A colossal accident?

[warpspeedpetey]

My posts are getting too long, lets try too pare it down to a few bare ideas per post for convenience. Is that cool? We can post as many times as we want.

 

[tonyrey]

It entails a lack of meaning theistically speaking purely because the removal of God (as the source of all meaning) achieves the removal of meaning !

It entails a lack of meaning in any manner of speaking because meaning is intangible and inaccessible to science…

 

[James1215]

Warpspeedpetey,

I would not argue for the necessity of an empirical empistemology from empiricism, but from the value of evidence plus the lack of alternatives to evidence in ascertaining the truth. Note I mean ascertaining – realising knowledge, not just making true statements in complete ignorance of the truth. Hence my concern to understand how one can use just the mind and rationality to understand the world, devoid of any information about it coming from one’s senses. I have not studied much philosophy, nor have I ever been tricked into atheism(!), but I think there is an issue over whether knowledge can be gained from reason or the use of evidence. Obviously I’m coming at it from the latter position, and I do not see how unengaged reason can go anywhere. Rationality is always using things and relationships between things, so I cannot see how it can operate divorced from anything worldly. I think even abstract metaphysics is thought of by building on thought processes and ideas established around more concrete ideas. Anyway, I did not primarily seek to argue for an empirical epistemology, instead I wanted to say that my position does not get eaten by your original contradiction. The use of evidence has always showed itself to be fruitful, so I would say: stick to it. I’m aware of the problem of induction for making rules, but if we accept that we can never know for sure that the sun will rise again tomorrow, we just have to cope with it. I’m not inventing ways to guarantee the conclusions of science, they are always provisional.

But because I think we both actually do support an empirical epistemology, I will continue to argue for that! I’ll have a think about Descartes and get back to you.

 

[James1215]

It entails a lack of meaning in any manner of speaking because meaning is intangible and inaccessible to science…

I would say that the efficacy of naturalism for explaining the world, the universe and everything removes the need to regard meaning as divinely supported!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…the lack of alternatives …

Logic is the alternative! However, if there were actually no alternatives, that doesn’t make a logical contradiction true. What you’re saying here is that a false answer is better than no answer. Obviously that cannot be true.

…there is an issue over whether knowledge can be gained from reason or the use of evidence…

**Empiricism is always false because it is a logical contradiction. **

…my position does not get eaten by your original contradiction. The use of evidence has always showed itself to be fruitful, so I would say: stick to it.

We aren’t talking about science. Science is an empirical method it is not empiricism. Its efficacy does not justify using a necessarily false logical contradiction as a theory of knowledge.

But because I think we both actually do support an empirical epistemology

I have told you several times now that we do not. We are rationalists by definition. We are not empiricists. Do you understand that there is no “empirical epistemology” that is different than empiricism? Any claim that empirical evidence is necessary to consider a statement true or meaningful is empiricism. I understand the desire to protect a cherished belief, but when it can be directly demonstrated to be irretrievably false, then its just a faith. I think you would like to get away from me, most atheists do. So I will let you go on the matter, but expect to see it every time someone insists on using that contradiction. Truth is more important than cherished belief isn’t it?

 

[tobias]

It is logically possible that the initial state of the universe was chaotic - without order or form.

You are basing your argument on facts derived from the present universe which need not apply to what existed prior to the Big Bang. It could have been utterly different…

Yes it is possible that the ‘initial state’, assuming there is an ‘initial state’, of the universe was chaotic, but chaotic does not mean without order. If there were any thing, then any individual thing would be of the order of said thing. It is logically contradictory to speak of a thing having no order, for it would cease to be.
I have to conclude that it is logically possible that the initial state was without form, but not ‘without order’, the order would be without form.

Let’s say the Big Bang theory is correct, then all that is in this universe was initially contained in what was smaller than a plunk, which mearly expanded suddenly. There in no rationale for thinking that fundamental truths could have been different merely because the universe was ‘smaller’, or could you elaborate on how the size of the universe could have changed fundamental truths?
Things could have been utterly different, it’s possible to have a world with no hydrogen, or a world with no oxygen, but does not follow that there is a world where they cannot form water, because they would cease to be the thing they are and be some thing different. You cannot ascribe to a thing a different property in another world, for you are then describing a different thing.
If a thing can have utterly different properties in other worlds, then one can say it is logical that other worlds have spherical pyramids.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes it is possible that the ‘initial state’, assuming there is an ‘initial state’, of the universe was chaotic, but chaotic does not mean without order. If there were any thing, then any individual thing would be of the order of said thing.

 

[James1215]

Warpspeedpetey,

You keep attacking empiricism, but the empirical is different. Having established yourself that they are different, you do not need to keep saying that empiricism is a contradiction. The focus is now on having knowledge from evidence that we sense; this way of knowing is what I refer to by saying ‘empirical epistemology’. You ask me: ‘Do you understand that there is no “empirical epistemology” that is different than empiricism’. However, there is. Knowledge can be built on evidence without making it necessary that a true statement has evidence for it. The contentious part is my addition that it is in the least highly sensible to give evidence for a position if one wants to make it believable. Can any of us hold sway by saying “I have the truth, it was revealed to me. I can’t explain it and I have no evidence, but it is true!”? The Catholic Church has to authorise visions and revelation anyway, which suggests that the reflex of even the most faithful is that of recourse to evidence.

Not only is thought based on evidence very good, but I do not see what thought is which does not intersect with the empirical world, or how it can be useful. This is a further point I would add; not only is evidence socially respectful when one makes truth claims, it appears to be the only possible way to talk meaningfully about this world. You say ‘logic’ is the alternative to evidence, but the way I see it, logic already works on and with evidence. This empirical evidence is not limited to the discipline of science either, so it matters not whether we are talking about scientific methods or perception more generally.

I am certainly not ready to leave this issue so poorly discussed, and do not merely cherish the use of evidence, because I think the reasons for valuing it are so obvious.

 

[James1215]

also, you said that holding on to a contradiction is ‘just faith’! Do I need any more evidence that you like evidence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…You keep…

This is really very simple. If you insist on physical evidence to consider a statement true/meaningful, then you are accepting the validity of a logical contradiction, and that is irrational. It does not matter if it is socially acceptable, believable, or efficacious. It is by definition irrational.

If you do not insist on physical evidence to consider a statement true/meaningful then you are reasoning rationally and correctly and we are not disagreeing.

If, as you seem to be claiming, there is a middle position where you need physical evidence but not too consider a statement true/meaningful, then I wonder why you need the physical evidence.

• I do not understand why you think that there is a difference, or that I said there is a difference between “empiricism” and “empirical”. “empirical” is just an adjective or adverb. It is a different part of speech but don’t see why you keep referring to that.
• No one is making this claim, so I am not sure what you mean here “I have the truth, it was revealed to me. I can’t explain it and I have no evidence, but it is true!”?

**The quote button is the text bubble directly under the clockwise turning arrow

 

[warpspeedpetey]

also, you said that holding on to a contradiction is ‘just faith’! Do I need any more evidence that you like evidence?

So, because it would take faith to accept a logical contradiction as true, since they are necessarily false, that is evidence that we are empiricists? That conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise as far as I can see. Let me say one more time. We are not empiricists. Are you under the impression that if one believes a ball is in the yard because one saw it, that makes them an empiricist? If so that is incorrect, an empiricist makes the claim about statements that I have mentioned.

 

[Sair]

As to empiricism being logically contradictory and therefore necessarily false, I would pose this rejoinder - we can, with our senses, discern that empiricism achieves tangible results. We can perceive that an empirical approach to studying reality, such as we experience it, is effective in terms of our subsequent experience. Now, as to the relationship between ‘effective’ and ‘true’, I’ll leave that to the metaphysicians to nut out. Would 1+1=2 mean anything at all to you if you could neither see, hear, touch, smell nor taste the difference between one of anything and a multitude of it?

 

[James1215]

This is really very simple. If you insist on physical evidence to consider a statement true/meaningful, then you are accepting the validity of a logical contradiction, and that is irrational.

I stated exactly how evidence ought to be used - in a socially respectful way, given that no one has any reason to believe anything that lacks evidence. If you acknowledge that evidence can be used to build knowledge, these 2 things make up my position.

Plus the bit on disengaged logic - I don’t see how rationality is useful without the empirical.

If you are to argue against this I’d want to see:

1. How to believe as true that for which there is no evidence
2. How to use logical methods devoid of the empirical to reason on what exists

The result I think is that one accepts that evidence is paramount because whilst not technically necessary, it is all we’ve got to understand reality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As to empiricism being logically contradictory and therefore necessarily false, I would pose this rejoinder - we can, with our senses, discern that empiricism achieves tangible results. We can perceive that an empirical approach to studying reality, such as we experience it, is effective in terms of our subsequent experience…

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge. Science is a collection of investigatory techniques that are only practiced in regards to physical evidence, thus we use the adjective “empirical” to describe its restriction to working with physical evidence. The efficacy of science says nothing about the efficacy of empiricism as a theory of knowledge. **They are two different and unrelated things. **

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I stated exactly how evidence ought to be used - in a socially respectful way, given that no one has any reason to believe anything that lacks evidence. If you acknowledge that evidence can be used to build knowledge, these 2 things make up my position.

If I understand correctly you are saying the following.

1. Evidence should be used for social reasons.
2. No one has reason to believe a statement is true or meaningful without physical evidence.

If this is true, then to point one I can only reply that social reasons are not a valid justification for accepting a logical contradiction as true, as to #2, you’re just insisting on using a logical contradiction, despite it being necessarily false.

Plus the bit on disengaged logic - I don’t see how rationality is useful without the empirical.

If you are to argue against this I’d want to see:

1. How to believe as true that for which there is no evidence
2. How to use logical methods devoid of the empirical to reason on what exists

I have demonstrated this several times now. You say you do not understand and I cannot give you the background necessary to do so in this manner. There is no point in repeating myself.

…The result I think is that one accepts that evidence is paramount because whilst not technically necessary, it is all we’ve got to understand reality.

No one is arguing that we do not accept physical evidence. We are arguing about limiting true or meaningful statements to those that include physical evidence.

 

[James1215]

Nearly!

Evidence for social reasons? Not being polite, but engaging in dialogue. I mean when someone wants to be taken seriously by others he/she has to provide evidence because a lack of evidence = a lack of reason to believe, even when it is logically permissible to believe.

Physical evidence? Any kind of evidence will do.

I do not believe you have any useful means to reason about this world without employing reference to the empirical! You may think you have, and you may have, but using my empirical epistemology, I’ll believe it when I see it!

As to ‘limiting true or meaningful statements to those that include physical [or any] evidence’, what I mean is ‘limiting belief in the truth of statements to those which include evidence’. It may be that ungrounded statements are very meaningful to the individual, chime with emotions or preferences, but without any evidence they are options swimming around in a sea of slippery nothingness.

If I understand correctly you are saying the following.

1. Evidence should be used for social reasons.
2. No one has reason to believe a statement is true or meaningful without physical evidence.

If this is true, then to point one I can only reply that social reasons are not a valid justification for accepting a logical contradiction as true, as to #2, you’re just insisting on using a logical contradiction, despite it being necessarily false.

I have demonstrated this several times now. You say you do not understand and I cannot give you the background necessary to do so in this manner. There is no point in repeating myself.

No one is arguing that we do not accept physical evidence. We are arguing about limiting true or meaningful statements to those that include physical evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… Any kind of evidence will do…

That’s what I have been telling you for days. With that one admission, we are in agreement. Empiricism is not a valid theory of knowledge.

*did clarifying that empirical evidence means physical evidence finally ring the bell?

…I’ll believe it when I see it!..

You have seen it several times now and not believed. You said that you didn’t understand and I will accept that.

 

[James1215]

I think all evidence is empirically grounded (in perception), also that reason has to operate with evidence in order to inform us of the world. With both of those qualifications, do we still agree?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think all evidence is empirically grounded (in perception),

That directly contradicts your statement in the last post "Physical evidence? Any kind of evidence will do."

…also that reason has to operate with evidence in order to inform us of the world…

When I demonstrated that these ideas were false, you claimed not to understand, now you claim to understand well enough to believe them to be true.

 

[James1215]

That directly contradicts your statement in the last post “Physical evidence? Any kind of evidence will do.” When I demonstrated that these ideas were false, you claimed not to understand, now you claim to understand well enough to believe them to be true.

Physical in a physics sense, but not physical in an everyday sense. Light is physical in the former but not the latter, and even thoughts arise from a material basis, but are not material in an intuitive sense. I think empirical is synonymous with the former but not the latter sense of physical, so I was not clear but there is no necessary contradiction in saying that evidence has to be physical in one place and then that ‘any kind of evidence will do’ later.

As to rationality, I would never counter the value of reason operating with evidence, only the idea that reason as operating devoid of the empirical is capable of giving knowledge of the world. What good is maths at telling us what is here? Alone, it tells us nothing, but combined with astronomy, it can tell us that the sum of the energy content of the universe is nil, an interesting thought with regards to whether we are a colossal accident.

The way I visualise this debate, it is of marginal importance(!). I’m trying to maintain a space for the value of evidence speaking as an atheist, and you seem to be trying to make space for non-evidential claims as a theist, but this is not necessary where Christianity is based on the evidence of the apostles, not their claims to knowledge of the imperceptible.