>First, it was not my contention that people who hold to a materialistic
>philosophy are incapable of functioning in society so your response is a
>bit puzzling to me. My original comment was that materialism as a
>worldview is internally inconsistent and incapable of making such things
>as science, ethics, logic, and knowledge intelligible. In other words,
>it does not and cannot provide the necessary preconditions to account
>for such things.
Perhaps we need to work on some definitions here, so we know we are both
debating the same thing.
By "materialism", do you mean naturalistic philosophy -- that is, the belief
that there is no supernatural "supreme power" that controls the natural
universe? Or are you referring to the attempt to derive moral laws from
the laws of science and nature? If you are referring to the latter, then
99 out of 100 atheists (including myself, needless to say) will agree with
you wholeheartedly. Of course it's stupid to try and derive moral laws from
the laws of nature!
However, the vast majority of people who would consider themselves
"materialists"
or "naturalists" or atheists attempt no such thing. There seems to be this
continuing misperception among theists that, if one believes that one's feelings
are entirely naturalistic in origin, then that automatically motivates one to
disregard those feelings. I don't know where this idea came from, because
nothing
could be farther from the truth. The simple fact is that people who are raised
by kind, loving parents (regardless of what, if any, religion those parents hold
to) will usually grow up with a healthy respect for the feelings and rights
of others.
And there is no need to "borrow moral capital" from any theistic or
supernaturalist
viewpoint in order to accomplish this.
>I might also point out as an aside, that the assessment that millions of
>people are able to get along "quite well" is a value judgment which
>leads me to wonder why you call this a fact. Is it a scientifically
>drawn conclusion or a logically deduced proposition?
It is an observed fact.
>> I don't see that I assumed anything. I merely claimed (and rightfully so)
>> that the methods of science are taken very seriously because they have
>> proven to be very successful.
>
>My point here was that you are expecting that the methods of science
>that have proven successful in the past will continue to do so in the
>future.
Of course. Just as I assume that, since the sun has risen in the east in
the past, it will continue to do so in the future. What is wrong with that?
>This is to apply the inductive principle which assumes the
>uniformity of nature. I was asking you to provide a rational
>justification for the belief that nature will operate in a uniform
>manner witihout assuming the truthfulness of what you are seeking to
>prove (i.e. "Because it's always been uniform in the past"). Why, on
>materialistic grounds, is such a belief justified?
This is a gross reductio ad absurdum. As I have pointed out in the past,
any argument, no matter how logical, is always based on certain subjective
assumptions. One of the subjective assumptions of logic and science is that,
for the most part, the universe behaves in a consistent and logical matter.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
>> >> >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.
>> >
>> >If the laws of logic are in fact creations of the human mind, then it
>> >seems inescapable that they are contingent and not necesary truths.
>>
>> Depends on your perspective.
>
>>From what perspective would this not be the case?
is usually consistent.
>> I have never referred to anything as absolute and invariable. However,
>> just because nothing is absolute and invariable, it does not follow that
>> everything is chaotic and unreliable.
>
>For the sake of clarification, are you affirming that nothing is
>absolute and invariable?
I'm saying that I can't prove that anything is absolute and invariable.
That doesn't mean that I think that nothing is absolute and invariable.
You keep making the same "either/or" fallacy in your argument.
>I also see that you failed to comment at all about the following
>paragraph from my original post:
>
>That's exactly my point. Given your materialistic worldview you will
>never come to the conlcusion that an event *cannot* be accounted for
>naturalistically. Indeed it would be impossible for you to know that
>such was the case given what you've said about the limitations of our
>knowledge of the universe. If, as you believe, we can never know all
>there is to know about the workings of the universe, how apart from
>omniscience could one ever be justified in concluding that a given event
>*could not* be naturalistically explained? This is what I meant when I
>said that your materialism is practically unfalsifiable. Either you
>will offer a materialistic explanation for such an event or you will
>claim ignorance of a yet unknown materialistic explanation although you
>would be certatain that such existed.
>
> Shall I take from this that you are in agreement with its contents?
>If not, can you please explain? Thanks.
The only answer I can give to this is "I don't know". At this time in my
life, I have a hard time believing that there is such a thing as the
supernatural. Indeed, I think that "supernatural" is a contradiction in
terms -- if something exists (even if we don't understand it yet), that
makes it natural. I think that the whole issue of "natural vs. supernatural"
is a huge red herring.
That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a God, mind you. But if I
saw evidence for one, then I would not consider it any more supernatural
than a hydrogen atom.
I don't know if that makes sense, but it's the best answer I can give.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.