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

[JohnDamian]

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

Areopagite has spoken well on this; but I thought I would just qualify the theory of essences; as it seems as there is some confusion.

An essence of a thing can also be called the quiddity of a thing; literally meaning the “whatness” of a particular thing. For example; Chairs are what they are because something essential in them makes them a Chair - being made of wood or metal is an accident; or an irrelevant property; which cannot be used to constitute the Genus of Chair. However; Metal and Wood can be used to create a differentia; or a seperate species of Chair; such as Metal Chairs; Wooden Chairs and so forth; these too have the material properties of Chairs; but in a qualified sense (ie; wooden chairs are essentially wooden; wheras chairs in general are accidentally wooden).

This qualifies down to the individuals in question; this is where Haecceity of a particular thing; the Haecceity means “thisness” and is what makes a particular person that particular person; like quiddities it cannot be used in a sense of individuating by accidents; and thus a thing is essentially “this” thing by it’s essential properties. I am me; if I were to dye my hair black, or to dye my hair blonde; these accidents would not change my “haecceity” as they are accidents and do not constitute what I am.

It follows from that that essences in general; and quiddities and haecceities in particular are referances to some inherant quality or property in a collective or individual. Thus;

An apple tree has the quiddity of being of the genus tree; and of the species which in general bears apples. It also has the haecceity of being the tree that was from the seed planted on apple lane. However; having leaves is accidental to this tree; as all the leaves could fall off or be sheared off; and the tree would still be “what” tree; and “this” tree – so essences are not descriptions of things which can be altered in an invididual; but instead some intrinsic part of what makes up that individual; from a collective to an individual context. An apple tree may be “this” tree; but it still remains “this” tree if it has it’s leaves removed; I am still “this” person; but I do not essentially change if I were to alter an accident of myself; such as hair colour.

 

[Richleebruce]

There is a lot of intelligent reasoning here, but it seems to have little to do with the thread.

If many people said how can I know that reality is real and I am not a brain in a vat, we might respond that your life is to unpleasant or boring. Novels are a type of false reality, so are video games, but both are more interesting than your life.

One could say that the poor peasant is more blessed in this aspect of their life, that they are not likely to be tempted to wonder if it is all real, while the movie star, millionaire, or Nobel Prize winner, might wonder.

Having said that we might go to argue that you should treat the reality you face as real, because if it is a dream you are not responsible for what you do in dreams. Therefore you have no prudent reason to doubt that this is reality.

As Catholics we are supposed to be morally certain that the faith is true, which according to the Church or theological opinion means that we should have no prudent doubt. Because the Church or theological opinion tells that we are not responsible for what happens in dreams we should have no prudent doubt that we are dealing with the real.

Beyond this suppose we are the proverbial brain in a vat with a reality fed in. Suppose further that a careful examination of the (name removed by moderator)uts gives strong evidence that the Catholic faith is true. Well why might that be. Perhaps the people, or whatever who put you in the vat are not evil, they might know that the Catholic faith is real. If you treat your reality as real and strive to be the best possible Catholic you maybe doing the best possible thing to prepare yourself for a very real afterlife that the intelligence that put the brain in the vat had good evidence of. Once again you have no prudent reason to doubt the truth of the Catholic faith. The prudent thing is to live a good Catholic life.

A Catholic philosopher told me that the proper response was to suggest to the person who said that reality was not real was to suggest that they destroy one of their most valuable possessions. Perhaps a good idea if the person was claiming that they knew that the world they saw with their senses was not real, but not much of a response if they simply think it might not be real.

However, even if they say that they are sure that their senses are not telling them the truth the professors argument is not air tight. The individual could say, it is all an artificial reality, something like a video game, but it is the video game I have to play, so just as I would not casually sacrifice my queen in a game of chess, I will not casually destroy this valuable object. It may not be real, but it is part of my plans for playing the game.

Well thats it for now.

 

[AntiTheist]

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

I’m not trying to slip it in – it’s the subject of other threads here. Read through “Well, Why?” in the philosophy section for a glimpse at exactly the kind of scenario I’m describing. If you think you have sufficient evidence for your beliefs, feel free to start a new thread.

This thread exists not to weigh the evidence for the existence of gods, but to refute the
Matrix argument.

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.

Well, what I’m really driving at is the difference between the consistent world that our senses reveal and some “ideal world” or “other world.” Or, to put it differently, the consistent world that our senses reveal versus “an imaginary world that exists only in your mind, The Matrix.” I’m disputing the “brain in a vat” scenario by pointing out that even if it’s true (and we’d have no way of knowing that it’s true), it’s irrelevant.

Obviously, our minds function to filter out things our senses pick up, and we view our senses through the lens of all sorts of prejudices and biases, so I agree that there’s a distinction between the mental models that we build up and what’s “out there.” I have often distinguished between “the world inside of our heads” and “the world outside of our heads.”

This is, in fact, one of the key reasons that we have to rely on data drawn from the world outside of our heads when making claims about the world outside of our heads. And it’s also the reason that evidence from inside your mind (like your precious little feelings) can’t demonstrate claims about the world outside of your mind (like the existence of a god).

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).

You can demonstrate to yourself very clearly that your senses are revealing the real world sufficiently enough to allow you to survive: go and drive a car somewhere. The fact that you can make it from point A to point B without dying tells us that however accurate your senses are about the world, they are certainly accurate enough that you can avoid obstacles (including other drivers) and even have a conversation with others about directions to places – in other words, the world our senses reveal is consistent across multiple people. The more we experience this, and the more that other people experience this and confirm what our senses reveal with their own senses, the more and more evidence we have that the world revealed by our senses is consistent and available to everyone.

Can I “prove” this 100% beyond all doubt? No, and I don’t have to – I can’t prove anything 100% beyond all doubt. I go where the evidence points, and the evidence suggests that there is a consistent world revealed by our senses.

But if you then don’t have faith that [the senses connect to the real world] at all, then you’re in a real mess

Well, I just explained above how we do have a lot of evidence that our senses reveal a consistent world, consistent across multiple people. If that weren’t the case, we’d all be bumping into each other, and driving off the road, and living in utter confusion.

It’s not an act of faith in any way. When I’m talking about the “real world,” I’m talking about that world that our senses reveal. It’s definitional: that’s how I label the world that our senses reveal.

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.

You’re talking not about faith here, but about necessary assumptions, like the logical absolutes – and these assumptions don’t stay assumptions: we start acquiring good evidence that there’s something to them. For example, nobody just wakes up and randomly says, “Today I think I’ll have faith in the principle of non-contradiction.” It’s not an act of faith at all: our experience, plus our application of reason, reveals that A=A and not not A. I don’t decide to “put my faith” in it, and I don’t “feel the gracious love of the principle of non-contradiction deep in my soul,” and I don’t “have to pray to the principle of non-contradiction and earnestly desire to know Him” before I can accept it.

It’s bloody obvious: my computer here is a computer and not not a computer. That was true yesterday, and it was true the day before that, and it was true all the days before that. And, thanks to good ol’ inductive reasoning, I have good reasons to suspect that it will always be the case.

And if some day some evidence arises that demonstrates otherwise, then I’ll change my opinion.

 

[AntiTheist]

And yet so many people would disagree [that there is insufficient evidence to believe in Bigfoot]. Especially the people who have claimed to see Bigfoot. Right?

Of course. Every nutjob in the world claims to have experienced some psychic phenomenon or some magical circumstance – and I’m sure that they’ve all experienced something, but the question now is exactly what that something is and whether it’s sufficient for me to accept their claims about the world.

How do you suggest we go about doing that? Charley says that he saw Bigfoot; Sally says she saw a leprechaun; Vinny says that aliens abducted him and his three buddies and brutally probed them all night long (and his buddies concur); Joe says that psychic powers are real because he called a psychic hotline and the person on the phone predicted his future accurately; Billy says that he used a voodoo doll to cause his coworker to get sick for a few days; Padme claims she’s experienced the Hindu gods revealing secrets of the universe to her; etc, etc, etc.

How do you suggest we go about determining whether these claims – which are all claims about the world outside of our heads – are accurately describing the world outside of our heads? Do you just throw your hands up and say, “Well, gee whiz! I can’t prove that my senses match up to the world outside my head at all, and it all comes down to faith, so maybe these guys are all correct!”? Do you just say, “Well, they have their faith, and I have my faith, and that’s that!”

Worse, if it’s all a matter of “faith,” on what grounds do you trust, say, the results of scientific experiments over the results of tarot card readings?

All this faith-monger and matrix-mongering leads to the same place: abject ignorance.

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

Argumentum ad populum. The fact that large numbers of people believe something doesn’t make that something any more likely to be true.

 

[AntiTheist]

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.

You can observe that evidence-based inquiry is the only – the only – consistently reliable method that people have ever come up with that leads to knowledge.

If you disagree, then suggest another way of coming to knowledge and tell us how you know it’s a better method.

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

There’s a ton – a ton – of evidence that Asia exists. Not all of our knowledge comes from direct sensory experience. I’ve never personally seen an electron, but people can do experiments that show that they manifest, and we can use them to do neato things like send messages across the world at the speed of light.

Also, I cannot refute the belief of extraterrestrials. I cannot refute the existence of Bigfoot. I cannot refute the existence of Atlantis.

Neither can I, but I don’t believe in any of that nonsense. You know why I don’t? Because there’s not a single shred of good, reliable evidence that any of those things are real.

Now, come on, be straight with me here: do you believe in any of those things? Why or why not?

On what basis do you accept the findings of a scientist over the findings of a tarot card reader?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this matrix-mongering is nothing but the love of ignorance, the stopping up of the ears and parading around chanting “la la la la la” in an attempt to pretend that there aren’t people who have actual knowledge of the world…and paradoxically, it’s knowledge that these matrix-mongers love to pretend that they themselves have because of the “special insights” granted to them by their precious little feelings and the warm fuzzies they get when they gaze at their bellybuttons and contemplate a bunch of Bronze-age myths.

I will be away for the entire weekend, and I will respond to any interesting responses in this thread when I return.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a lot of intelligent reasoning here, but it seems to have little to do with the thread.

If many people said how can I know that reality is real and I am not a brain in a vat, we might respond that your life is to unpleasant or boring. Novels are a type of false reality, so are video games, but both are more interesting than your life.

One could say that the poor peasant is more blessed in this aspect of their life, that they are not likely to be tempted to wonder if it is all real, while the movie star, millionaire, or Nobel Prize winner, might wonder.

Having said that we might go to argue that you should treat the reality you face as real, because if it is a dream you are not responsible for what you do in dreams. Therefore you have no prudent reason to doubt that this is reality.

As Catholics we are supposed to be morally certain that the faith is true, which according to the Church or theological opinion means that we should have no prudent doubt. Because the Church or theological opinion tells that we are not responsible for what happens in dreams we should have no prudent doubt that we are dealing with the real.

Beyond this suppose we are the proverbial brain in a vat with a reality fed in. Suppose further that a careful examination of the (name removed by moderator)uts gives strong evidence that the Catholic faith is true. Well why might that be. Perhaps the people, or whatever who put you in the vat are not evil, they might know that the Catholic faith is real. If you treat your reality as real and strive to be the best possible Catholic you maybe doing the best possible thing to prepare yourself for a very real afterlife that the intelligence that put the brain in the vat had good evidence of. Once again you have no prudent reason to doubt the truth of the Catholic faith. The prudent thing is to live a good Catholic life.

A Catholic philosopher told me that the proper response was to suggest to the person who said that reality was not real was to suggest that they destroy one of their most valuable possessions. Perhaps a good idea if the person was claiming that they knew that the world they saw with their senses was not real, but not much of a response if they simply think it might not be real.

However, even if they say that they are sure that their senses are not telling them the truth the professors argument is not air tight. The individual could say, it is all an artificial reality, something like a video game, but it is the video game I have to play, so just as I would not casually sacrifice my queen in a game of chess, I will not casually destroy this valuable object. It may not be real, but it is part of my plans for playing the game.

Well that’s it for now.

Richleebruce, welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

It seems well established that we have no valid reason to doubt the reality of the physical world. It is merely an armchair supposition that does not correspond to the way we think and live but it does ram home the indisputable fact of our existence as **conscious **individuals. Speculation about whether we are merely biological machines is equally pointless because we think and live **as if **we are in control of our thoughts and actions - at least some of the time. That is the most significant fact of all…

 

[R_Daneel]

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.”

So, everything is based upon faith, even the axioms, like 1 + 1 = 2? It cannot be “demonstrated”, so it is basec upon “faith”. We cannot “demonstrate” that the senses accurately represent the world, so that is faith-based, too. Even the demonstration process presumes our senses, after all your demonstration is percevied my my senses.

Since everything is based upon faith, “faith” has no meaning any more. What can I say? Congratulations, you managed to reduce the word “faith” to meaningless status.

No, my friend, that is not the definition of “faith”. Look up Hebrews 11:1.

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

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If you mistakenly try to drink nicotine-extract (please do not!) then your life can only be measured in minutes. The incorrect assumptions and hypotheses have brutal consequences. Even rats can learn from the mistakes of other rats, and avoid the poisoned food. And rats do not have cognitive process, that we know of. The fact that errors are “punished” by nature, is the final “arbiter” of separating the wheat from the chaff. Ask the rats, if you don’t believe me.

That’s the only religious extremists that I know of with regard to this issue. But I’m sure there are other varieties.

It does not matter. Those people believe that prayer “works”, and are willing to bet their own life (and their children’d life). When nature disproves their belief, they do not discard their hypotheses, they rationalize that “God had other plans”, etc… This methodolgy is reflected by all Christians, Catholics, too. They pray for the recovery of their sick loved ones; and, of course, sensibly go to doctors, as well. But when the prayer fails, they never accept it, just rationalize.

 

[Richleebruce]

In my previous post I suggested that the issue was not being addressed. I had assumed that a Catholic started the thread and wanted to know how an anti-Catholic matrix argument might be refuted. That was a question I wanted to answer, so I did.

You might object that I should not have made that assumption, but I have three degrees in economics and therefore I am licensed to make stupid assumptions. I advise the rest of you to avoid stupid assumptions if you have not received the proper training.

I did note that the first post seemed to approve of smoking a bowl, which seemed like a very odd thing for a devout Catholic to say. That should have been a clue, but I did not check further and discover that AntiTheist had started the thread. I probably would have noted that this was an odd name for a devout Catholic.

At any rate, it is my impression that religions are based on evidence. Islam claims that the Koran is such an incredible book in the original Arabic that it is obvious that it must have been produced by God. The Muslims challenge us to produce even a short work of such high quality.

The Christians claim that apostles and many others saw Jesus alive after he was clearly dead and they were so certain of what they saw that all or almost of the apostles were willing to suffer a martyr’s death rather than deny what they saw. Why would people be willing to die for what they knew was a hoax? There is an enormous amount of other evidence that is used to support Christianity.

However, many Christian believers insist that there is no evidence and it is all simply faith. This idea may have the advantage that it makes it easier to treat the 10 commandments as the 10 suggestions.

Well thats all for now.

 

[Betterave]

In my previous post I suggested that the issue was not being addressed. I had assumed that a Catholic started the thread and wanted to know how an anti-Catholic matrix argument might be refuted. That was a question I wanted to answer, so I did.

You might object that I should not have made that assumption, but I have three degrees in economics and therefore I am licensed to make stupid assumptions. I advise the rest of you to avoid stupid assumptions if you have not received the proper training.

I did note that the first post seemed to approve of smoking a bowl, which seemed like a very odd thing for a devout Catholic to say. That should have been a clue, but I did not check further and discover that AntiTheist had started the thread. I probably would have noted that this was an odd name for a devout Catholic.

At any rate, it is my impression that religions are based on evidence. Islam claims that the Koran is such an incredible book in the original Arabic that it is obvious that it must have been produced by God. The Muslims challenge us to produce even a short work of such high quality.

The Christians claim that apostles and many others saw Jesus alive after he was clearly dead and they were so certain of what they saw that all or almost of the apostles were willing to suffer a martyr’s death rather than deny what they saw. Why would people be willing to die for what they knew was a hoax? There is an enormous amount of other evidence that is used to support Christianity.

However, many Christian believers insist that there is no evidence and it is all simply faith. This idea may have the advantage that it makes it easier to treat the 10 commandments as the 10 suggestions.

Well thats all for now.

LOL! Classic post, dude!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No, my friend, that is not the definition of “faith”. Look up Hebrews 11:1.

Can you, an atheist, PLEASE not tell Catholics how to interpet the Bible? That’s not your job, it’s ours. Just because you interpret a certain verse a certain way doesn’t make it so. If the Catholics, who have studied this suff for 2000 years and have people who literally DEVOTE THEIR LIVES to Scripture interpretation, tell me what the definition of faith is, I’ll believe it over an atheist’s, who is specifically trying to discredit the Catholic Church, interpretation of Scripture.

Seriously. I’ve seen you post this in a few places. Perhaps you should make a thread about it if you’re wondering what alternate Biblical interpretations of the definition of faith could be. But don’t define it for Catholics, please.

 

[Betterave]

Since everything is based upon faith, “faith” has no meaning any more. What can I say? Congratulations, you managed to reduce the word “faith” to meaningless status.

To be more precise, Areo claimed that all KNOWLEDGE is based on faith (not simply EVERYTHING), and you claim that it follows that “faith” then no longer has any meaning. So for those who claim that all knowledge is based on our senses or on evidence, does it follow that “our senses” and “evidence” then no longer have any meaning?

No, my friend, that is not the definition of “faith”. Look up Hebrews 11:1.

While I have some sympathy for your point here, I surely do appreciate the irony of a Bible-quoting fundamentalist atheist. Heard of polysemy?

 

[Areopagite]

I’m not trying to slip it in – it’s the subject of other threads here. Read through “Well, Why?” in the philosophy section for a glimpse at exactly the kind of scenario I’m describing. If you think you have sufficient evidence for your beliefs, feel free to start a new thread.

I agree that one does not have sufficient reasons to believe in Christianity if they were to go solely by the natural knowledge we have available to us (historical information, etc.). However, Christianity believes that one can only believe the truths of Christianity if they are given a specific power from God, called theological faith (a particular kind of faith … not a natural faith like believing in mathematical axioms … but still a “faith” insofar as something which cannot be demonstrated).

Now, the real crux of the matter is whether this theological faith (if it exists of course) can be considered evidence. You defined evidence as “data that adequately supports a particular claim.” Well, why can’t theological faith (a kind of knowledge imputed in your mind directly by God) be considered “data that adequately supports a particular claim”?

Now, I have asked many times throughout my visits here at this forum, what people (particularly, what atheists) think “evidence” is. I have still not received an answer that does not lead to some self-contradiction.

Well, what I’m really driving at is the difference between the consistent world that our senses reveal and some “ideal world” or “other world.” Or, to put it differently, the consistent world that our senses reveal versus “an imaginary world that exists only in your mind, The Matrix.” I’m disputing the “brain in a vat” scenario by pointing out that even if it’s true (and we’d have no way of knowing that it’s true), it’s irrelevant.

Why can’t an ideal world be consistent? Many idealist philosophers say that the phenomenon has a consistency to it. Really, if you don’t believe our ability to perceive reality as it really is (i.e. realism) then you are an idealist. Since you say that whether we perceive the world as it really is is irrelevant, you think only the phenomenon is important (i.e. what the senses tell us). Hence, you are Kantian, and thus an idealist. Thus, there is no reason why you should be attempting a distinction between the “consistent world that our senses reveal and some ‘ideal world.’”

You are at the same time trying to show a difference between “the world of the senses” vs. an “imaginary world” and then at the same time saying that the difference is irrelevant. I don’t get it! You, at the same time, hate the Matrix and then love the Matrix.

I’m sorry if I’m sorely misinterpreting you.

Obviously, our minds function to filter out things our senses pick up, and we view our senses through the lens of all sorts of prejudices and biases, so I agree that there’s a distinction between the mental models that we build up and what’s “out there.” I have often distinguished between “the world inside of our heads” and “the world outside of our heads.”

Right. But how do you know that there is anything the senses report that has any basis in reality. You simply cannot demonstrate it. It is an intuition that must be accepted on faith.

This is, in fact, one of the key reasons that we have to rely on data drawn from the world outside of our heads when making claims about the world outside of our heads. And it’s also the reason that evidence from inside your mind (like your precious little feelings) can’t demonstrate claims about the world outside of your mind (like the existence of a god).

And neither can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as “the data drawn from the world outside of our heads.” This assumes the senses perceive reality as it really is in some way rather than being totally manufactured from within. But you cannot know that, unless you believe on faith that your senses are reliable.

You can demonstrate to yourself very clearly that your senses are revealing the real world sufficiently enough to allow you to survive: go and drive a car somewhere. The fact that you can make it from point A to point B without dying tells us that however accurate your senses are about the world, they are certainly accurate enough that you can avoid obstacles (including other drivers) and even have a conversation with others about directions to places.

Um … I’ve had dreams where I’ve driven a car, avoided obstacles, and held conversations. Your example here thus fails.

Can I “prove” this 100% beyond all doubt? No, and I don’t have to – I can’t prove anything 100% beyond all doubt. I go where the evidence points, and the evidence suggests that there is a consistent world revealed by our senses.

Right, so you are ultimately using intuition in a lot of these things. And you are trusting your intuition even though you cannot ultimately prove your intuition is reliable. Hence, you are operating on faith.

Well, I just explained above how we do have a lot of evidence that our senses reveal a consistent world, consistent across multiple people.

And here again you make a claim that ultimately cannot be proved without doubt … that there are other people who exist. There is ultimately not proof against solipsism. You must accept on faith that other people are not mere illusions.

 

[Areopagite]

It’s not an act of faith in any way. When I’m talking about the “real world,” I’m talking about that world that our senses reveal. It’s definitional: that’s how I label the world that our senses reveal.

Well, that’s a strange way to define “real world.” You are better off (and more consistent in most terminological systems) by calling it the “ideal world.” The senses are processed and made into mental images in the mind … the phenomenon (as Kant puts it), and that “world of the senses” since it’s really in our mind, would thus make in an ideal world. Whether that ideal world is an accurate reflection of “what’s really out there” (commonly called, believe it or not, the real world), that is a matter of faith. You seem to be a wannabe-realist idealist. Do you see what I’m saying?

You’re talking not about faith here, but about necessary assumptions, like the logical absolutes – and these assumptions don’t stay assumptions: we start acquiring good evidence that there’s something to them.

They are accepted on faith, insofar as they are accepted without demonstration. That is the basic definition of faith (that which is accepted without demonstration). Now, of course, from there you can get into more specific kinds of faith. But we can at least agree that dismissing an idea for the sole reason that it cannot be demonstrated is not a good reason to dismiss it, right?

Now, if one accepts the Catholic faith, one also can start acquiring good evidence that there’s something to them. It happens all the time. It’s happened to me and every single convert I know.

For example, nobody just wakes up and randomly says, “Today I think I’ll have faith in the principle of non-contradiction.” It’s not an act of faith at all: our experience, plus our application of reason, reveals that A=A and not not A.

As far as I know, nobody has ever just woken up and randomly says, “Today I think I’ll be Catholic!” But … that’s just to my limited knowledge.

Likewise, a conversion to Catholicism is because of one’s experience plus the application of reason. It happens because of some religious experience, sometimes very subtle but moving enough, and then sometimes quite extraordinary. And all the converts I know were quite diligent in examining the faith with reason before they converted. So, yes, the acceptance of the Catholic faith is experience plus reason.

I don’t decide to “put my faith” in it,

That’s because you have never rejected it, just like many cradle Catholics have never rejected Catholicism. However, there are philosophers who have rejected the principle of non-contradiction here and there, as well as Eastern mystics. Even I went through a philosophical skeptical period where I just about denied it. But then after some consideration, I decided to just accept it on faith.

and I don’t “feel the gracious love of the principle of non-contradiction deep in my soul,” and I don’t “have to pray to the principle of non-contradiction and earnestly desire to know Him” before I can accept it.

A lot of people who have the Catholic faith don’t feel the gracious love of God nor do they pray to God earnestly with the desire to know Him. You can be a Catholic undergoing spiritual darkness (where you don’t feel the love of God and don’t feel like loving God) or a mortal sinner (where you’ve lost Charity, one of the other theological virtues), and yet still have the theological virtue of faith (where you believe, despite feelings and whatnot, what the Catholic Church says). So, feelings are not essential to faith. Faith is in the intellect, not in the emotions, though indeed emotion can sometimes accompany faith, just like emotion can sometimes accompany certain other things in your knowledge.

All your attempts to show why believing in the principle of non-contradiction is different from believing in the Catholic faith has failed. Now, I would say of course they are different. But certainly not in any way that debunks the Catholic faith.

It’s bloody obvious: my computer here is a computer and not not a computer.

And to me it’s bloody obvious God exists.

Of course. Every nutjob in the world claims to have experienced some psychic phenomenon or some magical circumstance – and I’m sure that they’ve all experienced something, but the question now is exactly what that something is and whether it’s sufficient for me to accept their claims about the world.

So, you’re saying that psychic and magical phenomena are only believed in by nutjobs, eh? You have no proof to say that they didn’t experience such things, however, right? They may very well believe in it because of the EXPERIENCE and REASON. You simply lack their experiences. You have no right to pass judgment on them therefore. Right? Why, using your logic, call them nutjobs?

 

[Areopagite]

How do you suggest we go about doing that? Charley says that he saw Bigfoot; Sally says she saw a leprechaun; Vinny says that aliens abducted him and his three buddies and brutally probed them all night long (and his buddies concur); Joe says that psychic powers are real because he called a psychic hotline and the person on the phone predicted his future accurately; Billy says that he used a voodoo doll to cause his coworker to get sick for a few days; Padme claims she’s experienced the Hindu gods revealing secrets of the universe to her; etc, etc, etc.

Well, I’m not quite sure what answer you’re exactly looking for. But I would say that Bigfoot, faeries, and aliens are things that very possibly exist. Many atheists, at least, believe in aliens and I would imagine some would with Bigfoot too. So, certainly there is no necessary reason to dismiss these claims offhand. I personally believe in psychic powers, depending on what you exactly mean by that. As for Hindu gods, it gets interesting. As a Catholic, I would consider that epiphany as being either a hallucination or a demonic visitation (or a lie) … but offhand I would not be sure which one it would be.

How do you suggest we go about determining whether these claims – which are all claims about the world outside of our heads – are accurately describing the world outside of our heads? Do you just throw your hands up and say, “Well, gee whiz! I can’t prove that my senses match up to the world outside my head at all, and it all comes down to faith, so maybe these guys are all correct!”?

I would definitely say “Maybe these guys are all correct” … though perhaps with the exception of the Hindu god (though I do not doubt some supernatural entity … like a demon … could have portrayed itself as this deity). If I simply just heard “Charlie says he saw Bigfoot” it would be unreasonable to automatically conclude, “No, he didn’t because I’ve never seen Bigfoot.”

Do you just say, “Well, they have their faith, and I have my faith, and that’s that!”

I don’t know what you mean by “and that’s that!” Are you saying I won’t investigate their claims in some way? I might. Heck, I’ve investigated the existence of Bigfoot, faeries, and aliens, and I’m not quite sure either way still. But who am I to tell someone they didn’t see those things? Likewise, who are you to tell someone they didn’t experience God in some way?

Worse, if it’s all a matter of “faith,” on what grounds do you trust, say, the results of scientific experiments over the results of tarot card readings?

I actually don’t know a whole lot about tarot card reading. But to my vague knowledge, I know that it is suppose to be able to predict future visible events, right? So, thus, I would say its alleged reliability can be subjected to scientific experiments, for they also deal with predicting future visible events (i.e. that an apple will fall down when it detaches from a tree and whatnot).

Now, as a Catholic, I stay away from tarot cards because it’s against my religion. For all I know, they may be reliable but this would be on account of demonic assistance, I would assume.

All this faith-monger and matrix-mongering leads to the same place: abject ignorance.

Actually, faith leads to knowledge. Without faith, you can’t have knowledge. Demanding that all things must be demonstrated and proved is what leads to ignorance.

Argumentum ad populum. The fact that large numbers of people believe something doesn’t make that something any more likely to be true.

Let me show you again what I actually said:

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

You see, a “fact” is “a thing that is indisputably the case.” Your claim that it is a “fact” that “in the world revealed by our sense, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.” Now, since most people believe in God (and, I would add, most people would claim that they haven’t seen God with their senses) and yet accept the claim that god(s) exist, it is obvious that most people (or at least some people) claim that there IS sufficient evidence to believe god(s) exist. So, what you claim to be a “fact” is not a “fact” at all, by virtue of the FACT that some consider it not to be a fact. A fact must be indisputably the case, but what you said is very much in dispute.

 

[Areopagite]

You can observe that evidence-based inquiry is the only – the only – consistently reliable method that people have ever come up with that leads to knowledge.

I think I may agree with you. This is because I don’t consider “faith” as a method (unless someone can correct me). It doesn’t change the fact that faith is needed for evidence-based inquiry.

If you disagree, then suggest another way of coming to knowledge and tell us how you know it’s a better method.

As I’ve said numerous times before, faith is a “better” way of coming to knowledge at least insofar as science needs it as its foundation (because all science assumes fundamental truths that cannot be proven and thus must be accepted on faith).

There’s a ton – a ton – of evidence that Asia exists. Not all of our knowledge comes from direct sensory experience. I’ve never personally seen an electron, but people can do experiments that show that they manifest, and we can use them to do neato things like send messages across the world at the speed of light.

And yet this evidence of Asia is only meaningful if you accept on faith that your senses report reality to you reliably. Otherwise, for all you know, you cannot accept that Asia exists if the senses are your sole source.

Neither can I, but I don’t believe in any of that nonsense. You know why I don’t? Because there’s not a single shred of good, reliable evidence that any of those things are real.

Oh yes there is. There is a ton on all of these.

Now, come on, be straight with me here: do you believe in any of those things? Why or why not?

With regard to Atlantis, I believe it existed (and it exists in ruins). As I said before, there is good evidence to suggest that the Minoan Civilization was the thing Plato and the Egyptian Hieroglyphics were referring to. (if you want details send me a private message or open another thread)

With regard to aliens, I am inclined to believe they exist. However, alien phenomena could be explained by demons … or perhaps a vast government conspiracy. If you look at the evidence for UFOs and reported abductions that are said to be by aliens, the evidence is way to vast to refuse to take one of those positions (aliens, demons, or conspiracy). (likewise, if you want details send me a private message or open another thread)

With regard to Bigfoot, I personally haven’t researched it very much actually. So I very much suspend judgment.

On what basis do you accept the findings of a scientist over the findings of a tarot card reader?

I honestly don’t know how accurate tarot cards are. If they are accurate, I would subscribe their success to demonic intelligences.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this matrix-mongering is nothing but the love of ignorance, the stopping up of the ears and parading around chanting “la la la la la” in an attempt to pretend that there aren’t people who have actual knowledge of the world…and paradoxically, it’s knowledge that these matrix-mongers love to pretend that they themselves have because of the “special insights” granted to them by their precious little feelings and the warm fuzzies they get when they gaze at their bellybuttons and contemplate a bunch of Bronze-age myths.

As far as I can tell from your arguments, you should have no objection with the matrix.

 

[Betterave]

You can demonstrate to yourself very clearly that your senses are revealing the real world sufficiently enough to allow you to survive: go and drive a car somewhere. The fact that you can make it from point A to point B without dying tells us that however accurate your senses are about the world, they are certainly accurate enough that you can avoid obstacles (including other drivers) and even have a conversation with others about directions to places – in other words, the world our senses reveal is consistent across multiple people. The more we experience this, and the more that other people experience this and confirm what our senses reveal with their own senses, the more and more evidence we have that the world revealed by our senses is consistent and available to everyone.

Can I “prove” this 100% beyond all doubt? No, and I don’t have to – I can’t prove anything 100% beyond all doubt. I go where the evidence points, and the evidence suggests that there is a consistent world revealed by our senses.

This is an hilarious argument - where to begin? At what point in all this have you (mis-)taken yourself to have refuted the Matrix-argument? I imagine even many stoned college kids would be able to see that your argument is totally irrelevant to the point that it is supposed to address (indeed, strangely, just as you correctly noted in your OP - did you forget the point you made there? - that we could be in the Matrix and still continue to experience and talk about “the consistency of the world revealed by our senses”?).

Here’s a real obvious point for you to ponder: You experience of the reliability of sense experience is not a sense experience! If you want to claim that it is still “based on” sense experience," that’s nice - but all false claims to knowledge are just as much “based on sense experience” in the latter sense - in which case maybe your belief in your own naive assertions is simply made all the more naive by your not recognizing that they are based on blind assertion (i.e., what you would seem to like to call “faith”).

Similarly, your putting together the claim that surviving the trip from A to B by relying on your senses implies that your senses are the only source of knowledge involved in the task and the claim that your ‘noting’ this is evidence that there are no other sources of meaningful evidence for knowledge claims did not come from a sense experience!

You’re talking not about faith here, but about necessary assumptions, like the logical absolutes – and these assumptions don’t stay assumptions: we start acquiring good evidence that there’s something to them. For example, nobody just wakes up and randomly says, “Today I think I’ll have faith in the principle of non-contradiction.” It’s not an act of faith at all: our experience, plus our application of reason, reveals that A=A and not not A. I don’t decide to “put my faith” in it, and I don’t “feel the gracious love of the principle of non-contradiction deep in my soul,” and I don’t “have to pray to the principle of non-contradiction and earnestly desire to know Him” before I can accept it.

It’s bloody obvious: my computer here is a computer and not not a computer. That was true yesterday, and it was true the day before that, and it was true all the days before that. And, thanks to good ol’ inductive reasoning, I have good reasons to suspect that it will always be the case.

And if some day some evidence arises that demonstrates otherwise, then I’ll change my opinion.

Here’s one kind of ‘necessary’ assumption you may not have considered sufficiently heretofore: the kind that is necessary because the assuming party is too naive to have noticed the complete inadequacy of his conceptual framework (along with the ‘necessities’ it alleges) for addressing the problem for which the allegedly ‘necessary’ assumption is being made. Now consider carefully: what kind of sensory evidence grounds the ‘knowledge’ of the ‘necessity’ of this kind of ‘necessary’ assumption???

 

[R_Daneel]

Can you, an atheist, PLEASE not tell Catholics how to interpet the Bible? That’s not your job, it’s ours. Just because you interpret a certain verse a certain way doesn’t make it so. If the Catholics, who have studied this suff for 2000 years and have people who literally DEVOTE THEIR LIVES to Scripture interpretation, tell me what the definition of faith is, I’ll believe it over an atheist’s, who is specifically trying to discredit the Catholic Church, interpretation of Scripture.

Seriously. I’ve seen you post this in a few places. Perhaps you should make a thread about it if you’re wondering what alternate Biblical interpretations of the definition of faith could be. But don’t define it for Catholics, please.

So only a devout believer of astrology is “qualified” to interpret the writs about the significance of celestial bodies? I don’t think so.

 

[Areopagite]

So, everything is based upon faith, even the axioms, like 1 + 1 = 2? It cannot be “demonstrated”, so it is based upon “faith”. We cannot “demonstrate” that the senses accurately represent the world, so that is faith-based, too. Even the demonstration process presumes our senses, after all your demonstration is percevied my my senses.

Yep. That’s what I’m saying. I invite you to try and demonstrate the aforementioned things. You cannot. That is often why axioms (and other first principles of knowledge) are called “indemonstrable truths.” Well, I’ve heard them called that, at least.

Since everything is based upon faith, “faith” has no meaning any more. What can I say? Congratulations, you managed to reduce the word “faith” to meaningless status.

Um … what? I’m certainly not saying that. I don’t see why “faith” becomes meaningless just because everything is based upon faith. You certainly would agree that all knowledge is founded on fundamental truths, right? So, in your logic, fundamental truths are meaningless, since everything is founded on them.

No, my friend, that is not the definition of “faith”. Look up Hebrews 11:1.

Thomas Aquinas said that the verse in Hebrews that you cited is not an actual definition of faith but does say things about faith that are true (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 4, Article 1).

Also (correct me if I’m wrong, anyone), the verse is specifically talking about the supernatural gift of infused theological faith. This is because there are some things we can have faith in that we don’t hope for. But I am open to correction.

Now, even if my broad definition of faith (namely, “that which is accepted without demonstration”) is not correct, it does seem that the allegations against the Catholic faith that many atheists here (and elsewhere) have been using is, nonetheless, attacking that. They seem to say, “The claims of Catholicism are wrong because they cannot or will not demonstrate them.” And of course, in reply, I say, “Fundamental truths, such as mathematical axioms, cannot be demonstrated either … so are we going to reject them too?” Well, no.

There are of course many ways the word “faith” is used. But at the very least it is a word not only used to describe a supernatural idea of the Catholic faith. People put their “faith” in other people’s claims all the time. I have faith that the earth is 93 million miles away. I haven’t proved that myself but I’ll put faith in those astronomers. Chances are that none of you have done those experiments and calculations to prove that and never will either. You can say … “Well, that’s not faith because it’s demonstrable.” But that doesn’t really matter because you’ll never do the experiment yourself anyway and neither will you do it for most scientific truths that you accept on faith. So, you scientists (including those who are atheists), you have faith. Sorry, but you do.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If you mistakenly try to drink nicotine-extract (please do not!) then your life can only be measured in minutes. The incorrect assumptions and hypotheses have brutal consequences. Even rats can learn from the mistakes of other rats, and avoid the poisoned food. And rats do not have cognitive process, that we know of. The fact that errors are “punished” by nature, is the final “arbiter” of separating the wheat from the chaff. Ask the rats, if you don’t believe me.

No, this is no proof for evidence-based inquiry. If not, I can make a similar claim for the Catholic faith and say something like, “If you deliberately sin and go to hell, then you will be eternally damned.” That is a claim that doesn’t prove the Catholic faith to a non-believer, nor does saying “drinking nicotine-extract” prove the validity of evidence-based inquiry. You can say “Oh, bad consequences will result otherwise” but so can a Catholic similarly say that to an unbeliever.

Besides, like I said, you cannot prove evidence-based inquiry with evidence. It is circular logic. To merely cite consequences or at least probable consequences is using evidence … which is disqualified since you’re trying to defend evidence to begin with. You cannot assume a thing is true when you are trying to prove that thing is true.

It does not matter. Those people believe that prayer “works”, and are willing to bet their own life (and their children’d life). When nature disproves their belief, they do not discard their hypotheses, they rationalize that “God had other plans”, etc… This methodolgy is reflected by all Christians, Catholics, too. They pray for the recovery of their sick loved ones; and, of course, sensibly go to doctors, as well. But when the prayer fails, they never accept it, just rationalize.

How would nature disprove their belief? They always said it’s up to God to heal the person or not. You can accuse them of rationalizing when their prayers for healing fails, but really nothing about their faith has been disproved. So what do you mean by rationalizing? You really have no substantial argument against them. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying. Do you have something concrete against their belief here? Or not?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

AntiTheist, I left you a message over here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6976395#post6976395 You seem to have vanished from the topic you started on that link.LOL!

 

[R_Daneel]

Yep. That’s what I’m saying. I invite you to try and demonstrate the aforementioned things. You cannot. That is often why axioms (and other first principles of knowledge) are called “indemonstrable truths.” Well, I’ve heard them called that, at least.

Exactly. But they are accepted as truth, because they are either self-evident (or obvious), or their refusal would lead to a self-contradiction (like the law of non-cntradiction). Neither of these is applicable to theological claims. They are not self-evident, and their refusal does not lead to logical absurdities. To call their acceptance based on “faith” is deliberately misleading.

Now we have some claims which are self-evident, which we know by 100% Cartesian certainty. These belong to the abstract sciences. Everything else less than 100% certain. There is a large difference, from being somewhat probable to almost certainly true, and of course some which are wildly improbable, and some which are virtually impossible. You wish to collect all these different claims (even the self-evident truths), and say that their acceptance is all based on faith, since they cannot be “demonstrated”.

First, this is disingenuous and misleading. By saying that every piece of knowledge is “faith” based you declare that there is no “real” knowledge only faith. Besides, you did not define the concept of “demonstration”.

Furthermore, “faith” is not defined as the acceptance of something which is not/cannot be demonstrated.

In the wide range of claims from the almost certainly true to the almost certainly false. To say that the acceptance of the proposition that “the Sun will come up tomorrow” and the acceptance of the proposition that “paranormal claims are valid” are both based on “faith” you attempt to wash away the enormous difference between the claims and declare that the method we apply to accept/reject them is basically the same: “applying faith to these claims”. It elevates the claims of paranormal to a respectable status, or degrades the claims of rigorous science - depending on your perspective. It is akin to saying that the chance of winning the jackpot on the lottery is 50% - because it either happens or does not - or that the chance of winning the jackpot is next to nothing, since there are so many combinations - and say that these are both “faith” based, therefore they are somewhat equally “respectable”. Absurd!

There is a long distance between 0% probability to 100% probability. And you wish to use “faith” to describe the acceptance of any claim, no matter where it lands on that scale. Guess what, the usage of your terminology is rejected, for the reasons stated above.

I do have faith that there are other intelligent creatures in the Universe. That belief is not supported by any factual evidence, so it is properly called faith. I also have faith that humanity will eventually throw away the concept of “supernatural”. There is no factual evidence for this belief either, so it is correctly called faith.

On the other hand, I am next to 100% certain that the Sun will come up tomorrow, because there will be no sudden appearance of a black hole to disrupt the rotation of the Earth. That is not “faith”, it is called a reasonable assumption. Also I am next to 100% certain that the claims of the paranormal are all hogwash, since none of them could ever pass the muster of a propoerly designed, double-blind experiment. That rejection is not based on “faith”, it is also a reasonable assumption. Somewhere on the line from 0% probability to 100% probability we draw a relatively arbitrary (and somewhat subjective) line and call the acceptance of everything below that threshold: “faith based”. If the claim is very near to 0% probably true, we call it blind faith. That is the proper usage of the word faith, when used as an epistemological concept. (I am aware of other uses of this word, and I hope no one will be idiotic enough to try and bring those up).

We use words for a reason: to convey information. By loosely defining words to promote one’s agenda your practice serves the exact opposite, to wash away the differences between different types of claims and declare that all claims are decided by “faith”. And that is counterproductive, at the very least.

No, this is no proof for evidence-based inquiry. If not, I can make a similar claim for the Catholic faith and say something like, “If you deliberately sin and go to hell, then you will be eternally damned.”

Suppose you wish to say that seriously. All I have to do is say: “do it, and you will die in 5 minutes”. Or if you don’t want to risk it, give to a lab animal and see what happens. You cannot say the same thing to me. You may say: “do it and you will see it when you die, unless of course God takes a special mercy on you”. Which is sheer nonsense. Your best prediction is like an old folk-tale type of weather forecast:

“When the ducks keep swiming without any aim,
the weather will change, or may stay the same”.

Besides, like I said, you cannot prove evidence-based inquiry with evidence. It is circular logic.

It is not “proven”. What do you mean by “proven”? It is not based on logical grounds. Since I am feeling a bit sarcastic, I will use another Biblical quote, and risk the ire of some posters: “By their fruits you shall know them”. (Matthew 7:20)

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. It is not a “logical” proof, it is a pragmatic principle, and we all live by it. You do, too. And don’t try to discard this principle, just because it is not “proven”. The result is lethal. You have been warned.