@willpayton:
Notice I put logic up in my #1 point. This is because IMO logic is the #1 presupposition in order to know anything about the universe. If you believe that logic is not a universal constant and is not applicable always and everywhere, then on what do you base any conclusions?
How do you support the claim of "There simply is more that these things cannot touch or even admit are within the realm of possibility"? You have already taken logic out of the equation, since you dont believe it's a universal law that logic always applies, so you cant give me a logical argument to support your claim. So, what IS your argument?
I don't rule out logic as also a starting point. Notice that I placed (as you define it) in parentheses. Your definition of logic more than likely also emerges from a materialistic view of reality correct?
So again I reassert my point that for a non-materialist (like science), logic is an extremely useful tool but isn't fully sufficient to recognize, comprehend, categorize all phenomena. Most phenomena probably, but not all.
Now I completely agree with you that without some ground rules (logic) communication is not possible. My only real point is that at some point in the face of some potential phenomena logic will reach it's limit of usefulness. On one hand this may be a very small quantity of phenomena but on the other hand it may vastly outweigh the rest in quality or value.
My claim is that there is some phenomena which a materialistic system may not be capable of perceiving because of the limitations of that system. There may be other ways of perceiving this phenomena which lie outside of a materialist methodology.
I disagree that a materialistic/empirical worldview is insufficient to comprehend all phenomena. You didnt prove this to be the case above, only asserted it.
Let me ask how exactly can I "prove" anything to a materialist using a non-materialist view of reality? The best we could agree to would be that I disagree with your assertions which emerge from a strictly materialist view of reality while you disagree with my assertions which emerge from a non-materialist view of reality. Neither of us can "prove" anything to the other because we stand on very differing views of reality.
There is only one element of "faith" that a materialist needs, which is the assumption that the rules of logic are a universal and always apply. Everything else follows from there including all of mathematics, physics, and the principles on which science are based including materialism.
Yes. Although I am not convinced that materialism emerges from logic. It seems the other way around to me.
You could say that the idea of the supernatural "threatens" materialism, in the sense that it's a competing worldview, but from a materialist point of view I dont see the problem. You cant defend the supernatural with logic (since you have ruled it out as something that always applies), and I'm not sure what you CAN defend it with. (hence my initial questions above)
Yes as opposing views of reality each "threatens" the other. For the rest I refer to my above comments. Certainly it remains that we can only each "assert" our position to the other (and by extension as representatives of those who are located within our camps) For the non-materialist the materialistic definition of logic is simply not sufficient. As I said before logic serves as ground rules for communication but it does not require one to arrive upon a materialistic view of reality.
Lastly, materialism isnt circular, it simply always assumes those things (i.e. the rules of logic) on which it is based. If it were circular then it would try to prove logic with other ideas that are derived from logic, which is not the case. An actual example of a circular argument is as follows:
1. The Bible is true because it was written by God.
2. God wrote the Bible because it says so in the Bible, which is known to be true.
Each of statement 1 and 2 supports the other entirely and without external proof.
I agree that your two statements are indeed circular. But they lie outside the purview of our discussion. Several steps up the pyramid so to speak. This is a discussion on the merits of a materialist vs a non-materialist view of reality.
The claim that materialism is true by using materialist methodologies which emerge from a materialist view of reality is also a self contained circular argument. In other words "logic is true because materialism is true and materialism is true because logic is true."
I will restate that I also value logic and science but "to a point". There is some phenomena which exists in reality for which a materialistic understanding of "logic" is not sufficient to recognize, comprehend or categorize. This is the fundamental presupposition which the materialist denies and the non-materialist affirms.
Should there be a way to use materialistic methodologies to definitively demonstrate such phenomena then it would be "logical" to include those into one's system. So again even the idea of "logic" stands upon a materialist view of reality.
However the non-materialist is perfectly happy to be labeled "irrational" or "illogical" if those terms are undergirded by a materialistic view of reality. He somehow sees what the materialist cannot.
Log in to comment