Nature

[Resha Caner]

All of it, sorry.

I'm at a bit of a loss. I tried to write several summaries, but they became very long and I fear they wouldn't get at your difficulty, because I don't really know what your difficulty is.

In short, it seems to me there is sometimes a prejudice against religion whereby some would allow science to err but then turn around and criticize religion for erring. It seems the acceptance of error should be more uniform. I was trying to point that out by comparing science's discovery of "nature" with religion's contemplation of "God."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm at a bit of a loss. I tried to write several summaries, but they became very long and I fear they wouldn't get at your difficulty, because I don't really know what your difficulty is.

In short, it seems to me there is sometimes a prejudice against religion whereby some would allow science to err but then turn around and criticize religion for erring. It seems the acceptance of error should be more uniform.

Logic might be divided on this. On the one hand thereseems to be the rule "No double standards" and on the other it is meant to be a fallacy to point out "Tu quoque" (you too!).

I was trying to point that out by comparing science's discovery of "nature" with religion's contemplation of "God."

How are the cases similar, please?

 

[quatona]

In short, it seems to me there is sometimes a prejudice against religion whereby some would allow science to err but then turn around and criticize religion for erring. It seems the acceptance of error should be more uniform.

I suspect that the acceptance of error weighs differently depending on what your statement claims to be. E.g. if you claim to be in hold of eternal truths the acceptance of error will be zero, and rightly so.

 

[Chesterton]

Maybe you could exchange the word "nature" with "created", and the words "unnatural/supernatural", with "uncreated". "Uncreated" is a definition of the Judeo-Christian God.

If you look at the etymology of "nature" it involves '"birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born,"', which implies cause and effect. The uncreated or supernatural implies something uncaused, or unbirthed.

 

[Resha Caner]

Logic might be divided on this. On the one hand thereseems to be the rule "No double standards" and on the other it is meant to be a fallacy to point out "Tu quoque" (you too!).

Yes, this could be used as ad hominem attack, yet, though the difference between legitimate and illegitimate may at times be subtle, I think it is still valid to point out inconsistencies in an argument.

How are the cases similar, please?

Hmm. I feel like I'm being led into a trap. But, the similarities are that both make an appeal to a metaphysical concept. Then, while both are likely to consider certain claims about the concept to be firmly fixed, both also claim change is not fatal to the existence of said concept. In science, one theory is allowed to supplant another. In religion, people are allowed to "grow."

Are we still clarifying, or is this now headed somewhere?

 

[Resha Caner]

I suspect that the acceptance of error weighs differently depending on what your statement claims to be. E.g. if you claim to be in hold of eternal truths the acceptance of error will be zero, and rightly so.

Yes, but I will make a subtle distinction. If a person claims to possess an eternal truth, they are in error, for only God possesses eternal truth.

Here we come to the 2 interpretations of Kant about the "thing in itself." Though I've been peripherally familiar with Kant for some time, it was only recently that I realized there are competing interpretations of his work - so, I may not express this well.

The first (and most common) is the thread that led to Wittgenstein, which ends in the post-modern despair that we don't know anything. The other is that our perceptions (our experience) is what connects us to the "thing in itself", and it is our reason that tells us whether the perceived connection is logical or not. So, this alternative interpretation sees Kant as a type of Hegelian synthesis of rationalists and empiricists.

An example could be the falling apple. Our perception is that the apple falls. It is our reason that applies some particular theory of gravity to the perceived action. So, while we may find error in our reasoned theory, reason has never had cause to tell us our perception was wrong. It never told us the apple didn't fall.

Likewise, we may perceive that God speaks to us about the soul through scripture. Our reason tells us how to interpret Psalm 62:5. We may, at some point, find an error in our idea of the soul, but this doesn't challenge the perception that God speaks about the soul in Psalm 62:5.

 

[GrayAngel]

You're asking for the definition of a word. But the problem is that the word itself is dependent on our own interpretation.

What is nature? It's whatever we say it is.

Most people think of nature as anything that came about without human interference. But why is a man-made building unnatural, but a nest built by a wasp is natural? They were both built.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My trite answer is that it is necessary for free will.

People ask me if I'd rather be a happy robot or have free will, as if the 'right' answer were obvious. Well, the answer is obvious: I'd rather be a happy robot. Why? Because I'd be a happy robot

Yes, others are free to believe in ghosts. So, I suppose they consider them supernatural. I consider them imaginary, so it's difficult to talk about their constitution. If you're trying to get at something about the supernatural, it might work better to use an example I believe in, say an angel.

I dislike using angels because they're not traditionally 'manifest' - some people believe them to be hidden 'influencers', guiding us, protecting us, etc.

But do you believe in a physical angel with wings and a halo and all the rest?

(Edit: Actually, this caused a quirky thought on my part. What happens when two atheists talk about the supernatural?)

You get a very long discussion about how ghosts would work in real life

Hmm. My philosophical readings this Christmas have been interesting, if not a bit frustrating due to the continual demonstration of how useless the great ponderings of Hume, Kant, Hegel, etc. are. Anyway, one of their great struggles seems to have been the inability to shake DesCartes' subjective approach of starting from "I". If one dismisses ontological and cosmological "proofs" of what exists that is other than "I" ... one doesn't get very far.

You define yourself as nature (making yourself nicely pantheistic), but where does it go from there?

I extrapolate, like a good little physicist. I'm natural, and so is a tree. Thus, everything akin to myself and a tree is natural.

But like I said, I prefer the 'potential causal chain' definition. If it can, possible, potentially, even indirectly, via a long causal chain, influence us, then it is natural. God, then, is natural.

 

[Resha Caner]

People ask me if I'd rather be a happy robot or have free will, as if the 'right' answer were obvious. Well, the answer is obvious: I'd rather be a happy robot. Why? Because I'd be a happy robot

Sure. The will allows for evil. But the very state of being a robot raises the question of whether it can be happy. Maybe "happy robot" is an oxymoron.

I dislike using angels because they're not traditionally 'manifest' - some people believe them to be hidden 'influencers', guiding us, protecting us, etc.

But do you believe in a physical angel with wings and a halo and all the rest?

I don't believe angels always manifest in the same way. They manifest based on the purpose God has given them.

I extrapolate, like a good little physicist. I'm natural, and so is a tree. Thus, everything akin to myself and a tree is natural.

But like I said, I prefer the 'potential causal chain' definition. If it can, possible, potentially, even indirectly, via a long causal chain, influence us, then it is natural. God, then, is natural.

Extrapolation is a dangerous thing, as is its close cousin: induction. In your case, it has made the word "natural" useless. If everything is natural, then it provides us no distinction between things and may as well be discarded. The conclusion from your extrapolation is that nothing is unnatural ... or supernatural.

Let me ask then, is your "nature" finite?

 

[quatona]

Sure. The will allows for evil. But the very state of being a robot raises the question of whether it can be happy. Maybe "happy robot" is an oxymoron.

I´m sure one could come up with a concept and definition of "(true) happiness" that doesn´t allow for happiness to be true happiness when it is determined. However, the use of words won´t change anything about the feelings of those affected.
Maybe a "suffering robot" is an oxymoron in a certain use of language, either. This won´t reduce the suffering the robot experiences, though.

 

[quatona]

Yes, but I will make a subtle distinction. If a person claims to possess an eternal truth, they are in error, for only God possesses eternal truth.

Which means that looking for eternal truths is obsolete, in the first place, and it also means that I can reject all religious claims without even looking at them.
Fortunately, science doesn´t deal with eternal truths but with the best explanations currently available, and that difference justifies holding religion and science to different standards, imo.

Here we come to the 2 interpretations of Kant about the "thing in itself." Though I've been peripherally familiar with Kant for some time, it was only recently that I realized there are competing interpretations of his work - so, I may not express this well.

The first (and most common) is the thread that led to Wittgenstein, which ends in the post-modern despair that we don't know anything. The other is that our perceptions (our experience) is what connects us to the "thing in itself", and it is our reason that tells us whether the perceived connection is logical or not. So, this alternative interpretation sees Kant as a type of Hegelian synthesis of rationalists and empiricists.

An example could be the falling apple. Our perception is that the apple falls. It is our reason that applies some particular theory of gravity to the perceived action. So, while we may find error in our reasoned theory, reason has never had cause to tell us our perception was wrong. It never told us the apple didn't fall.

Likewise, we may perceive that God speaks to us about the soul through scripture. Our reason tells us how to interpret Psalm 62:5. We may, at some point, find an error in our idea of the soul, but this doesn't challenge the perception that God speaks about the soul in Psalm 62:5.

No need to go all philosophical on me!
But seriously, I fail to see the relevance of these in depth questions regarding whether we can know anything at all (as interesting as they may be in other contexts) for the question at hand.
I guess I won´t have to explain the paradigms of the scientific method to you (with all its requirements, such as observability, repeatability, falsifiability, predictability etc.), self-imposed conditions that religious hypothesis typically defy to be held to.
I´m sorry, but even if we agree for the sake of the argument that we can´t know anything for sure, I would still see an essential difference between my knowledge that an apple that I have seen falling has fallen and my knowledge "that God has spoken to me through scripture", for all practical purposes.

 

[Resha Caner]

I´m sure one could come up with a concept and definition of "(true) happiness" that doesn´t allow for happiness to be true happiness when it is determined.

The semantics knife cuts both directions.

However, the use of words won´t change anything about the feelings of those affected.
Maybe a "suffering robot" is an oxymoron in a certain use of language, either. This won´t reduce the suffering the robot experiences, though.

If there is no free will, there is no point in caring whether the robot suffers or not, as there is nothing I can do about it. Whether my action causes the robot suffering or happiness, I am a robot as well. This whole discussion becomes pointless.

But, regardless of whether you consider me to be a robot, allowing for suffering with no ability of the subject to take action to end the suffering seems very cruel to me ... so I "choose" to believe in free will.

 

[Resha Caner]

No need to go all philosophical on me!
But seriously, I fail to see the relevance of these in depth questions regarding whether we can know anything at all (as interesting as they may be in other contexts) for the question at hand.

We're in the philosophy forum. Epistemology is a central question to philosophy, and it is relevant here.

Which means that looking for eternal truths is obsolete, in the first place, and it also means that I can reject all religious claims without even looking at them.

That conclusion does not follow. There is no scientific process by which you can determine who I rooted for in the 2000 French Open Tennis Tournament. But I could reveal it to you.

Fortunately, science doesn´t deal with eternal truths but with the best explanations currently available, and that difference justifies holding religion and science to different standards, imo.

I guess I won´t have to explain the paradigms of the scientific method to you (with all its requirements, such as observability, repeatability, falsifiability, predictability etc.), self-imposed conditions that religious hypothesis typically defy to be held to.

No, you don't need to explain it to me. I'm very familiar with science. I have an M.S. as well as a B.A. in history for whence my specialty was the history and philosophy of science. In addition, I have done considerable self-study. Your comment on what science seeks is humorous because I would agree with it - yet in another thread I received a fair amount of vitriol for saying that science does not seek "truth." I would, however, disagree that standards differ. Methods possibly, goals definitely, but not standards.

I´m sorry, but even if we agree for the sake of the argument that we can´t know anything for sure, I would still see an essential difference between my knowledge that an apple that I have seen falling has fallen and my knowledge "that God has spoken to me through scripture", for all practical purposes.

Do you know the apple falls? I was hoping to avoid petty arguments. My point of mentioning differing interpretations of Kant was to note that the minority interpretation fits my view better. I am not one to say we know nothing. I was using the apple as a simple example that I assumed we could agree on, and then drawing an analogy to something I expected we would disagree on. I think you understood my analogy, and that's the best I can hope for.

But, if diving into minutiae will help, we can do that. I said we would perceive that the apple falls. Knowing as reality that the apple fell is a different matter. IMO it becomes either an infinite regress or an appeal to an assumption that we know it. The next question to be asked is: how do you know your perception is not in error?

 

[quatona]

That conclusion does not follow. There is no scientific process by which you can determine who I rooted for in the 2000 French Open Tennis Tournament. But I could reveal it to you.

1. Provided you could know it yourself (which, by standards of your own line of reasoning, you can´t).
2. Please help me reconcile this your response with your statement I responded to: "If a person claims to possess an eternal truth, they are in error, for only God possesses eternal truth."
If God revealed the eternal truth to me - would I be justified in claiming to possess it or wouldn´t I?

No, you don't need to explain it to me.

That´s what I was expecting.

yet in another thread I received a fair amount of vitriol for saying that science does not seek "truth." I would, however, disagree that standards differ. Methods possibly, goals definitely, but not standards.

You would have to discuss that with the poster who said it - not with me.

Do you know the apple falls?

Yes, while I watch the apple fall - and in particular when others watch the same apple fall, too, that´s as close as I can get to knowing the apple falls, and it is sufficient knowledge for every practical purpose.

I was hoping to avoid petty arguments. My point of mentioning differing interpretations of Kant was to note that the minority interpretation fits my view better. I am not one to say we know nothing.

Sorry for pestering you with my confusion. So what is it you are saying? And why did you bring up a point neither you nor I hold?

I was using the apple as a simple example that I assumed we could agree on, and then drawing an analogy to something I expected we would disagree on. I think you understood my analogy, and that's the best I can hope for.

No, sorry, apparently I didn´t and don´t understand it.

But, if diving into minutiae will help, we can do that. I said we would perceive that the apple falls. Knowing as reality that the apple fell is a different matter.

Yet, we don´t seem to run into any intra- or intersubjective problems with these observations. And that´s good enough for me and for science.
The same can not be said for religion.

IMO it becomes either an infinite regress or an appeal to an assumption that we know it. The next question to be asked is: how do you know your perception is not in error?

Because that´s how knowledge is defined, for every practical (as well as scientific) purposes.
There´s a huge difference between observing an apple fall in the midst of a crowd who observes it falling, too, and, say, being "revealed" the personal feelings about something by someone else (or even only being told by someone that an apple has fallen).

I think, one of the advantages of science is that it at least has self-imposed standards that it invites us to hold it to. I don´t see any such attempts in religion. If there are such standards I would surely love to learn about them.

 

[quatona]

The semantics knife cuts both directions.

Sure. However, I can give you my definiton of happiness straight away: when someone feels happy he is happy.
Whereas you were merely juggling with the possibility of there being a definition of happiness that might help your point.

If there is no free will, there is no point in caring whether the robot suffers or not, as there is nothing I can do about it. Whether my action causes the robot suffering or happiness, I am a robot as well. This whole discussion becomes pointless.

1. The discussion becomes pointless at latest when you change the horses midstream. So far the issue in question was not whether you or I can do something about it, but your statement that it´s not happiness. Unless you are heading for something like "someone can only be happy when I can do something about it" I actually fail to see the relevance of this most recent point of yours.
2. Since I have absolutely not means to discern whether I am programmed to be happy/suffering (or in other words: since I couldn´t tell the difference between programmed and not programmed happiness) it seems to me that this point is moot.
3. Of course I can do something about someone else´s happiness/suffering even if being a robot myself - e.g. when I am equipped with a program such as "empathy". In fact, I can´t even help doing something about it.

But, regardless of whether you consider me to be a robot, allowing for suffering with no ability of the subject to take action to end the suffering seems very cruel to me ... so I "choose" to believe in free will.

Yes, it would make you happier - even if you were but determined to wish it to be so and to believe it. After all, you couldn´t tell the difference.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sure. However, I can give you my definiton of happiness straight away: when someone feels happy he is happy.

Whereas you were merely juggling with the possibility of there being a definition of happiness that might help your point.

The discussion seems to become more confused rather than clearer. This came from some banter with Wiccan that was an amusing distraction from the real point of the conversation. I never intended it to be the focus. So, yes, I was juggling about. But, no, I wasn't really making any claims. They were just questions. If you really want me to address issues of free will, I'd prefer we do it in the other thread.

For now, I'm more interested in the final question I posted in #29.

 

[Resha Caner]

1. Provided you could know it yourself (which, by standards of your own line of reasoning, you can´t).

So what is it you are saying? And why did you bring up a point neither you nor I hold?

I'm not saying knowledge is impossible. My reason for mentioning that some do think it impossible was simply to indicate that I am aware of the various views. I thought it might help clarify my view by both giving that view and contrasting it with opposing views, but it seems it didn't.

Please help me reconcile this your response with your statement I responded to: "If a person claims to possess an eternal truth, they are in error, for only God possesses eternal truth."

If God revealed the eternal truth to me - would I be justified in claiming to possess it or wouldn´t I?

I was nitpicking on the word "possess." Given later comments, I'm not sure I should expound yet.

Yes, while I watch the apple fall - and in particular when others watch the same apple fall, too, that´s as close as I can get to knowing the apple falls, and it is sufficient knowledge for every practical purpose.

I agree. But are you saying science has no application beyond the practical? What, then, is the practical application of building bigger particle colliders & accelerators or digging for fossils in the remotest parts of the world?

Yet, we don´t seem to run into any intra- or intersubjective problems with these observations. And that´s good enough for me and for science.

But here I disagree. I think you are dismissing the rigor scientists demand of each other.

The same can not be said for religion.

This seems a double standard. Why is "close enough" OK for science, but unacceptable for religion?

There´s a huge difference between observing an apple fall in the midst of a crowd who observes it falling, too, and, say, being "revealed" the personal feelings about something by someone else (or even only being told by someone that an apple has fallen).

I think, one of the advantages of science is that it at least has self-imposed standards that it invites us to hold it to. I don´t see any such attempts in religion. If there are such standards I would surely love to learn about them.

Ah, here you speak of confidence level. The more spectacular the claim, the more confidence one must have that it is correct. But this is true of both science and religion.

I can't speak for all religions as to their standards. As for Christianity, however, the standard is in keeping with the claim. If I claim Jesus was a historical person, I must support that with proper historical evidence. But the type of evidence science uses is a limited set. It does not encompass all evidence. Some of the evidence of my religious experiences are not accessible to science. That does not mean they are not real - hence my example of the French Open.

But, again, I'm more interested in the answer to the question of post #29.

 

[quatona]

For now, I'm more interested in the final question I posted in #29.

I don´t know if nature is infinite. I´m not even sure I know what "nature is infinite" would be supposed to mean.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don´t know if nature is infinite. I´m not even sure I know what "nature is infinite" would be supposed to mean.

Yes, as I understand the prevailing theory of physics, "space" is not empty, but is filled with "vacuum energy" (an idea that sounds like a modified ether to me, but anyway ...). As such, space (and effects like the curvature of space due to gravity) only applies to this finite region.

Therefore, I think current physics would say that nature is finite. So, if God is infinite, He cannot be contained by nature as Wiccan suggested.

 

[quatona]

Yes, as I understand the prevailing theory of physics, "space" is not empty, but is filled with "vacuum energy" (an idea that sounds like a modified ether to me, but anyway ...). As such, space (and effects like the curvature of space due to gravity) only applies to this finite region.

Therefore, I think current physics would say that nature is finite. So, if God is infinite, He cannot be contained by nature as Wiccan suggested.

Or, alternatively, we could conclude that if an infinite god (or whatever) exists nature must be infinite.
Comes the next guy who then claims god to be "super-infinite" and therefore not contained by nature...
and so on and so forth...words...