Atheism's Burden of Proof

[bhsmte]

But I'm not making any such claims. I'm just saying: clearly only the natural demonstrably exists. I'm not saying that "only the natural exists". I'm saying that we only know about the natural.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend the difference.



I don't see what morality has to do with the acknowledgement that we only know about the natural.

Some folks are wired and developed during their life, to believe there has to be more to it, there must be a deeper meaning to all this. IMO, the result of this is, when they try too hard, you get what you have explained on this thread.

There could be more to it, there could be a deeper meaning, but that is all speculation and with some, it is to fill a personal need, which is fine.

 

[bhsmte]

How convenient...I mean, inconvenient.



It's in the video. So, find a place where you can get sound ...



Yeah, and I agree with this. But, science still doesn't rule out religion. If you think it does, then I can't see how you'd really be a Representational Realist, because unlike Kant, you don't concede to the point that the scientia of the mind can't really get at 'God' all by its little lonesome. In that case, you really would trend toward Naive Realism (also known as Direct Realism).

As I said previously:

Being that this is likely the case, even with peer-review, I don't think science can exclude religious thought. And this very thing is one of the aspects which also reflects the implications of Representational Realism.

(p.s. notice, though, I'm not saying that science is dealing in 'non-realism' or 'anti-realism,' which are both terms for a third option beyond either Naive Realism and Representational Realism.)

I don't think he said or claimed, science rules out religion, not even close really.

Science deals with what it can detect, nothing more nothing less. Could there be stuff out their science can't detect? Sure, why not, but to believe that, is something that would rely on faith.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't see what morality has to do with the acknowledgement that we only know about the natural.

Well, you're making an ethical claim when you say that people are only rationally justified in believing things that have been scientifically demonstrated to be true. What is wrong with coming to one's beliefs through other means?

I'm not going to get into the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments for and against theism and naturalism, because at the end of the day, I am actually interested in agnosticism. Should naturalism be the default position for someone willing to admit that they do not know? The fact of the matter is that the debate between theism and naturalism doesn't revolve around the idea of a supernatural realm out there somewhere--the battleground is actually human nature itself. Is consciousness a byproduct or illusion in a material universe, or does its existence tell us something about the nature of reality itself? Do moral intuitions have objective meaning or are we just dancing on the edge of a nihilistic abyss? Are we free in any meaningful sense, or are we utterly at the mercy of chemical reactions and unthinking neural activity?

I frankly think that the various forms of theism make the most sense of human intuitions, including the scientific search for truth itself, and that this alone makes it a rationally justified position. To argue that it is not rationally justified, you would need to first defend your criteria for determining what does and does not qualify. Otherwise all you have is tautologies and dogma.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, you're making an ethical claim when you say that people are only rationally justified in believing things that have been scientifically demonstrated to be true. What is wrong with coming to one's beliefs through other means?

Besides the fact that it's not rational?
I disagree that that is an ethical issue.

It's a rationality issue. To believe things without proper justification, is not a rational position. It's what the word "rational" means.

I'm not going to get into the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments for and against theism and naturalism, because at the end of the day, I am actually interested in agnosticism. Should naturalism be the default position for someone willing to admit that they do not know?

Depends on what you mean by "naturalism".
If you mean that it is just the mere, tentative, acknowledgement that we only have evidence of the natural, then what is wrong with that acknowledgement?

I think any "absolute" statement about things we by definition are ignorant of, is always irrational.

There's actually very very little I'ld be willing to make absolute statements about...

I frankly think that the various forms of theism make the most sense of human intuitions,

I don't. I have no reason to.

including the scientific search for truth itself, and that this alone makes it a rationally justified position.

Not sure what you mean by that.

To argue that it is not rationally justified, you would need to first defend your criteria for determining what does and does not qualify. Otherwise all you have is tautologies and dogma.

I already shared those criteria.

The criteria is justification for beliefs in terms of supportive independent evidence.
All you seem to be doing, is making some kind of emotional argument or something.

You're just stating what you believe, you're not actually supporting those beliefs or demonstrating how it is rational to hold those beliefs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think he said or claimed, science rules out religion, not even close really.

Science deals with what it can detect, nothing more nothing less. Could there be stuff out their science can't detect? Sure, why not, but to believe that, is something that would rely on faith.

While I agree with you that things of faith lie outside the full scope of science, I wouldn't say that I agree with your definition of faith itself, particularly not of the more complete term, "Christian faith." I don't go for that truncated Peter Boghossian denotation of it.

 

[bhsmte]

While I agree with you that things of faith lie outside the full scope of science, I wouldn't say that I agree with your definition of faith itself, particularly not of the more complete term, "Christian faith." I don't go for that truncated Peter Boghossian denotation of it.

Thats cool. Definitions of faith, seem to vary quite a bit. Although, i dont believe i provided a specific definition. It makes perfect sense though, that definitions of faith would vary, since there are so many different faith beliefs.

 

[Silmarien]

It's a rationality issue. To believe things without proper justification, is not a rational position. It's what the word "rational" means.

Sure. But we haven't established what "proper justification" entails. There are ethical issues inherent in determining what is and isn't "proper," since "proper" involves a value judgment.

The criteria is justification for beliefs in terms of supportive independent evidence.
All you seem to be doing, is making some kind of emotional argument or something.

Alright, where is your supportive independent evidence for this particular belief? What reason to we have to believe that beliefs must be supported by independent evidence?

There's nothing irrational about emotional arguments when carried out in a rational fashion--if reason leads one to the conclusion that theism provides a better framework for a meaningful life, then it is perfectly reasonable for that person to be a theist. How is this not a proper justification? What criteria could be more important than meaningful existence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure. But we haven't established what "proper justification" entails.

We actually don't really need to, because you apply it constantly in your every day life and recognize instantly when things are being believed without such justification.

Except when it comes to your religion.

But I'll go ahead and assume that you do not believe the "testimonies" of alien abductees, witnesses of bigfoot or the loch ness monster, claims by scientologists about "operating thetans" who can manipulate space and time,....

Because you understand that "rational justification" means "independent supporting evidence".

Alright, where is your supportive independent evidence for this particular belief? What reason to we have to believe that beliefs must be supported by independent evidence?

Its impeccable track record of producing effective results.

If we base beliefs on independent evidence, we tend to come up with accurate conclusions.
If we don't, we tend to come up with the opposite.

There's nothing irrational about emotional arguments when carried out in a rational fashion

Emotional argument, is logical fallacy.
Logical fallacies, are not rational arguments.

--if reason leads one to the conclusion that theism provides a better framework for a meaningful life, then it is perfectly reasonable for that person to be a theist.

Sure. But the fact is, that it doesn't provide such a framework. Or at least not exclusively. I lead a meaningfull life. Don't require a religion to do so.

How is this not a proper justification? What criteria could be more important than meaningful existence?

I'll assume for a second that it is actually true that a theistic framework provides more meaning to life. I don't agree, but I'll assume it for the sake of argument...

When the goal is to find out what is actually TRUE, then such an argument fails.
Just because something gives you more meaning or comfort, does not mean that it is actually true.

I care about what is true. And I prefer to hold accurate beliefs instead of beliefs that just make me feel good.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There are plenty of unexamined issues underlying the idea of a "rationally justifiable position." Does rationality even exist, and if so, what is it and by what grounds is a specific belief rational or irrational? Are we justified in prioritizing rationality at all?

I'm actually at a point where naturalism would not be a rationally justified position at all. It's far too self-serving when it comes to determining which questions are worth asking and which ones must not be breached. If people are happy playing by those rules, so be it. Knock yourselves out, but stop insisting that nobody else is rationally justified--it's a tad bit imperialistic.

So basically, in order for your argument to work, you're positing the idea that rationality is either irrelevant, or even non-existent.

Yes, rationality is a real thing, and it's very important when trying to determine what is true.

If you need to attempt to discredit rational thought to strengthen your argument, that should tell you point blank that your argument is irrational.

Precisely. I don't see how this is a flaw in my argument, since this actually is part of my argument. Anything that can be studied scientifically can be incorporated into a naturalistic worldview. You keep on saying that if we discover supernaturally occurring "supernatural phenomena," we will have disproved naturalism, but you haven't explained how we could even test such things in general.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that naturalism is unfalsifiable. All metaphysical stances are unfalsifiable--they're by definition outside of the reach of science. You can claim that people are only justified in believing things that have been scientifically demonstrated, but that's an ideological stance, not a scientific one.

It's not up to me to determine how we test the supernatural, as I don't believe it exists. You can't test the non-existent. There are plenty who do believe in the supernatural however, and if they find a way to show their beliefs are correct, then naturalism is in fact wrong.

If they can't show their views are correct, then what rational basis do they have to hold their views in the first place?

I would not apply Occam's Razor to metaphysics, since while you would use it to show that it's only rational to believe in the natural world exists, others would use it to argue that it's not rational to believe in the natural world at all. The simplest solution, after all, is probably non-dualism--awareness is all that exists and all of reality as we perceive it is a manifestation. You can write off solipsism as unfalsifiable, but absolute idealists have similar tactics that they can use against you.

Why should it not be applied to metaphysics? And those that don't believe in the natural world are acting contrary to the evidence we all see every day, as we live in the natural world. So, they are indeed acting irrationally absent some further evidence that would indicate this is all an illusion.

I was trying to figure out what you meant by "supernaturalism," because I think these discussions get sidetracked because neither side really understands how the other is using these words. I'm not particularly interested in ghosts, NDEs, ESP, and other traditionally supernatural phenomena, so while I'm probably more agnostic about it than you are, that's really not what I'm thinking of when I question naturalism. I'm mostly thinking about the various strains of Platonism and Aristotelianism, so if you think we have "no reason whatsoever" for disagreeing with you, you obviously don't know what our reasons actually are. There are plenty of contemporary Thomists in particular who could clear that problem up easily enough. We may be Medievalists, but we're not obscurantists.

Supernaturalism is whatever exists outside of nature I would suppose. Someone who believes in the supernatural may have a slightly different definition, but that's a general idea from what I can gather.

 

[Silmarien]

Its impeccable track record of producing effective results.

If we base beliefs on independent evidence, we tend to come up with accurate conclusions.
If we don't, we tend to come up with the opposite.

Your position is a crude version of logical positivism, a 1920s school of philosophy that has been thoroughly discredited. I would suggest looking into the literature of precisely what's wrong with it, since it's far too big a topic to discuss here.

I'll assume for a second that it is actually true that a theistic framework provides more meaning to life. I don't agree, but I'll assume it for the sake of argument...

It's not about you. I'm really just trying to explain why theism is perfectly rational from a theistic perspective, not why it should be accepted by an atheist. I'm not an apologist; I just don't like the smug dogmaticism of a lot (though not all) of the atheists around here.

So basically, in order for your argument to work, you're positing the idea that rationality is either irrelevant, or even non-existent.

Yes, rationality is a real thing, and it's very important when trying to determine what is true.

If you need to attempt to discredit rational thought to strengthen your argument, that should tell you point blank that your argument is irrational.

The pursuit of truth is a religious value, so when looking at the world from an atheistic perspective, I think it best to question all of the preconceptions that have come down from the Christian worldview, not just the ones we find inconvenient. From a materialistic viewpoint, it is not entirely clear that people exist in any meaningful sense, much less that rationality is a real thing and not merely a human construct. To put it in hardcore Kantian terms, the mental structures that govern the concept of logic cannot be proven to match up to external reality.

It's even less clear why we should care about truth, assuming it is attainable at all. There's a school of thought in philosophy of science called instrumentalism, which denies that theories are truth-evaluable at all but holds instead that the "truth" of an idea is determined by its success in the active solution of a problem. Very pragmatic, not terribly interested in some romanticized notion of truth.

None of this is an argument for theism, mind you. I'm challenging the concept of rationality, since for any non-theist, adherence to it amounts to an unexamined act of faith. You keep on insisting that "truth" matters, but I'm not sure why that would even be the case. If it matters for you, I suppose that's perfectly fine as a personal choice, but I don't see why you would apply the same standards to anyone else. It's all rather arbitrary.

Why should it not be applied to metaphysics? And those that don't believe in the natural world are acting contrary to the evidence we all see every day, as we live in the natural world. So, they are indeed acting irrationally absent some further evidence that would indicate this is all an illusion.

It shouldn't be applied to metaphysics because the simplest solution really is that everything is an illusion. The only direct evidence that we have involve our own mental states--everything else is indirect, at best. If you think that "everything is an illusion" is too simple an answer, then you agree with me that Occam's Razor should not be applied to metaphysics. (Though non-dualism is actually rather more nuanced than I've presented it here.)

Anyway, this is all getting a bit too nihilistic for me, so I'm going to leave it at that. Καληνύχτα!

 

[Dave Ellis]

The pursuit of truth is a religious value, so when looking at the world from an atheistic perspective, I think it best to question all of the preconceptions that have come down from the Christian worldview, not just the ones we find inconvenient.

Actually, I'd consider the pursuit of faith to be a religious value. The pursuit of truth is a scientific one. If the pursuit of truth was a religious value, one would think the worlds religions would have far more truth in them.

From a materialistic viewpoint, it is not entirely clear that people exist in any meaningful sense, much less that rationality is a real thing and not merely a human construct. To put it in hardcore Kantian terms, the mental structures that govern the concept of logic cannot be proven to match up to external reality.

I'm a person, and so are you. Therefore, people exist. It's not hard.

Likewise, if something is rational, it is in accordance with reason or logic. This is also not hard to determine.

It's even less clear why we should care about truth, assuming it is attainable at all. There's a school of thought in philosophy of science called instrumentalism, which denies that theories are truth-evaluable at all but holds instead that the "truth" of an idea is determined by its success in the active solution of a problem. Very pragmatic, not terribly interested in some romanticized notion of truth.

None of this is an argument for theism, mind you. I'm challenging the concept of rationality, since for any non-theist, adherence to it amounts to an unexamined act of faith. You keep on insisting that "truth" matters, but I'm not sure why that would even be the case. If it matters for you, I suppose that's perfectly fine as a personal choice, but I don't see why you would apply the same standards to anyone else. It's all rather arbitrary.

If you don't value rationality, you can not legitimately claim to value what is true and what is not. Why we should value the truth however is because having knowledge based on reality or accurate facts makes us all stronger. If we act based on flawed or faulty information, odds are very good that things will go wrong for us.

It shouldn't be applied to metaphysics because the simplest solution really is that everything is an illusion. The only direct evidence that we have involve our own mental states--everything else is indirect, at best. If you think that "everything is an illusion" is too simple an answer, then you agree with me that Occam's Razor should not be applied to metaphysics. (Though non-dualism is actually rather more nuanced than I've presented it here.)

Anyway, this is all getting a bit too nihilistic for me, so I'm going to leave it at that. Καληνύχτα!

I don't think that's the simplest solution at all. The simplest solution would be that things are as we see them. How do you justify that everything is an illusion?

 

[Silmarien]

Actually, I'd consider the pursuit of faith to be a religious value. The pursuit of truth is a scientific one. If the pursuit of truth was a religious value, one would think the worlds religions would have far more truth in them.

Modern science came out of Catholic scholasticism, where the pursuit of truth was very much a religious value. Before that, there was Greek thought, which also blurs the lines between philosophy and theology.

I'm a person, and so are you. Therefore, people exist. It's not hard.

Likewise, if something is rational, it is in accordance with reason or logic. This is also not hard to determine.

If logic is a human construct, then rationality is also a human construct which tells us nothing about the nature of reality. This is not hard either.

People do not necessarily exist. Atoms, molecules, chemicals, and electrical impulses exist, but people are just bundles of sensation. Subjectively we think we exist, just like subjectively we believe we have free will, but from an objective perspective all of this falls apart. You are not a person; I am not a person. We are just mindless natural computing systems that have given rise to the illusions of thought and selfhood.

If you don't value rationality, you can not legitimately claim to value what is true and what is not. Why we should value the truth however is because having knowledge based on reality or accurate facts makes us all stronger. If we act based on flawed or faulty information, odds are very good that things will go wrong for us.

I don't see how truth makes us stronger. We evolved to be a cooperative, creative species, not necessarily to be a truth-seeking one. If the truth is that everything that we think we are is the result of unthinking natural processes and that there is nothing particularly special or interesting about the human species, then acting upon that true information might go very, very badly for us, especially as a species. Belief in the intrinsic meaning of life has made us stronger; remove that and I see no reason to value the continued existence of the species at all.

I don't think that's the simplest solution at all. The simplest solution would be that things are as we see them. How do you justify that everything is an illusion?

From a purely empiricist perspective, fairly easily. We're not justified in believing in anything we do not have direct access to, which includes the external world. You are taking its independent existence on faith, which is not very rational.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Modern science came out of Catholic scholasticism, where the pursuit of truth was very much a religious value. Before that, there was Greek thought, which also blurs the lines between philosophy and theology.

"Came out of" doesn't equate to "currently is". Modern science is clearly not a theological pursuit. If anything, science is often the greatest enemy of theology because it is effective at determining what is true.

If logic is a human construct, then rationality is also a human construct which tells us nothing about the nature of reality. This is not hard either.

That's simply fallacious logic. Just because a method is devised by humans to explore and discover the natural world, that doesn't mean the method automatically doesn't work. Logical, rational thought and scientific inquiry has a long history of working and producing effective results.

People do not necessarily exist. Atoms, molecules, chemicals, and electrical impulses exist, but people are just bundles of sensation. Subjectively we think we exist, just like subjectively we believe we have free will, but from an objective perspective all of this falls apart. You are not a person; I am not a person. We are just mindless natural computing systems that have given rise to the illusions of thought and selfhood.

This is a load of gobbledygook. Just because people are made of atoms and molecules doesn't mean people don't exist. My car is made up of a bunch of constituent parts, does that mean my car also doesn't exist?

You're arguing that subjectively we think we exist. However, if people didn't in fact exist, then there's no such thing as subjectivity, and no opportunity for us to have thoughts about our existence. Your entire point is based on the presupposition that your point is wrong.

I don't see how truth makes us stronger. We evolved to be a cooperative, creative species, not necessarily to be a truth-seeking one. If the truth is that everything that we think we are is the result of unthinking natural processes and that there is nothing particularly special or interesting about the human species, then acting upon that true information might go very, very badly for us, especially as a species. Belief in the intrinsic meaning of life has made us stronger; remove that and I see no reason to value the continued existence of the species at all.

If you believe incorrectly that you have enough food to last all winter, when you only have enough food to last 1/3rd of the winter, and use that false information as a reason to stop gathering food, you're going to die. If you act on correct information that you don't have enough food and you need to gather more, your odds are far higher at survival.

If you are told by your friend that keeping your money in your bank account is the best way to save for retirement, odds are you aren't going to have nearly the quality of retirement you would have liked. If you took the advice of a financial advisor and wisely invested your money based on a correct understanding of the markets, you'll likely be far better off.

I can write examples all day about how having truthful information is far more beneficial to us than having false information.

And sure, sometimes you act on false information, get lucky, and things work out. Over the long term though, having correct information guiding your decisions will prove to be far more beneficial to you.

From a purely empiricist perspective, fairly easily. We're not justified in believing in anything we do not have direct access to, which includes the external world. You are taking its independent existence on faith, which is not very rational.

By external world, do you mean the world we live in during our day to day lives, or are you talking of a supernatural realm?

If you're talking about the everyday world, your point is bunk, and I've already explained why in previous posts. If you're talking about a supernatural realm, there's no evidence it even exists, so again, a fairly useless point.

 

[Silmarien]

That's simply fallacious logic. Just because a method is devised by humans to explore and discover the natural world, that doesn't mean the method automatically doesn't work. Logical, rational thought and scientific inquiry has a long history of working and producing effective results.

Where did I say that logic automatically doesn't work? I actually take on faith that it does, but the point is that human reason is limited in such ways that we can never know to what degree our faculties match up to reality. It's an epistemological impossibility. It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone who has no interest in engaging with the points I'm actually making and would rather attack strawmen.

As for scientific inquiry, philosophers of science are really quite divided on the degree to which it is providing effective results, if by effective, we mean that they have independent truth value. This is why I mentioned instrumentalism.

This is a load of gobbledygook. Just because people are made of atoms and molecules doesn't mean people don't exist. My car is made up of a bunch of constituent parts, does that mean my car also doesn't exist?

You're arguing that subjectively we think we exist. However, if people didn't in fact exist, then there's no such thing as subjectivity, and no opportunity for us to have thoughts about our existence. Your entire point is based on the presupposition that your point is wrong.

Your car is not a "person," unless you think your car is a conscious, self-aware, and self-determining individual. In which case, welcome to the wild world of panpyschism.

I do not find eliminative materialism terribly plausible either, no, but I do not see how naturalism can escape such conclusions except through magical thinking and special pleading. In naturalism's defense, it is not impossible that our sense of self is so detached from what is objectively going on in our brains that it is effectively fully illusory. If you want a worldview that limits itself to the boundaries of science, look no further, since here it is. Everything else is accepted on faith or potentially flawed common sense.

I can write examples all day about how having truthful information is far more beneficial to us than having false information.

And I only need one counterexample to show that this is not always the case, especially when it comes to knowledge concerning the ultimate nature of reality. Information about the meaninglessness of existence really is not beneficial to us, regardless of whether or not this information is true.

By external world, do you mean the world we live in during our day to day lives, or are you talking of a supernatural realm?

If you're talking about the everyday world, your point is bunk, and I've already explained why in previous posts. If you're talking about a supernatural realm, there's no evidence it even exists, so again, a fairly useless point.

I'm talking about the everyday world, yes. There is no purely empirical evidence that it exists, your rather dogmatic attempts to assert otherwise notwithstanding. I think that there are philosophical reasons for accepting its existence, but you guys seem to be caught up on independent evidence, so any rational arguments I might make in favor of the independent existence of the external world are clearly irrelevant.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I'd consider the pursuit of faith to be a religious value. The pursuit of truth is a scientific one. If the pursuit of truth was a religious value, one would think the worlds religions would have far more truth in them.



I'm a person, and so are you. Therefore, people exist. It's not hard.

Likewise, if something is rational, it is in accordance with reason or logic. This is also not hard to determine.



If you don't value rationality, you can not legitimately claim to value what is true and what is not. Why we should value the truth however is because having knowledge based on reality or accurate facts makes us all stronger. If we act based on flawed or faulty information, odds are very good that things will go wrong for us.



I don't think that's the simplest solution at all. The simplest solution would be that things are as we see them. How do you justify that everything is an illusion?

If religions pursued truth supported by independent evidence, it would follow there wouldnt be so many religions and denominations of the same.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Where did I say that logic automatically doesn't work? I actually take on faith that it does, but the point is that human reason is limited in such ways that we can never know to what degree our faculties match up to reality. It's an epistemological impossibility. It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone who has no interest in engaging with the points I'm actually making and would rather attack strawmen.

If I misunderstood what you intended to argue, my apologies. I am not attempting to strawman you.

However, you don't need to take on faith that logic works. Even if reality is indeed just some illusion, we are still bound as a matter of practicality to the laws that govern the reality we experience. Logic works within that reality.

If reality isn't actually real, then who knows what actually does exist in reality. Without some reason to think that reality isn't real, or that there's at least a reasonable chance of that being the case, then it's a largely useless question to entertain.

As for scientific inquiry, philosophers of science are really quite divided on the degree to which it is providing effective results, if by effective, we mean that they have independent truth value. This is why I mentioned instrumentalism.

I doubt you'll find many philosophers of science who seriously entertain the idea that the results are not reliably effective or truthful in the grand scheme of things.

Your car is not a "person," unless you think your car is a conscious, self-aware, and self-determining individual. In which case, welcome to the wild world of panpyschism.

You didn't say person, you said people. People are physical human beings, person is a term that implies personhood, often in a legal sense. Your argument said people do not necessarily exist, and you referred to atoms, molecules, and other physical attributes. If you're talking about people in a physical sense, they clearly exist. That's what your post seemed to indicate, and why I called it nonsense for questioning that fact.

Personhood is a definition we created, and is usually determined by a set of criteria. Seeing as we define it, whatever meets that definition is a person, and therefore exists. As such, I don't find this line of argument particularly compelling either.

I do not find eliminative materialism terribly plausible either, no, but I do not see how naturalism can escape such conclusions except through magical thinking and special pleading. In naturalism's defense, it is not impossible that our sense of self is so detached from what is objectively going on in our brains that it is effectively fully illusory. If you want a worldview that limits itself to the boundaries of science, look no further, since here it is. Everything else is accepted on faith or potentially flawed common sense.

Even if I granted your point (which I don't), what is your alternative?

And I only need one counterexample to show that this is not always the case, especially when it comes to knowledge concerning the ultimate nature of reality. Information about the meaninglessness of existence really is not beneficial to us, regardless of whether or not this information is true.

So, provide a counter-example that disproves the points I made in my previous post.

I'm talking about the everyday world, yes. There is no purely empirical evidence that it exists, your rather dogmatic attempts to assert otherwise notwithstanding. I think that there are philosophical reasons for accepting its existence, but you guys seem to be caught up on independent evidence, so any rational arguments I might make in favor of the independent existence of the external world are clearly irrelevant.

There's no empirical evidence the world exists... wow.

(Definition) Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

Literally everything we do involves observing or experimenting on the everyday world that we live in. The fact we observe the world to exist is empirical evidence of it.

If you were a quadriplegic who lacked sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch, then you may be able to pose an argument you have no empirical evidence for the existence of the world. If you possess at least some of your senses, you can't reasonably make that claim.

 

[Silmarien]

However, you don't need to take on faith that logic works. Even if reality is indeed just some illusion, we are still bound as a matter of practicality to the laws that govern the reality we experience. Logic works within that reality.

I'm actually thinking of Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason, which is destructive to the idea that we could ever have real knowledge of the external world. Positing the reliability of logic as axiomatic does not actually make it match up to reality. The rules of logic could just be a mental construct that we use to impose order upon the world--we are not in a position epistemologically to assert that we absolutely know anything. This is a problem for theistic arguments, but it's as big a problem for naturalism, which frankly has less explanatory power for getting around it.

I doubt you'll find many philosophers of science who seriously entertain the idea that the results are not reliably effective or truthful in the grand scheme of things.

You would be surprised. With the failure of logical positivism and in the aftermath of Thomas Kuhn's historicist theory of science, there are definitely people out there who have tossed out the concept of truth altogether. People do have to defend the idea that science tells us true things about the world now; they can't just assert it and move on. And they very, very much can't say that science can answer every question and that every belief must be grounded in empirical scientific evidence.

Even if I granted your point (which I don't), what is your alternative?

Neo-Aristotelianism. A naturalized version for methodological purposes.

So, provide a counter-example that disproves the points I made in my previous post.

I don't see how your points were relevant. The fact that knowing the truth is helpful to survival in many circumstances doesn't make it helpful in this particular one.

There's no empirical evidence the world exists... wow.

This is Berkeley's argument, yes. All we have actual access to are our mental states and sense impressions, not to what is actually causing them. There is no direct evidence that matter exists; we only know which mental states are directly under our control and which are not. Berkeley believed that the material world had no genuine existence but that the impression of it was being produced by God moment by moment.

This is empiricism gone wild, but it is quite clearly empiricism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm actually thinking of Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason, which is destructive to the idea that we could ever have real knowledge of the external world. Positing the reliability of logic as axiomatic does not actually make it match up to reality. The rules of logic could just be a mental construct that we use to impose order upon the world--we are not in a position epistemologically to assert that we absolutely know anything. This is a problem for theistic arguments, but it's as big a problem for naturalism, which frankly has less explanatory power for getting around it.

I do agree that we can't claim absolute certainty about anything, apart from tautologies.

However, just because we can't claim absolute certainty doesn't mean we are wrong, nor does it mean we don't have well supported beliefs that we can justifiably hold with a very high degree of certainty.

Is it theoretically possible that we live in the matrix, or that I'm a brain in a vat and the whole world is an illusion? I don't even know if that is possible, and it's certainly not plausible. It may make for an interesting thought experiment, but there's no reason to believe it ties to reality.

And again, as a matter of practicality, we're forced into dealing with the world around us as we experience it.

You would be surprised. With the failure of logical positivism and in the aftermath of Thomas Kuhn's historicist theory of science, there are definitely people out there who have tossed out the concept of truth altogether. People do have to defend the idea that science tells us true things about the world now; they can't just assert it and move on. And they very, very much can't say that science can answer every question and that every belief must be grounded in empirical scientific evidence.

Science and scientific research has a record which speaks for itself. Sure, sometimes people mess up, however any time someone has been found to have made a mistake, the correction was discovered through further research.

Neo-Aristotelianism. A naturalized version for methodological purposes.

Explain how you reached that conclusion?

I don't see how your points were relevant. The fact that knowing the truth is helpful to survival in many circumstances doesn't make it helpful in this particular one.

How do you figure?

This is Berkeley's argument, yes. All we have actual access to are our mental states and sense impressions, not to what is actually causing them. There is no direct evidence that matter exists; we only know which mental states are directly under our control and which are not. Berkeley believed that the material world had no genuine existence but that the impression of it was being produced by God moment by moment.

This is empiricism gone wild, but it is quite clearly empiricism.

Either way, empirical evidence is evidence gathered by our senses. If we directly observe something (i.e. the world around us), then we have empirical evidence that the world exists.

What's causing it is irrelevant as it's a separate question. The point is, we do have empirical evidence of its existence.

 

[Silmarien]

Explain how you reached that conclusion?

(I seem to have caught the flu, so I'm only going to reply to this part and then probably pass out.)

Because there were some immense mistakes made in Enlightenment philosophy that have deeply impacted the way that we view the world. One of the biggest is Descartes's substance dualism, which has made us permanently view the mind as something distinct from the body. Most materialists perpetuate rather than solve this error, since they tend to assume the very paradigm they're rejecting: if substance dualism is not true, the mind must be epiphenomenal.

We're still largely stuck in a mechanistic worldview that neither matches up with our experiences nor seems to be a suitable way of approaching modern science. Much of what our predecessors rejected about Scholastic thought has actually been creeping back in--emergentism implies hylomorphism, the claim that structure is ontologically fundamental. Everything that we know about matter now (i.e., that it's ultimately interchangeable with energy) actually fits better with the classical view of matter as potentiality given form. Toss out formal and final causes and reality becomes completely unintelligible. Which it may well ultimately be, but I wouldn't declare it so prematurely.

Intellectual history is just not a straight line of progress. It's revolutions and counter-revolutions, over-correction and overconfidence. Recent thought is not necessarily better thought--we may have more information, but we've also gotten bogged down in a whole collection of unfounded assumptions. I would say that some careful reexamination is a century overdue.

 

[Dave Ellis]

(I seem to have caught the flu, so I'm only going to reply to this part and then probably pass out.)

Because there were some immense mistakes made in Enlightenment philosophy that have deeply impacted the way that we view the world. One of the biggest is Descartes's substance dualism, which has made us permanently view the mind as something distinct from the body. Most materialists perpetuate rather than solve this error, since they tend to assume the very paradigm they're rejecting: if substance dualism is not true, the mind must be epiphenomenal.

We're still largely stuck in a mechanistic worldview that neither matches up with our experiences nor seems to be a suitable way of approaching modern science. Much of what our predecessors rejected about Scholastic thought has actually been creeping back in--emergentism implies hylomorphism, the claim that structure is ontologically fundamental. Everything that we know about matter now (i.e., that it's ultimately interchangeable with energy) actually fits better with the classical view of matter as potentiality given form. Toss out formal and final causes and reality becomes completely unintelligible. Which it may well ultimately be, but I wouldn't declare it so prematurely.

Intellectual history is just not a straight line of progress. It's revolutions and counter-revolutions, over-correction and overconfidence. Recent thought is not necessarily better thought--we may have more information, but we've also gotten bogged down in a whole collection of unfounded assumptions. I would say that some careful reexamination is a century overdue.

"Recent thought is not necessarily better thought--we may have more information, but we've also gotten bogged down in a whole collection of unfounded assumptions."

This sums up my view of your argument perfectly.

Hope you get over your flu.