Re: Underneath it all
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:06:43 -0700
Tom Pearson wrote:
>
> At 06:44 AM 07/26/1999 -0700, Bert M. wrote:
>
> >My point again is that physical explanations seek to "explain" by appealing
> >to more and more basic "laws' or physical "things." From this I point out
> >that much metaphysical debate has centered arround origins. Little has
> >been focused on the metaphysical underpinning of what is happening today as
> >opposed to the time of origins. I say therefore that physics really is
> >about descriptions and cannot ultimately explain. The final question is
> this:
> >
> > In this space " " someone writes down the theory of
> >everything.
> >
> >Now, I say explain this. What makes this work, or if you prefer, "What
> >holds up the processes of the universe.?" This leads us to recognition of
> >a metaphysical point that science cannot ultimately explain and that
> >something outside of accessable physical entities is making all of this
> >exist.
>
> I'm no scientist, so let me address this from a philosophical perspective.
>
> Bert, let's say that the answer to your question -- "What holds up the
> processes of the universe?" -- turns out to be: "God." The same logic
> inherent in your question now begs the old Sunday School query: "Well,
> then, what holds up God?" It's like the similar response of children when
> they learn that God created everything: "Who created God?" In short, we
> are launched on an infinite regress, with no obvious place to stop.
>
> Aristotle recognized that your question is a natural one, and also that it
> is an illegitimate one. Science is an inquiry. Inquiries start somewhere,
> from some basis. It is useless to ask the question, "Why start there?' or
> "What supports that basis for inquiry?" It is like asking for the
> foundation to the foundation -- it can't be done, because it inaugurates an
> infinite regress from which we cannot escape. Ultimately that leads to a
> thorough skepticism about all knowledge. In the long run, there is a
> pragmatic streak to all inquiry. We start in a reasonable place, and
> proceed along reasonable lines, and if what we get isn't reasonable, then
> we make adjustments. But this never satisfies anyone looking for a deeper
> foundation. Unfortunately, the search for deeper foundations has always
> resulted in skepticism.
>
> The basis for scientific inquiry may seem arbitrary and incomplete, but it
> is the basis. There are no others. There is no additional "underneath it
> all." (I see no reason why any Christian should dissent from this, unless
> they are committed to epistemological skepticism). And Aristotle would
> disagree that ventures beyond science are really exercises in metaphysics.
> For him, metaphysics is also a scientific inquiry. The effort to
> dichotomize science and metaphysics has been around since the middle ages,
> and has never proved successful for either science or metaphysics.
>
> Tom Pearson
> ____________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Thomas D. Pearson
> Department of History & Philosophy
> The University of Texas-Pan American
> Edinburg, Texas
> e-mail: pearson@panam1.panam.edu
>
>
***********************************
I did not ask the question as to what is holds up God. This is not a
question about God vs. naturalism. I am reaching for the point that
there is a major metaphysical assumption under science. So, this is not
even a scientific question in the since that it can be investigated by a
scientific experiment. Rather, it is about the limits of scientific
inquiry. My assertion is that materialistic views of the universe
derive some of their supposed strength by the ability to "explain" the
operation of the universe. Then, I assert that science does not
actually "explain" but merely describes in an operative since and that
underneath it is the requirement for metaphysical assumptions. We can
separately ask wheither there is evidence as to whether a best answer
for the metaphysics support would be God (an entity with a purpose and a
mind) or some mindless entity but acknowledge that this assumption
exists and it involves the assumption of a great deal of power and
information. I also point out that this is a result of considering our
day to day universe and not just from considering our origins.
Bert M.