Science and Materialism

[Tree of Life]

Without your senses, you can't know, anything.

How do you know that?

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you know that?

I used my senses.

 

[Halbhh]

The interesting part in this is that it seems that among all these "lot of things" that you had to question... "God" was not among that. "Loving trust" is all you need. "Faith" is all you need. "Questions" are not needed.

And that brings me back to my original objection: if you were to question this concept - the questions of "how" and "why", the basic questions that all philosophical positions should ask - you can find no answer beyond: "It works because it works because if it didn't work, I would be wrong."

Ironically you're saying that to a person that always questions everything and never wants to believe anything "because" otherwise " I would be wrong. ". Instead my ingrained habit is to expect all ideas I and others have are reductions that are less true than reality. In fact what I said to a friend after the amazing rescue from midair was simply, "Reality doesn't work the way we thought it does.". It took many more dramatic proofs of Jesus's unlikely sounding sayings (many of them seemed so) , repeatedly, over years, before I had to admit the amazing was quite real. So, basically, you'd better rethink that one, or test for yourself.

 

[Halbhh]

Dp

 

[Halbhh]

Dp

 

[Halbhh]

First, I'll define naturalism as I see it. It's the concept that everything in the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Nothing supernatural exists. Which would be an entity that is claimed to be outside of, or beyond the natural realm. But has the ability to reach into the natural world and affect events therein.

I know I can't prove this with absolute metaphysical certainty. Naturalism, like god-belief, requires faith. In my case, that faith is a result of reasoning. Inductive reasoning to be specific. Our brains evolved to seek explanations. When one wasn't obvious, we created gods, spirits, or other supernatural entities to account for what we didn't understand. Thousands of such gods, in all cultures, have been created to explain things like weather, diseases, tidal action, floods, earthquakes, the change of the seasons, the motion of the sun, moon, and stars, and all other events that seemed inexplicable. But as our knowledge has increased, we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In all of history, a god, or supernatural force has never been a valid explanation for anything. So--by simple a posteriori logic--why should I believe any kind of supernatural power or god is responsible for all the things we still don't understand?

BTW: I'm certain that we never will be able to explain everything. The more we learn, the more questions will arise. But that's OK. That's what makes seeking to understand nature and nature's mechanisms exciting. The thrill is in the journey, not the destination.

"why should I believe any kind of supernatural power or god is responsible for all the things we still don't understand?"

Well, I didn't, and don't. The bible nowhere seems to me to be trying to explain Nature-the Universe. I've read it very carefully and closely though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Richard Lewontin is a prominent american scientist (geneticist) and was a professor at Harvard until 1998. He's done a lot of work in evolutionary biology. He said this about the relationship between the philosophical position of materialism and the practice of science:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If you're a materialist (or naturalist) is this how you see it? Or is Lewontin wrong?

I think he's generally correct, expect at the point when we're not talking about theoretical science, but rather experimental science. In the case of the latter, there is no absolute way to control for God as a factor and/or variable, and hence, Methodological Naturalism makes more practical sense as a working mode of inquiry when experimenting.

 

[durangodawood]

....Even if someone should rise from the dead and tell you that Christianity is true you would be liable to interpret this event through naturalistic lenses.....

I doubt it. That event would be a one off that contradicts loads of established science.

I could be convinced of a naturalist explanation, but it would have to make material sense. Could one do that?

 

[Chriliman]

The experiment in the video below shows our knowledge(immaterial) of particles(material) is what causes particles to materialize. Even to the point of loading up a back history that wasn’t there prior to our knowledge of it.

Bizar, but interesting.

 

[mark kennedy]

Richard Lewontin is a prominent american scientist (geneticist) and was a professor at Harvard until 1998. He's done a lot of work in evolutionary biology. He said this about the relationship between the philosophical position of materialism and the practice of science:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If you're a materialist (or naturalist) is this how you see it? Or is Lewontin wrong?

I don't know about God getting his foot in the soor since he created the whole house. Sience flipped from a largely deductive reasoning through Aristotlean Scholasticsism, to an inductive aporoach tibthe exploration of natural phenomenon. So much was developed during that period in the 17th century, microscopes, telescopes, algebra, calculas and the principkes of motion we know now as physics. Materialism is a worldvew, natural science as we have come to understand it simply narrows the focus in this methodology to a comprehensive scope. To equivocate science with materialism expands the a priori assumptions of transendance to include things natural science was never intended to address, let alone decisively determine.

 

[Tree of Life]

I used my senses.

Sounds circular. How is it that your senses tell you that you can know nothing without your senses?

 

[HitchSlap]

Sounds circular. How is it that your senses tell you that you can know nothing without your senses?

How else would one make sense of the world? This is the case I’m making. It was you suggesting god magically communicates apart from sensory perception, and I’d like to know what, exactly?

 

[jayem]

This is a nice story that is based on an assumption of naturalism. But you began the story with the assumption of naturalism. You did not start with a blank slate and then reason your way to a naturalistic conclusion. You started with naturalism and ended with (surprise, surprise) naturalism.

So? In an earlier post you stated that naturalism is an assumption, not derived from reasoning. Why is that a problem? That’s essentially how all knowledge is derived. An assumption (hypothesis) is made. And evidence is then sought to either support or negate it. In some cases, such evidence can be obtained by empirical methods. That’s not applicable here, but the principle is the same. I was simply explaining how inductive reasoning supports a naturalistic worldview.

BTW: Do Christians start with a truly blank slate? And what reasoning do Christians use to support belief in God? It always boils down to some combination of 3 things:

1) The arguments from ignorance or incredulity. Which are really just the lack of a satisfactory naturalistic explanation.
2) Accepting scripture as literal truth. Which is placing faith in ancient legends and folklore. That many experts in the field agree were intended to be understood metaphorically and not to be taken literally.
3) Having a personal experience that convinces one of God’s existence. Which is an idiosyncratic psychological and emotional phenomenon, and not even close to any kind of formal reasoning.

 

[Tree of Life]

How else would one make sense of the world?

Our senses certainly are a source of knowledge. But they are not the only source of knowledge. When you say that we can know nothing without our senses, you are saying that our senses are our only source of knowledge.

This is the case I’m making. It was you suggesting god magically communicates apart from sensory perception, and I’d like to know what, exactly?

You'd like to know what God communicates or how God communicates?

 

[Tree of Life]

So? In an earlier post you stated that naturalism is an assumption, not derived from reasoning. Why is that a problem? That’s essentially how all knowledge is derived. An assumption (hypothesis) is made. And evidence is then sought to either support or negate it. In some cases, such evidence can be obtained by empirical methods. That’s not applicable here, but the principle is the same. I was simply explaining how inductive reasoning supports a naturalistic worldview.

The point that I'm making is that naturalism is an un-argued for assumption and commitment. It also is a lens through which naturalists interpret all data. So if a naturalist comes across a miracle, they would interpret it to fit their assumption and would not be able to recognize it for what it is.

BTW: Do Christians start with a truly blank slate?

No they do not. No one starts with a blank slate. Christians assume Christianity. Naturalists assume naturalism.

And what reasoning do Christians use to support belief in God? It always boils down to some combination of 3 things:

1) The arguments from ignorance or incredulity. Which are really just the lack of a satisfactory naturalistic explanation.
2) Accepting scripture as literal truth. Which is placing faith in ancient legends and folklore. That many experts in the field agree were intended to be understood metaphorically and not to be taken literally.
3) Having a personal experience that convinces one of God’s existence. Which is an idiosyncratic psychological and emotional phenomenon, and not even close to any kind of formal reasoning.

Because Christians assume Christianity, we interpret all data in light of Christianity. Just like naturalists interpret data in light of naturalism. So when naturalists see data that supports the resurrection of Jesus, they can interpret it with a naturalistic explanation. But when Christians see something as mundane as a daffodil, they see it as handiwork of a divine creator.

 

[HitchSlap]

Our senses certainly are a source of knowledge. But they are not the only source of knowledge. When you say that we can know nothing without our senses, you are saying that our senses are our only source of knowledge.

Without our senses, there is no other way to knowledge. It's a bit like asking your computer to run algorithms without a CPU.

You'd like to know what God communicates or how God communicates?

Yes, that's what I'm asking. It's my contention god/s don't exist, and everyone who claims to talk to it. If I can explain your claim of supernatural communication with a god as simply a function of your senses, then that's the best explanation in the absence of evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

Without our senses, there is no other way to knowledge. It's a bit like asking your computer to run algorithms without a CPU.

This is an assertion, not an argument. I'm aware that this is your opinion but I see no compelling reason so accept it especially in light of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yes, that's what I'm asking. It's my contention god/s don't exist, and everyone who claims to talk to it. If I can explain your claim of supernatural communication with a god as simply a function of your senses, then that's the best explanation in the absence of evidence.

It may be the best explanation within your assumption of naturalism. But what if naturalism is a bad assumption?

 

[jayem]

Because Christians assume Christianity, we interpret all data in light of Christianity. Just like naturalists interpret data in light of naturalism. So when naturalists see data that supports the resurrection of Jesus, they can interpret it with a naturalistic explanation. But when Christians see something as mundane as a daffodil, they see it as handiwork of a divine creator.

That's pretty much stating the obvious. Though my purpose was to explain the logic that supports naturalism. For me, that's inductive reasoning. Of course, I'm aware of the limitations. It's not absolute proof by any means. But it is one the formal methods of reaching a conclusion. Belief in a supernatural god, by contrast, is not supported by a any such method. As I stated, it's supported by various informal logical fallacies (the argument from incredulity, btw, is also termed the Divine Fallacy.) This includes the argument from tradition. Which is a major basis for the idea that ancient scripture is infallible. Or God-belief is supported by claims of personal experience. To me, none of these are compelling reasons for belief in any kind of god. But we're all entitled to our beliefs.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is an assertion, not an argument. I'm aware that this is your opinion but I see no compelling reason so accept it especially in light of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

This is what I'd like to see.

It may be the best explanation within your assumption of naturalism. But what if naturalism is a bad assumption?

Bad as it may be, it's all we've got.

The gaps in the 'god of the gaps' argument have become infinitesimally small. That is to say, natural explanations are what we find for previously assumed supernatural occurrences... %100 of the time.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Bad as it may be, it's all we've got.

The gaps in the 'god of the gaps' argument have become infinitesimally small. That is to say, natural explanations are what we find for previously assumed supernatural occurrences... %100 of the time.

And, how bad could any framework be if by it we make accurate enough predictions to get the job done.

I.e., how could naturalism be bad when the assumption provides an accurate enough framework to live and even thrive.