|
A Debate - Part 6 |
|
The following is a series of exchanges that took place on "The Fray" user discussion forum on Slate On-line magazine at http://www.slate.com. The numbers at the beginning of each "post" indicate the sequential order of the posts in this thread. I (Jeff Richardson) used the moniker "jeremiad" during this discussion.
2515. IamNewman - December 30, 1996 For instance, you have confused Materialism with Idealism, as shown by your following misinterpretations (paraphrased): - A thought about something is the same as that thing existing. - There is no basis for assuming anything we experience is real. - The self is really only an illusion. - Potassium recognizes its logical relationship with water. A materialist would not consider any of these statements valid. On the other hand, your position is best demonstrated by your own statements (paraphrased): - If there is a self, it must exist beyond the brain. - There are external laws of reason which guide our thinking. These statements are the fundamental assumptions of Rationalism. You've simply stated Descartes duality of mind and matter. This duality has been unfavored by philosophers for centuries because of the following argument: If the mind has an external existence and guides our thinking, then it must have some form of physicality in order to influence the physical brain. By this argument, the external mind is another aspect of the material world. However, Materialism rejects the proposition of the external mind because it is an unsupported and unnecessary assumption. Finally, it is clear from the tone of your messages (2316 - 2319) that you view this exchange as a debate and not a discussion. In so doing, you have revealed yourself as a dogmatic Rationalist who staunchly maintains his position in spite of any argument to the contrary. In this light, further attempts to discuss this matter with you hardly seems worth the effort.
2528. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 First, let me apologize if my arguments became personal (see also your comments about me). Further, let me state that while I am a Realist (and a rationalist in the sense that I believe rationality exists), I am certainly open to refutation. I gladly welcomed your last argument. I studied it carefully and found it lacking. I am sorry if this disturbs you. Let me say, however, that it was good form and the first real attempt to address the issue. But this last post denotes a divergence from your previous logical veracity. First, you clearly haven't read or understood what your fellow materialists in the Fray have been saying. You state, regarding the three previous propositions in Message #2515, that "[a] materialist would not consider any of these statements valid" - yet mnjperry and slaterdr9 and alexkhan have all acknowledged that the first three _are_ valid in their materialist doctrine. Perhaps you are constructing a strawman to make your argument easier? Or,perhaps, you simply haven't understood the "discussion" thus far. In either case, your statements become irrelevant because they don't deal with my argument at all. I _have not_ attempted to form a comprehensive extranatural argument. I havesimply presented a cogent argument about materialism's self-refutation. You responded and I found it interesting, but ultimately inadequate. Your view of materialism must, by your own statements, hold the following: 1. a thought about something _is_the same as the thing existing - or _may_ be (how do you know?) 2. there is a basis for assuming our experience is real (what is the basis and how is it substantiated?) 3. the self is not an illusion (then you don't agree with Dennett and Crick?) 4. Potassium doesn't recognize a "logical relationship" with other chemical compounds (but the brain does? how and why?)
2530. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 Further, attempting to logically substantiate your position by making claims about how many people agree with you is an appeal to the gallery and is ultimately irrelevant. I view this as a "debate" to some degree because this is the TITLE! I don't see this as an allowance for insults or ad homimum attacks, however.
You say: On what basis? You have yet to demonstate why evidentiary or logical claims have any merit at all. The other materialists have acquiesced to the fact that in their doctrine, experience is subjective with no claim about its truth or objectivity. In such a view, all one can ever say is "this doesn't feel right to me". This is, at least, honest - and is what mnjperry & slaterdr9 have said. You are now claiming to reach objective knowledge and truth without first defending how rationality, logic and reason can exist in your worldview. You are the one who must defend your hidden presuppositions.
2518. AlexKhan - December 30, 1996 If subjective impressions are all that exist, then how can you justify science and technology? How can 17 people agree that a chair exists, or that the law of gravity applies everywhere and at all times (under ordinary scales)? What Jeremiad is telling you is that materialism leads to a reductio ab absurdam. That is, conclusions you yourself can't really believe in. Surely you're not understanding the consequences of your own assertion that there are only subjective impressions.
2523. mnjperry - December 30, 1996 Because they have the same subjective experience. If 17 similar brains receive the same sensory information (say, a visual image of a chair), it's not surprising that the information is experienced in a similar way by all of them. Isn't this obvious?
2532. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 In response to the question of how one can justify science with nothing but subjective experience to substantiate our beliefs, you say: "Because [several people] have the same subjective experience. If 17 similar brains receive the same sensory information (say, a visual image of a chair), it's not surprising that the information is experienced in a similar way by all of them. Isn't this obvious?" Ultimately, your view then is that whatever subjective experience is the most popular would define what is considered "real", correct? So if the theists outnumber the atheists (which they always have), then theism must be real and atheism should be viewed with the same disdain as those who consider the earth to be flat?
2535. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 All of you - each in his/her own way - seem to hold an a priori prejudice against the idea of anything other than matter. I can respect that. However, each of you - again in your own way - has been unable to show why you can live and think consistently with this presupposition. I have shown why such a presupposition leads to not only the apparant demise of rationality, logic and reason (not to mention love, beauty, justice, the soul, and morality), but even to its own self-refutation. No argument has been made to adequately answer these charges. You all seem unwilling to step outside of your own dogma of empiricism to see this. Let me ask you this question, then, in regard to evidence: Suppose you are accused of a murder. You have no alibi. You have some credible motive. You have no witnesses to vindicate you. Yet you didn't do it. All the evidence leads to your guilt. Does your knowledge of your innocence then become false because you lack evidence to prove it? No. Evidence of the physical kind is certainly useful and helpful in scientific study. But to hang you hat on this entirely is horribly myopic and ultimately frustrating. I ask you to try to be objective and to release your prejudice, if you can.
2538. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 Amazingly, you say: "I ask again, why do you trust that your experience of God is authentic and real rather than illusory?" Please share how you define "authentic" and "illusory". You are contradicting yourself so frequently I can't catalogue it quickly enough! If all "knowledge" is subjective - as you have strongly argued elsewhere - then what separates "authentic" belief from "illusory" belief in your view other than your disdain for and prejudice against belief in extranaturalism? If knowledge is subjective, then any view is as valid as the next and materialism is only one subjective view that is irrelevant to anyone who doesn't subjectively believe it. If knowledge is objective, then rationality must exist to obtain the knowledge - and materialism is defeated. Ultimately, you have shown your position to be logically bankrupt with your desperate attempts to argue and hold mutually exclusive beliefs.
2554. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 However, I submit that such a life is built on a serious lack of introspection and a myopic view of meaning and purpose. It has been and will continue to be true that ignorance is bliss. Most "happy, fulfilled" atheists I know are happy and fulfilled because they live as though meaning, purpose, good, love and beauty exists - even though an honest evaluation of their own beliefs would contraindicate such views. Thus, most atheists live as though the foundational tenets of theism are true - which provides them with happiness and satisfaction. I don't see anything "wrong" with this unless you think self-deception and intellectual dishonesty are wrong. But, of course, you'd have to believe in some absolute to think either of these things.
2559. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 I think it would be wise to recognize that many people live lives accordingly to belief systems other than Christianity and are happy and content. They are not "evil" or "dishonest" for such beliefs. They are simply mistaken. It is easy to live according to a lie and believe it to be the truth. I may derive meaning for my life from anything - Hitler felt his life was meaningful, in part, because he was eradicating what he believed to be an inferior race. The problem is that atheists have no way to say Hitler was wrong. You and I do.
2560. mnjperry - December 30, 1996 I ask again, how do you distinguish true knowledge from false? How do you know that some things are right and others wrong in any sense other than that it just seems that way to you?
2562. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 You say: "The scientific method is better than astrology because it seems to us a better, more accurate, more reliable way of acquiring knowledge about the world." Who is this "us"? Again, you are left making the claim that "validity" is determined by the number of people who believe in something. Or, perhaps, you would be happier saying truth is determined by, not necessarily the number, but the _kind_ of people who believe something. Thus, if all scientifically minded people believe the in scientific method you may conclude that the scientific method is valid and theism is not. Even though, by far, more people believe theism reveals more about our life than science. Perhaps next you would like to exclude African-Americans or Jews from your "sampling" in order to determine what is valid and what is not. You are espousing the same tripe that Hitler and his ilk espouse - that some elite should determine right and wrong or valid and invalid. Either knowledge in your view is subjective or it is democratic - it cannot be both. The third alternative is that knowledge is _objective_. I choose this view. We don't invent knowledge, we discover it. And for it to be discovered, it must exist whether we know it or not.
2563. AlexKhan - December 30, 1996 I think you are stepping into new territory here. Are you saying that "meaning, purpose, good, love and beauty" exist only if God exists? I ask because you imply it without saying it explicitly. (I don't want to be thunderously accused of constructing a strawman!) As you yourself have said, one could reject God and still not be a materialist. A different question: can't one believe in God and at the sametime DENY that "meaning, purpose, good, love and beauty" exist as real things? This gets us back to the question of the reality of ideals and universals. Must a theist also believe that universals are as real as particulars?
2565. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 You say: "You ask me the same questions that you have asked before. My answers are the same." I'm sorry, I must have missed these elusive answers. I've only read where you say you "don't feel" my arguments are right. Please refer me to the posts where you provide these answers so that I may read them. I am most interested - and wonder how I could have missed such compelling reading.
2566. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 No. Meaning, purpose, et al may exist without the existence of a personal god. The early Greek idealists believed in the existence of ideals without postulating a personal god. The belief in a personal god is my particular view and one that I believe is greatly merited. I apologize for the unintended implication. Further, I think it would be difficult to deny the ultimate existence of absolutes (though not necessarily ideals) in the presence of the existence of a god (for lack of a better term) in the common sense. A god would define, by its very existence, certain absolutes. Whether or not these would have meaningful implications for human (or other) life is certainly, however, debatable.
2567. AlexKhan - December 30, 1996 The scientific method is better than astrology because simply because it produces results which correspond with the world we apprehend. What does astrology tell us? Nothing. Physics (and engineering) gives us all kinds of useful things which confirm the validity of the theoretical products of the mind. I don't believe that physical laws are discovered. Yet they are objective, not subjective, because the particulars from which we construct those theories exist independently of us. (Yes, this last statement is an assumption.) As I said before, only particulars are real.
2569. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 More to the point: You say: "that doesn't seem very just to me" Please explain your definition of "just" and by what epistemological right you arrived at this definition. Further, explain to me how you expect your subjective belief in this "justice" to have any methodological grip on anyone other than yourself? You have a habit of not answering questions. Indeed, evasion is the only word that accurately describes your exchanges. You have failed to support your positive argument for materialism. You bear the burden of proof yet shrink from it. You don't even believe in absolutes yet you speak of justice. Defend yourself, man. Give me at least some basis for believing you have a grip on reality here (whatever reality means to you).
2572. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 1 - "As I said before, only particulars are real" 2 - "The scientific method is better than astrology simply because it produces results which correspond with the world we apprehend." 3 - "I don't believe that physical laws are discovered." Re:1 - Believe as you will. But you haven't shown why it is a compelling belief. Re:2 - While I actually agree with you - I agree not because I have seen proof or evidence that it is true, but because I reject certain philosophical tenets of astrology. Yet many people believe and say they have seen evidence of the veracity of astrology. In a subjective world, who are you to say they are lying? Re:3 - Hmm. This is most interesting. You believe in something that is not real. You seem to be confused about the definition of reality. As if you have suddenly decided to limit things you call "real" to only those things with physical existence. Again, begging the question. Elaborate on how unreal things are objective. Further, explain why nonmaterial things are, by your implication, not real.
2574. CharlieL - December 30, 1996 Alex - I wasn'tresponding directly to jeremiad in my previous post, just to the mental state of my friends who do not believe in the hereafter, to refute statements made earlier by others. One does not have to believe in a hereafter to work toward the betterment of mankind. Re: Message #2574, CharlieL. You say: "For you to state that an atheist would condone six million murders, and for you to believe such a statement is true, makes me wonder if your statements on faith are built on the same quicksand pool. Atheism does not equate to Hitler!" I don't know where you think I stated that atheists condone genocide, but you must have me confused with someone else. Your [apparant] reading comprehension leaves quite a bit to be desired. Re-read Message #2574. What I said was mnjperry's selective sampling of whose "opinions" of what is valid and invalid truth is the same kind to flaccid thinking that leads to things like Nazism. Further, in Message #2559, my comments were to the point of saying that atheists who believe Hitler was wrong (as I'm confident most atheists do) have no _basis_ for making such judgments. You say: "Atheists are not without morals, they just don't look to a higher authority for their rules." Exactly. Atheists have moral beliefs - but they cannot look beyond themselves to define these beliefs. Thus, if I disagree with you about murder, who are you to say I am immoral? You have no basis for such a judgment. You may say it is wrong _for you_, but you cannot pass judgment on me unless you wield superior power. Thus, all atheistic morality boils down to letting the most powerful and/or popular morality rule. Explain why this is not so.
2579. AlexKhan - December 30, 1996
1) Re: reality of particulars.
2) Re: astrology.
3) Re: "reality".
2580. AlexKhan - December 30, 1996 Of course, I registered my agreement with you about morality and higher authority long ago. There can't be any objective morality without a definer. However, in practice, no one cares about such a statement. When you say - "Thus, all atheist morality boils down to letting the most powerful and/or popular morality rule." - that's exactly right. Morality IS popularly decided and adjudicated, quite left to popular sentimentality and/or sense of decorum. But there does seem to be a set of (nearly) universal do's & don'ts people mysteriously adhere to. I have no idea why.
2581. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 "We just think you're wrong, and have explained why ad nauseum." You haven't once explained why my argument is "wrong" or even why it is weak - except to say you don't like its conclusions. IamNewman is the _only_ person to have offered any kind of response to the argument. _You've_ done nothing but throw questions out every time _I_ ask _you_ to respond. I have consistently answered questions by you and slaterdr9 ad nauseum without the slightest hint of reciprocity from either of you. Finally, I think you say it best when you say "[w]e just think you're wrong". I applaud this. You may believe this as long and as deeply as you like. Just don't pretend you've even made an honest attempt at "arguing" for it - because you haven't. As to the "just" issue, you now go back to appealing to popular vote. You say that if a certain number of physically and experientially similar people (same race? same color? same income?) agree that a thing is "just", then you will accept it as just, right? You must either admit that justice, validity, morality, et al, are determined by popularity or power in a subjective world - or admit that any view is as valid as the next. Which is it?
2607. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 In order to call a belief "knowledge" - which I will define as objective, universal truth - one must have certainty of the belief. By certainty, all we can say is that one must be sure without any doubt that this thing is true. Now, how does one "know" anything? How does one achieve this "certainty"? Well, first, we must recognize the pitfall of this "certainty" criteria - that some people may be certain that they are, for example, actually chickens. Does this mean that they "know" they are chickens and that this is, therefore, objective truth? Obviously, this is not the case. (Though in mnjperry's case one would be hard pressed to say why not.) So what more must we decide in order to attain knowledge? Beyond certainty, then, one should be able to reconcile evidence to the belief, right? But wait - I've slipped somethingin here. I've gone right ahead and assumed that (1) I can accurately attain evidence, (2) that the evidence is reliable, (3) that some laws about using evidence to reach conclusions exist (rationality, logic, reason, etc.) that I can apply to the evidence. Beyond these, I've actually made several even more fundamental assumptions - that I actually exist, that my mind exists and can reach conclusions, that I have free will to decide based on evidence and reason, and so on. These are the basic tenets of rationality I have described earlier. So what is my basis for these assumptions? At this point, a person reaches a level of philosophical frustration. How can I know I exist? I am certain of it - but where is the proof? In order to amass proof, I must first assume I exist - so I am begging the question. This is to the point of showing that certain philosophical, existential questions are simply beyond the bounds of evidence, logic and reason - they are _a priori_ or _properly basic_ beliefs.
2610. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 These are those beliefs (certainties, really) that people are _rationally justified_ in believing without proof. Thus, I know I exist, I know other minds exist, I know my senses tell me about the world, I know I can decide and deliberate and reach conclusions, I know _I_ cause myself to act are all properly basic beliefs (certainties) that I can hold without being irrational - even though I offer no proof. So, what beliefs fall into this "properly basic" set? I have pointed out the most obvious ones. But what about properly basic moral beliefs? Are there any here that I can be certain of without fear of being irrational? I think human history and reason agree that there are - torturing children would be a good example - along with rape, murder, theft on the negative side and honesty, courage and love on the positive side. Holding these beliefs as knowledge is justifiable without claims to proof. However, if a person later holds beliefs that contradict this "properly basic" knowledge, these later beliefs may be judged irrational. Thus, if I know that I can reason and reach conclusions - but can offer no proof of why this is so - and attempt to use reason and free will to reach the conclusion that there is no reason or free will, this is self-refuting and irrational. This is why materialism is self-refuting. As to moral belief, atheists would agree, in general that the mores I expressed are acceptable - murder is wrong to the theist and the atheist; courage is right to both as well. Now the question is can both positions - theistic and atheistic - reconcile their belief system with their moral existence? I posit that the atheist cannot. In the atheist doctrine, there is no basis for the existence of such a priori beliefs - it contradicts atheist dogma to say that knowledge exists apart from evidence and experience - yet we know it does - and we believe we are justified in being certain of these beliefs.
2612. jeremiad - December 30, 1996 I'd like to point out that I am _not_ saying atheists have to _prove_ why properly basic beliefs are true whereas theists do not. No person is compelled to prove a properly basic belief. However, I _am_ saying they have to show why their doctrine doesn't preclude the existence of such exterior, objective knowledge and how their subsequent reasoning doesn't contradict or preclude these properly basic beliefs (e.g., materialism's irreconcilability to rationality). Thus, if an atheist claims to know or even believe that murder is good, he bears the burden of proof to show why this is so - the believer (that murder is evil) is under no compulsion because this is a properly basic belief. Further, if the atheist claims to know or even believe that no such morality exists, he, again, shoulders the burden of proof as to who this is so. I welcome the atheists to do this.
2636. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 You state that it is obvious that materialists do not believe in reason or logic as I have defined them - as objective, universal mechanisms used to achieve knowledge. My point is, then, that if their mechanisms are all subjective, then you are left with mnjperry's "it just feels right" position. Thus, if a materialist believes in materialism, this is fine, but s/he can't expect this viewpoint to be shared by anyone else unless they just happen to have the same chemical reactions occurring in their brains. They cannot believe they arrive at their beliefs because of logic or rationality - but only because of chemistry. For a materialist to claim that their view is "logical" or "intellectual" or even "rational" is sheer sophistry. Their only justifiable claim is to say that they have no choice except to believe as they do because they have been conditioned to believe as they do (they may, in turn make the same claim about everyone else). This is all well and good. The problem is that these claims go directly contrary to what we know as our properly basic beliefs. I know decide conclusions based on logic and evidence - how, then, can I deny self-causation and free will? Ultimately, materialists should make no claims for anyone else - nor invoke "rules" (e.g., Ockam's Razor, the scientific method) or authority as avenues to knowledge - since we are not capable of deliberation or rationality or inductive reasoning. Rather, in the materialist view, we simply are what we are and our beliefs are every bit as determined and physical as the color of our skin or the nose on our face.
2637. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 The atheists keep invoking this "usefulness criteria". Again, why should I accept it? My beliefs are determined under materialism anyway. So, again, materialism leads to the self-refutation of any such over-arching principles or rules. Whereas my belief system easily accepts them, uses them and refines them. In fact, as usefulness goes, the extranatural perspective is far superior to the materialistic. It is adequate (it explains the present body of evidence), internally coherent (its premises logically connect with its conclusions), externally coherent (its conclusions agree with the widely accepted body of knowledge), and it is fruitful (it leads to greater study and productive inquiry). Materialism fails in at least three of these criteria - it is internally incoherent, it is unfruitful (because it denies we can achieve knowledge though rationality - and refutes tools such as the scientific method) and it is externally incoherent (it disagrees with the widely accepted knowledge of our properly basic beliefs).
2639. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 Please refer to my posts 1270-1274 for a complete set of premises for rationality. Feel free to show where any of these is incorrect or to develop your own set of premises that establish a basis for rationality. All: There seems to be this linguistic anarchy around here that allows someone to simply "define" a term to mean what they want it to mean. I would ask that, as I have done, if a person wishes to argue for or against a concept or term, that that person first use logic to not simply _define_ the term, but to _develop_ the concept the term represents. One may define the word "reason" to mean "that random process of chemical reactions occurring the brain", but this has not _substantiated_ how what we understand as "reason" is actually _established_ by this definition. As I have said before (and only IamNewman has attempted), read my establishment of the terms I am using - and demonstrate why any or all of them are incorrect. MNJPERRY & BENANDJERRI: simply stating you don't like my conclusions is not ESTABLISHING why my conclusions are incorrect!
2640. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 You actually state the point entirely! If a person _knows_ that rationality exists - and actually uses rationality to arrive at some belief, AND they hold a belief that denies the existence of rationality - CERTAINLY A PARADOX EXISTS! But itis not necessarily one of definitions. They may simply hold mutually exclusive beliefs (i.e., that rationality exists and that rationality does not exist). When this is pointed out, a person should (1) verify that they understand the terms "rationality" (I define this carefully and shared it with all to review and critique - yet no one has offered an alternative), (2) introspect their larger belief system (i.e., materialism) to determine if it is coherent (it is not), and (3) resolve the paradox by either removing or changing one or both of the mutually exclusive beliefs. If you have an alternative logical basis for rationality, please share it.
2644. benandjerri - December 31, 1996
2645. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 I don't know why you insist on being so emotional in your posts. I assure you, insults and attacks do not add to your arguments.
You state: I am sorry. I have missed this. Could you please refer me to the posts in which you logically establish these arguments?
You say: Again, I apologize. I thought I stated clearly my position on the "usefulness" criteria in Message #2637. I think usefulness is a very effective tool. I use it everyday. I've no reservations about utilizing this as a methodological tool. I believe that belief in God can be useful - and most evolutionary psychologists would agree - as would Marx and Freud. Usefulness, if it does anything to theology, only supports theism. I am not a theist because it is useful, however, I am a theist because it is _true_. My real question is that without some overarching objective criteria, any belief is as valid and the next. What you posit as this overarching objective criteria is usefulness - but on what basis do you choose this criteria if absolutes and objectivity don't exist? Why should I believe it over tarot cards or astrology? Many people have found these useful. I hope you can restrain your insults and repressed anger and clearly state logical, rational answers.
2646. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 You state: "In all of these messages, you have not offered a single reason as to why a belief in god or a soul is any more logical than a belief in Tinkerbell or the savior David Koresh." Indeed, I have not. However, I have shown why belief in some extranatural Definer is more logical than materialism. You have not presented a rational argument as to why materialism is not self-refuting or how rationality can exist within materialist doctrine - unless, again, I have missed this post. Perhaps belief in Tinkerbell is more logical than belief in a Definer/Creator - though I don't think so and believe I can show why - but I have shown that belief in Definer/Creator _is_ more logical and consistent than belief in materialism. I regret that you see my arguments as pseudo-philosophy. I welcome your specific critique of my reasoning and any light you can shed on "natural philosophy".
2661. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 Do you believe in rationality? If no, then there is no need for further discussion. If yes, then you need to establish how rationality can exist within materialism. I have presented what I believe to be the necessary conditions for rationality to exist. I have shown how materialism contradicts these premises and refutes itself. All you have to do is show how rationality can exist without these conditions and show how your basis for rationality can be reconciled to materialism. This is all I have asked you for - and, yet, you have failed to do this. I have yet to state the many sound, positive arguments for God's existence because the atheists here can't even seem to agree that reason and rationality exist - or that if they do that we can use them to reach truth. I have merely established that one can quite easily be rational, logical and beholden to evidence and still disbelieve in radical materialism. As AlexKhan pointed out, this doesn't yet establish the necessity or rationality of belief in a personal God. But until you can see the foundations of the previous statement, I see no point in proceeding to the latter.
2663. mnjperry - December 31, 1996
2667. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 I cannot believe it to be true given the evidence and incorrigible self-witness of free will and self-causation. You are the one standing in the face of the foundations of knowledge. You are the one who simply doesn't want to believe. As slaterdr9 and I have shown, there is no _empirical_ data to suggest either conclusion - either dualism or monism. Thus, claims to evidence are irrelevent in this respect. Philosophically, though, monism is in serious trouble - as I have shown. Perhaps evidence will come along to show that it is correct. I seriously doubt it. But your constant claims to evidence are groundless. Further, you have been unable to show how your beliefs are rationally sound. Finally, you are stating that fundamental beliefs about knowledge, truth, objective reality, rationality, logic and a host of other concepts are simply wrong - yet you present no _evidence_ for why this is so - you simply believe that whatever materialism cannot establish today will be established sometime in the future. _This_ is blind faith.
2674. benandjerri - December 31, 1996 1st, We define "useful" as "corresponding consistently with what our senses tell us about our universe." With this definition, I doubt many evolutionary biologists, or Marx or Freud would ever describe any religion as "useful". 2nd, We begin to describe reality with an assumption or set of assumptions which we reserve the right to discard at any time, should the assumption be exposed as "useless". We don't regard any of the assumptions as "true" or "false", we only recognize the degree of their usefulness. Also, because we can discard them at any time, in response to what our senses tell us about their usefulness- we can't be accused of "accepting them on faith". For as you yourself have said, "faith requires unconditional acceptance". Perhaps one might accuse us of "faith in our senses", but because we demand the information fromour senses to be CONSISTENT, and when it is not we have the integrity to suspect our senses (i.e. we allow for the possibility of hallucination), we really can't be accused of having faith in our senses either. We now proceed to describe reality, by testing multiple assumptions. Those assumptions that correspond to consistent sensory perceptions, we label as useful, and we keep. We still reserve the right to discard them at any time, but for now, and until our senses consistently tell us otherwise, we shall keep them. In contrast, those assumptions that do not consistently correspond with our sensory perceptions are discarded - not because they are "false" (as assumptions their veracity is unverifiable), but because they are useless.
2675. benandjerri - December 31, 1996
2677. benandjerri - December 31, 1996
2678. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 I appreciate your level-headed, rational response. Let me point out some problems with what you've done and allow you to respond: 1. You immediately limit your knowledge to sensory data. This is myopic. What about imaginary knowledge- such as logic, mathematics - nonmaterial things that are not "sensed" but imagined or deduced. Once you admit this kind of knowledge, you leave mere faith in our senses and begin to trust laws of logic and reason. But where do these come from? Are they true or merely useful? And if not true, how can they be useful? 2. You seem to see the need for faith in your senses but quickly sidestep the issue. 3. I see no way in which belief in the extranatural does not consistently correspond with our sensory perceptions - since, by definition, such phenomena would be nonmaterial and therefore not even available for evaluation by our senses. You could say we lack any material evidence of extranatural phenomena, but this would, again, be meaningless because you've "assumed" that matter is all there is with no proof. 4. Where did I make that statement about faith? (I'm not denying I made it, but I don't remember making it or the context of the statement) 5. Recent anthropological studies actually _do_ attest to the evolutionary usefulness of religious belief. I'll try to find the article I read on it. 6. Why do you define usefulness as only sensory perception? Many (most) cultures have found nonmaterial claims to be not only useful, but essential for social structure, moral development, etc. This is a huge epistemological step you are taking without license. You simply avoid the extranatural by defining useful knowledge as only that which is material. Kind of begging the question, don't you think?
2679. jeremiad - December 31, 1996 I'm glad to see you defining the "laws" of nature as observations and assumptions. I think this is correct. Some further concerns: - You use Newton's laws extensively - yet quantum physics has shown that these observations may apply in a macroscopic sense, but breakdown altogether on the quantum level. Do you believe in quantum physics? Is it useful? Has anyone sensed a bozon or a meson? Or are these deduced and derived from mathematical theory? If quantum physics demonstrates how Newton's laws operate quite well in one medium but fail altogether in another, why couldn't the same be posited of the extranatural? - You discuss how the universe being "created" would violate Newton's laws. Do you believe matter and energy have always existed? How do you explain the voluminous evidence of a Big Bang and theories of quantum singularities that seem to defy Newton's laws - are these useful? -What is the evidentiary basis of Ockham's Razor? How do you know that the simplest explanation is always the best? Isn't this just another assumption that can be discarded if we find a more complex explanation that seems more useful (since you seem to be enamored with Newton, I reference you again to Newtonian v. quantum physics - certainly Newton's laws were simpler). - While I agree that if we carefully define the terms as you have, extranaturalism would be hard to establish, I think this is exactly the point. We can derive any belief if we define the terms carefully enough. The question is do our definitions make sense? I see no reason to assume that the physical is all there is - especially since it can't explain my own rational existence, my knowledge of truth, my self-causation and free will, etc.
2684. benandjerri - December 31, 1996 1st - I do NOT limit my knowledge to sensory data; imagination, logic and mathematics all have their place in my framework for determining reality. It is imagination that provides my initial assumption, and combinations of logic and mathematics that enable me to use the assumption to cope with my environment. However, I can't just useimagination and logic by themselves; if I lack consistent sensory support, I must abandon the assumption. As an example, it took great imagination for Einstein to formulate his theories of relativity. Pursuing both theories logically, anyone who understood them could derive certain perturbations in Mercury's trajectory (from the General theory) and decay rates of muons (from the special theory). However, if observations of these phenomena were not consistent with his theories, we would be forced to abandon them, no matter how imaginative or logical they may seem. You can imagine the existence of Tinkerbell all you want - that will not make her real. As for `how something can be useful, if it is not true', that is easy - utility is a matter of degree. Einsteinian gravitation contradicts Newtonian gravitation, and when pressed to choose one assumption over the other, a physicist will invariably choose Einsteinian, while an engineer will most likely choose Newtonian. In the sense that Einsteinian gravitation is less contradicted by our senses than Newtonian gravitation (i.e. it explains things that Newtonian gravitation cannot) - it is more useful. But because the consistent sensory contradictions to Newtonian gravitation are so rare (i.e. they require HIGHLY precise measurements that are usually of no concern to an engineer) Newtonian gravitation is still quite useful. A similar comparison can be made between quantum physics and Einsteinian physics. In this comparison, there are some phenomena that quantum physics fails to explain, and there are other phenomena that Einsteinian physics fails to explain. Notice that NONE of these sets of IMAGINED assumptions is labeled "true" or "false" - we simply recognize the limitations of the utility of the assumptions.
2686. benandjerri - December 31, 1996 As for the need for faith in my senses, I've adequately explained how confidence in sober senses is different from the unconditional acceptance of faith. Because I demand that whatever my senses tell me must be consistent (scientists often refer to this as "repeatable in a laboratory"), I don't unconditionally surrender reason to my senses. A good example of this is the flawed "cold fusion" experiment of the late 1980's. When 2 scientists could not reproduce their observations in alaboratory, they were forced to concede that their observations were flawed. They did not insist that they had "absolutely" seen cold fusion, and/or try to attribute "supernatural" influences to the event. In your 3rd paragraph, you seem to say that there is no material evidence to support the idea of "extranatural phenomena". You say that "such phenomena would be nonmaterial and therefore not even available for evaluation by our senses." But that's just a polite way of saying that our senses do not indicate the existence of such things. That being the case, I ask what DOES indicate the existence of such things? Remember, you can't just use "logic and imagination", because that can get you to believe in the existence of just about anything you want. As for the anthropological studies you allude to, I suspect they're using a much different definition of "usefulness". For the purposes of this framework I've been using the word "usefulness" to mean "the degree to which an assumption corresponds with our sensory experience" (often this also means that we can predict the outcome of events). In contrast, anthropologists generally use that word to refer to a degree of selective advantage that a particular behavior provides to a society.
2687. benandjerri - December 31, 1996
2688. benandjerri - December 31, 1996 As for your comparison of Newtonian with Quantum physics, I've sort of addressed this already. Put simply, in some instances, Einsteinian physics is more accurate than Newtonian physics - again -- meaning it explains things that Newtonian physics cannot; in all remaining instances, Quantum physics is more accurate than Newtonian physics. In either case, we are still left with a need for a more useful set of assumptions since Einsteinian physics conflicts with Quantum physics. Notice again that we do not say that EITHER set of assumptions is "false" as that would be pointless - we simply acknowledge the limitations, and the current boundaries of our own understanding. As to your question about bosons and mesons these are other examples of how imagination results in a set of assumptions (namely quantum physics), logic then predicts the existence of these sub-atomic particles, from this set of assumptions, and finally, YES, with tools like particle accelerators, our senses are capable of detecting, and thus validating, to a considerable degree, the usefulness of the assumptions. NO SUCH process like this has EVER validated any set of assumptions about the "extra-natural".
2689. benandjerri - December 31, 1996 As to your statements regarding the Big Bang, you clearly misunderstand the implications of that theory. 1st, in answer to your question about whether or not energy has always existed in an equal quantity in the universe, I say,yes. The 1st law of thermodynamics predicts this, and, again, there is an infinite supply of sensory evidence to support the 1st law of thermodynamics. This does not mean that the Big Bang did not occur, it just means that it did not "create" the energy that expanded out from it. This is fine, since no Big Bang model requires the creation of this energy. When physicists refer to the big bang as the "beginning of the universe" they are not implying that it is the beginning of the existence of energy. Rather, they are implying that it is the beginning of what we are capable of measuring, as the universe, or, to put it in more familiar terms, the beginning of what OUR SENSES CAN DETECT! Since our senses cannot detect anything BEFORE the big bang, it is pointless to concern ourselves with pre-big bang events. As to the question "How do you know that the simplest explanation is always the best?", I never said that! What I said was that the simplest explanation that corresponds with what my senses detect is the most useful. If 2 sets of assumptions equally explain what my senses detect, but one is more complex than the other, or contains unnecessary assumptions, then why in the world should I choose it over the simpler set? As to physical things and physical laws not being able to "explain your own rational existence, your knowledge of truth, your self-causation and free will, etc.", 1st, I don't think it is so much that they can't explain them as it is that the explanations are sometimes difficult to understand. 2nd, even if there were no successful physical explanations for these things, all that would mean is that humans don't know everything. Your leap to a supernatural explanation is wholly unjustified.
2701. jeremiad - January 1, 1997 Thanks again for you patient responses. I have a few additional comments. First, as an aside. I think it odd that Newton - whose observations you keep invoking - wrote more about theology than he did about science. This, of course, doesn't mean anything, but it seems interesting. Second, I also find it interesting that the percentage of PhD's in science who regularly participate in religious gatherings (weekly worship and the like) is about 49% (roughly equal to the general population) - so knowledge of science seems to have little impact on religious veracity. Even more interesting is that among this group, natural scientists have the highest percentage of religious belief. Again, this proves nothing except that most natural scientists (with PhD's) and half of others disagree with you about materialism. It makes one wonder. Thirdly, back to your definition of "usefulness". Let me ask you: a things usefulness makes no implication as to its truth or falsity, correct? Therefore, a thing may be completely useless, yet be true, right? All that would have to occur is for the thing to be beyond our sensory perception. For example, we have no evidence of sentient life elsewhere in the universe - thus, belief in such is useless. But it could still be true. Therefore, your criteria makes no judgment as to the rationality or veracity of beliefs as regards truth - as you freely admit. Also, since you define "usefulness" to mean only those things about which we can obtain physical evidence, you preclude all non-physical things (mathematics, logic, reason, etc.) from the realm of "usefulness". But then you state you agree that these things _are_ useful. To do this - since they are obviously non-corporeal, you invoke a secondary criteria of applying beliefs in non-corporeal entities to the physical - and if the belief isn't contradicted by the physical, one is justified in calling the belief "useful", correct?
2702. jeremiad - January 1, 1997 Continued. With this in mind, if a person believes in extranaturalism and applies this belief to his/her physical existence and finds no contradiction, why is this belief not justified? Fourthly, I have sought to establish the rationality of extranaturalism. I don't see how your definitions have any bearing on this. You've simply limited your view to the sensory world. I see no problem in using our senses to discover things about the physical. I believe, however, that this ignores the huge imaginary. mathematical, logical, moral and aesthetic world that all sentient beings to one degree or another participate in. Fifthly, I you have defined the term "usefulness" in what seems to be an odd way. The term seems to imply that a belief or action would be in someway beneficient. You use to the term to express some epistemological ideas about evidence. I think a term such as evidentialism, empiricism or logical positivism would be more appropriate given your beliefs. See my earlier posts about some of these ideas.
2705. jeremiad - January 1, 1997 In reference to postulated and unobserved quantum particles, you state that assumptions of their existence are justified because of the use of mechanistic technology that implies their existence. I wonder: why should mechanistic technology be considered more valid than human psychology? On what basis to you judge the veracity of one form of data collection over another? Is it because one is physical and the other psychological? But, wait, our senses are only as reliable as the phyches acting upon them - so ultimately we are left with psychology and consistency as the two criteria:- Did I experience something and is the experience common? Which is more prevalent and consistent - people who claim to have experienced some extranatural phenomena or people who have substantiated belief in bosons? I think you're in real trouble here with regards to religious belief - again, not about its truth, but about its "usefulness" as you define the term.
2727. jeremiad - January 2, 1997 You seemed to have missed the point on the consistency. I am simply pointing out that religious experience is prevalent and consistent. I see no reason to expect extranatural description to be similar to the description of a chair - one is an entirely different "dimension" while one is a physical object. The fact that people come away with differing religious experience makes no impact on its consistency - only on its complexity. The point is that many (most) people throughout history have had some religious experience that they are certain revealed to them the existence of extranatural phenomena. While the particulars may (and should) vary, you are overlooking the simple point that it happens. You have acknowledged that we are all ultimately dependent on our senses for physical perception. And that the trustworthiness of our senses is ultimately dependent on our psychological reactions to the stimuli. So we are left to verify our sensory experience to external sources (did you see that? did I just imagine that?). You have created an unjustifiable double standard as to evidentiary claims with regard to religious experience. Finally, you're still missing the simple point that your own epistemology, by your own definition, makes no claims about truth or knowledge - only physical evidence. Yet you continue to invoke reason and logic - two concepts that must exist _prior to_ the collection and use of evidence. You are still faced with the self-refutation of materialism.
2728. jeremiad - January 2, 1997 Further, you admit that truth may exist without you recognizing its "usefulness". In other words, you may find a belief or concept "useless" (in your definition, this would simply mean without physical exidence to corroborate the belief) that may be entirely true. Then you take the additional step of deciding what kind of evidence you will accept - only physical evidence. While I certainly agree that such definitions would make it difficult to come to a belief in extranaturalism, it is certainly not because such a conclusion is irrational or unjustified in general - but only in your conveniently defined epistemology. If I, for instance, am seeking to show the irrationality of belief in rabbits and I allow in all evidence except that related to small, furry, rodents, should I then be surprised that I conclude belief in rabbits is irrational? I don't see where you have logically accomplished anything with regard to religious belief. Further, you have built your entire epistemology on the ability to reason, the existence of rationality and the self-causation of your thinking. Concepts in direct conflict with your espoused dogma.
2729. jeremiad - January 2, 1997 You say: "Essentially, you seem to imply that a mind, by itself, completely void of any sensory input, can reliably draw a useful conclusion about reality. If you really believe this, then please tell me HOW this mind does this, and how it KNOWS that it's conclusions are consistent with the real world." Fair enough. But then you also state: "The set of assumptions is what we refer to as "Quantum Mechanics". From these assumptions, we "logically and mathematically" PREDICT certain observations within a particle accelerator." When you say assumptions, you really mean "imaginings" in this statement. That is, you believe a scientist _first_ imagines the existence of quantum particles then develops (again using imagination) a set of physical phenomena that _should_ accompany the existence of such particles, then finally seeks corroboration in physical data as revealed though machinery. So if a religious person "imagines" God and develops a set of physical criteria to show the existence of such a God (design, intelligence, ex nihilo existence, etc.) and then corroborates this in the physical world, such a belief would be justified - even if alternative definitions of some of these physical criteria are available. And, then, if many, many other people reach the same general conclusions, the belief must certainly be "useful".
|