Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[Luke_K]

Whether that world is “really real” or not is completely and totally irrelevant to discussions about claims made about that world.
…
And all of that wouldn’t change the fact that we know that in the world revealed by our senses, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.

Now, I’m perfectly willing to discuss the last point, but if someone just wants to confuse terminology for the sake of confusing it, that person is accomplishing nothing except revealing his own ignorance and impeding the conversation for the grown-ups in the room.
Worse is when these buffoons equivocate on the meaning of the word “faith”: “But you have faith that the world is real!” they whine. “Why, then, do you criticize religious people for having faith in god?”

The answer, agfain, is obvious to anyone who is halfway paying attention. Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without sufficient evidence. No one is arguing that “the world is really real and not the Matrix.” In the context of evaluating claims about the consistent world revealed by our senses, it makes no difference whether that world is the Matrix or not. It’s not a matter of “faith” at all, not in the sense that religious believers use the word “faith.”

When a non-believer appears to have resolutely concluded that no shred of evidence of God does or can exists, the believer might feel there is no other fruitful avenue for making the non-believer question his position than to point out what appear to be flaws in his position.

“Faith,” when used by Catholics and Catholic spiritual writers, is an act of the human intellect and will cooperating with divine grace. Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace. The miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability are motives of credibility, which show that the assent of faith is by no means a blind impulse of the mind.

St. Bernard said, “No tongue can say, no word express, but only experience can believe.” This is why I encouraged you to try praying the rosary, because without an act of will expressing a desire to experience faith you will have no understanding of what Christianity is.

Obviously, that statement is false – as I’ve demonstrated above, there is quite a lot of evidence that evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) works.

But you missed the point, or I failed to convey it adequately, of what I was doing in the “Well, why?” thread. Of course there must be a reason for us to believe that something exists in order for us to believe that it exists, or in simpler terms, evidence. It’s just that it’s a more muddy philosophical system than you seem (note: seem) to think it is, especially when it’s applied in a rigid, universal, physical fashion. There’s the problem of induction, the question of whether an observation qualifies as evidence, whether an experiment was performed correctly, what evidence is available, how much evidence should be required for belief, whether evidence collected by others should be trusted, what kinds of evidence should be accepted, etc.

I know you don’t like following links, but since you’re on catholic.com and enjoy repeating to the site’s members that Christianity is mythology, you may as well read this relatively short refutation of that from this site: Are the Gospels Myth?. It addresses your concerns directly.

I invite you again, friend, to test the Christian hypothesis. The experiment I proposed last time still stands. You could also try this one put forth by a former atheist: Conversion Diary: Finding God in 5 Steps. At the very least, if you are at all committed to the idea of experimentation, simply pray, as sincerely as you wish, “God, I want to find you. Show me how. I’m listening.”

And by the way, The Matrix is so last decade. It’s all about Inception now.

 

[awatkins69]

I agree with the OP, although the Matrix idea is somewhat interesting for philosophy of mind. Also, I don’t think we should be so demeaning of others. While we know not to take most of that sort of stuff too seriously, we should consider that everyone has to start somewhere.

Metaphysical claims are mostly empty musings. The only part of philosophy worth considering is epistemology. How do we obtain knowledge?

On the contrary, metaphysics is alive and well. You must not have heard about Quine (although his ideas are very debatable), and the many other metaphysicians after the demise of logical positivism. There’s also the huge amount of work in political philosophy, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, moral philosophy, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So then explain a method of coming to conclusions that works better than evidence-based inquiry. Also explain how you know that it’s a better method.

I don’t think there are better methods. Still, when it comes to claims about free will (for example), we have no conclusive evidence. And yet “we have free will” or “we are morally responsible” are meaningful statements, which are either true or false. So we need some other method, when evidence isn’t available. This method is logical argument.

No, I mustn’t. Here’s a universal claim: all objects dropped on this planet will fall down. Even if we didn’t have a pretty strong grasp of how gravity works and the associated math that almost demonstrates to a certainty that this is true, we could still use inductive reasoning applied to the evidence of our observations to determine that that universal claim is true.

But inductive reasoning is a form of argument. And I said that you could make an argument that every type of applicable object fits the criterion. You have. I think it is a good argument. Thus, I agree that your universal claim about objects (of sufficient weight) falling is a rational claim.

Now, if you had said that every **entity **in the universe is subject to gravitation, this would have been a much more problematic claim. We would have to have some comprehensive idea of what sort of entities are in the universe, which we do not. All we can do is speculate; thus, the rational thing to do is to suspend judgment.

You don’t need to exhaustively demonstrate every case …

And I didn’t say you did.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Very few would disagree that the claims about the physical world can be only decided by experimentation.

At least, we agree about evidence here. When it comes to claims about the physical world, the most reliable evidence is physical evidence. But this is not only experimentation. Fossils provide evidence, and yet we cannot find repeatable experiments to verify that dinosaurs existed. (They did, of course).

Claims within an axiomatic system can be decided by deductive menthod - those claims can be proven, not just substantiated. Claims about the past (historical claims) can only be approximated. Claims about art are subjective, whatever may be “beautiful” for someone might be boring to others. Claims about supernatural are problematic - even the concept of “supernatural” is dubious.

You say they are problematic, I suppose, simply because we cannot agree upon what evidence “counts” in favor of supernatural claims. Yet you yourself have said before that there could be evidence of God – notably in your “Why Doesn’t God Reveal Himself” thread. So which is it? Is there no possible evidence for the supernatural? Or has God not provided such evidence, though He could?

The proof of the pudding. An explanation does not have to be “perfect”, it is enough if it allows predictions, which can be verified.

The Ptolemaic system predicted things *much *better than Copernicus’s system. Was the Ptolemaic system a better hypothesis?

You have tremendous faith that scientific theories that yield results are true. But hasn’t it occurred to you that the scientific theory may yield such results because it was *designed *for the results (as Ptolemy’s was)?

It is useful, but not universal. Which means that there are basic principles and axioms which cannot be reduced any further, so they need no explanation.

How can it be useful if we don’t know when it applies? This is a bit like a gun that shoots 9 times out of 10; I’d rather have no gun at all.

I will use your mirror analogy. There are two ways to look at a mirros, from the front, and from the back.

False. There are many different angles, which give completely different views. When you claim that you don’t see something other people claim to see, perhaps it is simply that you haven’t looked at it from their angle.

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t think there are better methods [than evidence-based inquiry]

Then I rest my case.

Still, when it comes to claims about free will (for example), we have no conclusive evidence.

And when we don’t have sufficient evidence, we do not accept the claim (or, at best, suspend judgement). [when it comes to free will, it’s largely definitional – some definitions of free will are demonstrably false, others probably true]

Look, we’re not even talking about a concept here, like free will. We’re talking about whether a being that you call “God” exists. Beings that exist manifest in some detectable way (that’s what “exist” means). If you are claiming that this being exists and does not manifest in some detectable way, then this being is indistinguishable from nothing at all.

God claims are claims about the world. If you’re consigning your god to “existing” only in some imaginary non-Matrix “real real world,” then you’re admitting that your god doesn’t exist because we have no good reason to think that there is such a “real real world” or a being in it. If you, however, think that your god is detectable in this world in some way, then you’re claiming that your god is a part of the world our senses reveal and thus can be accepted or rejected on the strength of evidence for him.

 

[R_Daneel]

At least, we agree about evidence here. When it comes to claims about the physical world, the most reliable evidence is physical evidence. But this is not only experimentation. Fossils provide evidence, and yet we cannot find repeatable experiments to verify that dinosaurs existed. (They did, of course).

Actually that belongs to the claims about the past. The fossils exist today, and we can hypothesize about their origin. We know about carbon-dating, and it has been verified. The age of the fossils can be determined quite accurately.

You say they are problematic, I suppose, simply because we cannot agree upon what evidence “counts” in favor of supernatural claims. Yet you yourself have said before that there could be evidence of God – notably in your “Why Doesn’t God Reveal Himself” thread. So which is it? Is there no possible evidence for the supernatural? Or has God not provided such evidence, though He could?

Hold for one second. You did not speak of axiomatic claims, historical claims, and artistic claims. Can I take it that we agree what I said about those?

Now about the claims of the supernatural. It would be nice if the “supernatural” could be accurately defined. Without a clear definition we cannot even start to contemplate about the nature of evidence. Also, if this supernatural (whatever it might be) would never interact with our physical existence, then there would be no possible evidence for its existence. After all it would be in a “realm” which is not accessible to us. One could set up hypotheses but without hope to verify or falsify them. In a sense it is like the multiverse “theory” (which is not a real “theory”, but just empty speculation).

However, if this supernatural is supposed to interact with our existence, then we can devise a method to find evidence for it. In such a case, there is an interface between the natural and the supernatural, and that interface is partly natural. As such is can be observed, measured, verified and falsified. It would be real in our world, and thus subject to the scientific method we agreed upon.

The Ptolemaic system predicted things *much *better than Copernicus’s system. Was the Ptolemaic system a better hypothesis?

What do you mean by “better”? Mathematically it is extremely cumbersome, it required the assumptions of “epicycloids”, to explain the “retrograde” motion of the planets. So why do you say: “better”?

You have tremendous faith that scientific theories that yield results are true. But hasn’t it occurred to you that the scientific theory may yield such results because it was *designed *for the results (as Ptolemy’s was)?

No. The pudding is real. If you eat it, it gives nutrition. A scientific theory is never “closed”. It is just the best explanation we currently have. There is no place for “faith” here.

How can it be useful if we don’t know when it applies? This is a bit like a gun that shoots 9 times out of 10; I’d rather have no gun at all.

Of course we know when to apply it and when not. It is applicable for everything except the basic principles and axioms. And even those basic principles would be subject to evaluation, if the need would arise. It happened before, many times. There was a basic assumption that everything is either “wave” or “corpuscular”. It was deeply ingrained, and it took a lot of energy to displace and discard it.

False. There are many different angles, which give completely different views. When you claim that you don’t see something other people claim to see, perhaps it is simply that you haven’t looked at it from their angle.

I would accept this, if those people would be able to give me a specific advice, and not just some dubious ones, like “you must have faith”, or, “you must pray for guidance”, or, “you must ask honestly and long enough”, or, “if you would just humble yourself”, and such inane nonsense… I recall Uri Geller and his ilk, who insist that you must believe first, and then you will be in the position to “see” the evidence. Sorry, this is the tactics of snake-oil peddlers, who keep saying: “trust me!”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And when we don’t have sufficient evidence, we do not accept the claim (or, at best, suspend judgement).

Depends on what practical reasons you have. If you have considerable reason to believe that the world is just (because such a belief is beneficial), you also have reason to believe in whatever would guarantee the world’s justice. There is at least a grain of truth in pragmatism.

Look, we’re not even talking about a concept here, like free will. We’re talking about whether a being that you call “God” exists.

I wasn’t. I’m talking about metaphysics, which may or may not include God’s existence. I am inclined to say that the existence of something very much like God is as clear, empirically, as the existence of atoms. It’s other things – like moral responsibility and free will, like the mind/body problem – that are purely metaphysical questions. You seem to think that there are obvious, empirically derivable answers to these questions.

Your premise seems to be: For any statement to be meaningful, there must be a way for human being, in principle, to discover if it is true or false.

I don’t care what arguments you make for the truth of your premise, because it is self-refuting! There is, in principle, no way to discover if it is true or false. You lay it down as a sort of stipulation, but I ask you WHY I should agree to it? Because otherwise I am spouting nonsense? Well, yes, by your definition of nonsense, I am. But your saying metaphysics is nonsense doesn’t make it so.

Beings that exist manifest in some detectable way (that’s what “exist” means).

Another definitional stipulation.

At any rate, most every believer would argue that God manifests Himself in some detectable way. And your definition is vague: detectable to whom? When? With what technology? If you say “detectable with ideal technology”, then the theist can simply say that we don’t have ideal technology. If you say that immaterial beings cannot manifest themselves in detectable ways, then you are also assuming that immaterial beings cannot affect a material world, which begs the question against the theist.

God claims are claims about the world. If you’re consigning your god to “existing” only in some imaginary non-Matrix “real real world,” then you’re admitting that your god doesn’t exist because we have no good reason to think that there is such a “real real world” or a being in it.

You see, this is exactly the part of the OP that I completely agree with. The believer needs to ground all His metaphysical beliefs as explanations of the actual world. The idealist conception of a Platonic world is bunk.

If you, however, think that your god is detectable in this world in some way, then you’re claiming that your god is a part of the world our senses reveal and thus can be accepted or rejected on the strength of evidence for him.

Yes. This is what I’m saying. Although the stakes are somewhat higher than with most epistemic decisions.

 

[AntiTheist]

I know you don’t like following links, but since you’re on catholic.com and enjoy repeating to the site’s members that Christianity is mythology, you may as well read this relatively short refutation of that from this site: Are the Gospels Myth?. It addresses your concerns directly.

Well, it’s not related to this thread, so I’ve opened a new thread on the subject.

Just for you, Luke: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486011 Enjoy!

 

[Mijoy2]

Hi AntiTheist,

Sometimes I get aggravated because I get enough time to glance at some threads, I find something interesting but I do not have enough to read through it all. This thread is an example of that.

I just wanted to say that from scanning some of your posts on this thread you might be interested in reading the first few chapters of G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. You said something earlier about encouraging imagination. The thread also refers (not reefers but refers ) to opening up ones mind. Chesteron covers this in a profoundly articulate and amazing manner.

I suggested this not in an attempt to evangelize (not my style). I say it because I feel you may perhaps be blown away with Chestertons thoughts on the matter.

Hope I read enough of the thread to be correct in thinking it is relevant.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hold for one second. You did not speak of axiomatic claims, historical claims, and artistic claims. Can I take it that we agree what I said about those?

Given the truth of logic (which we must assume), I will grant that axiomatic claims are purely derivable. Historical claims are problematic, but I see the problems in history as similar to the problems in science – although, science can (sometimes) use repeatability as a corrective measure (to eliminate false hypotheses, but never to p(name removed by moderator)oint true hypotheses).

Aesthetic claims are true or false, but not decidable by any particular method. There is artistic intuition, which is similar to moral intuition. We cannot logically derive moral rules, and yet we would stake our lives on them. So it is with art. So we disagree about art.

Now about the claims of the supernatural. It would be nice if the “supernatural” could be accurately defined. Without a clear definition we cannot even start to contemplate about the nature of evidence. Also, if this supernatural (whatever it might be) would never interact with our physical existence, then there would be no possible evidence for its existence. After all it would be in a “realm” which is not accessible to us.

First of all, I claim that the supernatural DOES interact with our physical existence. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter to us. So, in one sense, I agree.

However, I don’t think that all truths that matter to us are accessible. I think the truth about God is accessible, but not the truth about free will. But the free will problem can *pertain *to us, even though we can have no evidence about it.

However, if this supernatural is supposed to interact with our existence, then we can devise a method to find evidence for it.

This is pure dogma.

Suppose there is an advanced alien society, who has mastered all the physical laws, and messes with people’s heads while they sleep. It interacts with our existence, no? But we cannot devise a method to find evidence for this alien society, unless the society wants to be found. To say otherwise is groundless optimism.

In such a case, there is an interface between the natural and the supernatural, and that interface is partly natural.

Why should the interface between the supernatural and the natural be partly natural? Isn’t that kind of like saying that the interface between your phone and my phone is my phone?

What do you mean by “better”? Mathematically it is extremely cumbersome, it required the assumptions of “epicycloids”, to explain the “retrograde” motion of the planets. So why do you say: “better”?

Copernicus hypothesized circular orbits, which forced him to include epicycles too! But the predictions of his system still didn’t match up to Ptolemy’s.

No. The pudding is real. If you eat it, it gives nutrition. A scientific theory is never “closed”. It is just the best explanation we currently have.

Good. My point is simply that “the best explanation we currently have” is a long way from “the true explanation”.

I would accept this, if those people would be able to give me a specific advice, and not just some dubious ones, like “you must have faith”, or, “you must pray for guidance”, or, “you must ask honestly and long enough”, or, “if you would just humble yourself”, and such inane nonsense…

My advice: love people. Get to know them, enjoy life with them, mourn with them, play with them, and love them. Especially people you don’t find all that lovable. I hope you’ll appreciate how really difficult it is to do this.

In the end, it matters little whether you come to a dynamic and unshakable belief in God. The God “out there” is not important. There’s something that happens to the soul (or mind, if you prefer) of a person who has forgotten himself, that is extremely beautiful. Intellectual questions become much less intractable when emotional conflicts are resolved.

 

[Betterave]

No. The pudding is real. If you eat it, it gives nutrition. A scientific theory is never “closed”. It is just the best explanation we currently have. There is no place for “faith” here.

Sure, the pudding is real; but if all you eat is pudding, you might be missing out on a lot of other food groups (I know, pudding isn’t really a food group)! There’s a good chance that an “all-pudding” diet is very bad for your health, if ya know what I mean.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m not insulted at all. However, I’d really prefer that you either rephrased the idea in your own words or, at the very least, gave some credit to the source of the original words.

Oh, sure. Not a problem.

 

[R_Daneel]

Given the truth of logic (which we must assume), I will grant that axiomatic claims are purely derivable. Historical claims are problematic, but I see the problems in history as similar to the problems in science – although, science can (sometimes) use repeatability as a corrective measure (to eliminate false hypotheses, but never to p(name removed by moderator)oint true hypotheses).

How do you define a “true” hypothesis? A hypothesis, which yields verifyable results is “good enough”. As they say: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Aesthetic claims are true or false, but not decidable by any particular method.

True, or false, in what sense? Is Wagner’s Ring beautiful or a cacophony? Artistic claims are fully subjective, not objective at all.

First of all, I claim that the supernatural DOES interact with our physical existence. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter to us. So, in one sense, I agree.

Yes. Always good to agree.

However, I don’t think that all truths that matter to us are accessible. I think the truth about God is accessible, but not the truth about free will. But the free will problem can *pertain *to us, even though we can have no evidence about it.

We do not know if we have free will or not. It is a plausible assumption, which cannot be verified nor falsified. It is just another basic proposition, unprovable. But that is not a problem. We have some of those.

This is pure dogma.

Suppose there is an advanced alien society, who has mastered all the physical laws, and messes with people’s heads while they sleep. It interacts with our existence, no? But we cannot devise a method to find evidence for this alien society, unless the society wants to be found. To say otherwise is groundless optimism.

Not groundless at all. To “mess” with our dreams would require either “magic” or some physical means. I don’t believe in magic (or ESP, or auras, or anything “paranormal”). So it must be some physical methos, and in that case it is detectable.

Why should the interface between the supernatural and the natural be partly natural? Isn’t that kind of like saying that the interface between your phone and my phone is my phone?

Nope. the actual interface in your example is threefold (and all are detectable): your phone, my phone and the landline (or the microwaves). If you have an interface between two entities “A” and “B”, then the interface partly belongs to “A”, partly to “B”, with some communication line between the two. But assuming an interaction there is a point between the natural and the stupidnatural which is detectable.

Good. My point is simply that “the best explanation we currently have” is a long way from “the true explanation”.

And how do know that there is a “true” explanation?

My advice: love people. Get to know them, enjoy life with them, mourn with them, play with them, and love them. Especially people you don’t find all that lovable. I hope you’ll appreciate how really difficult it is to do this.

Actually, I don’t find it difficult at all. Without going into details, with my wife we both did it, and we were very happy with the result. But it did not bring me any closer to God, nor some “different view” in the mirror which would enable me to see just how “good” God is proclaimed to be.

 

[tonyrey]

Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without sufficient evidence. No one is arguing that “the world is really real and not the Matrix.” In the context of evaluating claims about the consistent world revealed by our senses, it makes no difference whether that world is the Matrix or not. It’s not a matter of “faith” at all, not in the sense that religious believers use the word “faith.”

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the material world is the fundamental, if not the sole, reality. By your own definition you are making an act of faith if you cannot produce sufficient evidence for that claim.

 

[Areopagite]

The shallow, stoned Matrix-worshipping college kid that you describe has hit upon an unanswerable conundrum that the philosopher who rejects faith cannot escape from. This is obvious if you do a cursory study of modern philosophy. In an attempt to reject “faith” the moderns very rapidly descended into the conclusion that “nothing can be known.” If you don’t believe me, study modern philosophy for yourself. Not only did they reject the world beyond the senses, but they eventually rejected the world of the senses too, using the very same logic. Some modern philosophy fans have tried to pick up the pieces but have never succeeded (never really convinced anyone at least). If you reject faith offhand, you will have nothing more than a logically doomed system of skepticism that might accept “science” to a degree but with really no reason to (except that it might be popular at the time).

But, with that said, let me get into the specifics …

Take the following scenario: a bunch of adults are having a serious conversation about a claim – say, for example, that a god of some kind exists. One individual is correctly pointing out that there is no good evidence that any gods exist, something that others in the discussion are having a hard time coming to terms with.

No good evidence? What makes you say that? You’re not going to slip that in without any explanation … dude.

When people talk about the world and make claims about the world, they’re not making metaphysical declarations: they’re discussing the consistent world revealed by our senses. In other words, “the real world” is the label that people put on the consistent world revealed by our senses.

What you’re doing here is making the distinction between the phenomenon and the noumenon (as Kant famously puts it). I.e. the world as it is revealed by the sense vs. the world as it actually is. As far as I know, there is no proof to demonstrate that there is any meaningful connection between the two (i.e. that our senses actually perceive reality in any meaningful way). But if you then don’t have faith that they do at all, then you’re in a real mess … a bigger mess than even Kant thought, I think. For example, he thought that we were all “hard-wired” exactly the same … that we all shared the basically same phenomenon. But he had no reason to think that. He just assumed that. Thus, Kant fails in his critique of pure reason (unless someone can correct me on my interpretation of him).

You see, all our senses do is give us images (in the broad sense … i.e. sense data). But the images don’t interpret themselves. We have to use our reason. And once we start using reason, we start (unconsciously commonly) by assuming principles that are not provable from sensory data … like the principle of non-contradiction. Our senses cannot really prove anything by themselves because they are just images … not intellectual principles. So the whole abstraction process cannot be explained by the senses but it must be assumed it is reliable otherwise we cannot use any reason to begin with. Just some food for thought.

Whether that world is “really real” or not is completely and totally irrelevant to discussions about claims made about that world.

So … you’re making a distinction between the “real world” and the “really real world” right? As in phenomenon vs. noumenon?

For example, let’s pretend that the world that our senses reveal to us is actually a complex computer simulation being fed into my brain – which is in a vat, of course – by a mad scientist in some other “real world.” All of that wouldn’t change the fact that we know that in the world revealed by our senses, evidence tells us that objects fall at the rate of 32 feet per second per second (on this planet, anyway).

All of that wouldn’t change the fact that we know that in the world revealed by our senses, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that Bigfoot exists.

And yet so many people would disagree. Especially the people who have claimed to see Bigfoot. Right?

And all of that wouldn’t change the fact that we know that in the world revealed by our senses, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.

I don’t agree that it’s a “fact” that “we know that in the world revealed by our sense, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.” I cite the obvious fact that most people believe in some sort of God. And also, for example, most ancient Greek philosophers were materialists and yet still believed in gods. Wrap your head around that one.

The answer, agfain, is obvious to anyone who is halfway paying attention. Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without sufficient evidence.

Just out of curiosity, where do you get that definition?

No one is arguing that “the world is really real and not the Matrix.” In the context of evaluating claims about the consistent world revealed by our senses, it makes no difference whether that world is the Matrix or not. It’s not a matter of “faith” at all, not in the sense that religious believers use the word “faith.”

Why? You need to explain this more.

 

[Areopagite]

After you’re finished pointing at him and laughing, you might, if you were so inclined, point out the vast amounts of evidence that evidence-based inquiry is the best – in fact, the only – reliable source of knowledge. You could point out all of the advancements and developments that have resulted from evidence-based inquiry; you could point out all conclusions drawn by people not operating on the basis of sufficient evidence and note how these conclusions are much, much more likely to be false.

I needn’t point out that this is a circular argument. This is trying to prove evidence-based inquiry by pointing out evidence. Yeah, that doesn’t work. So, the fact is, you can’t prove evidence-based inquiry is the best. It’s a matter of faith.

The fact is, when we talk about whether a claim is true or not, we’re talking about whether or not that claim corresponds to the world revealed by our senses – if something is “true” and doesn’t correspond to the world revealed by our senses, then you have no basis at all for saying that it’s true.

I’ve never seen Asia with my senses. And yet I believe it exists. Am I so irrational for this?

And the only way to determine if a claim corresponds to the world revealed by our senses is to measure it against data from the world revealed by our senses. If you’ve got a better way to arrive at knowledge, I’d like to hear it – and I’d like to know how you know it’s a better way.

I’m a fan of the principle of non-contradiction, and yet I’ve never seen it with my senses. I’ve really never seen the scientific method with my senses either (though I have seen a representation of it drawn out in symbols … but we all know that not the scientific method itself). And once again, I’ve never seen the existence of Asia. And yet I accept all of the above as true.

Sometimes, these Matrix-mongers are so lost in the “reality” they’ve invented for themselves that they go so far as to say something as asinine like “To use science, you have to have faith that it works! All systems of knowledge have faith at their root!”

Yep. I agree. How could you not?

Obviously, that statement is false – as I’ve demonstrated above, there is quite a lot of evidence that evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) works.

But you’ve used circular reasoning, so you really haven’t demonstrated it.

What’s more interesting than that obvious observation is this: such a foolish statement implies that the believers themselves have absolutely no basis for choosing to have faith in the things that they do. If they did have a basis, they wouldn’t have to appeal to faith – they’d just explain their reasons and the evidentiary basis of those reasons.

Um, what? I didn’t follow. Are you saying that faith does have evidentiary basis, now?

In any case, the thing with faith is that it cannot be proved, otherwise it wouldn’t be faith. If you believe that only provable things must be accepted, then you can’t accept anything, because ultimately you can’t accept the very first principles that explain anything (because if you could, they wouldn’t be first principles). If you don’t understand that, I could go into that in more detail.

But they don’t – they wander around in a fog, mumbling trash about everything being a matter of faith. So if that’s really the case, what they’re saying is that their beliefs are completely random and arbitrary and no more likely to be correct than the “faith” that jungle tribes have in the bush that they worship; they’re saying that there’s no good reason to accept, say, the results revealed by an application of science over the results revealed by a tarot card reading.

Not necessarily.

First of all, all faiths must be rejected if they contradict the principle of non-contradiction. That eliminates a lot of religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and several Protestant denominations. But all religions that don’t offend reason (i.e. don’t ultimately reject the principle of non-contradiction) cannot be ultimately refuted on the basis of natural reason. So unless you have some supernatural knowledge that tells you otherwise, then you have no reason to reject a rational religion.

Also, I cannot refute the belief of extraterrestrials. I cannot refute the existence of Bigfoot. I cannot refute the existence of Atlantis. Not unless I’m given a special revelation from God, in which I’m given privileged data.

I’m open to correction on this, of course.

 

[Areopagite]

I wonder, why is this a problematic priniciple. What else is there? Intuition? It is a fine starting point. We make some observation and intuit a hypothesis. But to stop there is not sufficient, is it? Different people make different intuitive claims, and how does one decide which is the good one (if any of them)? Pure speculation just does not cut it.

Well, we arrive at the first principles by intuition. If intuition is a fine starting point, why can’t faith be intuited? Theologically speaking, faith is a starting point in the Catholic religion. One must have theological faith in order to have theological hope in order to have theological love. Faith in that sense is a starting point for the Catholic’s life.

By the way, there is the much touted PSR, “principle of sufficient reason”. It is argued that the materialistic point of view is incorrect, because it cannot “explain” the world as it is. Yet, this principle is a UNIVERSAL claim. Can it be defended? Of course not. Is there a way to apply the PSR to PSR? What sufficient reason is there to accept PSR?

It’s a first principle. The principle of sufficient reason cannot be proved. All orthodox Catholic philosophers have said that it must be intuited and cannot be demonstrated. The PSR, like the Principle of non-contradiction, must be accepted on faith.

Now, are you rejecting the PSR? Because, like rejecting the principle of non-contradiction, that can shown to be quite absurd. But … are you rejecting the PSR? I’m not quite sure what you’re implying.

Metaphysical claims are mostly empty musings.

So … any question regarding “existence” is an empty musing? That’s what metaphysics is … “the study of existence” (i.e. what do we mean by existence and certain kinds of existence, etc.)

The only part of philosophy worth considering is epistemology. How do we obtain knowledge?

I don’t see how we can have epistemology before we can have metaphysics. If we don’t know how to talk about existence and reality (and even what “thing” means) then how are we going to talk about how we know things, reality, existence, etc?

“Extrarational” is “irrational”. Just like “supernatural” is “unnatural”.

If they were synonyms, well, then yes.

However if “extrarational” means “that which can be discovered beyond what humans can naturally discover” than I don’t think it would mean irrational (i.e. it wouldn’t mean it would contradict the principle of non-contradiction).

Also, “nature” can mean many things. If it means “that which has an essence” then everything that exists would be natural (even God). If it means “that which is not made by humans” well then many things would be unnatural. If it means “that which has a condition not in accord with its essence” then it would be unnatural. If it means “that which does not fall under those things which exist in the visible world” then I would say many things are not natural, but I would not call them unnatural either … but rather supernatural. That’s just me, though.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, we arrive at the first principles by intuition.

Actually the process is much more complicated. The basic principles are distilled from innumerable sensory observations, after a long process. The first thing is always observation. Then comes the intuitive step of attempting to understand what we perceive. This intuitive step is then submitted to the evaluation process. Based upon the intuitive hypothesis, one tries to make predictions. If the predictions are borne out by more more sensory observation, the hypothesis gains acceptance. And there is nothing “circular” about this process, it is more like a spiral. At the “end” there is the final arbiter, the objective reality. If the prediction is “rejected” by reality, the hypothesis maker pays the ultimate price - his life. And no one with a sound mind can say that the person maybe just imagined that he died.

If intuition is a fine starting point, why can’t faith be intuited?

Fine. You can submit the results to the same “arbiter”, the objective reality, and see where it leads. A true example. There are some believers, who reject all medical intervention, and trust their prayers. They refuse the treatment of their sick child, and keep on praying over them. The children usually die. The hypothesis is refuted by reality, but the believers will not give up their faith. They rationalize that they did not pray “hard enough”, or “God had different plans”, or “God punished them for their lack of faith”. This is the fundamental difference. If a rational scientist makes a prediction, and it is refuted by the outcome, he will - eventually and maybe grudgingly - give up his incorrect hypothesis and start afresh. The believers do not give up their hypotheses, they keep on rationalizing.

It’s a first principle. The principle of sufficient reason cannot be proved. All orthodox Catholic philosophers have said that it must be intuited and cannot be demonstrated. The PSR, like the Principle of non-contradiction, must be accepted on faith.

This is the worst kind of abuse of the poor word “faith”. No, axioms of mathematics are not accepted on “faith”. The basic axioms of logic are not accepted on “faith”. The basic principles of natural sciences are not accepted on “faith”.

Now, are you rejecting the PSR? Because, like rejecting the principle of non-contradiction, that can shown to be quite absurd. But … are you rejecting the PSR? I’m not quite sure what you’re implying.

The PSR is fine and dandy, but not universal. It cannot be used to itself. The basic propositions are not subject to PSR.

So … any question regarding “existence” is an empty musing? That’s what metaphysics is … “the study of existence” (i.e. what do we mean by existence and certain kinds of existence, etc.)

It depends. If “existence” means physcial or conceptual existence, it is a trivial observation. Everything beyond that is empty speculation - as far as the materialists are concerned. You are most welcome to postulate some other kind of “existence”, and then you can try to present an epistemological method, which can demostrate this existence. The only criterion is that one cannot be expected to grant a-priori acceptance to your claims. Present an objective method, which will lead the non-believer to your conclusions.

I don’t see how we can have epistemology before we can have metaphysics. If we don’t know how to talk about existence and reality (and even what “thing” means) then how are we going to talk about how we know things, reality, existence, etc?

Reality is what you perceive either directly or indirectly.

However if “extrarational” means “that which can be discovered beyond what humans can naturally discover” than I don’t think it would mean irrational (i.e. it wouldn’t mean it would contradict the principle of non-contradiction).

Present an example, along with the proper epistemological method. The same criterion is needed as mentioned above. The method must objective, and should lead the non-believer to the acceptance of the claim.

Also, “nature” can mean many things. If it means “that which has an essence” then everything that exists would be natural (even God). If it means “that which is not made by humans” well then many things would be unnatural. If it means “that which has a condition not in accord with its essence” then it would be unnatural. If it means “that which does not fall under those things which exist in the visible world” then I would say many things are not natural, but I would not call them unnatural either … but rather supernatural. That’s just me, though.

“Essence” is just another meaningless or trivial word. The “essence” of everything is - itself. The essence of an apple tree it itself. Now, if we want to categorize things into some groups (which is a very good and useful endeavor) by concentrating on the “essential” part, while overlooking the “accidental” part, then we already have some goal in mind, and decide that in the light of that goal which attributes are “essential” and which can be neglected. If the goal is a bonfire, then the “essence” of al the trees is that their material can be burned. If the goal is to eat their fruits, then the “essence” is the edibility (if there is such a word) of their produce. There is no “abstract essence” without a specific goal in mind.

 

[Areopagite]

Actually the process is much more complicated. The basic principles are distilled from innumerable sensory observations, after a long process.

Distilled? We shall see what this means …

The first thing is always observation.

I will grant this. I agree that if we were devoid any any sensory data, we would not think at all. Even Aristotle and Aquinas, for what it’s worth, said all knowledge comes through the senses.

Then comes the intuitive step of attempting to understand what we perceive.

I will agree to this. This is where the abstraction process happens. This is where we begin to form concepts based on the sensory information. This is what, dare I say, separates us from the animals (for the animals have sensory information but no power, so far as we know for sure, to abstractly understand what’s going on).

So this is an important distinction (which you have in fact made thus far): the distinction between percept (sensory data about something) and the concept (the understanding of something). A percept however does not automatically imply a concept. That is, one can perceive a deer with one senses but not have the concept of a deer necessarily. Or, one can see gravity in action but not gain the concept of gravity. And of course one can have a concept of something to varying degrees (i.e. have varying degrees of understanding about something).

This intuitive step is then submitted to the evaluation process. Based upon the intuitive hypothesis, one tries to make predictions.

Right here, however, one has assumed (by faith!) that this evaluation process is the right thing to do. This is an inescapable assumption if one is interested in continuing to use the evaluation process … because if you try and prove the process, you need to use the process … and there again you’re assuming (by faith!) that it works.

So, right there is shown the necessity of faith.

If the predictions are borne out by more more sensory observation, the hypothesis gains acceptance.

The meaning of the sensory observation, of course, must be abstracted (or deciphered) into concepts because concepts are the elements of predictions. But that abstraction is ultimately intuition-based. The whole evaluation process is completely founded on intuition. There is not one thing in the whole deal that does not boil down to an intuition, an assumption, an act of faith. Reasoning is a bunch of intuitions rubbing against each other. But that’s not a bad thing. It does, however, imply that faith is foundational to reasoning.

And there is nothing “circular” about this process, it is more like a spiral.

What I was pointing out was that trying to prove evidence-based inquiry cannot be done because you must use evidence in order to do that. It’s clearly circular. You can’t assume the thing you are trying to prove.

At the “end” there is the final arbiter, the objective reality. If the prediction is “rejected” by reality, the hypothesis maker pays the ultimate price - his life. And no one with a sound mind can say that the person maybe just imagined that he died.

I agree … but this is no proof of the reliability of evidence-based inquiry.

There are some believers, who reject all medical intervention, and trust their prayers. They refuse the treatment of their sick child, and keep on praying over them. The children usually die. The hypothesis is refuted by reality, but the believers will not give up their faith. They rationalize that they did not pray “hard enough”, or “God had different plans”, or “God punished them for their lack of faith”. This is the fundamental difference. If a rational scientist makes a prediction, and it is refuted by the outcome, he will - eventually and maybe grudgingly - give up his incorrect hypothesis and start afresh. The believers do not give up their hypotheses, they keep on rationalizing.

The people I know of who think at all like this are people who believe that medicine does work but that it’s evil for some reason. It’s not that they deny that medicine and science don’t accomplish some of their ends. Their outlook sometimes is viewing medicine as a thief. A thief can make money in his trade, but it’s an evil way to make money, and that one should strive at an honest job, even if it never comes.

That’s the only religious extremists that I know of with regard to this issue. But I’m sure there are other varieties. In any case, I like medicine (and the Catholic Church does too).

 

[Areopagite]

This is the worst kind of abuse of the poor word “faith”. No, axioms of mathematics are not accepted on “faith”. The basic axioms of logic are not accepted on “faith”. The basic principles of natural sciences are not accepted on “faith”.

And I say they are. This is because the axioms cannot be proved. Hence, the axioms are accepted on faith. That is the definition of faith: “that which is accepted without demonstration.”

The PSR is fine and dandy, but not universal. It cannot be used to itself. The basic propositions are not subject to PSR.

Um … okay. Yeah … I think you’re right. (but I’ll have to think about that … because I’m not sure).

It depends. If “existence” means physcial or conceptual existence, it is a trivial observation.

I think it’s an important distinction. Most atheists would too.

Everything beyond that is empty speculation - as far as the materialists are concerned. You are most welcome to postulate some other kind of “existence”, and then you can try to present an epistemological method, which can demostrate this existence. The only criterion is that one cannot be expected to grant a-priori acceptance to your claims. Present an objective method, which will lead the non-believer to your conclusions.

I hope to do so … in other posts. But what you say is respectable.

Reality is what you perceive either directly or indirectly.

I would certainly agree with that. But many modern philosophers claim we don’t perceive reality. They say that our senses distort our experience so much that our thoughts are colored by invincible subjectivity. It’s a matter of faith, I think, to accept that our senses show a meaningful picture of what’s really out there.

Present an example, along with the proper epistemological method. The same criterion is needed as mentioned above. The method must objective, and should lead the non-believer to the acceptance of the claim.

At the very least, I can ask them to consider the intrinsic possibility of a being that is beyond the senses. If they think that it’s possible, then in the realm of hypotheses, the distinction between “extrarational” and “irrational” is made. Do you consider that, for example, an angel or God is possible? If so, then you also can make the distinction, even if you don’t believe they exist.

“Essence” is just another meaningless or trivial word. The “essence” of everything is - itself. The essence of an apple tree it itself.

No, not quite. You see two apple trees share the same essence. So to say the essence of an individual apple tree is itself would mean to imply that all apple trees are the same individual apple tree … which wouldn’t make sense … because there are many apple trees. Now, to say there is no shared essence would get you into a heap of trouble. But that hasn’t stopped the modern philosophers. I think it was Bernard Shaw (or maybe not) who said, “All chairs are quite different” in an attempt to get rid of essence … and yet by saying “all chairs” is to admit they have something in common, otherwise they wouldn’t all be called chairs. All this of course is obvious … and maybe wouldn’t be necessary to point out … and yet I point it out constantly because it’s constantly being denied, sometimes very seriously (ultimately resulting in complete skepticism).

Now, if we want to categorize things into some groups (which is a very good and useful endeavor) by concentrating on the “essential” part, while overlooking the “accidental” part, then we already have some goal in mind, and decide that in the light of that goal which attributes are “essential” and which can be neglected. If the goal is a bonfire, then the “essence” of al the trees is that their material can be burned. If the goal is to eat their fruits, then the “essence” is the edibility (if there is such a word) of their produce.

How does this detract from the idea of “essence”?

There is no “abstract essence” without a specific goal in mind.

But all the things you mention (e.g. edibility, “burnability”, etc.) are abstract concepts. You can’t hold an “edibility” … hence, it’s an abstract essence.