Is philosophy necessary or useful for materialists?

[Charlemagne_II]

Tyrion

**Speculation is wonderful, but without an objective, repeatable way to verify them, they are empty musings. **

Not so. Philosophers and scientists for centuries speculated on the existence of the atom without “objective, repeatable way to verify them.” These were not “empty musings.”

Scientism itself is really an “empty musing” since there is no “objective, repeatable way to verify” it.

If scientism is valid, the science of human history (including the history of science) would have to be completely invalidated since there is no “objective, repeatable way to verify” it.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I wonder, what kind of “case” or “proof” do you have in mind? What does that “theistic” epistemology mean? How do you know - in other words - what kind of evidence can you present for an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unobservable entity as an “immortal soul”? How can one ascertain that every human has an “assigned” guardian angel? How you know that there are demons? Speculation is wonderful, but without an objective, repeatable way to verify them, they are empty musings.

Long story stort: “present your epistemology”!

I am not trying to convince you that there is an “an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unobservable entity as an “immortal soul” or God. You were making, or at least stating, the case for physicalism.

Now, if in order to make your case you would like me to present the status of my thought as one living in the (Western) theistic tradition and what I consider to be sufficient reasons for maintaining it, I would be glad to do so. Then by all means show me why I am rationally compelled reject them. To do so you need to defend your epistemology–most likely (but you tell me) involving the historically newer proposition that the scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

“All of those relationships and actions are physical. Our thinking about them are non-physical only if you consider brain activity non-physical.”

~But, I would have to say there is something non-physical about brain-activity in so far as it is related to “Mind”. I cannot open someone’s skull and observe geometry and relativism. I would say that my thoughts are non-physical to the same extent that a land-line phone conversation is not merely electrical. Electricity is the medium of what I say, not a complete explanation for it.

“We needn’t aspire to anything. What if thinking about philosophy makes you sad? Some philosophers went mad and committed suicide. What if somebody is just a slacker? Are you going to tell them that they have to aspire to something? If aspiring makes you happy, however, go for it.”

~I don’t approve of ideas because I think they’re going to make me healthy, wealthy, or happy. I think the main criterion ought to be: “Is this TRUE?” That being said, anybody know of a devout Catholic philosopher who went mad and committed suicide? I’m just asking.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

"1) Metaphysics - what exists?

Everything that does. It’s all physical."

~By all means Mr. Savage, give us your scientific proof for that answer.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Thirty minutes later, an earnest young Catholic begins to doubt the existence of Materialists for the very first time.

Where have they all gone?

 

[Tyrion]

I am not trying to convince you that there is an “an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unobservable entity as an “immortal soul” or God. You were making, or at least stating, the case for physicalism.

You don’t? Why not? Are these entities only a figment of your imagination and not part of “reality”? That would be perfectly acceptable to me, but I don’t think that is what you propose. If not, then there must be some method you used to decide that those entities are not just a piece of fantasy… I am very interested in learning that method. Teach me!

Now, if in order to make your case you would like me to present the status of my thought as one living in the (Western) theistic tradition and what I consider to be sufficient reasons for maintaining it, I would be glad to do so.

Sorry, I am not interested in your subjective motivations, rather about the objective methods you use when you need to decide if a statement about reality is true or not. For exaple: “epilepsy is caused by evil demons”, or “the personal guardian angel helped me to avoid this catastrophy”, or suff like that.

…] that the scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality.

See right below.

“The scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality.”

No one says that! (Sorry for the “shout”, but this misconception is so prevalent, that it must be “trampled underfoot” - as Luther said about reason ) You are fighing against a “windmill”, like Don Quixote. There are objective propositions about reality, and there are subjective ones. Example #1: “This stone weighs 300 pounds” - objective proposition, it can be ascertained objectively. Example #2: “This stone is heavy” - says person “A” (a weakling)… “No, that stone is light” - says person “B” (a weight lifter). Both propositions are about the objective, physical reality; they assert two contradictory things, and yet… both are true, because they are subjective assessments.

So, please learn from this example: No one says that “ALL” true and false statements can be decided by the “scientific” method. And when the next person tries to say the same nonsense, join me, and let’s enlighten the poor sucker.

Now you guys propose that there is some intangible, non-physical “reality”, which is not accessible to the “scienctific method”. Fine. Is there another method you wish to present? Please, do not evade, present your epistemology.

 

[John_Savage]

Sorry. I meant to say that the relationships are between physical things. Philosophy would then just be prepositions.

All of those relationships and actions are physical. Our thinking about them are non-physical only if you consider brain activity non-physical.

We needn’t aspire to anything. What if thinking about philosophy makes you sad? Some philosophers went mad and committed suicide. What if somebody is just a slacker? Are you going to tell them that they have to aspire to something? If aspiring makes you happy, however, go for it.

1. Metaphysics - what exists?

Everything that does. It’s all physical.

1. Epistemology - how do we know it?

You’d use brain science, not philosophy.

1. Ethics - how should we behave?

Do what makes you happy or, if you want yourself or your society to aspire to something else, do that. All of what you think is right or wrong is a combination of nature or nurture.

You can use social science to see what society works best for you. If you than set that as a goal, you’d use social science or psychology or brain science to see how to get there.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

I confess that I have never had the privilege of personally verifying the existence of electrons via the scientific method.

However, I do believe in them, because of I have accepted the word of scientists on this matter. In other words- the authority to me seemed good enough.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

But, Tyrion, what I wish to know- is what authority(ies) you accept apart from the scientific method? (If, as you say, that method alone is insufficient.)

Surely you’re going to present your epistemology as well?

 

[John_Savage]

I was arguing from a materialist perspective.

“All of those relationships and actions are physical. Our thinking about them are non-physical only if you consider brain activity non-physical.”

~But, I would have to say there is something non-physical about brain-activity in so far as it is related to “Mind”. I cannot open someone’s skull and observe geometry and relativism. I would say that my thoughts are non-physical to the same extent that a land-line phone conversation is not merely electrical. Electricity is the medium of what I say, not a complete explanation for it.

“We needn’t aspire to anything. What if thinking about philosophy makes you sad? Some philosophers went mad and committed suicide. What if somebody is just a slacker? Are you going to tell them that they have to aspire to something? If aspiring makes you happy, however, go for it.”

~I don’t approve of ideas because I think they’re going to make me healthy, wealthy, or happy. I think the main criterion ought to be: “Is this TRUE?” That being said, anybody know of a devout Catholic philosopher who went mad and committed suicide? I’m just asking.

 

[Tyrion]

I confess that I have never had the privilege of personally verifying the existence of electrons via the scientific method.

However, I do believe in them, because of I have accepted the word of scientists on this matter. In other words- the authority to me seemed good enough.

Yes, and what you did was an epistemological shortcut. Nothing wrong with it. After all we cannot personally verify ALL the propositions. That is why we ALL use the epistemological shortcut of relying on “authority”.

That brings up the question: “who is a valid authority”? Answer: those people who CAN do the actual demonstration of the veracity of their claims, those do not need to refer to other authorities.

Now, there is an important point to be made here. Yes, you did not personally verify the existence of electrons. HOWEVER, if you wanted to, you could do the necessary studies, get access to the needed equipment, and DO the personal verification.

That is the step which is missing from the claims of religion. There is no “final” authority, who can demonstrate the veracity of those pesky “immortal souls” or “guardian angels” or “demons”, or what have you. Of course the church “claims” to be an authority, but it is just a self-claimed one. The church cannot demonstrate its claims any more than you do.

But, Tyrion, what I wish to know- is what authority(ies) you accept apart from the scientific method? (If, as you say, that method alone is insufficient.)

Surely you’re going to present your epistemology as well?

It is pretty obvious. As I said, we ALL need to rely on authorities - but we demand that they should be proper authorities. The question also arises, how can we trust what they say? The answer is, because we are all fallible, and not just fallible, but jealous. The jealousy compels them to try and find a “hole” somewhere in the other person’s work.

As far as the physical universe is concerned, no one has ever found anything better than the scientific method. That covers the physical sciences. The abstract sciences work differently. If the propositions in an abstract science is the logical corrollary of the axioms, then it is true. For subjective claims (the box is heavy, or the music is beautiful, or the smell of the flower is pleasing) one cannot speak of “true” or “false” statements.

Now, believers claim that there is something beyond the physical world. The trouble is that they cannot present a valid epistemology to discern if their propositions are true or not. They cannot even agree among themselves!

It is pretty ironic that no apologist ever tries to present their epistemology, they always wish to “turn the tables”, and try to find problems with the “scientific” method. Of course the term “scientific” method is superfluous… science adopted the one and only method, because it WORKS!

 

[John_Savage]

Again, I’m arguing as a materialist. I think a materialist would just assume that everything’s physical based on the lack of proof for anything else.

"1) Metaphysics - what exists?

Everything that does. It’s all physical."

~By all means Mr. Savage, give us your scientific proof for that answer.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

T: “Now, believers claim that there is something beyond the physical world. The trouble is that they cannot present a valid epistemology to discern if their propositions are true or not. They cannot even agree among themselves!”

S: Agreed that they don’t agree. Without attempting to defend the multitudes of “believers” or their cornucopia of beliefs, (many of which are probably indefensible), I can at least recommend one book: “Mere Christianity”, by former atheist C.S. Lewis. I know you don’t want “faith-based” arguments. You want cold, hard logic, correct? That’s why I like him. So, there is one “epistemology” for you- how Christian “believers” can know what they think they know.

Feel free to write back and tell us how much you hated it. ; ) And I want to say one thing more- you’ve asked a valid question, but also a rather large one. I hope you’ll forgive me for recommending a book rather than trying to condense the entire thing into this little box? The book is an easy read, promise.

T: It is pretty ironic that no apologist ever tries to present their epistemology, they always wish to “turn the tables”, and try to find problems with the “scientific” method. Of course the term “scientific” method is superfluous… science adopted the one and only method, because it WORKS!

S:
Science discovering the laws of the material universe: Valid.
Science “disproving” the existence of anything outside the material universe: Invalid.

People deciding they will accept no truths except those which science will give them:

You haven’t read my book yet, have you?

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

J.S.
“Again, I’m arguing as a materialist. I think a materialist would just assume that everything’s physical based on the lack of proof for anything else.”

S.
Lol. Sorry about that. My thought was that the honest “physicalist” would simply be an agnostic when it comes to metaphysics. How can you say that you “know” that the only thing that exists is matter? By what means could a materialist (not you!) prove that?

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

One thing I am curious about still, Tyrion- why wouldn’t you ask an “apologist”, rather than the common people such as myself, to “prove” Christianity/Catholicism/Theism to you?

 

[Tyrion]

T: “Now, believers claim that there is something beyond the physical world. The trouble is that they cannot present a valid epistemology to discern if their propositions are true or not. They cannot even agree among themselves!”

S: Agreed that they don’t agree. Without attempting to defend the multitudes of “believers” or their cornucopia of beliefs, (many of which are probably indefensible), I can at least recommend one book: “Mere Christianity”, by former atheist C.S. Lewis. I know you don’t want “faith-based” arguments. You want cold, hard logic, correct? That’s why I like him. So, there is one “epistemology” for you- how Christian “believers” can know what they think they know.

Feel free to write back and tell us how much you hated it. ; ) And I want to say one thing more- you’ve asked a valid question, but also a rather large one. I hope you’ll forgive me for recommending a book rather than trying to condense the entire thing into this little box? The book is an easy read, promise.

My friend, I have read many apologist books. Some of the authors claimed to have been former atheists - and they were the worst ones (I think Lee Strobel was one of them). Those so-called “former atheists” tried to “pretend” that they are still atheists, and argue like one. The result was pitiful.

Admittedly I have not read Lewis, but I have no hopes that he is any better than the other ones. No, I am not interested in reading another book. You pick and choose what you find most convincing.

It is fine if you do not wish to deal with the plethora of beliefs and their “arguments”. It is perfectly fine we restrict the conversation to christianity. And we start with a few specific questions:

1. how can I know that we have an immortal soul?
2. how do I find out if there are guardian angels?
3. what is the evidence for demons?

I am not going to place any kind of restrictions on the types of your responses. You can refer to anything you want to - faith, revelation, prayer, whatever. The only requirement is that you give me the method; I can employ it, and reach the same conclusion as you. This requirement is not negotiable. And there are no open ended methods - like: “pray and you will be be answered” - because I will need a deadline: “pray and you will be answered tomorrow”. So, don’t try to “con me”.

T: It is pretty ironic that no apologist ever tries to present their epistemology, they always wish to “turn the tables”, and try to find problems with the “scientific” method. Of course the term “scientific” method is superfluous… science adopted the one and only method, because it WORKS!

S:
Science discovering the laws of the material universe: Valid.
Science “disproving” the existence of anything outside the material universe: Invalid.

Since science does not care about the so-called “non-material” part of the universe, it is not surprising that it never even tried to “disprove” it. A short remark: science NEVER PROVES anything, and never tries to prove anything. It analyzes reality, and tries to make PREDICTIONS about it.

By the way, there are other speculations, for example: “paranormal”, telekinesis, and the like. Science does not deal with those either. It leaves the proponents to try and find evidence for their claim. As soon as some evidence is presented, science will gladly examine it.

One thing I am curious about still, Tyrion- why wouldn’t you ask an “apologist”, rather than the common people such as myself, to “prove” Christianity/Catholicism/Theism to you?

But I did… many times. There was no answer. Of course, I asked hard questions… not like the ones, which are answered on the “Ask the apologist” forum. I would be delighted to have a conversation with a really knowledgable one, someone knows his “stuff”. I understand that the apologists on that forum are busy people, and it is not their primary occupation to deal with those questions. Besides, there is no conversation there… just a short answer, and the thread is closed. I would like to have something more fulfilling than that.

 

[OxygenMan]

Another nonsensical proposition. Of course we aspire to have a better, happier, more meaningful life. These aspirations are meaningful for us, precisely we have a limited lifespan. There is a wise old saying: “It is the trip that matters, not the destination” and “the winning is not relevant, what matters is how you play the game”. As a matter of fact, for the believers in “afterlife” it is useless to worry about this existence, except as a “preparation” stage, where there is only one thing that matters, how to “appease” God, how to avoid his wrath.

It would seem that the materialist would also not be concerned with this existence, seeing as how they will eventually return to nothingness and it will be as if it had never existed.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

T:
“1) how can I know that we have an immortal soul?
2) how do I find out if there are guardian angels?
3) what is the evidence for demons?”

S:
I think you’re getting ahead of yourself. Wouldn’t it be better to first establish a real Right and Wrong, the existence of God, or whether there’s any credibility behind that whole Christianity thing? I mean, if a credible authority DID tell me I have a soul, I (personally) would take that as a good reason to think that I have one. But first we would have to establish that the authority telling me that was indeed credible. I happen to think that can be established, but not by me in the space of a paragraph! If I was a lawyer, you would give me more scope to state my case.

I don’t think my book would disappoint you. I don’t see what you’d have to lose, anyway. If you want I’ll type up some relevant chunks of it. That way you wouldn’t even have the trouble of driving to Barnes and Noble. (But why you wouldn’t want to, I can’t imagine. That is a wonderful place.)

 

[Tyrion]

How can you say that you “know” that the only thing that exists is matter?

You don’t “know” that. Here is a short writeup on this:

Let’s suppose that there is a non-physical (non-material) existence. There a two possibilities:

1. The non-material and the material are totally, completely separate. There is no interaction and can be no interaction between the two. Neither one can influence the other. In this case, whether that non-material “thing” exists, or not - is totally irrelevant. (This is not what christianity teaches.)
2. There is an interface between the two kinds of existence. The material can influence the non-material (by prayer, for example), and vice-versa (by miracles). In this case the interface “belongs” to both worlds, that is it is partially material. Therefore the interface can be studied by the usual scientific methods. And this is where the problem occurs - for the believers. No matter where we look, there is no interface. There is nothing to study. So the believers will say: “of course not, since God cannot be tested!”. “It is all magic”. And with this assertion they remove themselves from rational consideration. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If there is an interaction between the two worlds, then the interface can be studied. There is no “magic”.

By what means could a materialist (not you!) prove that?

This was a serious blunder. One cannot expect to prove a “negative”. I have seen so many times: “can you prove that God does not exist?”. What a sad joke.

 

[Tyrion]

T:
“1) how can I know that we have an immortal soul?
2) how do I find out if there are guardian angels?
3) what is the evidence for demons?”

S:
I think you’re getting ahead of yourself. Wouldn’t it be better to first establish a real Right and Wrong, the existence of God, or whether there’s any credibility behind that whole Christianity thing? I mean, if a credible authority DID tell me I have a soul, I (personally) would take that as a good reason to think that I have one. But first we would have to establish that the authority telling me that was indeed credible. I happen to think that can be established, but not by me in the space of a paragraph! If I was a lawyer, you would give me more scope to state my case.

You see, I did present my approach to epistemology in a short paragraph.

I don’t think my book would disappoint you. I don’t see what you’d have to lose, anyway. If you want I’ll type up some relevant chunks of it. That way you wouldn’t even have the trouble of driving to Barnes and Noble. (But why you wouldn’t want to, I can’t imagine. That is a wonderful place.)

I found the book on-line, in txt format. It is huge. You tell me which parts are relevant, and I will take a peek. Yes, there is a lot to lose… time. I have other things to do, really interesting books to read, games to play, places to visit… this is just a short break.