Wouldn't mind a second opinion on this.
I think that it would be neither true nor untrue, it simply wouldn't be a thing. Ditto for the question. No brains no minds, no minds no maths. Just because our minds are capable of imagining abstract properties of the universe doesn't make those properties independently present.
What about Newton's laws of motion? Would force no longer be mass times acceleration? Would there be no such thing as "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" because there are no human minds to think about those concepts?
You can't have science without materialism but science goes beyond materialism.
Yes, I appear to be conflating the two and that wasn't clear, but I needed to explain what it is about the concept of immaterial that doesn't work for me so I contrasted it with materialism, but I'm going beyond that to the practical use of the concept of materialism, i.e. science.
You don't really need to keep making this point, I get it, I don't agree. We're discussing what it's possible to know, and out of all the ways of acquiring knowledge that I've encountered, the scientific method is the only one that I think provides meaningful answers.
The others, that I'm aware of, including theism, don't appear to be anything other than wishful thinking.
Really it's just a form of 'since you don't agree with me you clearly don't have an open mind', and about as effective as that. I'm willing to accept the immaterial, just offer me some indisputable evidence that it exists Aaron, don't just keep saying 'you're not listening dude..'.
I could try 'you're an atheist too Aaron', and talk about how you don't believe in the FSM because you've deliberately limited your detector to 'Christian god' setting, would that work on you? No, I'm sure that like me you're completely open to the idea of the FSM, you simply reject it because you don't consider that you have good reasons to believe it, right?
How does it help your position to argue that we can't prove anything really? I'm not going to accept things simply because I can't disprove them, give me good reasons to accept them.
I'm sure you're well aware of why I'm wary of claiming that anything is 'true', which is why I haven't done that.
Then what does it mean for something to be true? When you say it's "true" that 1+1=2, then what are you actually saying?
What about Newton's laws of motion? Would force no longer be mass times acceleration? Would there be no such thing as "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" because there are no human minds to think about those concepts?
What about Newton's laws of motion? Would force no longer be mass times acceleration? Would there be no such thing as "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" because there are no human minds to think about those concepts?
The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them, they describe the properties and behaviour of the physical. Maths would not, it's a purely abstract thing that exists only in our minds which is a physical process occurring in our physical, material brain.
Science is also a paradigm, a way of acquiring and interpreting knowledge, and in the strictest application of Philosophical Naturalism (IMO, the only valid application) it doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Questions about god are irrelevant in that paradigm, because god is supernatural. I find it the most useful for explaining what we observe.
-----------------
Anyway, what do you think of the argument for determinism I posted in my OP? Wouldn't it undermine an argument made for god's existence based on 'efficient cause'?
(P1) Every human choice or action is an event
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
1+1=2 is a contingent truth. What else is there to say about it. Is the FSM real simply because I can imagine it? If not, why not?
The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them, they describe the properties and behaviour of the physical. Maths would not, it's a purely abstract thing that exists only in our minds which is a physical process occurring in our physical, material brain.
I guess you mean *nobody else* since I do, and even then it's somewhat lazy phrasing by your standards. Theism is a paradigm like any other, it assumes god and that assumption determines what questions are relevant and what answers are meaningful. and that's where it fails for me because it simply isn't useful in explaining anything at all. Claim - God exists. Ok, what predictions can we make from that? None. How can we correct and improve on that explanation? We can't. How can we check that it's true? We can't. Can we test for it, and repeat that test to be sure of our results? No. Is it in any way useful in explaining what we observe? No, not in my opinion.
Science is also a paradigm, a way of acquiring and interpreting knowledge, and in the strictest application of Philosophical Naturalism (IMO, the only valid application) it doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Questions about god are irrelevant in that paradigm, because god is supernatural. I find it the most useful for explaining what we observe.
I see it as that I have no good reasons to accept that there are any gods. I'm still waiting for you to give me some? Something better than 'you just don't get it dude, and worse, you don't even get what you don't get'. Ok, educate me by telling me what it is that I don't get rather than referring to it.
-----------------
Anyway, what do you think of the argument for determinism I posted in my OP? Wouldn't it undermine an argument made for god's existence based on 'efficient cause'?
(P1) Every human choice or action is an event
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them, they describe the properties and behaviour of the physical. Maths would not, it's a purely abstract thing that exists only in our minds which is a physical process occurring in our physical, material brain.
I guess you mean *nobody else* since I do, and even then it's somewhat lazy phrasing by your standards. Theism is a paradigm like any other, it assumes god and that assumption determines what questions are relevant and what answers are meaningful. and that's where it fails for me because it simply isn't useful in explaining anything at all. Claim - God exists. Ok, what predictions can we make from that? None. How can we correct and improve on that explanation? We can't. How can we check that it's true? We can't. Can we test for it, and repeat that test to be sure of our results? No. Is it in any way useful in explaining what we observe? No, not in my opinion.
Science is also a paradigm, a way of acquiring and interpreting knowledge, and in the strictest application of Philosophical Naturalism (IMO, the only valid application) it doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Questions about god are irrelevant in that paradigm, because god is supernatural. I find it the most useful for explaining what we observe.
I see it as that I have no good reasons to accept that there are any gods. I'm still waiting for you to give me some? Something better than 'you just don't get it dude, and worse, you don't even get what you don't get'. Ok, educate me by telling me what it is that I don't get rather than referring to it.
-----------------
Anyway, what do you think of the argument for determinism I posted in my OP? Wouldn't it undermine an argument made for god's existence based on 'efficient cause'?
(P1) Every human choice or action is an event
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
1+1=2 is NOT a CONTINGENT truth.
Why do you use words when you literally have no idea what they mean?
If you stopped reading after the first sentence, I can only imagine its because the error was so horrendous, so indicative of a lack of intelligence and/or knowledge on my part, that reading my posts would be a total waste of time.
So, feel free to live up to that standard, or don't say pointless things like that. If I think you're not reading my posts, exchanges between will be short-lived, that I can tell you.
Materialism (as defined by dictionary.com):
"the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies."
Is it your current position that science is possible only if the above theory is correct?
"the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies."
Is it your current position that science is possible only if the above theory is correct?
I'm not sure if you know what you're saying. Is it possible that 1+1=2 could be false?
Edit: Just saw your response to lagtight. If it's a NECESSARY truth then how would it depend on humans?
But are they themselves (the physical laws) physical or material objects?
This should cause you pause to consider the possibility that you don't actually understand what you're talking about, and that you're likely using words in ways that misrepresent others.
No. Science does not parse between natural and supernatural. The methods of science would still work as a means of acquiring knowledge if the entirety of the universe were "supernatural."
You are distorting ideas to fit your preconceived notions.
Not really. That you think you would undermine God's existence through an argument that doesn't actually invoke God is similar to how you think that somehow the argument that there could exist something immaterial is somehow some sort or argument for God. It's like you don't actually understand the arguments you're creating.
Edit: Just saw your response to lagtight. If it's a NECESSARY truth then how would it depend on humans?
The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them, they describe the properties and behaviour of the physical.
I guess you mean *nobody else* since I do...
Science is also a paradigm, a way of acquiring and interpreting knowledge, and in the strictest application of Philosophical Naturalism (IMO, the only valid application) it doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Questions about god are irrelevant in that paradigm, because god is supernatural. I find it the most useful for explaining what we observe.
You are distorting ideas to fit your preconceived notions.
Anyway, what do you think of the argument for determinism I posted in my OP? Wouldn't it undermine an argument made for god's existence based on 'efficient cause'?
(P1) Every human choice or action is an event
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
(P1) Every human choice or action is an event
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
I think a weaker form of 3 that I actually believe is we should be wary of the existence of abstract concepts that don't seem to have any impact at all on the material world. I think most people are fine with saying the integers exist or the axioms of first order predicate logic. But most mathematicians let alone regular people will be highly skeptical about the existence of something like highly inaccessible large cardinals. The problem with theism is that over time and as materialism has grown more and more capable of describing the universe, god has not coincidentally gone from something simple like and obvious like in the old testament to something hopelessly abstract that cannot possibly impact the result of something in the real world.
1) The first part (being wary of abstruse concenpts) is a kind of restatement of the principle of parsimony? It makes sense, I think. I remember being surprised to learn that so many mathematicians favored some kind of platonism about mathematical objects. But then I guess maybe computer programmers are naturally drawn to logicism.
2) Pascal's "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not the God of the philosophers!" I think you're definitely right about the latter, but I'm not sure most theists have such complex views?
FWIW I think this is another example of confusing materialism with naturalism.
L:
1. All the axioms of Peano Arithmetic
2. The axioms of Peano Arithmetic are inconsistent.
L must be consistent (if PA itself is consistent) and they will form a model where you can prove 1+1>2. You are of course free to reject my L integers for not being intuitive and or having the properties you want in a system of counting. But that doesn't mean your regular integers are the only game in town. I've just shown you another.
I guess I don't know what contingent truth means either. You can easily construct models of the integers where 1+1 does not equal 2 is a theorem. The easiest example would be the set of axioms 1&2 taken together called L:
L:
1. All the axioms of Peano Arithmetic
2. The axioms of Peano Arithmetic are inconsistent.
L must be consistent (if PA itself is consistent) and they will form a model where you can prove 1+1>2. You are of course free to reject my L integers for not being intuitive and or having the properties you want in a system of counting. But that doesn't mean your regular integers are the only game in town. I've just shown you another.
L:
1. All the axioms of Peano Arithmetic
2. The axioms of Peano Arithmetic are inconsistent.
L must be consistent (if PA itself is consistent) and they will form a model where you can prove 1+1>2. You are of course free to reject my L integers for not being intuitive and or having the properties you want in a system of counting. But that doesn't mean your regular integers are the only game in town. I've just shown you another.
A statement is a necessary truth if it is true in all possible worlds.
Using the framework of asserting axioms creates the question of what it means to be a "possible" universe. Does there exist a universe in which circles are squares (where these terms are the terms we've adopted in this universe, not that there is a possible universe in which the words "circle" and "square" represent the same concept)
Thanks for pointing out my error, I meant that it's a necessary truth. However, that's not really the point.
If you stopped reading after the first sentence, I can only imagine its because the error was so horrendous, so indicative of a lack of intelligence and/or knowledge on my part, that reading my posts would be a total waste of time.
So, feel free to live up to that standard, or don't say pointless things like that. If I think you're not reading my posts, exchanges between will be short-lived, that I can tell you.
Not sure how this is incompatible with what I said about science which deals only with the physical, material universe (unless you're a theist attempting to reconcile your personal belief with the scientific method and using a corrupted version of Philosophical Naturalism. I'm assuming you got far enough down this reply to read this part.
If you stopped reading after the first sentence, I can only imagine its because the error was so horrendous, so indicative of a lack of intelligence and/or knowledge on my part, that reading my posts would be a total waste of time.
So, feel free to live up to that standard, or don't say pointless things like that. If I think you're not reading my posts, exchanges between will be short-lived, that I can tell you.
Not sure how this is incompatible with what I said about science which deals only with the physical, material universe (unless you're a theist attempting to reconcile your personal belief with the scientific method and using a corrupted version of Philosophical Naturalism. I'm assuming you got far enough down this reply to read this part.
I normally read your posts in their entirety, but it is frustrating for me ( a failing on.my part, I admit) to see you frequently using terms that you have no idea what they mean.
For example, I'd bet real money that you don't know what "Philosophical Naturalism" means.
Actually, I don't know what it means either. I DO know what "Metaphysical Naturalism" means. Is that what you mean? Do YOU even know what you mean?
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...m#post53512487
Look up and down to get the context and see how the conversation went.
You sort of remind me of two things here
1) The first part (being wary of abstruse concenpts) is a kind of restatement of the principle of parsimony? It makes sense, I think. I remember being surprised to learn that so many mathematicians favored some kind of platonism about mathematical objects. But then I guess maybe computer programmers are naturally drawn to logicism.
1) The first part (being wary of abstruse concenpts) is a kind of restatement of the principle of parsimony? It makes sense, I think. I remember being surprised to learn that so many mathematicians favored some kind of platonism about mathematical objects. But then I guess maybe computer programmers are naturally drawn to logicism.
I think mathematicians were sort of dragged into a weak form of Platonism kicking and screaming. The dream initially for guys like Russell and Hilbert was to write down a set of intuitive axioms that describe all of math that could also prove their own consistency. Any different system you tried to come up with would simply be inconsistent and could be rejected on that basis. The only island in the vast ocean of possible math, so to speak.
Godel basically blew that up and said "give me any set of consistent axioms you think describe all the intuitive math you want to be true, and I can create a new system that also must be consistent but can also prove all sorts of nonsense". Basically Islands everywhere, but most you never explore.
Whats the rational for only caring about the intuitive consistent portions of math and basically ignoring all the equally consistent by highly non intuitive math? Platonism provides one way to elevate normal math over highly counter intuitive but consistent math nobody really wants to study.
But then I guess maybe computer programmers are naturally drawn to logicism.
2) Pascal's "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not the God of the philosophers!" I think you're definitely right about the latter, but I'm not sure most theists have such complex views?
You can search the forum for other posts he's made on the topic. For example:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...m#post53512487
Look up and down to get the context and see how the conversation went.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...m#post53512487
Look up and down to get the context and see how the conversation went.
I thought I'd leave it a couple of days before asking, since it is a pretty scathing analysis of content that was important to you, and could be worldview altering, to some degree.
If you see it as a significant challenge to some aspects of your worldview, I think that would be interesting to hear about - but perhaps that is getting too personal to follow in real time.
(by worldview altering, I'm talking about how you view certain kinds of apologetics, I'm not suggesting you'd question your underlying faith! At least, not today, lol)
How did you get on with the rest of the podcast? I'm especially interested in what you thought about Ian's fiery summary of apologetics at the end!
I thought I'd leave it a couple of days before asking, since it is a pretty scathing analysis of content that was important to you, and could be worldview altering, to some degree.
If you see it as a significant challenge to some aspects of your worldview, I think that would be interesting to hear about - but perhaps that is getting too personal to follow in real time.
(by worldview altering, I'm talking about how you view certain kinds of apologetics, I'm not suggesting you'd question your underlying faith! At least, not today, lol)
I thought I'd leave it a couple of days before asking, since it is a pretty scathing analysis of content that was important to you, and could be worldview altering, to some degree.
If you see it as a significant challenge to some aspects of your worldview, I think that would be interesting to hear about - but perhaps that is getting too personal to follow in real time.
(by worldview altering, I'm talking about how you view certain kinds of apologetics, I'm not suggesting you'd question your underlying faith! At least, not today, lol)
I saw an interesting video by a Baptist pastor called "Why Christian Apologetics is Stupid.". Overall I thought it was good.
Hi MB,
I normally read your posts in their entirety, but it is frustrating for me ( a failing on.my part, I admit) to see you frequently using terms that you have no idea what they mean.
For example, I'd bet real money that you don't know what "Philosophical Naturalism" means.
Actually, I don't know what it means either. I DO know what "Metaphysical Naturalism" means. Is that what you mean? Do YOU even know what you mean?
I normally read your posts in their entirety, but it is frustrating for me ( a failing on.my part, I admit) to see you frequently using terms that you have no idea what they mean.
For example, I'd bet real money that you don't know what "Philosophical Naturalism" means.
Actually, I don't know what it means either. I DO know what "Metaphysical Naturalism" means. Is that what you mean? Do YOU even know what you mean?
I guess my argument against maths proving the immaterial is that I consider maths, and any other thought processes to be material. With science, I take a scientific method based on a pure version naturalism that ignores th e supernatural, as the most effective means of understanding what we observe.
Is there anything wrong with that?
For the purposes of this discussion, all I'm focussing on is that materialism and naturalism are not spiritualism, the immaterial or the supernatural.
I guess my argument against maths proving the immaterial is that I consider maths, and any other thought processes to be material. With science, I take a scientific method based on a pure version naturalism that ignores th e supernatural, as the most effective means of understanding what we observe.
Is there anything wrong with that?
I guess my argument against maths proving the immaterial is that I consider maths, and any other thought processes to be material. With science, I take a scientific method based on a pure version naturalism that ignores th e supernatural, as the most effective means of understanding what we observe.
Is there anything wrong with that?
Materialism excludes both.
For the purposes of this discussion, all I'm focussing on is that materialism and naturalism are not spiritualism, the immaterial or the supernatural.
I guess my argument against maths proving the immaterial is that I consider maths, and any other thought processes to be material. With science, I take a scientific method based on a pure version naturalism that ignores th e supernatural, as the most effective means of understanding what we observe.
Is there anything wrong with that?
I guess my argument against maths proving the immaterial is that I consider maths, and any other thought processes to be material. With science, I take a scientific method based on a pure version naturalism that ignores th e supernatural, as the most effective means of understanding what we observe.
Is there anything wrong with that?
Edit:Also called Begging the Question Fallacy.
Originally Posted by rationalwiki
Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is — in other words, that the supernatural is definitionally impossible, since whatever is shown to exist (via affecting the natural world) is clearly part of that same natural world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Among philosophers of religion, “methodological naturalism” is sometimes understood differently, as a thesis about natural scientific method itself, not about philosophical method. In this sense, “methodological naturalism” is the view that religious commitments have no relevance within science: natural science itself requires no specific attitude to religion, and can be practised just as well by adherents of religious faiths as by atheists or agnostics (Draper 2005). This thesis is of interest to philosophers of religion because many of them want to deny that methodological naturalism in this sense entails “philosophical naturalism”, understood as atheism or agnosticism. You can practice natural science in just the same way as non-believers, so this line of thought goes, yet remain a believer when it comes to religious questions. Not all defenders of religious belief endorse this kind of “methodological naturalism”, however. Some think that religious doctrines do make a difference to scientific practice, yet are defensible for all that (Plantinga 1996).
https://infidels.org/library/modern/...aturalism.html
My conclusion is that the relationship between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, although not that of logical entailment, is not such that philosophical naturalism is a mere logical possibility, whereas, given the proven reliability of methodological naturalism in yielding knowledge of the natural world and the unavailability of any method at all for knowing the supernatural, supernaturalism is little more than a logical possibility. Philosophical naturalism is emphatically not an arbitrary philosophical preference, but rather the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion--if by reasonable one means both empirically grounded and logically coherent.
Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is — in other words, that the supernatural is definitionally impossible, since whatever is shown to exist (via affecting the natural world) is clearly part of that same natural world.
You need to try to do better in your reasoning. Taking shortcuts by just posting the first (and only?) link you can find isn't going to help you.
Blurring the lines between these things is causing you immense difficulty in your ability to accurately communicate your ideas. Pretending like it's not a problem for you to intermix the terms this way does not help your cause.
I get that. I suggested that's what you were doing in an earlier post. That's fine, but I think mixing up the terms is probably causing some confusion. If it were just a question of picking a word to use then it obviously doesn't matter too much, as long as everyone understands. But I don't think you're really giving anything up by allowing for the distinction, and there's a lot to be gained in conceptual flexibility.
Ok. I went ahead and created a new thread on the topic, perhaps you can give your thoughts once you've had a chance to think it over. I think it's an important topic to think about, whereas I have little interest in where this thread has gone.
Quote I heard over 40 years ago, and still one of my favorites:
Everybody's entitled to my opinion.
My reasoning isn't circular though. I have no reason to accept that immaterial is a thing, so I believe that thoughts have a material cause, and that includes maths. So, maths does not prove the immaterial, it's just a material thought like any other.
Naturalism - "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE