Is science scientific?!

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Excellent questions and more good points raised throughout.

Those were actually some of the key questions I wanted answered because it would help me better understand your argument.

I can demonstrate three things which are objective and universal.

1. The first one we already saw. The act of “Valuing” is universal and necessary. Evalutions are made and every rational intelligence engages, necessarily and absolutely in this action.

‘universal’ appears to be used incorrectly, the ability to value appears to only exist with some form of consciousness, and given much of the universe appears to be absent in consciousness that would by definition not make this act universal but rather quite restricted.

1. The act of valuing uses the concept of a scale of values. One of the terms used on that scale is the term “Better” (or its opposite, “worse”). Those are terms used in the act of Valuing aspects of existence.

Agreed.

1. Whenever the term Better is used (and it always is used universally), it indicates that something is “less better” – or “less perfect”.

As far as I’m aware nothing can be ‘less’ or ‘more’ perfect, it either is perfect or it is not. Perfection being an absolute standard(and one that I feel has never been defined as perfection appears to be more of a concept than an actuality) a thing that is better than another is no closer to perfection because that makes it better than the other is not necessarily a perfect attribute. This is the problem with using terms like perfect.

With those three demonstrable points, we can logically deduce that we are universally capable of recognizing values in existence. (The specifics about what is better or worse is a different matter).

Yeah, that seems reasonable. I don’t really like the use of the term ‘universally’ here though.

To say something is better than another, an end point on the scale is the standard from which we measure. If we find a flaw in something, we measure that against flawlessness.

Yes and no, regarding flaws most definitely but when something is better than another we don’t necessarily have an end product in mind. I know my friends computer is better than mine in regards to processing power, hard drive space and other great things but do I have any idea what the ‘best’ computer could be, absolutely not, the technology for computers could advance so much further that it already has and I dare not speculate as to what it could eventuate as.

So, the standard must exist since this action of valuation is universal to human nature.

False, the action of basing things off of a standard does not necessarily imply that the standard is a reality especially since different people use different standards.

True because we’re using “less perfect” reasons or standards by which to measure.

I still disagree with how you are using the term ‘perfect’.

A certain gun is not as good for killing people as another one. Well, that’s probably an immoral standard to use (except in times of war).

Whether it is immoral or not is unclear to me and unimportant to this debate. Here you have created a standard, the standard being ‘efficiency for killing’.

So, the reason or purpose for our act of valuing things also can be more or less perfect.

The most perfect reason for valuing things is to participate fully in Goodness (which is the fullness of Being).

Whatever Goodness is and how it relates to perfection eludes me.

Exactly and that’s why it seems like there is no standard. But even a person seeking to commit a crime or a sin is seeking fulness or completeness, although using the completely wrong approach. So, the standard is the same – Goodness or Happiness in its fullness. We measure things against that and we can see defects. It doesn’t matter what things we’re talking about – as soon as we see a flaw, we’re saying that flawlessness is a standard.

Happiness in itself is subjective, if ultimately standards are aimed at achieving happiness then many different standards exist. I personally do not gain satisfaction from erotic asphyxiation but apparently some do. Their standard for satisfaction, pleasure and happiness is very different from mine.

Something being temporary is a flaw as compared to having its Goodness available permanently. The loss of something takes away from existence.

But something is never truly lost, only subjectively, the matter that makes up the dead still exists, only those that have emotional attachments care that the person that the matter formed is gone.

Yes, it would. But we have lots of little “mini-standards” that get in the way of the Ultimate – eternal, unchanging Value.

We have to follow the chain of values – up the ladder or up the scale from worse to better to absolute best and perfect.

Based on the subjective concepts of perfect and best I feel your conclusion is a bit of a stretch.

 

[curtish1947]

Yes, close, I generally describe it as, “I don’t know what people mean when they say God.” Or my preferred phrasing. You say, “God,” I say, “What?”

And to be honest I don’t, I haven’t come across anyone who shares the exact same view of God as anybody else, our own perception being different makes the resulting belief different even if only marginally but on top of that, everybodies view of God could be wrong, there could be none or their could be one nobody has thought of.

Hi,

I am more than a little bit, challenged, by the use of Philosophical esoterica, to prove the existence of anything, if every point and word within the esoterica is not proven first.

I am delighted by your posts so far. They have objectivity. They (your posts) approach, to me, the desire to be a objective as humanly possible.

Is it also possible that you try to prove yourself wrong? Is it possible you are used to using the “Take a guess and try to prove it wrong approach?” Is it possible that when you fail to prove your own guesses wrong, you ask others to look at your work?

Now, on to your statement and to the fact that I prove everything I can prove.

The statement of ~ Who, or what God is~, is stated by some to have proofs. The only problem seems to be, in personal opinions, getting in the way of objectivity of others trying to verify the proofs. Lacking any biases, except what is true stands, anyone can verify these proofs as being what they are. If bias enters than what you expect to find, your bias, is what you conclude. I am guessing, you don’t ever do that, as a personal goal.

The ““Holy Roman Catholic Church”” has several proofs. I have one, I did.

The point I have for you, is, somehow I think your honesty is as high as it can be, within human abilities. I find this from your responses to the others. You are quite scrupulous on the definition of terms, words and ideas. That is another clue. Now, if I am correct, what have you done to try and solve the dilema of “Is God Real?”, to you???

When I started, I just tried to see if anyone had anything that was provable. I found much that was possible, yet not a proof I could duplicate.

One day, I found a “”“Religion”"" that was purporting this and that position. So, I studied, and tested all that I found. I wrote to them. Eventually, I had nothing except they said, they followed the Bible, and ((as is typical of three religions, I know personally)) they are right while everyone else is wrong.

So, I studied, myself. I used primarily only what I truly understood and tried to see if the Book they claimed to use was true, false or unknown at this time, or unknowable by me etc.

The approach used, ((All approaches are changed in problems to use the one most capable of finding flaws, of a provable nature in my work))
I chose: Try and prove it wrong. So I tried.

I failed:
Then I tried to see if anyone had proven this wrong.
I found no one. ((I’m looking for those more capable than myself))

At this point, you can see I am no where. Being not able to prove something wrong, never makes it right by proof. It never makes it right. More is neede.
After a break, as the previous work took 10 years to complete. I used controlled experiments, within the Bible to see what the results were. ((There is sufficiently testable statements in The Bible, that are so simple to understand, that there is only one unknown, and that is “Is the statement true when used in unkown circumstances and in reapeated situations.”
In short, to show how difficult this is, it took three months to just find 5 unambiguous statements, fully understood statements, in that book. Also to show how difficult this is, I think it took 18 months of application for my first statement before I had enough occurances to test this to a conclusion.

In the end, without the rigors of philisophical thoughts, it would not have been possible to be objective enough, without honesty, my best attemts at this, it would not have been possible to understand the outcomes. Yet, I was not able to prove The Bible wrong, as said earlier. I was not able to find anyone else who had done this either. All the controlled experiments showed an impossibility, in our reality. There was no variance and the lack of variance was not used, as it cannot be and was not needed.

The results were, by accident as I did not intend to do this work, was I found The Bible to be True, where It says it is True. I found The Bible to be False where it says it is False.

The final two questions I have for you are:

1. If unproven man made tools ((Some Philosophical Schools of Thought)) are used as true, how can the outcome be anything but hypothetically possible.
2. Does not one experiment, stop all the circular reasoning discussions??

…Curt…

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
Sorry about the errors in spelling, grammar… I am tired. It took a lot of thought to answer that response and I did not take sufficient time to review, the rather quick response. Please let the content preside over the defficiencies in form.

…Curt…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Hi,

I am more than a little bit, challenged, by the use of Philosophical esoterica, to prove the existence of anything, if every point and word within the esoterica is not proven first.

I am delighted by your posts so far. They have objectivity. They (your posts) approach, to me, the desire to be a objective as humanly possible.

Is it also possible that you try to prove yourself wrong? Is it possible you are used to using the “Take a guess and try to prove it wrong approach?” Is it possible that when you fail to prove your own guesses wrong, you ask others to look at your work?

Now, on to your statement and to the fact that I prove everything I can prove.

The statement of ~ Who, or what God is~, is stated by some to have proofs. The only problem seems to be, in personal opinions, getting in the way of objectivity of others trying to verify the proofs. Lacking any biases, except what is true stands, anyone can verify these proofs as being what they are. If bias enters than what you expect to find, your bias, is what you conclude. I am guessing, you don’t ever do that, as a personal goal.

The ““Holy Roman Catholic Church”” has several proofs. I have one, I did.

The point I have for you, is, somehow I think your honesty is as high as it can be, within human abilities. I find this from your responses to the others. You are quite scrupulous on the definition of terms, words and ideas. That is another clue. Now, if I am correct, what have you done to try and solve the dilema of “Is God Real?”, to you???

When I started, I just tried to see if anyone had anything that was provable. I found much that was possible, yet not a proof I could duplicate.

One day, I found a “”“Religion”"" that was purporting this and that position. So, I studied, and tested all that I found. I wrote to them. Eventually, I had nothing except they said, they followed the Bible, and ((as is typical of three religions, I know personally)) they are right while everyone else is wrong.

So, I studied, myself. I used primarily only what I truly understood and tried to see if the Book they claimed to use was true, false or unknown at this time, or unknowable by me etc.

The approach used, ((All approaches are changed in problems to use the one most capable of finding flaws, of a provable nature in my work))
I chose: Try and prove it wrong. So I tried.

I failed:
Then I tried to see if anyone had proven this wrong.
I found no one. ((I’m looking for those more capable than myself))

At this point, you can see I am no where. Being not able to prove something wrong, never makes it right by proof. It never makes it right. More is neede.
After a break, as the previous work took 10 years to complete. I used controlled experiments, within the Bible to see what the results were. ((There is sufficiently testable statements in The Bible, that are so simple to understand, that there is only one unknown, and that is “Is the statement true when used in unkown circumstances and in reapeated situations.”
In short, to show how difficult this is, it took three months to just find 5 unambiguous statements, fully understood statements, in that book. Also to show how difficult this is, I think it took 18 months of application for my first statement before I had enough occurances to test this to a conclusion.

In the end, without the rigors of philisophical thoughts, it would not have been possible to be objective enough, without honesty, my best attemts at this, it would not have been possible to understand the outcomes. Yet, I was not able to prove The Bible wrong, as said earlier. I was not able to find anyone else who had done this either. All the controlled experiments showed an impossibility, in our reality. There was no variance and the lack of variance was not used, as it cannot be and was not needed.

The results were, by accident as I did not intend to do this work, was I found The Bible to be True, where It says it is True. I found The Bible to be False where it says it is False.

The final two questions I have for you are:

1. If unproven man made tools ((Some Philosophical Schools of Thought)) are used as true, how can the outcome be anything but hypothetically possible.
2. Does not one experiment, stop all the circular reasoning discussions??

…Curt…

There is a lot here, I might suggest addressing it to me in a personal message or starting a new thread, I think this thread has been derailed a bit too much already, something I may or may not have blatantly encouraged.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Hi,
Sorry about the errors in spelling, grammar… I am tired. It took a lot of thought to answer that response and I did not take sufficient time to review, the rather quick response. Please let the content preside over the defficiencies in form.

…Curt…

Yeah, I get like that sometimes, hell, I should have gone to bed 5 hours ago. I didn’t actually notice the mistakes, it was a really easy read and quite enjoyable but I still think we should move this discussion if you want a thorough response.

 

[tonyrey]

The opportunities of existence are the motive!

There is no reason to believe such a gratuitous hypothesis.:

Indeed! Including our power to make our own choices and decisions.

Indeed.

• which remain scientifically inexplicable.

Yes. They all refer to the Creator.

They all refer to a creator*. Until any evidence is shown that supports the existence of this creator there is no reason to refer to it as ‘the’ creator.

The principle of economy!

Because their insight and knowledge are limited.

Agreed.

• which explains why different religions make different suggestions about what God has done, plans to do and wants from us - some of which are far more reasonable than others.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Fair enough, what makes that declaration correct though? Is it just because a majority of the human population that have viewed and read that document and understand **its *notions agree with it? Why does that make it objectively right?

Because it is reasonable and acceptable to any reasonable person. Do you reject it? If not why not?

*

Why should you be an exception?

That was my point, I can’t see why I or anybody else should be considered to have an objective insight into what is or is not valuable.I value my own existence but I don’t see why what I value should be considered universally valuable.

Because you value your power of reason and so does every other reasonable person.
That is a very good reason(!) to believe you are not an exception in your belief that life is valuable.

There is no evidence that constructs of inanimate particles have awareness, insight or self-control. What are the mechanisms they use?

I suspect that the Brain in humans and many animals is the construct of inanimate particles that permits ‘the mind’ to exist. If you are interested in some of the mechanisms of the brain they can be found here. That should give a decent insight into the current scientific work on the mechanisms of the brain.

The mechanisms of the brain do not explain the mind with its power of abstract reasoning, free will, conscience and capacity for unselfish love. The brain is a lump of tissue inside the skull which doesn’t even know it exists!

 

[levinas12]

There’s no way to prove that there is anything “out there” since the only thing we know is our own thoughts.

But it’s not necessary to prove that an external world exists. The distinction between “inside” and “outside” deconstructs itself. If epistemically all I have access to is my private “garden” of thoughts, how could you and I ever have a conversation? How would we share a topic? I couldn’t gain access to your thoughts, and you would be barred from mine. In fact, how could I know that there was a “you”?

There is no egocentric predicament. You and I and everybody else are already and always out there in the world at large.

 

[reggieM]

But it’s not necessary to prove that an external world exists. The distinction between “inside” and “outside” deconstructs itself. If epistemically all I have access to is my private “garden” of thoughts, how could you and I ever have a conversation? How would we share a topic? I couldn’t gain access to your thoughts, and you would be barred from mine. In fact, how could I know that there was a “you”?

There is no egocentric predicament. You and I and everybody else are already and always out there in the world at large.

True, but we can’t know that we are having a conversation. That does sound strange, but the only thing we can know and observe is ourself interiorly.

In the same way, for example, we don’t know what reality looks like through the echolocation sensory apparatus of a bat. A bat may actually see sound waves in the air -or have some kind of sensation that is unlike sight or sound that we have. There may be no color in the world, human beings may actually be inanimate objects (from the perspective of a bat).

Again, we think we know what a bat can sense or what the thoughts of a bat are … but we can never know that. All we know is what a human being can know. And we can only know what one human being knows – and that’s the sensations we receive from the world.

There’s no way to prove that we’re having a conversation. It could be that we’re deceived and we’re not able to truly observe and sense what reality is. We think that sounds or words or images are communicated to us from someone else. We think that “someone elses” actually exist. But we can’t truly prove that because we would have to get outside of ourselves, outside of our reality to validate that our perception of reality is true.

But we’re inside the world that we’re claiming that we understand – which can only be understood from a perspective above and beyond it.

We think we are proving things, but that based on an assumption that there are really people and that our senses actually communicate something about reality to us.

We all have experienced optical illusions. We could have illusions of touch or hearing. Our minds themselves cannot be validated by an outside source.

We assume that we’re seeing reality because we have trust. This trust is built into us from God. Plus, God speaks to our conscience and we are not alone to claim knowledge of reality on our own.

Without God as One who can validate that we truly exist, that we truly see reality and that our judgements are right – we would not be wrong to question whether we have obseved even one single thing about reality correctly. That is, the only thing we could know is that our self exists.

 

[levinas12]

True, but we can’t know that we are having a conversation. That does sound strange, but the only thing we can know and observe is ourself interiorly.

That is, the only thing we could know is that our self exists.

But we are having a conversation. I understand you and you understand me - because we speak the same language and share the same world.

“Interior” makes sense only if there is an “outside”. It’s like “north” and “south”. The terms are implicated in each other.

Similarly, with personal pronouns - there is a “me” only if there is a “you”. Without an awareness of the “other”, you would be blissfully unaware of yourself.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

There is no reason to believe such a gratuitous hypothesis.:

As far as I’m aware there is no reason to believe in any hypothesis regarding design and now we are beginning to uncover the lack of scientific methodology used within that argument.

• which remain scientifically inexplicable.

What makes you think the ability to decide is scientifically inexplicable? As far as I’m aware that is well understood within scientific communities by the structure and capabilities of the brain.

The principle of economy!

What?

• which explains why different religions make different suggestions about what God has done, plans to do and wants from us - some of which are far more reasonable than others.

Agreed.

Because it is reasonable and acceptable to any reasonable person. Do you reject it? If not why not?

I do not reject it because it reflects my own sentiments. Why does it being reasonable to humanity make it universally true?

Because you value your power of reason and so does every other reasonable person. That is a very good reason(!) to believe you are not an exception in your belief that life is valuable.

I don’t recall suggesting that I was an exception. Even if every human agrees with me, why does that make these sentiments and beliefs universally valuable?

The mechanisms of the brain do not explain the mind with its power of abstract reasoning, free will, conscience and capacity for unselfish love. The brain is a lump of tissue inside the skull which doesn’t even know it exists!

Are you sure about that or is this just your opinion? Why should i take your opinion seriously?

 

[reggieM]

But we are having a conversation. I understand you and you understand me - because we speak the same language and share the same world.

That is only true if my senses are communicating accurate impressions of reality. There are many assumptions built into the idea that “I know we’re having a conversation” – those assumptions cannot be proven but only trusted.

“Interior” makes sense only if there is an “outside”. It’s like “north” and “south”. The terms are implicated in each other.

That is true, but the terms are just referring to knowledge gained through sensory perception. Interior or outside may be exactly the same thing – we cannot prove otherwise unless we can go to some objective place to verify it. Through intuition and faith we think that consistent experiences are enough “proof” to say that “there are people out there”. But that conclusion has to be based on our own “interior”.

Certainly, by Faith - we know it is not possible for us to fully understand the origin and nature of reality. Only our Creator can know that completely because he is the author and the only One present at the time of the creation of the universe (or in the eternal begetting of the Son, etc).

Similarly, with personal pronouns - there is a “me” only if there is a “you”. Without an awareness of the “other”, you would be blissfully unaware of yourself.

That’s a good point also, but “you” is something that we can only define and experience and understand in the world of “me”.

If we could put ourselves to the side and step into a completely different set of eyes and perception – then that, at least, would give us a second data point to work with.

 

[tonyrey]

I have only just recently discovered the truth of that (and it might go against some concepts of traditional Catholic philosophy???).

I don’t see why, Reggie.

There’s no way to prove that there is anything “out there” since the only thing we know is our own thoughts. Claims of objective reality by materialism are false on that basis.

Although we cannot prove things exist we can reasonably **infer **that they do. It is absurd to doubt that our mind exists because it is the source of all our knowledge!

 

[tonyrey]

As far as I’m aware there is no reason to believe in any hypothesis regarding design and now we are beginning to uncover the lack of scientific methodology used within that argument.

What?Why postulate more than one God? Occam’s Razor…

which explains why different religions make different suggestions about what God has done, plans to do and wants from us - some of which are far more reasonable than others.

Agreed.Then their differences are not a reason to believe they are all false!

Because it is reasonable and acceptable to any reasonable person. Do you reject it? If not why not?

I do not reject it because it reflects my own sentiments. Why does it being reasonable to humanity make it universally true?
Why is science - which humanity finds reasonable - universally true? What’s sauce for the goose…

I don’t recall suggesting that I was an exception.

You didn’t! The context was:

That was my point, I can’t see why I or anybody else should be considered to have an objective insight into what is or is not valuable.

Because you value your power of reason and so does every other reasonable person.
That is a very good reason(!) to believe you are not an exception in your belief that life is valuable.

Even if every human agrees with me, why does that make these sentiments and beliefs universally valuable?

They can’t all be crazy - unless your opinion of humanity (including yourself) is abysmal!

The mechanisms of the brain do not explain the mind with its power of abstract reasoning, free will, conscience and capacity for unselfish love. The brain is a lump of tissue inside the skull which doesn’t even know it exists!

Are you sure about that or is this just your opinion? Why should i take your opinion seriously?
Because you can’t explain nor can anyone else how a lump of tissue inside the skull has the power of abstract reasoning, free will, conscience and capacity for unselfish love.

[/QUOTE]

 

[reggieM]

I don’t see why, Reggie.

Traditional Catholic theology is built on the idea that what we sense and experience is true impressions of reality. Nobody ever really questioned that for a long time. It was actually an unproven assumption.

With the newer thinking of philosophy, some took a radically skeptical view. But the new thinking is still compatible with Catholic teaching. The only evidence we have comes through our senses and is processed by our mind. The difference now, though, is that people can deny that there is any reality – and that everything is an illusion. That actually strengthens the Hindu ideas – that we live in an illusionary world.

But Our Lord taught the same – “this world is passing away”. “My kingdom is not of this world”.

It doesn’t mean that what we see of reality cannot be trusted, but that it is truly “unreal” in some ways. It was created by God as a temporary reality. It was created for a purpose.

This newer view of philosophy actually refutes materialism much better than the older view. Materialist philosophies hijacked the older view and used assumptions to try to prove that everything has a materialistic foundation.

Although we cannot prove things exist we can reasonably **infer **that they do. It is absurd to doubt that our mind exists because it is the source of all our knowledge!

Right – that’s the important difference. We can’t prove things, but we trust our reasoning power to draw valid conclusions based on the evidence we have.

At the same time, we know that God transcends what we think of as “the only reality” of material things. He gives us clues … for example, when you have a dream and you think you’re really living in the dream and you experience things just like “real reality”.

God spoke to His prophets in dreams – and the dream-world was truly real when it happened.
I think the Western material-oriented philosophies of the past had a harder time dealing with that kind of thing.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

How?

You just previously stated that, “there is no reason to believe such a gratuitous hypothesis.” From this we can draw several conclusions, hypotheses concerning the motives and nature of this being(the Designer) are unreliable. Subsequently your objections to the Design argument being unfalsifiable are now obsolete as you yourself attached a motive and nature to the Designer when you said this;

“to give just one example, the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents could conceivably increase to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds!”

If this were an example of falsification then you have suggested the nature of this ‘Designer’ would prevent this from occurring and that if it did occur we would know the design argument to be false. So if we cannot trust hypotheses that grant the Designer unwarranted characteristics then we know that this argument is unfalsifiable as this being could have almost any characteristic.

Which part of the brain makes decisions and is responsible for them?

esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/25/new.and.improved.novelty.drives.choice.behavior

Why postulate more than one God? Occam’s Razor…

Occam’s Razor is irrelevant here as it deals with logic, which does not necessarily represent truth. Given the design argument postulates that a design exists we have no idea what designed it and absolutely no logical basis to claim anything about it’s designer(s).

Then their differences are not a reason to believe they are all false!

I never suggested it was but it certainly allows everyone to see that claims of the supernatural are almost always false and should cause others to at least be willing to analyze their own beliefs of the supernatural. For many, I am confident they will maintain their faith and I believe this is due to the personal evidence most theists possess, something I can not discount and something that I don’t share.

Why is science - which humanity finds reasonable - universally true? What’s sauce for the goose…

I see no reason to believe science is universally true, it simply is the best method we currently possess for achieving our goals.

You didn’t! The context was:

Ah, sorry about that I didn’t actually get what you wrote when I responded, thank you for clearing it up. Now that we have that cleared up I shall actually address your point. You’re correct most people do value their own existence but that doesn’t make our existence valuable universally, it only makes it valuable to those that value it. I personally find that many do not value my existence, some do, but majority are completely unaware of my existence and others plain dislike me so this value I attribute to myself is not universal.

They can’t all be crazy - unless your opinion of humanity (including yourself) is abysmal!

They don’t have to be crazy nor are they necessarily wrong to value existence, none of this makes existence universally valuable though as it is contingent upon life to value it, the value is not inherent or even present without conscious beings to value it.

Because you can’t explain nor can anyone else how a lump of tissue inside the skull has the power of abstract reasoning, free will, conscience and capacity for unselfish love.

Did you read any of the articles on the site I linked you?

esciencenews.com/articles/2008/10/22/been.there.done.brain.mechanism.predicts.ability.generalize
esciencenews.com/articles/2011/04/27/neurorobotics.reveals.brain.mechanisms.self.consciousness
esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/25/new.and.improved.novelty.drives.choice.behavior

 

[levinas12]

That is only true if my senses are communicating accurate impressions of reality.

That is true, but the terms are just referring to knowledge gained through sensory perception. Interior or outside may be exactly the same thing – we cannot prove otherwise unless we can go to some objective place to verify it. Through intuition and faith we think that consistent experiences are enough “proof” to say that “there are people out there”. But that conclusion has to be based on our own “interior”.

Certainly, by Faith - we know it is not possible for us to fully understand the origin and nature of reality. Only our Creator can know that completely because he is the author and the only One present at the time of the creation of the universe (or in the eternal begetting of the Son, etc).

You are putting too much of an unnecessary burden on Faith. We are naturally

 

[levinas12]

There are many assumptions built into the idea that “I know we’re having a conversation” – those assumptions cannot be proven but only trusted.

That is true, but the terms are just referring to knowledge gained through sensory perception. Interior or outside may be exactly the same thing – we cannot prove otherwise unless we can go to some objective place to verify it. Through intuition and faith we think that consistent experiences are enough “proof” to say that “there are people out there”. But that conclusion has to be based on our own “interior”.

Certainly, by Faith - we know it is not possible for us to fully understand the origin and nature of reality. Only our Creator can know that completely because he is the author and the only One present at the time of the creation of the universe (or in the eternal begetting of the Son, etc).

That’s a good point also, but “you” is something that we can only define and experience and understand in the world of “me”.

You are putting an unnecessary burden on Faith (if you mean by this the theological virtue). We are naturally disclosive beings. We do not need God to intervene in a direct way to buttress our ideas. This was Descartes’ mistake. He assumed that every one of our ideas could be untrue (e.g., through the machinations of an evil demon). He then brought God in to validate our ideas as long as they were “clear and distinct”.

But Cartesian epistemology has an artificial and unreal quality. It’s certainly not our everyday sense of things. Sure, there are perceptual illusions, but we can distinguish them from ordinary perceptions. If the stick looks bent in the water, we snatch it out and look at again. We can correct a perceptual illusion. If all of our perceptions were illusory, then none of them are, because we wouldn’t be able to distinguish the illusory from the truthful.

Descartes gave no credible reason to doubt all of our perceptions, i.e., that they are not immediately disclosive.

Now, instead of a “clear and distinct” criterion, you cite consistency. But consistency avoids the question of truth. Think of the paranoid man who is very logical.

We need to qualify - the “inside” we are talking is not a “spatial” inside, as in, inside our brain - because our brain is simply another external object along with trees and buses and everything else in the world at large.

No, this “inside” is transcendental - all encompassing. But why make this move to begin with?

 

[levinas12]

Traditional Catholic theology is built on the idea that what we sense and experience is true impressions of reality. Nobody ever really questioned that for a long time. It was actually an unproven assumption.

With the newer thinking of philosophy, some took a radically skeptical view. But the new thinking is still compatible with Catholic teaching. The only evidence we have comes through our senses and is processed by our mind. The difference now, though, is that people can deny that there is any reality – and that everything is an illusion. That actually strengthens the Hindu ideas – that we live in an illusionary world.

But Our Lord taught the same – “this world is passing away”. “My kingdom is not of this world”.

It doesn’t mean that what we see of reality cannot be trusted, but that it is truly “unreal” in some ways. It was created by God as a temporary reality. It was created for a purpose.

This newer view of philosophy actually refutes materialism much better than the older view. Materialist philosophies hijacked the older view and used assumptions to try to prove that everything has a materialistic foundation.

Right – that’s the important difference. We can’t prove things, but we trust our reasoning power to draw valid conclusions based on the evidence we have.

At the same time, we know that God transcends what we think of as “the only reality” of material things. He gives us clues … for example, when you have a dream and you think you’re really living in the dream and you experience things just like “real reality”.

God spoke to His prophets in dreams – and the dream-world was truly real when it happened.
I think the Western material-oriented philosophies of the past had a harder time dealing with that kind of thing.

Like Kant, you are making room for faith. But, in doing so, like Kant, you may be destabilizing truth. It’s like a company that maintains two different sets of books, one apparent (phenomena), the other real (noumena), with the auditors being barred from looking at the real set.

I would argue that our present material world is just as real as Heaven. That’s why the Incarnation is real.

 

[reggieM]

Like Kant, you are making room for faith. But, in doing so, like Kant, you may be destabilizing truth. It’s like a company that maintains two different sets of books, one apparent (phenomena), the other real (noumena), with the auditors being barred from looking at the real set.

You may be right and I definitely do not want to destabilize truth. I have some serious concerns about the Kantian view, but I’m open to the possibility that some form of it is correct and Catholic philosophy can benefit from that. But I will seriously heed your warning on this also.

I think faith is essential in that view because you can’t really say “everything is an illusion” since we do have our own experience which is true. If everything was illusory, how could you draw that conclusion? One would have to be fully consistent if they claimed that what we experience is not trustworthy. Would they jump off a bridge and not expect to hit the bottom?

I think the value of this Kantian way of thinking is extremely limited and one cannot really build a worldview out of it. It only helps (as I see it) as a reminder – that what we think is permanent was actually created out of nothing by God. It’s also a corrective to some of the mechanical and materialist views that think “the only thing we can know is reduced to molecules and physics” (thus getting us back on topic of this discussion.)

I would argue that our present material world is just as real as Heaven. That’s why the Incarnation is real.

I think I fully agree with you view here also, and that sounds like a contradiction. Yes, we necessarily must accept the Incarnation as real, and the Resurrection (and Ascension!).
But it’s a different kind of reality, perhaps. It’s like saying “our thoughts are real”. They definitely are real and they have eternal value.

But it’s a wider scope for reality than just what we can sense with our physical body alone.

“I will create a new heaven and a new earth” … I see that as literally true. “Heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will never pass away”.

Those are mysterious teachings, but yes - we do experience reality in our world – but of a kind.

The truest reality is perfect Being – unchangeing, permanent, perfect. The closer anything gets to that Being, the fuller its “reality” is.

Can God make things completely disappear? Personally, I believe He will. This world – the world of “this kind of physicality” will pass away and the world of the “resurrection physicality” will replace it.

The truths that we learn in this world are partial – to point us to their fullness in the next.

With this, I do not see a rational basis from which a person can deny all truth – although that is exactly what many people do.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Science is scientific insofar as it accepts its “conclusions” are propositions and not rules and is unscientific insofar as it suggests its conclusions are rules not propositions.