Of course the idea that any state of affairs can be accounted for in a
system described by deterministic laws is incorrect. For instance in fluid
dynamics one can describe the physical laws ruling the evolution of the
weather and yet in this deterministic system, chaos can rule. Nor is the
assumption that our thoughts are predetermined valid since you are
assuming no inputs from within the system. At most one could claim that
one's actions have predictability on the outcome if no other parameters
were to change. Even then the predictibility is limited by the tendency to
chaos.
> Could you perhaps also explain why the morality from a christian
> perspective will remain the same in the future ?
Keith: Sure. According to the Christian worldview, God's nature is
unchanging. His character is the absolute determinant of what is good
and just.
According to the christian worldview ? But what if god changes her mind ?
How can we even be sure that we know god's character and what is good and
just ?
We have a written account, written by people, but we have no certain way
of knowing what god's nature is.
> 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.
Keith: 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.
I believe the problem lies in the terms order, predictability and
randomness. Random actions can still lead to predictable outcome if the
random forcing terms are known exactly. Furthermore the idea that the
universe is the product of random forces is also debatable. Random forces
can still lead to order.
> 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.
Keith: My point was that the laws of logic are of a different order than
the
laws of nature. Are you claiming otherwise?
I was pointing out the poor statement of fact. I am not sure if the laws
of logic and nature are different.
> 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.
Keith: Your preference for these options is again due to your commitment to
materialism. I am asking why one should adopt such a stance.
Because I believe the invocation of 'god did it' is not a viable option to
explain what is yet unexplained. History has shown such assumptions to be
merely limitations on the understanding of the observed phenomenon. In
science there is no other stance since the invocation of a deity to
explain science is not a scientifically viable option. In philosophy or
religion one could argue about the existance of a deity.
Keith: 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
The former deals with observations, hypotheses, experiments, refutation,
the latter one relies on a faith.
Keith: "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.
In science there is no claim to 'truth', just to the presently best
explanation of observed phenomena. In order for a scientific hypothesis to
be considered scientifically valid it should allow for (experimental)
verification, be repeatable, make predictions and be falsifiable. If data
show that there are problems with the explanations then an extension,
revision or dismissal of the explanation is required.
Keith: 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
Within the scientific realm, the materialistic worldview is falsifiable
and when this happens the worldview is either adapted, rejected or left
open for future explanations. For instance the worldview that the earth
was the center of the universe was abandoned when more available data and
experiments and theory lead to the conclusion that this position was
incorrect. Science however does not claim to an absolute truth.
Where the materialist admits that within science there is no explanation
yet for the observations, others find the necessity to invoke a deity's
actions. In the past such necessity has been invoked and shown to be
unnecessary. Of course this does not mean that there is no deity, just
that the deity has to exist outside the realm of science.
Keith: concede that your materialistic outlook is not a scientific
conclusion
but rather an element of personal faith for you? And if science must
We disagree, within science there is no claim to truth nor is faith
required in what science is explaining. Perhaps the only faith is faith in
science that it will correct itself when new data has become available
which contradicts the scientific worldview at that moment. But then again,
if it behaves differently, it cannot be science. Science does not claim
the absolute truth nor does it claim to have answers to all questions. But
perhaps we should first try to clarify what is meant by 'my materialistic
outlook' ?
> 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 ?
Keith: 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.
Your assumption that god will not change her mind is based on a subjective
interpretation of what you believe are gods words and intentions ? Even
more problematic is how can you be sure that what you consider to be god's
moral codes are indeed hers/his/its ?
After all the interpretation what people considered god's morals has
changed over time. Does this mean that the moral codes are merely
subjective interpretations ? In what sense does such moral codes differ
from moral codes set up by non-christian believers ?