If I knew, then I would tell you.
>Russell is committed to a materialistic worldview. That being the case,
>he believes that for every event in the universe, there is a prior
>naturalistic cause or explanation. Russell, in the event that you were
>to witness what was an actual supernatural occurrence, you would do one
>of two things: you would either offer a materialistic explanation for it
>or you could not, you would claim that a naturalistic explanation exists
>that is unknown at present.
If it was an isolated incident, then I would probably conclude that the
latter were more likely. But I would certainly have some doubts. And if
something similar happened again, my doubts would grow, and if it continued,
my doubts would gradually disappear.
Remember, however, that one of the central tenets of science is that we
do *not* know all there is to know about the universe (and many people,
including myself, believe that we never can). So just seing something for
which there is not a naturalistic explanation would not be satisfactory.
It would have to be something for which there *could not* be a naturalistic
explanation.
>Oh, you might conclude that you have lost
>your mind since I gather that you hold the belief that you are sane more
>weakly than you hold yoiur materialism.
I don't know if that's true. And I suppose I'll never know unless I am
challenged.
>Thus, your materialism is
>practically unfalsifiable to you. This you share in common with the
>theist. One cannot say a priori, which of his beliefs will be altered
>were he to be presented with phenomena that does not readily comport
>with his worldview.
>
>This is why it is futile to simply argue the question of God's existence
>in a piecemeal fashion.
I agree. I think that the existence of God is something that can never
be proven or disproven logically. So the question remains: how can Jim
prove that his moral system is truly objective and transcendent?
>The issue is one of competing worldviews which
>should be evaluated in terms of their internal consistency and their
>ability to provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility
>of our experience including ethics, science, logic, and epistemology.
>It is my contention that materialism fails miserably on both counts.
A contention without any rational basis. Not only that, but a contention
that is strongly contradicted by the facts.
>I'm curious, Russ. Why is it that you regard logic and experimental
>evidence as superior epistemological sources?
Because they have a very reliable track record.
>And do you mean by
>"experimental evidence" only those experiments that you have observed,
>since anything else would require the eyewitness testimony of the
>person/people who conducted the experiment?
This is why repeatability is an essential part of science. You can't
just count on the word of one guy that an experiment worked -- it
should be designed so that anyone can repeat it and get similar results.
>And if you listen to two
>eyewitness accounts of an experiment, will you think twice about science
>as well as history? ;-)
If the eyewitness accounts contradict each other, I will think twice about
the validity of the experiment. As for science itself, well, I will have
even more confidence in it, since the principle of repeatibility will have
proved itself useful. Remember, science succeeds regardless of one whether
gets a positive or negative result on an experiment. A negative result can
tell you just as much about the universe as a positive one.
>The question was asked before but I don't believe you addressed it in
>detail. I take it from your concern for logical consistency and proof,
>that you think highly of logic. What exactly do you believe the laws of
>logic to be (I don't want you to enumerate them but rather to tell me
>what you think their nature is i.e. are they human convention, etc.)
I think that they are certainly human convention, and that they are one of
the most powerful and useful tools developed by the human mind.
>and
>how do they comport with a materialistic worldview. You did speak of an
>"objective rationality" at one point but I'd like to have greater
>clarification, if you don't mind.
Well, these are certainly not easy issues, and anyone who claims that
they are is fooling themselves. I spend a lot of time thinking about it.
As far as objective reality goes, here's how I see it: there is a certain
category of things which *seem* to be reality. For example, if I step in
front of a speeding train, I will be hit by it, resulting in massive pain
and probably death. Now, is this *really* reality, or is it all just some
grand illusion? I can't prove either way, but I do know that it seems more
real to me than anything else does. I know that my body has a capacity for
damage, and that when it is damaged, it feels pain, which is an unpleasant
experience. And whether or not it is truly real (whatever that means), I
know that it is still utterly real to me, and that is the standard by which
I measure reality.
Now, having said that, I'm not someone who believes that if I don't see it
with my own eyes, it isn't real. That is where logic and science come in.
I can logically extrapolate from certain facts to "observe" things that already
happened or which are not directly visible to myself. For example, let's say
that I'm driving down a deserted road in the middle of the night, and I come
across a car that is up against a lightpole. The lightpole is knocked over,
the car has a huge dent in the front, there are skidmarks leading up to where
the car is, and the driver is dead. And there were no other witnesses of the
event.
What would be a logical extrapolation of what occurred? That is rather obvious:
the car drove into the lightpost. Further details may not be so obvious. Did
he do it deliberately? If not, how did he lose control of the car? Was he drunk?
Did an animal jump in front of him? Etc. Some of these details may be uncovered
by later examination (for example, we can know whether or not he was drunk), and
may not (we would not be likely to find out if an animal did run in front of the
car, unless he hit it).
Therefore, we are left with a conglomeration of things we know for sure, and
things
we can't be sure of. Of course, one could argue that we don't KNOW that the car
actually drove into the lamppost. Perhaps God reached down, knocked over the
lamppost,
hit the front of the car, and dragged the car towards the lamppost in order
to make
the skidmarks. Nobody could disprove this interpretation of events. But the
former
explanation certainly seems a lot more likely.
>> >#2. What is your "standard of proof"? If something can be demonstrated as
>> >"more reasonable than not" or "more probable than not," are you willing to
>> >accept it?
>>
>> I don't know. I guess I do have to think about it. But that shouldn't
stop you
>> or anyone else from trying to put forth a convincing argument.
>
>I do think this is a very important question that warrants much
>reflection on your part. I've heard many an atheist deny that there is
>any evidence for God's existence but when asked what such evidence would
>look like they are silent.
Perhaps that is because there is an inherent paradox in this. As I have said
before,
I don't believe that God's existence or non-existence can be logically
proven. That
is why, when I state my opinion about the issue, I am careful to point out
that it
is merely an opinion. I know that I could be wrong.
>If I don't know what something looks like,
>how can I possibly say that I haven't seen it? If I told you to meet me
>at O'Hare Airport without your knowing what I look like, and if we never
>met as we scheduled, would you be justified in answering negatively when
>asked "Did you see Keith at the airport?"?
This is an interesting point. I cannot claim, with 100% certainty, that I
*haven't*
seen God. But if He has shown Himself to me, He has certainly been subtle about
it -- so subtle that I didn't even realize it.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.