Is philosophy necessary or useful for materialists?

[Charlemagne_II]

** Originally Posted by Tyrion View Post
The trouble is that I have never seen a theist who would admit that there is evidence against God’ existence.**

The trouble is that I’ve never heard of an atheist who argues against the existence of God on his deathbed, whereas I’ve heard of quite a few who suddenly came to their senses.

 

[levinas12]

Who cares what those nincompoops say?

Do you realize that you are calling Alfred North Whitehead a nincompoop? I hope he doesn’t find out (and maybe he won’t because he’s currently deceased).

 

[levinas12]

You totally confuse the language with its referents.

Not only did I not invent the “referent”, I did not invent the “sense” or the “signifier”.

See Frege and de Saussure.

 

[Love4All]

How incredibly simplistic. There are also attributes, relationships, actions, concepts … all of which are “non-physical”, but of course they cannot exist without the underlying physical framework.

How do you know they exist?

Complex structures cannot be reduced to the components, there are the emering attributes, which need to be investigated and explained on their own rights.

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.

Philosophy consists of several parts:

1. Metaphysics - what exists?
2. Epistemology - how do we know it?
3. Ethics - how should we behave?

The answers are simple:

1. The physical universe exists, along with its non-physical properties, relationships, attributes, concepts, actions, etc…
2. We know it by making observations, setting up hypotheses, testing them and drawing conculsions.
3. By understanding our nature, by realizing that we are both both individuals and herd animals, by finding a good balance between cooperative and competing behaviors, by using our reason to find basic principles like the “golden rules”.

These are all obvious propositions. So in a sense, philosophy is a dead subject.

For those who are not satisfied with this reality, there is speculation. Speculation is wonderful. People can wonder about “what else can there be”? Is this all there is? Nothing wrong with such questions, as long one has a full stomach, does not have to worry about cold and hunger. Speculation was always a happy pastime of the well-to-do.

The trouble is - as always - the epistemology. How do we find out is our speculations are realisitic, and not just empty musings? The believers cannot offer any objective epistemological methods to find out if their conclusions correspond to reality. They can only offfer “testimonials” of people. There is no objective, repeatable, independent method which could be used by the skepics. That is the problem.

While I disagree with categorizing the entirety of human interaction with unseen realities as “speculation,” I suppose that is as good a word as any other. Let us define “speculation” as religion, philosophy, meditation, the search for enlightenment, etc. Everything outside of getting to your job, working, bringing home your pay, and providing for your shelter and sustenance, we shall call “speculation.”

There are schools of “speculation,” and there is research into “speculation.” There are many methods offered for “speculators” to investigate “speculative” — i.e. non-physical — reality. There are reports of what has been found there, and methods given for reproducing the results. Of course, in keeping with your dismissal of “speculation” above, we must equally dismiss all this as “testimonials.”

Now, is it because we have labeled them “testimonials,” that there is no material, or have we dismissed all the material as “testimonials” because it all concerns itself with “speculation?” This is a key question. Once we acknowledge that there are non-physical realities, the question is, how to regard them? A few different avenues suggest themselves based on what you’ve said.

A. Dismiss all the material as “testimonials” of “speculation.”

B. Investigate what there may be, following out the methods given, checking actual results against expectations.

Which of these two courses strikes you as more scientific? The first? Because it seems to me that your preference would be for the first. Myself, I prefer the second, and I have found good reason for preferring the second, but not without, alas, actually carrying out what is stated in the second. In other words, if I had taken as the a priori default that these “testimonials of speculation” are not worth investigating, I probably wouldn’t have investigated them.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

How can there be a conversation with someone whose basic stance is: “God exists! God is all good”! All the seemingly bad, horrible things we see are simply ‘measurement errors’!"

“Measurement errors” indeed. I’d thank you not to put words in my mouth.

No good Catholic would deny that the world can be heartless, cruel, and sick.

What I would deny, is that a materialist such as yourself has any grounds to object to heartlessness, cruelty or perversion. Because, these words have no meaning for you… right?

Let’s say you had to witness the way Americans treated their slaves, in that most shameful part of our history. Here is what YOUR philosophy would say:

“I don’t relish the way you treat our black brethren, Mr. Slave-owner, albeit this is simply my preference. (Heaven forbid I should say slavery is wrong!) Kindly peruse my lengthy and abstruse essay on ‘Game Theory’.”

Perhaps “materialist” is simply a polite word for “moral castrate”.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Another thinker already asked, and answered your objection:

"If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious? But then that threw me back into another difficulty.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality- namely my idea of justice- was full of sense.” (same author as before)

Therefore, Tyrion: if you object to the way this world is (as do I), on what do you base your objections? Are there REAL wrongs that need to be righted, or not?

 

[Tyrion]

Oh really? Then you haven’t met me.

Fortunately it is not too late.

So what prevents me from becoming an atheist after all? One essential thing is the argument from the extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature…

That might be an interesting topic to discuss. I am game.

Another essential argument for me is the Argument from Reason, which denies that there are, or even in principle can be, good materialist explanations for human rationality.

I doubt that. But it would be improductive to grab too many subjects at the same time.

Do I think that I might be wrong about my faith in God? Sure, the possibility exists. I am mature enough to concede that. However, I find it highly unlikely. I don’t have absolute certainty (I even have no personal ‘experience’ of God that could give me that), but I am as certain about it as you can reasonably be about most things in life.

I can reciprocate your attitude. I do not have 100% certainty about the lack of God’s existence. But there are too many problems with it, so I cannot accept it. Again, this might be an interesting topic. One problem is the “definition” of certain attributes. People usually presume that those attributes are “well-defined” - but when of starts to “scratch them”, it turns out that they are totally meaningless.

Here is an excellent defense:

I took a peek, and did not like what I saw. Again, we could talk about it. Here is a link which contains the synopsys of the usual arguments, which try to explain the existence of evil. Short and sweet. The tale of the twelve officers The usual reply to it is that it is a “caricature”, and no one wishes to discuss it. Of course it is anything but a caricature.

---

If you are interested, we can have a conversation about all those topics, but not at the same time. It would be too much to “chew”. If you are interested, we could start with the “fine-tuning” argument. However, I would like to make one caveat. I do not have either the time, or the inclination of reading long essays about any of these topics. It is my experience that essays tend to have 95% of “fluff” and 5% of “essence”. Since you are already familiar with them, I would suggest to make a synopsys of the “gist” of them. It is also my firm conviction that concepts can be presented with simple words. As I said before, I am a great admirer of Hemingway, who wrote short, crystal clear sentences. I have no patience with long, convoluted arguments.

If you want to, we can have a dialog. That would mean to disregard the posts of other people. I am interested in what YOU have to say. Your choice.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Fortunately it is not too late.

Apparently not

I can reciprocate your attitude. I do not have 100% certainty about the lack of God’s existence. But there are too many problems with it, so I cannot accept it.

I see it the same way with regard to atheism: there are too many problems with it, so I cannot accept it.

There are arguments on both sides, and each of us can only weigh them and decide for themselves which ones cumulatively come out on top. For me it is no contest for the theistic side, but even though I cannot in any way agree I can very well see how someone else can come to opposite conclusions. An issue that is often overlooked is that theists and atheists appear to have different ‘basic intuitions’, acquired by habit, by thinking about issues or by assimilating from their surroundings, or all of the above. Any rational thought processes are necessarily overlaid on these ‘basic intuitions’ since rational thought does not exist in a vacuum. As a result, conclusions can differ greatly even though both parties may have strived to be as rational and unbiased about issues as possible. And no, I don’t buy the argument that atheists/naturalists are automatically more rational just because they think of themselves being on the side of ‘reason’. I have seen wildly irrational argumentation from both sides, and often (obviously not always!) atheists are quite comparable to creationists or sometimes even to the dreaded religious fundamentalists in their manner and quality of argumentation. On the other hand, I have often sided with atheists as the voice of reason, especially when it came to scientific issues.

I took a peek, and did not like what I saw. Again, we could talk about it. Here is a link which contains the synopsys of the usual arguments, which try to explain the existence of evil. Short and sweet. The tale of the twelve officers The usual reply to it is that it is a “caricature”, and no one wishes to discuss it. Of course it is anything but a caricature.

That ‘officers’ tale’ is a very well written essay which goes straight to the heart of the problems. Yet the arguments that are raised there are, in my view, quite effectively countered by the article that you took a peek at and didn’t like. A problem with the essay is also the form of analogy, the equation of humans (the officers) with God. Good humans are expected to visibly physically intervene in such situations, but this does not necessarily hold for a good God who not even is embodied like humans are. Yet I will concede that the problem of evil does remain a potent argument in favor of atheism. It is only that for me it does not outweigh the arguments in favor of the existence of God, and a good and loving God at that. As someone once nicely put it, “you first need to have a universe before you can complain about it”. But to be honest, when it comes to actually debating the problem of evil, there may be others on this board more qualified than I am.

If you are interested, we can have a conversation about all those topics, but not at the same time. It would be too much to “chew”.

I agree, we should keep it at one topic at a time. I also hate these internet discussions where it all becomes overwhelming since so many side topics are touched as well, and you don’t have time to answer them all.

If you are interested, we could start with the “fine-tuning” argument. However, I would like to make one caveat. I do not have either the time, or the inclination of reading long essays about any of these topics. It is my experience that essays tend to have 95% of “fluff” and 5% of “essence”. Since you are already familiar with them, I would suggest to make a synopsys of the “gist” of them. It is also my firm conviction that concepts can be presented with simple words. As I said before, I am a great admirer of Hemingway, who wrote short, crystal clear sentences. I have no patience with long, convoluted arguments.

If you want to, we can have a dialog. That would mean to disregard the posts of other people. I am interested in what YOU have to say. Your choice.

Sure, we can have a discussion, and I will not ask you to read any long essay except mine:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God
(A philosophical perspective on findings of science)

When you say “I am interested in what YOU have to say”, that is what you get. In my article I articulate the things that I want to say as well and as nuanced as I can, and answer all objections to the arguments as best and as comprehensively as I can, so this text should be the basis of our discussion after you have carefully read it.

 

[Tyrion]

There are arguments on both sides, and each of us can only weigh them and decide for themselves which ones cumulatively come out on top. For me it is no contest for the theistic side, but even though I cannot in any way agree I can very well see how someone else can come to opposite conclusions. An issue that is often overlooked is that theists and atheists appear to have different ‘basic intuitions’, acquired by habit, by thinking about issues or by assimilating from their surroundings, or all of the above. Any rational thought processes are necessarily overlaid on these ‘basic intuitions’ since rational thought does not exist in a vacuum. As a result, conclusions can differ greatly even though both parties may have strived to be as rational and unbiased about issues as possible. And no, I don’t buy the argument that atheists/naturalists are automatically more rational just because they think of themselves being on the side of ‘reason’. I have seen wildly irrational argumentation from both sides, and often (obviously not always!) atheists are quite comparable to creationists or sometimes even to the dreaded religious fundamentalists in their manner and quality of argumentation. On the other hand, I have often sided with atheists as the voice of reason, especially when it came to scientific issues.

Strongly agreed. Neither intelligence, nor stupidity can be “tied” to one’s basic worldview

That ‘officers’ tale’ is a very well written essay which goes straight to the heart of the problems. Yet the arguments that are raised there are, in my view, quite effectively countered by the article that you took a peek at and didn’t like. A problem with the essay is also the form of analogy, the equation of humans (the officers) with God. Good humans are expected to visibly physically intervene in such situations, but this does not necessarily hold for a good God who not even is embodied like humans are. Yet I will concede that the problem of evil does remain a potent argument in favor of atheism. It is only that for me it does not outweigh the arguments in favor of the existence of God, and a good and loving God at that. As someone once nicely put it, “you first need to have a universe before you can complain about it”. But to be honest, when it comes to actually debating the problem of evil, there may be others on this board more qualified than I am.

I will touch upon the link you provided. After all the basic concept of it pertaining to God’s “essense” (for lack of a better word) will be important to discuss. But not yet, not here.

So I started a new thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10483400#post10483400. See you there.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

I argue that the art of philosophy is both useful and necessary for materialists. But, it is even more crucial for theists.

The art of swimming is sorely needed by a drowning man. But, it is even more crucial for the lifeguard.

 

[tonyrey]

Now that I think about it, I recall us having versions of this conversation before. Rather than rehash everything here I’ve posted links to the previous discussions. Something to note from previous responses is the entanglement between rational and irrational thought in humans. The feelings/emotion of the self and others are often a moral consideration. Depending on which definition of “irrational” that you are using feelings in many cases would be classified as “irrational.”

You still need to specify whether reason is the fundamental factor or not.

Science may inform one’s moral considerations, but is not always a consideration.

Then science is deficient in that respect - which is where philosophy comes in.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You still need to specify whether reason is the fundamental factor or not.

Reason[1] is a part of many actions that are driven by intentions. I’m not sure if this meets your criteria for it being considered a “fundamental factor.”

Then science is deficient in that respect - which is where philosophy comes in.

It is deficient in much the same way that power saws are deficient at driving screws. The central theme of science as I understand it is to gather information on the natural world. Some one with that information can potentially be more effective at navigating their way to certain types of goals. Whether those goals be good, bad, positive, negative, constructive, destructive, is not guaranteed or implied. The same knife that is used to end a life may save one. People can be both helped and hurt with radiation, so on.

I suspect you may have interacted with people that have specific goals in mind (ex: minimize harm, maximize life span, so on) and have concluded that science is the best way to become informed on how to accomplish those goals. However, when I’ve witnessed those discussions in the past the goals appear to be assumed and it’s been stated alone that “science is the way to discover moral behaviour.”

Reason[1] - v.intr, To use the faculty of reason; think logically.

 

[Stillness]

Philosophy is an attempt to find explanations or to legitimize behaviors. As our minds grew above those of other animals, we became aware of our own existence and attempted to give ourselves purpose. We were no longer like other animals, who do not seem to think of purpose like we do. They are capable of living entirely by automatic, instinctual functions.

Philosophy also served as an attempt to moralize behavior. Having gained the capacity to examine our own behavior, we wanted to know why we did things and why things should be done. So we affixed morality onto behaviors that grew out of our natural development; killing an intruder was now morally justified, instead of merely happening because of our instinct to survive. Philosophy is useful in the sense that it is almost automatic for us; it is the nature of our brains to attempt to look for morality and purpose where neither exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Reason[1] is a part of many actions that are driven by intentions. I’m not sure if this meets your criteria for it being considered a “fundamental factor.”

 

[tonyrey]

Philosophy is an attempt to find explanations or to legitimize behaviors. As our minds grew above those of other animals, we became aware of our own existence and attempted to give ourselves purpose. We were no longer like other animals, who do not seem to think of purpose like we do. They are capable of living entirely by automatic, instinctual functions.

Philosophy also served as an attempt to moralize behavior. Having gained the capacity to examine our own behavior, we wanted to know why we did things and why things should be done. So we affixed morality onto behaviors that grew out of our natural development; killing an intruder was now morally justified, instead of merely happening because of our instinct to survive. Philosophy is useful in the sense that it is almost automatic for us; it is the nature of our brains to attempt to look for morality and purpose where neither exist.

If neither morality nor purpose exists reasoning is amoral and purposeless! In other words it is unimportant and redundant…

 

[Stillness]

If neither morality nor purpose exists reasoning is amoral and purposeless! In other words it is unimportant and redundant…

Yes, that is the case as far as I see it. I meant to say that it is important only in a relative sense, in that you can use it to explain certain things if you accept underlying assumptions. But if you do not accept such assumptions, it has no purpose.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;10485180:

Then you agree that science has to be supplemented by philosophy.

Has to? I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[John_Savage]

Thank you. It’s not useful in the sense that it accomplishes its stated goal, which is to arrive at truth.

Philosophy is an attempt to find explanations or to legitimize behaviors. As our minds grew above those of other animals, we became aware of our own existence and attempted to give ourselves purpose. We were no longer like other animals, who do not seem to think of purpose like we do. They are capable of living entirely by automatic, instinctual functions.

Philosophy also served as an attempt to moralize behavior. Having gained the capacity to examine our own behavior, we wanted to know why we did things and why things should be done. So we affixed morality onto behaviors that grew out of our natural development; killing an intruder was now morally justified, instead of merely happening because of our instinct to survive. Philosophy is useful in the sense that it is almost automatic for us; it is the nature of our brains to attempt to look for morality and purpose where neither exist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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”!

Long story short, you have already admitted the human mind forms " non physical " concepts. We may also add acts of the will, appreciation of beauty in all its aspects from the symmetry of mathematics and science to the beauty of an evening sunset. We can also add the " life " which animates living creatures and makes their acts immanent and self preserving. Then there is " love " and " desire, " the " sting " of conscience, self awareness, even your " musings " and day dreams. All are immaterial acts of Man. So how can these things be possible without the existence of a source, an immaterial soul?

That is the basis of Thomistic epistemology. You may find it discussed in both Summas which you can read onlin. This subject is covered, for example, in the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Ques. 75-102. Thomas also wrote a commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima which is also online.

Guardian Anbels are not objects of philosophical truth but subject to speculation and their certain existence is known only as objects of Revealed Truth.

The epistemology of St. Thomas and the Scholastics are " theistic " only in the sense that it is the product of men and women of Faith.

Why not give it a try instead of basing your " musings " on secular and hostile commentators?

Oh by the way, your limitation of philosophy to the objects of science is purely arbitrary. Actually, and I am sure you already know, Philosophy as defined by ST. Thomas and the Scholastics is the study of being as being or as existing. Science presumes the existence of the objects of their study, Philosophy begins with that object and asks what are its inner principles. Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

If neither morality nor purpose exists reasoning is amoral and purposeless! In other words it is unimportant and redundant…

In other words your nihilism is diluted when you think fit. You select what suits you as valuable and reject the rest… Rather naughty, don’t you think?