Plantinga: The God Delusion

[Norbeone]

Then by what criteria would you consider evidence for the metaphysical?

It seems you've created a wall around a materialist world.  You can't say you would accept metaphysical events if only there was evidence and then create the circular argument of defining metaphysical events as though which have no evidence.

I have always thought of metaphysical events as those events which cannot be understood by physics.  It has nothing to do with evidence for them, except in lacking a scientific, material signature.

What, then, are your own rational (non materialistic) methods of distinguishing between falsehood and reality, in terms of the 'metaphysical'. I think this is what we're all waiting to here.

[Catison]

As a result of some of the arguments made by some 'believers' here I must admit that I question the whole notion of what gives me credit for what I, myself, believe. Not that i'm saying any such arguments have power so far as convincing me otherwise, but still, I do start to question the fundamentals.

I think the common thread to all who are discussing here is that we are truth seekers.  We want to know the true nature of the universe.  How you find the truth yourself is an extremely complex process, but I think ultimately the atheist come from a stock of materialists, and the theists believe there is something more than the physical reality.  That is more a difference in philosophy than a difference in religion.

For a long time (until about a month ago) I counted myself among the materialists/atheists.  But my mind was changed when I realized that in a materialist world, it is impossible to accept evidence for metaphysical events.  These events simply do not exist, and when presented with the evidence, it should be examined further until the real (i.e. physical) explanation is found.

My turning point was when I thought about what would happen if today there were a recorded metaphysical event.  What if our current technology showed us something so amazing that it was extraordinarily easy to accept it as a true metaphysical event.  But in the future, after we have moved science along to unfathomable areas, how would this metaphysical event be interpreted?  My guess is that it would be dismissed, because our current technology is too archaic to have accurately represented the whole picture.  The scientists of the future have to rely upon ancient data from laughably rudimentary technology.  It would be easy to dismiss, but would they be right in doing so?

We are the scientists of the future, looking back on history through an ancient text transmitted by a thousands of monk scribes.  Should we find their technology so easy to dismiss?

[Catison]

What, then, are your own rational (non materialistic) methods of distinguishing between falsehood and reality, in terms of the 'metaphysical'. I think this is what we're all waiting to here.

It is believing that I might not have all the answers myself, scientifically.  It is trusting others that they are not crazy or misled or misunderstanding.  I have found the Catholic church, which touches Jesus directly through history and tradition to be trustworthy.  I can't say this is the real or true path, but it is my path.

[Al Moritz]

Brett, I am very happy for you. The Catholic faith is my path too.

[Wanderer]

I have found the Catholic church, which touches Jesus directly through history and tradition to be trustworthy.

This is indeed very important. I feel that a main reason why various Protestant denominations often fail to inspire security in their theology and teachings is their rejection of tradition a.k.a the dogma of sola scriptura. The Old and New Testament bereft of their centuries old worth of interpretative context and other elements that directly connect our time with Jesus Christ's own time and teachings through the institution of the Church must really seem dry and in dire need of justification and proof. That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.

[Al Moritz]

That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.

Yes, the philosopher Robert Pennock, one of the key witnesses against Intelligent Design in the Dover trial, says that typically students who attended Catholic high schools have had the best education in evolution:

http://www.tcnj.edu/~magazine/magazine/spring2000/pages/creationist/creationist3.html

Science classes in Catholic schools don't even teach theistic evolution, they teach evolution, period.

[Florestan]

This is indeed very important. I feel that a main reason why various Protestant denominations often fail to inspire security in their theology and teachings is their rejection of tradition a.k.a the dogma of sola scriptura. The Old and New Testament bereft of their centuries old worth of interpretative context and other elements that directly connect our time with Jesus Christ's own time and teachings through the institution of the Church must really seem dry and in dire need of justification and proof. That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.

Exactly. The Sola Scriptura principle was logically bound to produce (a) the fragmentation of Protestant denominations and (b) their fundamentalism.

[Al Moritz]

Exactly. The Sola Scriptura principle was logically bound to produce (a) the fragmentation of Protestant denominations and (b) their fundamentalism.

One must say, in all fairness, that mainstream Protestantism worldwide is usually not fundamentalist. The widespread fundamentalism in the Bible Belt is a local North American phenomenon. And also in America there is a significant portion of non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations.

[drogulus]

Then by what criteria would you consider evidence for the metaphysical?

     Brett, you have homed in on the correct question, I believe. As Al points out, it isn't right to treat metaphysical assumptions as truths. So, for example, the fact that science works to produce useful knowledge about the world can't be a justification for claiming that scientific discoveries are true in an absolute sense, that our discoveries demarcate what exists beyond disconfirmation. By the same sound principle I say that similar self-reinforcing systems like "I believe in order to understand" can't be justified either. There are many things you could believe. Do you really want to try believing them all? It would be better to filter out the less probable up front.

     So my refusal to rely on metaphysics as a guarantee applies universally, and not just to religion.
     
     To answer your question, metaphysics is more or less defined as unconfirmable. That's how it gets to be what it is. So do you still want to know how to confirm it? Let's put it this way: If it's confirmed, it ain't metaphysics no more. 

   

[Florestan]

One must say, in all fairness, that mainstream Protestantism worldwide is usually not fundamentalist. The widespread fundamentalism in the Bible Belt is a local North American phenomenon. And also in America there is a significant portion of non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations.

Yes, that is also true.

[Haffner]

Brett, I am very happy for you. The Catholic faith is my path too.

Me as well. I have problems with the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus dictum (though I believe the Church has softened on that one), and I'm not altogether wild about the non-Latin mass (the Holy See is thankfully working on it), but overall the Roman Catholic faith system helps Affirm me.

When I attended the Palm Sunday mass today, I was deeply moved by the entire proceedings.

I can't properly relate here how much the Church has made my life better overall. Everyday I try my hardest to be charitable, kind, loving. I try to sacrifice selfish things and practice restraint. All those things have added a character to my life that I wouldn't have had without. I realize that for many the Catholic Church is on the "outs" (and not entirely for wrong reasons), but I can still keep my head up and shoulders back when I state "I am a Catholic", in profound gratitude for the positive, beautiful things it has given my life.

[Haffner]

This is indeed very important. I feel that a main reason why various Protestant denominations often fail to inspire security in their theology and teachings is their rejection of tradition a.k.a the dogma of sola scriptura. The Old and New Testament bereft of their centuries old worth of interpretative context and other elements that directly connect our time with Jesus Christ's own time and teachings through the institution of the Church must really seem dry and in dire need of justification and proof. That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.

And they will probably continue to not be troubled by it. The Catholic and Orthodox churches seem to imply that the Bible is a Living Word, one that didn't just "shut down" after St. John's Apocalypse. I also tend to believe this, and I believe that portions of the Bible are allegorical. I mean no offense to anyone here, but there are alot of embarassing goofs that tend to come up when one tries the sola scriptura route. I'm sure I don't need to point them out.

[karlhenning]

TTT

[drogulus]

     Further thoughts on criteria for the metaphysical:    

     I don't have criteria for the metaphysical. Criteria is what I don't have for it, along with everything else. If I had something for it, then I could have criteria for it. How can I have criteria for things that I don't know about as a class? Are you trying to make me angry?  

     Is it really worthwhile to have something called criteria for anything beyond the material world? If so I don't know what it is and the people who insist there must be something can't make themselves plain. I wish they could, but I understand why they can't. How do you tell someone about the importance of something you don't know about, even to the extent of not knowing what it is you're actually talking about? How can you have criteria for that?

[Catison]

How can you have criteria for that?

Its called Philosophy.

[drogulus]

Its called Philosophy.

     I hope not. But you're right, I fear. Not only is a considerable portion of philosophy devoted to learned discussion about the importance of unknowns, in addition many of these thinkers are the ones who think that unknown alternatives (unknowable, usually) are better than known ones, that we don't know there's a real world because we don't know it perfectly. I find it amusing that the standard for a real world is what I consider artificially high and the standard for the missing alternative (everything else, that is), is very low, on the order of if you can't prove it's not there it certainly is. Let's call this the "god standard", shall we?

     So I think philosophy in general is in the shit, and I protest, and wish to move definitions closer to what's definable, and away from what's not. This is controversial. Certainly the imperative to publish and the need to appear original and challenging play a role. It's funny how much alike these fellows sound though. The convention about reality being a construct is getting real tired. This is supposed to be a big shocker. Guess what, representations aren't the world. Well, whoo-eee, you coulda fooled me! Have any of these guys ever studied statistics or information theory? They should ask their kids about bit rates and sample rates before showing their ignorance about representation.

[Catison]

     So I think philosophy in general is in the shit

No, Ernie, just your philosophy (in general).