Jim replies:
>But naturalists, by definition, cannot attribute a source. When they
>do, they become metaphysical, an oxymoronic thing to be if you only
>cogitate in physical terms.
Yeah, metaphysics always raises its crusty head. That happens
in any system where you don't have all the information. Actually,
I think this will even happen in systems where you have all the
information (eg. Godel's & Turing's arguments about "unknowability").
It's part of the "faith gap" that you mentioned, which is a good
point. I tend to leave the question of "source" as an unknown.
>That theists accept "physical regularities" in the world is quite
>obvious, but beside the point. No theist I know is surprised that
>apples fall or the Kings never win a Stanley Cup.
Why is this? Is it because regularities are easily perceived? At
what point should we give up on supernaturalistic explanations in
favor of naturalistic ones or, how does one distinguish a natural
from a supernatural event? This question applies from both directions.
I'm not sure that this has an easy answer.
>The theist IS surprised that naturalists place so much stock in their
>thoughts when they believe such are merely chemical secretions. How
>do we judge among competing secretions?
Somehow we manage. I don't think anyone can now deny that thoughts
and judgements are strongly influenced by physical events (ie. nervous
system function). I'm not going to say that there isn't something
else to thought or consciousness, but if there is, it's not readily
apparent. Are our thoughts and actions the result of deterministic
forces beyond our "conscious control"? Nobody has that answer.
><< FWIW - I do not claim that the scientific
>method is the "only way of knowing". It's definitely a systematic
>technique, but I do not claim that it's the only one available.>>
>
>There is always a "faith" gap in any way of knowing. I guess I find
>that gap a lot smaller from the supernatural perspective.
How is it smaller? Effectively, it's putting faith in a stepping
stone that we don't know is there (and even if it exists, we cannot
be too sure where it is). I do recognize that breaking
a problem up into smaller parts is useful and makes it easier
to accept in the end, but I'm not certain that this helps in this
case (But I do understand your point). I wonder if there aren't
several distinct processes at work that lessen doubt. First, there
is some hardwiring in our brain and bodies that preconfigures &
prefilters our view of the world, to make it seem continuous and
allow us to perceive regularities. Second, there are external events
that repeat often enough to convince us of the "firmness" of the
world. Finally, there are thought processes and ideas that we
can generate that allow us to rationalize the events observed.
The first two processes are ones that we might all realistically
be able to share. The last can be highly individualized. I think
that is where we might split on opinions.
But I don't believe we're that far apart on the basic "ground rules
of inquiry" for most things.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)