Metaphysics and religion

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by inocente
The Carnap paper is online here. He makes a good case that metaphysical statements are a content-free zone, interesting but meaningless soundbites, and that metaphysics drops down a hole of its own making halfway between the arts and the sciences, trying to put into words what cannot be put into words:

“Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. Instead they have a strong inclination to work within the medium of the theoretical, to connect concepts and thoughts. Now, instead of activating, on the one hand, this inclination in the domain of science, and satisfying, on the other hand, the need for expression in art, the metaphysician confuses the two and produces a structure which achieves nothing for knowledge and something inadequate for the expression of attitude.”

Most of us, including I think most Catholics, have little time for metaphysics anyway. God is empirical, sensed not reasoned. We preach Christ crucified, not logical essence of unmoved mover. The God of scripture is alive, not hypothesis.

The underlined are certainly ad hominems.

That you thought them worthy of reference indicates your mind set. Camap just saved you the effort of coming up with something original.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps I am being as thick as the proverbial whale sandwich, but I seem to have missed the ad hominen attack…If am sure no offense was meant by anyone, and if it was me, I apologize unreservedly.

You don’t regard this as an ad hominem attack?

Originally Posted by inocente
" The Carnap paper is online here. He makes a good case that metaphysical statements are a content-free zone, interesting but meaningless soundbites, and that metaphysics drops down a hole of its own making halfway between the arts and the sciences, trying to put into words what cannot be put into words:

“Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. Instead they have a strong inclination to work within the medium of the theoretical, to connect concepts and thoughts. Now, instead of activating, on the one hand, this inclination in the domain of science, and satisfying, on the other hand, the need for expression in art, the metaphysician confuses the two and produces a structure which achieves nothing for knowledge and something inadequate for the expression of attitude.”

A very strange example of objective argumentation. Not exactly what one would think of as a reasoned argument. Seems to me it just an illustration of a man attempting to destroy his opponent personally rather than addressing his argument. The idea of course is that if you can destroy the person of your opponent you don’t have to deal with his argument.

You didn’t see this? I’m surprised.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The underlined are certainly ad hominems.

That you thought them worthy of reference indicates your mind set. Camap just saved you the effort of coming up with something original.

“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You quoted me saying “The Carnap paper is online here. He makes a good case that metaphysical statements are a content-free zone, interesting but meaningless soundbites, and that metaphysics drops down a hole of its own making halfway between the arts and the sciences, trying to put into words what cannot be put into words”.

That wasn’t ad hominem as it wasn’t to the man, it wasn’t personal:

You quoted Catnap saying “Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. Instead they have a strong inclination to work within the medium of the theoretical, to connect concepts and thoughts. Now, instead of activating, on the one hand, this inclination in the domain of science, and satisfying, on the other hand, the need for expression in art, the metaphysician confuses the two and produces a structure which achieves nothing for knowledge and something inadequate for the expression of attitude.”

That wasn’t ad hominem as it wasn’t to the man, it wasn’t personal:

So there was no ad hominem. Whereas what you said was most definitely personal: “indicates your mind set. Camap just saved you the effort of coming up with something original.” You not only made a false accusation, you did the very thing you accuse others of doing.

Not to put to fine a point on it, do you have anything to say about Catnap’s paper, the one I linked which the thread is about?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You quoted me saying “The Carnap paper is online here. He makes a good case that metaphysical statements are a content-free zone, interesting but meaningless soundbites, and that metaphysics drops down a hole of its own making halfway between the arts and the sciences, trying to put into words what cannot be put into words”.

That wasn’t ad hominem as it wasn’t to the man, it wasn’t personal:

You quoted Catnap saying “Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. Instead they have a strong inclination to work within the medium of the theoretical, to connect concepts and thoughts. Now, instead of activating, on the one hand, this inclination in the domain of science, and satisfying, on the other hand, the need for expression in art, the metaphysician confuses the two and produces a structure which achieves nothing for knowledge and something inadequate for the expression of attitude.”

That wasn’t ad hominem as it wasn’t to the man, it wasn’t personal:

So there was no ad hominem. Whereas what you said was most definitely personal: “indicates your mind set. Camap just saved you the effort of coming up with something original.” You not only made a false accusation, you did the very thing you accuse others of doing.

It is certainly personal to all the individual philosophers he has in mind and to all those individuals ( like me and quite a few at C.A. who hold Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Boethius and many others in high esteem ). With a broad brush he manages to insult quite a few. The exact sort of thing you object to in Feser. And you are not excused on the rationalization you have just made.

Not to put to fine a point on it, do you have anything to say about Catnap’s paper, the one I linked which the thread is about?

No, if he has something worth while to say you should not have led with a knee to the groin.

I must say, you display a greater animosity against Metaphysics even than our atheist friends who come in here.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

It is unfortunate that sometimes hurts and offences arise in philosophical discussion.

The main target Carnap primarily had in mind seems to be Heidegger. Since both Carnap and Heidegger now have access to the fullness of truth in the next world, hopefully their differences are resolved…

 

[wittgenstein]

I am interested in people’s views- can the rejection of metaphysics be reconciled with faith?

I have been re-reading Carnap’s important paper, “The Elimination of Metaphysics”. He argues that metaphysics is technically meaningless, since specifically metaphysical terms do not have a criterion for application, or, to put it simply, any proper definition. He observes that such terms may have originally had an empirically verifiable meaning, but in metaphysical usage, this is lost- indeed, what makes metaphysics “meta” is precisely and essentially that it is unverifiable. He says that to be meaningful, a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true), or, at least in principle, relate to some empirical content. If not, he argues, it is technically meaningless.

This does seem to be true, at least in a way.

It also seems to me that metaphysics can conceal, among theologians, a lack of real faith. For example, if a person said, “Oh yes, God is in control of all things. But that does not mean He is literally or physically in control of all things, but metaphysically.” Or “I believe in Heaven and Hell, but, of course, not literally, but rather as metaphysical concepts reflecting the non-temporal transcendental consequences of actions.” Isn’t this just a cover for lack of meaningful belief (I say this primarily as a self-accusation of my own faith life, not to disparage anyone else’s experience)?

A few years ago, one of my favourite lines was, “God always answers our prayers. But the answer He most often gives us is His silence.” At the time, it seems to make sense, but now it seems like patent rubbish- essentially a reification of silence. Also- it seems equally nonsensical to say that “The existence of Existence itself is evidence of God, since God is Pure Being.” But is God really Pure Being, if “Pure Being” is a meaningful term at all? Isn’t He REALLY a loving Father in our Heavenly Homeland?

Now, is Christianity compatible with a rejection of metaphysics? Is it better to base our faith on empirical evidence (either our own inner or outer feelings, or those of reliable witness, such as the Gospels and the writings of the saints), or even emotional responses to images and prayers? The belief in the existence of the soul as an immortal spirit, and in God as a creator who lives in the Heavens and has issued commands and will judge us after death, and in Jesus as the spirit of God taking on humanity- none of this seems actually to require metaphysics at all, if we take it as actually and (sorry for this term) ‘quasi-physically’ to be true. But why not?

I am wondering if it is better to throw out metaphysics altogether? Can theology be supported empirically, drawing its data soley from experiences of our inner and outer life, and testimony of reliable witnesses, such as Scripture? Admittedly, such a theology could at best be ‘probabilistic’…

Carnap and logical positivism, is the only philosophical system that refuted itself. Its basic premise is metaphysical. In academia logical positivism is of only historical interest.
We must remember what “metaphysics” means before the word was co-opted by the new age movement. Metaphysics has nothing to do with crystals, angels, etc. It is a meta-physical subject. Meta meaning a higher level. For example, physics may ask," why are rocks the way they are?" Metaphysics asks," why are the laws of physics the way they are?" Why is there something and not nothing?

 

[Qoeleth]

Carnap and logical positivism, is the only philosophical system that refuted itself. Its basic premise is metaphysical. In academia logical positivism is of only historical interest.
We must remember what “metaphysics” means before the word was co-opted by the new age movement. Metaphysics has nothing to do with crystals, angels, etc. It is a meta-physical subject. Meta meaning a higher level. For example, physics may ask," why are rocks the way they are?" Metaphysics asks," why are the laws of physics the way they are?" Why is there something and not nothing?

I don’t see how its premise is metaphysical. Surely, its premise is empirical- based on observations of how language is meaningfully used within discourse.

The question “why are the laws of physics the way they are?” I would say, is not a necessarily a metaphysical question. A material, efficient or final cause are all matters of observation and experience. The following answer is entirely non-metaphysical, “Because God, when He was making the universe, decided to make them that way for the convenience of human beings”. Even if we cannot actually observe that, in principle, it ‘could’ be verified by experience, even if God alone is the only One who could confirm or deny it by His empirical observation.

Trends in academia are generally not to be trusted. They are trends and nothing more.

 

[tonyrey]

Physics without metaphysics is baseless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

 

[Qoeleth]

Physics without metaphysics is baseless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

But surely, there is an element of physics involved in making a canoe, a bridge, a sled, etc. Now, such things clearly preceded metaphysics.

I suspect we are understanding metaphysics in different ones. Nisi fallor, you are meaning ‘metaphysics’ to refer to a ‘sense’ of reality, of the validity of perceptions, causality, etc.

But I would understand metaphysics as particular branch of philosophical study and discourse.

Everyone, instinctively, knows what 'being, ‘time’ and ‘space’ are, for practical purposes. But that is not, in itself, metaphysics- it only becomes metaphysics when such things are the subject of a philosophical discourse.

 

[inocente]

It is certainly personal to all the individual philosophers he has in mind and to all those individuals ( like me and quite a few at C.A. who hold Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Boethius and many others in high esteem ). With a broad brush he manages to insult quite a few. The exact sort of thing you object to in Feser. And you are not excused on the rationalization you have just made.

Then according to you no discourse is even possible, since every critique under the sun might upset someone’s feelings and so would be counted ad hominem.

That’s a long way from the dictionary definition, which limits ad hominem to an attack on an opponent’s motives or character rather than their argument.

I must say, you display a greater animosity against Metaphysics even than our atheist friends who come in here.

Again you appear to be departing from a standard definition, both by capitalizing the word and by unilaterally denying metaphysics to all atheists as if no atheist ever asks herself questions about the nature of being, why the Universe exists and so on.

But isn’t metaphysics about asking the questions and trying to answer them, whatever those answers might be? Surely it isn’t defined or owned by any one set of answers, much as the fanatics who go to war to prove that the answers they were raised with are the bestest ever.

Carnap has a valid point that the wordless answers of art, particularly music, can say more to us than dry prose. And by being wordless those answers are universal, we can all share in and unite on them. After all this is the idea behind Taizé songs, that simply by singing together we can find a common place:

*To open the gates of trust in God, nothing can replace the beauty of human voices united in song. This beauty can give us a glimpse of “heaven’s joy on earth,” as Eastern Christians put it. And an inner life begins to blossom within us.

These songs also sustain personal prayer. Through them, little by little, our being finds an inner unity in God. They can continue in the silence of our hearts when we are at work, speaking with others or resting. In this way prayer and daily life are united. They allow us to keep on praying even when we are unaware of it, in the silence of our hearts. - taize.fr/en_article6525.html*

We don’t even have to understand the chanted words or subscribe to a religion’s metaphysics:

Confitemini Domino,Taizé (Christian ecumenical) - youtube.com/watch?v=SsWgvtQ5dgs

Jap Man Sat Nam, Snatam Kaur (Sikh) - youtube.com/watch?v=8V9WA98gGyk

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then according to you no discourse is even possible, since every critique under the sun might upset someone’s feelings and so would be counted ad hominem.

That’s a long way from the dictionary definition, which limits ad hominem to an attack on an opponent’s motives or character rather than their argument.

Again you appear to be departing from a standard definition, both by capitalizing the word and by unilaterally denying metaphysics to all atheists as if no atheist ever asks herself questions about the nature of being, why the Universe exists and so on.

But isn’t metaphysics about asking the questions and trying to answer them, whatever those answers might be? Surely it isn’t defined or owned by any one set of answers, much as the fanatics who go to war to prove that the answers they were raised with are the bestest ever.

Carnap has a valid point that the wordless answers of art, particularly music, can say more to us than dry prose. And by being wordless those answers are universal, we can all share in and unite on them. After all this is the idea behind Taizé songs, that simply by singing together we can find a common place:

*To open the gates of trust in God, nothing can replace the beauty of human voices united in song. This beauty can give us a glimpse of “heaven’s joy on earth,” as Eastern Christians put it. And an inner life begins to blossom within us.

These songs also sustain personal prayer. Through them, little by little, our being finds an inner unity in God. They can continue in the silence of our hearts when we are at work, speaking with others or resting. In this way prayer and daily life are united. They allow us to keep on praying even when we are unaware of it, in the silence of our hearts. - taize.fr/en_article6525.html*

We don’t even have to understand the chanted words or subscribe to a religion’s metaphysics:

Confitemini Domino,Taizé (Christian ecumenical) - youtube.com/watch?v=SsWgvtQ5dgs

Jap Man Sat Nam, Snatam Kaur (Sikh) - youtube.com/watch?v=8V9WA98gGyk

I suppose Feser could dream up some excuses as well. For instance he is reacting to consistant ridicule on the part of certain popular representatives of scientism on the lecture, U-Tube, and book review circuit.

Linus2nd

 

[wittgenstein]

I don’t see how its premise is metaphysical. Surely, its premise is empirical- based on observations of how language is meaningfully used within discourse.

The question “why are the laws of physics the way they are?” I would say, is not a necessarily a metaphysical question. A material, efficient or final cause are all matters of observation and experience. The following answer is entirely non-metaphysical, “Because God, when He was making the universe, decided to make them that way for the convenience of human beings”. Even if we cannot actually observe that, in principle, it ‘could’ be verified by experience, even if God alone is the only One who could confirm or deny it by His empirical observation.

Trends in academia are generally not to be trusted. They are trends and nothing more.

The statement, “anything that is not empirical or analytical is nonsense” is not analytical or empirical. Therefore the statement (which is the cornerstone of logical positivism), by its own definition is nonsense.
How can the question,” how did something come from nothing” be answered empirically? Empiricism ( that which is observable) comes after creation.
I admire your ability to think outside the box, a believer in God that defends logical positivism!!! Logical positivism would state that the question, " does God exist?" is meaningless!!!* Which I find absurd.

• They say that asking “does God exist?” is like asking if the number 5 is married! In other words it has no answer because the question is meaningless! If one says “yes the number 5 is married” that is clearly absurd. But it is also absurd to claim that it is a bachelor.

 

[Qoeleth]

The statement, “anything that is not empirical or analytical is nonsense” is not analytical or empirical. Therefore the statement (which is the cornerstone of logical positivism), by its own definition is nonsense.
How can the question,” how did something come from nothing” be answered empirically? Empiricism ( that which is observable) comes after creation.
I admire your ability to think outside the box, a believer in God that defends logical positivism!!! Logical positivism would state that the question, " does God exist?" is meaningless!!!* Which I find absurd.

• They say that asking “does God exist?” is like asking if the number 5 is married! In other words it has no answer because the question is meaningless! If one says “yes the number 5 is married” that is clearly absurd. But it is also absurd to claim that it is a bachelor.

I would say the statement “anything that is not empirical or analytical is nonsense” is empirical. If we hear such statements, and get no meaning from them, then it is clearly an empirical observation.

Carnap does actually make the point that God was originally not a metaphysical term, and we certainly see in the early religious discourses (especially those of the Hebrews, up till the Gospels) a strongly anthropomorphic God- in other words, a God who is an actually ‘person’. Although He is normally invisible, it is not a category error to think He (or His action) could be observed.

So, for people like Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus- the question “Does God exist” is NOT metaphysical at all, but an empirical one. For them, He did not have merely ‘metaphysical existence’, as some kind of concept, but actually ‘real existence’.

 

[inocente]

I suppose Feser could dream up some excuses as well. For instance he is reacting to consistant ridicule on the part of certain popular representatives of scientism on the lecture, U-Tube, and book review circuit.

Agreed, metaphysics is all about which boy band pic is on your bedroom wall.

 

[inocente]

ICarnap does actually make the point that God was originally not a metaphysical term, and we certainly see in the early religious discourses (especially those of the Hebrews, up till the Gospels) a strongly anthropomorphic God- in other words, a God who is an actually ‘person’. Although He is normally invisible, it is not a category error to think He (or His action) could be observed.

So, for people like Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus- the question “Does God exist” is NOT metaphysical at all, but an empirical one. For them, He did not have merely ‘metaphysical existence’, as some kind of concept, but actually ‘real existence’.

Surely that’s still true today for most Christians, by which I would include most Catholics.

Once God is experienced there’s no need for dry metaphysical theory, it’s redundant. Those who can’t experience and can only conceptualize God may form a majority on philosophy forums (and I’ve quoted 1 Cor 1:18-31 many times to uncomprehending blank faces ) but in real life the vast majority of Christians (and all religious) who I’ve met experience God empirically.

The spiritual must surely be so, I mean one cannot calculate the grace of God or be reborn by hypothesis, these things must be experienced. A slave who doesn’t feel redemption is still a slave.

 

[tonyrey]

Physics without metaphysics is baseless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

That is the fallacy of Post hoc propter hoc.

I suspect we are understanding metaphysics in different ones. Nisi fallor, you are meaning ‘metaphysics’ to refer to a ‘sense’ of reality, of the validity of perceptions, causality, etc.

But I would understand metaphysics as particular branch of philosophical study and discourse.

Everyone, instinctively, knows what 'being, ‘time’ and ‘space’ are, for practical purposes. But that is not, in itself, metaphysics- it only becomes metaphysics when such things are the subject of a philosophical discourse.

Metaphysics is not merely an academic subject but the interpretation of reality, e.g. the nature of things and persons.

 

[Qoeleth]

That is the fallacy of Post hoc propter hoc.

Metaphysics is not merely an academic subject but the interpretation of reality, e.g. the nature of things and persons.

It is not merely an ‘academic’ subject, but it is still a mode of philosophical discourse. True, everyone has assumptions, interpretations about ‘reality’, but if these are never questioned, articulated or defined, it is not metaphysics.

If you broaden metaphysics to the point of including every unarticulated assumption about time, causality, reality, etc., then everybody, even a donkey, is a metaphysician. A donkey, for example, assumes (unconsciously) that the grass he sees is real, and that it will persist in time, and that he (the donkey) has diachronic identity, and that being is preferable to non-being (if he eats the grass). But this does not make the donkey a metaphysician…

There is a difference between a ‘pre-physics’ and a ‘metaphysics’.

Are you sure it’s a case of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”? On the contrary, I humbly suggest your position could be charaterized as, “puto ille sit propter hoc, ergo hoc est ante illo”.

 

[tonyrey]

Metaphysics is not merely an academic subject but the interpretation of reality, e.g. the nature of things and persons.

Normally everyone behaves according to what they believe is real.

If you broaden metaphysics to the point of including every unarticulated assumption about time, causality, reality, etc., then everybody, even a donkey, is a metaphysician. A donkey, for example, assumes (unconsciously) that the grass he sees is real, and that it will persist in time, and that he (the donkey) has diachronic identity, and that being is preferable to non-being (if he eats the grass). But this does not make the donkey a metaphysician…

Animals act according to instinct without asking questions!

There is a difference between a ‘pre-physics’ and a ‘metaphysics’.

Are you sure it’s a case of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”? On the contrary, I humbly suggest your position could be characterized as, “puto ille sit propter hoc, ergo hoc est ante illo”.

That is because I’m not a materialist.

 

[wittgenstein]

Here is a metaphysical (perhaps it’s actually epistemological) question. Kant showed that existence is not a predicate. philosophy.lander.edu/intro/articles/kantexistence-a.pdf How on earth then can we know if something exists? We can determine if something is green if the predicate green instantiates in that object. philosophy-dictionary.org/SUBJECT_AND_PREDICATE But existence instantiating? Only predicates can be instantiated!
plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
But then again, who can trust Kant?
youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI