter, 1983, An Essay on Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press.

More radicals outside than inside

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

More radicals outside than inside

The book review continues... 

Chapter Three: The Reformers

Mr. Wallace opines that there exists today, in the media, Islamic reformers that are trying to promote the fantasy that Islam is a religion of peace. (23).

Wallace reasons that American leaders, politically favour this palatable form of Islam. (23). The author states that these political leaders have not done the required research into the Islamic scripture to even know if Islam is indeed a religion of peace. (23).

I can agree that the majority of persons in the Western world, have no significant education in religious studies and philosophy. These would include politicians...

Mr. Wallace explains that orthodox Muslims view these reformers as heretics (24), blasphemers (24), that have changed the message of Allah from the Qur'an. (24). Wallace opines that many radical Islamists can cloak themselves as reformers, for a time while living in America. (24).

And/or in the West, I would reason.

It has been opined in this review series that radical Islam has at least some significant similarities in regard to views on Jihad and Holy War, to Quranic Islam:

October 19

Quran.com 9:29

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.' 

In regard to Qur'an 9. 29 according to Nigosian states, quote in part: 'Fight against those who believe not in God, nor in the last day, who prohibit not what God and his Prophet have prohibited, and who refuse allegiance to the true faith.' (448).

Again, as I have basically stated within my review series, a radical Islamic view of Jihad/Holy War, or even the similar orthodox Islamic view on Jihad/Holy, is by no means the likely view to be embraced by liberalized, westernized Muslims. Muslims that have left Islamic countries for Western ones, are in the majority, more likely to further embrace Western secularism and liberalized Islam, than radical and/or conservative forms of Islam.

Those that are radicalized within Islam; those that are conservative and orthodox within Islamic, will largely remain located within Islamic nations.

In regard to Islam and the Western world, it could be stated that there would be:

More radicals outside than inside.

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Christianity and the Enlightenment are not completely antithetical (PhD Edit)

Canada.ca 2017

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

Hille explains that considerations on evil and the existence of God led to a criticism of Christianity and religion in Europe in the Eighteenth century and to some degree earlier. Hille (2004: 22).

The Eighteenth century was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy, Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) was published as was previously noted, and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began. Hille (2004: 22). Theistic and Christian theodicy are therefore largely a response to initial Seventeenth, and primarily Eighteenth century and forward, secular criticisms of the theology and philosophy of God within religion and Christianity. Hille (2004: 22).

Veith explains that this age of reason features scientific discovery, and the rejection of much of revealed religion in favour of a reliance on reason. Veith (1994: 32-33). It was thought for a time that science could explain all of existence. Veith (1994: 32-33).

The term ‘Enlightenment’ refers to the philosophical movement among seventeenth and eighteenth century Western intellectuals. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 44-45). Enlightenment thinkers tended to reject external sources of knowledge and elevated human reasoning. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 44-45). Biblical doctrines were therefore under suspicion. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 44-45). In contrast, the Bible records these revealed events and they are perceived through faith for significance. Pailin (1999: 505).

Lindsell would support a traditional understanding of Biblical revelation where he states that through special supernatural revelation in Scripture, Jesus Christ is revealed to selected persons. Lindsell does not believe that a human being can be saved outside of this revelation. Lindsell (1976: 17). Grenz and Olson point out that the Enlightenment understanding of reason would no longer allow the Church to be the sole teacher of Bible and Christian doctrine. Grenz and Olson (1992: 21). Individuals with the use of reason would need to question Church teaching. Grenz and Olson (1992: 21).

Modernity was the dominant worldview heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 79-80).

Individual church members and attendees understanding of Scripture and theology is an integral part of modern evangelical thought, and this can be traced back to Enlightenment thinking, and to some degree the Reformation. Christianity and the Enlightenment are not completely antithetical, as they are both modernist philosophies which overlap at points in their pursuit of truth. Veith (1994: 43). Veith writes that in the late twentieth century these views have been replaced by post-modernism, which has less emphasis on absolute truth. Veith (1994: 19). This is not to state that post-modernism completely sets aside the concept of truth, but post-modern philosophies are often less dogmatic in approach than ones from the modern era.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Revelation’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.

Boxing Day, but not in the USA

Rio De Janeiro at night: Sort of Christmas like...

Boxing Day, but not in the USA

Ultimate History Project.com

Cited

'In Ireland it is called Lá an Dreoilín, (The Day of the Wren) or Stephen’s Day. In England it is Boxing Day. On the Isle of Man, it is Laa'l Steaoin (Stephen’s Feast Day). Traditionally celebrated on December 26th, this is a day of customs ancient and modern; strange and ordinary.

As an official holiday, Boxing Day is actually of comparatively recent origin: Queen Victoria included December 26th in the Bank Holidays Act passed by the British Parliament in 1871.

The fact that it became an official holiday (a day when all banks are closed) at a time when the British Empire included Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and Canada explains why it is celebrated in most parts of the British Commonwealth. The Republic of Ireland, which gained its independence from Britain in 1921, continues to celebrate the day as a bank holiday but does not use the term Boxing Day.'

Cited

'The name Boxing Day embodies the confusion surrounding the origins of the holiday. Samuel Pepys hinted at its origins when he recorded his diary entry for December 19th, 1663: “Thence by coach to my shoemaker’s and paid all there, and gave something to the boys’ box against Christmas.”

Almost fifty years later, Jonathan Swift complained,

By the Lord Harry, I shall be undone here with Christmas boxes. The rogues of the coffee-house have raised their tax, every one giving a crown, and I gave mine for shame, besides a great many half-crowns to great men’s porters”.'

Cited

'By the nineteenth century, Boxing Day, rather than Christmas or the days preceding it, became the day on which these tradesmen and in particular, postal workers were given boxed gifts or monetary tips in thanks for their services.'

Cited

'WHY ST. STEPHEN?

At the same time, it is no coincidence that Boxing Day falls on the Feast of St. Stephen. While there are several different saints named Stephen, December 26th is the Feast day of Stephen, Proto-martyr.-- Stephen appears in The Acts of the Apostles as one of seven men named to help ensure that the distribution of alms to widows in the early Christian church is done fairly.

Eventually, Stephen preached a sermon taking the people to task for poor behavior: they responded by stoning him to death. As the first Christian martyr he holds an important place in the church calendar. He is frequently depicted with a stone in one hand and the palm of martyrdom in the other.

Stephen embraced the gospel in opposition to religious leaders in Acts 7

Most importantly however, he is associated with the giving of alms and the locked boxes kept in churches for donations. These boxes were traditionally opened on St. Stephen’s day and the money distributed to the needy.

The connection of December 26th with poor boxes provides another plausible explanation of the term "Boxing Day."'

Cited

Whether through the box used to collect the money or the box used to house the wren, the day had also become inextricably mixed up with Boxing Day.

'However Boxing Day came to be, it has become a holiday of rest, relaxation, and time with family and friends for those who recognize it.

Today, Boxing Day is a day on which sporting events, shopping, and eating a second feast take precedence over giving tips and hunting birds.

Time: December 26, 2013

From this classic American source:

'If you’re looking for something that explains the origins of Boxing Day, well, you’re not going to find it here. The day-after-Christmas holiday is celebrated by most countries in the Commonwealth, but in a what-were-we-doing-again? bout of amnesia, none of them are really sure what they’re celebrating, when it started or why.

The best clue to Boxing Day’s origins can be found in the song “Good King Wenceslas.” According to the Christmas carol, Wenceslas, who was Duke of Bohemia in the early 10th century, was surveying his land on St. Stephen’s Day — Dec. 26 — when he saw a poor man gathering wood in the middle of a snowstorm. Moved, the King gathered up surplus food and wine and carried them through the blizzard to the peasant’s door. The alms-giving tradition has always been closely associated with the Christmas season — hence the canned-food drives and Salvation Army Santas that pepper our neighborhoods during the winter — but King Wenceslas’ good deed came the day after Christmas, when the English poor received most of their charity.'

Cited

'Boxing Day has been a national holiday in England, Wales, Ireland and Canada since 1871. For years in which the holiday falls on a weekend, the celebration is moved to make sure workers still get a day off (except in Canada, where it remains Dec. 26), but since visits to Grandma and other family obligations are fulfilled on Christmas, there isn’t anything left to do on Boxing Day except eat leftovers, drink and watch TV. Just as Americans watch football on Thanksgiving, the Brits have Boxing Day soccer matches and horse races. If they’re particularly wealthy or live in the country, they might even participate in a fox hunt.'
---

Yes, I just watched part of an English Premier League, football match, today.

But boxes are taken out in America today, too, even though there was an American Revolution and the United States of America is independent from the United Kingdom.

So these reasonably academic presentations have demonstrated that there is more to Boxing Day than my childhood tradition of taking my empty toy boxes to the trash on December 26.