What's wrong with a little positivism?

[JackVk]

In Catholic circles, I often hear the idea of positivism denounced and discredited as bad philosophy. But I don’t see a problem with it, to a point. Telling someone to “just believe” is not a good argument. On the contrary, “just have faith” sounds like something a person with something to hide would say.

There is only one statement made by the late Christopher Hitchens I agree with (called “Hitchens’ Razor”): “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

There is plenty of proof for the existence of God, the Truth of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, and the authenticity of the Catholic Church. So why disparage positivism if we have nothing to hide or be afraid of?

Granted, evidence is seldom airtight, and demanding the proof always be perfect is a tall order. But claims need to be backed up with some remedial proof.

 

[Della]

Assuming you are defining positivism as the first definition: “a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or** is capable of logical** or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism” I’d have to say that faith does not violate the bolded part of the definition.

Faith is not irrational because it can be proved through logic, and there is tangible evidence for it. Many who reject faith, saying that faith is not logical nor is there any tangible evidence start with the assumption that there cannot be logical explanations nor any tangible evidence that they will accept. But they cannot say that there isn’t any at all.

 

[Rhubarb]

The rejection of metaphysics is the problem. When I think of the positivists, it’s not just evidence and logic. It’s the assertion that all metaphysics are meaningless. Theist philosophies can have room for empiricism and logic, no doubt. But there must be metaphysics there too.

 

[Della]

The rejection of metaphysics is the problem. When I think of the positivists, it’s not just evidence and logic. It’s the assertion that all metaphysics are meaningless. Theist philosophies can have room for empiricism and logic, no doubt. But there must be metaphysics there too.

That is, as I see it, the problem with making isms into what they are not–dogma. Isms can be useful, but when they reject evidence merely because it doesn’t fit into the ism’s limitations, they cease to be useful and become a hindrance to fully grasping reality. Many reject the metaphysical not because there is no evidence for it but merely because their ism can’t make room for it. They simply don’t want the metaphysical to exist, so for them, it can’t exist.

 

[Rhubarb]

That is, as I see it, the problem with making isms into what they are not–dogma. Isms can be useful, but when they reject evidence merely because it doesn’t fit into the ism’s limitations, they cease to be useful and become a hindrance to fully grasping reality. Many reject the metaphysical not because there is no evidence for it but merely because their ism can’t make room for it. They simply don’t want the metaphysical to exist, so for them, it can’t exist.

I think that most “isms” I can think of try to focus on one hallmark and then try to build a coherent and consistent system around it. The positivists, for example, want to base their epistemology a certain way and then use that as a foundation for other philosophical issues. There are reasons why they reject metaphysics beyond just not wanting it to exist.

And then it comes down to the main problem of philosophy. A positivists can make good cases for rejecting metaphysics. But there are also good cases to retain metaphysics. I, myself, am sympathetic to metaphysics even though I tend towards naturalism.

 

[Della]

I think that most “isms” I can think of try to focus on one hallmark and then try to build a coherent and consistent system around it. The positivists, for example, want to base their epistemology a certain way and then use that as a foundation for other philosophical issues. There are reasons why they reject metaphysics beyond just not wanting it to exist.

And then it comes down to the main problem of philosophy. A positivists can make good cases for rejecting metaphysics. But there are also good cases to retain metaphysics. I, myself, am sympathetic to metaphysics even though I tend towards naturalism.

What I mean, please forgive my poor attempt at explaining, is that all isms are limited. In order hold to one, over other isms one has to pretend there are no others/that only the chosen ism is correct.

G. K. Cheseterton wrote in Manalive: “Madness does not come by breaking out, but by giving in; by settling down in some dirty, little, self-repeating circle of ideas; by being tamed.” People who cling to isms cannot abide anything that makes them look beyond their ism, thus they miss out on the wildness of reality, which they cannot possibly tame. They desperately try to shoehorn reality into their ism instead of accepting that their ism may not be enough.

 

[kenmiller]

I see nothing wrong in being positive and optimistic.

 

[Della]

I see nothing wrong in being positive and optimistic.

If you’ll excuse another G. K. Chesteston quote:

WHEN I was a boy there were two curious men running about who were called the optimist and the pessimist. I constantly used the words myself, but I cheerfully confess that I never had any very special idea of what they meant. The only thing which might be considered evident was that they could not mean what they said; for the ordinary verbal explanation was that the optimist thought this world as good as it could be, while the pessimist thought it as bad as it could be. Both these statements being obviously raving nonsense, one had to cast about for other explanations. An optimist could not mean a man who thought everything right and nothing wrong. For that is meaningless; it is like calling everything right and nothing left. Upon the whole, I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and that the pessimist thought everything bad, except himself. It would be unfair to omit altogether from the list the mysterious but suggestive definition said to have been given by a little girl, “An optimist is a man who looks after your eyes, and a pessimist is a man who looks after your feet.” I am not sure that this is not the best definition of all. There is even a sort of allegorical truth in it. For there might, perhaps, be a profitable distinction drawn between that more dreary thinker who thinks merely of our contact with the earth from moment to moment, and that happier thinker who considers rather our primary power of vision and of choice of road.

 

[Gorgias]

In Catholic circles, I often hear the idea of positivism denounced and discredited as bad philosophy. But I don’t see a problem with it, to a point.

“Positivism, to a point” isn’t positivism; one cannot be ‘a little bit positivist’, just as one cannot be 'a little bit pregnant." One either asserts positivism fully or not at all: either everything is capable of being proven, or not.

Telling someone to “just believe” is not a good argument. On the contrary, “just have faith” sounds like something a person with something to hide would say.

Agreed; yet, the opposite of that approach isn’t positivism.

There is only one statement made by the late Christopher Hitchens I agree with (called “Hitchens’ Razor”): “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

LOL… and even that statement wasn’t his! (“Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…”)

There is plenty of proof for the existence of God, the Truth of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, and the authenticity of the Catholic Church. So why disparage positivism if we have nothing to hide or be afraid of?

Because positivism asserts that, unless we have empirical evidence, logical axiom, or mathematical proof, we cannot assert that a thing is true.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because positivism asserts that, unless we have empirical evidence, logical axiom, or mathematical proof, we cannot assert that a thing is true.

Right. And since the above sentence has neither empirical evidence nor mathematical proof, nor can it be regarded as axiomatic since it is not self evident, we cannot assert that positivism is true by its own formula for truth.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Dogma can become a little problem, IMHO
Don’t think I want to comment about a man who is not here to defend himself from attacks or personal interpretations that could very well be misunderstood or out of context.

Let there be peace with all of us without resorting to tactics to ridicule someone who is not here anymore.
This game can be played in any direction and in the end there will not be a winner.
He called out those that he felt compelled to.
He never claimed to be a prophet, or a leader or anything more than a ordinary man asking and seeking questions.

He was a man who said what he felt. We shouldn’t view his outlook as guidance to follow because those of us who read him know he would puke at the very thought.

 

[Della]

Dogma can become a little problem, IMHO
Don’t think I want to comment about a man who is not here to defend himself from attacks or personal interpretations that could very well be misunderstood or out of context.

Let there be peace with all of us without resorting to tactics to ridicule someone who is not here anymore.
This game can be played in any direction and in the end there will not be a winner.
He called out those that he felt compelled to.
He never claimed to be a prophet, or a leader or anything more than a ordinary man asking and seeking questions.

He was a man who said what he felt. We shouldn’t view his outlook as guidance to follow because those of us who read him know he would puke at the very thought.

Do you mean Hitchens? Who has ridiculed anyone in this thread? I’m truly confused.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let there be peace with all of us without resorting to tactics to ridicule someone who is not here anymore.

Are you talking about Hitchens? I don’t think anyone here went out of their way to ridicule Hitchens, though Hitchens didn’t mind going out of his way to ridicule Mother Teresa after she died.

patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/01/christopher-hitchens-mother-teresa-and-a-bowl-of-soup.html