Pure metaphysical claims

[David Gould]

The means we have to know about "purely metaphysical claims" are logic and recourse to a competent authority and indications which can be observed (miracles attesting to the truth of the Catholic faith, for instance).

Neither of these claims are illogical, so neither can be ruled out that way.

I am unsure what you mean by 'competent authority'. By what methodology did you determine that it was indeed competent? By what methodology does it determine the truth or otherwise of metaphysical claims?


By what methodology would I check the reason behind a miracle?

In other words, let us assume that 50,000 people have been healed at Lourdes in the last year - this is a scientific fact. 49,999 of those miraculously healed attribute their healings to the Christian deity. 1 of those miraculously healed attributes their healing to the Moslem deity.

By what methodology would I check which attribution was indeed the correct one?

 

[Danhalen]

(miracles attesting to the truth of the Catholic faith, for instance).

Yet another metaphysical claim. How do you provide evidence of such a claim?

 

[Freodin]

I don't think so. If the existance is in a place we cannot physically detect or get to, then it must be a metaphysical place - just like the human that goes there after death (physical death, of course) is actually metaphysical (the soul).

In other words, a metaphysical thing is something that cannot be detected, even in theory, by physical means.

Hell falls into the category; so do dead and yet aware humans.

But how would you assure that this thing cannot be detected, even in theory? Surely you are aware that our possibilities of "detecting" phyiscal concepts have changed and expanded over time?

So, to expand your question: how do you distinguish between a method of detection that we do not possess, and one that is impossible?

I think there can only be one possible answer to both questions: we cannot.

 

[David Gould]

But how would you assure that this thing cannot be detected, even in theory? Surely you are aware that our possibilities of "detecting" phyiscal concepts have changed and expanded over time?

So, to expand your question: how do you distinguish between a method of detection that we do not possess, and one that is impossible?

I think there can only be one possible answer to both questions: we cannot.

The non-detectability of Hell, even in theory, is part of its definition.

In other words, if people claim that Hell is indeed detectable and that one day we may be able to detect it, that might not be a metaphysical claim.

But hell - and heaven - are considered to be (by the vast majority of Christians that I have spoken to) outside the physical universe, and hence not detectable by physical means, even in theory.

 

[Freodin]

The non-detectability of Hell, even in theory, is part of its definition.

In other words, if people claim that Hell is indeed detectable and that one day we may be able to detect it, that might not be a metaphysical claim.

But hell - and heaven - are considered to be (by the vast majority of Christians that I have spoken to) outside the physical universe, and hence not detectable by physical means, even in theory.

That would mean that you could paraphrase you questions as: "How could we detect something that is undetectable?"

The answer is, of course: "We cannot."

 

[Lifesaver]

Islam is itself a completely unreasonable religion, having been started by a man educated by Jews who believed he could be their messiah but who broke away from them.
It condones the use of immoral means to achieve their desirable ends, and its conception of heaven is one of sensual delight.
Only the blind belief characteristic of fanatics can keep adherents strongly faithful to the teachings of Islam. To suppose that only those who believe in it go to Heaven would entail believing in an evil God, which would in turn negate the concept of Heaven, which is the expression of God's infinite goodness.

As for the apparitions and miracles in Lourdes, a brief examination of the message of the Virgin Mary and the miracles will settle any doubt as to the "religious affiliation" of the site.

 

[Lifesaver]

After death, the souls of the damned, who turned away from God, suffer the torment of their choices in a purely spiritual way. So now Hell is indeed not a place but a state.
However, after the world has ended all bodies will be resurrected, and the damned will then also be physically in Hell.

 

[Lifesaver]

The problem with the kind of question posed at the original post is that it assumes an empiricist espitemology, denying or at least distrusting any information that cannot be aprehended by experience.

However, empiricism is unsustainable, for the statement that only experience (or the senses) can be trusted is itself metaphysical and not empirical at all.
So to have anything against knowledge that is "purely metaphysical" logically entails in also distrusting "non-purely metaphysical" knowledge, as it too rests on purely metaphysical grounds.

 

[JGL53]

Islam is itself a completely unreasonable religion, having been started by a man educated by Jews who believed he could be their messiah but who broke away from them.
It condones the use of immoral means to achieve their desirable ends, and its conception of heaven is one of sensual delight.
Only the blind belief characteristic of fanatics can keep adherents strongly faithful to the teachings of Islam. To suppose that only those who believe in it go to Heaven would entail believing in an evil God, which would in turn negate the concept of Heaven, which is the expression of God's infinite goodness...

Well, surely, if and when I decide to get religious, Islam in not my list. But neither if the HRCC. I am utterly repulsed by child molesters and those who enable them. And when ten of thousands of children are victimized and there are thousands of molesters/enablers and the filthy horror is institutionalized and ongoing for decades.....I can't think of anything more repulsive.

 

[David Gould]

That would mean that you could paraphrase you questions as: "How could we detect something that is undetectable?"

The answer is, of course: "We cannot."

No, that is not the same thing.

We have the scientific method for analysing the physical world.

We also have logic, which can at least eliminate logically impossible metaphysical claims - such as 'Hell exists and Hell does not exist'. This method does not rely on us detecting anything.

I am asking whether there exists a methodology by which we can determine the truth or otherwise of metaphysical claims.

I do not think that such a methodology exists. But that is not quite the same thing as me asking, 'How do we detect the undetectable?'

 

[Freodin]

The problem with the kind of question posed at the original post is that it assumes an empiricist espitemology, denying or at least distrusting any information that cannot be aprehended by experience.

However, empiricism is unsustainable, for the statement that only experience (or the senses) can be trusted is itself metaphysical and not empirical at all.
So to have anything against knowledge that is "purely metaphysical" logically entails in also distrusting "non-purely metaphysical" knowledge, as it too rests on purely metaphysical grounds.

That is incorrect, even according to your own criteria.

Logic is the way here. For any statement has to be stated, any knowledge has to be known - and that is simply impossible without experience and senses.

Thus the statement "only experience can be trusted" is empirical, because there is nothing else to be trusted.

 

[Lifesaver]

Well, surely, if and when I decide to get religious, Islam in not my list. But neither if the HRCC. I am utterly repulsed by child molesters and those who enable them. And when ten of thousands of children are involved and there are thousands of molesters/enablers and horror is institutionalized and ongoing for decades.....I can't think of anything more repulsive.

You are right to be repulsed at the sexual abuse perpetrated by so many priests.

You also give a living evidence of a further also serious sin that those priests (and those who knew and did nothing) are guilty of: scandal. By their actions, they have pushed many away (or farther away) from the true faith.
The sin of one ordinary man may provide scandal for some. But the sin of a priest is scandalous to many and very destructive to the faith of the people.

This cancer of sexual misconduct has as its origin the modernist and "progressive" mentality which infiltrated the Church up to her highest positions during the 20th century.
Finally, after decades of modernist rule and of widespread crisis on all levels, we are starting to see a return of the tradition, morality and logic of the past. Hopefuly, you will, as I was, be drawn to the shining truth of the Catholic faith despite all scandalous examples with which we are presented today (don't think that sexual abuse is restricted to Catholicism, by the way; that is just more of the anti-Catholic bias which permeates our civilization these days).

To know what those who seriously follow what the Church teaches, read the lives and writings of the saints and martyrs and don't take the rotten actions of so many degenerate clergymen to be an image of Catholic teaching.

 

[Freodin]

No, that is not the same thing.

We have the scientific method for analysing the physical world.

We also have logic, which can at least eliminate logically impossible metaphysical claims - such as 'Hell exists and Hell does not exist'. This method does not rely on us detecting anything.

I am asking whether there exists a methodology by which we can determine the truth or otherwise of metaphysical claims.

I do not think that such a methodology exists. But that is not quite the same thing as me asking, 'How do we detect the undetectable?'

So what is it that makes the metaphysical metaphysical? Is it not just another definition - one that includes "something that we cannot detect"?

Let´s say that "Hell" was indeed a physical place, that we simply have not the methodology to detect. Would it still be metaphysical, if physical, dead, aware humans would exist there?

 

[David Gould]

The problem with the kind of question posed at the original post is that it assumes an empiricist espitemology, denying or at least distrusting any information that cannot be aprehended by experience.

However, empiricism is unsustainable, for the statement that only experience (or the senses) can be trusted is itself metaphysical and not empirical at all.
So to have anything against knowledge that is "purely metaphysical" logically entails in also distrusting "non-purely metaphysical" knowledge, as it too rests on purely metaphysical grounds.

I am not making any claims here. I am simply asking for a methodology by which we can determine whether a metaphysical claim is true or false. Empiricism obviously cannot help us here, because the senses, which are physical, cannot be used to detect the metaphysical.

Logic, too, fails us when we have two logical possible metaphysical claims - we can use logic to eliminate the logically impossible ones, but apart from that, it fails us.

So: by what methodology do we determine the truth or falsehood of metaphysical claims?

That is the question. What is the answer?

 

[Lifesaver]

That is incorrect, even according to your own criteria.

Logic is the way here. For any statement has to be stated, any knowledge has to be known - and that is simply impossible without experience and senses.

Thus the statement "only experience can be trusted" is empirical, because there is nothing else to be trusted.

You have proved exactly what I said.

"Logic is the way"- The principles of logic are not experienced nor are they observable.

Of course, we can only arrive at knowledge of them (or of anything else) if we have had chronologically prior experience of the world, since it is from there which we proceed to the knowledge of unobservable things.

However, it is logically prior, as you yourself has stated. No empirical observation gives us any evidence, or confirmation, or "test", of any logical principle. We get to know logical principles because we have senses and an intellect, but their validity and truth does not rest on any physical event.

And to say that there just are no other sources of information other than sense experience is false. The proof of this is that sometimes people believe in what they feel, or in what they imagine, and this contradicts sense-experience.
Surely, again, they can only imagine and feel because they have had sense-experience in their life, but these sources are conceptually independent from the information they gather with their senses, and they may very well choose to believe their own emotions or imagination rather than the senses (as some do).

These are two examples of sources of information which should not usually be trusted; but there are others, such as logical reasoning, which ought to be trusted, and the truth of its statements is guaranteed even if empirical evidence seems to contradict it.

When sense-experience seems to contradict logic, we can know for certain that either there is something wrong with our senses or we have not understood what we have experienced properly.
This alternative "source" of knowledge is logically prior and superior to empirical observation.

 

[Lifesaver]

So: by what methodology do we determine the truth or falsehood of metaphysical claims?

Once again, mostly with the use of reason and the authority of the Church, which has been estabilished by the many miracles and holy examples of her history.

Surely, there are some claims to which one can only naturally arrive at opinative assent: the agreement that it might be true, and that it does make sense, but with no certainty. In order to be certain one needs faith, which is the strong intellectual assent to Divinely revealed truths. And to have faith it is necessary some activity of the will, helping the intellect to hold strongly to those things it now has doubts about.

 

[David Gould]

So what is it that makes the metaphysical metaphysical? Is it not just another definition - one that includes "something that we cannot detect"?

The word 'metaphysical' must indeed mean something - it must have a definition. It means, 'Beyond the physical' or 'Above the physical'.

Let´s say that "Hell" was indeed a physical place, that we simply have not the methodology to detect. Would it still be metaphysical, if physical, dead, aware humans would exist there?

It is irrelevent as to what hell actually is - it is the claim we are attempting to evaluate.

However, let us look at your example, and put is alongside another example - that of gravity waves.

Gravity waves have not yet been detected. A claim is on the table that they do indeed exist in the physical realm, and that we do not have the physical means to detect them - yet. However, concrete proposals are in place saying just what effects these gravity waves would generate and what we need to be able to do in order to detect them. Thus, this is not a metaphysical proposition.

If the claim was, 'Hell exists on a planet in a galaxy 18 billion light years away' that would not be a metaphysical proposition. It is something that is actually testable - we can build better and better telescopes, for example. Eventually - in 30 billion years or so, for example - we might even be able to visit the galaxy in question to test the proposition.

However, first of all we would question the claimant regarding this proposal and ask on what he is basing this particular claim. Science discounts claims for which there is no evidence, and so we could use the scientific method to evaluate and discount or provisionally accept this claim.



Put simply:

I guess what I am saying is that if we can use the scientific method to evaluate a claim, it is not metaphysical. If we cannot use the scientific method to evaluate a claim, it is metaphysical.

 

[Lifesaver]

I agree that if the scientific method can be used to evaluate a claim, then that claim is not metaphysical.

However, there are non-metaphysical claims which also cannot be evaluated by the scientific method.
All questions pertaining to the past (historical events), for instance. They are not metaphysical, yet there is no way to test them.

 

[Freodin]

You have proved exactly what I said.

"Logic is the way"- The principles of logic are not experienced nor are they observable.

Again that is incorrect. The principles of logic are not observable - that is: detectable by sensory input. But they can be experienced and inferred by sensory input. And - the most important point - they can only be known by experience.
After all, being conscious is an experience. And I think you would agree that without consciousness, there can be no knowledge.

Of course, we can only arrive at knowledge of them (or of anything else) if we have had chronologically prior experience of the world, since it is from there which we proceed to the knowledge of unobservable things.

However, it is logically prior, as you yourself has stated. No empirical observation gives us any evidence, or confirmation, or "test", of any logical principle. We get to know logical principles because we have senses and an intellect, but their validity and truth does not rest on any physical event.

Correct insofar as their validity does not rest on our experience or other physical events. But, as you have stated yourself, our knowledge of this said validity does.
And you will have noticed that the OP asked for a way to obtain such knowledge.

 

[David Gould]

I agree that if the scientific method can be used to evaluate a claim, then that claim is not metaphysical.

However, there are non-metaphysical claims which also cannot be evaluated by the scientific method.
All questions pertaining to the past (historical events), for instance. They are not metaphysical, yet there is no way to test them.

Incorrect. We use the scientific method to test questions pertaining to the past - forensics, paleontology, handwriting analysis, genetics, et cetera. And we also use logic. We cannot get certainty, of course, but the scientific method never provides certainty.

Historical claims are examined using the scientific method.