What is Faith?

[Komodo]

You are assuming what you are trying to prove again.

No, I am not. Not at all. Again, I am not trying to prove that naturalism is true, I am only trying to prove that your particular argument against naturalism is invalid. You are making the claim that "if naturalism is true, then our conclusions are unreliable"; I dispute this, and say "if naturalism is true, it does not follow that our conclusions are unreliable." I am starting with exactly the same assumption you are starting with: that naturalism is true.

Yes, the relations between physical states are cause and effect, but the relation between premises and conclusions are not cause and effect they are a logical relation of inference. So your example above may be possible with naturalism but not reasoning and the weighing of evidence.

But the claim of naturalism is not that logical relations cause us to draw conclusions from evidence; the naturalist claim (really, the common sense claim) is that our beliefs about logical relations (like "this is valid reasoning, that is invalid reasoning") cause us to draw conclusions from evidence. The naturalist claim, then, is that chemical activities cause certain brain states, that those brain states cause certain mental states (like "belief in certain rules about what constitutes good evidence"), and those mental states cause the drawing of conclusions based on evidence. Where is the self-contradiction?

 

[El Cid]

Brain states and apprehending the truth (or brain states and weighing evidence) might not be mutually exclusive, although perhaps you can demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive.

If brain states are purely physical then the brain only operates according to the laws of physics, reasoning requires the laws of logic, something very different.

 

[El Cid]

In order to know that a thing violates all the laws of physics, you would have to know all the laws of physics.
Despite your hilarious assertion to the contrary, you don't.

According to Hawkins we almost do.

No human does; if they did, physics would have stopped already.

Music is not just sound waves; it is sound waves deemed artistic by minds.

Yes, nevertheless governed by the laws of physics and we can determine whether it is music by the patterns it makes that are pleasing to most humans.

My point is that physicals can exhibit non-physical properties.

Music is a physical property of sound that is recognized by almost all humans.

I don't.
I believe it because nothing has been shown to transcend it.

"Nothing supernatural exists" is, IMO, a foolish - and redundant - assertion.

They only way you could know that is if you are omniscient. Are you claiming omniscience now?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, nevertheless governed by the laws of physics and we can determine whether it is music by the patterns it makes that are pleasing to most humans.

Using arbitrary criteria that we invented, and appealing to subjective pleasure.

They only way you could know that is if you are omniscient. Are you claiming omniscience now?

I said that declaring the supernatural to be non-existent is foolish - did you not read what I wrote?

I do not need to make that assertion because none of my argumentation rests on it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

If brain states are purely physical then the brain only operates according to the laws of physics, reasoning requires the laws of logic, something very different.

You're making an empirical conclusion (brain states can't instantiate logic) based on a categorization (brain states are in a different category of thing than logic). Why is it, then, that just because two things are different - even very different - that means that one can't be instantiated in the other?

I might well end up agreeing with you, but all the work leading up to your conclusion needs to be shown, and we're not quite there yet.

 

[Eightcrackers]

You're making an empirical conclusion (brain states can't instantiate logic) based on a categorization (brain states are in a different category of thing than logic). Why is it, then, that just because two things are different - even very different - that means that one can't be instantiated in the other?

"A clarinet can't create music because a clarinet is made of wood, and music isn't"

makes about as much sense.

 

[Gus Bovona]

"A clarinet can't create music because a clarinet is made of wood, and music isn't"

makes about as much sense.

That's a great analogy, I was trying to think of one but couldn't, thanks!

 

[Komodo]

If brain states are purely physical then the brain only operates according to the laws of physics, reasoning requires the laws of logic, something very different.

Reasoning requires thinking about what sorts of things do and do not make sense. This thinking may correspond, much of the time, with the "laws of logic," but it doesn't "require" that these laws have some kind of avatar in our heads which is part of the chain of events causing the correct conclusion to come out. (That's what "requires" seems to mean generally, as in "the car's engine requires a working carburetor"; I understand that as meaning "the carburetor's action is part of the chain of events causing the engine to work.")

The thesis of philosophical naturalism is that physical events in the brain cause mental events; that with larger and more complex brains, a further range of mental events is possible, including not just feeling pleasure and pain but considering what's true and what's false; and that with natural selection, the conclusions about what's true and what's false become more and more reliable. Obviously, you can dispute any of these premises; but you have not really made an argument yet for why, taken together, they are ultimately self-contradictory.

 

[El Cid]

You just confirmed my point, you dont treat supernatural events in the same manner as natural events. You should check for the evidence for both events in an equal manner.

That would be true if it weren't for our background knowledge, which is part of the evidence. For instance, you need increasingly more and more evidence for the following scenarios.

• I walked to the store. You don't need any evidence that this sort of thing is possible.
• I drove my car to the store. Same here, although there might be some small question as to whether I have a car.
• I drove a tank to the store. You know that tanks exist, but you don't know that I'm the type of person that could have a tank, much less drive it to the store.
• I drove an interstellar spaceship to the store. You don't even know that this spaceship exists, much less that I have one, much less that I took it to the store.

All of those scenarios depend on background knowledge to help determine how much evidence would be needed to accept the claim. We have very poor evidence that anything supernatural is possible, so poor that we conclude - tentatively - that the supernatural is not possible.

***I see below that you say you have good evidence for the supernatural, so that's where the issue really lays, I think.

The only way you could know even tentatively that the supernatural is not possible is to be omniscient.

El Cid said:
No, Carrier is saying that the supernatural has basically been proven by science not to exist. But this is not true. In fact, some scientific theories suggest that it has to exist in order for us to understand nature, such as Godels Incompleteness Theorem.

He doesn't say "proven," because he knows science isn't in the business of proving things. It's always probabilistic. At most he says the current scientific consensus is that the supernatural doesn't exist. When you some say theories suggest the supernatural has to exist, you really mean "hypotheses," which is just speculation.

No, Godels Incompleteness Theorem is much stronger than just speculation. It is based on rigorous mathmatics. It is mainly saying that there is something outside nature that is needed to explan nature. It doesnt deal with individual supernatural events. Individual supernatural events cannot be scientifically proven by definition because they are one time events so you cannot run experiments to confirm them.

If and when they establish that the supernatural is more likely than not, then things will change. 'Til then, there's no reason to think the supernatural exists, so we conclude - tentatively - that it doesn't.

See above.

El Cid said:
There has been a vast amount of prior experience and knowledge that there have been supernatural events. Though they are extremely rare. I provided three of them for which we have the strongest evidence for.

I missed those, can you just state what the events are? I suspect that we will disagree as to whether the evidence for them is strong or not.

See below.

El Cid said:
Cosmologists state that the laws of physics broke down at the BB singularity. This fits the definition of a supernatural event.

We're now at the point at which, in my opinion, it becomes useless and irrelevant to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. There is only what we have sufficient evidence for, that which we don't, and that which we're still working on. As long as we use techniques and methods that reliably take us to the truth, it really doesn't matter. So when a scientific theory is established that shows what happens at the singularity, it won't matter that it was supernatural or not. What will matter is whether that theory has sufficient evidence to adopt it.

Well it strongly points to the supernatural. The law of causality requires that the cause not be part of the effect. So something "outside" of nature is something that transcends nature, ie is supernatural and it caused nature/the universe to come into existence.

El Cid said:
We now have empirical observations by scientists of some UFOs plainly violating the laws of physics.

Can you give a link or citation to just *one,* the best, most compelling one, in your opinion? And, have you researched any challenges or critiques to the conclusion that the incident in question actually violated the laws of physics?

Recent UFO Encounters With Navy Pilots Occurred Constantly Across Multiple Squadrons

We have exclusive details about the incidents off the east coast in 2014 and 2015, including that the objects all looked exactly the same.

www.thedrive.com

El Cid said:
No, other claim fits the historical evidence better.

I don't understand how that responds to what I had said (my post that your comment directly above was in reply to). Can you explain?

If something strongly points to something, then that means there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim.

El Cid said:
Stephen Hawking has stated that we are very close to the theory of Everything, plainly implying that we understand almost all the laws of physics very well. So if something violates or transcends those laws, that is strong evidence that it is supernatural or beyond nature.

I guess if you want to call it that, that's fine, but I don't see the difference between calling it supernatural, and what the modification of natural laws - that is, what we observe in our universe and how it works - that would result would wind up being.

Not sure what you are saying here.

 

[El Cid]

Would it follow, from this, that naturalism is false?

What if we are deluded into thinking we are reasoning? How could we possibly tell?
Reason?

No, that is a possibility. I am not denying that. My point is that if you argue for naturalism then your argument is self-refuting, it doesnt necessarily disprove naturalism, but it is evidence against it. In addition, it destroys free will, but common sense tells us that we do have free will, though it cannot be proved.

 

[Eightcrackers]

In addition, it destroys free will

I don't think we have free will.
I think it only seems as though we do.

but common sense tells us that we do have free will

And, of course, common sense is the most accurate arbiter of truth...
?

If you didn't have free will, how could you ever know it?

 

[Gus Bovona]

The only way you could know even tentatively that the supernatural is not possible is to be omniscient.

Of course not; we know - to some degree, not necessarily a full 100%; and tentatively - that lots of things are not possible. The same way we know those things aren't possible is the same way we know the supernatural is not possible.

No, Godels Incompleteness Theorem is much stronger than just speculation. It is based on rigorous mathmatics. It is mainly saying that there is something outside nature that is needed to explan nature. It doesnt deal with individual supernatural events. Individual supernatural events cannot be scientifically proven by definition because they are one time events so you cannot run experiments to confirm them.

You are going far beyond Goedel's theorem - it only applied to formal mathematical systems (IIRC).

See above.

See below.

Well it strongly points to the supernatural. The law of causality requires that the cause not be part of the effect. So something "outside" of nature is something that transcends nature, ie is supernatural and it caused nature/the universe to come into existence.

Can you cite some commonly accepted part of cosmology, as articulated by a cosmologist, that says the BB singularity means that the supernatural exists? Otherwise, your idea is just a lay person's speculation that is not supported by actual cosmology and cosmologists.

Recent UFO Encounters With Navy Pilots Occurred Constantly Across Multiple Squadrons

We have exclusive details about the incidents off the east coast in 2014 and 2015, including that the objects all looked exactly the same.

www.thedrive.com

Before I dig into that - which I will be happy to do - can you answer the question that I asked, which was, "have you researched any challenges or critiques to the conclusion that the incident in question actually violated the laws of physics?"

If something strongly points to something, then that means there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim.

Not sure what you are saying here.

My point is that calling something "supernatural" doesn't do much work, it isn't very useful. What is more useful is whether we have enough evidence to change our current view of the universe and of reality. That's what it all comes down to, whether we label something "supernatural" or not.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No, Godels Incompleteness Theorem is much stronger than just speculation. It is based on rigorous mathmatics. It is mainly saying that there is something outside nature that is needed to explan nature.

It says nothing of the kind.

It says that mathematics cannot explain itself, not nature.

 

[El Cid]

What procedural test is he referring to? His statement that the supernatural is unlikely to ever occur, IS a bias against the supernatural. So he contradicts himself.

Both of your points - your question and your claim of bias and contradiction - are addressed below by Carrier:

Dawes points out that the only actual axiom of the sciences that isn’t negotiable is what he calls “the procedural requirement of history and the sciences,” which is simply “the demand that any claims about human beings or the world they inhabit should be supported by reference to some publicly-accessible body of evidence.” This is equivalent to what in Proving History I formally describe as the “basic principle of rational-empirical history,” which indeed I assert as axiomatic to any serious historical method, that “all conclusions must logically follow from the evidence available to all observers” (Proving History, pp. 20-21).

Supernatural events fit these criteria. There is publically accessible body of evidence for the supernatural events I referenced earlier.

And Dawes rightly points out that this is all that is required of history and the sciences, and yet this “does not, in principle, exclude reference to divine agency” or indeed anything supernatural or bizarre. Every explanation has a shot at becoming evidentially respectable and thus restored to the status of serious consideration.

What does he mean restored? Why was it excluded in the first place? This is sounds like an a priori bias and assumption.

It simply has to pass this one procedural test. Supernaturalism has simply never passed that test. And that is why it is rejected as a non-starter in all professional fields of knowledge. This is not “bias against the supernatural.” It’s simply a restatement of an observed fact: supernaturalism has simply never worked before; so it’s unlikely to ever do. If supernaturalists want to change this conclusion, they have to do so with evidence. Not disingenuous complaints about persecution and bias.

There is evidence, as I have shown.

 

[El Cid]

Why is reason incompatible with naturalism?
You said that, under naturalism, reason is "merely" chemical reactions... what if that's what reason is? You're the one that seems to need it to "transcend" the laws of physics, not us.

It's like saying "you're not playing chess; you're just moving pieces of wood around on a chequered pattern".

Because chemical reactions are based on the laws of chemistry, but reasoning is based on the laws of logic, two very different things. Using your analogy it would be like playing chess with no rules. The rules are like the laws of logic, the laws of physics are just like moving the pieces randomly.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Because chemical reactions are based on the laws of chemistry, but reasoning is based on the laws of logic, two very different things. Using your analogy it would be like playing chess with no rules. The rules are like the laws of logic, the laws of physics are just like moving the pieces randomly.

Why can't the laws of logic exist in concert with naturalism?

Why would they be any different from the laws of physics?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Supernatural events fit these criteria. There is publically accessible body of evidence for the supernatural events I referenced earlier.

This issue reduces down to whether the evidence is sufficient for the supernatural. You think it is, I think it isn't.

What does he mean restored? Why was it excluded in the first place? This is sounds like an a priori bias and assumption.

It was excluded - provisionally - because of all the scientific studies that went looking for the supernatural and never found it, and because of all the supernatural explanations that were once offered and then later been found to have quite mundane natural explanations. And it's not really excluded absolutely, because new evidence could always bring it back in.

There is evidence, as I have shown.

See above.

 

[mikeT]

Why can't the laws of logic exist in concert with naturalism?

Why would they be any different from the laws of physics?

Sorry for butting-in on the conversation. I haven't read on what may have led to you ask these questions, but I have some thoughts on them:

First, the laws of logic can-and-do exist in concert with naturalism, but they're not necessarily related. I'd even go so far as to say they're UNrelated.

Second, the laws of logic are completely different from the laws of physics in a few significant ways. For one, they're nothing more than a distillate of language; if language didn't exist, the laws of logic wouldn't exist either. Also, the laws of physics could exist without the laws of logic, but the latter could not exist without the former.

These comments seem relevant to your questions, but whether they're relevant to your conversation with El Cid, I don't know...

 

[Whatsisface]

Because chemical reactions are based on the laws of chemistry, but reasoning is based on the laws of logic, two very different things.

Reasoning is based on our brains ability for abstract thought. Correct reasoning can be aided by logic, but in order to understand logic and use it, we first have to be able to reason. Thus reasoning isn't contingent on logic.

 

[El Cid]

The gospels were not anonymous when they were originally circulating, they just didnt have a written name on them, but everyone knew who wrote them because they were still alive.

As stated, this is a non sequitur'; "the author was still alive" does not imply "everyone knows who the author was." Is there any particular reason to believe that everybody in 70 AD knew who wrote the Gospel of Mark, for example?

No, I was referring to most everyone in the early church knew who they were.

El Cid said:
They only added a name...

Who is "they" here?

The early church.

El Cid said:
because the authors and their fellow disciples had died so they wrote their name on them to keep record as they passed away.

I'm not aware of this being something that was practiced by manuscript copiers in the ancient world: putting the author's name down only upon his death.

It is common sense for the early church to do it.

El Cid said:
But we also have sources for the resurrection that were never without a name on them. And we have sources for the resurrection written by skeptics and independent of the NT.

Which sources are you referring to? If it's Tacitus and Pliny, they aren't sources for the resurrection; they're sources for the existence of Christians who believed in the resurrection.

We have the ancient creed recorded by Paul (who was a skeptic) written within five years of the resurrection and recording that 500 people saw the resurrected Christ all at one time. Including another skeptic, Jesus' brother James.