Is philosophy necessary or useful for materialists?

[Tyrion]

What entities qualify as physical? Those that can sensed? Can “persons” be sensed? Can “motives” be sensed? Can “meanings” be sensed? Or, with respect to the aforementioned judicial proceedings, can “guilt” be sensed?

How do you determine what’s true and what’s false with respect to these “items”?

Theoretically, yes. Today it is science fiction, but there is no logical impossibility of “reading the mind” and so directly observe the thought processes, thus directly finding out if a person is “guilty” or not.

This does not pertain to “meaning”, since there is no “objective” meaning. But, you know, I am getting tired of these derail attempts. If you wish to present your epsitemological method, fine. I will be happy to see it. If, not… I will simply disregard what you say.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

True, “justice” is just a concept. But don’t worry. There is no “justice” system - there is ONLY a “legal” system.

Murder, rape, arson, theft, lying under oath.

How come these acts are “illegal”? Would it not make just as much sense to ban rutabagas, or wearing the color blue?

My thought is, some poor benighted chaps had this idiotic concept of “doing as you would be done by.”

Want to know what would really have been advantageous to them? Tearing around in the style of the Mongol hordes, heaping up pleasure and power for themselves and their buddies- except, of course, when it becomes advantageous to betray one’s best buddy.

My ancestors thought it obvious that I should make some attempt to be “honorable”, and “truthful”.

I am lucky to have found out: It is just the same if I’m a cowardly traitor.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Actually, this is a real caricature. The explanation is not that simple, of course. There are other factors that need to be taken into consideration. The best speculation I ever heard was this: "People have been dreaming. They dreamt about their deceased loved ones. They had no idea that the dreams were just random firings of their neurons. To them the most rational explanation was, that their loved ones did not fully die, that there is something about them which still lives. As such they came up with the idea of some soul. Etc… ". But, what is the point? Neither speculation can be proven. Who cares what happened a 100 thousand years ago? What relevance does it have?

You’re the one who brought up the god-of-the-gaps theory. I brought up history because it is physicalists who are arguing against the preexisting theistic tradition and therefore must make their case when they advance physicalism to them.

So they offer their speculation instead of another one. Neither party can go back and observe the flow of events. The real problem is that “history” will not help your case. The “supernatural” is supposed to be “alive and well” today. But it points out the real problem: “when there is ONLY speculation (aka religion) then how can one decide if that speculation corresponds to reality, or not?” How do you know that the belief in Zeus and Jupiter and the Egyptian Sun God… etc… are all wrong, but your belief is God is right? What is your epistemology you employ to decide this question? What is your evidence?

No. I cite the work of historians of religion to show that the god-of-the-gaps theory is factually incorrect regarding what is affirmed in theists’ religious experience and convictions. Therefore the god-of-the-gaps objection to theism as a defence for physicalism is baseless. I did not cite it as a justification for the veracity of any theistic convictions. You came here advancing physicalism. The only objection to theism you have given has failed. In this discussion I’m not attempting to convince you to assent to theism. Find someone else if that’s the discussion you want. It’s a good one, but that’s not what I’m doing, as I’ve said many times.

Calling religion “speculation” simply rephrases the physicalist claim, which is therefore not a defence of physicalism. It is begging the question.

Really? First, you never offered a competing method to the physicalist approach, and yet you denigrate it. Anything and everything we achieved until today is the result of the physicalist approach. The computer you use did not come from “prayer”, it is the result of the scientific method. Where is your “horse”?

The horse I was speaking about was the god-of-the-gaps objection, not the SM which you’ll recall lauded. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Another caricature and incorrect at that. What we say is this: The theists could never offer any evidence - except HEARSAY - that there is any kind of supernatural realm. Therefore we do not take you seriously, UNTIL you can offer REAL evidence for your claim. We stay open to the suggestion, but you must present an epistemological method to verify your claim. Because - and this is not meant in an insulting way - your word alone has absolutely no credibility; you need to substantiate it.

Not so. You came here advancing physicalism: I didn’t come to you advancing theism. The burden of proof is on you. Your god-of-the-gaps objection to show me why it would be more reasonable for me to abandon theism in favor of physicalism fails.

So again I ask you tell me, how would you fill this in? You theists down through time have always believed that there are immaterial features to reality. However, we physicalists have come to realize at this point in history, if you think carefully about it, that reality is only physical because . . . .

Originally Posted by Fr of Jazz
Lame, discredited theory of religion.

Originally Posted by Tyrion
Ah, so the lighning is still considered the flaming sword of God? And epilepsy is still caused by demons? That is why there are all those exorcists still around?

Huh?? I was talking about the god-of-the-gaps theory. If you misunderstood, apologies.

Fine. I will be here. We have been dancing around too long. Time to get down to “business”.

I’m afraid you may misunderstand my intent. I will lay out for you what is operative in the tradition of western theocentric humanism, the encounter with God in it, traditional methods of verification, and a way to test it consistent with the subject matter. Then, as I’ve been asking consistently, since you came here advancing physicalism, you need show me why it is more reasonable to abandon that tradition in favor of the newer claims of physicalism and its exclusive–thus far–reliance on the SM.

The “dance” is your attempt to switch the burden of proof in our discussion, and my calling you on it. Again if you want someone to justify theism to you, find someone else. You’re the one who came here advancing physicalism.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I
The common and general nature of religious experience I grew up sharing in.

As a theist within a religious tradition stretching back to time immemorial, I was convinced that I have reliable contact with God in my religious experience.

By religious experience I not only mean (à la William James) individual religious experience. I mean all that one experiences in a religious tradition over time including a collective connection with God in community, ritual prayer, applying ones experience in service to fellow human beings, individual prayer and meditation, connection with creation, etc. It is in all of these over time that the ontological status of God is given in a kind of intuition or perception analogous to intuition and sense experience in everyday life.

The dependability of my religious experience as an avenue to the reality of God is tested and substantiated by traditional methods of verification. It is thought through within the philosophical tradition of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas; discussed and evaluated by experienced guides; lived out in the tradition of service going back to early hospitals, orphanages, schools, and outreach to the poor; and appraised by the effects in my life on a day to day basis. By this classic spiritual method my sense of God’s reality, presence, and action in my life and in the world is tested, interpreted, born out, and verified.

The reality of God given in religious experience, then, was verified publically, communally, dialogically, and within a religious tradition.

**II
Nonetheless having gone through many phases in my thought about religion including physicalism I wanted to answer to the needs of contemporary thought. **

I asked “what method of testing would best and most fairly suit the subject matter being investigated?” E.g., if I wanted to test for the existence of atoms but stipulated that I’ll only believe what I can see with my own eyes, I wouldn’t be able to discover them even if they were there (which of course they are). I couldn’t see doing something analogous regarding religion as being very reasonable.

I realized that an intrinsic method of testing religious experience and traditions as a participant observer would be the most fair and reasonable rather than approaching them a priori, detached, and extrinsic.

Why?

(1) Again, the domain of religious experience is not primarily one of a physical or metaphysical explanation of objects out in the world, but rather one of an encounter and relationship between subjects (divine and human).
Consequently, approaching religious experience and traditions (in view of some adjudication) a priori, detached, and extrinsic like naturalists speaking in hushed voices observing the mating habits of adult lions from the safety of a Jeep is not methodologically consistent with the subject matter. An approach like that would be unreasonable.

(2) Any theistic tradition is open to testing as a participant observer for adjudication yea or nea. One is not obligated to believe any of them a priori. People test out religious traditions and communities all the time. Some they find brings them to God, others not. I have nothing to lose. see (5) below.

(3) There are many situations in life where someone makes a statement based on experience to which at the time we have no access, say, in sports, or medicine, marriage, a trade, or living in general. We cannot always get sufficient evidence a priori to judge it. We must trust them, live it out in faith, take it on their word; and then the reasons reveal themselves a posteriori . . . or not. Some things in life cannot be understood until they are lived through from within, intrinsically. It is no less reasonable to expect that one can approach religious experience and traditions for purposes of evaluation in this way.

(4) Also, there are some domains of truth and reality that will be hidden from us unless we go half way to meet them. For example, in a relationship, the question “Do you like me?” If I insist on maintaining an extrinsic posture of maximum detachment and suspicion, it’s very likely I will forfeit the chance of a positive answer/outcome.

(5) It seems that inherent in the extrinsicist method is the position that “it is better to risk the loss of truth than to make an error.” I don’t see that this is more reasonable than “better to risk making some errors than to lose whole domains of truth and reality.”

(6) One does not deduce their way a priori to the experience of empathy, romance, sexual attraction, artistic inspiration, or grief. Yet these are rightly accepted as legitimate domains of human experience, entered into intrinsically, and reflected upon by reason. On the other hand, the encounter with God in religious experience, which enters consciousness in the same way (i.e., one does not deduce their way to it, but experiences it as a datum in life) is rejected a priori and not tested in a manner consistent with its subject matter, intrinsically and phenomenologically as a participant observer, and then judged by reason.

(7) With a BS in Bio and Chem it was important for me to discover that actual historians of science with access to the primary sources state that the church in Medieval culture promoterd the advance of science and laid the foundations for the Scientific Revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries.
E.g., David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers (General Editors of the Cambridge History of Science), Michael Shank (w/ Lindberg editor of the volume on the Medieval Science), Edward Grant.

III
This should cover method (intrinsic), how to employ (participant observer), results (you will either find in it an encounter with God or not). For me and billions of others it is “yes.” At least one will know they were intellectually honest enough to try a method of testing suited to the subject matter.

 

[levinas12]

Theoretically, yes. Today it is science fiction, but there is no logical impossibility of “reading the mind” and so directly observe the thought processes, thus directly finding out if a person is “guilty” or not.

This does not pertain to “meaning”, since there is no “objective” meaning. But, you know, I am getting tired of these derail attempts. If you wish to present your epsitemological method, fine. I will be happy to see it. If, not… I will simply disregard what you say.

Tyrion, your postings have an “objective” meaning. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to understand them.

We do not use the “scientific” method to discover the “objective” meaning of your postings. So theOne example of “objective” meaning that you have insisted on the exclusivity of what you refer to as " the scientific method". All that I’m trying to point out is that there are “truths” not subject to this method. One example is correctly understanding the “meaning” of your postings. We do not use the scientific method to do this. And there are a host of other activities that attain to the truth where the scientific method is not employed.

But perhaps what you mean by the “scientific method” is something much broader than what is used in the hard sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, etc).

 

[Tyrion]

As a theist within a religious tradition stretching back to time immemorial, I was convinced that I have reliable contact with God in my religious experience.

Ok. You were “told” and you believed.

By religious experience I not only mean (à la William James) individual religious experience. I mean all that one experiences in a religious tradition over time including a collective connection with God in community, ritual prayer, applying ones experience in service to fellow human beings, individual prayer and meditation, connection with creation, etc. It is in all of these over time that the ontological status of God is given in a kind of intuition or perception analogous to intuition and sense experience in everyday life.

Then you were told to participate in those rituals, and then you “intuited” that God exists.

The dependability of my religious experience as an avenue to the reality of God is tested and substantiated by traditional methods of verification. It is thought through within the philosophical tradition of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas; discussed and evaluated by experienced guides; lived out in the tradition of service going back to early hospitals, orphanages, schools, and outreach to the poor; and appraised by the effects in my life on a day to day basis. By this classic spiritual method my sense of God’s reality, presence, and action in my life and in the world is tested, interpreted, born out, and verified.

You observed good actions performed by some believers, and since they asserted that they do them for God, you accepted that - and so you arrived at the “traditional method of verification”.

The reality of God given in religious experience, then, was verified publically, communally, dialogically, and within a religious tradition.

This reminds me of a quote from a theistic philosopher (the name eludes me, and the book it was presented is not available right now). Nevertheless, the quote was: “The last thing you want to do is to try to find evidence for God’s existence. First you must accept that God exists, and then you will be in the position for finding evidence of God’ s existence.” This is the typical “cherry-picking” method, try to find something that seems to support your hypothesis, and disregard all the evidence to the contrary.

I think it is the best if we stop right here. What you call the “traditional method of verification” is completely irrational. And since you repeatedly said that you do not want to present arguments to conince me, there is no reason to continue. Suffice it to say that your offered “epistemological” method is only usable for those who already believe.

Contrary to this “traditional” method, observe the physicalist’s approach. They present a hypothesis, and give you the tools to do the verification for yourself, if you doubt their word. There is no “cherry-picking”, let’s consider ALL the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. THAT is what epistemology is all about.

Thank you for your time and effort, but it is futile to continue.

(By the way, I don’t know where the text you presented came from, but I am pretty sure that the author was not an admirer of Hemingway’s style. When Hemingway was asked how can he write such beautiful, short and still fulfilling prose, he replied: “I write standing up”. Those convoluted sentences are only good for one thing: make the writing look “profoundly” complicated.

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s what I was thinking:

There’s only the physical things, right? Physical stuff came about through some physical process that started in some unknown (and inconceivable, to me) but physical way. So, philosophy is useless there. Just discovery matters.

Materialists who reject philosophy have no **rational **basis for their **assumption **that only physical things exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Personally I don’t see the connection between the condition “the whole universe has no meaning” and the conclusion “we should have never…”, not do I see how that conclusion was reached.

What is the ** rational** basis of “should” statements?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Ok. You were “told” and you believed.

Then you were told to participate in those rituals, and then you “intuited” that God exists.

You observed good actions performed by some believers, and since they asserted that they do them for God, you accepted that - and so you arrived at the “traditional method of verification”.

This reminds me of a quote from a theistic philosopher (the name eludes me, and the book it was presented is not available right now). Nevertheless, the quote was: “The last thing you want to do is to try to find evidence for God’s existence. First you must accept that God exists, and then you will be in the position for finding evidence of God’ s existence.” This is the typical “cherry-picking” method, try to find something that seems to support your hypothesis, and disregard all the evidence to the contrary.

I think it is the best if we stop right here. What you call the “traditional method of verification” is completely irrational. And since you repeatedly said that you do not want to present arguments to conince me, there is no reason to continue. Suffice it to say that your offered “epistemological” method is only usable for those who already believe.

Contrary to this “traditional” method, observe the physicalist’s approach. They present a hypothesis, and give you the tools to do the verification for yourself, if you doubt their word. There is no “cherry-picking”, let’s consider ALL the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. THAT is what epistemology is all about.

Thank you for your time and effort, but it is futile to continue.

(By the way, I don’t know where the text you presented came from, but I am pretty sure that the author was not an admirer of Hemingway’s style. When Hemingway was asked how can he write such beautiful, short and still fulfilling prose, he replied: “I write standing up”. Those convoluted sentences are only good for one thing: make the writing look “profoundly” complicated.

No problem. It has been a stimulating discussion.

For my closing statement, you’ll note that I did say the traditional method of verification was in my youth. I then presented a different method of testing that I thought was reasonable given the subject matter. It is intrinsic and as a participant observer where you do “have the tools to do the verification for yourself, if you doubt their word.” As I said “People [who are believers or not] test out religious traditions and communities all the time. Some they find brings them to God, others not.” But it is not the SM.

I composed everything myself drawing from a great deal of reading and thought on the subject. Perhaps I tried to cram too much into each sentence.

Hopefully we will discuss some topics again in this forum where I will do my best to employ crisper prose.

 

[tonyrey]

No problem. It has been a stimulating discussion.

For my closing statement, you’ll note that I did say the traditional method of verification was in my youth. I then presented a different method of testing that I thought was reasonable given the subject matter.

It is reasonable! The demise of logical positivism (materialism) was due to its failure to justify the principle of sense verification - which is of course unverifiable by the senses!
Verification begins at home (in the mind), not away (in matter).

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

C.S. Lewis of the day:

“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase of fireplace in that house.”

Tyrion: I cannot know about anything besides the house I am in. Don’t ask me to be irrational, thank you.

Surpriz: You haven’t read my book. Whatever it asks, I don’t think it is to discard one’s reason, have blind faith in something for no particular reason, or to take comfort in the fact that I am “saved”.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

“I note what you say about guiding our patient’s reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naive? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy’s clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as a result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false”, but as “academic” or “practical”, “outworn” or “contemporary”, “conventional” or “ruthless”. Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous- that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.”

~C.S. Lewis (different book from the one I recommended earlier)

 

[John_Savage]

Thanks everybody.

Tyrion: Before I present this thread to my friends, I just want to clarify where you stand on my central question, that the kind of philosophy you learn in philosophy classes is no more than a diversion, that any answerable question ultimately has a scientific, material answer.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Tyrion]

Thanks everybody.

Tyrion: Before I present this thread to my friends, I just want to clarify where you stand on my central question, that the kind of philosophy you learn in philosophy classes is no more than a diversion, that any answerable question ultimately has a scientific, material answer.

Thanks in advance.

Why do you ask me? I never asserted the highlighted proposition. Indeed I see no value in philosophy, per se.

One can study the natural sciences to learn about the physical reality. One can study the abstract sciences. like mathematics. Others can study social sciences, which are still very simplistic, but of they are on the way to grow. One can go and study biology and medicine. Others can turn out to be writers, musicians, or engage in sports…

You know what is the most frequent utterance of a philosophy major after he graduates? It is: “You want fries with that?”.

But that highlighted sentence is incorrect. The actual, physical reality can only be discovered by the “physicalist”, scientific method. This method is inapplicable to the abstract sciences. There is no observation there, only axioms, theorems and proofs. When it comes to aethetics, there are no objectively “true” or “false” propositions. All of them are subjective. When one wishes to find out about the past, usually there are no physical clues, only testimonials. If the testimonials are first-hand, if there are many of them; they are actually known, and had several works before, and especially if they are reported by different people with different biases, then one is inclined to accept them. However, when there are only a few, all with the same bias, none of them have a real name, none of them had other works to evaluate, none of them was an eye-witness, and what they report is not just widely improbable, but actually contradicted by our actual knowelge, then the only reasonable approach is to discard them as factual. One simply puts that work into the “mythology” section.

Now the questions of religion do not belong to this category. Their deity is supposed to be alive today. So to point to some ancient book as “evidence” only underscores that their claims cannot be substantiated by actual, real evidence.

There is one thing I cannot answer: “how does one find out if a proposition pertaining to the supernatural (every time I write that word, I struggle not to write ‘stupidnatural’ or ‘stupornatural’) is true or not”? I have no idea, and therefore I keep ansking the believers about their epistemology, and NONE of them EVER offers an objective method that a skeptic can use. They immediately try to criticize the objective “scientific method”, thereby attempting to hide the fact that they have nothing to say. The Emperor has no clothes!!!

But, NO. Not all answerable questions can have answers arrived at by the scientific method. There are some “ill-informed” and usually very stupid people who keep on asserting that nonsense, no matter how many times they are corrected. But, of course one hallmark of stupidity is the lack of willingness to learn. (Names will not be mentioned )

 

[levinas12]

This does not pertain to “meaning”, since there is no “objective” meaning.

This is where our conversation gets interesting.

Suppose I say that the “meaning” of a Tyrion posting is A. And someone else says it’s B.

Surely, there must a way of adjudicating these claims.

But for this “way” to work, we must first assume that the “meaning” of the posting is really “out there”, “can be shared by many people”, in other words, is “objective”.

How do we substantiate this assumption?

Simply by the fact that Tyrion’s “meaning” has been understood.

But this achievement of “truth” did not require application of the scientific method - there was no controlled experiment, mathematical formulation, “physical” measurement, crucial "testing of predictions, etc.

My “point” - apprehension of “meaning” is a respectable “secular rational activity” (to use Tyrion’s terminology) that takes place in many contexts, e.g., in understanding a poem or joke or even a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Tyrion]

This is where our conversation gets interesting.

Suppose I say that the “meaning” of a Tyrion posting is A. And someone else says it’s B.

The “meaning” of the posting is “out there”, “can be shared by many people”, in other words, is “objective”.

No, it is not. Do you know information theory, communication channel, sender and reciever of a proposition?

The sender intends to convey some information, and places it into the communication channel. The reciever “deciphers” the message. There are two possibilities, either the receiver “understands” what the sender intended, and in this case they mutually agree that the “meaning” of the message was “X”. Or there is a garbled transmission, or the recievers simply cannot decipher the message, and in this case there is no “mutually” understood “meaning”.

I could have written this post in another language (one you do not speak) and even though my intended “meaning” would be the same, but your lack of comprehension would make if gobbledegook for you. Is there a “meaning”? No, there is an intended meaning, and there is a perceived one. If they do not match, we have miscommunication.

Imagine that by sheer accident, the sentence “Have a nice day” in my language happens to be “Go to hell, to idiot”… in your language - and I utter that sentence (in all good faith). What is the “meaning” of that sentence? Think about it.

 

[levinas12]

Not all answerable questions can have answers arrived at by the scientific method.

By George, this may be an “epistemological” breakthrough!

Now which answerable questions can have answers not arrived at by the scientific method?
I assume that these answers can have “truth” values.

Do philosophical questions fall into this new category?

Well, it would seem so.

For example, Tyrion has himself made important philosophical pronouncements. For example, he says there are no “objective meanings” (essences).

This is an “answer” that falls outside the scientific method.

A lot of us may disagree but, make no mistake, Tyrion has definitely entered the realm of philosophy. But, of course, this is a philosophy forum.

But how do you adjudicate philosophical questions?

Well, there is a philosophical tool-kit (in fact, there are good books with this title).

One tool is to show that your philosophical opponent has gotten entangled in a self-referential paradox. And a good example of this is our debate about “objective meanings”. If there are no objective meanings, then the statement, “there are no objective meanings”, has no objective meaning - and there can be no debate in the first place.

 

[Tyrion]

Thank you. Very well. I will make a short statement, too. You said:

As I said "People [who are believers or not] test out religious traditions and communities all the time.

No argument from me. Yes, they do. But they do NOT test the veracity of the acual claims about God - since that is forbidden territory. (You shall not put God to the test). So I am still in the dark as to “how do you ascertain that a specific claim about the non-physical” is true, or not? That would be a topic I would be interested in exploring. Actually, I have asked this question many times, and there were no takers.

 

[Tyrion]

By George, I think this is an “epistemological” breakthrough!

Now which answerable questions can have answers that are not arrived at by the scientific method? I assume that such answers are “true”.

It was answered in the post, from where you picked this sentence. Just read it.

 

[levinas12]

The sender intends to convey some information, and places it into the communication channel. The reciever “deciphers” the message. There are two possibilities, either the receiver “understands” what the sender intended, and in this case they mutually agree that the “meaning” of the message was “X”. Or there is a garbled transmission, or the recievers simply cannot decipher the message, and in this case there is no “mutually” understood “meaning”.

I could have written this post in another language (one you do not speak) and even though my intended “meaning” would be the same, but your lack of comprehension would make if gobbledegook for you. Is there a “meaning”? No, there is an intended meaning, and there is a perceived one. If they do not match, we have miscommunication.

Imagine that by sheer accident, the sentence “Have a nice day” in my language happens to be “Go to hell, to idiot”… in your language - and I utter that sentence (in all good faith). What is the “meaning” of that sentence? Think about it.

Just because there are failures to communicate does not imply that there are no “objective” meanings. In fact, failure implies that one has “missed” the “point” (which is the “objective” meaning).

Likewise, translation assumes that the same “objective meaning” can be conveyed in two different natural languages.

The intended “meaning” has objectivity. Otherwise, you would be stuck with a potentially infinite number of free-floating interpretations (none of which could be substantiated).