Is metaphysics legitimate?

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟181,110.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Metaphysics: the endeavor to try to discern the great universal properties, constitutive principles, and governing laws of all that is real, in a word, the laws of intelligibility of being as such, including how all real beings interrelate to form an intelligible whole, that is, a universe. “Metaphysics is the study of being qua being” or being as such. Spelled out, this means the study of all beings precisely insofar as they are real, which means actually existent.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
It is both legitimate and necessary; here's why. . .

epistemologists.jpg
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It seems to me that metaphysics is unavoidable. Everybody has at least some partial metaphysical model in their heads, and it is helpful to put that model under a microscope to see if it is coherent. However, even if we determine that our metaphysical model is incoherent it is probably difficult to correct it, because it is so instinctual. For example, I might convince myself that I don't have freewill, but I still FEEL like I have freewill.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
I want to thank PuerAzaelis for creating this thread. Most appreciated. He's really addressing the elephant in the room here.

The following is not directed at the OP, but rather everyone on the board in-general:

Knowledge of metaphysics is always necessary, and it doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. Doesn't matter if you're pro-science, because you're still soaking in metaphysics regardless (you probably just don't know it).

Just because your guidance counselor didn't out & out tell you it was necessary, doesn't mean you can safely ignore it. Time constraints probably edged it out, or it might have been considered a redundant optional course to drop if you were part of some specialized or accelerated learning program of some sort.

Why? Probably because the administration just assumed your regular professors would cover it. And I'm almost certain they didn't.

So ignorance of metaphysics can be a huge blind-spot. Choosing to hide in a lab all-day, and ignore all the other buildings on campus, may come back to bite you in the end. Some science degrees required studying metaphysics as part of a separate course in philosophy and some didn't. Depending on the college.

General: Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In specialized fields of science: Metaphysics of Science | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

^ If you've never studied this at the introductory level, then do yourself a favor and learn something new for a change.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I want to thank PuerAzaelis for creating this thread. Most appreciated. He's really addressing the elephant in the room here.

The following is not directed at the OP, but rather everyone on the board in-general:

Knowledge of metaphysics is always necessary, and it doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. Doesn't matter if you're pro-science, because you're still soaking in metaphysics regardless (you probably just don't know it).

Just because your guidance counselor didn't out & out tell you it was necessary, doesn't mean you can safely ignore it. Time constraints probably edged it out, or it might have been considered a redundant optional course to drop if you were part of some specialized or accelerated learning program of some sort.

Why? Probably because the administration just assumed your regular professors would cover it. And I'm almost certain they didn't.

So ignorance of metaphysics can be a huge blind-spot. Choosing to hide in a lab all-day, and ignore all the other buildings on campus, may come back to bite you in the end. Some science degrees required studying metaphysics as part of a separate course in philosophy and some didn't. Depending on the college.

General: Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In specialized fields of science: Metaphysics of Science | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

^ If you've never studied this at the introductory level, then do yourself a favor and learn something new for a change.
Good post, kind of hard to understand Theology without some understanding of this subject.
 
Upvote 0

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟181,110.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Part of the reason for the question is that I am interested in medieval Scholasticism, which was quite friendly to metaphysics. Since Descartes however it has not been in vogue and I am wondering if that is because science is anti-metaphysics, in which case an atheistic philosophy would also have to be anti-metaphysics. That's the relevance of the question to this particular forum. Does atheism even admit the possibility of a metaphysics or is that incoherent?

From the article Paulomycin cited:

In the 1930s, the Logical Empiricists proposed an empiricist, positivist program. They held that experience is our only source of nondefinitional knowledge (hence Logical Empiricism) and that the task of philosophy is logical analysis; that is, analysis of the logical features of and relations between sentences (hence Logical Empiricism). According to the Logical Empiricists, all the empirical propositions we believe can be reduced to so-called protocol sentences, which are direct renderings of our perceptual experience, or “the given.” Only if we know how a sentence could in principle be verified—that is, which possible observations would result in our accepting it as true—can we say that the sentence is meaningful. This so-called verifiability criterion of meaning has one purpose in particular, namely, to exclude metaphysical speculation from the realm of meaningful discourse. For example, the metaphysical sentence “every thing has an immaterial substance” cannot be empirically verified; hence, according to the verifiability criterion of meaning, it is meaningless. A radical antimetaphysical stance was one of the key tenets of Logical Empiricism.

Metaphysics of Science | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Do all atheistic world views require this philosophy?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟181,110.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
And if we treat scientism as a symptom of the age of fundamentalisms we could also say that theistic worldviews that are dependent on biblical exclusivity - which I also view as a fundamentalism - are also hostile to metaphysics.

So there is ambiguity against metaphysics from both sides of the spectrum of world views.

Scientific exclusivity - no metaphysics.

Biblical exclusivity - no metaphysics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Thank you PuerAzaelis, for your further input. It fired off all kinds of thoughts. :grinning:

Please pardon the rant (I had no idea this post would be so long).

Part of the reason for the question is that I am interested in medieval Scholasticism, which was quite friendly to metaphysics. Since Descartes however it has not been in vogue and I am wondering if that is because science is anti-metaphysics, in which case an atheistic philosophy would also have to be anti-metaphysics.

Yes and no. The way I learned it, when Scholasticism declined in popularity, we get the impression that when Descartes came along, everyone up & decided to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," but I'm not so sure about that. It's very hard to tell at the moment where one really ended and the other began. The reaction of the crowd is far too often different from the authors' intent.

Apparently, historians are now saying that Descartes was influenced by the Scholastics, but I haven't read that far yet. In any case, we can't assume Descartes really invented rationalism out of whole cloth. I often think that his pursuit of radical skepticsm is not only misunderstood, but actually a good thing.

Also, if I recall, Scholasticism made a series of comebacks all the way into the 1970s. It's sure gained popularity in the Reformed movement. I see much value in both Scholasticism and Cartesianism. Not even completely sure where they might conflict with one another (if, at all?). But then again, I admit that I haven't read enough of both to see any real contention. Why can't they be harmonious?

That's the relevance of the question to this particular forum. Does atheism even admit the possibility of a metaphysics or is that incoherent?

They publicly reject the existence of metaphysics, while at the same time privately embracing their own.

For example, ontological naturalism is a metaphysical claim. <-- This is what atheists really believe, but most rank & file members of the pop-atheist community don't even know the formal name of it.

That's what makes it so effective online. The best positive claim to support your negative claim "ism" is the one that most of the active members don't even know exists. And those that do know it exists either don't know or don't care that it is both metaphysical and unfalsifiable.

It's an artful deception, and truly brilliant. . .when you get down and look at the blueprint (so-to-speak).

------------------------------

Atheists as a whole (at least the educated ones), are pretty much saying, "No metaphysics exist except ours alone. Since ours is the only metaphysics, we can declare it the sum-total of reality itself, and therefore metaphysics is a dead category." Stephen Hawking said as much when he declared philosophy dead at the Google Zeitgeist Conference, right before he died.

^ But Hawking's assertion is itself a philosophy, and derived from metaphysics, so he refutes himself.

That's what's so frustrating about these people. Sometimes the line between "hubris" and "pure ignorance" can be so blurred that you can never tell exactly what they're guilty of. At this point, even Hanlon's razor fails, which for atheists only reinforces their own sense of superiority.

Occasionally, one or two atheists have an "aha" moment in their life when they suddenly realize that there is no evidence to support ontological naturalism, but this usually leads to an existential slide into the darkness of anomie (absurdism). Usually, the most intelligent atheists are the existentialists, but of course, they hardly ever show up on discussion forums, because "why bother?" They're too busy trying to figure out why they shouldn't kill themselves. <-- Camus.

From the article Paulomycin cited:

In the 1930s, the Logical Empiricists proposed an empiricist, positivist program. They held that experience is our only source of nondefinitional knowledge (hence Logical Empiricism) and that the task of philosophy is logical analysis; that is, analysis of the logical features of and relations between sentences (hence Logical Empiricism). According to the Logical Empiricists, all the empirical propositions we believe can be reduced to so-called protocol sentences, which are direct renderings of our perceptual experience, or “the given.” Only if we know how a sentence could in principle be verified—that is, which possible observations would result in our accepting it as true—can we say that the sentence is meaningful. This so-called verifiability criterion of meaning has one purpose in particular, namely, to exclude metaphysical speculation from the realm of meaningful discourse. For example, the metaphysical sentence “every thing has an immaterial substance” cannot be empirically verified; hence, according to the verifiability criterion of meaning, it is meaningless. A radical antimetaphysical stance was one of the key tenets of Logical Empiricism.

Yep! So yeah, this isn't some conspiracy theory, because it was all out in public, with some prominent academic leaders behind it. The goal was to make reality science-based, and to create a universally prescriptive scientific method. They wanted to be the first worldwide thought leaders.

But it failed. And it failed badly. The history of that failure is just as interesting to read as the history of the effort itself. The last one to demolish the condemned building was my boy, Paul Feyerabend. *boom* Done. :sunglasses:

Yet every now and then, you'll still encounter atheists behaving like positivists. They simply don't realize that ship already sailed decades ago (& then sank).

Do all atheistic world views require this philosophy?

I believe so. Even if they don't know what it's called, they'll usually affirm it in different words.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PuerAzaelis
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
And if we treat scientism as a symptom of the age of fundamentalisms we could also say that theistic worldviews that are dependent on biblical exclusivity - which I also view as a fundamentalism - are also hostile to metaphysics.

So there is ambiguity against metaphysics from both sides of the spectrum of world views.

Scientific exclusivity - no metaphysics.

Biblical exclusivity - no metaphysics.

I agree with all of this, except that I believe one can be a fundamentalist Christian and still have a healthy knowledge of metaphysics.

I think I see what you're getting at though. Most fundies read Colossians 2:8 and interpret it as a "scorched earth" reaction to all philosophy in general.

But Paul says "beware" of it.

RC Sproul taught that in-order to beware of something, one must necessarily "be aware" of it. Paul was very aware of the philosophers of his time, as was Luke in Acts 17:16-34. "No philosophy but Christ" means that you embrace Christian philosophy and know the difference between both it and the counterfeit philosophies that attack it.
 
Upvote 0

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟181,110.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Here is the ESV Study Bible's note on Col 2:8

Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive (Gk. sylagōgeō, commonly used of the plundering of cargo from a ship). The false teacher(s) in Colossae pose a very real threat to the church. philosophy. The Greek for this word includes the article (tēs philosophias), suggesting that the ringleaders of the faction called their teaching “the philosophy.” When Paul speaks of “filling” and “fullness” in this letter (see v. 10), he is clearly echoing the jargon of the erring teachers, and he may be doing the same here. The term “philosophy” was used much more broadly in the ancient world than it is today. Josephus, for instance, could call the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees “philosophies.” Even a magician could be called a philosopher. Paul is not making a blanket condemnation of the traditional Greek philosophical schools (e.g., Platonism, Stoicism, Aristotelianism, etc.). His remarks are focused on the particular factional teaching being disseminated at Colossae. He makes the incisive claim that this teaching is not only empty deceit but that it has been inspired by the elemental spirits (Gk. stoicheia) of the world. Stoicheia is sometimes translated “the basic principles” of the world and then interpreted to be something like the fundamental principles of pagan religion. In the ancient world, however, the term stoicheia was widely used for spirits in Persian religious texts, magical papyri, astrological documents, and some Jewish texts. Paul is likely using it here to refer to demonic spirits; it is the equivalent of “rulers and authorities” (vv. 10, 15). Although the false teaching is handed down as human tradition, it can ultimately be traced to the influence of demonic forces. The fundamental problem with this philosophy is that it is not in accord with Jesus Christ and the gospel proclaimed by him and the apostle Paul.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
this means the study of all beings precisely insofar as they are real, which means actually existent.
Ah, you are talking about the study of all that exists.

Yes, I agree. We should study all that exists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Upvote 0