Is it a mortal sin

[Mark1124]

This is good stuff, but new to me. Will have to read your links. I only went according to the guidelines what Dostoyevskyfan suggested. Maybe I will repeat the process using your guidelines, as well. Could you tell me in detail what am I to do contemplating those questions?

One short remark. These “special” circumstances are interesting, but I am certain that none of them is “necessary”. If God does not accept an honest, but solitary prayer, then he is one strange being. I thought that honesty is the only important guideline, and the frills are just “icing on the cake”.

It’s pretty simple. You just try to picture each scene and, if possible, try to picture yourself present at the event. Since the links I gave have a meditation to contemplate while saying each Hail Mary, it is surprisingly easy to stay focused.I usually contemplate the picture during the Our Father and the spiritual fruit for the mystery during the Glory Be.

I never said God doesn’t accept a solitary prayer, I said that some forms of prayer are more effective than others. Jesus said “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20) That doesn’t mean he’s not there when we’re alone, but it does mean there is something special about praying as a group.

 

[Spock]

Yes, a summary. You answer your own question. There are many other reasons why such a proof would not be offered in the Catechism as well.

Ok. I don’t think so, but let’s have it your way. Now the question is: “Is there any, official, infallible teaching anywhere pertaining to this question?”. Did the Catholic Church ever, anywhere put down the detailed, offical, infallible method just HOW can we ascertain the God’s existence without referring to faith?

The concepts those proofs were built upon are not inextricably attached to the nature of space and time (that is one reason why the arguments are so interesting). The proofs in question are not scientific nor philosophical hypotheses, but strict philosophical demonstrations.

There are two possibilities. One is that the basis of those demonstrations is firmly grounded in reality, in which case their veracity can be substanitated by real physics. Or they are grounded in pure speculation, in which case they are meaningless.

I will include this because there is a good probability that it will be of some benefit (I admit I am making a further assumption): “The claim that science is the sole criterion for truth cannot itself be reached by the scientific method.”

And it is not necessary. I have seen this “non-argument” so many times. First, you switched from metaphysics to epistemology here. Not the same thing at all! Second, your proposition is true, but meaningless. Explanation follows right here, below.

If you use the phrase “scientific method” as a shortcut of “observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify” then obviously it does not apply to itself, because that method only pertains to actual, physical reality - and not the epistemology employed there. Consider for a second. The laws of logic cannot be “proven” by logic. The concept of deduction cannot be proven in a deductive fashion. The concept of induction is not provable inductively. None of the basic methods and axioms are “provable”. After all “proving” something is to reduce it something even more fundamental - and there is nothing more fundamental than the basic methods and axioms. The “problem” you mentioned is not a “problem” at all. The scientific method is substantiated by its results - a-posteriori, not by some a-priori “speculation”. There is no other method pertaining to actual, physical reality that could compete. This scientific method was not reached by some speculating philosopher contemplating his belly-button in an ivory tower. It is distilled from the millions of experiments during the ages. As always, the question is: “does your method work?”. If it works, then we shall use it. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

The methods dealing with abstract, non-physical systems are different, they are deductive, after having selected some arbitrary axioms. And that method cannot be “proven” deductively, either.

As far as “metaphysics” goes, that is all. There is actual, physical reality, and there are abstract, non-physical systems. The ways and means to separate true propositions from false ones is NOT the same, and not expected to be the same. This is where the atheists stop.

Now, theists assert that there is different kind of “reality”, too. It is not physical, but not conceptual either. Yet, it is supposed to interact with the physical reality, and we can also interact with it - via prayers. Just what this kind of “reality” is this, how can we know about it is not specified (supposedly via revelation, or - as the Catholic Church says, by using only natural reason. How that natural reason is supposed to work, is not specified). How does this reality interact with our reality is unknown, and unknowable. The best “explanation” is that this reality employs something akin to “magic”, but they vehemently deny that it is “magic”. All sorts of different kinds of theists assert a different kind of reality, and they cannot even agree among themselves. The major problem is that there is no epistemology presented, by which we can separate a true proposition from a false one. Mostly they offer “faith” as an epistemological method - whatever that might be.

So, thanks, but no, thanks. Come up with a precise metaphysics, tell us the epistemological method which we can employ, and then we shall be able to draw our own conclusions. We can conduct our own experiments, and verify if your predictions can be substantiated. Remember, metaphysics is speculation, epistemology is the king! If you cannot offer a method to separate the wheat from the chaff, all your speculations remain empty.

 

[Spock]

It’s pretty simple. You just try to picture each scene and, if possible, try to picture yourself present at the event. Since the links I gave have a meditation to contemplate while saying each Hail Mary, it is surprisingly easy to stay focused.I usually contemplate the picture during the Our Father and the spiritual fruit for the mystery during the Glory Be.

I never said God doesn’t accept a solitary prayer, I said that some forms of prayer are more effective than others. Jesus said “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20) That doesn’t mean he’s not there when we’re alone, but it does mean there is something special about praying as a group.

Ok. Will report back when I am done. Might a little while.

 

[Shike]

Ok. I don’t think so, but let’s have it your way. Now the question is: “Is there any, official, infallible teaching anywhere pertaining to this question?”. Did the Catholic Church ever, anywhere put down the detailed, offical, infallible method just HOW can we ascertain the God’s existence without referring to faith?

I’m sorry that you have been “burned” one too many times by Catholics pulling the “show me it’s an infallible teaching” card. Catholics should know better. We are supposed to follow Christ through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. It’s usually pretty simple to figure out what is doctrine and what is heresy. Now I’m not denying that there exist infallible pronouncements, I’m only saying that Catholics need not an infallible pronouncement for everything to know that it’s true and should be followed.

There are two possibilities. One is that the basis of those demonstrations is firmly grounded in reality, in which case their veracity can be substanitated by real physics. Or they are grounded in pure speculation, in which case they are meaningless.

First point is for you to recognize that pure speculation isn’t meaningless… it’s just not very likely to be true. Second point is that what you present is a false dichotomy: there exist other options. We can analyze some of the basic structures of experience and reason to true conclusions by utilizing the laws of logic.

And it is not necessary. I have seen this “non-argument” so many times. First, you switched from metaphysics to epistemology here. Not the same thing at all! Second, your proposition is true, but meaningless. Explanation follows right here, below.

First point is for you to recognize that if something is true, then it is not meaningless. And yes I did switch to epistemology… so what. I am not trying to make a further conclusion from the first part of my post. I was only providing a helpful tool for those who might suffer from a certain way of thinking. That’s all.

If you use the phrase “scientific method” …{SNIP}…There is no other method pertaining to actual, physical reality that could compete.

Yes, I agree with you. You make a good point. The scientific method seems to be the best method for the job. Of course, we need to be clear on what kind of job we are dealing with. My point is that someone shouldn’t use the scientific method as an ideology, to filter what can be true and not, simpliciter, wholly. That of course would be self-refuting. Perhaps you do not fall into this error, though some of your comments tend to lead this way.

The methods dealing with abstract, non-physical systems are different, they are deductive, after having selected some arbitrary axioms. And that method cannot be “proven” deductively, either.

I don’t understand the label non-physical system in relation to the five ways of Aquinas. They are aposteriori arguments starting from very basic observations about the world. If instead you are talking about the reasoning process as a non-physical system… I still do not find the relevance.

Now, theists assert that there is different kind of “reality”, too. It is not physical, but not conceptual either.

I would say all of physical reality is shot through with immaterial forms, it’s what makes objects what they are—not quite the same as what an object is made of. And the foundation for such a belief isn’t mere speculation either. You need at least a certain number of principles to accurately describe the world we live in. But no, not everything immaterial is God. Neither do I think one could prove that God is the only immaterial being.

The major problem is that there is no epistemology presented, by which we can separate a true proposition from a false one. Mostly they offer “faith” as an epistemological method - whatever that might be.

Use reason and the laws of logic. I am not talking about theology proper here which starts from revelation and uses reason to attain further conclusions. I am talking about philosophy which can use basic observations about reality and the laws of logic to deduce necessary truths. And you are right to put the word “faith” in quotes… it is not often understood very well.

Remember, metaphysics is speculation, epistemology is the king**!** If you cannot offer a method to separate the wheat from the chaff, all your speculations remain empty.

Metaphysics can be mere speculation, or it can be grounded in reality. Epistemology is not quite the king, though it is very important. For instance, isn’t it a necessary truth that something has to exist before it can think?

I almost thought I was dealing with a Kantian for a second…

Thanks for the mostly kind and well-thought out response.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

Yes, I agree with you. You make a good point. The scientific method seems to be the best method for the job. Of course, we need to be clear on what kind of job we are dealing with. My point is that someone shouldn’t use the scientific method as an ideology, to filter what can be true and not, simpliciter, wholly. That of course would be self-refuting. Perhaps you do not fall into this error, though some of your comments tend to lead this way.

Maybe I was not clear enough. I never stated or believed that the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-experiment-verify - shall we call it OHEV?) is the one and only method to arrive at a true proposition (I would rather not use the generic word “truth”, because it is too vague). Also I would point out that hypotheses of science are not “proven”, they are substantiated to a certain degree. (I have no idea which remark of mine triggered your assessment that “some of my remarks tended to lead to that conclusion”. If you would be so kind and point them out, I could clarify the misunderstanding.)

Second, when I was talking about abstract systems, I meant the axiomatic structures like mathematics, formal logic, and also abstract games (like chess) etc… In these “mind-games” if you prefer, one proves propositions, by reducing them to the axioms. Let me point out that the axioms can be anything. The only requirement is that they should not contradict each other.

There are also propositions, which pertain to the past. Since the past cannot be examined directly, the usual scientific method does not work. There is no surefire way to separate true and false statements about the past. We must rely on testimonials, but as we all know (or should know) this is a very unreliable method. No need to go into it at this moment.

Now, the epistemology should be clear. If I need to clarify something further, let me know.

The question is still there: are these two types of reality - physical and conceptual - all there is? Theists think otherwise.

I have never seen a rigorous definition of what this type of reality might be. Words like “spiritual existence” mean nothing to me.

Use reason and the laws of logic. I am not talking about theology proper here which starts from revelation and uses reason to attain further conclusions. I am talking about philosophy which can use basic observations about reality and the laws of logic to deduce necessary truths. And you are right to put the word “faith” in quotes… it is not often understood very well.

Sounds good. As I said before, if one observes physical reality, employs logical thinking starting with the so-far-known laws of nature, and finds something that points “beyond” the physical existence then it would be a good start. Of course this line of method should avoid all the logicall fallacies. Insofar, I have never seen such an analysis. All of them contained some logical fallacy, sometimes several ones.

Next, a philospoher should be well-versed in the latest achievements of theoretical physics, and build his structure upon that. Imagine, someone coming forward today and presenting a perfect analysis which would logically lead to the unquestionable existence of God (no fallacies either) but he bases his structure upon the assumption that there are 4 basic elements: air, water, fire and earth! Can you imagine the uproar of laughter? I wish to stress this: “if metaphysics is not supported by real physics, it is useless”. Moreover, if real physics contradicts the offered metaphyics, then the metaphysics is worse than useless, it is “intellectually criminal” (sorry for the poetic language).

A real example is that according to our current knowledge (with the admitted caveat that it is never complete) causation is the actual exchange of elementary particles, and also that within the micro-world there is no strict causation. Now, this may or may not be the final word, but as of today, any philosopher who wishes to state otherwise, should be “banished”. There is no “causative” relationship without STEM being present (space-time-energy-matter). As such the proposed “first cause” is nonsensical. The old philosophers (Aristotele, Aquinas, etc) had no idea what the physical reality is all about. They merely speculated about it, and their speculation has been rendered irrelevant due to the development of actual physics. They thought that there is an absolute space and time, and our blob of matter is “floating” within it. They could not have imagined that there is no space and time without matter-energy. For them the question “what happened before the universe?”, or “what is outside the universe?” were prefectly legitimate, valid questions. Today we know that such questions are nonsensical.

So, if anyone wishes to create an acceptable metaphysics, which would include the “supernatural”, they have their task cut out for them. They had better forget about Aristotele, Aquinas etc… and start from scratch.

But even if this endeavor would be successful, and the non-physical and non-abstract reality would be established (thus leading to some unspecified creator), then the question of epistemology really raises its head. You said that it is based upon revelation. There is no such thing as revelation, there are only old, unsubstantiated stories about some alleged revelation. Furthermore these stories are highly implausible, and they do not present any guidelines, how to separate a true proposition from a false one. I am only aware of one so-called “epistemological method” (the quotes are intentional to express skepticism), namely the authority driven method. Some self-proclaimed authority (for example the Catholic Church) declares that proposition “A” is true, while proposition “B” is false. That is it. Needless to say such an epistemological “method” is just a joke.

 

[Shike]

Maybe I was not clear enough. I never stated or believed that the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-experiment-verify - shall we call it OHEV?) is the one and only method to arrive at a true proposition (I would rather not use the generic word “truth”, because it is too vague). Also I would point out that hypotheses of science are not “proven”, they are substantiated to a certain degree. (I have no idea which remark of mine triggered your assessment that “some of my remarks tended to lead to that conclusion”. If you would be so kind and point them out, I could clarify the misunderstanding.)

You are right that you did not say you believe in Scientism and I did not pretend that you did; I was careful to label my mere conjecture. And you are right about the hypotheses of science not being “proven”, in the strict formal sense. Now why I say that some of your statements seem to suggest Scientism is that whenever I talk about observation and experience you seem to automatically think laws-of-nature. Since science helps discover the laws of nature (or regularities if you prefer), you can now understand why I made the mere conjecture that I did: you kept bringing the discussion back to science when I had no intention of doing so. Instead, I am talking about things much more fundamental, things so fundamental that they would have to exist for any possible law of nature to exist.

Second, when I was talking about abstract systems, I meant the axiomatic structures like mathematics, formal logic, and also abstract games (like chess) etc… In these “mind-games” if you prefer, one proves propositions, by reducing them to the axioms. Let me point out that the axioms can be anything. The only requirement is that they should not contradict each other.

But such axioms cannot just be anything when describing the world we live in.

Now, the epistemology should be clear. If I need to clarify something further, let me know.

Thank you.

The question is still there: are these two types of reality - physical and conceptual - all there is? Theists think otherwise.

Physical and conceptual; I might need a more rigorous definition of these from you before I jump in because as I stated before, I would say that the physical is shot through with an immaterial aspect, integral to its nature. I will wait before I say more.

Sounds good. As I said before, if one observes physical reality, employs logical thinking starting with the so-far-known laws of nature**,** and finds something that points “beyond” the physical existence then it would be a good start. Of course this line of method should avoid all the logicall fallacies. Insofar, I have never seen such an analysis. All of them contained some logical fallacy, sometimes several ones.

This is another statement from you that seems to lead to Scientism, as I explained above. I will assume that you have in mind certain philosophical arguments that include Aquinas’ five ways. Please realize that since you don’t understand the nature of the kind of proofs such philosophers are engaging in (at least in the case of Aquinas), then it is almost certain that you do not/will not understand the proofs themselves.

“if metaphysics is not supported by real physics, it is useless”.

Garbage. This statement is more Scientism. Again, the arguments in question attack a more fundamental level of reality, one that would have to exist for any possible physics to exist.

A real example is that according to our current knowledge (with the admitted caveat that it is never complete) causation is the actual exchange of elementary particles, and also that within the micro-world there is no strict causation.

Fine. But realize philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas are using a technical term when either of them mentions “causation”, a term that doesn’t really care about physics. Therefore, if this is the understanding of causation that you brought into the reading of the arguments of Aquinas, you never really gave the arguments a fair shake and you weren’t able to understand them.

continued…

 

[Shike]

They thought that there is an absolute space and time, and our blob of matter is “floating” within it.

Maybe you should deal with the arguments instead of attacking the messenger. The very fact that the philosopher and mathematician Leibniz argued for relational space and also (separately) argued for a cosmological type argument (somewhat along Aristotelian and Thomistic lines) should make you think twice that maybe both arguments deal with different levels of reality. Aquinas understood the differences between scientific theory and metaphysics proper. I can provide a sample passage that shows such if you like.

But even if this endeavor would be successful, and the non-physical and non-abstract reality would be established (thus leading to some unspecified creator), then the question of epistemology really raises its head. You said that it is based upon revelation. There is no such thing as revelation…

The traditional arguments conclude with a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, one, immutable, ect. They describe a being that just so happens to fit with the Judeo/Christian God of the Bible. I make no claim that there is no leap of faith required in being Christian; there is.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, however. I think it is a worthy goal if in general our culture was brought back to the sure moors of philosophy (of course not the mental gymnastics that has come to characterize most of philosophy).

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

Physical and conceptual; I might need a more rigorous definition of these from you before I jump in because as I stated before, I would say that the physical is shot through with an immaterial aspect, integral to its nature. I will wait before I say more.

Physical reality is STEM. Concepts are formed about STEM, or about other concepts. What is there to explain? You are right, that there are attributes and relationships for the physical objects, too. Relationships and attributes are not ontological objects themselves. A “distance” between objects is not a material object. If you wish we can call them “immaterial” aspects, but they are firmly grounded in physical reality. There is no “before” or “after”, “in front of” or “behind” without referring to physical objects. We have physical objects, attributes of physical objects and relationships between physical obects. The attributes and the relationships are not material objects, but they are contingent upon the physical, material objects.

This is another statement from you that seems to lead to Scientism, as I explained above.

Incorrect. Scientism would mean that axiomatic systems are also subject to the OHEV method, which they are not. So you can safely forget about that label. If you wish to talk about physicalism, or materialism, then you are correct.

Garbage. This statement is more Scientism. Again, the arguments in question attack a more fundamental level of reality, one that would have to exist for any possible physics to exist.

Not scientism, realism. Your own exact words were: “I am talking about philosophy which can use basic observations about reality and the laws of logic to deduce necessary truths”. You, yourself stipulated observations about reality. If that reality can be observed, then it MUST be physical reality. If the word “reality” means actual, physical reality, then you had better stick with real physics, before you start to speculate. If your useage of “reality” is not the physical reality, then your usage is unclear. You cannot “observe” non-physical “reality”, whatever that word might mean. Non-physical “reality” is the final goal for the theist to establish. You cannot introduce this “non-physical reality” into the premises, because that would lead to circular reasoning.

I agreed that the suggested method of observing actual, physical reality is the starting point. I agreed that from that points onward we shall use reason and logic to get to further true propositions. So I suggest you stick to your own proposed method.

Fine. But realize philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas are using a technical term when either of them mentions “causation”, a term that doesn’t really care about physics.

And, pray tell, what does it mean then? You cannot de-couple a term from its usage and expect to be understood in the new, unspecified meaning. What is that “causation” then? Magic? I wave my hand and “cause” a new galaxy to pop up from nonexistence?

Therefore, if this is the understanding of causation that you brought into the reading of the arguments of Aquinas, you never really gave the arguments a fair shake and you weren’t able to understand them.

If you wish to get into the details, I will be happy to listen. But I am completely uninterested in diving into some centuries old text, trying to decipher what a term might have meant to them. It is sheer gobbledegook - as far as I am concerned. But, if you take the time and effort, and translate it into modern terminology, I will be delighted to get into a conversation. But, again, use your own suggested method, and start from the observed, physical reality!

 

[Shike]

Incorrect. Scientism would mean that axiomatic systems are also subject to the OHEV method, which they are not. So you can safely forget about that label. If you wish to talk about physicalism, or materialism, then you are correct.

I know that Scientism is false; I see that you also think Scientism is false; I was only commenting about what certain sentences of yours seemed to suggest.

Not scientism, realism. Your own exact words were: “*I am talking about philosophy which can ****use basic observations about *reality and the laws of logic to deduce necessary truths”. You, yourself stipulated observations about reality. If that reality can be observed, then it MUST be physical reality. If the word “reality” means actual, physical reality, then you had better stick with real physics, before you start to speculate.

You equate observation and experience with OHEV; I do not. Observation on the macro scale, what you and I observe every day, can be a starting point for philosophy. From there one can analyze and discover necessary principles for existence in general (such as the laws of logic) but also less general principles such as those that are required for any kind of change to be possible. Therefore any detailed analysis that physics uncovers or can possibly uncover will presuppose such principles. I don’t mind learning about physics, but it would be poor form to try to use physics to discover what is presupposed by physics.

And, pray tell, what does it mean then? You cannot de-couple a term from its usage and expect to be understood in the new, unspecified meaning. What is that “causation” then? Magic? I wave my hand and “cause” a new galaxy to pop up from nonexistence?

First of all, the arguments of philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas were in place long before any current usage of the word “causation” came about. Is it their fault that hundreds (and even thousands) of years later someone mostly versed in physics from another culture misunderstands them? Language tends to change over time. But you’re not the only one who has re-read modern terminology back into their arguments… even some tenured philosophy professors have done the same. Second, the term is also a technical term; would it be fair if I criticized someone who knew Java programing that they really didn’t know what the word “static” really means? I suggest the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to read up about the term. But very briefly and in modern terms, it means something more akin to “explanation” rather than what one would normally attribute to the word.

The great news is that if you take the time to learn your stuff, you will be greatly rewarded with an area of knowledge you really didn’t know existed. And that is a very exciting prospect, indeed!

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

You equate observation and experience with OHEV; I do not.

In this case I have no idea what you are talking about. I accepted your suggested line of reasoning: observe actual reality, and then see if it needs some “external” explanation. That is the starting point. It is my contention that it needs no “external” explanation. But I am willing to listen to some actual arguments. As I said before I am mostly interested in a suggested epistemology to deal with the suggested “supernatural”. Everything hinges upon epistemology. One can posit any kind od “existence”, but without a method to separate true and false statements about that “existence” there is nothing to talk about.

Observation on the macro scale, what you and I observe every day, can be a starting point for philosophy. From there one can analyze and discover necessary principles for existence in general (such as the laws of logic)…

Actually the laws of logic are the basic principles for coherent thinking.

…but also less general principles such as those that are required for any kind of change to be possible.

Again, “change”, “movement” are inherent properties of STEM.

Therefore any detailed analysis that physics uncovers or can possibly uncover will presuppose such principles. I don’t mind learning about physics, but it would be poor form to try to use physics to discover what is presupposed by physics.

Physics presupposes only one thing: that the world makes sense, that there are regularities in nature. Nothing else. And that basic assumption comes not from some philosopher’s thinking. On the very contrary, the philosophical concept of regularity in nature came from the billions of observations. Nihil est in intellectu… is a very wise observation.

First of all, the arguments of philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas were in place long before any current usage of the word “causation” came about. Is it their fault that hundreds (and even thousands) of years later someone mostly versed in physics from another culture misunderstands them?

Who says they are misunderstood? Their concepts have been superceeded and their ideas became obsolete.

 

[Shike]

In this case I have no idea what you are talking about. I accepted your suggested line of reasoning: observe actual reality, and then see if it needs some “external” explanation. That is the starting point. It is my contention that it needs no “external” explanation. But I am willing to listen to some actual arguments. As I said before I am mostly interested in a suggested epistemology to deal with the suggested “supernatural”. Everything hinges upon epistemology. One can posit any kind od “existence”, but without a method to separate true and false statements about that “existence” there is nothing to talk about.

The suggested epistemology uses the laws of logic to arrive at true conclusions. The reason why OHEV is not strictly required is because there is no room for hypothesis making. Fundamental principles of reality are recognized, and then deductions are made to arrive at necessary conclusions. I probably should have just used the word “experience” rather than “observation and experience” to avoid confusing you (I sometimes tend to force people to play on my own playground). Defining terms is so very important, and usually so very neglected.

Actually the laws of logic are the basic principles for coherent thinking.

You are correct. But they are also the basic principles for existence. How do I know that? How do I breakout of the mind (so to speak) that was the prison of so many philosophers from Descartes to Kant to many moderns today? It’s nothing new really in the history of philosophy. Aquinas knew how to avoid the modern trap. Basically, any epistemology that doesn’t recognize a fundamental reliability to our senses is self-refuting (ex. universal skepticism) and denies one of the aspects of reality we just have to accept: experience. Of course, it is also important not to accept the other extreme and claim that experience is everything (in a philosophical way, not a practical or common sense way). If you want to get into the details of Kant (though his position might suffer from a different problem, I’m not too sure yet) I would be delighted.

Again, “change”, “movement” are inherent properties of STEM.

Hmmm, maybe so. But does that preclude them from being inherent to a more fundamental level of analysis as well?

Physics presupposes only one thing: that the world makes sense, that there are regularities in nature. Nothing else.

I’m usually pretty wary of saying “nothing else”. But I think I agree with you. Those presuppositions, however, when looked at more deeply, might be all that is needed to get arguments like Aquinas’ off the ground.

Nihil est in intellectu… is a very wise observation.

Yes. But it also might be more than just an observation. I don’t think I could give you a good explanation why, though, at the moment.

Who says they are misunderstood? Their concepts have been superseded and their ideas became obsolete.

If that is the case then it must be shown. But note how this is an altogether different problem than the concepts (and therefore arguments) being misunderstood. In order to show that the concepts are “superseded and obsolete” (which must mean nothing other than the fundamental principles they used don’t in fact exist) one must first understand the concepts being used. Again, it is a widespread problem of people reading their own definition of words back into older arguments. That doesn’t change the truth of older arguments. If anything it shows that the new arguments that are obtained by using different concepts are false.

I really recommend two books.

1. 
   *]The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
   *]Aquinas: a beginner’s guide by Edward Feser
   

   The first, although written in a very polemical tone, gives a good overview of an important line of thought in the history of philosophy. The second book is not so much of a beginner's guide (as conceded by the author) but is very helpful with a lot of modern objections to Aquinas' five ways. They're both by the same author so it makes it easier to understand things once you're familiar with his presentation and style. And the second book somewhat builds off the first.

   Ciao,
   Michael

 

[Spock]

The suggested epistemology uses the laws of logic to arrive at true conclusions.

What you say here that you can get valid logical results. No one denies that. But a valid logical syllogism does not mean a sound logical result. That is why the reference to the laws of logic is necessary but not not sufficient. Until you produce the basic principles, the proposed structure sort of “hangs in the air”.

The reason why OHEV is not strictly required is because there is no room for hypothesis making. Fundamental principles of reality are recognized, and then deductions are made to arrive at necessary conclusions.

Again, too vague. What are those fundamental principles of reality? The word “deduction” you use imply an axiomatic system. You need to enumerate the axioms, before you can start to make deductions.

I probably should have just used the word “experience” rather than “observation and experience” to avoid confusing you (I sometimes tend to force people to play on my own playground). Defining terms is so very important, and usually so very neglected.

Then you would need to elaborate on “experience”. Experience of “what”? But I strongly agree that the definition of terms is of utmost importance.

But they are also the basic principles for existence.

What do you mean here? Please elaborate.

The 3 laws are:
A is A. The law of identity. Everything is itself. Or if a proposition is true then it is true.
A and ~A = 0. The law of non-contradiction. Or a proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time.
A or ~A = 1. The law of excluded middle. A propostion is either true or not true. (Which does not mean that a proposition is either true or false.)

You see that I did not answer some points of yours, because they are premature. Since you argue on the platform of an axiomatic system, until you present your axioms it is fruitless to go on.

 

[Shike]

What you say here that you can get valid logical results. No one denies that. But a valid logical syllogism does not mean a sound logical result. That is why the reference to the laws of logic is necessary but not not sufficient. Until you produce the basic principles, the proposed structure sort of “hangs in the air”.

You are right that the laws of logic aren’t sufficient, but you broke up my post which provided the rest of my answer. That’s why I grouped it all into a paragraph, hoping to head off your comment.

Again, too vague. What are those fundamental principles of reality? The word “deduction” you use imply an axiomatic system. You need to enumerate the axioms, before you can start to make deductions.

Two principles, for example, can be found by analyzing the nature of change, and what it means for any change to be possible. The two principles are usually referred to as act & potency or *actuality or potentiality. *I’m not so sure I could give you a definitive list, especially off the top of my head.

Then you would need to elaborate on “experience”. Experience of “what”? But I strongly agree that the definition of terms is of utmost importance.

Experience of anything. That is the point. The principles of logic describe the nature of existence in general, not just the realm of epistemology. But if you are talking about the principles of change, obviously you would need to experience something that underwent change.

What do you mean here? Please elaborate.

I’m saying that not only is it conceptually impossible for you to conceive of a cat that both exists and doesn’t exist in the same respect, at the same time, in the same place, ect… I’m also saying that it’s impossible for a cat to both exist and not exist in the same respect, at the same time, in the same place, ect.

We are somewhat ‘imprisoned’ (not really the right word) by epistemology, but it is an epistemology that points beyond the self to include an objective and intelligible world… regardless of any pet theories held by Kant.

I enjoy your responses and your inquiring mind. In general, I think the more an atheist distances himself from the dogmatic responses of someone like a Dawkins (in matters of philosophy), the better. I am seeing that here. Thank you.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

You are right that the laws of logic aren’t sufficient, but you broke up my post which provided the rest of my answer. That’s why I grouped it all into a paragraph, hoping to head off your comment.

Is this the paragraph you refer to?

The suggested epistemology uses the laws of logic to arrive at true conclusions. The reason why OHEV is not strictly required is because there is no room for hypothesis making. Fundamental principles of reality are recognized, and then deductions are made to arrive at necessary conclusions. I probably should have just used the word “experience” rather than “observation and experience” to avoid confusing you (I sometimes tend to force people to play on my own playground). Defining terms is so very important, and usually so very neglected.
How can one “experience” anything without observing it?

Two principles, for example, can be found by analyzing the nature of change, and what it means for any change to be possible. The two principles are usually referred to as act & potency or *actuality or potentiality. *I’m not so sure I could give you a definitive list, especially off the top of my head.

Sounds very Aristotelian to me. Needless to say I have a much simpler worldview: Something either exists, or does not exist. The idea of “potential” existence is an invalid embellishment on “non-existence”. Observe the proposition: “There is a potential book on the top of my nonexistent desk, right next to an imaginary football”. It is a meaningless gobbledegook of valid words. (Like: “What is the taste of color middle-C?”) It means nothing.

Now you can sit down and contemplate to write a book. You imagine the main hero, you plan the storyline. That is a valid process - however in this scenario the book is already a “conceptual” reality, which will turn into a physical entity once you finish up the writing.

I wish to repreat: something is either a physical, ontological object, or a concept. A concept is a mental image of something. It can be a mental image of a physical object (an abstract table), or it can be a mental concept about other concepts (laws of logic), or it can be a mental image of non-existent fire-breathing seven-headed dragon. Concepts themselves are “inert”. The concept of 2 hydrogen atoms will never combine with the concept of an oxygen atom to form the concept of a water molecule.

As I said before, for the atheist, the list stops here. For the theist, there is a third type of existence. Not physical, and not conceptual either. This existence is supposed to be active (unlike the concepts, which are inactive) it is supposed to interact with physical reality, but it cannot be observed. How do we gain knowledge about this existence? Remember, knowledge is objective information about something.

Experience of anything.

I have no idea what you say here. How can one experience anything if it is not observed? If you say that someone “experiences” of “feels” the presence of God, this experience is non-repeateble, non-transferable. For any outsider it is the equivalent of a “hallucination” on the believer’s part. (I don’t mean this in a pejorative way).

That is the point. The principles of logic describe the nature of existence in general, not just the realm of epistemology.

Let’s point out: “epistemology” means: “how do we know it?”, how do we gain knowledge about reality - physical or conceptual. Physical reality - OHEV. Conceptual reality - axiomatic deduction. Since the proposed third reality is neither physical, nor conceptual, it needs a unique epistemologial method. Logic alone is not sufficient, unless you propose a set of axioms, and most likely I will disagree with them.

For example: In the middle ages people seriously contemplated how many angels can stand on the point of a needle? How does one tackle such a question?

But if you are talking about the principles of change, obviously you would need to experience something that underwent change.

Change is an attribute of the physical realm. How does it happen is completely physical question. The answer is: “exchange of sub-atomic particles”.

I’m saying that not only is it conceptually impossible for you to conceive of a cat that both exists and doesn’t exist in the same respect, at the same time, in the same place, ect… I’m also saying that it’s impossible for a cat to both exist and not exist in the same respect, at the same time, in the same place, ect.

Do you know about Schrödinger’s cat? (link…) Once upon a time physicists were wondering if light is particle or energy. Guess what? It is both. We try to “squeeze” nature into neat little boxes, and sometimes our boxes are incorrectly formed. Nature does not “fit” into them. But this is always a “physical” problem. Philosophy cannot help here.

I enjoy your responses and your inquiring mind. In general, I think the more an atheist distances himself from the dogmatic responses of someone like a Dawkins (in matters of philosophy), the better. I am seeing that here. Thank you.

You are most welcome. And thank you, too.

 

[Shike]

Is this the paragraph you refer to?
{SNIP}
How can one “experience” anything without observing it?

Yes, my “fundamental principles of reality” should not be divorced from my “deductions of necessary conclusions”. The reason why I think using the word “observation” is confusing you is because it seems that you think observation doesn’t lead to knowledge unless it is a part of OHEV. That is not the case, since there are many necessary conclusion we can arrive at that don’t rely on hypothesis (and therefore, OHEV).

Sounds very Aristotelian to me.

That’s because it is.

Needless to say I have a much simpler worldview: Something either exists, or does not exist. The idea of “potential” existence is an invalid embellishment on “non-existence”.

I do not deny what you say. I only point out that there is a role for possibility and potentiality. For instance a tree has the potential to bend and sway. A human has the potential to move to another location. A book has the potential to go out of existence, ect. Call them real potentials, if you like.

I wish to repreat: something is either a physical, ontological object, or a concept. A concept is a mental image of something.

Careful, it is generally assumed that when one uses the word “image” one speaks of the imagination. Concepts and images are different, regardless of what Hume thinks. For instance, I can conceive of 100-sided and 101-sided polygons, but I would be hard-pressed to admit that the images of both that I imagine are different.

As I said before, for the atheist, the list stops here. For the theist, there is a third type of existence. Not physical, and not conceptual either.

Yes… somewhat. Though the physical is shot through and partly made up by the immaterial. So, sort of… I guess.

Let’s point out: “epistemology” means: “how do we know it?”, how do we gain knowledge about reality - physical or conceptual. Physical reality – OHEV. Conceptual reality - axiomatic deduction.

But this is precisely the point of controversy. Physical reality doesn’t just pertain to OHEV. In metaphysics (done properly of course) physical reality also pertains to a method that does not require hypothesis but leads to necessary conclusions.

For example: In the middle ages people seriously contemplated how many angels can stand on the point of a needle? How does one tackle such a question?

I wouldn’t argue about it, but it’s way less crazy than you seem to think it is. Physical reality is shot through by immaterial forms… therefore angels (postulated as immaterial beings), would have some of the same qualities as the immaterial forms. If you don’t think angels exist, at the very least the thought experiment gives you more of an understanding about the nature of forms.

Change is an attribute of the physical realm. How does it happen is completely physical question. The answer is: “exchange of sub-atomic particles”.

You are right, one level of change is at the sub-atomic level. But here realize that principles of actuality and potentiality still apply and underlie your statement. So what?

Do you know about Schrödinger’s cat? (link…) Once upon a time physicists were wondering if light is particle or energy. Guess what? It is both. We try to “squeeze” nature into neat little boxes, and sometimes our boxes are incorrectly formed. Nature does not “fit” into them. But this is always a “physical” problem. Philosophy cannot help here.

My current reading actually tells me that light is neither a particle nor a wave (not energy, strictly, as you posit), but some separate entity that exhibits properties of both. I don’t think it has much bearing on your point, however.

Again, the boxes that metaphysics (done properly of course) puts nature into are so wide that it is impossible for nature to fall out. And philosophy can help… it can “reel in” a physicist that travels outside the bounds of scientific inquiry and transgresses the laws of logic or the less general laws such as actuality and potentiality. If I remember right, Heisenburg was very familiar with the history of philosophy and it greatly aided him.

You are most welcome. And thank you, too.

You are welcome as well.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

The reason why I think using the word “observation” is confusing you is because it seems that you think observation doesn’t lead to knowledge unless it is a part of OHEV. That is not the case, since there are many necessary conclusion we can arrive at that don’t rely on hypothesis (and therefore, OHEV).

Well, that is a major misunderstanding then. We observe all sorts of things. It is not necessarily part of an explicit scientific experimental program. Though in a very good sense we always participate in an informal OHEV. Suppose I observe you displaying great enthusiasm when consuming a delicious looking pizza. The observation allows me to set up a “mini-hypothesis”: Michael likes pizza. I can conduct an experiment and offer you pizzas day after day. If you accept it and eat it, then my hypothesis was confirmed. If you reject it, my hypothesis gets “weakened”.

Obviously this “hypothesis” is not very important. Whether you like pizza or not, and whether I can confirm it or nor, belongs to the category of “not so important things”. Yet, the method is the same, even if we are not consciously aware of it.

Careful, it is generally assumed that when one uses the word “image” one speaks of the imagination. Concepts and images are different, regardless of what Hume thinks. For instance, I can conceive of 100-sided and 101-sided polygons, but I would be hard-pressed to admit that the images of both that I imagine are different.

If you would prefer to use “mental construct”, that is fine by me. Since originally I am a mathematician, I am aware that a 4-dimensional cube cannot be visualized but it can be conceived and imagined. To imagine something is not the same a visualizing it.

Yes… somewhat. Though the physical is shot through and partly made up by the immaterial. So, sort of… I guess.

Please be more specific. I already stated that the physical world is composed of physical objects, but also relationships and attributes, which are not physical objects themselves. Is that what you have in mind, or something different?

But this is precisely the point of controversy. Physical reality doesn’t just pertain to OHEV. In metaphysics (done properly of course) physical reality also pertains to a method that does not require hypothesis but leads to necessary conclusions

Give me specific examples, please.

(an out-of-topic advice: don’t set the font for every sentence of paragraph. type the whole post, and set the font only once).

 

[Shike]

Well, that is a major misunderstanding then. We observe all sorts of things. It is not necessarily part of an explicit scientific experimental program.

Oh, I understand. I was hoping though that I didn’t need to mention such things and instead focus on one particular area based on experience, the one that doesn’t use hypotheses and arrives at necessary conclusions.

To imagine something is not the same a visualizing it.

Now that’s a distinction I have yet to understand.

Please be more specific. I already stated that the physical world is composed of physical objects, but also relationships and attributes, which are not physical objects themselves. Is that what you have in mind, or something different?

No, I do think there are objects (in the sense of beings or entities) that exist and are not physical… but they are not so foreign to the understanding as you might have initially thought since they do share principles with other physical objects.

Give me specific examples, please.

Specific examples have been the implicit subject of this conversation all along (at least to my understanding…). Summaries of some such arguments are those of Aquinas’ five ways.

(an out-of-topic advice: don’t set the font for every sentence of paragraph. type the whole post, and set the font only once).

My apologies, it was not intentional; I use a word processor for posts and did not clear formatting. Perhaps it will now be fixed?

 Ciao,

Michael

 

[Spock]

Oh, I understand. I was hoping though that I didn’t need to mention such things and instead focus on one particular area based on experience, the one that doesn’t use hypotheses and arrives at necessary conclusions.

One explicit example would be appreciated. I still don’t know what you are talking about.

Now that’s a distinction I have yet to understand.

Sorry, can’t help you. You either have it, or you don’t. We cannot visualize 100-dimension space, but we can deal with a vector of 100 elements - and they are the same.

No, I do think there are objects (in the sense of beings or entities) that exist and are not physical… but they are not so foreign to the understanding as you might have initially thought since they do share principles with other physical objects.

Actual example, please.

Specific examples have been the implicit subject of this conversation all along (at least to my understanding…). Summaries of some such arguments are those of Aquinas’ five ways.

Not to my understanding. I need actual examples.

 

[Spock]

Just a quick heads-up. I did the suggested version of the rosary, with some Catholic friends. There was no result. Oh, well. I tried.

See you guys around. The Enterprise is leaving soon.

 

[Shike]

Sorry, can’t help you. You either have it, or you don’t. We cannot visualize 100-dimension space, but we can deal with a vector of 100 elements - and they are the same.

Now I think I understand. I only needed a bit more information. You were in effect giving another example of the distinction between imagination and conception.

Not to my understanding. I need actual examples.

That was some examples… I’m not going to go and post them. Look them up. If you can’t read Latin I believe the translation by the Dominican fathers of the English province is fairly good (unless it’s the version quoted in an article about fallacies in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy… that was a horrid translation). Remember though that they are summaries that presuppose certain metaphysical positions that are argued elsewhere. That, and don’t read modern terms back into the arguments.
A good book on the subject is Aquinas: a beginner’s guide by Edward Feser.

ciao,
Michael