Epistemology 101

[Sarpedon]

Well, as you know many people “say” many things. If anyone would tell me, that I am just a figment of his imaginatoin, that I am not “real”, then I would ask him (only for the fun of it, not seriously) that why does he bother to talk into thin air - since there is no one to talk to.

Because he is talking to something, even if he doesn’t know what he is talking too. That’s Descartes’ point- he can know that he is perceiving with absolute certainty, but he doesn’t necessarily know what he is perceiving.

However, it goes a bit deeper. That solipsist (or follower of some Eastern philosphy) will invalidate his own assertion by violating it with his actions. He will take some illusionary food from this illusionary external “non-reality” and he will breathe the illusionary “non-air”. He can try to hold his breath, but his own body (and hopefully he does not believe that his own body is also an illusion) will override his desire, and he will draw in a huge gasp of this illusionary “non-air”. When it comes to words and actions, actions speak much louder than words.

There is a huge distinction between action and knowledge. The eastern philosopher can act in accordance with the world while not claiming to have any true knowledge of what the world is, or even acting in accordance with the illusion even though he views it as not true. They would not consider your response satisfactory- for how can you prove that we know truth just because we act a certain way? You have not established that those two things are the same or how they are related.

We are back to square one. I am maintaining that the external world is real, and the “proof” is that I exist. One cannot doubt his own existence - the “cogito ergo sum” is a wonderful way to put that. If one maintains that the external world is just an illusion, then he can adhere to his view - and die due to asphyxiation, or he can deny it by breathing. So simple.

You are taking Descartes out of context. Descartes said that he can know his own existence as a perceiving being with certainty, but that such certainty does not extend to the object of his perception (the rest of his philosophy attempts to connect those dots). To say “I am perceiving” is not the same as saying “what I perceive is true.”

Short of reading his book, can you point me to some source which just explains the phrase of “intelligibility of being”? Just what does this phrase mean? I have no idea.

Not easily. Gilson’s book is a simplified presentation. Intelligibility of being per Gilson in short means that we have the intuition of being as something knowable (intelligible) before we have any specific knowledge of that being in the particular. Therefore, we should not ground our epistemology in any particular (differentiated) thing, but rather in terms of the being we grasp as something without differentiation. This obviously draws on the notions of particularity and universality, which is a major topic. In practical terms this means we should be open to different ways of experiencing that being in particular form, such as science, art, history, logic, literature, traditional philosophy, etc. I really cannot express this more simply here without writing an essay myself. I’d urge you to read Gilson, for he explains this stuff better than I can. In addition to his actual constructive argument (which is in the last chapter), he also goes over the history of philosophy from the middle ages onwards, which in particular (no pun intended!) explains particularity and universality very well. It’s also an enjoyable read, and I finished it in a week.

Just a short remark. Tomorrow I am leaving for a nice, long cruise trip, and I will not be able to see your reply, and will not be able to respond. I will be back at the end of the month.

Have a nice time!

 

[R_Daneel]

Because he is talking to something, even if he doesn’t know what he is talking too. That’s Descartes’ point- he can know that he is perceiving with absolute certainty, but he doesn’t necessarily know what he is perceiving.

You are mixing up two things. The solipsist denies the reality of the external world. Not just asserts that the perception may not be true - he explicitly denies that the external world is there. The talking solipsist - by the virtue of his talking - proves that he is insane, because he talks to someone who is not there.

There is a huge distinction between action and knowledge. The eastern philosopher can act in accordance with the world while not claiming to have any true knowledge of what the world is, or even acting in accordance with the illusion even though he views it as not true. They would not consider your response satisfactory- for how can you prove that we know truth just because we act a certain way? You have not established that those two things are the same or how they are related.

If that Eastern philosopher says that the world is just an illusion (that is if he denies the reality of the external world), then he is a solipsist - and falls into the category above. So far that is what you said - or at least, this is what it sounded to me. Now you say something different.

If the philosopher accepts the reality of the external world, but denies the validity of the senses, then he is not a solipsist, rather a universal skeptic - which is a different category. In that case I am asking him: “on what ground does he deny the veracity of the senses?”. Obviously he cannot use the senses to deny them - it would be self-defeating. What could he use? Empty speculation? Not very convincing.

You are taking Descartes out of context. Descartes said that he can know his own existence as a perceiving being with certainty, but that such certainty does not extend to the object of his perception (the rest of his philosophy attempts to connect those dots). To say “I am perceiving” is not the same as saying “what I perceive is true.”

Again on what grounds can he assert that? What is the criterion he uses to say that the perceived world is different from the “real world”? By denying the veracity of the senses, he deprived himself of any method to find out, just what is the “real world”, to which he wishes to compare the “perceived world”. He has no epistemological method left as a tool. It is again a self-defeating stance.

The funny stuff is that I don’t need to defend my views, because all those who assert otherwise defeat themselves. They deprive themselves of all the tools which could substantiate their position. Therefore my view emerges as the “default”, since the others simply forfeited the game, they never even show up to participate.

Not easily. Gilson’s book is a simplified presentation. Intelligibility of being per Gilson in short means that we have the intuition of being as something knowable (intelligible) before we have any specific knowledge of that being in the particular.

So far, so good. Before one can go into specifics, one must be aware that there is something there to scrutinize and understand. No problem here.

Therefore, we should not ground our epistemology in any particular (differentiated) thing, but rather in terms of the being we grasp as something without differentiation.

This does not help at all. One must use some epistemological tool to find out what that new “thing” is. What he says does not help to find a “tool”.

In practical terms this means we should be open to different ways of experiencing that being in particular form, such as science, art, history, logic, literature, traditional philosophy, etc.

So, does he go into any practical detail about a “tool”? When we deal with physical reality and when we deal with abstraction of reality, we have two different realms to deal with. (Natural sciences and abstract sciences.) And to mix this with art (literature, music, pictures, statues, maybe games, too?) is strange, to say the least. There is no “truth” or “falsehood” in art. This question does not even come up. On what grounds would anyone say that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is “true” and Wagner’s Niebelung Ring is “false”?

You use the word “experiencing”. It is a fine concept, but one does not experience the prime number theorem. You experience art, but not science. You don’t expect “truth” from art, but you expect science to separate “true and false propositions”. Art does not deal with propositions, it deals with emotions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The funny stuff is that I don’t need to defend my views, because all those who assert otherwise defeat themselves. They deprive themselves of all the tools which could substantiate their position. Therefore my view emerges as the “default”, since the others simply forfeited the game, they never even show up to participate.

this isnt true, i attempted to participate in this very thread. i pointed out that we cant be asked to define a categorization that assumes an empirical division to reality that we wouldnt make, i pointed out that admitting C-existence is the same thing as admitting things can exist without physical charactereistics, which defeats empiricism, the basis of your categorizations.

instead of defending your views, you abandoned the conversation. were we to do that, wouldnt you think it meant that we simply didnt want to admit the truth?

well, it wont be settled here and now. enjoy your vacation. have fun.

 

[Sarpedon]

You are mixing up two things. The solipsist denies the reality of the external world. Not just asserts that the perception may not be true - he explicitly denies that the external world is there. The talking solipsist - by the virtue of his talking - proves that he is insane, because he talks to someone who is not there.

I never used the term “solipist.” That was your characterization of my proposition (which I do not personally uphold, but it has a bearing on our epistemologies). Various forms of skepticism are more appropriate terms.

In that case I am asking him: “on what ground does he deny the veracity of the senses?”. Obviously he cannot use the senses to deny them - it would be self-defeating. What could he use? Empty speculation? Not very convincing.

You’re assuming that the skeptic has to deny the veracity of our senses. I am sure you would be adamant that an atheist does not have to deny the existence of God. Do you simply assume that the physical senses are reliable without evidence? Or do you have some positive argument in favor or their veracity? As the one claiming something, the burden of proof would fall on you under your own system.

Furthermore, there is a wide gap between perception and materialism. For example, Descartes would say that he has self knowledge of his own existence because he is perceiving something, but this doesn’t mean that his perception is in fact correct- its just there. Much of Descartes’ philosophy is an attempt to bridge the gap between having perception and knowing that perception is accurate. How do you bridge the gap?

The funny stuff is that I don’t need to defend my views, because all those who assert otherwise defeat themselves. They deprive themselves of all the tools which could substantiate their position. Therefore my view emerges as the “default”, since the others simply forfeited the game, they never even show up to participate.

It’s debatable whether you can have purely internal though processes. Anyway, the problem with your position is that you are assuming that we have to hold a position. You say that if skepticism is true, then we have no way of knowing anything. The skeptic would just extend this all the way and say that we shouldn’t assert anything at all. You believe your view is a “default” because you think we have to make a positive assertion- but why can’t we just abstain from knowledge altogether? Why isn’t that the default? Keep in mind that you have not established the connection, if any, between knowledge and action.

So, does he go into any practical detail about a “tool”? When we deal with physical reality and when we deal with abstraction of reality, we have two different realms to deal with. (Natural sciences and abstract sciences.) And to mix this with art (literature, music, pictures, statues, maybe games, too?) is strange, to say the least.

You’re assuming that this distinction is valid, but that’s only because you are assuming that physical world has a distinct nature because of your epistemology. Gilson’s point is that we have no real reason to cast the universal in terms of the particular. We have no good reason to explain everything in terms of religion, or in terms of math, or in terms of science. Those are particular disciplines that deal with particular things, but it is unreasonable to posit a particular discipline as a universal method. Science deals with differentiated, particular instances and things, and therefore we should not expect that the universality of reality will conform the limits of a particular discipline. Rather, we should accept the whole in terms of the most fundamental experience, which is being itself, which then leads us to approach particulated disciplines in their particular role.

There is no “truth” or “falsehood” in art. This question does not even come up. On what grounds would anyone say that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is “true” and Wagner’s Niebelung Ring is “false”?

Well, there is the entire philosophy of aesthetics…

You use the word “experiencing”. It is a fine concept, but one does not experience the prime number theorem. You experience art, but not science. You don’t expect “truth” from art, but you expect science to separate “true and false propositions”. Art does not deal with propositions, it deals with emotions.

That’s a strong claim, and one that you are supporting in light of science, which goes right back to using a particular method as a universal method. Historically, many have held to the objective view of aesthetics as containing truth if made to correspond with objective truth.

This is all over the place. Some of the things I’m arguing for as an exercise I don’t actually subscribe to, but I resolve them differently than you do. All I’d like to point out in closing is that your position is a mishmash of different philosophical ideas, which is only to expected if the whole of reality is viewed through a single lens in the particular.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, there is the entire philosophy of aesthetics…

Very true. It is the third or fourth branch of philosophy, depending on your view. There is also ethics. They all come after metaphysics and epistemology. In this thread both ethics and aesthetics are “neglected”, for the sake of making the topic at least possible to grasp.

I am sure you would be adamant that an atheist does not have to deny the existence of God. Do you simply assume that the physical senses are reliable without evidence? Or do you have some positive argument in favor or their veracity? As the one claiming something, the burden of proof would fall on you under your own system.

Yes. It does.

Much of Descartes’ philosophy is an attempt to bridge the gap between having perception and knowing that perception is accurate. How do you bridge the gap?

I show it below.

Anyway, the problem with your position is that you are assuming that we have to hold a position. You believe your view is a “default” because you think we have to make a positive assertion- but why can’t we just abstain from knowledge altogether? Why isn’t that the default? Keep in mind that you have not established the connection, if any, between knowledge and action.

Just one remark. How can you refrain from acting? The real existence is not an ivory tower, isolated from reality (whatever you consicer reality). So action is indispensable. You don’t have to have an explicit position, but reality demands of you to hold an implicit position, expressed by your actions.

---

And this leads to the main point. Philosophy attempts to create a model of reality. (I am talking about any philosophy here, materialist, theistic, Eastern, whatever.) It starts with pure speculation, sitting in that ivory tower. The speculative philosopher (SP - for the sake of brevity) finally comes up with his model. His metaphysics is now complete.

The next question is: “how does he or anyone else decide if this model is accurate”? If he says that he does not wish to take a stance in the matter (as you said above), then all his musings are worth nothing. He presented a concept, a model, but he does not wish to apply it, he does not even care if it conforms to reality (whatever reality might be). Well, that reluctance is met with a huge, resounding DUH!

Now, as far as I know, no SP is going to stop here. He needs to find out if his model is accurate. And that is where the problem occurs. He holds his speculative model (SM) in his mind, and what does he compare to? It would be nice if he also had a model of the true reality (MOTTR) in his mind, and could compare them bit-by-bit and see if his speculations are correct, or not. But he does not have it. If he had an a-priori conceived, correct model of the true reality, he would not have had to going through the speculation at all.

So, if he wants to find out if his model is accurate, he is SOL without an epistemology. So he has to set up an epistemological system of his own. Whatever that might be. This is the point of the whole exercise. To separate of good model from a bad one. To decide which proposition is true, and which proposition is false. (You said above, that one does not have to take a position, one can abstain from knowledge. Are you really serious?)

All metaphysical models are the same - in the sense that they are all pure speculations. Without a viable epistemological method one can adopt either one of them. Epistemology is the key. The method of separating the wheat from the chaff.

When push comes to shove the comparision of the model to reality must happen outside the ivory tower. The actions are unavoidable, the veracity of the model must be tested against the real world. Yes, I certainly established a connection between knowledge and action.

You said that you never used the term “solipsist”. You prefer to speak of varying level of skepticism. Fine, we do it your way. The two extremes of total skepticism and total, indiscriminate acceptance of evey claim are both impossible. There is a need for a “divining rod” to draw the line somewhere in between.

I offer the materialist / empiricist methodology, or the scientific method. It has its own set of basic principles, which are not subject to verification, which are accepted by the materialists and maybe denied by other philosophers. These are the assertion of the reality of the external world, the veracity of the senses and the scintific method of discovery (hypothesis froming and testing the veracity of the hypotheses). It has a track record second to none.

You called it “pragmaticism”, you said that we accept something “true” if it is “useful”. But you have the cart in from of the horse. It is useful, because it is true, not the other way around. Yes, the proof of the pudding is still that it is edible.

There are two possibilities for you here. You can attempt to show that the materialstic model is downright false. That it leads to incorrect results, that the “true reality” contradicts the model in some way. Good luck with it. Or you can say that the model is deficient, it does not account for some parts of actual reality. (Do not bring up ethics and aesthetics for that purpose. They do not belong to metaphysics or epistemology.) That is what I was asking all along, and we are into the 12th page, without any meaningful (name removed by moderator)ut on your part.

Time for me to do the final packing. See you in about 3 weeks. Thanks for the good wishes.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When push comes to shove the comparision of the model to reality must happen outside the ivory tower. The actions are unavoidable, the veracity of the model must be tested against the real world. Yes, I certainly established a connection between knowledge and action.

tested against the real world? do you mean the physical world? doesnt that presuppose empiricism is true, even though we have repeatedly shown it is not?

I offer the materialist / empiricist methodology, or the scientific method. It has its own set of basic principles, which are not subject to verification, which are accepted by the materialists and maybe denied by other philosophers.

not just maybe, but have been for a pretty long time now.

It has a track record second to none

how can that be? it has a record of failure at every turn, in fact, every scientific theory has been superseded, we can only suspect that the current theories will hold no better than the previous ones.

You called it “pragmaticism”, you said that we accept something “true” if it is “useful”. But you have the cart in from of the horse. It is useful, because it is true, not the other way around. Yes, the proof of the pudding is still that it is edible.

this isnt right, something is most definitely not true simply because it is useful. take caloric theory, it was quite useful, but turned out to be utterly false.

this example demonstrated that this idea is proven false.

There are two possibilities for you here. You can attempt to show that the materialstic model is downright false. That it leads to incorrect results, that the “true reality” contradicts the model in some way. Good luck with it.

we can show it false through bare logic, empiricism either self refutes or it must be so vague as to allow non-empirical statements, making it useless and a moot point.

Or you can say that the model is deficient, it does not account for some parts of actual reality.

we can do this as well with the issue of free will, self awareness, etc. the model is deficient and cannot account for free will in either possible state of the universe.

Time for me to do the final packing. See you in about 3 weeks. Thanks for the good wishes.

have a good time.

 

[Sarpedon]

And this leads to the main point. Philosophy attempts to create a model of reality. (I am talking about any philosophy here, materialist, theistic, Eastern, whatever.) It starts with pure speculation, sitting in that ivory tower. The speculative philosopher (SP - for the sake of brevity) finally comes up with his model. His metaphysics is now complete.

The next question is: “how does he or anyone else decide if this model is accurate”? If he says that he does not wish to take a stance in the matter (as you said above), then all his musings are worth nothing. He presented a concept, a model, but he does not wish to apply it, he does not even care if it conforms to reality (whatever reality might be). Well, that reluctance is met with a huge, resounding DUH

Yes, but the scientist does the exact same thing, since science is part of philosophy. Philosophy builds a model of reality that we do need to compare with reality, but science is merely a department of philosophy. It would be a mistake to start out assuming that the world is scientific. What we experience first are the things themselves, for we experience them as their own being and nothing else. Whether we attach a scientific explanation, or an artistic explanation, or abstract explanation, is up to us to decide. The key point is this- we do need to compare our models to reality, but reality is not necessarily known as science. Reality is known as itself, as its own being, and how we explain that being must be decided by us.

For example, consider love. We experience a phenomena of “love.” We experience love as itself, nothing else. We do not directly experience “spiritual” love, not do we directly experience “material” love. Accepting the experience of love as its own being, we then move on to the stage of trying to explain what we experience. Some choose to explain love in terms of material chemicals. Others try to explain love in terms of interpersonal union and devotion. Some choose to explain love through the will, and most use a combination of these different explanations. Naturally, we need to compare these models to reality to determine whether they are true or not, but it is a mistake to consider the scientific explanation as the being of the thing itself and to therefore consider reality to be the scientific explanation. We do not directly experience love as chemicals, even if we choose to explain our experience that way. Naturally, the central aim of philosophy- which involves all disciplines- is to examine the proper scope and congruence of these explanations with our experience of being, not their congruence with our explanations of that being.

That’s the point of the intelligibility of being- we experience things as their own being, not as our explanation.

I offer the materialist / empiricist methodology, or the scientific method. It has its own set of basic principles, which are not subject to verification, which are accepted by the materialists and maybe denied by other philosophers. These are the assertion of the reality of the external world, the veracity of the senses and the scintific method of discovery (hypothesis froming and testing the veracity of the hypotheses). It has a track record second to none.

Except at explaining the nature of the human person as a rational being. A major distinction must be made here. I can explain everything in terms of science, just as I can explain everything in terms of “goddit.” Just because such an explanation is possible does not mean it is ideal. A problem occurs when people think that just because something can be explained by science, it should be explained by science. The same goes for any other discipline.

There are two possibilities for you here. You can attempt to show that the materialstic model is downright false. That it leads to incorrect results, that the “true reality” contradicts the model in some way. Good luck with it. Or you can say that the model is deficient, it does not account for some parts of actual reality. (Do not bring up ethics and aesthetics for that purpose. They do not belong to metaphysics or epistemology.) That is what I was asking all along, and we are into the 12th page, without any meaningful (name removed by moderator)ut on your part.

I find the Catholic explanation a far better explanation of our nature as rational beings than simple materialism. In particular, I find Catholic sexual teaching to be the best explanation for why we behave the way we do and why certain problems occur. There is also a great deal of difficulty in explaining the world in terms of only things in the particular, since such an explanation necessarily transcends the particular. In a world of only the particular, I see little reason to accept that our rational capacities are more than particular. If our rational capacities are in the particular, then we really don’t have them.

 

[tonyrey]

No response? It seems you have selective reading.

 

[Sarpedon]

It is amusing that you believe that men and women in white coats who spend much of their time in laboratories - and who deal with only one aspect of reality - are more likely to understand the meaning, value and purpose of life than anyone else. But it is understandable given that you believe life is meaningless, valueless and purposeless.

That’s a good point. In my view, wisdom is about more than being intensely brilliant at a single thing. For example, while I know some savants who are brilliant at math, I would not be inclined to trust them for general wisdom about life. It seems to be that the most wise people are those who have the most balanced life, and those who do not focus excessively on one particular part of life. This goes along with what Gilson was saying- viewing the whole in terms of the particular always fails, because the whole is not contained in the particular.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s a good point. In my view, wisdom is about more than being intensely brilliant at a single thing. For example, while I know some savants who are brilliant at math, I would not be inclined to trust them for general wisdom about life. It seems to be that the most wise people are those who have the most balanced life, and those who do not focus excessively on one particular part of life. This goes along with what Gilson was saying- viewing the whole in terms of the particular always fails, because the whole is not contained in the particular.

I entirely agree. The atomistic, analytic interpretation of reality is defective because it is retrospective. Existence is bound to seem meaningless, valueless and purposeless if you look for all your explanations in the past and ignore the present and future. The outcome of any process is even more significant than its initial stages because that is where we discover its full meaning, value and purpose.

One of the wisest men I have known was a humble Cuban gardener who had more insight into life than any university lecturer or professor…

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, I am back… not a whole lot happened in this thread.

Yes, but the scientist does the exact same thing, since science is part of philosophy. Philosophy builds a model of reality that we do need to compare with reality, but science is merely a department of philosophy.

Not any more. Way back… there was no science, there was speculation, called philosophy. People had no idea what makes the world “tick”, and created all sort of speculative ideas, in lieu of explanation. They invented all sorts of gods, who were thought to be the causes of natural events. We came a long way from those times. Alchemy was the attempt which did not “pan out”, astrology was rampant… Of course, since they were just based on speculation, they did not work.

It would be a mistake to start out assuming that the world is scientific.

Start? The scentific worldview came together after thousands of years of experimenting. It is the “end product”, not some randomly accepted “fad”.

What we experience first are the things themselves, for we experience them as their own being and nothing else. Whether we attach a scientific explanation, or an artistic explanation, or abstract explanation, is up to us to decide. The key point is this- we do need to compare our models to reality, but reality is not necessarily known as science. Reality is known as itself, as its own being, and how we explain that being must be decided by us.

What else is there? The scientific method, with its own built-in self-correcting mechanism is the one which emerged. Mere speculation is left behind because it did not lead anywhere. Dancing for rain was tried and discarded. Praying for cure was done, and there is no discernible result. It is especially ironic to see two football teams both praying for victory before the game, just as members of the clergy in medieval times “blessed” the weapons of both sides before the battle. And the winner always declared a divine intervention on their behalf.

For example, consider love. We experience a phenomena of “love.” We experience love as itself, nothing else. We do not directly experience “spiritual” love, not do we directly experience “material” love. Accepting the experience of love as its own being, we then move on to the stage of trying to explain what we experience.

Well, “love” is probably the worst example there is, because it is used in so many different connotations. Love should be practiced, not analyzed. Love is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. The funny stuff is that many emotions can be “artifically” evoked by directing certain chemicals or electrical stimuli into the brain. Happiness, sadness, pleasure, pain, etc… can all be evoked by this method. Why look any further?

Naturally, we need to compare these models to reality to determine whether they are true or not, but it is a mistake to consider the scientific explanation as the being of the thing itself and to therefore consider reality to be the scientific explanation.

The question is again: “how do you wish to compare reality to the model”? This is the point of the thread.

That’s the point of the intelligibility of being- we experience things as their own being, not as our explanation.

True, but what now? How does one reach an explanation? This is what epistemology is all about!

I find the Catholic explanation a far better explanation of our nature as rational beings than simple materialism. In particular, I find Catholic sexual teaching to be the best explanation for why we behave the way we do and why certain problems occur.

Look at the molestation scandal. The celibacy imposed on the members of the clergy is extremely harmful and unnatural. Those poor guys are artifically deprived of one of the greatest pleasure available to us, and the oppression eventually will lead to such aberrations. (If you are so inclined, read this link: theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/ Of course it is a satire, but as usual, satires have a lot of truths in them.)

 

[Sarpedon]

They invented all sorts of gods, who were thought to be the causes of natural events. We came a long way from those times. Alchemy was the attempt which did not “pan out”, astrology was rampant… Of course, since they were just based on speculation, they did not work.

Do you realize what you are doing here? You are saying that people experienced things and then tried to explain those things. Some explained them through magic, or gods, or science, or causation. All of these things constitute philosophy, which by its very definition is at the most “foundational” we can go.

The problem is that you define materialism as the thing itself. We experience things. We choose to explain them using different methods. You are confusing the thing itself with the explanation. We experience love, and you explain it through science- but the mere fact that you can do so does not mean that the experience itself is scientific. The key point is that we do not experience things as their explanation. We do not experience science. Rather, we experience things (in their own being) and then we use science as a philosophical tool to explain what we experience. You can’t say that the scientific explanation of love is correct because it is scientific.

For example, you say:
“Love is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less”

We can’t say that in terms of being. We experience love. You explain it as emotions. The mere fact that you can do so does not mean that the experience itself is emotional. A tenant of the scientism worldview is that the “natural order” is defined to be the default explanation for everything and anything. This is a profoundly philosophical viewpoint. We don’t experience the world as “material.” Rather, we experience the world as itself, and some of us describe it using material terms. That’s a crucial distinction.

What else is there? The scientific method, with its own built-in self-correcting mechanism is the one which emerged. Mere speculation is left behind because it did not lead anywhere. Dancing for rain was tried and discarded. Praying for cure was done, and there is no discernible result. It is especially ironic to see two football teams both praying for victory before the game, just as members of the clergy in medieval times “blessed” the weapons of both sides before the battle. And the winner always declared a divine intervention on their behalf.

The Church also vigorously protested that the sexual revolution would not lead to a better world. Looking at where we are now, do you see a race of sexually free and happy people? Or do you see a world where families are arbitrary and children are passed around like commodities?

The basic point is this- we do not perceive a scientific world. We perceive the world in its own being. You place a philosophical ultimacy on science as a means to explain the world, while I choose to expand my explanation to other ways of knowing. I know that the world can be explained as simply matter. I also know that the world can be entirely explained by just saying “goddit.” The best explanation is not so simple. We can’t just look at the world and say “ah, its scientific!” or “ah, god did it!” Neither of these explanations of the world should be mistaken for the world itself.

Now to the meat of the issue- how should we choose to explain the world? I agree that science is a crucial element and that it does a fairly good job of explaining many aspects of the world. However, I do not think it is sufficient. I think it is insufficient for explaining the human person as a rational animal, among other things. I know that science has proposed legitimate theories that explain where consciousness could possibly come from, but that doesn’t matter- when you step back from the philosophical position of ultimate scientism, the mere existence of a scientific explanation does not lead to its validity. The same goes for theologism. Looking at the whole of reality, as I experience it, independent of any preconceived modes of thought about it- I think an organic synthesis of different disciplines provides a far better method of explaining things in their own being. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Look at the molestation scandal. The celibacy imposed on the members of the clergy is extremely harmful and unnatural. Those poor guys are artifically deprived of one of the greatest pleasure available to us, and the oppression eventually will lead to such aberrations. (If you are so inclined, read this link: theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/ Of course it is a satire, but as usual, satires have a lot of truths in them.)

Ordinary pedophile men have no such restrictions, and they engage in the same acts. Sexually “liberated” communes in the 60s did not fair so well. History has shown that the best way to live is under the control of reason- controlling your passions and forming them to be in accordance with your duties and obligations, whether they be to a spouse and family or humanity as a whole (i.e. the clergy). The whole “free love” idea fizzled out a long time ago.

After years of practice, I have been able to almost entirely control my emotions by reason, and turn them on or off as the situation demands. This has given me nothing but success. It’s important to understand the Catholic view of virtue- virtue is not repressing your passions, but rather forming them to be in accordance with reason and truth. When this is put into practice, you do not feel nothing- rather, you derive emotional pleasure from practicing things that are good for you and for society. This is the only sane way to live, and most of the world has lost sight of this.

 

[R_Daneel]

The problem is that you define materialism as the thing itself. We experience things. We choose to explain them using different methods. You are confusing the thing itself with the explanation.

No, I don’t confuse them. I agree that the raw experience is different from the way we understand and explain it.

Furthermore, science is not there to explain “everything”, even if such an explanation would be possible. For example, some people consider Picasso’s pictures “beautiful”, others do not. Some people find Wagner’s music overwhelmingly grand and beautiful, others do not. Some people prefer tall, blond partners, other may prefer short, brown haired ones.

Maybe it is possible to find an explanation why there is a difference. Maybe it could be reduced to some brain states, to some genetic cause. But why should anyone bother to try it? When it comes to art, let’s just enjoy whatever we happen to enjoy, and let’s not worry “why” is it so.

The Church also vigorously protested that the sexual revolution would not lead to a better world. Looking at where we are now, do you see a race of sexually free and happy people? Or do you see a world where families are arbitrary and children are passed around like commodities?

You talk about extremes. The sexual conduct is profoundly personal. There is no “one size fits all”.

I know that the world can be explained as simply matter. I also know that the world can be entirely explained by just saying “goddit.”

Now here is a major difference. I don’t agree that “goddidit” is an explanation at all. It is an avoidance of explanation. It is the admission that explanation is impossible.

Let’s take an example: consider a stage magician. He performs a trick, and the audience enjoys it. They have no idea how the maigician did it. For them it was just “magic” - which is the equivalent of “goddidit”. However, take another magician, for whom the trick is new. He does not know exactly how the trick was done, but he can do the same trick, possibly employing a different method. The “goddidit” is the explanation for the audience - which cannot reproduce the trick. The “materialistic” way is emloyed by the other magician, who can do the same trick. The magician has an actual understanding, the audience does not.

The point is, that the magician does not accept that the performer employed “real” magic, he looks at the result and attempts to understand the details. That is the aim of the “game”. To understand something, so that it can be reproduced. For example, if we take abiogenesis, we shall never know exactly and precisely how it happened. We shall never know exactly which molecules happened to interact, so that the result was a “living” organism. It is not necessary to know the exact circumstances. It is sufficient that we can emulate it, and the experiments are quite promising.

 

[Sarpedon]

Maybe it is possible to find an explanation why there is a difference. Maybe it could be reduced to some brain states, to some genetic cause. But why should anyone bother to try it? When it comes to art, let’s just enjoy whatever we happen to enjoy, and let’s not worry “why” is it so.

First, this is your philosophical viewpoint about ethics, which is not science. While I don’t expect you to dispute this, many people lose sight of the fact that science only goes so far.

The problem is not science itself. The problem is when people view science itself as the arbitrator of the thing as being. For example, you say that beauty could be explained as brain states, or some genetic cause. Why does it need to be explained as a scientific material phenomena? Why can’t we say that some people find art beautiful because it has beauty?

This is the crux of the matter. Just because something can be explained in scientific terms does not mean that such a scientific explanation is necessarily the correct one. Suppose I point to beauty in art as evidence of something “transcendent.” I am sure you have heard that one before. I bet your response will be something along the lines of “well, beauty is just emotions that people have that can be explained by genetics and upbringing.”

What you are doing here is viewing the art as science, not the art as art. You start by deciding to explain everything as science, and therefore you explain art as science. Of course, art is not science, but rather it is simply its own being- art.

Do you see where I am going with this? When we experience art in its own being, we simply experience art. We can then consider what we experience. I can ask the question “what is art?” I can also ask the question “how and where is art?” Furthermore, I can ask the question “what is the purpose of art?” You consider the last question invalid because you already view everything as science- which therefore makes the question of purpose meaningless. You will not find an answer to the “why” question precisely because you know that such a question is invalid, because you know that art is science. Stepping back from any preconceived ideas about what we experience, is there anything in the experience of beauty in art, in of itself, that makes the “why” question any less valid that the "how"question?

You talk about extremes. The sexual conduct is profoundly personal. There is no “one size fits all”.

Sexually activity is not profoundly personal. Sexual activity is profoundly social since it makes marriages and it makes babies. If people really were oppressed by the Church’s sexual teachings, then we should have seen a glorious social flowering following the sexual revolution. Instead, we see the opposite. Frequent sexual encounters with many different people, none of whom you have committed yourself too, does not lead to healthy and stable social relationships. In contrast, Catholic sexual ethics causes the person to take extreme care in choosing a spouse and then that person commits through the thick and thin. This sets the foundation for healthy and stable personal relationships that are grounded in actual commitment, which then leads to more stable families, and to more stable children, and to more stable societies.

The “goddidit” is the explanation for the audience - which cannot reproduce the trick. The “materialistic” way is emloyed by the other magician, who can do the same trick. The magician has an actual understanding, the audience does not.

Indeed, but this procedural knowledge. This may lead to an understanding of how a process leads to a result, but this says nothing about other layers of knowledge. This is precisely the point- things, in of themselves, do not make either the “how” or the “why” question legitimate or not. You are saying “I know how to do the trick, therefore, there is no other meaning to the trick, since I know how to do it.” In contrast, I am saying “yes, we know how to do the trick, but that’s not the end of our inquiry, and the mere possession of procedural knowledge does not make ultimate knowledge any less possible or valid.” This goes right back to beauty- I may understand the science behind how we perceive beauty, but the mere possession of this knowledge does not the “why” question any less legitimate. The two answers can coexist side by side, and indeed all of these threads converge on a synthesis- the illative sense.

 

[R_Daneel]

First, this is your philosophical viewpoint about ethics, which is not science. While I don’t expect you to dispute this, many people lose sight of the fact that science only goes so far.

The problem is not science itself. The problem is when people view science itself as the arbitrator of the thing as being. For example, you say that beauty could be explained as brain states, or some genetic cause. Why does it need to be explained as a scientific material phenomena? Why can’t we say that some people find art beautiful because it has beauty?

We have total agreement on this point.

This is the crux of the matter. Just because something can be explained in scientific terms does not mean that such a scientific explanation is necessarily the correct one. Suppose I point to beauty in art as evidence of something “transcendent.” I am sure you have heard that one before. I bet your response will be something along the lines of “well, beauty is just emotions that people have that can be explained by genetics and upbringing.”

But it does not need an explanation, and it does not need a label either. Let’s take another example. Suppose someone could discover the ultimate chess algorithm and thus write a computer program, which could beat any and all chess players. Since chess is a finite “problem”, such an algorithm is possible. But why should anyone do it? It would spoil the game, render it useless. Not all problems “need” to be solved.

But these are not the questions I am talking about. Not about art, love, beauty, etc… I am talking about the reality and “how does it work”? We can appreciate the beauty of a lightning filled sky at night. What the lightning “is” is not relevant to the enjoyment. However, the lightning is not the “sword of God”, it is a natural phenomenon, and it can be explained as such. This explanation does not detract from the beauty of it, but it allows to build lightning rods, and thus prevent a house to be burned down. Understanding the mechanism of nature does not render it less beautiful.

Do you see where I am going with this? When we experience art in its own being, we simply experience art. We can then consider what we experience. I can ask the question “what is art?” I can also ask the question “how and where is art?” Furthermore, I can ask the question “what is the purpose of art?” You consider the last question invalid because you already view everything as science- which therefore makes the question of purpose meaningless. You will not find an answer to the “why” question precisely because you know that such a question is invalid, because you know that art is science. Stepping back from any preconceived ideas about what we experience, is there anything in the experience of beauty in art, in of itself, that makes the “why” question any less valid that the "how"question?

OK. So we can agree about the “how”, and the validity of the scientific method to be the arbiter of this approach. The “why” question is a different matter. One can ask “why is color of the plants green?” - and it is a legitimate question. The answer is: “because of the chlorophyll”. But the question: “why is green the color of the chlorophyll?” is meaningless. One cannot legitimately ask: “why does the hydrogen atom have one proton and one electron?” - and expect an answer. It is just another brute fact. Not all questions are legitimate.

Sexually activity is not profoundly personal. Sexual activity is profoundly social since it makes marriages and it makes babies. If people really were oppressed by the Church’s sexual teachings, then we should have seen a glorious social flowering following the sexual revolution. Instead, we see the opposite. Frequent sexual encounters with many different people, none of whom you have committed yourself too, does not lead to healthy and stable social relationships. In contrast, Catholic sexual ethics causes the person to take extreme care in choosing a spouse and then that person commits through the thick and thin. This sets the foundation for healthy and stable personal relationships that are grounded in actual commitment, which then leads to more stable families, and to more stable children, and to more stable societies.

This is not applicable to all societies and all times. There were many societies with completely different sexual norms, and they were quite stable. But this is not really relevant to the topic at hand.

Indeed, but this procedural knowledge. This may lead to an understanding of how a process leads to a result, but this says nothing about other layers of knowledge.

Sure thing. Science is concerned with procedural knowledge. And the question is still is: “what other layers of knowledge?”.

You are saying “I know how to do the trick, therefore, there is no other meaning to the trick, since I know how to do it.” In contrast, I am saying “yes, we know how to do the trick, but that’s not the end of our inquiry, and the mere possession of procedural knowledge does not make ultimate knowledge any less possible or valid.”

Ah, but knowing how to do the trick renders the explanation “it was pure magic” incorrect. And this brings us back to the question of abiogenesis. Knowing how it could have happened renders the theistic “explanation” unnecessary. As Laplace said to Napoleon (when he asked why does Laplace never mention God in his book about the celestial movements of the planets): “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”. And that is why science is the ultimate “enemy” of religion. It does not prove God’s nonexistence, it renders God irrelevant.

 

[Sarpedon]

But these are not the questions I am talking about. Not about art, love, beauty, etc… I am talking about the reality and “how does it work”? We can appreciate the beauty of a lightning filled sky at night. What the lightning “is” is not relevant to the enjoyment. However, the lightning is not the “sword of God”, it is a natural phenomenon, and it can be explained as such. This explanation does not detract from the beauty of it, but it allows to build lightning rods, and thus prevent a house to be burned down. Understanding the mechanism of nature does not render it less beautiful.

This is a perfect example of the mindset I am criticizing- why do you assume that lighting is an only is a material phenomena? We perceive beauty in lightning. We also perceive materiality in lighting. On what basis do you say that these two perceptions are one and the same, or that the former explanation must be subsumed by the latter explanation?

OK. So we can agree about the “how”, and the validity of the scientific method to be the arbiter of this approach. The “why” question is a different matter. One can ask “why is color of the plants green?” - and it is a legitimate question. The answer is: “because of the chlorophyll”. But the question: “why is green the color of the chlorophyll?” is meaningless. One cannot legitimately ask: “why does the hydrogen atom have one proton and one electron?” - and expect an answer. It is just another brute fact. Not all questions are legitimate.

This is nothing but your own personal assertion. Why is the question “why is chlorophyll green?” illegitimate? Science tells us how chlorophyll is green. On what basis can you argue, in light of your own position, that purpose is not present or that we cannot understand purpose? Why can’t those two explanations coexist side by side?

Ah, but knowing how to do the trick renders the explanation “it was pure magic” incorrect. And this brings us back to the question of abiogenesis. Knowing how it could have happened renders the theistic “explanation” unnecessary. As Laplace said to Napoleon (when he asked why does Laplace never mention God in his book about the celestial movements of the planets): “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”. And that is why science is the ultimate “enemy” of religion. It does not prove God’s nonexistence, it renders God irrelevant.

Only if you subscribe to the fanciful idea that the purpose of religion is to explain natural phenomena. Religion is concerned with teleology. Merely explaining how something happens says nothing about why it happens. Despite this, most atheists make the leap that merely explaining something on one level automatically renders any other explanation on a different level incorrect. What I am challenging is this idea that an explanation through material science is the standard for truth, as opposed to being a part of the standard. You still have to prove to me that “why” questions are illegitimate. Your only argument against them seems to be that they are not “how” questions.

Sure thing. Science is concerned with procedural knowledge. And the question is still is: “what other layers of knowledge?”.

The ancient Greek understanding of arete would be a good place to start. However, you will not understand this if you still believe that “why” questions are illegitimate merely because they are not “how” questions. Let’s clear that up first.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is a perfect example of the mindset I am criticizing- why do you assume that lighting is an only is a material phenomena? We perceive beauty in lightning. We also perceive materiality in lighting. On what basis do you say that these two perceptions are one and the same, or that the former explanation must be subsumed by the latter explanation?

Well, to be precise, some people perceive beauty in ligthning - others are frightened by it - some others feel indifferent to it. It is a subjective perception, unique to the individual. So to ask: “why is lightning beautiful?” presupposes that lightning is beautiful. It may be for some people, and it may not be for others.

This is nothing but your own personal assertion. Why is the question “why is chlorophyll green?” illegitimate? Science tells us how chlorophyll is green. On what basis can you argue, in light of your own position, that purpose is not present or that we cannot understand purpose? Why can’t those two explanations coexist side by side?

Because to assume purpose presupposes a conscious agent. Imagine a universe without any life in it. There would be no one to ask or ponder a “telos” or “purpose”. The concept of “purpose” does not even arise - since there is no one who could “ask” this question. Look at an empty planet without any life on it. What kind of “purpose” could there be in a pebble? Look at our world. What is the purpose of a pebble here? Or what is the purpose of the HIV virus?

Only if you subscribe to the fanciful idea that the purpose of religion is to explain natural phenomena. Religion is concerned with teleology. Merely explaining how something happens says nothing about why it happens.

And this is the question: “what is the ‘why’ without a conscious being?”.

Despite this, most atheists make the leap that merely explaining something on one level automatically renders any other explanation on a different level incorrect. What I am challenging is this idea that an explanation through material science is the standard for truth, as opposed to being a part of the standard. You still have to prove to me that “why” questions are illegitimate. Your only argument against them seems to be that they are not “how” questions.

Well, then tell me why is the “why” question relevant. I am willing to listen and learn. Start with a universe without life in it. What is this “purpose” you are speaking of? Because I see none. However, you may show me the error of my thinking. I would appreciate if you would not presuppose God, as this famous double limerick does:

Please solve me this riddle, dear God.
I find it exceedingly odd
That the sycamore tree
Simply ceases to be
When there’s no one around in the quad.

Your perplexity strikes me as odd.
I’m always around in the quad.
And that’s why the tree
Never ceases to be
Yours very sincerely, God.

 

[HelenaMT]

Only if you subscribe to the fanciful idea that the purpose of religion is to explain natural phenomena. Religion is concerned with teleology. Merely explaining how something happens says nothing about why it happens. Despite this, most atheists make the leap that merely explaining something on one level automatically renders any other explanation on a different level incorrect. What I am challenging is this idea that an explanation through material science is the standard for truth, as opposed to being a part of the standard. You still have to prove to me that “why” questions are illegitimate. Your only argument against them seems to be that they are not “how” questions.

I thought about this and found a problem with the idea of ‘why’ questions.

First, I’ll just repeat rdaneel in saying that purpose always implies intelligence of some sort, so I guess many ‘why’ questions are only legitimate to those who entertain at least the *possibility *of an intelligence underlying the universe.

Let’s assume God exists, though. Couldn’t we ask, why does God exist ? The answer from most theologians would probably be, he just IS (the argument from first cause, or some such variation).

So is it possible that God could exist without knowing the reason why He exists? If He has always existed, how could He have a reason to exist, since if there is a reason why, there must be a reason why not? (I guess this is sort of like the infinite regress argument. If God needs no first cause, no *why *,then existence needs no first cause since God is existence itself, according to many philosophers. )

If God couldn’t have not existed, then some things which exist do not or may not need a why. And therefore, not all ‘why’ questions have value- unless you attribute all the ‘whys’ other than God’s existence to God’s design, in which case you will never be able to convince a non-believer that they are valid questions.

So I doubt you can convince rdaneel that why questions are relevant any more than he can convince you that they aren’t. Both require presuppositions-that there is intelligence underlying reality, or that there isn’t.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, to be precise, some people perceive beauty in ligthning - others are frightened by it - some others feel indifferent to it. It is a subjective perception, unique to the individual. So to ask: “why is lightning beautiful?” presupposes that lightning is beautiful. It may be for some people, and it may not be for others.

You say that the perception of beauty is subjective and unique to the individual. Science is exactly the same way under your logic- since individuals perceive science individually.

Of course, I am sure that you will say that most people perceive the moon as a circle. That’s a generally true observation. At the same time, most people find symmetry beautiful. That’s generally true. Just because some people find strange things beautiful or some people think the moon is square does not mean that beauty and shape are subjective- rather, it implies a problem with the observer. While the perception of beauty varies from person to person, so does the perception of science and the physical world. The mere fact that perception varies does not mean that materiality and beauty are subjective as well- for it may well be that there may be a problem with the person doing the perceiving.

So, your argument cuts both ways and does not in of itself prove that beauty cannot be considered alongside shape and materiality as objective things. We don’t need to get too far into specific examples. The point I am trying to make is that we do not have a very good reason to consider material science to be the only layer of knowledge- and that such an approach is not automatic given things in their own being.

Because to assume purpose presupposes a conscious agent. Imagine a universe without any life in it. There would be no one to ask or ponder a “telos” or “purpose”. The concept of “purpose” does not even arise - since there is no one who could “ask” this question. Look at an empty planet without any life on it. What kind of “purpose” could there be in a pebble? Look at our world. What is the purpose of a pebble here? Or what is the purpose of the HIV virus?

Purpose does not presuppose a conscious agent in the sense you are using it. For example, the ancient Greek term for virtue is arete which is best translated as “excellence.” Excellence is that which fulfills the nature of the thing- for example, the arete of a knife would be its sharpness. We do not need a human intent for have knifeness- a sharp blade of rock can have knifeness even if no one intends to use it that way. While science may explain how the rock has sharp edges, this does not mean that we cannot ask “to what is that sharpness directed towards?”

No, it could be that there is no purpose to the world. The question of “why” does not presuppose a certain answer. Nevertheless, what is it in science, in the “how” question, that makes you think the answer to the “why” question is positively in the negative?

Well, then tell me why is the “why” question relevant. I am willing to listen and learn. Start with a universe without life in it. What is this “purpose” you are speaking of? Because I see none. However, you may show me the error of my thinking.

In a basic sense, the why question is critical because merely stating facts through science is relatively pointless unless they have some deeper significance.

I can’t answer your question in the way you have worded it because a lifeless universe is not reality. I can’t show you purpose disconnected from reality- such a purpose would be made up by nature.

However, I think that what you are asking for is purpose without a conscious being desiring it. I’ll start on function. Do you agree that things have functions?

 

[Sarpedon]

First, I’ll just repeat rdaneel in saying that purpose always implies intelligence of some sort, so I guess many ‘why’ questions are only legitimate to those who entertain at least the *possibility *of an intelligence underlying the universe.

Not necessarily, because purpose can be a result of function and not of conscious desire.

If God couldn’t have not existed, then some things which exist do not or may not need a why. And therefore, not all ‘why’ questions have value- unless you attribute all the ‘whys’ other than God’s existence to God’s design, in which case you will never be able to convince a non-believer that they are valid questions.

I never claimed that all “why” questions can or should be answered- I merely argued for the validity of such questioning in the first place. For example, there are some things we cannot know scientifically (Heisenberg uncertainty principal), but that does not impact the validity of scientific inquiry itself. The same goes for the why question. In regards to whether or not the first principal should be God, matter, or something else, that’s the topic for a different thread.