Naturalism, pt. II
March 5th, 2007 by 
drunkentune
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
This is the second and final post of my two (and a half) part series on naturalism, and why I reject the existence of the supernatural. My atheism, my unbelief (or disbelief, or rejection, if you will) of the existence of the Christian (or any other, for that matter) god is the result of my naturalistic worldview, specifically, the end result of accepting the scientific method, then methodological naturalism, and then philosophical naturalism. This post is a bit long, but I’ve tried to keep it straightforward in its presentation. I hope you enjoy!
I. An Overview
A brief synopsis of the previous post Naturalism, pt. I:
(1) The only way we can know that the knowledge we collect is correct is by the method by which we collect it. The method the naturalist uses is the scientific method, attempting to falsify a statement and tentatively accepting the conclusion until shown otherwise (Popper’s requirements for the distinction between science and non-science); the supernaturalist does not currently have a method.
(2) The supernatural cannot be measured, observed, or recorded by the procedures of science or observation; they are not falsifiable, nor empirical.
(3) Theories that cannot be proven wrong, such as a supernatural entity inhabiting a supernatural (non-natural), transcendent dimension of reality, could logically be true, but we can’t know if they are or not. We must accept them on matters of faith.
(4) However, since we cannot experience or test the supernatural, any logical supernatural entity and dimension could exist.
(5) The two observations in which the supernaturalist claims experience of the supernatural are intuition or revelation. However, there is no procedure for determining if intuition or revelation are legitimate ways of knowing, and no procedure for confirming or disproving the content of intuition or revelation. They could be true, but we just don’t know.
(6) We know very little of the universe, and since the supernaturalist asserts an unobservable, transcendent dimension, the only way to establish a supernatural act of any inhabitant of such a dimension is by eliminating all the possible natural alternatives. In essence, we don’t want to jump the gun and lay claim to a supernatural answer when a natural answer will do just fine (Uri Geller and other pious frauds discounted by James Randi immediately come to mind).
II. Revelation and Intuition
I admit that it would be arrogant to dismiss the existence of the supernatural. We know so very little of our universe that it is, yes, entirely possible that trolls do hide under the bridges we have yet to wander across. However, methodological naturalism does not allow that the mere possibility is enough warrant for existence. For instance, the supernaturalist commonly asserts that humans can know in any other sense than a natural one (See #5 above), but gives no epistemological justification for this claim. Often, friends of mine who are of a religious persuasion attempt to tell me of their experience, relying of vague notions of ‘feeling’ a certain way when in quiet reflection. This brings to mind the classic Peter O’Toole quotation, ‘When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.’ They could be communicating with a god, but I cannot tell the prophet apart from someone talking to himself. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the supernaturalist to show how we can know about the world in other than a natural one. Until shown otherwise, the logical and evidential conclusion of disbelief in the supernatural (lack of evidence) is far superior to the mere logical conclusion of belief in the supernatural (logical possibility).
It has been addressed in the comments of both Naturalism, pt. I and Naturalism, An Intermission about supposed miracles. I wish to put this in perspective, not focusing on any specific deity or supernatural claim, but of a general division between the natural world and a supposed supernatural world. In essence, supernatural claims, that of the miracle, of magic, of the supernatural world breaking momentarily into the natural world, are existential claims. However, the tables are quickly turned on such a claim: due to this, they then deserve the same rigorous attempts to falsify as do any other viable theory (due to Popper’s methods). Yet, supernatural claims are out of bounds of criticism. For example, the mark of a true believer, as I see it, when confronted with empirical evidence, backed by a large unanimous panel of experts conclusively demonstrating that their beliefs (such as a resurrection, a man born of a virgin, an ascension into Heaven, &c.) do not meld with reality, is to scoff at the notion. Those that profess a belief in the supernatural have rendered their worldview unassailable and out of reach of any scientific tool of inquiry. Empirical evidence is demanded, but are impossible to obtain (see 2 and 6). Furthermore, the existence of such a dimension is entirely untestable, and therefore unscientific.
III. A Mere Logical Possibility
The only feature of a supernatural claim is their existential import. This means that there must both be a logical possibility, and specifiable, describable, and necessary ontological conditions for it to be actual. Claims about the natural world satisfy both existential and logical possibilities; claims about the supernatural world remain logical possibilities only because verifying such claims is beyond humanity’s reach: there is no method.
I can easily think of a being without physical substance, not some cloud or miasma, but a transcendent being without mind or body. Yet, this concept is clearly not possible. If one is thinking of something without volume or breadth or width or height or weight or detectable physical presence, one is, I would claim, thinking of nothing.
But what of its effects?, the supernaturalist may ask. The answer is simple only in its elegancy: if this being was detectable only by its physical effects on the natural world (say, magic water, or a holy man), one can only detect the phenomena that is claimed to be the effect, and not the supernatural phenomena itself. So, in order for a non-physical, unobservable, supernatural entity to exist, how would we go about forming conditions of its existence? How would we test this?
Humor me for a minute, and imagine if, for instance, a hypothetical Spock descended from a spacecraft to observe humanity; never once formally educated or culturally indoctrinated in the many religions of the world. How would he come to the conclusion that there must be a non-physical, non-natural, unobservable, unfalsifiable, supernatural entity that is responsible for everything he does not know? How would he come to the conclusion following the scientific method that when he sees nothing, and what he sees is something that coincidentally explains what we currently do not know? How would he come to this conclusion, other than by faith?
It may be a logical possibility, but that says very little in support of this being’s (or dimension’s) existence. It is also logically possible that, paraphrased from my previous words, I drop a tennis ball one day at the Tower of Pisa and it falls to the ground, and if I dropped another tennis ball tomorrow under the same conditions it would float.
IV. The Supernaturalist Again Responds
The supernaturalist, falling back on the unknown, describing a general ‘other’ dimension somewhere out there, may claim that empirical evidence is not warranted for the existence of an undetermined supernatural dimension. However, if a person maintains that the supernatural is not subject to the same rules of logic and falsification as is every other discipline of gaining reliable knowledge, he or she must show the rules that are relevant, or at least explain why the supernatural is to be treated such as a sacred cow. Methodological naturalism asserts continuity of analysis (philosophical naturalism in turn asserts continuity of applying metaphysics), and therefore naturalism both discards any notion of an untouchable discipline, and as a whole makes no existential claims above that which can be empirically established. Instead of presuming the existence of such a truth, all the naturalist asks for is how one would go about uncovering these supposed truths. None have yet been offered.
V. Philosophical Naturalism
For the philosophical naturalist, the method is all that matters; the conclusion is the result of a procedure, where a prioris are shunned as currently unfounded, untested claims. Philosophical naturalism relies, therefore, on methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is, therefore, neither the a priori premise nor the logical conclusion of methodological naturalism, but the grounded a posteriori result. Since the methodological naturalist begins with method, not metaphysics, which relies on non-scientific claims, this is to be desired above unprovable assertions. The method does not assume a priori that empiricism is the only avenue to truth or that intuition or revelation are impossible, neither does it assume a priori that the supernatural does not exist. Naturalism functions in the absence of such evidence that intuition and revelation are ways of gaining truth, in the absence of existence of a supernatural realm. If a supernaturalist’s method is not developed, then any claim by the person about the supernatural is not warranted in the least.
To claim the metaphysical conclusion that nothing exists beyond nature is foolishness. One must have omniscience; one must be able to eliminate all other metaphysical possibilities for this to be true. However, exclusive use of methodological naturalism does have metaphysical implications; all other attempts at gaining knowledge are unreliable (see #5 ). In fact, strict use of the scientific method – of methodological naturalism; falsifiability, attempts to falsify and empiricism - is philosophical naturalism, grounded not on an a priori assertion, but on the result of the method. This reliance on methodological naturalism helps define what is an acceptable worldview by eliminating what we cannot justifiy. Philosophical naturalism makes no claims of omniscience, of absolute knowledge; it only rests on methodological naturalism as a way of gaining reliable knowledge.
If there are other ways of gaining reliable knowledge, show us!
VI.
I have met many people in my life who compartmentalize their thinking on naturalism and supernaturalism. They follow the methodology of naturalism, but choose to simultaneously believe in the existence of a supernatural world. For this to occur, these two systems must be procedurally and logically compatible on both methodology and epistemology. They are not. I think they are irreconcilable, but would find it interesting if there was a way to reconcile such worldviews.
There is another possibility, that of a relationship between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism that is not of logical necessity, but, as I think, far stronger: (1) the proven success of the scientific method, resting on methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the immense body of reliable knowledge gained by methodological naturalism, (3) the lack of any method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural in any fashion, and (4) the lack of any evidence for the existence of a supernatural dimension inhabited by a supernatural entity, leave philosophical naturalism as the most methodologically and epistemologically defensible world view.
VII.
Philosophical naturalism is far from an airtight metaphysics for two reasons: (1) Philosophical naturalism depends solely on the development of science and its methodology, relying on the tentative answers to our problems. (2) Naturalism cannot be a certainty until the nonexistence of the supernatural can be established without a shadow of a doubt.
Some would call these fundamental flaws or weaknesses; however, the tentative aspect is its greatest strength. Naturalism is safely a part of Popper’s attempt at defining science and non-science: naturalism is falsifiable, and does not claim absolute certainty on any subject (see Naturalism, An Intermission on the subject of certainty). Naturalism shies away from a priori certainties, instead rigorously testing each hypothesis: in fact, naturalism seeks only the firm foundation seen in the scientific method, not assuming that knowledge must be certain or that our a prioris are correct. If we demand certainty above that found in science, then philosophy would come before science. If we demand that our a prioris be correct, we would not attempt to prove ourselves wrong and in time refine our beliefs.
If one starts with non-empirical a prioris, there is no guarantee that any basic belief will be consistent with either experience or science. We need a metaphysics that has no logical contradiction and for which there is the greatest justification, placing the least strain on credibility. Absolute certainty is not required and a priori certainty is not desirable. Both are the friends of Uri Geller and astrologers.
VIII.
There was a time when the universe was supernatural. The plausibility of the existential claims made by supernaturalists were far more likely than that of the naturalists. Lightning was obviously the work of Zeus. And thus comes the coup de grâce: with the invention of the scientific method, there has been a constant chipping away of any plausibility whatsoever found in supernaturalism. The supernatural has not been logically disproved (for it cannot be logically disproved), but its explanations have been consistently supplanted by scientific ones. Other worldviews are marginalized because they have no reliable methodology.
With each test of the natural world where we did not know, and with each step towards a natural explanation, the smaller the supernatural world becomes. The goalposts keep shifting, but the naturalist does not mind. While preachers damned the lightning rod, Ben Franklin’s invention saved their lives. Naturalism/science solves our problems; supernaturalism/non-science has not, other than the problems supernaturalism itself creates.
Philosophical naturalism naturally grows out of reliance on methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism is validated by its epistemological success. The known world expands each day, while the impenetrable mysteries just aren’t as impenetrable as we thought they were. In fact, claims of the supernatural today are almost negligible. The forces of nature, the observable universe: all are explained by science. The supernatural remains permanently, however, as a logical possibility simply because it can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed. No matter the evidence stacked against the existence of the supernatural, it cannot be falsified.
I don’t mind. We’ve come a long, long way in a very short time, and to see the world like this, without magic, without mysticism, is beautiful in itself. To know that the universe is quite large and purposeless fills me with awe and wonder. Now we can attempt to answer questions: How did we get here?; What makes us work? without relying on myths or fables or stories. To look into the night sky and know that I am seeing into the past thrills me. To lie on my roof and imagine the earth’s movement lifts me up. The trees, people, clouds, the very world around us, is amazing, almost impossible to describe in words other than found in religious spaces, but ‘holy’ fits easily, and to know that we are a rare speck of life in this universe is… pretty cool.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
(From Perry Bible Fellowship)
Extras: Other Opinions
>Naturalism, from AllaboutGod.com
>Naturalism, from the Catholic Encyclopedia
>Naturalistic Inquiry, by Peter Kirby
>Naturalism.Org, from Center for Naturalism’s Tom Clark
Posted in atheism, epistemology, naturalism, philosophical issues, spectrum of belief | 
March 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Excellent summary, drunkentune. I would however, point out that, like Feynman, you have presented a justification that is as aesthetic as it is rational. I agree with Damasio [wiki] that since we are not dualistic organisms, the whole you is involved in this process. That means that your naturalism is not starting from Decarte’s position of absolute doubt as it mythologically supposes. For example, you are assuming, as I would, that reality is both rational and contingent.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
soulster,
I agree with you. In this post, I didn’t attempt in any way to show that reality is rational, only that the way of gaining reliable knowledge can be found only through science; I cannot tell if reality is or isn’t real, rational, or contingent. For that, it’s possible to argue, I suppose, that I rely on the pedestrian form of faith I layed out earlier.
It’s similar to the brain-in-a-vat problem: we may be dreaming, but we cannot conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not dreaming. I cannot demonstrate within a shadow of a doubt that reality is contingent (or non-contingent, for that matter). Thus, I don’t think Popperian science goes anywhere near addressing it. It may be possible through Bayesian probability, though. Perhaps a future post will address this.
I know that the human mind looks for correlation between things; humans search for patterns. There are some patterns that do exist, while others are nothing more than the human mind playing tricks.
I wonder if there is any process available to show beyond a shadow of a doubt if reality is non-contingent or contingent. There’s always been the problem facing anyone that thinks for a minute that there are two universes: the one inside our head, after our brain interperets what the fallible senses observe; the supposed real universe that gives us experience. However, to claim that our brains lie to us is nothing more than extra-scientific notions. Perhaps they do; perhaps they don’t. No one can answer that, but just like when I dream, I don’t drive off cliffs, because that one time I may be awake.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
It still seems to me that you are assuming that reality is rational. Otherwise, science is not a reliable path to truth, either. There are no laws, and every event that can be studied is isolated and meaningless. If the universe is not rational, you would need to spend the rest of your life and several more lifetimes until the universe expires watching the tennis ball to prove that each event is not isolated. It’s not that you can prove reality to be rational in the sense of naturalistic fact, or are attempting to. But this foundational requirement of naturalism is not obtained by the method which it espouses. Unless we live in a universe that makes sense, how can we attempt to make sense of it? But how can we prove the universe makes sense in a way other than by making sense of it?
This would suggest that the scientific method is not your fundamental methodology. There is something deeper that informs you that the world is rational. What then would that be?
March 5th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Great stuff, keep up the good work! Your last paragraph reminds me of Ursula Goodenough’s book, The Sacred Depths of Nature, and Chet Raymo’s Skeptics and True Believers.
Tom
Center for Naturalism
http://www.naturalism.org
March 5th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Drunken:
Thoroughly enjoyable.
Soulster:
RE: “It’s not that you can prove reality to be rational in the sense of naturalistic fact, or are attempting to. But this foundational requirement of naturalism is not obtained by the method which it espouses. Unless we live in a universe that makes sense, how can we attempt to make sense of it? But how can we prove the universe makes sense in a way other than by making sense of it?
This would suggest that the scientific method is not your fundamental methodology. There is something deeper that informs you that the world is rational. What then would that be?”
I am not too sure what you are getting at here, except that perhaps you are presupposing a god which makes sense of the world for us, and we are merely acting within a “god framework”.
It seems to me that perhaps you are presupposing, as Plato did, that the mind, (soul) both pre-existed and survived the body and it is from the pre-existing mind that we acquire knowledge.
For me, I stop at Descartes. The mind IS the soul. Consequently, there is no evidence to presume that a mind exists outside of physical death.
But then, Christianity draws heavily from the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, so I can’t say I am surprised.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:27 am
How would we go about learning if the world is rational or not? I can think of no test or system to determine either way. It is fundamentally an unscientific statement, absolutely untestable, that, ‘There are no laws, and every event that can be studied is isolated and meaningless.’ It’s logically possible, but any more than that? I don’t think so. If I were to drop a ball one day, it’s not logical that it will drop tomorrow. We both recognize that induction doesn’t cut the mustard. However, until shown wrong, I’m willing to tentatively accept such scientific laws we’ve formed. If a law is proved wrong, I won’t accept it.
If, as you claim, ‘There are no laws, and every event that can be studied is isolated and meaningless,’ then no amount of evidence can be for or against such a claim. So, more than merely untestable, it is thoroughly unfalsifiable. For instance, say we continue to confirm the four laws of thermodynamics time and time again. Each test we conduct agrees with our findings. In fact, we try as hard as we can to falsify such a statement, but we just can’t prove it wrong. It could logically be true that even though each test confirms the four laws of thermodynamics, there are no laws, and one day lead sinks, and other day it floats; it only happens to have sunk every time up until now. Yet, even if this were true, these laws would still work just as well until there is a counterexample. If, hypothetically, our universe did not have in place these laws, the universe still operates as if it did have these laws (i.e. no evidence to the contrary); or, we tentatively know scientific laws to be true until shown otherwise.
If such a counterexample existed (and I’ll bet you all the money in my bank account that there isn’t to the four laws of thermodynamics), we’d throw the laws of thermodynamics out the window and propose a better law, not claim that all laws are wrong.
In fact, I don’t (to an extent) claim that the universe is rational, only that I tentatively accept inductive arguments that survive serious scrutiny. Everything we do not know of the universe could be terribly irrational. But everything we do know acts as if it is. Just as in my dream, if a truck drives up on the sidewalk, it is logically possible for it to turn into a flock of doves. It may be logically possible, but I’m still going to run like mad. Because logical possibility just isn’t enough.
I think it’s clear that this is still within the naturalistic framework I set forward.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am
beepbeep:
No, you’re missing me entirely. Perhaps you’re a little too used to believers asking questions like they are laying traps. I made an observation and am asking a legitmate question. I’m not sure of the answer but have an idea. I think for naturalists, they have both an ideal methodology (the scientific method) and other methodologies for knowledge that are often used but more or less invisible because they are assumed. That’s what I’m interested in. What are those and why? Believe me, I do not suppose that you are secretly a believer and my task is proving it. I think we’re beyond that in the discussion.
drunkentune:
I get what you’re saying and I think the trouble here is in the different thoughts about thought and knowledge itself that people wrestle with. For example, I would say that you are acting on the well-supported belief that the universe is rational. So am I. The point is, we have within us both a methodology that accepts such an unprovable and untestable statement because the human brain allows us to form pictures of the whole as long as the details seem to bear with that picture. What I’m getting at is that there is more than one methodology going on. I don’t think that in itself invalidates naturalism, but I think it’s important to move beyond the mythical ideas of actually human living powered solely by scientific proven information. You have hinted at this is speaking of the “pedestrian” version of faith. Some of the best neuroscientists out there are showing how much of the human enterprise is related to this, even in science. I’m interested in overcoming the over-adjustments of the Newtonian revolution. That’s where I’m going. You’re not invalidated by acting as if the universe is rational. I act the same, so it does not make one or the other of us superior. But I think there is strength in saying so.
For example, science historians have often wondered why modern science has developed now? There are other cultures that had the intellect and resources for science to emerge. Many were more advanced than Europe just previous to the Enlightenment. The linear views have been generally debunked in favor of something more systemic. The conclusion: only in a worldview where the universe is rational and contingent could modern science develop. Why? Because if the universe is not rational, science is impossible. If it is not contingent, science is not important. But neither of these is anything more than philosophical categories of belief which are foundational to our respective enterprises. If this is the “primordial” conditions from whence the scientific method came, then it is a methodology within a methodology.
What I’m thinking is that some of the perceptual differences between you and me are caused by an artificially inflated view of the purity of the natural sciences. I do not think they are nearly as pure as they claim, and that’s what I was pointing out in the Feynman interview. Far from debunking naturalism, I think this simply opens up a vast world where conversation can occur but where it has broken down in the past.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Here’s another way of getting at what I’m talking about. I’ve heard naturalists talk of their philosophy and methodology as if it were the only reliable way to gaining knowledge (see above). It is not, in my opinion. Why? Because it is built on and accesses systems of knowledge beyond itself. It is one part of the human enterprise. To say that it is exclusive is to make the same mistake of Christendom: legitimacy does not come from unique exclusivity. Any such justification is mythical and masks the real value one thing might have above another in application. While such “useful rhetoric” gains a hearing because of impluses towards superiority in the species, in the end variety, adaptablity, and cooperation are always stronger (and evolutionarily more human). Are the social sciences a path to truth? Yes. Are the natural sciences a path to truth? Yes. Is our experience a path to truth? Yes. But that does not mean humanity should walk just one path. Sure, we need specialists who travel more one road than another and report back to us. But each of these alone is less powerful than an intergrated epistemology. Each is stronger with a pair or more connections:
natural sciences — social sciences
personal experience — communial discernment
individual reflection — open conversation
belief — skepticism
Etc.
It is currently my hypothesis that my conversation with you makes me a better believer, less likely to fall into the errors of my systems. I benefit nothing from squashing you with the thunderous glory of my rhetoric. Nor is there value in closing my eyes and ears. But by listening to you deeply, I hear and see a way forward, and I am even encountering what I would call the Presence of God in our conversations (though please feel free to re-label this for yourself). Would you believe that I am learning and developing more in my faith through conversation with you then in my graduate-level course work with world-class missional leaders? I’m with about 12 of them in an online environment, reading books, talking about ideas, thinking together. One would think that would clear the “stuckness” out of me. But no, it is my conversations with you that are doing that. Well, at least the evidence so far in my life seems to be indicating that this hypothesis is correct.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Great post, Soulster,
What you are saying makes fantastic sense. It is clearly wise to approach the acquisition of truth in an integrated epistemology. Anyone who takes only one road develops a tunnel-vision, and misses a full appreciation of truth, and, also the beauty of our sublime universe. Perhaps we ought to listen more to one another’s journeys and observations along the way, rather than trying to convince everyone they are on the “wrong road”, just because it isn’t our favored one.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Soulster:
Thanks for the clarification.
RE: “I would say that you are acting on the well-supported belief that the universe is rational.”
I am not sure if I act on the belief that the universe or people, in general, for that matter, are rational).
Though human experience and accumulated knowledge concerning the universe strongly suggests that the known processes of the universe are patterns and models through which we can make predictions and accumulate further knowledge.
I think I act according to what I have learned about myself and the capabilities of the human experience, - and that is that “I am rational.” Or, that I have the ability to be a rational entity.
(No snickering about she considers herself “rational” at this point of the proceedings.
It starts with self. For example, I will use the somewhat limited methodology I laid out to evaluate the veracity of the “Jesus Bones Movie”.
Firstly, there is the intial claim or hypothesis.
1.a. Claim: - These are the bones of Jesus.
1.b. Hypothesis: - If these are the bones of Jesus how can this be demonstrated and if not, how is this not demonstrated.
2. Secondly, one constructs a procedure or a method by which information can be collected concerning the initial hypothesis. (This is usually initiated by asking a variety of questions concerning the subject.)
3. Thirdly, one assesses the information collected in light of the hypothesis.
4. Fourthly, one arrives at a conclusion based on the information collected and its assessment and relationship to the hypothesis.
The conclusion may be that there is insufficient relevant information to make a decision either way.
The conclusion may be, on further reflection, that the methodology is flawed as known variables were not taken into account.
Or, the conclusion may be that the evidence strongly suggests that the bones were the bones of Jesus.
But, I think I act according to the position that I am a rational being. Whatever I may be trying to understand, is a different matter entirely.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
soulster,
Several points I wish to make (I find addressing most of your ideas at once helpful. Oh, and readers: does this style of format work better for you?):
I.
Thinking systematically, there are two answers to how light acts: (1) as a particle; (2) as a wave. We now know that light acts as both a particle and a wave. Our intuitions on a scale that we relate to do not apply to nature on a small scale.
When we think of the smallest stuff, of atoms, quantum mechanics makes predictions. We have answers, but really, they don’t make sense. For close to a century now, ever since Einstein’s 1910 paper, the universe on the small scale is not coherent to human imagination.
The human mind must be first able to fit the demands before addressing the human condition. The human brain (and our ability to imagine) is shaped by our evolutionary needs, and not the human condition. But this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We have limited understanding, even a century after Einstein (and far more after Plank). The universe does what it wants to do, and we can attempt to make approximations.
Thus, the universe isn’t rational. The universe and the human mind aren’t conformable. I find it intriguing. It’s almost amusing.
II.
But what of the human condition? I think of the drunkentune principle (named after myself, of course):
As a child, I went to school on a school bus. Each day I would wait for the bus to arrive with other children. One day, a fellow traveler looked down and saw my knees.
‘Is that right?’ she said.
‘What are you talking about?’ I responded.
I followed her gaze; as I stood there, my knees did not touch: I was bowlegged.
And I looked down at her knees; and she was mock-kneed: her legs bent inward.
Then, an amazing moment occurred. Her face physically changed, it is nearly impossible to describe, but this girl discovered something; she had a revelatory experience that what she thought was true for the whole family was true only for a subset. We don’t know how much of our own lives, our own experiences, apply to others.
And that is the human condition.
III. Science v. non-science
How far does reason take us? That is, before we turn ourselves over to emotion and feeling.
Smart people have been talking for a very long time, saying all sorts of things. For many of these ideas, I don’t see them as foolish or meaningless ideas (such as faith or ritual), but they’re just not science. There’s a fundamental difference between astrology and astronomy; one is not testable. So these smart people have been talking and talking, but there’s something different when smart people are in the natural sciences. Science is about discovering if it works or not. If it doesn’t work, it’s discarded. This method of testing can be found outside of science, but it’s best exemplified by science. To this day, naturalists don’t revere people that show timeless truths, but those that give theories that are so crisp, so exact in their implications, and are still true.
I want to hold on to the system that when it posits a hypothesis, it fully explains what happens before it’s posited, but also makes testable predictions for the future. The authority of science is on clearly delineated results, on conventional approximations that work time and again. As a naturalist, I must listen with enough empathy to understand the point, but I will not tolerate for ambiguity.
If I want timeless truths, I will go to the Oracle of Delphi.
IV.
Emile Durkeim was an early 20th century sociologist focusing on cross-cultural experience. It is obvious that here (and in life in general), we don’t know how narrow our ideas are until we bump into others. Durkeim said that they key to history of civilization was the emergence of cities near rivers. Everyone within the precursor-city had commonly shared beliefs; basic cultural values; same gods. Only when someone came from down river, or a party attempted to trade with a neighboring city did we see that the other did not just have different words, but different ideas. We could entertain new ideas, not as matters of fact, but as matters of construct. This is a society, this basic distinction. ‘All men are created equal’ is a human construct, but there is meaning in it, a desired goal, even if it isn’t true.
About twenty years ago a study asked many people a simple question: ‘How would you make communication better?’ The responses were unanimous, from all walks of life, coming to the concluding statement: ‘I would think more clearly before I spoke and speak more clearly.’
Yet, there was one small diverging answer. One almost miniscule subculture that answered fundamentally different; Native Americans that answered had a different tact:
’I would listen better.’
March 6th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Re III. But what happens when science confirms a religious belief? For example, the following man, his family, and friends, would say that science confirmed their faith: Pierre de RUDDER Born on 2.7.1822 in Jabbeke in Belgium. Cured on 7.4.1875, in his 53rd. year. Miracle on 25.7.1908, by Mgr Gustave Waffelaert, Bishop of Bruges. The story of this well-known cure has been told thousands of times. We have already seen that it was not the first cure obtained outside Lourdes, but there was no doubt that it stands as the first cure and miracle which happened without any use of Lourdes’ water. In 1867, Pierre de RUDDER had his leg crushed when a tree fell down. As a result he sustained an open fracture of both bones in the upper third of the left leg. Despite all treatment given, it was obvious from an early stage that the fracture would never heal. Due to local infection, and (because of it) the
elimination of newly formed bone over the years, a pseudoarthrosis set in
at the site of the fracture, and there was not the slightest chance of the bones uniting.
The doctors advised amputation several times, but Pierre de RUDDER refused. After a few years, these doctors abandoned him, because they were
absolutely powerless to help his chronic condition.
In this state, eight years after the accident, Pierre de RUDDER decided to make a pilgrimage to Oostacker on 7.4.1875, where a replica of the Grotto of Lourdes had recently been built for the piety of our Belgian neighbours. Setting off from Jabbeke in the morning as an invalid, unable to stand on
his left leg, he returned in the evening without crutches or wounds. The bones had united in a matter of minutes, without any shortening or deviation from the vertical axis. During the following days, the doctors
who had treated him, verified these changes. Pierre de RUDDER resumed a normal and active life straightaway. To our
knowledge, he went to Lourdes, at least once, and that was in May 1881. On 22.3.1898, he died, 23 years after his cure.
Later, for further proof, the bones of both legs were exhumed. This allowed us to see the objective evidence, the site of the fracture in its healed state, which can now be seen in the moulds in the possession of the Medical
Bureau. In July 1908, 33 years later (a sort of record!) the Bishop of Bruges declared that in the cure of Pierre de RUDDER, one could see a miracle
attributable to “an intervention by God, obtained through the intercession
of the Blessed Virgin Mary”. One interesting medical fact: there is not enough Calcium in the blood to reconstruct any bone separated and missing 3 inches within minutes, even hours, even days. It would take weeks even with optimal modern treatments. Why should one be unwilling to see that the methods of science could also overlap at some intervals with the ideas of religion?
March 6th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
You shout ‘miracle’ and call it a day; where is the why? Where is the how? How do you come to your conclusion? Show me the method! Give me a theory!
I think you need to be more explicit in step two.
Is magic the only answer you give me? Magic; from your god, and not your neighbor’s god? Must I partake in your rituals, and not your neighbor’s? Must I believe that this is proof of magic? Must it always be magic?
Does the sun move by magic? Is thunder magic? Do our minds operate by magic? Do quarks operate by magic? Or was it only when we didn’t know that the sun, stars, thunder, mind and quarks work that it was by magic? Why is it that when we do not know, it is always magic; why resort to a wild, ambiguous, baseless conjecture; why is it, as if giving up, resigning to holy ignorance, bowing before the all-knowing (but shielded from scrutiny) god-head in reverence, is somehow default?!
Even the very thought drives me mad! I feel real passion, frustration and anger for such a silly turn of events: We’ve built sacred cows out of unknowns. More than that, we’ve built whole cosmologies, whole baseless systems of how we should live our lives, or the meaning to life, out of unknowns, as if this unknown was incontrovertible proof of this specific baseless system and not others. What evidence is this for, other than we do not know? When did man give up his greatest tool, more powerful than a spear or the wheel, that of reason? For what? To feel good?
To answer with ‘magic’ bites me deep inside as nothing more than a cop-out at the real answers and questions before us. Why did this happen? God did it! Why did that happen? God did it! Why are we here? For God! Where are we going? God only knows! Natural theology died a long time ago with Newton, Darwin and Einstein; the faithful still have faith; you still have your ivory tower, just as perfect as it was yesterday. You may just be right, but don’t try to make untestable conjectures as if this is a mere buttress for your fort.
I just won’t stand for that. Be more explicit in step two.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I think this particular event for Mr. Rudder does not so much speak to “we do not know” as to “we cannot know with scientific method”. The event is simply beyond any scientific hypothesis, yet the preceding state is verified as a crippled leg and the following state is verified as a healthy one. The intervening event is clearly unique, it has never been observed before or since by scientists. But that doesn’t make it unreal or unreliable. It is quite real, and quite reliable. And because it is, it demonstrates that science is a limited endevour, method and theory can only take us so far. It demonstrates that philosophical naturalism is inconsistent with our observations. It also demonstrates that something other than testable science can prove useful… Mr. Rudder enjoyed 23 years of use of his restored leg. So, can we tell Mr. Rudder that his prayers are senseless appeals to magic? That all prayers are senseless appeals to magic? To do so is inconsistent with the evidence.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Ed–
You are a doctor, didn’t you wonder how Mr Rudder’s doctors could positively confirm that his bones were not healing without benefit of x-ray which wasn’t accidentally discovered until a full 20 years after his bone crushing accident? Even with the knowledge and skills we have today a compound fracture like Mr Rudder’s would take many months to heal and the patient would have to hobble around with the use of crutches during that time. Isn’t it possible that Mr Rudder, believing what his doctors had told him, never tried to put weight on the afflicted leg for 8 years because earlier attempts had been too painful? Then he makes the pilgramage and at the replica shrine he loses his grip on the crutch and it falls to the ground. To steady himself he instinctively balances himself with both feet and voila! We have a miracle!
Funny thing though, a similar accident happened to me but I had the benefit of advanced science–x-ray, pins, screws, and a good orthopedic surgeon–but it still took about 2 years before I got to the point where I could walk, unaided, with a slight limp.
I am highly skeptical of all things ‘holy, roman, catholic’ and credit that institution with the rising numbers in atheism and me as a convert. I spent a brief period in their clutches, when the mass was still in Latin and little boys were told by their priests that masterbation was a sin and if they engaged in that type of activity massive amounts of hair would grow on their palms and everyone would know what they’d been doing. If they lied to us about something as trivial as that, how could they be trusted in other matters? And so I began researching. You’d be amazed at what I found. Starting with the ritual of christening babies. Have you ever read the steps to elevate a person to sainthood?
1.) The examination for sainthood begins only after a candidate has been dead at least five years.
2.) A bishop is put in charge of an initial investigation of the candidate’s life. If the candidate is deemed worthy of further consideration, the Vatican grants a ”nihil obstat” — a Latin phrase meaning ”nothing hinders” — and the candidate can be called a ”Servant of God.”
3.) A postulator (a church official who coordinates the process and serves as an advocate) must demonstrate the candidate lived by heroic Christian virtues. Documents and testimony are collected and presented to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome. If approved by that panel and the pope, the candidate earns the title ”Venerable.”
4.) Catholics can pray to a candidate, asking for help in delivering messages to God. Answered prayers can be attributed to the candidate’s advocacy, or intercession. If the postulator can prove that the candidate’s intercession helped a living person receive a miracle from God, the pope can declare the candidate ”Blessed.”
5.) After a second miracle is attributed to the candidate’s intercession, the pope can declare the person to be a saint, with the final step called canonization.
I’m sure Drunkentune will have fun with these!
March 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Ed,
Yes, and yes. Any scientific study looking at prayer comes to the same conclusions: it makes you feel good, helps you cope with death, but doesn’t make you better. Anecdotes such as Mr. Rudder do not make science. Anecdotes prove Atlantis, a ‘fifth planet,’ faces on mars, aliens, and Dr. Masaru Emoto’s magic water (If you’re interested, I suggest looking into the fantastic book, Discarded Science: Ideas that seemed good at the time…, by John Grant). If any evidence showed that prayer did anything to help, I’d be on the front lines trying to get a priest to pray with every sick person, but it simply isn’t so.
But here’s another anecdote: as a child, at the tender age of 16, I would run in the forest every morning. One day, while jumping over a log, I fell on my side. A tree trunk split my side open and lodged itself inside me, scrambling my insides like jelly. It punctured all sorts of things that I have little memory of, but I remember that moment as pain. I remember many moments of pain, lying on that path. Imagine me, a young, stupid Oden, on his side, after falling over Yggdrasil. I arrived at the hospital, like many, with little chance of survival. Thus, in came the priest and tried to talk to me.
He left soon after, crying. I made him cry, because I, and I admit this, am cruel. Even moments before death I couldn’t tolerate such silly notions. I said a few choice words about his profession and his holy god, just as I said years earlier similar words to other children in kindergarten about Santa Claus and Jesus. I recognize that I am a ruthless human being, because I acknowledge there are no sacred cows, and the only way to combat the very inane notion is to kill the very cow. To throw in a biblical analogy here, as Moses, you burn the golden calf.
I burned my calf and ate it years ago, in kindergarten, in that hospital room, and I continue to let it burn.
You must understand that it is one thing to imagine fantasy. I have no problem with fantasy; it is entirely another to rely on fantasy as a last resort, looking at the future through rose-tinted glasses. To posit an unmovable mover or a first cause is interesting in philosophy and discussion, but life is not a game, or a fairytale, or a play where the deus ex machina is just around the bend. To even imagine this is to give up on reality when all you have is reality, not some fictitious universe of make-believe. To retract your final moments of life to die not in reality, but imagination, is unbearably sad; heart-wrenching. It hurts me in a different way than it hurt to lie on that path, bleeding with a stick in my side. Prayer is to give up on reality.
I personally find prayer to be nothing more than a lie. It’s boring; it’s simple-minded; but don’t let my personal opinions get in the way of what you believe. We’ve learned here to get along, at times balancing at the edge of a knife on what is insulting to some and invigorating to others. But this evidence many believers imagine, as if science would support a five-thousand-year-old Mesopotamian god’s existence, or the existence of a super-natural realm, is always just around the next corner. No, the next one. The next one. The next one. Trust me, if science currently doesn’t explain it, we’ve got it in the bag. Newton’s motion of planets resolved by a deity’s guiding hand, the supernatural origin of life or the universe, Hume’s fallback in desperation to a greater Mind as a first cause, etc. Why must we lie to ourselves? Why?
At least, that’s how I put it when I get angry. As of now, I think I’ve said enough. It’s time for me to work on communicating better. It’s time for me to listen. I wait forward for your response, and would be interested if you have any critiques of my full two-and-a-half pieces on naturalism, not just my wild screams that frequently inhabit the comments section. Thank you.
Infidel,
I’ve read little on the recent process of becoming a Saint - my favorite is still ex-St. Hugh of Lincoln, killed by Jews and drained of blood to make matzoh.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:15 am
beepbeep and drunkentune:
Your responses help me. I am thinking about them and will respond in more detail. First, I want to make one clarification after reading your comments. When I say, “the universe is rational”, I do not mean to say the universe is personified and practices rationality. What I mean to say is that the universe is such that we may learn how it is by rational pursuits. There is information which may be discovered through the application of logic that is reliable. This is different from some worldviews that believe the world is not rational — it cannot be known by such pursuits because it is always changing or some sort of illusion. So to me, saying the universe is rational is roughly equivalent to the justification of beepbeep’s “I am a rational entity” and drunkentune’s longer explanation. Beepbeep, your methodology is helpful and I’m going to think honestly about my methodology and present it soon.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:53 am
internet infidel: His is another report I found on Mr. Rudder’s cure, which would negate your far-fetched idea that a non-union fracture of a long leg bone, complicated by ongoing infection, possessing pseudoarthrosis, could spontaneously heal: “How can we explain this case? We are confronted with the same difficulty as in the previous one. It is impossible to reject the direct evidence of so many competent medical men who examined the fracture both before and after the cure. Besides, we have the direct evidence of the united bones which were exhumed in the presence of a number of witnesses. We have no alternative but to admit the miraculous, although it goes dead against all our preconceived notions of the inviolability of natural laws to do so. Are we to believe that Nature’s laws can be set aside, or are we to reject all human testimony and the evidence of the bones themselves? Or may it be that the miracle is the result of some unknown law of the spiritual world? When Dr. Verriest examined the fracture three months before the cure, he stated that there was a separation of three centimetres (1 1/3 inches) between the two ends. In the centre of the wound two bony fragments could be seen, blackened and necrosed, and bathed in pus. To obtain a natural cure the necrosed ends would first have to be removed, and by that time the separation of the bones would have amounted to three inches or more. How was this cavity filled up? The periosteum had long since been destroyed by the suppuration … But here is another difficulty: where did the phosphate of lime come from to fill the gap? It could only come from the blood. Now the whole blood in the body only contains about 1.6 grammes of phosphate of lime, and the callus would require at least four times that amount. Where could it come from?(1) And further, what became of the sequestra? They must have disappeared, but where? And where did all the pus go to? It was so profuse that it poured over the cushions of the vehicle that brought him to the Grotto, much to the annoyance of the driver. And, lastly, the muscles during all these years after the fracture took place were atrophied and useless. How did they regain instantly their pristine vigour? No one is able to answer any of these questions, and yet the cure is incontestable.”
It is precisely the nearly 100% applicability of naturalism that makes any extraordinary event noticed. No one who witnessed the healing of Mr. Rutter would ever have expected it, even the most knowledgable. Could this be a method to test supernatural claims? We are rational beings, so when confronted with an extraordinary happening, we are forced to pause and take notice. So, if there develops a pattern of such extraordinary events within a particular religious group, could that represent a signal? So, the universe is rational, and science can help us understand it better and better. But when the universe is irrational, if it shows an extraordinary event, does that necessitate that science is merely inadequate? Not necessarily, if there are signs of intelligence in the pattern of extraordinary events. Very analogous to trying to detect extraterrestrial intelligence from background natural electromagnetic radiation. One signal would not be enough, but repeated ones should convince the doubters.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:44 am
RE: ” For example, the following man, his family, and friends, would say that science confirmed their faith: Pierre de RUDDER Born on 2.7.1822 in Jabbeke in Belgium. Cured on 7.4.1875, in his 53rd. year. Miracle on 25.7.1908, by Mgr Gustave Waffelaert, Bishop of Bruges. The story of this well-known cure has been told thousands of times.”
Science can’t confirm that someone was cured by god, buddha, allah, or the flying spaghetti monster. In order to be able to do so, science would need to be able to examine the flying spaghetti monster and determine the methods and processes by which it performs its cures.
What science can’t confirm, religion claims.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Ed-
RE: “When Dr. Verriest examined the fracture three months before the cure, he stated that there was a separation of three centimetres (1 1/3 inches) between the two ends. In the centre of the wound two bony fragments could be seen, blackened and necrosed, and bathed in pus.”
You may consider this nitpicking but my first question before we even get to the ‘cure’ has been, and still is, what method did this doctor use to confirm his diagnosis? Did he surgically explore the area by cutting into the injured area or was the wound oozing and exposed for 8 years? Considering the sanitary conditions of the mid 1800’s this man would have died of infection in a matter of weeks (or less) if the latter were the case. I’m more fascinated by the minute details of events and procedure before Mr Rudder makes his miraculous pilgrimage. But I suppose that information was conveniently omitted in the original story.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
No, infections that drain can last for years. The pus is the result of the white blood cells and the immune response which is quite powerful. Even today, it is the body’s immune response which does the lion’s share of fighting such infections, antibiotics and aspectic techniques help, but I’ve personally seen open wounds from injuries that have been open for years, now found mainly in those with poor circulation, like diabetics. I think the only way to be fully informed as to Mr. Rudder’s story would be to go to Lourdes and review his dossier, along with the other 66 cases deamed miraculous by the church. It would also be interesting to read the records of the thousands not deamed miraculous, and see why they were not. In the thread naturalism, an intermission, I’d posted some links to Lourdes data on the web, if you care to check into this further.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Ed–
I don’t know if your interest in Lourdes came from The International Survivalist Society Organization or not but here’s an article from their website written by a Catholic priest concerning skepticism of Mr Rudder’s miracle: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/reginald-omez/demarcated.htm
It’s also reviewed in another article from the same website titled “The Objective Facts” in Chapter 3.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I made reference to some assumptions underlying naturalism above (see comment #1), namely that it depends, or at least arrises from the idea that the universe is both rational and contingent. Drunkentune responded that he made no such claim, and indeed he did not in writing. It is simply something on the order of a fundamental and hidden opperational assumption built into the mind of Western science. The Greeks began to understand the world was organized by laws that could be understood by reason. The Jews came up with a linear view of time and the cosmos that parted from the more typical cyclical universe and was contingent — in other words it could be other than it was and thus could be changed by human understanding and action. I first learn of this through philosopher and missiologist Leslie Newbigin. While researching for the Einstein peice, I discovered similar themes in a speach by Paul Davies which explains it well: http://cosmos.asu.edu/prize_address.htm. Many science historians now believe these are the necessary ingredients for the development of modern science. Since science is a purposeful process, humans need the epistemological element of believing they can actually make sense of the world and the teleological element that such an endeveour matters and makes a difference. Otherwise it is impossible, but neither are truly provable by empirical means.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
soulster,
I’d hate to equivocate, so I’m wondering what you mean when you say ‘rational’. The universe is certainly not rational in an intuitive way that humans can understand it, nor comprehend it (what’s this space-time, for God’s sake? And more than three dimensions? And string theory? Argh! The very concepts make my head hurt!) but other than in that vein of thought, I’d hate to presume what you mean.
Enlightenment thinkers most certainly thought that the universe was rational, that we can intuitively understand the universe, that the truth manifests itself before us.
Is the truth manifest? Far from it!
Can we intuitively understand the universe? I wish!
Is the universe rational? I guess not, at least in the historical way I understand your use of the word. ‘Old’ science, that of the truth as manifest, was wrong. It is Popper’s ‘new’ science, of conjectures, myths, that are then tested against reality - where some myths fit the evidence and others do not. That it is the untruth that is manifest, not truth: that is what science is about.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Did you read Davies’ address linked to above? He does a good job using it in the same way I would, for the most part. If it still seems unclear, let’s talk it out.
Incidentially, Winston Churchill, in the piece quoted in my latest post, makes the point that the universe is more than perception and math proves it. The very idea that math is the best representational system for reality (which undergirds all quantitative science) only works because we suppose the universe is rational, or could be represented in rational terms. Therefore, regardless of words, when we meet something that does not make sense, we (our society in general) immediately attempt to make sense of it. If we thought the universe irrational, we would not believe making sense of it worth while.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
There is “Ionian Enchantment,” a belief in the world’s natural and singular order, the roots of which reach as far back as the sixth century B.C., to Thales of Miletus. This thinking has pervaded scientific inquiry and thought ever since. It may be correct; it may not be. The alternative, that the universe has no order, provides no mechanism to discovery. It could be argued successfully that this is a reduced form of supernaturalism, that we cannot know the universe because it is of mystery. There is only, I assert, a shrug and a sigh. It’s a resignation to ignorance.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I think it highly unlikely that some parts of the universe will be irrational. The problem is in how we interpret the empirical data and how we ultimately embed what we see into some geometric system.
All things will, I suspect, reduce down to mathematics. Yet I feel there will still be some judgement call, or some necessary interpretation of the facts.
To give an example of what I mean I need go no further than the eleven dimensions of string theory. Mathematicians seem convinced that the best structure for universes is eleven dimensional. They speak of the four dimensions of which we are familiar and then postulate that the other seven are rolled up in every point in space.
If this is the kind of explanation we can expect from mathematicians then any prospect of finding ultimate truths is long gone. How, on this view, is it possible to counter the position that God is a seven dimensional omnipresent entity who is rolled up in each point in space?
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
How does ‘omnipresence’ of space imply omnipotence, a working mind, or a creator?
After all, the ‘regular’ three-dimensional universe is already everywhere. If you said that if the universe is everywhere, then it is both omnipotent and all-good, I have this bridge to sell to you…