I’ve read a few threads in here that touched upon this topic, I couldn’t find anything that really focused in on it.
To get it started, here’s a quote from an interview with John Haught (he’s a ‘science and religion compliment each other’ type of guy):
“What do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?
The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there’s no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God. But that statement itself—that evidence is necessary—holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there’s the deeper worldview—it’s a kind of dogma—that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It’s a deep faith commitment because there’s no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It’s a creed.”
I think we can all agree that most likely, there is ‘schtuff’ that exists that we cannot detect empirically. I would put it in two categories:
1) Things that exist, and can be detected empirically, but we just haven’t discovered how yet...due to a lack of tools, knowledge, etc. For example, bacteria before we had microscopes.
2) Things that exist, but cannot be detected or understood empirically.
I’m specifically asking about #2 for this thread.
Do you think it is even possible for these types of things to exist? If so, do you care, since we can’t detect them empirically anyway? Are there non-empirical ways of knowing things? Is the idea that empirical evidence is the only way to learn about reality a kind of faith or creed?
I’m working through my own thoughts on this subject right now. So, I’d love to hear what you guys think, and also any good resources would be appreciated.
I just made a really long post, but somehow it was eaten so here is a condense form.
Problem of Induction = Dogmatic assertion Science is the only valid form of truth. It is neither justified, or warranted and is an epistemological sink hole.
Parsimony (aka Occums Razor) is like induction. There is no logical reason to adhere to it. It like Induction, is a pragmatic tool.
Haught is right insofar as that foundation of science, is a creed. It never changes, much, and cannot be salvaged - yet.
Now, the area where Haught goes wrong is 3 fold.
1) He presents no compelling alternative, only one that, itself, is unjustified and based on circular reasoning.
2) He is changing the meaning of the word faith in his argument. Faith associated with science is a pragmatic thing. It is a confidence in, with justification. Faith in god is, blind belief in, often despite contrary evidence. They are not the same word, and perhaps we should begin helping Haught and all presuppositionalists by denoting scientific faith as sfaith and bfaith accordingly to avoid further semantics.
3) The universe is everything that exists by definition. Science is our means of measuring and quantifing the universe, that is all real things. If something exists that is beyond the universe, I don’t know what it could be, since it would have to reality, no means to act, or any measurable substance. It is either real, or it is not. The idea that somethings can exist, that is real and at the same time not be real, seems very dim to me. The whole idea of something being supernatural is anathema to the idea that the universe contains all existence. Either we change the definition of universe, or we allow that supernatural events are events not yet measured, but at the same time, are natural and the definition is an oxymoron.
Well, firstly, what does Haught mean by “transcendent reality”? What does the adjective “transcendent” mean in this context? Does he mean that this other reality is spatially distinct from our own? Better than our own? More real? More holy? How so?
I raise this problem at the outset because much of this sort of argument does depend on whether words like “transcendent” really mean anything at all, or whether they are just hand-waving.
Secondly, he makes some claims about evidence. Now, the first question is whether we should be willing to accept claims without any evidence for them at all. I take it that Haught would reject such a move, since if we are going to accept claims without evidence, we will end up accepting every claim it is possible to make.
Thirdly, he makes some claims about science. He appears to distinguish between “scientific evidence” and other forms of evidence. I say he appears to claim this because he never actually comes out and says that there are nonscientific forms of evidence, however this premise is assumed if he is going to claim that we should only accept claims with evidence, and use that to conclude that we should accept claims for which there is no scientific evidence.
But then the question is what this nonscientific form of evidence is.
Some people claim we can have (nonscientific) evidence by means of special sorts of clairvoyant insight, or other occult means, by which we can intuit the existence of alternate universes. As these stories typically go, these alternate universes are usually in some way more real than this, or yield more wisdom than we get in our daily life. But really I think we all know that this sort of stuff is hogwash. It amounts to a sort of marketing maneuver for armchair BS artists to just make stuff up. Typically none of what results from such “insight” is at all justified or reasonable; it’s just stories. So I think we can reject that sort of nonscientific evidence.
That said, in philosophy people do distinguish between evidence of an empirical sort and other sorts of reasoning which could be considered evidentiary or probative. Some of the things we know we know through empirical means: through our eyes and ears, for example. But other things we know by an operation of the intellect: such as, that 1 + 1 = 2, or that all bachelors are unmarried, or certain sorts of ethical or metaphysical claims about the universe.
Presumably we know these things because of what we have learned about the numbers from mathematics and logic, what we have learned about the language, and what we have learned about living in the world and from our best scientific theories of it. I do not think that any of these additional sorts of claims involve positing the existence of any sort of “transcendent reality”, although they may involve belief in the existence of abstract objects like numbers, etc., depending on your predilections. They certainly don’t involve any sort of “faith”, however.
1) He presents no compelling alternative, only one that, itself, is unjustified and based on circular reasoning.
2) He is changing the meaning of the word faith in his argument. Faith associated with science is a pragmatic thing. It is a confidence in, with justification. Faith in god is, blind belief in, often despite contrary evidence. They are not the same word, and perhaps we should begin helping Haught and all presuppositionalists by denoting scientific faith as sfaith and bfaith accordingly to avoid further semantics.
3) The universe is everything that exists by definition. Science is our means of measuring and quantifing the universe, that is all real things. If something exists that is beyond the universe, I don’t know what it could be, since it would have to reality, no means to act, or any measurable substance. It is either real, or it is not. The idea that somethings can exist, that is real and at the same time not be real, seems very dim to me. The whole idea of something being supernatural is anathema to the idea that the universe contains all existence. Either we change the definition of universe, or we allow that supernatural events are events not yet measured, but at the same time, are natural and the definition is an oxymoron.
for: 1) I just ordered one of his books, but I haven’t read it yet. Can you give me a high level overview of the one alternative he presents?
for: 2) Again, I haven’t read any of his books yet, but I’m guessing that when he speaks of faith, he isn’t talking about the simplistic blind faith of a fundamentalist type. I would guess he uses faith in the same way you applied it to science, “...a pragmatic thing. It is a confidence in, with justification.” For example, just say hypothetically, every time he believes in God, it produces the result of him feeling safe. His faith becomes a pragmatic tool, a confidence with justification.
for: 3) Hmmm, I think this is really what I’m trying to understand. Yes I agree that science is our means of measuring and quantifying the universe. But measuring/observing something only gives us partial understanding of it. I’m thinking of Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics here...kind of that by our measurements, we can create models of the universe, but our models aren’t the real thing. I heard somebody talk about it once in terms of territory and maps - the territory is our universe and our measurements are maps. But, the map is not the territory. By the act of measuring our universe, we limit our ability to understand it fully.
Again, I’m still working through all of this in my mind, so I’m not really sure if this makes sense or holds up to logic. But, I’m curious about ways to know things without measuring empirically. Are there ways? Can they give a more full understanding? Would that understanding even make sense in a rational way? Are there any people or groups studying this type of thing?
Well, Haught isn’t a science-religion guy, he’s a religion guy supporting science. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian at Georgetown University, he is not like, say, Ken Miller.
The quote you presented has a few problems and I will run through them quick for you.
First, there is the idea that there are other kinds of truth, truth for which scientific evidence isn’t required. This is a true statement insofar was we can create philosophical arguments which are sound and might also be true. This would envelope much of what Doug alluded to in his post, all bachelor’s being single. I don’t necessarily have a problem pointing this out, where I do have a problem is the substitution of subjective personal experiences as evidence in support of an objective truth, in as much as there can be an objective truth.
A basic rule in logic is that subjective evidence is accepted as long as there is no contravening testimony or evidence that counts against it. This is something he is not acknowledging. If he claims there is a god because he experiences god in love and I say I have never experienced god in love, the 2 statements cancel each other out and another source of evidence has to be introduced to settle the claim. So subjective, personal experience aside what is there? We are left with science and philosophy.
The second issue here is the attack on the epistemology of science without realizing what that attack actually means. We accept a number of things pragmatically, without any real reason to do so. We accept science, despite the faith it requires to get over the Problem of Induction. Make no mistake, science is not justified logically. But we also have a deeper problem. Logic, itself, is not justified accept through pragmatism. So what could possibly be the alternative if logic, the tool we use to justify all things, isn’t valid (logic validating logic would be circular). This is the ground presuppositions come in, and they insert the need for god. God is the law giver, god justifies logic, science and so on, and hence the use of logic, the use of science, justifies god.
The problem here of course is that, that argument is circular, and unlike the ones for science or logic, is self refuting at every turn, since there is no evidence for god, anywhere, nor has there been at anytime (non-subjective, irrefutable, or deductive evidence).
Now one can argue, and it has been attempted that one doesn’t need logic, or that logic doesn’t apply to god. That any made up nonsense can work, because god as a concept invalidates all man-made epistemological systems. But that is solophism and just renders the concept inert.
To further clarify Haught’s position, I watched a video on google, an interview with Haught, and he argues for a hierarchy of the sciences, a mix of thing, action, and actor. He says as an example, imagine a pot of boiling water. Science says it is boiling because the atoms are moving at a certain rate. Another person could say it is boiling because I turned on the gas. And still another person could say it is boiling because I want tea. He says, all these statements are true. So in essence Haught is arguing for a NOMA like structure where the whys are separated from what he sees as the mechanics of a thing or the how. It also seems he wants the whys to have equal consideration and says that in the how part of things, theology should have no interference.
He goes on to say that the statements Darwin made were equally metaphysical as there were natural, ie: that all there is, is matter, is a metaphysical statement. And Haugh readily acknowledges Gould’s influence on him.
So ultimately i would have to conclude that on the further questions of why, for which science does not answer, as correctly pointed out, Haugh’s model would have man and God in the role of action (man positing purpose) and God as the actor (having purpose) as the alternate model that Haugh wants to coexist with with the scientific model, while closing his eye’s, seemingly, to the issues I brought up. I am sure he must address those issues somewhere, but I am not an expert on Haugh’s apologetics.
Great stuff, goodthink. Thank you - you’ve given me some very interesting things to think about.
I have a question about something you wrote:
goodthink - 08 February 2008 05:21 PM
The second issue here is the attack on the epistemology of science without realizing what that attack actually means. We accept a number of things pragmatically, without any real reason to do so. We accept science, despite the faith it requires to get over the Problem of Induction. Make no mistake, science is not justified logically. But we also have a deeper problem. Logic, itself, is not justified accept through pragmatism. So what could possibly be the alternative if logic, the tool we use to justify all things, isn’t valid (logic validating logic would be circular). This is the ground presuppositions come in, and they insert the need for god. God is the law giver, god justifies logic, science and so on, and hence the use of logic, the use of science, justifies god.
The problem here of course is that, that argument is circular, and unlike the ones for science or logic, is self refuting at every turn, since there is no evidence for god, anywhere, nor has there been at anytime (non-subjective, irrefutable, or deductive evidence).
So, logic validating logic is circular and god validating logic is circular - the only difference being that there is no evidence for god? Is that what you are saying? This would therefore imply that there is evidence for logic, right? Can you expound on the evidence for logic?
Can things exist that cannot be understood empirically. By definition, we can’t know because there’s no evidence either way, so it’s a coin toss. I would say sure. Now, as you point out, does it matter? I would say no, except that people will slip into the gap arguments that such things can be understood in, as Doug points out, occult ways that are accesible only to them or their followers. I too see this as license to make stuff up that can never be proven wrong. Funny how someone says “X is true because the spirits told me, but they aren’t responsive to skeptics or scientists” and when I say “Well, I talked to the spirits and they say you’re full of sh**” that somehow isn’t seen as equally valid. That’s the fundamental problem with “evidence” that is only accessible to each person individually, but never demonstrable to others. Anything can be true, or nothing, and we have no way to know.
So I don’t really think it is a matter of faith to say scientific evidence is the only kind that matters. It’s simply the only way to talk about beliefs that doesn’t devolve into deuling revelations. And look how successful that’s been throughout history.
Logic isn’t validated with logic, the same as science isn’t validated with science, or logic. The comment about god was based on pragmatics. We can test whether or not logic works by the results, the same with science. We accept logic and science, not because we have good reasons but because they have shown to be reliable, time and time again.
The issue with god is such that, god has shown to be unreliable, and the arguments for god are circular in nature. So a god concept is lacking in both epistemological validation and through pragmatics.
I think mcfia’s initial question and formulation miss the point. Hypothetically, if there are things we can know about except by the usual methods of science, the only way we’ll ever know about them is through experience and observation. That’s empiricism. The argument isn’t dogmatic, it’s just how things are.
On a much more mundane level, Mcfia, I believe that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy exist but cannot be detected empirically. Can you offer any evidence to validate or disprove my contention?
The main point of my question was to find out what thoughts/ideas people on this forum have about non-empirical evidence. From what I can tell, it seems like everyone here thinks empirical evidence is all we got, except for the evidentiary or probative type reasoning that Doug mentioned early on.
I also can’t come up with any other reliable way to try to understand the universe.
However, the problem I’m still trying to work through is this idea that our observations of the universe only give us a partial understanding. The General Semantics thing. The map not being the territory.
I feel like there should be a way to know the territory completely...to bridge that gap between the map and the territory. I just have no idea how to do it. I was wondering if anyone else here did. It sounds like the general consensus is that empiricism is the only reliable thing we have.
On a somewhat related note, I do have some more questions on subjective experience...is it not possible to study subjective experience, in an objective way. For example, meditative experiences when a person feels a tangible, although very subjective, feeling of expansion. Many people have experienced this. Subjective experiences happen. They are a part of our experience and we can observe them, at least individually. It seems like we should be able to study them and gain more understanding of our universe from the study of them. Again, I’m not quite sure how to do this in a reliable way.
I feel like there should be a way to know the territory completely...to bridge that gap between the map and the territory. I just have no idea how to do it. I was wondering if anyone else here did. It sounds like the general consensus is that empiricism is the only reliable thing we have.
I’m not sure I’d say “empiricism” since that’s a sort of narrow philosophical program. I’d more say “the scientific method”. There’s no way to know the territory without going out and walking it, studying it, mapping it. What we end up making, the “map”, is a model of reality; it’s never literally going to be reality itself. If we are very lucky we can come up with a physical theory that includes all of the relevant laws and forces. That would be a “theory of everything”. But we can never be absolutely sure of any given theory whether it is in fact a “theory of everything”, or whether it’s just a theory of all we’ve seen so far.
For an example, soon after Newton came out with his mechanics, people did believe it was a “theory of everything” until they had better measuring instruments and could tell that the theory failed in certain instances. It failed in small ways, but they were large enough to require Einstein to come up with his relativity to explain them.
mcfia - 10 February 2008 12:09 AM
On a somewhat related note, I do have some more questions on subjective experience...is it not possible to study subjective experience, in an objective way. For example, meditative experiences when a person feels a tangible, although very subjective, feeling of expansion. Many people have experienced this. Subjective experiences happen. They are a part of our experience and we can observe them, at least individually. It seems like we should be able to study them and gain more understanding of our universe from the study of them. Again, I’m not quite sure how to do this in a reliable way.
Thoughts? Ideas? Resources?
Well, there are people who study cognitive psychology, psychophysics and the like. These sciences will end up correlating subjective experiences (or reports of subjective experiences, which are often the data) with phenomena of the brain, and with other behaviors. They are helping us to understand subjective experience better.
Mcfia, while Korzybski said that map is not the territory, he didn’t indicate that map making inhibited our ability to comprehend the universe. That only happened if we thought the map was the territory. As long as we recognize the abstraction levels of our ideas, we can progress.
While at times logic may be validated by results, more often it extends our knowledge when we start with premises gathered by direct observation then arrive at logical conclusions that carry us beyond. If the conclusions don’t fit reality, then the problem is probably with our initial observations.
We can have all sorts of subjective experiences and probably really enjoy our fantasy life, but that doesn’t make our dreams part of or even relevent to understanding the universe. I enjoyed the TV show, Charmed, but I didn’t accept any of the situations as expanding my understanding of the universe (observation of pretty young things notwithstanding). On a more personal note. many, many years ago at a party I had a wonderful dessert of brownies. Because they tasted so good, I think I had about a half dozen. I must say, that my subjective experience fostered by those brownies flavored with a locally grown herb, was wonderful. however, the only expansion of my knowledge of the universe was learning not to snack on home made food unless I knew and trusted the person supplying it.
“As limited humans, we do not possess absolute knowledge. Our perceptions and information comes to us incomplete. When we look, touch and measure at an object, for example, we only observe part of its totality. Belief, on the other hand, can produce the illusion that we understand without limitations. Eliminating concepts of beliefs, at least puts us closer to the range of our perceptions. We inherit mortal limitations, we cannot know with absolute certainly about the external world; we cannot completely remove doubt about our conclusions. Many philosophers and scientists have come to this same observation [14]. Doubt leaves the door open for further investigation. Intransigent belief puts a mental barrier to further knowledge.”
I have a little anecdote, last September I injured an already bulged disk in the past or possibly a different one I don’t know. When that happened I have been reading notorious atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and visiting related sites for at least a year and half if not more. Prior to that by at least 10 to 15 years, I’ve been dealing with irreconcilable differences between what my mind notices as far as truth and reality and what I am being told by religion (I wasn’t born christian but converted to it few years before). So when these guys “came along”, they helped me make the realization that all these wars going on inside my head, were not satan trying to mess with me, but actually simply just my brain that was functioning well and fighting back. Basically last of the books I read b4 the injury was Dawkins’s and it really did an outstanding job cleaning the junk’s*** residues out of my head.
To make a long story short, my injury rapidly advanced to an almost full spin paralysis within like 2 or 3 days. Last couple of days of the horrible ordeal, I was able to move only frame by frame, and the pain that accompanied that was simply from hell if there any out there. There was one night where I could not sleep, so I started calling upon Jesus (based on past references, it’s a long story) and in the midst of my torture I kept saying “give me a miracle.” the following day I practiced 2 ways street forgiveness all day, I didn’t eat since I could not stand or get out of bed. At around 7 pm, I felt very weak due to the fact I didn’t eat all day and hardly the day b4, so despite the helplessness, I decided I would attempt to stand and cook something. It took me about a good 5 minutes to get myslef to the up position, but once I was up, the torture simply magically vanished and I barely could feel mere traces of it. At first, because of the sudden abruptness with which the torture suddenly left, I thought it was going to come back. But it never has. Prior to that I thought I finally have become atheist. After that, I simpy went straight back to the arms of jesus. Since that happened I thought about it pretty much ever single day, a week ago, I finished a 9 days fast in an offering for jesus, to gauge the type of fast I’d say I lost 14 pounds and I am about to start a 21 days fast starting this coming monday.
This made me think little and ask one question or 2, one of them was can words be portals to realms and worlds we cannot accesss via practical physical routes? the reason why I asked that is jesus is reported to have said that His Kingdom is not of this world. Up until now all those who are interested in investigating Him do it strictly from their earthy physical limited perspective. And so far so bad.
As practical and as purely physical as I am, I personally believe there are elements that do exist but we don’t have access to, we don’t because we simply are not ready to be introduced to them yet. It is a matter of time that we will.
***by that I mean the countless contradictions one runs into moving from text to text etc. also I believe they relate mainly to the bible being messed with by too many people over the centuries, etc.
