Religion? Phoo-ey: Society has been hurt far more by philosophy

Scientists have "faith" that they will uncover "truth" about a thing (whatever they set out to discover) .... using the scientific method. That seems a given to me, otherwise why would anyone undertake examining something if they have no believe that they can understand and/or explain? That is not rational.

Additionally, scientists know by now that sometimes they uncover a "truth" that they did not undertake to discover or prove. However, they have faith that a "truth" will be revealed to them about something, somewhere along the line, othewise, scientific investigation would be futile.

Faith is rational because before one acts, one must have faith that a succesful outcome will be the result, if not now, then eventually. This is true in general life (one has faith when crossing the road that one will get to the other side), but it is also true in the realm of scientific investigation. Those who are inclined to uncover truth though scientific methods, have faith in those methods, that they will, at some point, lead to knowledge previously unknown about "reality".

btw, Einstein did point out that not everything can be known (but he did not imply that anyone was trying to know everything). However, he did go so far as to say perhaps not everything we endeavor to know should be known. He felt that mystery in and of itself was worthwhile to humans. He did not say we should not undertake to explain things, in spite of the probable futility of knowing "some" things). All and some are not mutually exclusive since we would not know we know "all" if we happened to get there. This is part of the mystery and uncertainty inherent in the discipline of "science" he was speaking of. It is corollary to spiritual faith where, supposing God exists, we would not know "all" or enough to prove such. Ergo faith.

Hank I think you "get it":

Me: "Ask them if completely wiping out all humanity and all life forms entirely off the face of the earth is an evil or bad thing. Ask them to *prove* it."

You:"Prove, to whom? Most people have the idea of proof wrong. The purpose of proof is not to convince others, the purpose of proof is to ensure one has not made mistakes in their own reasoning. Do I have to prove I can see to anyone else before it is true?"

I agree. My point earlier was that knowledge can exist and be evident without being *certain* knowledge. Likewise with morality. We can have knowledge without full certainty.

I dont think you can ever "prove" right and wrong, but the anti-moralists take that to mean you cant reason of have any sort of moral knowledge or sense. I disagree. Moral knowledge can be understood and derived from understandin human thoughts, goals, ends, etc. just like other empirical knowledge.

Calling 'good' and 'evil' relative is imho a slippery slope to the moral relativism of the type we both disagree with. you are correct that 'good' is relative to a goal, but the absolute 'good' can be thought of as 'good' relative to the absolute ends and goals worth attaining, ie, life, knowledge, happiness.

Your parry the thought experiment with reasons based on ethical egoism, it at least presents an ethical rule that is reasoned as far as it goes, but neglects consideration of any altruism or concern for others, so try this one ...

What if the wiper was saddam hussein, and he got his evil henchmen to built this " earth destruction death device" that would wipe out humanity. After his own passing (triggered by an implant that detects his own heart stopping) all humanity will die. Is he good or evil or neither, and why?

On the epistemology ..."Since what we are conscious of is all that we can know or know about," I can give many counterpoints to undermine (um, what if the person is psychotic? what is 'reality' to a person who hallucinates?)
but a thread like this is tough to engage in such depth.
I'd in sum say my view: you can and *should* *trust* your perceptions as a basis of knowledge, but you are in error if you think you are not engaging in a form of trust aka faith (albeit a very safe one and far more reasonable than the leaps of mystic savants).

Can you really say there is a "you", when your mind is a bunch of nueral firings? "No, which is why materialism is incoherent and self-refuting."

Actually, what becomes incoherent is *not* materialism, but skepticism (if you treat it as a conclusion and not as a method of uncovering assumptions). But I was applying skepticism not to state conclusions (we are indeed more than mere neural firings) to point out hidden assumptions ... To conceive of the mind you have to define it and classify it. To say that reality exists because you perceive it leaves as assumptions that (a) you exist and (b) your perceptions are of reality. This kind of "bootstrapping" is what Descartes wrestled with until he boiled it down to: Cogito ergo sum. Meaning, the thought itself carries the implication of existence. (Although this is conscious existence only).

But this problem doesn't exist if the mind is properly understood to be a simple spiritual substance. Alas that only introduces new problems, aka the mind/body problem. Does Prozac work on the spirit mind, the body brain, or both?

I am being argumentative ...

I should hope so. If everybody agreed on everything it would be dull discussion.

Er, what is the definition of an 'axiom' to you?

You asked!

Axioms are explicit statements of primary and fundamental truths implicit in all true statements. Primary means they cannot be reduced to simpler concepts. Fundamental means, all other truths depend on them. They must be true because if they are not true, nothing is true, but if anything is true, they must be.

What Axioms are Not

The true nature of axioms is generally misunderstood. Two very serious mistakes about the nature of axioms are almost universally taught and believed. These mistakes are: 1.axioms are assumptions, and 2. they are self-evident. Neither of these is true.

Axioms are not just arbitrarily assumed premises. This is a mistake derived from the symbolic logic and linquistic analysis. Axioms are discovered, just as any other truths are discovered.

Axioms are also not self-evident. Knowledge we are very familiar with and take for granted often seems "obvious" or self-evident, but all knowledge must originally be discovered or learned. Axioms are so basic, even before they are identified, they are "implied" in almost every thought we have. When they are discovered and understood, their truth seems apparent or obvious, even self-evident, but first they must be discovered and identified.

The fact that they are not self-evident is proven by the fact most people are not aware of the axioms of philosophy and, even when they are defined and identified, are often denied.

What Axioms Are

Axioms are implicit in all truth and identified by three characteristics: 1 irreducible (primary), 2. underived (defined ostensively, not deduced from other concepts), 3. undeniable (cannot be denied without self-contradiction).

Since reality is all that is the way it is and truth is that which describes any aspect of reality correctly, and axioms are fundamental facts or truths about all reality. All true statements assume the axioms, else they would contradict them, and there are no contradictions. But axioms are fundamental facts about reality, what we begin with, existense itself and our consciousness of it. When axioms are finally identified it then becomes obvious they are implied by every concept we have.

Axioms cannot be reduced to simpler concepts by which they can then be explained. This is not always obvious, because we are able to defined all words by means of other words, and the discovery and identification of axioms requires some level of knowledge and reasoning to achieve. The "fundamentality" of axioms is determined by their relationship to all other knowledge. All knowledge ultimately depends on the truth of axioms. No aspect of reality would be possible if any of the axioms were not true.

Axioms, once discovered and identified, cannot be denied without entailing a self-contradiction. This is true because all truth implies the axioms, and any statement that is true implies them. Any specific statement that denies any axiom must assume that axiom is true in the denial.

That's enough.

Hank

I said:But science does not require any faith of the (just believe without reason) kind at all.

You said: Neither does good philosophy or natural theology.

I agree, so long as one's supposed, 'natural theology,' has not allowed some mystic concepts to slip in. If you have read "Miracles," by C.S. Lewis, that would be an example of a good attempt at natural theology. The problem is the term "theology." It begins with the assumption, "there is a God," but of course that is the thing that must be established, isn't it?

But strict scientism or materialism is self-refuting because it is internally contradictory. It claims truths but undercuts the logical possibility of acquiring any kind of certain knowledge.

Moreover, any argument for strict empiricism must be a philosophical argument, not an empirical "argument." In fact, an empirical argument for empiricism is logically impossible

Since I have discovered the definition of "empiricism" is somewhat slippery, especially when used by those attempting to refute it, and since I am not particularly fond of the word myself, if what you mean by "empiricism" is the view that all knowledge can only be derived by a process of reason about that which we can be conscious of, and nothing else, that would be my veiw.

How can the view that all we can know about is what we are conscius of and nothing else be "internally contradictory?" What does it contradict? And what do you call "certain" knowledge." The tiniest child has certain knowledge derived empirically, as I have described it, the moment it is able to identify the pains or pleasures it experiences. The knowledge that it is experiencing those could not be more certain.

All argument is logical (rational) and all reason is about what we are conscious of. What in heavens name would an "empirical" agument be? You lost me on that one.

Hank

I said: Since the ultimate purpose of an individual's life is his enjoyment of it, whatever interfere's with that purpose is bad, and whatever advances that purpose is good.

You forgot the standard Objectivist modifier "up to the point where the individual's enjoyment infringes on another's enjoyment."

Otherwise, you just endorsed Jeffrey Dahmer.

That is not quite correct. The expression you refer to pertains to individual liberty, not the purpose of one's life.

The purpose of one's life is one's enjoyument of it, period. The question of how one fulfills that purpose is the whole question of moral values.

The expression then pertains to how one fulfills the purpose of their lives, and for human beings it means they must be free to think and choose and act, without restriction, up to the point that any choice or act of one individual may not limit the liberty of any other individual.

But the idea was good one, and ought to be emphasized, even in this case. Thank you!

(By the way I am not an objectivist, and the objectivists do not hold that the ultimate purpose of an individual's life is their enjoyment of it. I do not believe you will find the purpose of human life expressed that way in any objectivist literature, certainly not in Rand, Peikoff, or Kelly.)

Hank

In my post(#44) to cornelis I said:

Many English words have more than one meaning or connotation, which a careful thinker will take care to distinguish. ... For example, the word "faith" has several connotations, including trustworthiness (he is a man of good faith) confidence in something (when we sit on a chair we have faith it will no collapse beneath us) or confidence in someone (most of us have faith in our doctors) or religious faith (no one can prove there is a God, you must accept it by faith).

I think you are making the mistake of confusing the different meanings and connotations of the words faith and belief.

First, the word "beleive" only means whatever a person thinks is true. A belief might be totally rational or itmight be gross superstition. That fact that someone believes something does not indicate the basis for the belief. Sometime the word faith is used to mean the same thing as belief. In that case the faith might be perfectly rational. I think when you are talking about scientist's confidence in their work, it is belief or faith in this sense you mean.

But, when you, or anyone else uses the same words, faith or belief, in regard to that for which there is neither evidence nor logical argument from the evidence as a basis for the faith or belief, that is a different meaning altogether.

Essentially, your argument amounts to this: "Everyone has beliefs which are perfectly rational, therefore it is perfectly rational for someone to believe Allah will reward those who blow up buildings by flying planes into them."

Hank

But, when you, or anyone else uses the same words, faith or belief, in regard to that for which there is neither evidence nor logical argument .... There is no evidence or logical argument to support that "science" is real and "faith" (as in spiritual faith) is not. In fact, any scientist will tell you that "science" cannot prove, it can only disprove. Therefore, scientists use reverse logic to "prove" something is true, realizing they do not have access to all other possible evidence. In that regard, the scientist's (or rationalist's) argument is an essentially temporal "faith" in what is known at the moment, or rather what is eliminated as a possibility.

In that science is no more or less "logical" or "rational" than spiritual faith. Since science cannot "prove" just as faith cannot "prove" with absolute certainty that something is or is not what one posits.

But back to the article. I agree that "faith" (as in spiritual faith) has been twisted for the purpose of doing great harm. As only one example, "science" has been twisted by some to posit that a fetus is not a human being worth protecting from harm. Even though rationally, science cannot prove what is or is not a human being, many people who place their faith in "science" use what is currently known about sentience to justify non-protection of a human-like entity. Science can neither prove or disprove what is a human being, but people who put their faith in scientific "facts" can and do pretend to prove just such things.

This is only one example of how "science" can be used, just as religion or spiritual faith can be used, to justify a moral position. Neither is a rational evidence-based argument for making moral determinations, yet both are used all the time for just such purposes. Therefore both the spiritual/religious and the scientific/observation person are going on pure "faith" that their arguments are sound.

Now, if "science" were devoid of human participation, and therefore pure, I would agree that science could not do ill. But the same would be true of philosophy and God (assuming he exists). Toss in humans to any belief system and presto! you have a exponentially increased the probability for both innocent logical error and willful evil.

You said: Neither does good philosophy or natural theology.

Yes, or "Mere Christianity." I was thinking of Aristotle's philosophy in particular.

The problem is the term "theology." It begins with the assumption, "there is a God," but of course that is the thing that must be established, isn't it?

Yes, but it has been established, so there's nothing wrong with giving it a name.

if what you mean by "empiricism" is the view that all knowledge can only be derived by a process of reason about that which we can be conscious of, and nothing else, that would be my veiw.

By "empiricism" I mean sense-derived knowledge.

That's a description of "naive realism." The knowledge is certain, but the knower doesn't know how he knows. What I was getting at is that under a materialist rubric the mind must be reduced to matter in motion. Logically, under this system, there would be no way to know with certainty whether the representation of reality in my mind corresponds with the external world, or if an external world exists at all. Yet this contradicts our experience. Therefore, materialism/scientism is incoherent and self-refuting.

There is no evidence or logical argument to support that "science" is real ...

Does this mean you are not sure if there is science or not, or does this mean you are not certain that the conclusions of science are correct. Cetainly you do not mean science itself is only imagined or a fiction.

When a scientist says that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen in the proportion of two atoms of hydrogen for every atom of oxygen, he didn't come to that conclusion by some, "inner revelation," or reading it in some book that claims authority for what it says. He bases his conclusion on experiments which he can repeat, such as electrolysis, by which water molecules can be separated into their component parts, i.e. hydrogen and oxygen. Such an experiment is what is called "evidence," and the explanation of what is observed in the experiment is called "reason." Please give me an example of the same kind of evidence and reason in religion.

In fact, any scientist will tell you that "science" cannot prove, it can only disprove.

I know of no scientist that says "science cannot prove." No doubt there are people who call themselves scientists who say anything, but no one who truly understands science would say such a thing.

Hereare two articles from The Autonomist:

If They Believe That - Science is a critique of science and its corruption by superstition. The first part discusses the nature of science itself.

Proof discusses the nature of proof, which has been repudiated by the anti-intellecutal post-modernist movements of our day.

In most cases, scientific proof is so thoroughly convincing and its evidence ubiquitous, most people are unaware that proof was ever required. For example, up to two years after it had been proven, so-called intellectuals and scientists were publishing papers in serious journals showing that heavier than air flight was impossible, and even if it were possible, it could not be proved. This was while the wright brother were going around the country flying in heavier than air machines.

Or maybe you think heavier than air flight is just an illusion and has not yet been proven.

... "science" can be used, just as religion or spiritual faith can be used, to justify a moral position.

While someone may attempt to use what they call science to promote some particular ethical view, science is ammoral. It is the study of the nature of things as they are and has nothing to say (or ought not) about how that knowledge is to be used.

This does not mean that science is morally irrelavent. It is quite relevant in all cases where the truth or facts depend on scientific evidence, such as using DNA evidence to prove or disprove that a particular individual is involved in a crime. Of course if, as you and the post-modernists believe, science can prove nothing, such evidence should not be allowed.

Sceince is only a tool for discovering the truth about one aspect of reality, namely, physical existence. As such it is incapable of doing either good or evil. The application of the discoveries of science is technology, and many people confuse technology with science. Certainly technology can be used for good or evil, and modern war includes many examples of its evil application.

Hank

What I was getting at is that under a materialist rubric the mind must be reduced to matter in motion.

No doubt, this is the heart of the issue. Not all materialists would agree with this. I do not, for example.

If by, "matter," is meant only that which we can be directly conscious of, or perceive, existence is reduced to that which is studied by the physical sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, and their branches. This is the view that is generally meant by, "materialist," and the one I'm sure you had in mind.

I call such materialists, "physicalists," which they would not object to, and allows me to include under the concept, "material," all that we can know, either by direct perception (physcal existence) or by actually doing it (being alive, conscious, and volitional).

I think there is a great mistake in philosophy that excludes from the realm of, "real existence," that which is known to exist, but cannot be directly perceived. Namely, life (as a self-sustained process not defineable in physical terms), consciousness, and volition (without which both reason and knowledge are impossible).

The mistake is an ontological one. The following are from some notes (mine) on a correct ontological view:

To most philosphers the question of conscious and volition in a strictly material universe is a great difficulty. The problem is usually stated as a question, how does rational/volitional consciousness arise in a determined universe?

The question is asked "form the wrong end," so to speak. It implies a paradox, which automatically disqualifies it. But, if the question is invalid, is what seems to be an enigma to be just ignored?

Certainly not. But the reason for the question needs to be reconsidered. Rational/volitional creatures in a material world in which all physical events are determined cannot be doubted, because here we are. If we consider the question from that end, the problem dissappears. Existence obviouosly includes rational/volitional beings. It is we, those rational/volitional beings, who ask the questions. Non-living entities do not ask questions. Living, but non-rational beings do not ask questions either.

So, natural existence includes, material, living, and rational/volitional beings. Some existents are material, and living, but not rational/volitional. Some existents are material, but neither living or rational/volitional.

If we regard the highest level of natural existence in its most complete form, it is material, living, and rational/volitional (that is, human beings). This is material existence in its highest form, its fullest ralization. (By material existence, we mean, that which exists independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, but which can be known or we can be conscious of.)

A larger portion of existence, a less complete or inferior form, is material and living, but is not rational/volitional (all other organisms). The largest but least complete portion of existence is material only, but neither living or rational/volitional (all non-living entities).

From this view, volitional conscious beings are what material existence is when it is realized in its fullest potential, and the living but non-volitional aspects of existence (all organisms except man), are merely material existence in its fullest realization with volition "left out," and non-living aspects of existence, (physical existence) is merely material existence with volition and life "left out." There is no question, then, "how does determined material existence become conscious and rational/volitional?" The apparent question is the result of starting in the wrong place. If there were a question it would be, "how can there be just dumb dead determined matter?" But that question is already answered. The purely physical part of material existence is determined entirely by physical laws, because that is all that is left when the other "natural" things that determine the behavior of entities, life and volition, are absent.

You have not seen this view before, so I do not expect you to make any judgements based on it. I have only presented it to demonstrate that a determined material physical existence is not a philosophical problem to the existence of life and volition, by which reason and knowledge are made both necessary and possible.

Hank

For the second time, I did not say science cannot prove anything. I've said science can "prove" SOME things.

To use your example, you said DNA can prove whether or not someone was involved in a crime. That is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Science cannot prove that. It can prove whether or not a person's DNA was found by human investigators, but it cannot prove that person was not there or not involved in a crime in some way. Blind faith in "science" can be detrimental to finding the whole truth, since science can only tell you what you were looking for. If you're searching for DNA from a particular individual and do not find it, all you know is that you have not found a particular thing at a particular place. There are still ways a person can be "involved" in a crime without leaving DNA clues. We can rule out SOME things, but not all things with science. Ergo, science can disprove, but not prove.

Science tells us only SOME things, typically things we were looking for to begin with, though sometimes we learn facts by happy coincidence. The more scientists delve into genetics, for example, the more they learn, the more they also learn that there are more realms within the field of genetics which we do not know, more puzzles to solve. And so it goes. Science doesn't end, it is never conclusive and whole in its "truth". Actually, our understanding of reality is never conclusive and whole. We can only deduce.

For the second time, I did not say science cannot prove anything. I've said science can "prove" SOME things.

In post #91 you said: In fact, any scientist will tell you that "science" cannot prove, it can only disprove.

If I misunderstood this, I'm sorry, but it does seem to say science cannot prove anything, only "disprove" things. (Although, what the difference is seems entirely semantic to me. If science disproves the contention, "heavier than air flight is impossible," it must have proved it is possible.

To use your example, you said DNA can prove whether or not someone was involved in a crime. That is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Science cannot prove that. It can prove whether or not a person's DNA was found by human investigators, but it cannot prove that person was not there or not involved in a crime in some way. Blind faith in "science" can be detrimental to finding the whole truth, since science can only tell you what you were looking for. If you're searching for DNA from a particular individual and do not find it, all you know is that you have not found a particular thing at a particular place. ...

If it is known there is only one perpetrator of a crime (rape, say) and the DNA of the evidential sperm does not match the DNA of the accused, it proves the accused was not the perpetrator. In this case, it could even prove the perpetrator was not there.

DNA evidence can be used to both prove and disprove, for example, paternity.

Science doesn't end, it is never conclusive and whole in its "truth"

I have the impression you are essentially making the argument that if you don't know everything, you don't know anything. Such truth as science establishes is true and true absolutely. But science is only one field of intellectual enquirey, as I said before. A much more important field is philosophy and in that field very little progress has been made until very recently, and that is only a beginning.

Nevertheless, the only means to knowing truth with which human beings have been endowed is reason, and whatever cannot be known by reason, cannot be known, and whatever is asserted to be knowledge that is not verifiable by reason is a lie.

Hank

Scientific reasoning is deductive. That means that it rules out possibilities, but it does not, and cannot include all possibilities. Scientific "facts" are not absolute as a result. So in application, scientific knowledge is never absolute.

A peson can be "involved" in a crime without actually being at the scene of a crime. This is a possibility which DNA testing cannot deduce.

Blind faith in science to find the "truth" (like blind faith in religion) is not rational. The best one can do is to find SOME truth ... deduce enough to make rational deductive choices ... accepting the limitations inherent in scientific reasoning.

Furthermore, blind faith in science has every bit of potential as has blindn religious faith to cause harm. It can, it has and it does. This is not the fault of "science" or religion ... but rather the fault of humans' propensity toward FAITH. We seem to need to have faith in something, to the extent that we begin to define that something as infallible. It's a process of accretion and it is happening now with Science, just has it did previously with mysticism, shamanism and religion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.