A question for athiests

Silenus said:

I'd put one of those smiley faced things here, but, to be honest with you, I hate them.




But, this is part of my point. Why is it okay to posit another force acting against an established law and multiply hypothesis that way, but not hypothesis supernaturally, especially considering my second argument and the fact that nature itself cannot account for the rationality we are using in this discussion. When I was considering these questions I found this only to be the tip of the ice berg. It seems supernatural hypothesis are superior to simply positing another force. In the end, you will end up posit forces ad nausium. So if we are going to hypothesis, why not consider all the hypothesis out there and not just ones that correspond to a closed system universe?

Click to expand...

The reason it is okay is because, while naturalistic hypotheses retain the ability to be falfisied sometime in the future; supernatural "explanations" can never be falsified and do not even fall under the realm of science. There is a difference between protoscience and non-science. The claims of supernatural intervention belong to the latter. Naturalistic claims regarding stuff we cannot yet test, but that don't run afoul of any physical law (perhaps the Second Law is not a full explanation, like Relativity) is protoscience. Protoscience has the possibility of being tested. That is the problem with positing supernatural forces. You can claim as many things as you want — you will never be able to be proven wrong.

Silenus said:

I completely agree with your statement here, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The things we have discovered don't need God to explain them, but if science works, then it is more than slightly probable that the metaphysical hypothesis science is based upon, the metaphysical principle that the universe is an ordered and rationally functioning (for lack of a better word) entity, is also true. Modern science was the invention of a Christian society operating under the above metaphysical premise.

Click to expand...

Giving credit for the scientific revolution to a "Christian society" is a bit of a stretch. Historically, not many people were allowed to speak out against Christianity thanks to groups like the Inquisition. Also, those scientists that did help develop the modern scientific method did not use their religious beliefs to help sculpt it. I just don't think it's really fair to give Christianity the credit for something that just happened to develop during it's 2000-some year reign. It was the minds of brilliant men, and not some God, who developed the scientific method. You can feel free to add that some God is behind the order of the universe; my problem with that is that it is unnecessary. There is no need to add a God (aside from the classical [and fallacious] argument from ignorance "we don't know - therefore God is a reasonable answer"). Occam's Razor tells us that when we have a naturalistic explanation, we have no need for a supernatural one. It's superfluous. Regarding our lack of knowledge of cosmology now, I think history has demonstrated that gaps in knowledge are very quickly filled. All that we need are the right tools to analyze the issues and we can solve them. Simply positing a supernatural force because we don't yet have the answer is not something any scientist would do.

But, in the end, I would contend that neither metaphysic can inductively bend to the weight of evidence. (sorry, just finished reading Tolkien. the dwarf were singing.) Metaphysics cannot be falsified in a laboratory or inductively. This is the problem Ayer ran into with positivism. Metaphysical systems must be shown to be inadequate in their correspondence to reality, and sensation alone cannot provide the evidence needed to overthrow metaphysical systems. I actually started on this train of thought after reading a statement of, I think it was sagan's, where he talked about the science's debt to Christian premises. I'll see if I can dig it up. Let me get your quote in here and then make my point.

The reason it is okay is because, while naturalistic hypotheses retain the ability to be falsified sometime in the future; supernatural "explanations" can never be falsified and do not even fall under the realm of science. There is a difference between protoscience and non-science. The claims of supernatural intervention belong to the latter. Naturalistic claims regarding stuff we cannot yet test, but that don't run afoul of any physical law (perhaps the Second Law is not a full explanation, like Relativity) is protoscience. Protoscience has the possibility of being tested. That is the problem with positing supernatural forces. You can claim as many things as you want — you will never be able to be proven wrong

Click to expand...

The premise that the universe is a closed naturalistic system cannot be falsified with the inductive, scientific method. It is accepted as the metaphysical framework under which science operates. However, scientific method and inductive reasoning came before the naturalistic closed system metaphysic. This was my point. Induction developed under the premise that the universe was orderly and rational because it was rationally made. under this premise, induction becomes a valid form of reasoning because you are searching for fundamentals you know exist. There is a firm belief in the unity of knowledge and particulars which makes induction no longer absurd and this was the original metaphysic that science operated under. Later, post bacon, the method was split from its initial metaphysic to a closed system naturalism developed, as philosophers sought to find universals solely from references in particulars without deduction, despite that fact that their metaphysic was not inductively formed.

Einstein was right about the nature of scientists that they have faith in the orderliness of the universe and the belief in fundamental order spawned science, not the other way around. My point wasn't that science owes something to Christendom because of a time period relationship, my point is that the metaphysics that spawned science was not naturalism and naturalism is not necessary for the existence of science. Naturalism is not the default position.

Occam's Razor tells us that when we have a naturalistic explanation, we have no need for a supernatural one. It's superfluous.

Click to expand...

Occam states not to needlessly add hypothesis. I don't think I am needlessly adding anything. A metaphysic cannot be falsified except by being inconsistent or needed something outside of itself to sustain it. If all beliefs need to be able to be falsified inductively, lets go Hume on them and throw out all metaphysical systems. But then Einstein is right about the faith part. All belief in the unity of particulars is an act of faith. My point is metaphysics can be falsified by their ability to deal with reality and their ability to retain consistency in the face of inquiry. This is why I added my second part in my initial argument which is one of the reasons why I question the naturalistic premise. There are things which need to be outside of naturalism to explain naturalism's existence and this creates a metaphysical problem for a closed system universe. Can God be falsified? Yes, if the claims of God do not jive with reality or are not internally consistent.

I don't profess to know why the law of gravity is as it is. However, just because I don't know the answer to a question does not mean I should settle for made-up answers.

Click to expand...

This depends on what you mean by 'the law of gravity'.

You might mean Newton's law of universal gravitation, in which case it is the way it is because he had seen that the terrestrial phenomena of falling objects could be extended to allow moons to orbit Jupiter if Jupiter could produce the same effect as we see on Earth.

Galileo had started that off by observing four moons that appeared to orbit Jupiter. The Church opposed that and made a fool of itself yet again.

If you are referring to the form of the statement then it is English because Sir Isaac was English. Albert Einstein made an improved version referred to as 'the General Theory of Relativity'. There is no unique single law of gravity.

Scientific laws and expressions are observations of behaviour codified. That's all they are. There was no before-the-Universe-started-writing-all-the-laws-of-science event.

The way the Universe works is at it's most basic extremely simple. But we don't live at that level so have trouble grasping it. And our language and concepts aren't made for that sort of thing either.

It's like chess. A few rules, a few pieces, that's reality. The science books are the many books filled with the strategies and moves of the resulting game so numerous and complicated that no expert can master them all.

The only reality that matters is the human reality, therefore i govern myself.

Silenus said:

The premise that the universe is a closed naturalistic system cannot be falsified with the inductive, scientific method. It is accepted as the metaphysical framework under which science operates. However, scientific method and inductive reasoning came before the naturalistic closed system metaphysic. This was my point. Induction developed under the premise that the universe was orderly and rational because it was rationally made. under this premise, induction becomes a valid form of reasoning because you are searching for fundamentals you know exist. There is a firm belief in the unity of knowledge and particulars which makes induction no longer absurd and this was the original metaphysic that science operated under. Later, post bacon, the method was split from its initial metaphysic to a closed system naturalism developed, as philosophers sought to find universals solely from references in particulars without deduction, despite that fact that their metaphysic was not inductively formed.[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what the principle of science was originally founded upon. The fact that it was believed, as you said, to be the product of rational design was irrelevant. Science could still only observe and test the natural. The claims regarding God's design are simple (unnecessary) additions to this. Science assumes naturalism, you might call it axiomatic. The reason is because claims about the supernatural cannot be tested in nature, because the claims made are arbitrary. I could say "if the tooth fairy exists, I shall have a canine tooth", and therefore, since I do have a canine tooth, the tooth fairy must exist. However, there is no reason to believe my initial statement. Just like when someone says "If God is real, he would have done -blah-" How do you know? Because a book says so?

Silenus said:

Einstein was right about the nature of scientists that they have faith in the orderliness of the universe and the belief in fundamental order spawned science, not the other way around. My point wasn't that science owes something to Christendom because of a time period relationship, my point is that the metaphysics that spawned science was not naturalism and naturalism is not necessary for the existence of science. Naturalism is not the default position.

Click to expand...

Ah, but naturalism IS required for the exist of science and yes, it is the default position. I went over it a bit above but I'll say it again. Claims about the supernatural cannot be falsified because we have no possibly way in which to verify that the person making said claims got things right. "If this thing, therefore God" cannot be falsified because there is no way to tell if such a relationship actually exists or is just being invented by the person. With naturalism, we can test said claims on things in the real world. That is why science is naturalistic by nature.

Silenus said:

Occam states not to needlessly add hypothesis. I don't think I am needlessly adding anything. A metaphysic cannot be falsified except by being inconsistent or needed something outside of itself to sustain it. If all beliefs need to be able to be falsified inductively, lets go Hume on them and throw out all metaphysical systems. But then Einstein is right about the faith part. All belief in the unity of particulars is an act of faith. My point is metaphysics can be falsified by their ability to deal with reality and their ability to retain consistency in the face of inquiry. This is why I added my second part in my initial argument which is one of the reasons why I question the naturalistic premise. There are things which need to be outside of naturalism to explain naturalism's existence and this creates a metaphysical problem for a closed system universe. Can God be falsified? Yes, if the claims of God do not jive with reality or are not internally consistent.[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

What needs an explanation outside of naturalism? I still don't see how you're not just shoving God into a knowledge gap? How is something "outside of naturalism" even an explanation? No, God cannot be falsified, because again, one can make an arbitrary claim about him all they want without us ever being able to tell if such a relationship between premise and conclusion even existed in the first place. "If God exists, the sky will be blue." Well, there is no reason to draw said conclusion; it's just a simple statement with no basis. More complex arguments like "Thermodynamics implies the universe was "wound up", therefore we need a winder" might seem to avoid this, but they fall prey to the God of the Gaps shoving things into our lack of knowledge. Either way, God doesn't mix with science.

Sojourner<>< said:

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

Click to expand...

I believe in God. I just don't believe God is Jewish. Obviously there is a hierarchy of intelligence, which is evident in the natural world, with man at the top and all other animals below. So it would necessarily be true that a hierarchy exists above man; such as angels. I believe in God as a pagan. I just don't find God necessary to my experience. I don't have to believe in anything that I'm told to believe in, I think that Christianity is just a construct and a grasp of God by man.

It doesn't really matter what the principle of science was originally founded upon. The fact that it was believed, as you said, to be the product of rational design was irrelevant. Science could still only observe and test the natural. The claims regarding God's design are simple (unnecessary) additions to this. Science assumes naturalism, you might call it axiomatic. The reason is because claims about the supernatural cannot be tested in nature, because the claims made are arbitrary. I could say "if the tooth fairy exists, I shall have a canine tooth", and therefore, since I do have a canine tooth, the tooth fairy must exist. However, there is no reason to believe my initial statement. Just like when someone says "If God is real, he would have done -blah-" How do you know? Because a book says so?

Click to expand...

Ah, but naturalism IS required for the exist of science and yes, it is the default position. I went over it a bit above but I'll say it again. Claims about the supernatural cannot be falsified because we have no possibly way in which to verify that the person making said claims got things right. "If this thing, therefore God" cannot be falsified because there is no way to tell if such a relationship actually exists or is just being invented by the person. With naturalism, we can test said claims on things in the real world. That is why science is naturalistic by nature.

Click to expand...

I disagree that there are any default positions. One doesn't discover axioms, one chooses them. You have chosen the naturalistic axiom. If science was naturalistic by nature, it would have to be the result of a belief in naturalism, which it was not. Saying the universe is a closed system is not something which has been observed or tested or verified empirically. It is chosen. The five basic point of science as I understand them

1. Guided by natural law
2. Explained by natural law
3. Testable against the empirical world
4. Tentative in it's conclusions
5. Falsifiable.

Click to expand...

cannot be bolstered by their own criteria. I have no problem with this, it is an axiom after all. But that means it is not a default. This claim above cannot be falsified. So I must throw it out. Science is possible and works no matter which metaphysics you hold. (well, there are some metaphysics in which it doesn't work, but I don't think either of us care for them) However, in a theistic metaphysic, the scientist can be assured of the truth of induction because particulars have unity, but in naturalism, a scientist must believe, as Einstein pointed out, by faith. The unity of particulars in not a given. I do understand your reluctance to think theism if all it is is a way to explain the stuff we can't explain. But, I think it is more complex than this. I've noticed my second argument has not been addressed. My second argument is not a gap argument, it is a logic argument on the nature of naturalism. I rejected naturalism because of its impossibility. The things it is based on do not fit in it. Rationality cannot be explained by naturalism, and it cannot exist in naturalism, but it needs rationality to be valid. This is one of the things that began my reappraisal of theism. Now, I admit, I agree with saintain that this only gives me God, not Christianity. I have other reasons for that.

Anyway, I have a curious question which I'm not asking as a trap, I'm asking out of curiosity. It's hard to find people that are willing to engage in a conversation without sarcasm and I thank you for the civility of this conversation. Christians believe in either spirit, body, soul or just body soul. Unlike other religions, we do not believe these things are dualistic in nature. Do you believe in any kind of soul, spirit? What would your definition of spiritual be? And what kind of art do you like?

Metaphysics is pointless, the question of nothing, and the answering of the make-up of existence is pointless because it achieves nothing. Only the branch of ontology properly combined with existentialism and phenomenology is capable of achieving a perspective that applies to the human identity.

As for the soul, spirit it can be explained primarily by the consciousness since the conscious is the "I" in the cogito it explains human identity in existence. It is a dualism by which it applies to our conscious-being. "I think, therefore i am" sums up the existence of us because the I of the consciousness thinks therefore thinking of thinking about thinking applies itself to think about it thinking therefore applying it to exist. We are our consciousness while our body, mind, are housings for our consciousness.

Our body and mind are non-conscious they are being-in-itself or non-conscious beings. Our consciousness is a being-for-itself by which we are capable of applying itself for itself to recognize itself. Since we are conscious creatures we are also condemned to be consciously aware of our existence. We think about our existence...no rock or cat or dog or any non-conscious being-in-itself is capable of doing this. They dont question their actions like us. A rock is a rock, its purpose is to be a rock. A cat does not think about thinking when it attacks. It thinks then attacks not think about thinking about attacking. We are thus condemned to question and through this we are incapable of ever achieving self-purpose because through our questioning we question everything. We cannot act and then not question. Our consciousness can be said to be the thing that seperates us from everything.

No, I do not believe anything exists outside of the material. I am a very firm lover of scientific method and only accept things that interact with my senses (which, by definition, must be natural things.) If I have no possible way of detecting anything "immaterial", I have no reason to believe in it's existence.

I still do not see how you can claim naturalism is a "faith position". It's not an arbitrarily chosen axiom &#8212; it's an a priori assumption we MUST have if we are to make sense of this world. How can we explain the natural world without using itself unless we are to be totally arbitrary in everything? With naturalism, the only thing we must "assume" is that the natural world is all that we can detect, which is not an assumption &#8212; it's verified by observation. If the supernatural wanted to interact with us it would have to be through natural means, otherwise we could never detect the interaction. We can find the natural, but not the supernatural.

You can call naturalism an arbitrary choice, but it's far from arbitrary &#8212;[wash my mouth]it's the only logical position that science can take. Otherwise our explanations regarding the natural world will be arbitrary in every sense of the word because no explanation can be falsified if the said thing cannot be tested. Regardless of what the claims are &#8212; because the claims themselves are arbitrary.

Lucretius

am a very firm lover of scientific method and only accept things that interact with my senses (which, by definition, must be natural things.) If I have no possible way of detecting anything "immaterial", I have no reason to believe in it's existence.

I still do not see how you can claim naturalism is a "faith position". It's not an arbitrarily chosen axiom — it's an a priori assumption we MUST have if we are to make sense of this world.

Click to expand...

I guess my contention then is, if the nateralistic mindset is an effect and not the cause of the scientific method, How can you say I MUST use it to make sense of the world? If scientists before the 17th/18th century didn't need it to make sense of the world, why do I?

Also, if nateralism is true, i still don't see how I have any belief other than determinism. A must = A. This is one of my issues. I feel like we're going around in circles and may have to agree to disagree. Although, I don't mind going in circles. anyway, i have more to type but can't do it now . . .

for now I have one question for existence . . .

what is the relation of being to becoming in your view?

gotta go

Bit of a chicken and egg here like so many things. The scientific method was kicked off by a philosopher, and it worked so well it spread and has totally changed our lives.

Roger Bacon at the start of the enlightenment stated that man can prove or disprove universal truths by observation and his own fallible reasoning and that divine revelation is not the only source of truth.

(Yes, Roger Bacon got it from Grossteste who got it from Aristotle, but you have to start somewhere)

For example, if it is stated that the World started in 4004BC and someone finds half a million years in layers of sediment (as I saw back when I was a Christian along the road to my grandmother's house in the Appalachians) then a universal is disproven by a specific observation by a fallible human.

Back in the Dark Ages it was just accepted by everyone that nobody could as a result of his fallen mind discover anything of any value, so nobody tried.

Once people started making scientific observations and experiments a great deal began to be discovered. So a few people's belief in observing nature snowballed as a result of the success it lead to.

If you disagree with that then stop using a car and go back to a horse and cart, and use dirt tracks and forget light bulbs too. No TV, no phone. People who claim they don't benefit from science and that religion is better have to be consistent and live in the Dark Ages.

Roger Bacon at the start of the enlightenment stated that man can prove or disprove universal truths by observation and his own fallible reasoning and that divine revelation is not the only source of truth.

(Yes, Roger Bacon got it from Grossteste who got it from Aristotle, but you have to start somewhere)

For example, if it is stated that the World started in 4004BC and someone finds half a million years in layers of sediment (as I saw back when I was a Christian along the road to my grandmother's house in the Appalachians) then a universal is disproven by a specific observation by a fallible human.

Back in the Dark Ages it was just accepted by everyone that nobody could as a result of his fallen mind discover anything of any value, so nobody tried.

Once people started making scientific observations and experiments a great deal began to be discovered. So a few people's belief in observing nature snowballed as a result of the success it lead to.

If you disagree with that then stop using a car and go back to a horse and cart, and use dirt tracks and forget light bulbs too. No TV, no phone. People who claim they don't benefit from science and that religion is better have to be consistent and live in the Dark Ages.

Click to expand...

I don't know where this post can from to be honest. Bacon didn't start it nor was I saying that no one benifited from science, in fact i did say science was a viable source of knowledge. i just stated the truth that naturalism didn't spring science. Also, your comment about the dark ages isn't true, read Aquines and augustine. Especially Aquines. That comment is just high revisonist history. If you're going to post, thats fine, but please read all the posts and don't straw man my comments. The conversation was civil and there was no sarcasm till you arrived.

Sojourner<>< said:

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

Click to expand...

Before I begin, we need to clarify a few points.

What do you mean by "reality"? And why do you believe that it must have a "governor"? What are the "rules of physics" to which you are referring?

Sojourner<>< said:

For the purposes of this thread, you're more than welcome to provide your own definitions if you like. It would be easiest for everyone if you could clearly state your premises before elaborating on your ideas.

Click to expand...

I can´t think of any definitions of "reality" and "governed by" that promise to allow a statement such as "Reality is governed by...".
It is your wording, so I am assuming you mean something when saying it. I don´t see a point in filling your words (and expressions that I wouldn´t use for the life of me, on top) with my meaning.

Sojourner<>< said:

Very well. I'll rephrase.

Reality: why is it here?

Click to expand...

Why should it be somewhere else?

Sojourner<>< said:

Reality: why is it here?

Click to expand...

If I could answer your question, I would be supplying you with a cause to explain reality. However, that cause would also have to be real, making it an invalid answer for explaining reality.

Do you see that such a question cannot be answered, and is itself invalid?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think that the laws of physics kind of happen from the fact that you can't have contradictions and probably from the Laws of Motion and Laws of Gravity.

Basically the laws of physics are just like that, nobody made it, they in fact couldn't have been any other way in order ffor us to exist in it. Scientists now are researching an idea of perhaps mybe many Universes were attempted to be formed, and maybe more than one Universe did form, but we live in this one.

Personnaly I am a little agnostic, and I think that there might be a creator, but really, I wouldn't call him a God because after all, all he did was create the Universe under this hypothesis, and he most likely in all probability doesn't even know where our planet could possibly be located.

Sincerely,

Thomas