I asserted that materialism as a philosophical system is internally
inconsistent and that it is unable to provide the necessary conditions
for such human experience as logic, science, and ethics. I believe this
can be logically demonstrated. For example, while there has been much
discussion about rationality in this debate, I fail to see how the
assumptions of materialism make rationality and science possible. If
the universe is a closed system operating according to the principle of
cause and effect such that any state of affairs can be accounted for by
some prior material state of affairs, even our thoughts and conclusions
are materialistically predetermined. In what sense then are we free to
examine evidence and make justifiable inferences which correspond to
the actual state of affairs of the external world? As C. S. Lewis
noted:
"All possible knowledge...depends on the validity of reasoning. If the
feeling of certainty which we express by words like "must be" and
"therefore" and "since" is a real perception of how things outside our
own minds really "must" be, well and good. But if this certainity is
merely a feeling in our minds and not a genuine insight into realities
beyond them - if it merely represents the ways our minds happen to work
- then we have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science
can be." (Miracles, p. 14)
Lewis elsewhere points out that a train of thought loses all rational
credentials as soon as it can be shown to be wholly the result of
nonrational causes. Thus, naturalism/materialism appears to undermine
rationality and consequently, all argumentation including that put
forth in favor of naturalism as a philosophy or Dawinistic evolution.
Ronald Nash, author of "Worldviews in Conflict", concludes "...the only
way a person can provide rational grounds for believing in naturalism is
first to cease being a naturalist."
>
> Keith: 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. This is to apply the inductive principle which assumes the
> uniformity of nature. I was asking you to provide a rational
>
> Uniformity of nature ? Or the stability of the laws of nature ?
Would you please explain further the distinction you seem to be making
between these two?
> After all
> from a scientific point of view there is no reason to believe that such
> laws are temporal. But it could make for a nice hypothesis, now if you
> have some data supporting your assertion or data showing that such laws
> are not uniform ?
To what assertion are you referring? Did I deny a regularity in the
operation of the natural world? If so, please bring this to my
attention. My arguments have not been against the doing of science or
against the scientific method. Rather, I am questioning the a priori
commitment to philosophical materialism. I am also questioning the
exaltation of science as the paradigm for all rationality and truth.
> Could you perhaps also explain why the morality from a christian
> perspective will remain the same in the future ?
Sure. According to the Christian worldview, God's nature is
unchanging. His character is the absolute determinant of what is good
and just.
>
> Keith: 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?
>
> Because observation does not provide us with any reasons to doubt. But of
> course as science works, if you have data contradicting this hypothesis
> feel free to prove this.
Perhaps I should rephrase my question. I really wanted to know how the
predictability and order we observe in nature are consistent with
materialist presuppositions which affirm that the universe is the
product of random, impersonal, and purposeless forces.
>
> Keith: That's my point, objects released from a height do not fall in every
> imagineable situation and therefore the proposition "All objects
> released at a height from the surface of the ground fall" is not true in
> every circumstance. We can conceive of a situation, as you did, in
>
> But this is merely a poor statement of fact. All objects which have a
> resultant force working on them will move in the direction of the force.
> If the resultant force is zero the acceleration of the object is zero.
> It's all a matter of correctly phrasing the statement.
My point was that the laws of logic are of a different order than the
laws of nature. Are you claiming otherwise?
>
> Keith: 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.
>
> Both are preferable to resorting to a cop out like god did it, would you
> not agree ? That's worse than ignorance.
Your preference for these options is again due to your commitment to
materialism. I am asking why one should adopt such a stance.
Pim, I've noticed from some of your previous posts to the list that you
see science and faith as dealing with two totally different realms; the
former deals with reason while the latter with subjectivity and
emotion. You have also said that the basice of science are
"predictability and refutability". By "refutability", I gather that you
mean that for any proposition to qualify as scientifically true, some
state of affairs must be capable of being conceived for which this same
statement would be demonstrated as being false. In principle then, a
true statement is one that could (theoretically) be shown to be false by
means of scientific experimentation.
If my understanding of your position is correct, my next question is, Is
your belief that materialism is true, a scientific one or a faith
commitment? Since, from your statements above, you seem to agree with
me that the materialistic worldview is unfalsifiable (i.e. irrefutable)
because the materialist will either account for all events
materialistically or claim that there is a yet unknown materialistic
cause for the event. If you have not already, are you willing to
concede that your materialistic outlook is not a scientific conclusion
but rather an element of personal faith for you? And if science must
assume a mathodological materialism (which itself is not the product of
scientific experimentation) is it not the case that the findings of
science are more reliable and trustworthy than the very foundation upon
which science is built?
> At least from a scientific point of view. From a religious of
> philosophical point of view nothing is 'sacred'. How can for instance
> morality be considered a constant under religious beliefs ? After all what
> will prevent a god from changing her mind ?
My defense is not of theism in general but of Christian theism in
particular. Therefore, the fact that there are numerous religions with
apparently conflicting moral codes, is not problematic for me. As to
what will prevent God from changing His mind, please see above.
>
> Regards
>
> Pim
Keith