He uses the issue of of explanatory power to justify using Bayes to establish the illusion of technique for deciding the matter.[24]Of course his explanatory power is a scientific explanation but he never bothers to justify it. A scientific explanation would have to be limited to the workings of the physical world and modern theology doesn't claim to answer that. Swinburne finds God probable in the prior[25] (Bayes works by establishing a prior probability as a basis from which to begin calculations). The problem is Swinburne uses simplicity as the criterion to set the prior. Philipse apparently can't dispute it. Thus, he objects to simplicity as the criterion rather than try to argue that God is complex as did Dawkins (see above). He argues against simplicity as criterion on the basis of lack of empirical evidence. He then takes up the issue of final cause. Theists sometimes use final cause as an “ultimate explanation.” “God forms a more natural stopping place [for theists] than, say, the existence of the universe.”[26] The existence of the universe is what is in question so of course that in itself can't prove its origin. He is calling into question the satisfying nature of final cause, apparently assuming that the infinite causal regress (ICR) is not unsatisfying. He asserts that defense of God as explanation can't be “full” and “final” because it doesn't answer the kinds of questions science answers. He couches this in terms of introducing “questionable metaphysical assumptions.”[27] It seems that they are talking at cross purposes because each means something different by “full” and “complete.” For Swinburne this is causal and includes motivations. Philipse contrasts motivations as part of the cause with naturalistic explanations which are about “causal laws of nature.”[28] So Swinburne is talking about “why” and Philipse is talking about how. It may be a matter of taste but it seems that asking after why is a philosophical view and more satisfying in some ways, whereas the scientific explanation has to exclude why as though there is not one and that seems less “full” as an explanation. If there is no why there is none but why should we just assume a priori there is none? If the explanation is only a scientific one then that is what we must do. That's why we should prefer the philosophical and asked “is there a why?” When we find one that should be it.
At this point he brings in what he takes to be the ultimate “brute fact” of God's existence as a negation of a complete explanation. In order to pull this off he establishes synchronic and diachronic both as requirements of a “complete” explanation.[29] The former refers to causes immediately temporal effecting the given outcome, while the latter entails causes perpetuated through time before the event. In other words, synchronic, the match burst into flame due to friction caused by the striking board. Diachronic, the match burst into flame due to the factory used to make chemicals, applied these chemicals to the match at a given time, and the store that sold the matches and every other aspect of buying the matches, up though the motion of my hand of running the match along the striking board. So he's saying that because we don't have that sort of knowledge about God then God can't be a full explanation. Then he's going to spend a lot of time picking apart the motivations of God, such as the motivation to create humanity.[30] Because we can't understand God's exact motivations, nor is there a set of diachronic explanations for God's being, then the explanation can't be full.
There are two problems with this argument. Philipse has defined “full explanation” and “ultimate” explanations in ways that favor scientific kinds of information. The philosophical understanding does not necessarily require the same kinds of explanation. Why do we need to know, for example, what exactly God's motivation to make man felt like or even what it was? We can understand the motivation of love, all of God's motivations can be summed up in love. The demand for scientific exactitude is a smokescreen. We might qualify “full” and “complete” and limit it to matters we can understand. God as the final explanation can be based upon both the final cause and the bestowing of meaning via reasons for our own existence; these have to be in general terms such as “love” because we can understand love (at least on an instinctive level). The second problem has to do with the idea of God as brute fact (BF).
The concept of brute fact turns upon the notion of their being no reason for the BF. A BF is a fact for which there is no reason at all. That's not to say no cause but no reason other than the naturalistic causal nexus of the physical world. The BF is a slippery concept because many philosophers mean different things by the term. John Hospers understands BF simply as something that can't be explained.[31] Does this mean we don't even know a scientific cause? For Some Philosophers it does and for some it does not. Eric Barnes lists several philosophers who use the term to mean no known explanation, not even a scientific one (Freidman, Kitcher, Lipton).[32]Barnes himself says “it is my view that brute facts need not be thought to represent any gap whatsoever in scientific understanding.”[33]We can side step the problem because we can't get a scientific explanation of God. God is not given in sense data, thus it is an a priori truth that we can't have a scientific explanation of God. To say that without a scientific explanation we have not a full or complete explanation is merely to exchange one set of metaphysical assumptions for another. Privileging science as the only valid form of knowledge is just as much a metaphysical assumption as is belief in God.
Moreover, these are two fundamentally different kinds of explanations, scientific and purposive. There is no purpose in naturalistic processes and forces of nature. If that is all there is then all reality is a brute fact. For me brute fact means no higher reason than just bare existential facts. There is no higher purposive reason for God than God. That is not the same as saying the world just happens to be here for no reason other than the natural causal connections involved in its coming to be. Naturalistic processes are all cause and effect, they are all contingent. That puts God on a different level than anything else. God is the only truly non contingent reality. With all temporal natural things necessities are themselves contingent upon higher necessities. That is until we come to God. We should expect that the process of necessity and contingency would keep on going, although that leads to questions about infinite causal regress (ICR). If there is ICR it's not there for a reason. But God gives us not only a stopping point for causes but also a higher purpose in life.
That explanation is more full in terms of purpose and more complete in terms of causation. This reasoning could be circular if one is not careful. It begs the question to assert that there must be a “higher level” reason. But the opposite is also true; the assumption that there isn't a higher reason also begs the question. One way around this is to embrace the final cause argument. Another way would be to take it as axiomatic based upon proper basicality or some intuitive sense or experience that there is higher purpose.
At this point Philipse turns to Bayes theorem as a means od proving God is not probable. So he moves from denuding the empitus for belief by calling it "unscientific" to a reason not to beliebe. I have shown that Bayes can't be applied to God.
My Answer to Lowder's attack on my Bayes article
24 Ibid., 91
25-27 Ibid. 192
28 Ibid. 195
29 193
30 i95
31 John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (1997) p. 211
32 Eric Barnes, “Explaining Brute Facts,” PSA: Proceedings of the biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association.. Vol 1994, Volume one: Contributed Papers, (1994), 64-68, 64.
33 Ibid.
At this point he brings in what he takes to be the ultimate “brute fact” of God's existence as a negation of a complete explanation. In order to pull this off he establishes synchronic and diachronic both as requirements of a “complete” explanation.[29] The former refers to causes immediately temporal effecting the given outcome, while the latter entails causes perpetuated through time before the event. In other words, synchronic, the match burst into flame due to friction caused by the striking board. Diachronic, the match burst into flame due to the factory used to make chemicals, applied these chemicals to the match at a given time, and the store that sold the matches and every other aspect of buying the matches, up though the motion of my hand of running the match along the striking board. So he's saying that because we don't have that sort of knowledge about God then God can't be a full explanation. Then he's going to spend a lot of time picking apart the motivations of God, such as the motivation to create humanity.[30] Because we can't understand God's exact motivations, nor is there a set of diachronic explanations for God's being, then the explanation can't be full.
There are two problems with this argument. Philipse has defined “full explanation” and “ultimate” explanations in ways that favor scientific kinds of information. The philosophical understanding does not necessarily require the same kinds of explanation. Why do we need to know, for example, what exactly God's motivation to make man felt like or even what it was? We can understand the motivation of love, all of God's motivations can be summed up in love. The demand for scientific exactitude is a smokescreen. We might qualify “full” and “complete” and limit it to matters we can understand. God as the final explanation can be based upon both the final cause and the bestowing of meaning via reasons for our own existence; these have to be in general terms such as “love” because we can understand love (at least on an instinctive level). The second problem has to do with the idea of God as brute fact (BF).
The concept of brute fact turns upon the notion of their being no reason for the BF. A BF is a fact for which there is no reason at all. That's not to say no cause but no reason other than the naturalistic causal nexus of the physical world. The BF is a slippery concept because many philosophers mean different things by the term. John Hospers understands BF simply as something that can't be explained.[31] Does this mean we don't even know a scientific cause? For Some Philosophers it does and for some it does not. Eric Barnes lists several philosophers who use the term to mean no known explanation, not even a scientific one (Freidman, Kitcher, Lipton).[32]Barnes himself says “it is my view that brute facts need not be thought to represent any gap whatsoever in scientific understanding.”[33]We can side step the problem because we can't get a scientific explanation of God. God is not given in sense data, thus it is an a priori truth that we can't have a scientific explanation of God. To say that without a scientific explanation we have not a full or complete explanation is merely to exchange one set of metaphysical assumptions for another. Privileging science as the only valid form of knowledge is just as much a metaphysical assumption as is belief in God.
Moreover, these are two fundamentally different kinds of explanations, scientific and purposive. There is no purpose in naturalistic processes and forces of nature. If that is all there is then all reality is a brute fact. For me brute fact means no higher reason than just bare existential facts. There is no higher purposive reason for God than God. That is not the same as saying the world just happens to be here for no reason other than the natural causal connections involved in its coming to be. Naturalistic processes are all cause and effect, they are all contingent. That puts God on a different level than anything else. God is the only truly non contingent reality. With all temporal natural things necessities are themselves contingent upon higher necessities. That is until we come to God. We should expect that the process of necessity and contingency would keep on going, although that leads to questions about infinite causal regress (ICR). If there is ICR it's not there for a reason. But God gives us not only a stopping point for causes but also a higher purpose in life.
That explanation is more full in terms of purpose and more complete in terms of causation. This reasoning could be circular if one is not careful. It begs the question to assert that there must be a “higher level” reason. But the opposite is also true; the assumption that there isn't a higher reason also begs the question. One way around this is to embrace the final cause argument. Another way would be to take it as axiomatic based upon proper basicality or some intuitive sense or experience that there is higher purpose.
At this point Philipse turns to Bayes theorem as a means od proving God is not probable. So he moves from denuding the empitus for belief by calling it "unscientific" to a reason not to beliebe. I have shown that Bayes can't be applied to God.
My Answer to Lowder's attack on my Bayes article
24 Ibid., 91
25-27 Ibid. 192
28 Ibid. 195
29 193
30 i95
31 John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (1997) p. 211
32 Eric Barnes, “Explaining Brute Facts,” PSA: Proceedings of the biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association.. Vol 1994, Volume one: Contributed Papers, (1994), 64-68, 64.
33 Ibid.
63 comments:
Brute facts are the bane of theistic thinking. As humans, we naturally want to know reasons for all kinds of things. But our wishes do not determine reality. Can you explain why there must be a why?
"At this point he brings in what he takes to be the ultimate “brute fact” of God's existence as a negation of a complete explanation. In order to pull this off he establishes synchronic and diachronic both as requirements of a “complete” explanation"
In other words He;s arguing the tie like I wqs discussing days ago, o my tie breaker comes into it, God has purpose so is not on the same level.
I think the reason brute facts are unappealing-- and it's not just theists that don't like them-- is because we want reason. We can reason we want to have reasons for things, we want things to make sense.
You agree that we want to know why, and that's the reason brute facts are unappealing. It' not an explanation for why brute facts can't exist. As I said, our wishes do not determine reality.
Of course there's the issue of causation. Baht goes without saying It's not going to go away, that's an interim issue,I thought you were asking a philosophical questionn
I am asking a philosophical question. Why can't a brute fact exist? It is NOT an issue of causation. A brute fact is something (or a state of affairs) that simply exists. By definition, causation is not a factor in anything that is a brute fact.
sure there are many brute facts, yet to think that the entire whole of reality is a brute fact is quite disturbing. Science assumes order and reason it assumes we can understand the nature of reality. If reality has no reason for being then maybe we can't understand it and science is an illusion.
OK. You agree that a brute fact CAN exist, but you are disturbed by the idea of something not having a reason. Science assumes order, but it does not assume reason. And in case you are confused about the use of "reason" in science, please don't conflate two distinctly different senses of the term. Yes, scientists must reason (as in making use of logical reasoning). No, they do not assume there is a "reason" for the existence of some phenomenon. The accommodationists have always claimed (to the delight of the theists) that there are non-overlapping magisteria, and searching for reasons falls outside the scope of science. That's where theism steps in to fill the gaps. You can claim that "God is the reason", if it makes you feel good. But that's not science.
What Joe is saying is that theism is a different order of explanation than science. So you are right; thinking about whether or not there is a reason for existence is not science. It lies at a different explanatory level. He's expressed this thought, in so many words, several hundred times now...Hope springs eternal.
..Hope springs eternal.
LOL!
I'm answering what Joe said (7:23 AM): "Science assumes order and reason". On its face, he is telling us that without a "reason for being", science itself is an illusion. That's not the same thing as "a different explanatory level", as I see it. It is a denial that science can exist without God. If I misunderstand what he is saying, it is only because I am reading his words, not his mind.
If the universe is a 'brute fact', could it all be different tomorrow morning, skep?
im-skeptical said...
I'm answering what Joe said (7:23 AM): "Science assumes order and reason". On its face, he is telling us that without a "reason for being", science itself is an illusion. That's not the same thing as "a different explanatory level", as I see it. It is a denial that science can exist without God. If I misunderstand what he is saying, it is only because I am reading his words, not his mind.
My point is two fold: orderly rational understanding and our ability to decipher it without just imposing private meaning upon the universe points to a higher level of meaning. It doesn't prove there is one but suggests the possibly; One can tie various design arguments such as fine tuning. Secondly it;s a tie breaker. All it has to do is offer a reason to move.
im-skeptical said...
OK. You agree that a brute fact CAN exist, but you are disturbed by the idea of something not having a reason.
depending upon how one defines BF.If F is just the way it is with higher reason then anything can be one. That;s not a matter of uncased universe.If BFs are things the existence of which can;t be accounted for at all then we have to question their possibility when it it comes to causes,
Science assumes order, but it does not assume reason. And in case you are confused about the use of "reason" in science, please don't conflate two distinctly different senses of the term.
Sorry Skep you are confused, I meant reason as in the process of reasoning not a purpose in creation. Even so k as stated above that does suggest purpose at one level.
It's not science's job to find that purpose but it is theology and Philosophy's jobs.
Yes, scientists must reason (as in making use of logical reasoning). No, they do not assume there is a "reason" for the existence of some phenomenon.
Right i did not say they did,
The accommodationists have always claimed (to the delight of the theists) that there are non-overlapping magisteria, and searching for reasons falls outside the scope of science.
your phrase "accommodation" is stupid, it's an extremest, fascist statement that implies a truth regime, it's thought controlling, your scientism is fascistic and brain swashing. you say finding accord between science and religion is accommodating because it accommodates :the enemy: the insidious forces that seek to rebel agaisnt science and it's completee control of all thought,
That's where theism steps in to fill the gaps. You can claim that "God is the reason", if it makes you feel good. But that's not science.
you don't like that because you are brainwashed by a tantalizing social project.
The idea that anything science does not address is a "gap" is mistaken. Nor does theology exist just to fill "gaps" left by science, hoping desperately that it will be a while longer before science comes along and ends the fantasy.
Humanity can and does know things that are not addressed by science. There are philosophical things that humanity agrees on because they are self-evident, and they can't (and don't need to) be verified by science. For instance, we know that theft and murder are wrong. We also know that punishing the innocent is wrong. This kind of knowledge is not the filling of a "gap" in scientific knowledge-- it is not something that scientists may come along later and say, "We've found the real answer now, so you must replace your fantasy with fact!" No, this is something else entirely.
Sorry Skep you are confused, I meant reason as in the process of reasoning not a purpose in creation.
- You have a strange way of wording it. And you don't seem to hold a consistent position from one comment to the next.
your phrase "accommodation" is stupid, it's an extremest, fascist statement that implies a truth regime
- Accommodationism is a word that has been used for a long time, by many people, not necessarily in the context of science. It is often applied to separation of church and state, for example.
But back to the topic of brute facts, it's a shame that their existence causes you distress. But I think you should get over it, because the existence of brute facts is a brute fact. If you don't think so, please tell me the cause of an electron's decay to a lower energy orbit. Or do you simply claim that God did it?
The idea that anything science does not address is a "gap" is mistaken. Nor does theology exist just to fill "gaps" left by science, hoping desperately that it will be a while longer before science comes along and ends the fantasy.
- I agree completely that science addresses gaps in knowledge, and also that theology has more ambitions than just filling the gaps left be science. Somehow, I don't think you are hearing what I am saying.
Humanity can and does know things that are not addressed by science.
- Once again, I agree. (However, as an empiricist, I would say that some things you call "knowledge", including moral values, are really opinions, and not objective facts.) Could it be that you have a distorted view of "scientism" like Joe does?
im-skeptical said...
Sorry Skep you are confused, I meant reason as in the process of reasoning not a purpose in creation.
- You have a strange way of wording it. And you don't seem to hold a consistent position from one comment to the next.
no, you expect cert things to be said as befits your stereotyping. When you don't find those things you are off script you can't cope so you assume it's my faut,
your phrase "accommodation" is stupid, it's an extremest, fascist statement that implies a truth regime
- Accommodationism is a word that has been used for a long time, by many people, not necessarily in the context of science. It is often applied to separation of church and state, for example.
used by many extreme people, it;s always used by people who are at war with the main stream,
But back to the topic of brute facts, it's a shame that their existence causes you distress. But I think you should get over it, because the existence of brute facts is a brute fact. If you don't think so, please tell me the cause of an electron's decay to a lower energy orbit. Or do you simply claim that God did it?
As I said it's not the existence of brute facts--I have no problem iwth Zanthum gum as an ingredient in chewing gum-- It's ascribing all reality to a brute fact that's the problem. your inability to understand that means you can't see the big picture.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
The idea that anything science does not address is a "gap" is mistaken. Nor does theology exist just to fill "gaps" left by science, hoping desperately that it will be a while longer before science comes along and ends the fantasy.
- I agree completely that science addresses gaps in knowledge, and also that theology has more ambitions than just filling the gaps left be science. Somehow, I don't think you are hearing what I am saying.
Humanity can and does know things that are not addressed by science.
- Once again, I agree. (However, as an empiricist, I would say that some things you call "knowledge", including moral values, are really opinions, and not objective facts.) Could it be that you have a distorted view of "scientism" like Joe does?
just the day before you were on cadre blog insisting that med line and pub med are part of a religious propaganda plot, and I have a distorted view of scineitism?
im-skeptical,
The fact that you say moral knowledge is just "opinion" verifies what I'm saying. I went and looked at your post on scientism, and find that you are objecting to the idea that science is the only form of knowledge, if we define science as the scientific process of hypothesis, experiment, etc. Then you say that when skeptics speak of science as the only form of knowledge, they mean "science" in the broader sense of "empiricism." Very well, I accept that definition, but that is actually what I understood skeptics to be saying in the first place. Empiricism is the only form of knowledge. Any other form of human knowledge, such as moral knowledge, is merely "opinion," because moral knowledge is not "objective facts." Thus, you are saying that objective facts are the only true form of human knowledge-- whether they are obtained through scientific testing, or through personal experience, or through eye-witness testimony, etc. That's really the same thing that Joe has been saying "scientism" means. The thing is that when I say I have had, and continue to have, personal experience of God, and that people around the world have similar, if not identical, experiences, you will dismiss that as not "objective fact." This is because only certain kinds of personal experience count in your world-- those that relate to your empiricistic (scientistic) definition of what valid knowledge is.
Joe's point holds.
no, you expect cert things to be said as befits your stereotyping
- Your language skills are atrocious, or you have changed your position on the fly.
used by many extreme people
- An the rest of always thought it was a middle-of-the-road position.
I have no problem iwth Zanthum gum as an ingredient in chewing gum
- That's not a brute fact, Joe. There's a reason for it.
It's ascribing all reality to a brute fact that's the problem.
- reality is a brute fact. Deal with it.
just the day before you were on cadre blog insisting that med line and pub med are part of a religious propaganda plot, and I have a distorted view of scineitism?
- You have a distorted view of reality, Joe. That remark wasn't even addressed to you. Nevertheless, if you call yourself any kind of scholar or researcher, you should know that that there are differing views on any given issue, and you can't just search for one that agrees with you and than call that the "consensus". That's nothing but confirmation bias.
Thus, you are saying that objective facts are the only true form of human knowledge-- whether they are obtained through scientific testing, or through personal experience, or through eye-witness testimony, etc. That's really the same thing that Joe has been saying "scientism" means.
- Except that it isn't what he has been saying. Joe has cited people who directly dispute even the idea that scientism allows testimony, for example. I have good reason to claim that his view is distorted. It is.
- reality is a brute fact. Deal with it.
Whether or not reality is a brute fact is the main point we're debating about. Stipulating is not arguing.
Brute facts are the bane of theistic thinking. As humans, we naturally want to know reasons for all kinds of things. But our wishes do not determine reality. Can you explain why there must be a why?
I can't speak for Joe, but I don't think that there must be a why. I think that there are good reasons to believe that there is one. Thus the rational warrant for belief as opposed to a knock-down deductive argument. In any case, as you say, whether or not there is a why is not a scientific question but a philosophical and maybe an existential question. You have to be careful about calling on the authority of science as evidence against a 'why,' if the question is outside the purview of science.
You have to be careful about calling on the authority of science as evidence against a 'why,' if the question is outside the purview of science.
- I have never claimed that science can answer the question of why. At the same time, I think it is presumptuous to say that philosophy can answer that question, too. You would have to assume that a human philosopher has the capability to know what most reasonable people don't, and I don't see any reason to make that presumption. Sure, plenty of folks will claim that they know, but I don't buy it. I'm with Socrates. Anyone who goes around claiming to have the answers is probably full of shit. Better to be humble, and not make such claims.
If everything is a "brute fact," if everything is without reason, are we now in Quentin Meillasoux's universe of total contingency and the total otherness of nature to our rational capacities? Ie as I asked above, could everything therefore be be different tomorrow? Is that, or anything else, possible?
Or, alternately, is there such a thing as a brute necessity? (Eg gravity.) Are such "laws of nature" totally reliable or, perhaps, to be consistent, we need to view them as only statistically reliable? (Ie, the gravitational constant hasn't changed so far, so there is a good chance it will remain constant at least until Tues next week, or whatever.....)
The problem there is some branches of science - eg cosmology - sometimes extrapolate beyond what would seem statistically valid, eg predicting universal heat death, the completion of entropy, in about 10^56 years (or whatever) but based only on about a 10^10 year sample of thermodynamic constancy. So, is there another assumption, of a constancy to nature that reaches beyond observed standards of continuity, implicitly in place there, at least in some scientific applications? An seemingly-unjustified assumption that things don't change ... except for a reason?
If everything is a "brute fact," if everything is without reason, are we now in Quentin Meillasoux's universe of total contingency and the total otherness of nature to our rational capacities?
- There's no middle ground, is there? Either brute facts can'r exist, or else everything is a brute face. Perhaps we should go back to our understanding of what a brute fact is - something without an explanation. Now, we all agree, I think, that many things do have an explanation. But still, there are some things that don't. From a naturalist perspective, if we don't assume God as a default explanation, then we are left with some things, such as the existence of physical reality, that aren't explained by any cause.
Or, alternately, is there such a thing as a brute necessity? (Eg gravity.)
- No. Nothing is necessary. It is logically and metaphysically possible that the world contains nothing at all. Therefore, nothing is necessary.
The problem there is some branches of science - eg cosmology - sometimes extrapolate beyond what would seem statistically valid
- I disagree. Not that it is impossible that things will change at some time in the future, that gravity might suddenly vanish, or the constants of physics might turn out not to be constant, but we have absolutely no reason to think that might be the case. Statistically speaking, the probability of that is practically zero.
So, it's interesting.....
Is the point simply, "we don't know if the thermodynamic laws will continue to apply"? Which would suggest at least over an indefinite period that it COULD happen, since anything that CAN happen eventually will (by purely random motions) over infinite timespans. So statistical analysis seems invalid here to me.....
Can we say anything at all about that possibility?
Why is there such an assumption of constancy? That things don't change just for no reason?
(I think there is such an assumption in science....) (?)
Why is there such an assumption of constancy?
- Because that's exactly what we observe. Without exception, ever. It's no different from the naturalist's assumption that he will never observe a supernatural event. Because he has never seen one, and if we want to be honest about it, neither has anyone else. Not once. Ever.
im-skeptical said...
Why is there such an assumption of constancy?
- Because that's exactly what we observe. Without exception, ever. It's no different from the naturalist's assumption that he will never observe a supernatural event. Because he has never seen one, and if we want to be honest about it, neither has anyone else. Not once. Ever.
circular reasoning, you are saying why do we assert our observations are accurate? because that's what we observe, if they are not curate that is still what we observe, the illusion.
Science has to ake a pre-theoretical assumption that we can observe accurately and that requires a reasoning mind. So reason is the rationale underlying observation.
Notice Alfred North Whitehead observed that Christianity had to prepare the way for science because it allowed the assumption of underlying reason that makes the universe understandable,
- Because that's exactly what we observe. Without exception, ever. It's no different from the naturalist's assumption that he will never observe a supernatural event. Because he has never seen one, and if we want to be honest about it, neither has anyone else. Not once. Ever.
I'm not sure what that means....
You'd have to define supernatural and naturalist for me more carefully here. What are we talking about? If gravity just ceased to function for no reason would that be a 'supernatural event'?
I think if gravity ceased to function from a divine or maybe demonic intervention then that would be for a reason & not "for NO reason," right?
Wdyt? If the laws of physics can't just suddenly change, as you seem to be saying, then someone might infer that there must be a REASON for that? Ergo, perhaps there's an implicit, underlying assumption somewhere of some other factor more than pure "brute fact?"
Science has to ake a pre-theoretical assumption that we can observe accurately and that requires a reasoning mind. So reason is the rationale underlying observation.
- That's right. (And Christianity is the abandonment of reason.)
Notice Alfred North Whitehead observed that Christianity had to prepare the way for science because it allowed the assumption of underlying reason that makes the universe understandable
- That's equivocation, Joe. Observation is the fact of what we see. I'm not talking about venturing an opinion, as your Whitehead has done.
You'd have to define supernatural and naturalist for me more carefully here.
- OK. Natural: the world we live in, including all aspects of it that are observable to us.
Supernatural: Things you believe in that are not an observable part of our world, such as gods, angels, miracles.
think if gravity ceased to function from a divine or maybe demonic intervention then that would be for a reason & not "for NO reason," right?
- If and when something like that happens, we can discuss whether it has a cause, and what that cause might be. Until then, it would only be pointless speculation about something that has never happened, and probably never will.
Ergo, perhaps there's an implicit, underlying assumption somewhere of some other factor more than pure "brute fact?"
- The basic assumption I make is that the senses give us some awareness of our world and the things in it. I do not assume, as you apparently do, that there must be unseen reasons for the reality that we observe.
No, actually I don't have to assume that. But I also don't assume that the universe is so rational and regular that we can - eg - portend to know what's gonna happen in 10^55 years or over even longer periods. (Or, with certainty, even what might happen tomorrow....) Granting the most generous assumptions possible to our powers of observation and inference, even then, the size of our sample - only one universe & only 10^10 or so years old - isn't large enough.
... & I think if you wanna justify such assumptions about the strength of our long term inferences in physics, you'll need to show some reasoning here. And the problem also demonstrates the basic difficulty you're in even with less extreme examples. As Joe said, empirical data isn't even any kind of "information" at all, merely data, without someone making some rational inferences.....
Wdyt?
Who ever told you that I "portend to know what's gonna happen in 10^55 years or over even longer periods"? Certainly not me. All I can tell you is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to think that the laws of physics might suddenly change some day. You keep telling me that our sample size is not large enough to say with certainty. But you completely ignore the fact that we can say with certainty that such a thing has not been seen in the entire history of our observation, and there is no expectation that it ever will be seen. That's just the reality that we observe. Speculate all you like about what might be. MY reality is based in what is.
Is it?
People think in categories. Look around the room you're in, what you'll notice are the categories of things: tables, chairs, computers, maybe cups, moreso than individual objects. What is the basis of this ability, since our capacity to categorize seems pretty effectual, at least in a pragmatic way, ie things don't often surprise us by being different kinds of things than we thought they were; that's a pretty unusual case?
What makes our categorization schemes effectual? Is it all trial and error, all conventional and socio-symbolic gesturing and passed-down knowledge? But then, are we missing some things, and would other system of categorization do better?
https://foucault.info/doc/documents/foucault-orderofthings-en-html
Or do you think, otoh, there's something in our standard categorizing that just "meshes" properly with the actual reality on some level? That really "grasps" it? It would seem like there would have to be if our observations - like in science - were to be the most trustworthy thing?
All I can tell you is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to think that the laws of physics might suddenly change some day
Just because there would seem to be an infinite or very large variation of other values, or qualities, they could conceivably have, and an infinite amount of time over which they could change. So there's more possibilities of difference rather than sameness over 'forever'.
Look around the room you're in, what you'll notice are the categories of things
- So what? I don't dispute that we categorize things. I don't dispute that our reasoning might be flawed in various ways, or that out perception of reality is distorted. Nevertheless, what we know of reality is derived from what is discernible by means of the senses. Anything beyond that, such as speculation about supernatural things, has no basis in reality. It is conjured up from nothing - it isn't real. Your statements about categorizing things is just a red herring.
So there's more possibilities of difference rather than sameness over 'forever'.
- It is a standard theistic ploy to confuse what is possible with what is. Sure, it's possible that physics could change someday. It's possible that the true evil God MegaCrock could rise up from the ocean someday and devour all of this creatures. But I still have no reason to think that that will ever happen. Possibility is not reality.
- I have never claimed that science can answer the question of why. At the same time, I think it is presumptuous to say that philosophy can answer that question, too. You would have to assume that a human philosopher has the capability to know what most reasonable people don't, and I don't see any reason to make that presumption. Sure, plenty of folks will claim that they know, but I don't buy it. I'm with Socrates. Anyone who goes around claiming to have the answers is probably full of shit. Better to be humble, and not make such claims.
We agree that science can't answer the question of why. My point was that science maybe isn't designed to even address the issue of why, ie it's presumptuous to think that science has dispensed with the need to speculate about why, or that because of science, we have no need of asking why.
I agree it's presumptuous for a philosopher to assume he knows why. All they can do is present arguments that are open to counter-argument. I'm skeptical of dogmatism on all sides. A lot of it comes these days from the scientism side, like Hawking saying that philosophy is dead. This assumes that science is the only source of genuine knowledge.
Wdyt? If the laws of physics can't just suddenly change, as you seem to be saying, then someone might infer that there must be a REASON for that? Ergo, perhaps there's an implicit, underlying assumption somewhere of some other factor more than pure "brute fact?"
I think the other factors are the pre-theoretical assumptions that science depends on. But science isn't designed to examine its own grounds. Science is possible because it can bracket all of those foundational issues off and delimit itself to what's at least in principle observable.
My point was that science maybe isn't designed to even address the issue of why, ie it's presumptuous to think that science has dispensed with the need to speculate about why, or that because of science, we have no need of asking why.
- Do you hear me making that presumption? All I have said is that there doesn't have to be a why - not that we shouldn't ask about it.
... like Hawking saying that philosophy is dead. This assumes that science is the only source of genuine knowledge.
- I agree that theistic philosophy is dead. It has added nothing to human understanding of the reality of our world, but only leads us down rabbit-holes of speculation. Other branches of philosophy are constructively geared toward enhancing our understanding. Note that no philosophy gives us new factual information. It does give us improved ways to think about and understand the things we know.
- So what? I don't dispute that we categorize things. I don't dispute that our reasoning might be flawed in various ways, or that out perception of reality is distorted. Nevertheless, what we know of reality is derived from what is discernible by means of the senses. Anything beyond that, such as speculation about supernatural things, has no basis in reality. It is conjured up from nothing - it isn't real. Your statements about categorizing things is just a red herring.
Nope, it's a question of realism vs construction. Does observable reality order our thoughts or do our thoughts order observable reality? Is what we observe real or a projection basically of our own making? That's the point of looking at the way we categorize things.....(geez, this all sounds kinda like QM, even, in a sense)
And btw, in our conversation, so far you're the only one to bring up supernatural things. I'm not even sure why you keep doing that.....
It is a standard theistic ploy to confuse what is possible with what is. Sure, it's possible that physics could change someday. It's possible that the true evil God MegaCrock could rise up from the ocean someday and devour all of this creatures. But I still have no reason to think that that will ever happen. Possibility is not reality.
Nope, but speculation is part of science too, and we're speculating here about certain cosmological ideas, playing amateur cosmologists...
Suppose the universe is infinite - some physicists have claimed that certain cosmological equations are greatly simplified if one does so - and that there was an infinite amount more matter released by the Big Bang than that which is our view. Is there any reason to expect the laws of physics as we know them are universal, rather than just limited to around our locality, throughout a boundless universe like that? Or is it equally or more likely that they vary in faraway places?
.If not, if a spatially infinite universe could feature variations of natural law over vast expanses of space, then, I'd argue, there would be no difference with a spatially-finite universe whose laws vary over an indefinite timespan. It adds up to pretty much the same thing.....
I think the other factors are the pre-theoretical assumptions that science depends on. But science isn't designed to examine its own grounds. Science is possible because it can bracket all of those foundational issues off and delimit itself to what's at least in principle observable.
It's just a strait up, blatant privileging of 'sameness' afaict.......
Nope, it's a question of realism vs construction. Does observable reality order our thoughts or do our thoughts order observable reality? Is what we observe real or a projection basically of our own making?
- There are two different things here. What we observe (physically) is some aspect of reality. The things that stimulate our senses are real. What make of those raw observations may or may not be a reflection of reality. It comes down to our interpretation of the things that impinge in our senses (or don't), which may be rational or irrational. If I see a tree, and I think I have observed a tree, I have made a rational interpretation of the observation of my senses. If instead I think I have observed a sentient creature that is speaking to me, that's not a rational interpretation. It would be fair to say that I have created some kind of anthropomorphic projection.
so far you're the only one to bring up supernatural things. I'm not even sure why you keep doing that.....
- This blog is about supernatural things, and I am speaking to people here who believe in them. It is pertinent to the discussion. You speak of making projections ...
but speculation is part of science too
- The difference is that scientific speculations (or hypotheses) are consistent with observation, tested to the extent possible, and discarded when they are no longer viable. You can't say that about theistic speculation. In fact, they shy away from any kind of verification, claiming that science has no business encroaching on them.
Is there any reason to expect the laws of physics as we know them are universal, rather than just limited to around our locality
- I should clarify that when I use the word 'universe' I am speaking of that which is (at least in principle) accessible to us. Yes, there could be eternal inflation. There could be a multiverse, or other cosmological regions where the constants of physics are possibly different. Those things are outside the scope of our own universe, where we observe the way things are, and as far as we know, they don't change over time. As I said before (and I'm not sure you get the point), it is possible that they will change someday. But we still have no reason to think that is the case. In any case, I still don't know what your point is. So what if that eventually comes to pass?
I think, logically, "brute facts" must be subject to change without reason (Or, conversely, to staying the same for no reason.) Otherwise they wouldn't be "brute facts." So brute facts are unreliable, which is why people don't like them , as Joe said, and even many atheists try to avoid them at a certain level.
But I think you've admitted here that everything must be utterly contingent in a universe of brute facts, which is a consistent position, and all anyone can ask of someone else....
Thx for the discussion!
fact, they shy away from any kind of verification, claiming that science has no business encroaching on them.
Not quite from ANY kind of verification. There are theological critiques of theological speculations.
Also logical, sociological, archeological, historical and scholarly ones.
everything must be utterly contingent ...
- If you define contingent as something that doe not exist necessarily - yes.
- If you define contingent as dependent on something else - no.
There are theological critiques of theological speculations. Also logical, sociological, archeological, historical and scholarly ones.
- And yet, the nature of this "verification" is such that it is still subject to dispute. When a scientific theory is disproved, they discard it. Not so with theological beliefs.
Look at the new evidence of the tomb of Jesus. Christians are excited about this "verification". But what does it really tell us? That the shrine was built in the fourth century. Does that mean it was the actual tomb of Jesus? No. It means that hundreds of years later, people believed it was the tomb of Jesus. If scientific verification was no better than that, there would be no science.
You know, it's quite a leap from something like Joe's "there is a ground of being that is not less than personal" to ... "such and such a spot is the actual tomb of the actual Son of God" .... you do realize that, right?
I didn't make that leap all by myself. You made the claim that religious beliefs are verified like science.
yeah, okay .... quote me?
If you weren't saying that religious beliefs are verified (through "logical, sociological, archeological, historical and scholarly" means), then what were were you saying?
'Not quite from ANY kind of verification. There are theological critiques of theological speculations."
I don't speak for Mike but to me that says in areas where scientific thinkers transgress the space of theological questions theological verification can be found; so it's ;limited to theological questions or areas.So he's saying all religious beliefs are verified but that some can be.
Well, note that what I said was there were "critiques"?
Which would only suggest the possibility of (kinda like) "deverification" of some theological ideas (on their own terms)?
I suppose some sort of positive verification of theological ideas would be only found (if at all) in mystical experiences?
Yes, Christians love to complain that science deliberately excludes religious "hypotheses", but they are always quick to exploit it whenever they think it can help them make their case.
- Do you hear me making that presumption? All I have said is that there doesn't have to be a why - not that we shouldn't ask about it.
You've said several times that reality/the universe is a brute fact, that in essence there IS no why. That's very different from saying that there doesn't have to be. Sounds like for you the case is closed.
- I agree that theistic philosophy is dead. It has added nothing to human understanding of the reality of our world, but only leads us down rabbit-holes of speculation. Other branches of philosophy are constructively geared toward enhancing our understanding. Note that no philosophy gives us new factual information. It does give us improved ways to think about and understand the things we know.
Again, it sounds like your mind is made up. They're 'rabbit holes' because you've already decided there can be no God. I thought you were against dogmatic positions? Anyway, Hawking was talking about philosophy in general. He probably meant metaphysics, which like theistic philosophy and theology, is the bane of scientism.
It's just a strait up, blatant privileging of 'sameness' afaict.......
As long as the priveleging applies to mehtodology, I don't see a problem with it. It's when truht claims are made based on this privileging about everything everywhere and when the problem comes.
You've said several times that reality/the universe is a brute fact, that in essence there IS no why. That's very different from saying that there doesn't have to be. Sounds like for you the case is closed.
- Absolutely not case closed for me. Most theists think they know the ultimate answer, and they are not interested in any further search for the truth. That's why they are so dead-set against the very idea of brute facts. I'm not like them. Without first presupposing God, I can see that there are things that are apparently without purpose or reason. If I'm wrong about that, so be it. But I'm not about to close myself to all possibilities that don't presume God. And don't try to tell me that's not what theists do.
They're 'rabbit holes' because you've already decided there can be no God.
- I have decided no such thing. I have opened my eyes and looked at available evidence. This is something that theists refuse to do. The evidence tells a story that is quite clear. All a theist has to do is take off the God-colored goggles (otherwise known as unyielding faith) that cloud his vision, and look for himself. But if you want to show me objective evidence, I'm always open to changing mi mind if the evidence merits it. Just don't ask me to wear those goggles.
He probably meant metaphysics, which like theistic philosophy and theology, is the bane of scientism.
- There is misunderstanding about metaphysics. Metaphysics is not about theology. It's about what exists. There is naturalistic metaphysics, and it is fully compatible with a scientific understanding of reality. Unfortunately, many theists have hijacked metaphysics, and turned it into a theistic fantasy-land, and use it to justify their beliefs.
im-skeptical said...
You've said several times that reality/the universe is a brute fact, that in essence there IS no why. That's very different from saying that there doesn't have to be. Sounds like for you the case is closed.
- Absolutely not case closed for me. Most theists think they know the ultimate answer, and they are not interested in any further search for the truth. That's why they are so dead-set against the very idea of brute facts. I'm not like them. Without first presupposing God, I can see that there are things that are apparently without purpose or reason. If I'm wrong about that, so be it. But I'm not about to close myself to all possibilities that don't presume God. And don't try to tell me that's not what theists do.
you closed your self off to all the possibilities that do presume God God.
They're 'rabbit holes' because you've already decided there can be no God.
- I have decided no such thing. I have opened my eyes and looked at available evidence. This is something that theists refuse to do. The evidence tells a story that is quite clear. All a theist has to do is take off the God-colored goggles (otherwise known as unyielding faith) that cloud his vision, and look for himself. But if you want to show me objective evidence, I'm always open to changing mi mind if the evidence merits it. Just don't ask me to wear those goggles.
that is bull shit and you know it. you even refuse to read thee most ground breaking work in Christian apologetic because you don't want to give an apologist money that means you have already decided it can't be valid, if you thought even in principle it could be true you would at least check it out,
He probably meant metaphysics, which like theistic philosophy and theology, is the bane of scientism.
- There is misunderstanding about metaphysics. Metaphysics is not about theology. It's about what exists. There is naturalistic metaphysics, and it is fully compatible with a scientific understanding of reality. Unfortunately, many theists have hijacked metaphysics, and turned it into a theistic fantasy-land, and use it to justify their beliefs.
Metaphyics is not turbojet what exists, not per se. No one thinks metaphysics's about theology,although a lot of theology theology is metaphysical. Theists were doing metaphysics long before any atheists did philosophy, saying theists hijacked it is just absurdly ignorant,
ok I have not been in this thread much I will poll the participants to see if they want it keep it open for bit longer,
Don't matter ... as you wish ... :-)
everyone make one more summary statement
Okay...
"Metaphysics in the end is all Plato!"
...so Joe was right in his last post.....it's rooted in a theistic thing......
I'm glad that im skeptical admits that naturalism is a metaphysical viewpoint. The view that nothing exists outside what can be shown to exist by humans to other humans (or presumably at some point in the future could be shown to exist, as our methods improve), through what he calls "objective evidence," is certainly a metaphysical stance. What I'm not getting is the jump from this to the viewpoint that this is the only reasonable/rational metaphysical stance a human being can or should take, and that anyone who thinks otherwise has abandoned reason.
That's my summary statement.
Post a Comment