No such thing as a hierarchical causal series in the real world

[IQ170]

Going back to a previous attempt:

Moreover you avoid the real questions, like the devil avoids the holy water. Your “hypothesis” was that there is an alternative epistemological method besides the physical, empirical verification. And you declared that it is the “testimonial” of SOME alleged witnesses; some of whom you declared to be “eye-witnesses”. The questions you keep on avoiding:

1. How did that witness obtain the information he presents?
2. Did he use some physical, empirical method?
3. Or did he just repeat someone else’s testimony?
4. Or did he receive a “personal” revelation? (This would bring up some MORE tough questions.)
5. Or… he just fantasized about something and tries to peddle it as real information?

Also, how do we verify that the testimony is correct? You said: “the usual way… find corroborating evidence.” What is a corroborating evidence? Is it empirical? You forgot that the expression EYE -witness means that the witness employed his physical faculties (eyes) to obtain empirical evidence about the phenomenon. So you refuted your own hypothesis, namely that empirical verification is not necessary.

I don’t think that I will get an answer, but have to try.

 

[Gorgias]

No, you have not.

I might be thinking of the other current thread in which this discussion is ongoing. Check out the ‘Feuerbach’ thread in the Philosophy section…

Of course I can create the matrix, and apply the analysis.

Please do. That will give us a basis for refuting your case.

No, I am not. The subset of prayers, which specifically ASK for something, can be evaluated, and the result is negative.

Really, you are. Please describe your method of evaluation, and I’ll refute it for you.

IQ170:

So your opinion “trumps” the opinion of all those millions of believers.

Nope… not ‘my’ opinion, but the teaching of the Catholic Church. (And yes, that trumps millions of other ‘opinions’. Thanks for providing the opportunity to explain that tenet of the Catholic faith! )

IQ170:

You said: “Option 3 requires faith in God to trust that He has something better in mind than what I’m asking for.” And that is not evidence for the veracity of option 3.

Did I claim that option 3 requires faith for evidence? No. Nice try, though. I’m only claiming that if you get a “not this, but that”, you need faith that God will provide the that. Not the this that you didn’t get – which is what you’re talking about. Still… nice try.

IQ170:

Why should I?

Because you’re the one that brought ghost-hunters into the discussion (please reference your comments at reply #81). Seriously… if you’re gonna make claims, you should expect that we’re gonna hold you to your word…

IQ170:

So, let’s try again:

Let’s. One can only hope you’ll actually read the response, this time.

1. How do the exorcists “detect” the non-physical demons?

By responding to the reports of ‘demonic’ activity, and then relying on the analysis of physicians / psychiatrists / other experts that there is no underlying physiological cause for the reported symptoms.

1. What physical actions do the exorcists take, which will expel those demons?

Prayer. Now watch how this works, since you’re bound to miss it unless you’re paying attention: the exorcist doesn’t appeal to their own power, but rather, prays to Jesus to expel the demon. So, the exorcist isn’t asking for a physical intervention, but rather, a spiritual intervention by God.

1. How do they detect that the demons departed?

No way to know, other than the absence of the symptoms which gave rise to the request.

1. All sorts of physical acts, which have some effect on the non-physical realm.

Not sure how this is a question.

IQ170:

You don’t get it.

No. Really, I do get it: under the guise of “open-mindedness” and “rationality” and “reasonableness”, many camouflage their actual intent: to attempt to deny the truths of the Catholic faith, and attempt to assuage their own obstinate denial of it. It’s all good… we’ve seen this game played before.

 

[IQ170]

Nope… not ‘my’ opinion, but the teaching of the Catholic Church. (And yes, that trumps millions of other ‘opinions’.

Quote the pertaining dogma(s). When did the church openly and officially condemn the average Joe Schmoes for praying for a favorable outcome, as if God would be a “vending machine”? And when did the church condemn the supplicants when they gave thanks to God for seemingly granting their wishes. The average supplicants ASK for some outcomes, they give thanks if the outcome seems to materialize, and the church is perfectly fine with it. Of course when the outcome does NOT happen, and the poor supplicant complains, THEN and only then they are reminded that God is NOT a vending machine.

So the results (or lack of them) of supplicatory prayers are an excellent statistical way to analyze the claims for the non-physical entities (God, in this case) interacting with the physical realm. The only “problem” (for you) is that the result is always negative. (And the option 3 - I have something better for you is indistinguishable from a simple “no”. Only the believers want to include this “option” to hide that fact that 99.9999…% of the “answers” is a resounding “NO”!!!) oh, by the way, is THAT also an unquestionable, “de fide” dogma?

By responding to the reports of ‘demonic’ activity, and then relying on the analysis of physicians / psychiatrists / other experts that there is no underlying physiological cause for the reported symptoms.

Someone reports a “demonic” activity. What are the “physical” symptoms of a demonic activity? (Observe: here you refer to a physical symptoms of a non-physical agent). And how do those other “experts” KNOW that there is no natural explanation? At best they can say that they have no explanation. Do all the unexplained phenomena point to a demonic activity?

Prayer. Now watch how this works, since you’re bound to miss it unless you’re paying attention: the exorcist doesn’t appeal to their own power, but rather, prays to Jesus to expel the demon . So, the exorcist isn’t asking for a physical intervention, but rather, a spiritual intervention by God .

So you have some actual, empirical evidence that the exorcists are powerless on their own to get rid of the demons. Care to share it? They need to “nudge” God via some supplicatory prayer to help them out.

This means that the exorcists DO treat God as a vending machine, and God is forced(???) to interfere when he is asked to do so? And that is fine. Sometimes God is a vending machine, other times he is not. Time to examine your “honesty-meter”. It seems to be broken.

 

[IQ170]

No way to know, other than the absence of the symptoms which gave rise to the request.

Since the symptoms were not causally linked to a demonic activity, the cessation of the symptoms cannot be linked to the departures of the demons. So you have nothing, again. Neither the existence nor the lack of it of the demons can be detected by empirical methods.

-----------------------------------

On the other hand, you keep on shying away from the original question. The nature of the evidence for the non-physical realm. You can not offer a physical (empirical) evidence, by asserting that it is irrational to expect physical evidence for an non-physical causative agent - even though there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary. Instead, you offer “testimonials”. And keep on sidestepping the questions:

1. How did that witness obtain the information he presents?
2. Did he use some physical, empirical method?
3. Or did he just repeat someone else’s testimony?
4. Or did he receive a “personal” revelation? (This would bring up some MORE tough questions.)
5. Or… he just fantasized about something and tries to peddle it as real information?
6. How do you find out if the testimony of the witness is correct or not?

These are the epistemological questions you neglect to answer.

 

[George720]

These are the epistemological questions you neglect to answer.

Proving the spiritual by reference to the material?

That is your criticism of spiritual enquiry?

Have you watched exorcisms?

But more directly, your own proof standards devolve quickly into what it means to know anything, for ALL knowledge is WITHIN the mind of the knower… And you will fail to prove that inner existence by reference to objects… Consciousness does not reduce to objects, which is the downfall of the philosophy of Objectivism…

Forgive me for jumping into the middle here without reading the whole thread…

geo

 

[George720]

Is not human purpose a hierarchical cause??

geo

 

[IQ170]

Proving the spiritual by reference to the material?

It might have been useful to read the thread. The topic - in a few words is: Gorgias disputes the primacy of the epistemological method of empiricism (not “objectivism”!), and asserts that there is an equally valid method to gain knowledge about the external reality: namely the testimonial of some witnesses. His error is that testimonials are not an epistemological method, they are an epistemological shortcut.

He asserts that the testimonials presented in one specific source (the bible, but not other sacred texts) are sufficient evidence to accept the veracity of the events described therein. I am not interested in the specific case of the bible, it has been investigated ad nauseam, and it is only considered valid for those who already accept it a-priori. He also asserts that it is irrational to expect empirical evidence for “spiritual” beings. “Spiritual” seems to be the equivalent of some non-physical causative agents, some entities that are not composed of matter/energy but which are able to have a two-way interaction with the physical reality.

I am asking about the primary source of testimonials - ANY testimonials. Do they come from direct observations of the non-physical entities (what Gorgias considers impossible) or do they come from some other witnesses (what about the starting point of the chain?) or are they simply the inventions of someone (mythology)?

You are welcome to join, but it is useful to know the topic you wish discuss.

 

[George720]

Thank-you for the recap…

Spiritual knowledge is empirical, not objective…

I was an atheist for my first 36 years - And continued having no use whatsoever for Christians for the next 14 years, so I get your disinterest in Biblical proofs… I scorned them as well - For me, the Bible was validated by reference to prior empirical experience… For many, if not most, it is used to disciple the person reading it unto the encounter that constitutes such empirical evidence… I had zero spiritual experience for my first 36 years [except in hindsight, mind you!].

So testimonials are a good thing, constituting the empirical witness of those who have had such encounters…

The challenge is for one to take up the empirical - eg scientific - methodology of those who have had such encounters in the spiritual realms, and these happen, by human standards, pretty willy-nilly… The Church disciples the Way of Christ that IS Christ, so that path can prepare anyone for the encounter, IF the person follows it with diligence… Normally, this is done under spiritual direction of an elder who has made progress on the same path, and can provide both teaching and direct spiritual intervention…

Enough for now - The idea is that you WILL encounter God, in this life or the next, and that you need to be prepared to do so, and that such preparation is counterintuitive…

geo

 

[George720]

Is not human purpose a hierarchical cause??

What he said!

geo

 

[lelinator]

So testimonials are a good thing, constituting the empirical witness of those who have had such encounters…

The challenge is for one to take up the empirical - eg scientific - methodology of those who have had such encounters in the spiritual realms, and these happen, by human standards, pretty willy-nilly… The Church disciples the Way of Christ that IS Christ, so that path can prepare anyone for the encounter, IF the person follows it with diligence… Normally, this is done under spiritual direction of an elder who has made progress on the same path, and can provide both teaching and direct spiritual intervention…

But can’t this be said of absolutely any belief system, that the testimony of others can be the catalyst for one’s own beliefs. Except for me of course, because I’m a solipsist, I don’t trust any of you people. For me, the testimony of others, when it comes to matters of faith, is absolutely worthless.

People, their testimony, and their beliefs aren’t to be trusted any further than they can be objectively verified.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m no philosopher and should probably stay out of this discussion, but this post reminded me of something interesting a physician once said to me.

He was talking about cumulative trauma disorders, but it applies to many things in medicine. He said something is not a disease until it achieves “functional autonomy”; i.e. that it no longer needs the causative (name removed by moderator)ut to continue on its path. He used an analogy of a match and a curtain. You can light a match and blow it out repeatedly and the flame never reaches “functional autonomy”. But if you light a match and touch it to a curtain, it quickly reaches functional autonomy. The flame no longer “needs” the match, and blowing out the match will no longer cause the flame to cease.

 

[George720]

People, their testimony, and their beliefs aren’t to be trusted any further than they can be objectively verified.

Then you forsake empirical enquiry…

And your exercise here is but pathological vanity…

I mean, why converse with liars like the rest of us but not you?

geo

 

[George720]

Something is not a disease until it achieves “functional autonomy”;
i.e. that it no longer needs the causative (name removed by moderator)ut to continue on its path.

That is true also of healthy functions…

Spiritually, this means that discipling takes time to take root…

And evil as well takes time to take root…

A passion, for instance, is a sin that has become habitual…

Next step is addiction…

geo

 

[lelinator]

And your exercise here is but pathological vanity…

I mean, why converse with liars like the rest of us but not you?

Although I don’t put a lot of merit in people’s testimonies and beliefs, I do give people varying degrees of respect for the character with which they represent them. I’m sorry to say that my respect for your testimony just slipped down a notch.

 

[Gorgias]

When did the church openly and officially condemn the average Joe Schmoes for praying for a favorable outcome, as if God would be a “ vending machine ”?

It didn’t. Doesn’t mean that it’s an incorrect understanding of Church teaching, though.

After all, “when did the Church openly and officially condemn the average Joe Schmoes for thinking that St Anthony has the power to find lost objects”? It didn’t. Yet, that’s not what the Church teaches, either. You have an odd notion of the relationship between Church teaching and your personal notion of “open and official condemnation”.

o the results (or lack of them) of supplicatory prayers are an excellent statistical way to analyze the claims for the non-physical entities (God, in this case) interacting with the physical realm.

For non-Christians? Sure. But, ya’ll grievously misunderstand Church teachings. If you really want, you can claim that the Church teaches that the moon is made of green cheese. Doesn’t mean that this is what the Church teaches, though.

And how do those other “experts” KNOW that there is no natural explanation? At best they can say that they have no explanation.

Thanks for this. “No natural explanation” =/= “[doctors] have no explanation”? Really? Please come back when you have something more solid to stand on.

Do all the unexplained phenomena point to a demonic activity?

Of course not. But, explained phenomena can be excluded as “demonic activity”. That’s all that’s going on here. If you can’t explain it, then you continue to search for an explanation; if you can, then you stop and say “I know that the explanation is X”. And, having not found an explanation, you continue to search. Is that unreasonable?

So you have some actual, empirical evidence that the exorcists are powerless on their own to get rid of the demons. Care to share it?

Yep. Ask any exorcist whether they have the personal power to get rid of demons. Go ahead… I’ll wait. (Psst… that’s the teaching of the Church, BTW. )

This means that the exorcists DO treat God as a vending machine, and God is forced(???) to interfere when he is asked to do so?

No. God is ASKED.

Time to examine your “honesty-meter”. It seems to be broken.

Nah. Time to examine your logic meter. It is manifestly broken.

 

[George720]

Although I don’t put a lot of merit in people’s testimonies and beliefs, I do give people varying degrees of respect for the character with which they represent them.

It sounds gratuitous if you believe your own words:

People, their testimony, and their beliefs aren’t to be trusted…

If you do not trust people…
If you do not trust what they say…
And if you do not trust their motivations…

Then why pretend to give them respect…

Just be honest and say that you don’t trust them or their words or their beliefs, instead of cloaking your distrust of them with “varying degrees of respect” according to how nice they are to you in their presentation…

I’m sorry to say that my respect for your testimony just slipped down a notch.

It was never anything to begin with, was it?

You do not trust me, do you?
You do not trust what I say, do you?
You do not trust what I believe, do you?

And now I have slipped somehow down from that in your esteem for me?

I mean, in my world of understanding, that does not compute…

So forgive me for the confrontation…

To not trust what people say is to regard them as liars…

Do you deny that conclusion?

Integrity is a good thing…

Are you a philosophy student?

geo

 

[lelinator]

If you do not trust people…
If you do not trust what they say…
And if you do not trust their motivations…

Then why pretend to give them respect…

Because I do indeed respect a well reasoned and presented argument, even if I disagree with it. What I can’t trust is people’s capacity to be objective about what is in many cases a personal belief, based upon personal experiences. I can’t build my beliefs on a testimony that I can’t trust, no matter the sincerity or authority of the one presenting it. Because I have my own experiences which will by necessity influence what I believe. However, Aloysium, Gorgias, Wesrock, and many others have all presented well reasoned arguments with which I disagreed, but disagreeing with an argument doesn’t by necessity mean that I can’t respect the reasoning that’s gone into it.

I don’t expect, or want you to agree with me, that’s not what matters to me. What matters is that you give me a well reasoned argument as to why you’re position is the correct one, and I’ll attempt to do the same. If you can do that, then you’ll have earned my respect, as others already have.

You do not trust me, do you?
You do not trust what I say, do you?
You do not trust what I believe, do you?

Actually, you started out on the right foot, because I was intrigued by the following post. I wasn’t sure exactly what you meant by it, but it did get me thinking.

Is not human purpose a hierarchical cause??

I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to teleology or something else, but I didn’t immediately think that it should be dismissed out of hand. Although the more we talk, the more I’m beginning to lean that way. If you would really like to have an intelligent conversation, then please explain the above post more fully.

To not trust what people say is to regard them as liars…

No, it’s to regard them as human.

I’m wondering though, do you trust what I say? Or do you choose what to believe, and what not to believe? And in choosing what not to believe are you calling me a liar?

 

[George720]

Is not human purpose a hierarchical cause??

Biological activity is teleologically hierarchical - Even though one must acknowledge it is normally a response to the environment - Watching amoebae living under a microscope you can see them very purposeful in their activities, and this is itself hierarchical causation, with the amoeba, or bee, or ant, or bison, or dog, interacting with its environment for a purpose not imposed by the environment…

Bluntly, living things are not billiard balls on a table, re-enacting Aristotle’s unmoved mover each time a break shot is made…

Human purposing can be pretty much separated from the biological environment, and often is - We call it mental illness, which is a start… And it can be totally biological, after a fashion, and can get pretty ugly, and it can be ethically elevated, and even divinely inspired… So there is an order of magnitude of difference…

But simply being hungry for a snicker’s bar, intending to drive to the store to purchase one, and looking for the lost keys - In this simple example, the lifting up of a sofa cushion is hierarchically caused… I don’t see how it can be avoided…

Do you trust what I say?

I simply pay attention to what you say, and I trust that you are saying it for some reason, and my job is to discern your (dare I say hierarchical???) PURPOSE in your saying what you do… You said you do not trust people… That places you on an antimony in the trust-dis-trust continuom-scale of human interactions, and it inherently destroys human communicability because it isolates you from the one with whom you are communicating…

I do not have a whole lot of investment in that scale, and was seeking to open a gate through it for this conversation to be able to take place… I trust God, and I know God, and I walk in the knowledge of that trust, and I do not do the boundaries and fences thing in my communications with folks… I simply care…

Fair enough?

[geo]To not trust what people say is to regard them as liars…

I think you are mixing trusting them with believing what they say is true…

geo

 

[IQ170]

Spiritual knowledge is empirical, not objective…

I have no idea what you have in mind here. I never had anything like a “spiritual” experience.

So testimonials are a good thing, constituting the empirical witness of those who have had such encounters…

Of course. It would be impossible to verify everthing personally. But testimonials can never be accepted as a primary source of information. Testimonials are time-savers, but nothing else.

Enough for now - The idea is that you WILL encounter God, in this life or the next, and that you need to be prepared to do so, and that such preparation is counterintuitive…

I can hardly wait!

Except for me of course, because I’m a solipsist, I don’t trust any of you people. For me, the testimony of others, when it comes to matters of faith, is absolutely worthless.

People, their testimony, and their beliefs aren’t to be trusted any further than they can be objectively verified.

There are several ways to define “solipsism”. It might be interesting to explore the variants and yours in particular, maybe in another thread.

 

[IQ170]

“No natural explanation” =/= “[doctors] have no explanation”? Really?

This is how the canonization process works. There is an event, which is tentatively assumed to be a miracle. The experts are asked to discover a natural explanation for it. They are unable to provide it. And then comes the assertion: “then it must have been a miracle, which is sufficient to beatify the person, whose intercession was asked for.”

And, having not found an explanation, you continue to search. Is that unreasonable?

How long should one look for a natural explanation? How long is “long enough”?

Yep. Ask any exorcist whether they have the personal power to get rid of demons. Go ahead… I’ll wait. (Psst… that’s the teaching of the Church, BTW. )

That would not be “actual, empirical evidence” about the exorcist’s inability to exorcise the demons.

No. God is ASKED .

What is the difference between my asking something from God, and the exorcist asking?