Supernatural epistemology?

[hecd2]

When we build a simple device like a grandfather clock we do not imagine that it is knows what time it is. Similarly a more complex device like an alarm clock radio does not know the time or comprehend what the disc jockey is saying. This is because we cannot manufacture supernatural mind stuff, a prerequisite of incorporeal knowledge. As our devices get more complicated (i.e. Big Blue) the illusion of mind gets more powerful, but none of these devices are actually aware of anything.

How do you know that they are not, and never can be? How can you be sure that I have a mind and am conscious of things? How can you distinguish between entities that are conscious and those that are not without an a priori commitment to the assumption that mind is independently incorporeal and incapable of fabrication?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

You are mistaken. Induction is the coming to a probable conclusion based upon a representative sample of a population; moving from a particular claim to a general claim. When the principles of non-contradiction, metaphysical identity, causality, and other principles are arrived at, no such method is employed.

Not true. It was quite clear that much of Aristotlean and Thomist metaphysics depends on an inductive conclusion about the nature of the world derived through the senses. Take for example the axiom of Aquinas’s First Way: “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion”, Aquinas is explicit that his axiom is derived from sense experience, and furthermore he goes on to give a (scientifically flawed) specific example: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.” (of course his proffered example is a farrago of scientific gibberish).

It is not that I infer that ‘since I have observed the principle of metaphysical identity to hold in these selected instances, that the principle of metaphysical identity will most likely hold in the rest.’ To go from here we must talk about abstraction and essences and not induction.

Essentialism has been thoroughly raked over as fundamental concept, and the concept of metaphysical identity is a thorny one to say the least.

I did not make this claim. I am merely using the facts of biology to state that yes, we have a human organism at conception. I don’t see how you could disagree with that.

I didn’t say that I disagreed with it, but if you are saying that it is impossible to disagree with then you are wrong, for there are many thoughtful and reasonable people who disagree with it.

I hate to use such a simple saying that I’ve heard so many times before, but, “What else is a fertilized human egg other than human? Is it going to grow into a rhinoceros or a squid?” Do you still care to disagree?

A fertilised human egg is a fertilised human egg, and an eight cell human blastocyte is an eight cell human blastocyte, in the same way that a human skin cell is a human skin cell and a pluripotent human stem cell is a pluripotent human stem cell. Whether or not they are “human beings” is a different and less certain question (to which I have not and will not proffer an answer).

And I didn’t say anything about a soul either!

:banghead:. Well then you entirely missed the point of the question which is an exemplar of the over-riding question of the thread.

Here it is again:
How can we know whether the proposition “The human body is animated by an immortal human soul that is directly infused by God at the moment of conception” is true or false? That’s all. The question is not about abortion but about what epistemology we use to determine the truth of supernatural propositions - which is what the thread is about.

I am amazed by how willing people are to answer questions unrelated to the OP, and how little of substance has been proferred which actually answers the OP’s question.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Spock]

Surely you don’t mean that beliefs without evidence are important??

Why shouldn’t I say it? Placebos sometimes “work”, or more precisely, when people believe that they were given real medication, their condition improved. Maybe the false imformation marshalled some processes in the body, which were beneficial.

Or are some beliefs justified by some sort of evidence? But, in that case, would those beliefs be some form of knowledge? Even though they are not proven?

The evidence is always particular to a claim. I use the word “knowledge” as “information about something”.

Is there a difference between “proven” and “reasonable”?

Sure there is.

For example, in mathematics, there are “reasonable” conjectures which are not proven.

Give me an example what do you mean here. The Goldbach conjecture has been verified for millions of even numbers, but it was not proven. I would not use the word “reasonable” in this context.

 

[Spock]

Anyone familiar with aristotelian metaphysics and thomism in general will tell you that you are off your rocker! These supposed counterexamples from physics are very particular and could not possibly violate the principles that Aquinas has stated. The objections you bring up are similar to those who object to the principle that no thing is moved by itself by pointing to an animal and say, “See, look! It’s moving itself!” But would you not agree that one part of the animal moves another part; the impulse from the brain moves the muscles which moves the limb? But in order for the principle in question to be wrong, muscles would have to move themselves or the limb would have to move itself. We simply do not find counterexamples in nature, nor could we since the principle in question is very closely associated with the principle of non-contradiction.

So which part of an atom is the “pusher” to make the electrons revolve around the nucleus? What external “shaker” causes the Brownian motion of the molecules? If these objections are invalid, then you can point out where the external cuasative agent is?

I won’t argue that we’ve come a very long way in science and that the medievals were wrong in many areas. But metaphysics is something that stands or falls apart from science; hence the problem with your epistemology.

If metaphysics stand apart from reality, what is its use?

So it’s your turn. You can ask for clarification if you’d like. But I’d like to ask you, if you know what potentiality and actuality really are, to please explain them to me, to the best of your ability.

They are an irrelevant categorization. Just like we can subdivide humans based upon their skin pigmentation, which is also irrelevant.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Now we are in 100% agreement! Beliefs are important, even if they cannot be proven.

If you also agree that most of our opinions and choices are based on belief rather than proven knowledge, then we’re 200% in agreement. This would include things we accept about scientific findings of others, and historical sources, and the news we read. There is a spectrum of reliability, and religious belief may not be as certain as the belief that scientific experiments in journals really did work out, or that the news was or wasn’t fabricated, but they fit into the same category. That is, unless we experienced the experiment or the news or the miracle ourselves (or in your example, unless you actually witnessed what transpired between your wife and the man she was in bed with), it is belief to us, not knowledge.

 

[DPMartin]

If you also agree that most of our opinions and choices are based on belief rather than proven knowledge, then we’re 200% in agreement. This would include things we accept about scientific findings of others, and historical sources, and the news we read. There is a spectrum of reliability, and religious belief may not be as certain as the belief that scientific experiments in journals really did work out, or that the news was or wasn’t fabricated, but they fit into the same category. That is, unless we experienced the experiment or the news or the miracle ourselves (or in your example, unless you actually witnessed what transpired between your wife and the man she was in bed with), it is belief to us, not knowledge.

Neil_Anthony

Not sure that you are on the mark there friend, its impossible to believe some thing that one hasn’t come to know of. Even if what you come to know of is bogus information. If you are informed of something, then how do you discern that it is the truth, that should be believed, or trusted?

 

[Spock]

To address this question we need to (1) define some terms and (2) evaluate the method of finding an answer: “terms” so that we don’t confuse types of knowledge in Catholic usage; and “methodology” so we don’t demand a method that a priori rules out the realities under investigation even if they did exist. In such a case what would need to be established is the legitimacy of the method first, not the existence of the realities in question. So, for example, if I said “I’ll accept the existence of atoms only if I can see them with the naked eye because I only accept what I can see with the naked eye,” then even though atoms actually do exist I would have ruled them out a priori.

I do not argue with this. As a matter of fact I emphasized that I am looking for a suggested method which would enable us to decide if a proposition about the supernatural is true or false.

God and the soul would fit, since knowledge of their existence is not necessarily dependent on DR. The soul, although not a physical reality, is not be called a supernatural reality. It is an immaterial reality.

Now you lose me. What the heck does “immaterial reality” mean? And if God is not “supernatural” then I don’t know what is? Is God part of the physical nature?

(2) Can you explain in detail what an “objective, repeatable method” requires? e.g., Does “objective” mean physical and empirically verifiable?

Not necessarily, though it would be a huge boon.

Does “repeatable” mean experimentally verifiable and subject to peer review?

Absolutely it does. I was told that I should go to a Catholic Church, seek out Mary’s chapel, and pray the rosary with other Catholics, if I want a revelation from God. So I did a few times, one actually happened in the St Peter’s cathedral. Can you guess the result?

Or does it just mean by reason alone?

If you mean by “reason” pure logic, then it is not enough. The world is filled with logically valid syllogisms, which are not logically sound.

In this case it could grasp certain realities not apprehensible by the senses alone but which are apprehensible by the intellect. Examples would be causality, the epistemological justification of the scientific method, mathematical theorems, and the intuitive grasp of the principle of sufficient reason.

Actually all those started out as observation of physical reality. Intuition is nice and plays a very important part. But it is only a start.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony
If you also agree that most of our opinions and choices are based on belief rather than proven knowledge, then we’re 200% in agreement. This would include things we accept about scientific findings of others, and historical sources, and the news we read. There is a spectrum of reliability, and religious belief may not be as certain as the belief that scientific experiments in journals really did work out, or that the news was or wasn’t fabricated, but they fit into the same category. That is, unless we experienced the experiment or the news or the miracle ourselves (or in your example, unless you actually witnessed what transpired between your wife and the man she was in bed with), it is belief to us, not knowledge.

I’m not sure I understand exactly where you’re coming from here, whether its a philosophical issue with what I said or a religious issue? I’ll rephrased more clearly what I’m trying to say:

A person can have no personal direct experience of God, and yet hear the stories about Christ and believe in them. You could say that this person then “knows of” Jesus. But that isn’t the same as knowing that the stories are true. This is faith. It’s also a judgement call, where you form an opinion based on something less than strict knowledge.

This person can move further along and come to know Jesus in prayer. At some point the belief (faith) could turn into knowledge, if you gain first-hand experience of Christ in prayer.

Is that what you were getting at?

 

[hecd2]

If you also agree that most of our opinions and choices are based on belief rather than proven knowledge, then we’re 200% in agreement. This would include things we accept about scientific findings of others, and historical sources, and the news we read. There is a spectrum of reliability, and religious belief may not be as certain as the belief that scientific experiments in journals really did work out, or that the news was or wasn’t fabricated, but they fit into the same category. That is, unless we experienced the experiment or the news or the miracle ourselves (or in your example, unless you actually witnessed what transpired between your wife and the man she was in bed with), it is belief to us, not knowledge.

I agree with this and I think it’s coming close to what the final answer can be, which is that beliefs about the supernatural domain do not allow any sort of objective epistemic confirmation, but that they are subjective, cultural and received.

A Catholic holds this proposition “The human body is animated by a supernatural soul which survives the death of the material body” to be true

and this proposition “There are two Gods: a chaotic and powerful God who created the world which is evil in its very foundation; and a pure loving entirely spiritual God who is the principle of order, peace” to be false

and as far as I can see in general and in relation to this thread in particular, there is no independent epistemic method to distinguish between these two propositions. If there is, I wish someone would lay it out, because then I would learn something which would be of far more than academic interest to me.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Spock;8289371:

Now we are in 100% agreement! Beliefs are important, even if they cannot be proven.

Hi Spock. I have just a few minutes before eating my leftover lunch though I have several other topics (threads) to return to, which I will later move onto, but first off share with you the following from the The National Science Foundation:

Accommodating Religious Beliefs in the Workplace

*Under Title VII religion is defined very broadly to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.”[5][5.42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).]

This could include the following:
• moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views (the EEOC has taken the position that vegetarianism might rise to this level);
• beliefs that are not tied to any recognized faith as long as they are held with the strength of traditional religious conviction ;
• beliefs that are not accepted by the religious group to which the employee belongs;
• beliefs tied to atheism; and
• beliefs recently acquired due to conversion, etc. that the employee did not hold at the time of the hire.[6] [6.It’s generally no defense for an employer to say " they never told me about this belief at the time of hire." However, if the matter progresses to litigation, your counsel may explore this issue in challenging the sincerity of the employee’s beliefs.]*nsf.gov/od/odi/accomreligious.jsp

Have a nice day. Hope the above mentioned will promote an element of peace between people of different beliefs. It seems to work where I work. Thank you.

I How would we decide if the testimonial is without error, since we are fallible human beings?

Is there an objective, repeatable method, which would allow to separate the wheat from the chaff, which does not necessitate the a-priori acceptance of the claim (in other words, which can be used by a non-believer)?

The best I can do to help is share with you a conversation between Father George Coyne and Richard Dawkins in the video found here: milkandcookies.com/link/141983/detail/

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I agree with this and I think it’s coming close to what the final answer can be, which is that beliefs about the supernatural domain do not allow any sort of objective epistemic confirmation, but that they are subjective, cultural and received.

A Catholic holds this proposition “The human body is animated by a supernatural soul which survives the death of the material body” to be true

and this proposition “There are two Gods: a chaotic and powerful God who created the world which is evil in its very foundation; and a pure loving entirely spiritual God who is the principle of order, peace” to be false

and as far as I can see in general and in relation to this thread in particular, there is no independent epistemic method to distinguish between these two propositions. If there is, I wish someone would lay it out, because then I would learn something which would be of far more than academic interest to me.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I think we’re going too far if we say there is absolutely no “objective epistemic method” to answer these questions. I agree that the bible or other religious books do not provide this type of knowledge. But there is still religious experience which I would argue is such a method.

Religious experience can provide knowledge in a similar way to how sensory experience can provide knowledge. While it is less reliable than the methods you’re comparing it to, that doesn’t mean it is not an epistemic method.

It has these problems:

• different people come up with different answers to the same question - not very objective
• some people don’t seem to get any answers and give up trying
• it can take years or a whole lifetime to get an answer

But in spite of the problems, I argue that there is still an objective epistemic method here.

• While different people tend to get different answers, people who pursue these methods (religious practice) as their primary job tend to arrive at the same answers to at least some of the questions. I believe there is some value in comparing the common conclusions of religious people. There may be some value in exploring which personality types come up with unusual conclusions, and determining if they can be ruled out.
• Apparently different answers may actually be different ways of explaining the same truths to people whose perspectives are very different. Some analysis of people’s assumptions about the world and their personalities may give insight to this.

This method might be difficult to use, and might require more understanding before it can be used reliably. But I wouldn’t rule it out completely.

One example of a conclusion I think we can take from this method, is that an individual will fare better if he does good to others than if he does harm to others. This seems to be a common finding of people who devote themselves to prayer/meditation. (Examples of crusader types who did great harm don’t really apply because these people likely were not deeply religious in the sense of devoting great time to contemplative prayer.)

To be clear, since you may not know much about religion, I’m not talking here about people who post online or who claim to be religious in general. I’m talking about people who devote their lives to prayer, like monks with sincere prayer lives.

Also among mystical people, there are standard rules for evaluating things learned in prayer. This would have to be part of the method as well.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I do not argue with this. As a matter of fact I emphasized that I am looking for a suggested method which would enable us to decide if a proposition about the supernatural is true or false.

Cool. Fair enough.

Now you lose me. What the heck does “immaterial reality” mean? And if God is not “supernatural” then I don’t know what is? Is God part of the physical nature?

(a) Your familiarity with the history of western philosophy, theism, and definitions of God should be able to provide you with an answer re immaterial reality.
Nonetheless, I believe I am faithfully summing up what is contained in the classic notion of immateriality in the West with the following definition: any reality that in its nature, existence, and activity is intrinsically independent of matter; is not subject to the determinations of time and space; is not composed of parts spatially distinct from one another. Examples from the history of philosophy would be God, the soul, substantial forms. This seems to be what you call “supernatural,” but see (b).

Incidentally are you limiting reality to only what is material/physical and observable to the senses? Answering this would help me understand your required method.

(b) If we are investigating God philosophically (by reason alone), it is asserted that God is spiritual (immaterial). In RC usage “supernatural” refers to truth about God and the relation between God and man given in DR. This seems to be outside of your required method since it is not demonstrable by reason alone and also involves religious experience and testimony. If you want to use “supernatural’ in the history of religions sense for God, that’s fine, but then “soul” would not fit that category. Both, however, are defined as immaterial realities in western philosophy.

(c) By definition God is not physical.

Not necessarily, though it would be a huge boon.

If you can’t tell me what your required method looks like, I don’t know how I answer your question.

Absolutely it does. I was told that I should go to a Catholic Church, seek out Mary’s chapel, and pray the rosary with other Catholics, if I want a revelation from God. So I did a few times, one actually happened in the St Peter’s cathedral. Can you guess the result?

So you would accept SUBJECTIVE religious experience and testimony as legitimate data in your method?

My questions in this section were to see if the method of inquiry you were stipulating was limited to the scientific method (SM), say for example, the proposition “The SM is sufficient for all knowledge.” Or if it just means reason alone, i.e., philosophy, but not limited to the SM.

If you mean by “reason” pure logic, then it is not enough. The world is filled with logically valid syllogisms, which are not logically sound.

(1) (a) “Logic” in the technical sense is the study of the forms of correct reasoning to test the validity of arguments. Only some of the premises for syllogisms come from other syllogisms and ultimately they all come either the data of sense experience enlightened by human intelligence (in the case of naturally knowable truths) or from divine revelation (in the case of theology).
(b) In this sense, theological conclusions also must be grounded in valid arguments from the data of revelation which gives some of the premises. To this extent they are subject to logic with due regard to the Fallacy Fallacy.
(c) In this sense, to say that there are logically valid syllogisms that are logically unsound is a contradiction. Such propositions as you mention are unreasonable, but, by definition, they are not illogical or logically unsound.

(2) (a) “Logic” in popular parlance is used synonymously with reason alone. So to test everything by logic in this sense means to subject all claims to human reason alone usually (but not always) meaning the method of the natural sciences.
(b) If “logic” = SM, this is simply the atheistic claim in different words since by definition God is inaccessible to the scientific method. Here theological conclusions and theology itself are not subject to “logic” since “logic” just rephrases the denial of their validity without proving it.

Which sense of “logic” do you mean?

By “reason” I mean our cognitive faculty that performs mental operations of knowing and thinking. “Reason alone” in RC usage means thinking through issues by the natural light of reason, i.e., without (name removed by moderator)ut from revelation. IOW philosophy.

Actually all those started out as observation of physical reality. Intuition is nice and plays a very important part. But it is only a start.

True all knowledge starts in sense experience. My question on method was to see if you are stipulating Humean empiricism or whether you acknowledge that the human intellect can ascertain truths about reality (as in the given examples) beyond reporting sense impressions.

So, in sum you are “looking for a suggested method which would enable us to decide if a proposition about the supernatural is true or false.” Methodologically, you have ruled out (I don’t think on sufficient grounds) an intrinsic method of testing as a participant observer since it involves religious experience and testimonies. So far you have only stipulated an “objective, repeatable method.” Is this equal to the SM? Humean empiricism? Materialism? Or, is it broader? How do you characterize it? There’s no way to answer your question adequate to your goal without knowing this.

 

[Spock]

(a) Your familiarity with the history of western philosophy, theism, and definitions of God should be able to provide you with an answer re immaterial reality.
Nonetheless, I believe I am faithfully summing up what is contained in the classic notion of immateriality in the West with the following definition: any reality that in its nature, existence, and activity is intrinsically independent of matter; is not subject to the determinations of time and space; is not composed of parts spatially distinct from one another. Examples from the history of philosophy would be God, the soul, substantial forms. This seems to be what you call “supernatural,” but see (b).

First of all, I thank you for your analytical answer. It is most refreshing to see your style. Next, your examples of “immaterial” are exactly what I call supernatural - in other words “not found in nature”. Of these three examples you cited, God and the soul are two which I am familiar with, though I do not believe in their existence. The third “substantial forms” is not meaningful to me.

Incidentally are you limiting reality to only what is material/physical and observable to the senses? Answering this would help me understand your required method.

I try to stay very open. I do not wish to limit you a-priori, though I will raise objections when I think they are in order.

(b) If we are investigating God philosophically (by reason alone), it is asserted that God is spiritual (immaterial). In RC usage “supernatural” refers to truth about God and the relation between God and man given in DR. This seems to be outside of your required method since it is not demonstrable by reason alone and also involves religious experience and testimony. If you want to use “supernatural’ in the history of religions sense for God, that’s fine, but then “soul” would not fit that category. Both, however, are defined as immaterial realities in western philosophy.

In that case, plase define “soul” in a meaningful manner for me. The usually offered “animating principle” is simply ancient nonsense.

If you can’t tell me what your required method looks like, I don’t know how I answer your question.

I cannot tell you. Any a-priori restriction would rob you of a method. (Well, there is one unacceptable method: “to declare something ex-cathedra”.)

So you would accept SUBJECTIVE religious experience and testimony as legitimate data in your method?

Very important question! And the answer is: “YES” as far as I am concerned - if that experience would happen to ME. If you (or anyone else) could give me a “cookbook” of “do this, and you will have your religious experience”, and repeate it as many times as you wish to, and you will get the same experience again, then I would have to accept it. It would still be my own subjective experience, but by the virtue of giving others the same “recipe” it would become objective. As I mentioned before, I was given the advice of “go and pray the rosary in a Catholic Church in Mary’s Chapel, among other Catholics, ask God to manifest himself in any manner he deems proper; and you WILL get your revelation”. I tried it a few times, and nothing happened.

Logic: means the utilization of the three axioms of formal logic, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of exculded middle - the laws which allow to separate true and false propostions.

By “reason” I mean our cognitive faculty that performs mental operations of knowing and thinking. “Reason alone” in RC usage means thinking through issues by the natural light of reason, i.e., without (name removed by moderator)ut from revelation. IOW philosophy.

That is a perfectly fine definition. Though “philosophy” rests on quite a few basic assumptions. I might agree with some, and I might disagree with others. So I cannot give you an unqualified “yes”. Sorry.

True all knowledge starts in sense experience. My question on method was to see if you are stipulating Humean empiricism or whether you acknowledge that the human intellect can ascertain truths about reality (as in the given examples) beyond reporting sense impressions.

When it comes to axiomatic systems, then we do not rely upon sensory (name removed by moderator)ut any more. We can set up a brand new game with our own axiomatic set of rules and pieces, and create “propositions” within that “abstract reality”, and find out if those propostions are true (following from the axioms) or not. A specific example: we can create a breand new type of chess, where the rules are extended so that the players can capture their own pieces (emulating “traitors” ) and examine if a game is “valid” or not. (By the way this kind of chess exists, and it is very interesting.)

So, in sum you are “looking for a suggested method which would enable us to decide if a proposition about the supernatural is true or false.” Methodologically, you have ruled out (I don’t think on sufficient grounds) an intrinsic method of testing as a participant observer since it involves religious experience and testimonies. So far you have only stipulated an “objective, repeatable method.” Is this equal to the SM?

I hope I gave an adequate answer above. I do not rule out any transferable method, anything that would enable others (me, among them) from verifying your claims. I do not wish to exclude anything else. But the method you might offer must be amenable to testing by others. I can say that sheer authority (because I said so! - especially when shouted ) is the only one which is excluded a-priori. But that sure sounds like a reasonable exclusion. What say you?

 

[Shike]

Okay, so your position is not so much that an entity has to come first chronologically, but that some entity has to sustain the existence of other entities? Why should that be the case?

These are good questions that are clear and to the point. Thank you.

Yes, some first (logical hierarchy) entity must exist here and now to sustain the other entities that exist here and now. Basically, you will always find the threads of a causal chain ordered “per se” (train) within the entities of a causal chain ordered “per accidens” (father). That is, as long as you have something that is in some way composite (whether separable in part or in principle).

How do you know that the chain of events cannot be explained by this father-like infinite chain? Why is the concept of “essence” necessary to explain a causal chain?

First, it is important to keep in mind that events don’t strictly speaking cause other events. It is things that act on other things. The failure to note this detail threw the modern philosopher David Hume for a loop.
Second, whenever you have a thing you will necessarily have an individual essence. Now I didn’t actually say “essence” in my post but used the word “essential”, and I used it interchangeably with “per se”.

Anyways, I think you can understand Aquinas’ argument without delving into an explicit knowledge of essences. The main point is that another thing must be present (here and now) with regards to causal chains ordered “per se” (train). These kind of causal chains are the most fundamental. It is true that there exist causal chains ordered “per accidens” (father), but if you keep digging deeper you will always find the threads of a causal chain ordered “per se” (train). For instance, although the son can exist here and now without the father, he cannot exist here and now without say, the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus of an atom together.

I have a book recommendation for you if you haven’t already read it…

 

[Shike]

Not true. It was quite clear that much of Aristotlean and Thomist metaphysics depends on an inductive conclusion about the nature of the world derived through the senses. Take for example the axiom of Aquinas’s First Way: “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion”,

You are missing the point. As far as I know, what you say is true. But the point in question was whether or not his principle #2 was derived by induction. The question is about the fundamental principle. Go ahead and deny #1 if you want. Not everything derived from the senses is obtained from induction.

I didn’t say that I disagreed with it, but if you are saying that it is impossible to disagree with then you are wrong, for there are many thoughtful and reasonable people who disagree with it.

I am not saying that. All kinds of smart people can disagree with me all they want. In this case, however, with regards to conception and the beginning of human life, those smart people would be wrong given what we know through biology.

A fertilised human egg is a fertilised human egg, and an eight cell human blastocyte is an eight cell human blastocyte, in the same way that a human skin cell is a human skin cell and a pluripotent human stem cell is a pluripotent human stem cell. Whether or not they are “human beings” is a different and less certain question (to which I have not and will not proffer an answer).

“Human being” should not be controversial in the slightest. The fertilized human egg is “human”. A “being” is something that exists. Where is the controversy? You should stick to the argument that “person” is controversial.

Here it is again:
How can we know whether the proposition “The human body is animated by an immortal human soul that is directly infused by God at the moment of conception” is true or false? That’s all.

And the answer is in this case: one way is philosophy. I am dealing with Aquinas’ first way at the moment, so if you want some sort of proof then you will have to wait.

 

[Shike]

So which part of an atom is the “pusher” to make the electrons revolve around the nucleus? What external “shaker” causes the Brownian motion of the molecules? If these objections are invalid, then you can point out where the external cuasative agent is?

Your model of the atom seems to be outdated. The “solar system” model of the atom has been discarded. But with regards to Brownian Motion, I am no expert but I would assume that external conditions play at least some role, such as the presence of other molecules from which they can “bounce” off of. And perhaps parts within the molecule play a role as well.

Randomness is no objection to #2. And this is why you need to reevaluate your epistemology.

If metaphysics stand apart from reality, what is its use?

I never said that. The content is very much a part of reality. My point was that in most cases, the scientific method is the wrong method to use with regards to metaphysical claims.

 

[Spock]

Your model of the atom seems to be outdated. The “solar system” model of the atom has been discarded. But with regards to Brownian Motion, I am no expert but I would assume that external conditions play at least some role, such as the presence of other molecules from which they can “bounce” off of. And perhaps parts within the molecule play a role as well.

No matter if the electrons are miniature planets. or not. They do move. and there is no need to assume a “pusher”. And even one molecule would exhibit some movement, unless its temperature is exactly zero Kelvin.

Randomness is no objection to #2. And this is why you need to reevaluate your epistemology.

Randomness played no part in what I said.

I never said that. The content is very much a part of reality. My point was that in most cases, the scientific method is the wrong method to use with regards to metaphysical claims.

Too generic. If metaphysics does not reflect physical reality, then it is pure speculation. If it is pure speculation, there is no objective way to find out if the proposition is true or not.

But, really. Let’s stop beating around the bush. What is your suggested method to find out if the soul was created at the moment of conception and if it is immaterial and immortal? All these attempts to derail this question are getting pretty tiresome.

 

[shoe]

Now the question is, given that there exists a supernatural domain, how can we know when propositions about that domain are true and when they are false?

Same answer as before (post 83):
“I’m not sure just how much knowledge a person can truly gain of the supernatural if that person’s presuppositions eliminate God, souls, angels, revelation, and testimonials from the equation. If a person is going to seek proof for the supernatural, then that person is understandably going to have to allow theistic reasons, such as God, souls, angels, revelation, eyewitness accounts, testimonials, answered prayers, etc., for them.”

Here is such a proposition: “the human body is animated by a supernatural soul which survives the death of the material body”. What process, what test, what logic, what epistemology do we use to determine whether that proposition is true or false.

Same answer as before (post 83):
“I’m not sure just how much knowledge a person can truly gain of the supernatural if that person’s presuppositions eliminate God, souls, angels, revelation, and testimonials from the equation. If a person is going to seek proof for the supernatural, then that person is understandably going to have to allow theistic reasons, such as God, souls, angels, revelation, eyewitness accounts, testimonials, answered prayers, etc., for them.”

I believe that in a Christian epistemology a statement given by God is more epistemically dependable than a statement given by a person who denies God’s existence. Christian epistemology is based on Truth and on the Person of Jesus, which is to say that Christian epistemology is both personal and objective.

Here is another: “human souls have not existed for eternity but are immediately created and infused by God into each human being, but having been created they are immortal and will exist eternally.”

The soul is the immaterial part of mankind, and it exists outside the realm of the senses; therefore, scientists cannot be expected to understand the life of the soul as they would understand tiny little chunks of matter, no matter how often they arrange and rearrange atoms and molecules.

Here is another “There are two Gods: a chaotic and powerful God who created the world which is evil in its very foundation; and a pure loving entirely spiritual God who is the principle of order, peace” How can we know which of these propositions is true and which are false?

God did not create evil. Evil is not a created thing like a rock or a jar of jellybeans. The world cannot place a handful of evil into a jar because evil has no existence of its own. Just as cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of the perfect will of God. Evil then can only exist in the absence of God. When mankind rejects God, mankind allows evil to enter into the picture.

I believe that God permits evil to exist in the world; but He never created evil, since evil is not a created thing or object; that is to say, evil cannot exist on its own. Evil is the deviation from God’s will. Mankind has the free choice to do good or to do bad, and it’s mankind’s choice to do bad that causes evil, not God.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

How can you distinguish between entities that are conscious and those that are not without an a priori commitment to the assumption that mind is independently incorporeal and incapable of fabrication?

In the realm of epistemology the first place has to go to experience. I can argue endlessly that are so such things as angels, but I will never convince the guy who has actually encountered one. During my computer studies I wrote a genetic algorithm that supposedly “learned” things. I can assure you that in all the lines of code that deterministically manipulated electrons I never encountered anything that you might call “intellect” or “mind” or “will”. It was just a fancy alarm clock, as are all the other greater and smaller machines. Machines as a class have limitations, one of them being the inability to perform abstract thought. So far I am basing this on personal experience.

If you require a more rigorous approach, I recommend reading C.S. Lewis’ essays on the nature of mind. He argues that whatever “knows” something and can make reliable truth statements must be of a higher order than the thing which is being analysed. The mind must be something beyond the physical world that it observes, otherwise it would suffer from the very same irregularities, slavery to physical laws, and chaotic forces that nature itself endures and we would have no reason to trust the mind’s judgements. For this reason he places the “ground” or starting point of intellectual activity above the material. We cannot do this when we build a machine.

Plato and Aristotle argue along lines similar to Lewis when they discuss intellection in terms of the appropriation of forms. The idea is that whatever can appropriate a form, such as that of a horse, must be incorporeal since the form itself is incorporeal. CPUs are not incorporeal.

If these arguments prove unconvincing you could try reading Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirsig does a good job of distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative awareness and in demonstrating that when it comes to knowledge, qualitative awareness is as important as quantitative. He argues that logical thinking is antithetical and actually impedes qualitative awareness, which poses a problem for proponents of machine intelligence. Our machines rely entirely upon logical algorithms that are strictly quantitative, thus in the Pirsigian universe they will never be able to mimic fully human intelligence.

Pirsig also points out that to ask the question “how do we know what we know” is like asking a knife to cut itself. This relates to Lewis’ claim that the mind needs a ground that is higher than its objects and implies that we need to communicate with something higher than us in order to discover (at least in part) what the mind really is.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Alright I think I basically get the idea.

I will explore intrinsic testing as an avenue to encounter God. . . or at least as a reasonable way to to “test” for God. And I will discuss the existence of the soul.

But before I do, some mop up work.

When it comes to axiomatic systems, then we do not rely upon sensory (name removed by moderator)ut any more. We can set up a brand new game with our own axiomatic set of rules and pieces, and create “propositions” within that “abstract reality”, and find out if those propostions are true (following from the axioms) or not. A specific example: we can create a breand new type of chess, where the rules are extended so that the players can capture their own pieces (emulating “traitors” ) and examine if a game is “valid” or not. (By the way this kind of chess exists, and it is very interesting.)

While I agree with your example (which covers math theorems in mine) you haven’t really addressed all the examples I gave. So, can the human intellect ascertain truths about reality in the case of the examples I gave beyond reporting sense impressions? Can the human intellect grasp the operation of causality? Can the SM be justified epistemologically? Can the intellect grasp the principle of sufficient reason as a truth about reality and human reasoning?

In that case, plase define “soul” in a meaningful manner for me. The usually offered “animating principle” is simply ancient nonsense.

Definitions:

The word “soul” refers to the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being, often regarded as eternal, usually thought to consist of one’s consciousness and personality, and generally synonymous with the mind or the self. It is often used as a correlative term with “body,” the physical part of the human being: we are body and soul. (Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “soul”)
It is the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause if an individual life. (Merriam-Webster)

Now these definitions are considered meaningful and intelligable by both of these recognized sources of info for the public. They have also been meaningful and intelligable to millions of great philosophical, literary, and historical minds in history and millions of others less trained. Hopefully they help; but if they are nonsense to you, the only course of action I can recommend for the discussion to move forward is for you to think about them until you get the idea. Not assent to it, but understand it enough to discuss it.

Logic: means the utilization of the three axioms of formal logic, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of exculded middle - the laws which allow to separate true and false propostions.

Less important than the other two, but . . .
These principles, which I also assent to, in themselves only allow us to note that two propositions cannot both be true. They don’t evaluate the forms of correct reasoning for validity, which can directly contribute to separating true from false propositions. There are others as well, e.g., empirical foundation for claims about physical objects.

In a post below I’ll start to make some points on religious experience and intrinsic testing. We can look at the soul when we clear up the above issues.