Is philosophy necessary or useful for materialists?

[PetrusRomanus]

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”.

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.

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.

Tyrion, when we die we will all see the evidence and the truth alike. This is something you are not only capable of employing, but something you will employ, as all other living humans will eventually, and we will all come to the same conclusions in regard to it s reality.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

I am going to finally get away from my computer within the next 30 minutes. But until I do, I’ll keep playing:

T:
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”. ’

S:
I agree that if the only place you’ll consider looking for God is under your microscope, you may well be disappointed in that endeavor. We have by now firmly established: I cannot prove God via the scientific method. Just in case anybody out there was hoping.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Then again, just how interested can you be in the answer to this enormous question?

You have demanded that a non-scientist prove a metaphysical fact via the scientific method.

Is that a reasonable request?

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Then again, just how interested can you be in the answer to this enormous question?

You have demanded that a non-scientist prove a metaphysical fact via the scientific method.

Is that a reasonable request?

Science is the study of the material world.
God is not of the material nor is He bound by its laws.

Youre being asked to answer English questions with Mathematics answers.

I dont see why one cannot be both a student of English and Math at the same time?

Of course one does not need to pass their english class in order to succeed in their math class, however, we will see how that ultimately affects one’s overall GPA.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

T:
“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.”

S:
I understand; I really shouldn’t be on here right now either. So, here is my suggestion: The first chapter is three pages long (ok so they’re double-sided pages! 6 page sides.) If you like the taste of that, the book will suit you. If you don’t, well, I don’t bother reading things I don’t like either.

Which parts are RELEVANT, though? I haven’t noticed this guy to waste his readers’ time. I love him precisely because he makes his case with logic, rather than saying “Just have faith and you will be saved!”

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

The book itself isn’t very large at all, but perhaps as a document it does seem intimidating. At any rate- I am new to this forum thing but I understand we can send private messages? Let me know how much you despise my hero for his lack of scientific rigor. Ttyl.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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!

No, I did not make that claim. . . because I didn’t choose to in this discussion on physicalism. You were making the case for physicalism. So I’d like to see you follow through and teach me, since you made the claim.

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.

I believe I said “sufficient reasons” and “status of my thought.” These would qualify for epistemology. If they don’t fit your physicalist world view and related methods, then you should defend why one must limit oneself to them.

Of course, if you are just making a personal policy statement that you choose to investigate reality outside the mind using only methods amenable to physical reality and anything else you deem nonexistent or meaningless, it’s a free country. But you cannot make a truth claim on other peoples’ convictions who don’t adhere to you personal policy.

On whether one should limit oneself to “objective methods” as you define them, see below.

See right below.
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.

No worries! You’ll notice the position I challenged is “The scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality.” Not what you claimed just above. Perhaps it would be clearer if I said the claim “The scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality outside the mind” must be defended.

Further your use (and by implication definition) of “objective” and “physical” is circular: objective=physical/measureable and physical/measureable=objective. This simply rephrases the physicalist claim or merely uses it methodologically, without first justifying it, to critique other claims; and then to no one’s surprise arrive at the conclusion that nothing but the physical survives the critique.

Prior to defending physicalism in this discussion you cannot limit observer-independent reality, i.e., reality outside the mind, to physical objects and their relations, and you can’t limit methods of inquiry to those suited only to physical objects. That’s begging the question.

I understand the distinction between observer-dependent and observer-independent reality. I understand that in Example #2, “A” and “B” are truthfully expressing their qualia involved in lifting the stone and that that differs from publically-observable and agreed-upon measurement. As a report of qualia they make no truth claim regarding observer-independent (in this case physical) reality, reality outside the mind.

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.

I already said I would “present the status of my thought” and “sufficient reasons for maintaining it” to enable you to make your case to me. These are epistemological terms involving epistemological considerations. I welcomed you to show me why I am rationally compelled reject them. You said you weren’t interested.

Don’t expect me to limit myself to a physicalist methodology before you have shown why it is more reasonable to do so.

So, then, now should I “present the status of my thought” and “sufficient reasons for maintaining it” re theism so you can defend physicalism and show me why theists are rationally compelled reject what we thought were sufficient reasons and so adopt physicalism, or not?

 

[John_Savage]

So, we’re all agreed that if one assumes a material universe, nothing is necessary beyond science as far as tools for the collection of useful, real knowledge?

Philosophy would be nothing more than a diversion for materialists. Stephen Hawking is right that philosophy is dead if there is no supernatural.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Using the scientific method correctly precludes the discovery of anything beyond the material universe, as Fr of Jazz said way better than I could. : )

I seem to remember a story that the Russians- likely Communists- rocketed into space one time looking for God. They did not find him, and drew the obvious conclusion.

This was physicalism’s finest hour.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

""So, we’re all agreed that if one assumes a material universe, nothing is necessary beyond science as far as tools for the collection of useful, real knowledge?

Philosophy would be nothing more than a diversion for materialists. Stephen Hawking is right that philosophy is dead if there is no supernatural.""

S: You might be right, but it is so hard (for me at least) to imagine a world completely devoid of all meaning. The book “Brave New World” comes to mind.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Who here needs a good laugh?

For an exquisite, though brief commentary on the Russians’ venture into Heaven:

Mere C.S. Lewis

Ken Symes serves up a daily jolt of java from "Jack" Lewis

merecslewis.blogspot.com

At the top-left search bar, look up “russians”

 

[Tyrion]

I agree that if the only place you’ll consider looking for God is under your microscope, you may well be disappointed in that endeavor. We have by now firmly established: I cannot prove God via the scientific method. Just in case anybody out there was hoping.

But this is a problem. If God interacts with the physical world, then the interface is at least partially physical. And something that is physical is subject to the scientific scrutiny. Here is the problem in a few bullets:

1. God interacts with the physical reality.
2. Therefore the interaction is partially physical.
3. Whatever is physical, is subject to the scientific method.
4. Therefore God’s interaction with the physical reality is subject to the scientific method.
5. As such God can be tested.

You deny this. As such your assertion is that not everything that is physical is subject to the scientific method - which is a positive claim. It is incumbent upon you to bring up arguments for it. And since this assertion is about the physical reality, you MUST restrict yourself to the scientific method.

Then again, just how interested can you be in the answer to this enormous question?

You have demanded that a non-scientist prove a metaphysical fact via the scientific method.

Is that a reasonable request?

Actually, I did not demand that. I explicitly said that any method is acceptable - as long as it can be used by the skepics, and the result can be verified.

I understand; I really shouldn’t be on here right now either. So, here is my suggestion: The first chapter is three pages long (ok so they’re double-sided pages! 6 page sides.) If you like the taste of that, the book will suit you. If you don’t, well, I don’t bother reading things I don’t like either.

That I can do. When I am done, I will present my views.

 

[Tyrion]

No worries! You’ll notice the position I challenged is “The scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality.” Not what you claimed just above. Perhaps it would be clearer if I said the claim “The scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality outside the mind” must be defended.

Very well. As for the “physicalist” view… it is simply a working principle. We observe the reality, and all we can “see” (not verbatim “see”, but experience with our senses and their extensions) is physical. Therefore, we make the “inductive claim” that there is no reason to look beyond it. Now, just like with every inductive claim, this is not set in stone. It is not a “dogmatic” stance. If and when there is a valid reason to abandon it, or modify it, one must be prepared to do so.

Now the physicalists are more than happy with this principle, since it serves them perfectly well. The trillions of real problems we ever encountered have been successfully solved by the methods based upon this principle. As such the expectation that the upcoming problems will also be solved - is very well substantiated. From the physicalist’s point of view it is futile to entertain anything further, it is a waste of time - since the real problems are so utterly fascinating and since there are so many of them. Yet, the physicalists are not closed to the possibility that there might be a need to expand or even abandon their principle.

It is the theists who try to assert that such an expansion is “due”, that physicalism is somehow “deficient”. As such it is their job to do the groundwork, and demonstrate that the physicalist stance is insufficient. And that is where the physicalist justly demands to see the epistemology of the theists. Can you present a valid problem, which cannot be solved by the physicalist method? Just a friendly reminder, a problem does not become “valid”, just because some people believe so. No matter, how many people assert that the problem: “How many angels who can stand on the tip of needle?” is a valid problem, it will be rejected.

An example, which I have used before, but it is worth to repeat. The new agers assert that there are some curative powers in the shape of pyramids. Some also assert that there are some “paranormal” powers, which allow them to manipulate the reality with their minds. As soon as they can demonstrate these claims, they will be taken seriously. They can even get a million bucks from the James Randi Foundation. You can get the price, too, as soon as you can demonstrate that your views are correct.

Don’t expect me to limit myself to a physicalist methodology before you have shown why it is more reasonable to do so.

I did not. I explictly said that you can use any kind of methodology, as soon as you can tell me, what it is, how should I employ it, and what results can I expect. If you do that, then I can verify your claims. Your hands are free…

 

[levinas12]

There’s seem to be consensus that not all “truth” is subject to the scientific method.

For example, how do you determine the meaning of a poem?

There’s no controlled experiment, or a mathematical equation or physical verification of a prediction.

Yet we would like to think that we “understand” the poem.

Other examples. Understanding a conversation or the point of a joke or a painting.

How do we arrive at “truth” or “rational objectivity” in these activities?

 

[Tyrion]

There’s seem to be consensus that not all “truth” is subject to the scientific method.

For example, how do you determine the meaning of a poem?

There’s no controlled experiment, or a mathematical equation or physical verification of a prediction.

Yet we would like to think that we “understand” the poem.

Other examples. Understanding a conversation or the point of a joke or a painting.

How do we arrive at “truth” or “rational objectivity” in these activities?

This has already been covered. There is no “truth” to subjective opinions. The poem has no objectibe “meaning”. It has a subjective meaning of the author, and the subjective meaning of the readers - and those do not necessariky collide. Predictions about the future have no “truth” value. Jokes, or pieces of art are also subjective.

The claims about the “non-physical” do not belong (supposedly!) into this category. They are supposed to have an objective truth value associated with them. The question is STILL the same - how do you decide which one is true and which one is false?

Suppose, two people have a conversation: one says: “angels have no free will”… the other says: “yes they do, they are not robots”. How can you find out who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Very well. As for the “physicalist” view… it is simply a working principle. We observe the reality, and all we can “see” (not verbatim “see”, but experience with our senses and their extensions) is physical. Therefore, we make the “inductive claim” that there is no reason to look beyond it. Now, just like with every inductive claim, this is not set in stone. It is not a “dogmatic” stance. If and when there is a valid reason to abandon it, or modify it, one must be prepared to do so.

Now the physicalists are more than happy with this principle, since it serves them perfectly well. The trillions of real problems we ever encountered have been successfully solved by the methods based upon this principle. As such the expectation that the upcoming problems will also be solved - is very well substantiated. From the physicalist’s point of view it is futile to entertain anything further, it is a waste of time - since the real problems are so utterly fascinating and since there are so many of them. Yet, the physicalists are not closed to the possibility that there might be a need to expand or even abandon their principle.

I’m all for the proper use of the inductive method in general and the scientific method (SM) in particular since there are physical things in reality. And mechanistic, quantitative questions put to physical things in reality require an empirical and quantitative method to answer them. The SM evolved in history to deal with just these things. I also think it is perfectly legitimate, in principle, to study anything by the SM so long as the scientists involved are satisfied with the experimental design.

Nevertheless it does seem that you are just making a personal policy statement that you choose to investigate reality outside the mind using only methods amenable to physical reality and anything else you deem nonexistent or meaningless or “invalid.” But then what justification do you have to pronounce on the veracity of other peoples’ convictions just because they don’t adhere to your personal policy? The most you can say is that they don’t adhere to my personal policy.

It is the theists who try to assert that such an expansion is “due”, that physicalism is somehow “deficient”. As such it is their job to do the groundwork, and demonstrate that the physicalist stance is insufficient. And that is where the physicalist justly demands to see the epistemology of the theists. Can you present a valid problem, which cannot be solved by the physicalist method? Just a friendly reminder, a problem does not become “valid”, just because some people believe so. No matter, how many people assert that the problem: “How many angels who can stand on the tip of needle?” is a valid problem, it will be rejected.

(1) You’ve got the history backwards regarding theists expanding the domain of reality. Historically it is physicalists who have argued against the preexisting theistic tradition (going back to time immemorial) that one is rationally compelled to restrict the domain of reality to the physical. I have been asking you to tell me why I should. So far you have not.

It would go something like this: 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 . . . .
Why can’t you do that?

(2) Again, I did not say to you that there is an “an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unobservable entity as an “immortal soul” or God and I will prove it to you. You were making the case for physicalism. So even in this discussion the burden of proof is on you.

Soooo . . . as far as problems go, you will decide based on a physicalist method prior to justifying it, which ones are valid?

An example, which I have used before, but it is worth to repeat. The new agers assert that there are some curative powers in the shape of pyramids. Some also assert that there are some “paranormal” powers, which allow them to manipulate the reality with their minds. As soon as they can demonstrate these claims, they will be taken seriously. They can even get a million bucks from the James Randi Foundation. You can get the price, too, as soon as you can demonstrate that your views are correct.

I did not. I explictly said that you can use any kind of methodology, as soon as you can tell me, what it is, how should I employ it, and what results can I expect. If you do that, then I can verify your claims. Your hands are free…

Again you’ve got it backwards. You stated and began making the case for physicalism. I’m asking you to follow through. Why is one rationally compelled to adopt it? Why won’t you say so?

You left out the fact that I asked several times: should I “present the status of my thought” and “sufficient reasons for maintaining it” re theism so you can defend physicalism and show me why theists are rationally compelled reject what we thought were sufficient reasons and so adopt physicalism, or not? I also noted that to “present the status of my thought” and “sufficient reasons for maintaining it” is epistemological, and, I would add, methodological.

So yes or no?

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

1. God interacts with the physical reality.
2. Therefore the interaction is partially physical.
3. Whatever is physical, is subject to the scientific method.
4. Therefore God’s interaction with the physical reality is subject to the scientific method.
5. As such God can be tested.

Here’s something I stole from C.S. Lewis (again):

"I have known only one person in my life who claimed to have seen a ghost. It was a woman; and the interesting thing is that she disbelieved in the immortality of the soul before seeing the ghost and still disbelieves after having seen it. She thinks it was a hallucination. In other words, seeing is not believing. This is the first thing to get clear in talking about miracles. Whatever experiences we may have, we shall not regard them as miraculous if we already hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural. Any event which is claimed as a miracle is, in the last resort, an experience received from the senses; and the senses are not infallible. We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we shall always say. Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed. For let us make no mistake. If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psychoanalysis, or cerebral pathology. Experience by itself proves nothing. If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream. Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring to it.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

As such your assertion is that not everything that is physical is subject to the scientific method - which is a positive claim. It is incumbent upon you to bring up arguments for it. And since this assertion is about the physical reality, you MUST restrict yourself to the scientific method.

I disagree with your perception of my view. Allow me to admit: everything that is physical IS subject to the scientific method.

I am not certain you understand my view of what would constitute a “miracle”. To me it appears you assume that I believe some natural, material thing would suddenly- spontaneously- cease acting according to its nature. Possibly calling for an expansion of the laws we thought we knew concerning it.

My view is otherwise: simply that if there were some unimaginable force or thing outside the material universe (not improbably Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”) that was able to interfere with the workings of Nature- I do not see how science could be expected to tell us much about it. Nor do I think there could be a controlled experiment to detect the presence of that thing. Like we established earlier- your methodology precludes you from discovering anything but scientific facts.

My question: Would your methodology also leave out things like history, or the idea that I would do better NOT to be a cruel and treacherous person?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Surprizd

My question: Would your methodology also leave out things like history, or the idea that I would do better NOT to be a cruel and treacherous person?

Not to mention esthetics, politics, epistemology, mathematics, etc.

 

[Tyrion]

Nevertheless it does seem that you are just making a personal policy statement that you choose to investigate reality outside the mind using only methods amenable to physical reality and anything else you deem nonexistent or meaningless or “invalid.” But then what justification do you have to pronounce on the veracity of other peoples’ convictions just because they don’t adhere to your personal policy? The most you can say is that they don’t adhere to my personal policy.

Actually, it is not a “personal” policy. And as far as I am concerned, you (all theists) can believe whatever you want. Just don’t expect to be taken seriosly, if you are unable (and looks like unwilling) to demonstrate that your beliefs are not wishful thinking, that they reflect reality (not necessarily “physical” reality).

(1) You’ve got the history backwards regarding theists expanding the domain of reality. Historically it is physicalists who have argued against the preexisting theistic tradition (going back to time immemorial) that one is rationally compelled to restrict the domain of reality to the physical. I have been asking you to tell me why I should. So far you have not.

As I said, you can believe whatever you want to. But I must reflect on your historical perspective. You are correct that the “first” view of reality was somewhat “theistic”. (Not in the modern montheistic sense of word, of course.) Naturally, since people lacked all the knowledge about nature, so they tried the simplest “explanation” : it is all caused by some “gods”. These “gods” were the “gods of the gaps”. As knowledge accumulated, the sphere of the gaps kept decreasing, and today it almost disappeared. Some “stubborn” apologists keep trying to place the working of the brain, called: mind into the non-physical realm… but pretty much that is it. Why should you abandon your stance? Because it is foolish to keep betting on a horse, which kept losing in every race it was entered. But, hey, it is you life, do whatever you want.

It would go something like this: 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 . . . .
Why can’t you do that?

Well, I did right above. To repeat: “whatever you theists attributed to those ‘gods’… after a careful scrutiny, all turned to be natural phenomena”.

(2) Again, I did not say to you that there is an “an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unobservable entity as an “immortal soul” or God and I will prove it to you. You were making the case for physicalism. So even in this discussion the burden of proof is on you.

Soooo . . . as far as problems go, you will decide based on a physicalist method prior to justifying it, which ones are valid?

The justification is called the “proof of the pudding”. But again, if you do not wish to substantiate your worldview, that is perfecly fine.

Again you’ve got it backwards. You stated and began making the case for physicalism. I’m asking you to follow through. Why is one rationally compelled to adopt it? Why won’t you say so?

I did, right above.

You left out the fact that I asked several times: should I “present the status of my thought” and “sufficient reasons for maintaining it” re theism so you can defend physicalism and show me why theists are rationally compelled reject what we thought were sufficient reasons and so adopt physicalism, or not? I also noted that to “present the status of my thought” and “sufficient reasons for maintaining it” is epistemological, and, I would add, methodological.

So yes or no?

Sure, go ahead. When I said: “your hands are free”, I meant exactly that. Maybe it was not explicit enough. Sorry.