Philosophy Discussion Forums

DM

It makes perfect evolutionary sense for human beings to have a felt need to make sense of the world, and "God" fills the gap in our understanding better than "chance."

Yes it does make sense that people feel the need to make sense of the world, saying 'I don't know' feels unsatisfactory, but when you say God fills the gap ''better'', I think what that really means is that God fills the gap in a more psychologically satisfying way. If it's a harmless belief which fills the gap and helps people lead more satisfying lives, I don't have a problem with it. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. Unfortunately many God beliefs are very harmful, and particularly resistant to argument or progressivism because they believe they're in touch with some deep, eternal revealed truth beyond the ken of mere man.

The other part of the equation is life itself, and life is not reducible to an idea. It is something we experience. I wonder how the world would be now if Descartes had said "I experience, therefore, I am."

He should have said 'experience' rather than 'think', but not bad for the day! Better still 'Experiencing Exists This Moment' - that's all that can really be known with direct certainty, even the 'I' part is an inference. I agree with you experiencing is what matters because it is qualiative, truth is secondary, and always inferred.

All too often, we let let our beliefs (calling it "truth") get between ourselves and our experiencing of life. We may call it being loyal to the "truth," but when conceptions of truth master life, life perishes: it becomes a doctrine instead of a life. It's becomes idolatry. Truth is life itself, not the body of facts associated with it.

The thing is, when we go about leading our lives outside of philosophy forums, we live on the basis (Act As If) there is such a thing as the real world, that's a truth. And there are truths about that world. Otherwise we couldn't get through the day. And we use science to tell us how the world works, at certain useful levels of granularity at least. And this science tells a convincing coherent story, makes testable predictions, and it works! It will probably even explain one day this yearning for the non-mundane.

But it strikes me that what many religious people do is pick and choose when they want to reject Truth. Not just religious people, everyone, but it's apposite here. You're not going to kick a rock because you don't believe in the truth of the rock. Often Religion actually encourages you to put aside Truth in favour of Faith (loyalty), and in a free society people will naturally veer towards whatever meets their psychological needs - tho of course A) those needs have been at least partially fashioned by their society, and 2) aren't always healthy wish-fulfilment type desires.

As I say, fine by me as long as it's not harmful.

Belini:

Faith in reason …

It is not for Descartes a matter of faith that he exists. He sees that it could not be otherwise, he cannot doubt it. He goes on to say that mathematics is certain and indubitable. What is certain and indubitable is not a matter of faith. But he then goes on to claim that:

Everything we clearly and distinctly understand is true (Synopsis)

That, it seems to me, could be called a matter of faith, although, as the commentators have shown by their lack of agreement, we do not have a clear and distinct understanding of what he meant by this.

Where things get really interesting is when he introduces his algebraic method of solving for unknowns. He claims that any unknown can be solved based on what is known, starting with the knowledge of his own existence. In the fourth meditation he introduces the idea of the perfectibility and infallibility of man based on his method. Is this faith? As Matthew says:

Truly I tell you, if you have faith ... Nothing will be impossible for you. (17:20)

There is an echo here of the story of the tower of Babel, where God says that if they succeed in building the tower nothing they set themselves to do will be impossible for them. It is from this story that Descartes (following Bacon) gets the idea of a universal language, which he identifies as mathematics. For Descartes it is not so much a matter of faith in reason but of what we can accomplish through reason.

Fooloso4, I picture the philosophical Rationalist as someone who believes it's possible , disembodied, to examine the world elevated above and free of any subject illusions.

Gertie wrote:Yes it does make sense that people feel the need to make sense of the world, saying 'I don't know' feels unsatisfactory, but when you say God fills the gap ''better'', I think what that really means is that God fills the gap in a more psychologically satisfying way. If it's a harmless belief which fills the gap and helps people lead more satisfying lives, I don't have a problem with it. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. Unfortunately many God beliefs are very harmful, and particularly resistant to argument or progressivism because they believe they're in touch with some deep, eternal revealed truth beyond the ken of mere man.

I'd be more cautious with the word “progressivism.” Nowadays, a “progressive” is someone who label those with whom they differ as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. They demonize the religious and use the courts to destroy their business.

-- Updated December 6th, 2016, 6:21 pm to add the following --

By the way, can you get any more condescending?

Dark Matter wrote:

Gertie wrote:Yes it does make sense that people feel the need to make sense of the world, saying 'I don't know' feels unsatisfactory, but when you say God fills the gap ''better'', I think what that really means is that God fills the gap in a more psychologically satisfying way. If it's a harmless belief which fills the gap and helps people lead more satisfying lives, I don't have a problem with it. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. Unfortunately many God beliefs are very harmful, and particularly resistant to argument or progressivism because they believe they're in touch with some deep, eternal revealed truth beyond the ken of mere man.

I'd be more cautious with the word “progressivism.” Nowadays, a “progressive” is someone who label those with whom they differ as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. They demonize the religious and use the courts to destroy their business.

-- Updated December 6th, 2016, 6:21 pm to add the following --

By the way, can you get any more condescending?

You say atheists don't understand analogy, you say explaining your beliefs to me is like trying to explain a Van Gogh to a blind person.... don't complain about being condescended to.

Belindi:

I picture the philosophical Rationalist as someone who believes it's possible , disembodied, to examine the world elevated above and free of any subject illusions.

As a generality it is true enough, but it does not tell the whole story. For one, we have to consider the importance of optics for Descartes (I am not familiar enough with Spinoza to say what role they played for him beyond his profession as a lens maker). We tend to take the telescope for granted but its invention represented more that a tool for seeing further. We also have to consider that Descartes, contrary to Marx’s claim about philosophers, was not interested in simply interpreting the world but changing it. This is what the end of his provisional moral code is about. He says that whereas the stoics accepted what they could not change, it will no longer be necessary to accept because it is or will be in our power to change the world. Advances in medical knowledge was one area he devoted time and energy to.

Fooloso4 wrote:Descartes, contrary to Marx’s claim about philosophers, was not interested in simply interpreting the world but changing it.

Apparently, Marx defied his own definition by his own example.

Dark Matter wrote:
I'd be more cautious with the word “progressivism.” Nowadays, a “progressive” is someone who label those with whom they differ as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted.

Let me get this straight... I am not as fast as the others around here. You have a sense of pride by not being a "progressive" but being one from whom the progressives differ?

Gertie wrote:

Dark Matter wrote: By the way, can you get any more condescending?

You say atheists don't understand analogy, you say explaining your beliefs to me is like trying to explain a Van Gogh to a blind person.... don't complain about being condescended to.

I'm in good company.

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Francis Bacon

Atheists “are in general sciolists rather than ingenious or learned”and “commonly allege in favor of the non-existence of God, arises continually from one or other of these two things, namely, either the ascription of human affections to Deity, or the undue attribution to our minds of so much vigor and wisdom that we may essay to determine and comprehend what God can and ought to do.” Rene Descartes

Almost 400 years and atheists still haven't changed their tune.

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:

I picture the philosophical Rationalist as someone who believes it's possible , disembodied, to examine the world elevated above and free of any subject illusions.

As a generality it is true enough, but it does not tell the whole story. For one, we have to consider the importance of optics for Descartes (I am not familiar enough with Spinoza to say what role they played for him beyond his profession as a lens maker). We tend to take the telescope for granted but its invention represented more that a tool for seeing further. We also have to consider that Descartes, contrary to Marx’s claim about philosophers, was not interested in simply interpreting the world but changing it. This is what the end of his provisional moral code is about. He says that whereas the stoics accepted what they could not change, it will no longer be necessary to accept because it is or will be in our power to change the world. Advances in medical knowledge was one area he devoted time and energy to.

Praiseworthy then. Does Descartes' shaky ontological stance discredit his rationale at all?

Spinoza pretty thoroughly studied Descartes and metamorphosed the ontological dualism into ontological monism, thereby also pointing firmly towards a workable ethics based , not upon Free Will, but upon reason. I think that there is controversy as to whether or not Spinoza is actually an empiricist not a rationalist, although he uses rational method in 'Ethics'.

BTW I do recommend Stewart Hampshire's commentary on Spinozism and Spinoza , scholarly and easy to read.

At your instigation I found the following in online Enclyclopaedia of Philosophy:

He was clear, in his own mind at least, that the model had hardly be given a demonstration in the sense in which one could give in geometry the sort of demonstration given by Euclid. He wrote to Mersenne:

You ask me whether I think what I have written about refraction is a demonstration. I think it is, at least as far as it is possible, without having proved the principles of physics previously by metaphysics, to give any demonstration in this subject ... as far as any other question of mechanics, optics, or astronomy, or any other question which is not purely geometrical or arithmetical, has ever been demonstrated. But to demand that I should give geometrical demonstrations of matters which depend on physics is to demand that I should do the impossible. If you restrict the use of “demonstration” to geometrical proofs only, you will be obliged to say that Archimedes demonstrated nothing in mechanics, nor Vitello in optics, nor Ptolemy in astronomy, etc., which is not commonly maintained. For, in such matters, one is satisfied that the writers, having presupposed certain things which are not obviously contradictory to experience, have besides argued, consistently and without logical fallacy, even if their assumptions are not exactly true. (27 May 1638)


-- Updated December 7th, 2016, 5:34 am to add the following --

The ref for the above quote from Descartes is www.iep.utm.edu/desc-sci/

Belindi:

Does Descartes' shaky ontological stance discredit his rationale at all?

Do you mean his dualism or the problem he gets into when he attempts to apply the idea of an extended substance to the physical world? I am not sure what you mean by his rationale.

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:

Does Descartes' shaky ontological stance discredit his rationale at all?

Do you mean his dualism or the problem he gets into when he attempts to apply the idea of an extended substance to the physical world? I am not sure what you mean by his rationale.

By "his shaky ontological stance" I mean his dualism.

By "his rationale" I mean what he wrote Mersenne in the extract which I copied into my last. I don't suppose I can say it better than Descartes said it but I understand that a 21st century physicist uses experiments and observations i.e empirical method and fleshes out the empirical findings with maths. This seems to me, please correct me if I'm wrong, to be implied by what Descartes wrote to Mersenne

Belindi:

By "his shaky ontological stance" I mean his dualism.

By "his rationale" I mean what he wrote Mersenne in the extract which I copied into my last.

I don’t think the former discredits the latter. As I understand it, the letter to Mersenne had to do with with his denial that demonstrations in physics, specifically refraction, requires the same demonstrations provided for metaphysics.

From the quoted passage:

But to demand that I should give geometrical demonstrations of matters which depend on physics is to demand that I should do the impossible. If you restrict the use of “demonstration” to geometrical proofs only, you will be obliged to say that Archimedes demonstrated nothing in mechanics, nor Vitello in optics, nor Ptolemy in astronomy, etc., which is not commonly maintained.

This seems to me, please correct me if I'm wrong, to be implied by what Descartes wrote to Mersenne.

I think that in general you are right, although contemporary physics relies heavily on mathematical models and with both quantum physics and cosmology experiment and observation are problematic.

When he says:

... even if their assumptions are not exactly true

this sounds very much like contemporary science based on probability, approximation, and correction as opposed to the idea of indubitible certainty.

Although none of this touches on monism.

Fooloso4 wrote regarding Descartes' ontological and scientific stance as explained in the post above:

Although none of this touches on monism.

I introduced into the topic Spinoza as he who metamorphosed Descartes' dualism into neutral monism. Briefly , as I'm sure you know, Descartes believed that there are two basic , ontic substances , mind and matter (or "extended substance"). Spinoza, also very concerned about ontic substance, tetained the concepts of mind and matter but those now, after Spinoza, refer to twin aspects of the one substance which Spinoza called "God- or- nature".

The use of dual-aspect monism for science is that both mental and material aspects of our experience can be subjected to scientific investigations. Lacan founded his psychoanalysis upon dual aspect monism. Although psychoanalysis is now an unpopular therapy it illustrates determinism, an adjunct of dual-aspect monism, upon which most scientific belief and practice is founded.

-- Updated December 8th, 2016, 5:27 am to add the following --

Belindi wrote:Fooloso4 wrote regarding Descartes' ontological and scientific stance as explained in the post above:

Although none of this touches on monism.

I introduced into the topic Spinoza as he who metamorphosed Descartes' dualism into neutral monism. Briefly , as I'm sure you know, Descartes believed that there are two basic , ontic substances , mind and matter (or "extended substance"). Spinoza, also very concerned about ontic substance, retained the concepts of mind and matter but those now, after Spinoza, refer to twin aspects of the one substance which Spinoza called "God- or- nature".

The use of dual-aspect monism for science is that both mental and material aspects of our experience can be subjected to scientific investigations. Lacan founded his psychoanalysis upon dual aspect monism. Although psychoanalysis is now an unpopular therapy it illustrates determinism, an adjunct of dual-aspect monism, upon which most scientific belief and practice is founded.

Scruffy Nerf Herder:

Interesting topic.

1. Some things undeniably exist.

2. But my nonexistence is possible, for I am not a necessary being but one that changes or comes to be.

3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.

5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.

6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

7. This infinitely all-powerful, all-knowing being is what is meant by a theistic god.

8. Therefore, a theistic god exists.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. I think that might be the case, as things that exist seem to do so because they are caused to exist by actions or processes which precede them (cause and effect), but I wouldn't claim absolutely that everything which exists is contingent upon something else for it's existence, even though it may appear this way. Seeing things in this way, could be akin to believing that the geocentric model is correct, whilst time, progression and evidence shows us that the heliocentric model is the reality. QM is showing us that our understandings and perceptions of the nature of reality are questionable.

4. If the universe is eternal and operates according to the principles of cause and effect – then I think that its possible (hypothetically speaking) that there could be an infinite regress of causes of existence. I think its problematic to isolate a single cause of existence, since the question of “what came before that” will always arise.

5. An uncaused cause, is problematic I think. Furthermore, if we stipulate an uncaused cause which is responsible for existence, we automatically attribute properties to "it" which mean that it was capable of causing existence – such as intelligence; properties which we have no evidence of existing at such a scale. As far as I know, causes of our existences are empirical and not “uncaused.”

6. Is an example of what I previously stated (I think), in that you're attributing properties to an “uncaused cause” which we have no way of proving or demonstrating it would possess. So it seems like anthropomorphism. What I've found in my experience of being a long-time theist turned agnostic, is that belief in an all-powerful being or intelligent creator requires leaps of faith to fill the gaps made by missing evidence or logic – which many find completely unacceptable.

7. Agreed.

8. On the basis of a first uncaused cause? I think there are other possible causes of existence. A first uncaused cause seems too problematic a premise to base a sound argument for an intelligent creator upon. I think that a couple of the major flaws it presents as an argument are (a) it requires leaps of faith and (b) there's no empirical evidence that a theistic “God” exists. Anecdotal evidence, such as people's "spiritual" experiences (one example of evidence given for the existence of a theistic God) aren't enough to substantiate a claim that an infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing being exists. They may point to there being something “more” than is physically observable, but attributing those experiences to a “God” is again, in my opinion, a leap of faith.