How do I respond to this argument?

[WillP]

WillP:

1. Again except universals have to already be innately known or a person cannot make a universal judgement. Pure empiricism believes that only particular judgements exist.
2. It does not matter how many times something is witnessed, that doesn’t make it a universal. It could have been that that event just happened to meet the same circumstances that many times.
3. I think that the statement ‘murder is wrong’ is as much of a truth as E=MC 2. I cannot conceive a moral society that does not consider murder to be wrong. Therefore I conclude that it is a universal truth. I think that is difficult for materialist philosophy to accept (which in itself proves it to be true) so explanations are given such as ‘murder is considered wrong because society over time says it so’ but that statement doesn’t indicate that there is anthing truly wrong with murder only that society at this time happens to think it is wrong. So it would be theoretically possible for there to be a proper society that didn’t consider murder to be wrong, but im my mind that is ridiculous.

I cannot add anything more without repeating myself. It seems simple enough to me that what you call “an innately knowable” is merely a judgment and not a “truth” in the sense that einstein’s famous equation is a truth. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

[cc42]

WillP:

Perhaps, but I think that to make a judgement of anything that goes beyond declaring one instantiation of it is a universal judgement which empiricism doesn’t have the authority to declare. Even something like Einstein’s laws if declared as universal are not something that empiricism could say are something that ‘always apply.’ It falls into the classic problem of induction. Which of course shouldn’t be a problem if we accept Aristotelian causes but that would take us outside of pure empiricism.

 

[WillP]

WillP:

Perhaps, but I think that to make a judgement of anything that goes beyond declaring one instantiation of it is a universal judgement which empiricism doesn’t have the authority to declare. Even something like Einstein’s laws if declared as universal are not something that empiricism could say are something that ‘always apply.’ It falls into the classic problem of induction. Which of course shouldn’t be a problem if we accept Aristotelian causes but that would take us outside of pure empiricism.

OK. Let’s continue the discussion. I’m hooked on argument, I guess.

After reading your last post, of course, you are correct—but only in a hyper-technical sense. Here is why it is hyper-technical and why I think it is unproductive to rely upon whatever you base the truth of “Aristotelian causes”"

1. I realize that induction speaks solely to the observations made of a number of instances (say a billion balls dropping to the ground) and then arriving at the “truth” of gravity. Clearly, of course, the one billionenth and one ball might or could, in the abstract, float and “poof” there goes the universal law of gravity. So, in that sense you are right, namely that inductive reasoning does not rule out all possibilities. in arriving at its “truths”.
2. You, however, offer no better means of arriving at "truth. You seem to want to replace the ambiguity of empiricism (i.e. the possibility of that one billionenth and one ball perhaps floating) with deductive reasoning. But the problem is that it is never testable. Inductiive reaoning is always testable, and, in fact that is how science is refined. Newtonian physics, for example, are not as descriptive of how gravity works as Einstein’s. Furthermore, the “quantum revolution”, as it were, promises to further refine our understanding of physicss beyond that even of Albert’s vision.

3 I also suggest to you that deductive reasoning is ultimately only as good as the observations which comprise its premises. So, in that sense, even deductive reasoning is hinged to inductive reasoning. For example, consider this deductive syllogism:

a. Off in the distance I see smoke.
b. Where there is smoke there is fire
c. Thus, there is fire over there in the distance.

That is clearly a deductive exercise—just as Thomas’ reasoned syllogisms were regarding cause and effect. But yet, it depends on the “truth” of the premise that smoke is where fire is, and, if a one billionenth observation of a smokey place shows something other that fire, then poof there goes the underlying basis for the conclusion. The deductive conclusion is also not testable because its premise ( i.e. smoke equals fire) is assumed and thus not subjected to testing.

1. Thomas made the assumption (based on inductive processes) that for every cause there is an effect;and/or for evey effect there is a cause. Yet we now see by means of empirical processes that in the quantum world particles spring in and out of existence without the causative influences we observe in the macro world.
2. I submit therefore that all valid reasoning is, in one way or another, linked to inductive processes of logic and that Thomas’ arguments, compelling though they may have been in the world before science came to hold sway, now are somewhat antequated and much less commanding than they were in the 14th century.

Regards,

 

[Touchstone]

WillP:

Perhaps, but I think that to make a judgement of anything that goes beyond declaring one instantiation of it is a universal judgement which empiricism doesn’t have the authority to declare. Even something like Einstein’s laws if declared as universal are not something that empiricism could say are something that ‘always apply.’ It falls into the classic problem of induction. Which of course shouldn’t be a problem if we accept Aristotelian causes but that would take us outside of pure empiricism.

Problems, like the “problem of induction” (or, in a more modern, applied sense, Goodman’s Paradox/grue/bleen), are features, not bugs. Signs of epistemic strength and reasoning ground in real-world feedback loops.

“Accepting Aristotelian causes” is to jump right off the rails. That’s just reckless un uncritical embrace of unaccountable intuitions and superstitions. One would look longingly back at the Hume’s problems, for they are real, engaged, and run the hazards of dealing with real world propositions, and the risk that these ideas might be falsified or shown to be thoroughly problematic. Aristotelian metaphysics are an abdication of such commitments, a “cop out” that embraces a non-answer as an artificial means of avoiding epistemic difficulties.

Induction is problematic, but it’s also attached to our real world feedback loops. First Causes and final causes are not, and are merely tautologies in comparison to the epistemic problems the empiricist must engage. They are trivializing lines of thought.

More broadly, and I’m always surprised that this needs to be pointed out, “I just know” may be a strong intuition, but it’s not a warrant, and in cases like the question of universals, it most certainly can be denied without logical contradictions. That is not the case with the question of external stimuli and perception, for example. It’s self-evidence is not logically deniable, and one must affirm it even to take up the task of denying it. That gets left in, because it cannot be logically left out.

The question of universals and related questions like translational symmetry in nature are great examples of what is NOT self-evident. These are abstract concepts, with various competing hypotheses, many of which are mutually exclusive with respect to each other.

For the scientific thinker, and I guess more generally, just the serious thinker, guarantees and “always applies” are artificial and unreasonable requirements. We live by induction, as problematic as it is, because it works, and is practically effective, even though and despite our inability to provide certainty for such a metaphysical hypothesis, or exhaustive demonstration of that fact, as a fact, a posteriori.

I’m not sure what “pure empiricism” is, but embracing Aristotle’s notions of (metaphysical) causality doesn’t just push one out of any “pure” form of empiricism, such a commitment undermines the foundations of all empirical epistemology.

-TS

 

[cc42]

WillP:

I am not contesting how science should be conducted, I am only saying that that form of inductive reasoning does not allow us to arrive at ultimate conclusions. I am trying to distinguish between scientific as in emprical investigation and metaphysical investigation. Empirical investiagation can allow us to know things based upon already accepted premises but don’t tell us about the nature of reality.

The four Aristotelian causes were never refuted by science and science implicitly accepts them. All effects ultimately must lead back to a cause. If you want to say that quantum indeterminancy allows for things to appear seemingly uncaused, ok but that process is ultimately dependent upon some cause.

 

[WillP]

WillP:

I am not contesting how science should be conducted, I am only saying that that form of inductive reasoning does not allow us to arrive at ultimate conclusions. I am trying to distinguish between scientific as in emprical investigation and metaphysical investigation. Empirical investiagation can allow us to know things based upon already accepted premises but don’t tell us about the nature of reality.

The four Aristotelian causes were never refuted by science and science implicitly accepts them. All effects ultimately must lead back to a cause. If you want to say that quantum indeterminancy allows for things to appear seemingly uncaused, ok but that process is ultimately dependent upon some cause.

You recognize the concept of an uncaused cause, don’t you? At least that’s what your theology claims in the case of god.

If the concept is, therefore, possible in the case of a “Person”, why could it not be the case simply that “impersonal being” is uncaused. Stated another way, and, this may sound a bit Clinton-esque, but, why could it not be the case that “is” is?

My proposition may be something like what Lawrence Krauss posits as “something from nothing”, if you are familiar with his work and writings.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

That the universe had a beginning in time is an article of Faith. You cannot demonstrate it. St. Thomas felt that the preponderance of the evidence pointed to a beginning in time but there was nearly as good reasons on the other side. His arguments for the existence of God assumed ( for the sake of argument only ) that the universe always existed. The point is that eventhough he made this assumption the universe still required a creator, one who was eternally creating, moving his creation to act, and here and now sustaining its existence and direction it to its proper end.

Don’t worry about some of the slings and arrows of these folks, they are just needling you. You can always point them to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Much of what we hold is by faith, nothing wrong with that and you dobn’t have to appologize for that at all. The certitude of faith is far greater than any other certitude because it is gruaranteed by the Son of God Himself - can’t get any better that that.

I make it a point of never debating with these types, since it is useless.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

That the universe had a beginning in time is an article of Faith. You cannot demonstrate it. St. Thomas felt that the preponderance of the evidence pointed to a beginning in time but there was nearly as good reasons on the other side. His arguments for the existence of God assumed ( for the sake of argument only ) that the universe always existed. The point is that eventhough he made this assumption the universe still required a creator, one who was eternally creating, moving his creation to act, and here and now sustaining its existence and direction it to its proper end.

Don’t worry about some of the slings and arrows of these folks, they are just needling you. You can always point them to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Much of what we hold is by faith, nothing wrong with that and you dobn’t have to appologize for that at all. The certitude of faith is far greater than any other certitude because it is gruaranteed by the Son of God Himself - can’t get any better that that.

I make it a point of never debating with these types, since it is useless.

Boy, this is turning hot…I must jump into the fray !!!

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

Perhaps the better explanation for my departure from the faith of my upbringing is not so much based upon evidence, but, rather, upon the “the lack of evidence” for the claims of christianity.

The claims of christianity, you have to admit, are rather extreme. I think we come to believe these things in one of two ways. Certainly, if one is taught to accept christianity’s claims from the cradle, then those claims become inculcated in much the same way as Islam or communismm is introduced into young minds. And in that way beliefs, even if otherwise of a bizarre nature, become a background worldview that allows easy acceptance of certain claims. Such an acceptance also facilitates one to migrate from similarly situated traditions to others (baptist to catholic or methodist to lutheran, and, even exchange among “peoples of the book” such as christian to muslum, for example). As a second means, if one is disadvantaged, educationally or by inability to critically think or reason, such as, in an extreme case, where one is unlucky enough to live in an impoverished part of the world and much limited by educational opportunities, and, then encounters a sophisticated and educated group of missionaries who bring medical cures and technological marvels, such beliefs can be easily purveyed as they borrow on the credibility of modernity’s marvels. Yet, I would argue that if one is raised without the inculcated beliefs and is still given the benefits of classical learning and is grounded in science, that person will not convert to a system of doctrines so contrived and so laden with bizarre notions as inspired writings transmitted from a diety, or, that men/gods can save mankind from an original sin through redemptive suffering, or, that wine and bread are anything other than what they are at their chemical level, or, that men rise from the dead and that there is an accounting based on judeo/christian ethics at the end of time. All of this is simply magical thinking.

I also believe that the universe and the human condition both offer rich and profound questions for exploration, study and consideration. That we dwell in a finely tuned universe cries out for an explanation, for example, or, what is the nature of human consciousness? is there a “self” independent of the physical? What is a proper and rational ethos? But these are questions that are not answered by Christianity or any “faith”. Christians, in fact, think they have the answers,and, that we need to have more people, that we should go out and convert more of us, that ritualistic magic will placate a diety and invoke responses to our prayers and otherwise bring about a peace and resolution to the human condition. I disagree. I think the “book should not be closed on” the many questions and issues confronting us. The response of faith to these questions only promote more misery, more poverty, more impoverishment, particularly now as we encounter 7 billion of us now on this planet with deminishing resources. More wars, more famine, more poverty and yet there remains the stubborn resistence of people of faith to depart from their tired antiquated beliefs and turn to science and a rational basis for resolution of the many issues we have to deal with on a pratical level as well as the philosopical questions of who we are and what is reality?

1. Yes, there is a “the lack of evidence” in Christianity. But there is something else where we draw out knowledge: Faith which is more powerful than Science. Faith tells you the future, 1 million years from now, as Science dies with death.
2. Upbringings are not equal. If you were raised by Mother Theresa of Calcutta or by Hitler makes a lot of difference. Upbringings are not equal. In the old times, some tribes raised their children to be anthropophagi.
3. So, what science we must turn to? The one which created the atomic bomb, the arms of mass destruction, all the armies sophisticated killing machines, which caused the ozone layer depletion, the global warming, and I am not going to make a list out of it. In the XIX, there was an deep belief with Julius Verne that science would make a Paradise on Earth. Now, it is simply naive.
4. Scientific knowledge is limited for it ends on death. And 1 million years from now, hwat will we be doing ?

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

It is curious certainly how christianity arose and was adopted into the empire. Pagan beliefs seem to have influenced its original form as it initially was a sect within judiasm, and, then with its introduction to the Western empire it seems to have taken on some of the characteristics of the mystery cults prevalent at the time. People were slow to depart from belief in the family and traditional gods, but, eventually had to do so under decree of Theodosious in the fifth century.

After the fall of Rome and the incursion of germanic tribes, church hierarcy modeled after Rome’s structure, did certainly keep western culture alive particulaly during the dark era that followed Rome’s collaspe. When Europe emerged from the dark ages the Church was pretty much the only game in town and certainly it soon became tyrannical and authoratarian for a good many decades until the protestant reformation broke the stanglehold on the church’s absolute power and there was some lessening of its strength.

Altogether the long life of the church appears to have been a function of the organization that Europe needed and that the church was able to provide, undoubtedly enhanced by what seems to be the pallative affects of religion and the inclination of people to resort to supernatural powers in times of crisis, and, of course in mideval Europe there was plenty of misery to share.

As we become more advanced and technologically proficient, better educated and more sophisticated, these beliefs may begin to winnow away. The secularization of the west certainly suggests such a movement, but, regrettably, the secularization we experience is accompanied by nothing sufficient to replace the ethos (morality) inspired by the judeo/hristian ethic. That is part of the reason I think we need to upgrade the quality of life for a much smaller population before religion is abandoned altogether.

Religion be abandoned altogether. Many people tried before you. Christianity was attacked from all corners.
2000 years of Catholic History do not convince you that no one will kill the Catholic Church? The 100 years brutal experience with communist, which destroyed 3000 Churches, killed 300 million people, erased the Christian Faith from its boundaries and them… poof the magic dragon…simply imploded without anyone touching it, that did not convince you?
The history of St. Basilius in the Red Square, for me, it is enough to convince that Christ is the King over whom no one will win. It was destroyed by the Communists so that the tanks could parade easier in the Red Square. After the implosion of Communism, the great-grand-sons of those persecuted, those who lived always in the brainstorming regime, raised with their poor salaries enough money to re-construct the Church at exactly its original plan. It is simply moving for me.
If communism with its brainstorming ways, its atomic bombs and its inner evil could not win, no one will win over the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Leader of Leaders, Jesus Christ.

 

[cc42]

WillP:

I know that Krauss argues for an uncaused universe (or at least it seems that way) which I think is logically contradictroy and like arguing for a square circle.

I am not arguing that all things are caused EXCEPT God. I am arguing that all effects have a cause but God is not an effect. I am also arguing that all motion extends from something that is potential and then actualised. But if this were true for everything then we would have an inifnite number of things an a potential unmoved state and nothing would be in motion! This can’t be, so something must always be acting in motion (metaphysical motion that is) and this is God.

 

[cc42]

Touchstone:

Goodman’s paradox is unsolvable for pure empiricists.

Hume’s answers and ‘problems’ are only because he rejected Aristotelian causes which are obvious and logically required to make sense of the world.

The problem of induction has no solution, it is unsolvable because once you reject Aristotelian causes then epistimology becomes nonsense along with the rest of making sense of the world

Affirming pure empiricism to be true (by this I mean rejecting universals), is itself making a universal statement.

I recommend that you read the book the Last Superstition by Edward Feser and see what you think, it isn’t too long and a good read that I think you would enjoy engainging with.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

Touchstone:

Goodman’s paradox is unsolvable for pure empiricists.

Hume’s answers and ‘problems’ are only because he rejected Aristotelian causes which are obvious and logically required to make sense of the world.

The problem of induction has no solution, it is unsolvable because once you reject Aristotelian causes then epistimology becomes nonsense along with the rest of making sense of the world

Affirming pure empiricism to be true (by this I mean rejecting universals), is itself making a universal statement.

I recommend that you read the book the Last Superstition by Edward Feser and see what you think, it isn’t too long and a good read that I think you would enjoy engainging with.

One day Goodman’s paradox will be no more.
But I am a liar…

 

[cc42]

Needtostop:

Essentially the argument is saying that imagine something like sack with a rope tied to it, somone has to pull the rope no matter how long it is. The person at the end has to be outside of the principles that apply to the other objects. So it doesn’t matter how long the rope is, the person at the end doesn’t need to be ‘pulled’.

 

[cc42]

andremiguel:

yeah that makes sense thanks

 

[PoorKnight]

Yet, I would argue that if one is raised without the inculcated beliefs and is still given the benefits of classical learning and is grounded in science, that person will not convert to a system of doctrines so contrived and so laden with bizarre notions as inspired writings transmitted from a diety, or, that men/gods can save mankind from an original sin through redemptive suffering, or, that wine and bread are anything other than what they are at their chemical level, or, that men rise from the dead and that there is an accounting based on judeo/christian ethics at the end of time. All of this is simply magical thinking.

I am no where near schooled enough in philosophy to contribute much, but I have been trying to follow each post.

To me, Will, this is the flaw in your argument. People do convert from this position. That is observable. Staunch sceptics, militiant aetheists and ‘No religion’ types - raised that way, with higher educations based on science and knowing ‘all the arguments’ - do convert.

More wars, more famine, more poverty and yet there remains the stubborn resistence of people of faith to depart from their tired antiquated beliefs and turn to science and a rational basis for resolution of the many issues we have to deal with on a pratical level as well as the philosopical questions of who we are and what is reality?

Yes we are stubborn. And as you have just pointed out, stubbonness is observable. Why are we stubborn? I mean there’s this “overwhelming lack of evidence” yet, we remain. Why is that? We’re higher educated, have read the same books you have - well some of us have, I haven’t - yet we still Believe. Beyond all the so-called ‘evidence’ we Believe.

Why? What do they possess that allows them to endure ridicule, being mocked, tortured and killed for their “magical thinking”. No reasonable explaination exists. Oh their are explainations, but it doesn’t fit with what “good science” says should happen.

These questions will always bother you. You will not admit it, but they will.

That’s all I got. Rip away - I cannot contribute any further than this.

God Bless You Will, I will pray for you. Please pray for me.