Panentheism and Brute Facts

[Angrboda]

I think you're just kicking the can down the road, and worse, pushing it into god-of-the-gaps territory. Since primal matter has no properties, it can only be known through inference and deduction, making it impossible to demonstrate in any observation. Moreover, since it depends on inference and deduction, this requires placing the entire work load on the back of the reliability of reason, which in your worldview is little more than an assertion. I personally do not put any faith in the premise that rationality is ultimately reliable, effectively infallible, but the long and short of it is that it is a premise that simply won't bear the weight. As noted before, the counter-factual of the premise that reason is reliable yields a paradox which can't be evaluated under classical logic, so that's two of your premises that have been pushed into the realm of the unknowable. Exactly why do you suppose any of this would be convincing? As a Hindu, I postulate that "All is Maya," everything is an illusion. How is one or the other more supportable in any real sense?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think you're just kicking the can down the road, and worse, pushing it into god-of-the-gaps territory.

If Divinity is part of (or in my opinion the whole of) reality then it makes sense to its influence could be ‘observed’ (more on that below) in natural phenomena.

Since primal matter has no properties, it can only be known through inference and deduction, making it impossible to demonstrate in any observation.

There is no such thing as purely empirical knowledge. Pretty much everything not immediately visible to the naked eye is known by inference and deduction. For example the star and spiral patterns visible in a chamber are just that, spirals and stars, until placed in the context of atomic theory. People consider a theory justified if their interpretation of the data fits neatly in their theoretical framework. Observation is itself a theory-laden claim. Moreover, you are completely wrong about primal matter, it has one and only one property, potency, the propensity to be.

…this requires placing the entire work load on the back of the reliability of reason, which in your worldview is little more than an assertion.

Yeah, and evolution is “ just a theory”… You’re hand-waving.

I personally do not put any faith in the premise that rationality is ultimately reliable, effectively infallible, but the long and short of it is that it is a premise that simply won't bear the weight. As noted before, the counter-factual of the premise that reason is reliable yields a paradox which can't be evaluated under classical logic, so that's two of your premises that have been pushed into the realm of the unknowable.

Is this a rational position? What other means of gaining this type of knowledge do you recommend “bear the weight”…intuition, mystical visions, tarot cards? Everyone knows that ideas can appear to be rational without actually being so. We’re only human. The reliability of reason depends on clear thinking and having good information. If you’re going to use that against me by saying my position is “little more than an assertion” then you must also level that charge on all positions, including your own.
Your reference to the liar’s paradox in no way undermines the validity of classical logic. Without content a proposition has no meaning. The self-referential structure of something like “This statement is false,” just keeps trying to borrow content from its own empty pockets. This is not a serious objection to the validity of logic or its application.

As a Hindu, I postulate that "All is Maya," everything is an illusion. How is one or the other more supportable in any real sense?

From having discussed this concept with life-long Hindus, I can say with confidence that “all is maya” does not undermine my position. In Western terms, a Maya-type illusion happens when accidental or secondary properties give the ego (itself a secondary construct) the false impression of a plurality that distracts it from the fundamental unity of reality. “All is Maya” is not the actual solution; but rather a prompt to contemplate of the tension between the Unity & Plurality and Being & Change. The difference between East and West is that, starting with the Greeks, the West’s intellectual tradition has approached the problem using rational inquiry whereas in the East various spiritual practices evolved to invoke experiences of gnostic insight. I see these as complimentary approaches, not in direct conflict.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Me: DAFUQ is this thread?

OP = ChadWooters

Me: Oh! Don't care! Moving on!

[Mudhammam]

If Divinity is part of (or in my opinion the whole of) reality then it makes sense to its influence could be ‘observed’ (more on that below) in natural phenomena.

What the fuck is your hypothesis then? In what ways might we test this *cough* "theory" *cough* of yours?

There is no such thing as purely empirical knowledge. Pretty much everything not immediately visible to the naked eye is known by inference and deduction. For example the star and spiral patterns visible in a chamber are just that, spirals and stars, until placed in the context of atomic theory. People consider a theory justified if their interpretation of the data fits neatly in their theoretical framework. Observation is itself a theory-laden claim. Moreover, you are completely wrong about primal matter, it has one and only one property, potency, the propensity to be.

Ohhh, so your theory makes predictions and gets results just like atomic theory. Interesting. Mmm-hmm, go on.

Yeah, and evolution is “ just a theory”… You’re hand-waving.

...really? Come on dude, you're smarter than this. Evolution is "just a theory," "only" based on a "giant" pile of accumulating "facts" attested to by multiple branches of "scientific inquiry."

Is this a rational position? What other means of gaining this type of knowledge do you recommend “bear the weight”…intuition, mystical visions, tarot cards? Everyone knows that ideas can appear to be rational without actually being so. We’re only human. The reliability of reason depends on clear thinking and having good information. If you’re going to use that against me by saying my position is “little more than an assertion” then you must also level that charge on all positions, including your own.

Uh..yeah..except not. Because some positions are supported by evidence, such as the position that physical laws are quite capable of bringing about everything you see without the help of Superman.

From having discussed this concept with life-long Hindus, I can say with confidence that “all is maya” does not undermine my position. In Western terms, a Maya-type illusion happens when accidental or secondary properties give the ego (itself a secondary construct) the false impression of a plurality that distracts it from the fundamental unity of reality. “All is Maya” is not the actual solution; but rather a prompt to contemplate of the tension between the Unity & Plurality and Being & Change. The difference between East and West is that, starting with the Greeks, the West’s intellectual tradition has approached the problem using rational inquiry whereas in the East various spiritual practices evolved to invoke experiences of gnostic insight. I see these as complimentary approaches, not in direct conflict.

What has "gnostic insight" been directly responsible for solving?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Just more Chad vomit with chunks of Kant in it.

[Angrboda]

I think you're just kicking the can down the road, and worse, pushing it into god-of-the-gaps territory.

If Divinity is part of (or in my opinion the whole of) reality then it makes sense to its influence could be ‘observed’ (more on that below) in natural phenomena.

"If"

"Makes sense" is not a high enough bar to add God into the model of reality, especially when it really doesn't explain anything, but merely serves as an empty explanation for anything that needs explaining. Do the attributes of God give rise to the photoelectric effect? Bell's theorem? Black body radiation? No? The reason is because it is not a complete and full explanation for anything. It is just a placeholder for an explanation which never comes, and isn't coming.

Since primal matter has no properties, it can only be known through inference and deduction, making it impossible to demonstrate in any observation.

There is no such thing as purely empirical knowledge. Pretty much everything not immediately visible to the naked eye is known by inference and deduction. For example the star and spiral patterns visible in a chamber are just that, spirals and stars, until placed in the context of atomic theory. People consider a theory justified if their interpretation of the data fits neatly in their theoretical framework. Observation is itself a theory-laden claim. Moreover, you are completely wrong about primal matter, it has one and only one property, potency, the propensity to be.

The fact that there is no completely empirical observation does not put a theory with no empirical content on an equal footing with theories that do have substantial empirical content. This is little more than an attempt at the nuclear option; you can't obtain victory with your ideas, so you will attempt to deny it to every other alternative. Only it doesn't work, because there are legitimate reasons to prefer theories with empirical content to ones without it. Theories without it are near impossible to verify, there is no demarcation between alternative empiricism-free theories except on the basis of fancy and imagination, and theories with empirical content can be rationally demonstrated, and, they have a much better history of enabling the production of instrumentally useful things. You're essentially arguing that because we cannot eliminate the non-empirical in any theory, there's no reason to prefer theories with empirical content to those with none. This is pure bullshit.

I personally do not put any faith in the premise that rationality is ultimately reliable, effectively infallible, but the long and short of it is that it is a premise that simply won't bear the weight. As noted before, the counter-factual of the premise that reason is reliable yields a paradox which can't be evaluated under classical logic, so that's two of your premises that have been pushed into the realm of the unknowable.

Is this a rational position? What other means of gaining this type of knowledge do you recommend “bear the weight”…intuition, mystical visions, tarot cards? Everyone knows that ideas can appear to be rational without actually being so. We’re only human. The reliability of reason depends on clear thinking and having good information. If you’re going to use that against me by saying my position is “little more than an assertion” then you must also level that charge on all positions, including your own.

Your reference to the liar’s paradox in no way undermines the validity of classical logic. Without content a proposition has no meaning. The self-referential structure of something like “This statement is false,” just keeps trying to borrow content from its own empty pockets. This is not a serious objection to the validity of logic or its application.

That wasn't my point. And pointing out that your basis for concluding the existence of primal matter depends solely on this premise isn't "hand waving," it's a little thing called "entailment." My point is not that reason is so flawed as to be useless, it is only that, under what appears to be your conception of it, reason and rationality are simply not sufficiently well justified for you to be able to cash out the concept of primal matter on the justifications for the sufficiency of reason and logic which exist. Logic and reason, as popularly conceived, have serious limitations in terms of determinacy and completeness which cannot be closed at this time; as long as they have these limitations, any purely ontological argument, whether Anselm or Aristotle, is going to be unable to demonstrate its own validity.

As a Hindu, I postulate that "All is Maya," everything is an illusion. How is one or the other more supportable in any real sense?

From having discussed this concept with life-long Hindus, I can say with confidence that “all is maya” does not undermine my position. In Western terms, a Maya-type illusion happens when accidental or secondary properties give the ego (itself a secondary construct) the false impression of a plurality that distracts it from the fundamental unity of reality. “All is Maya” is not the actual solution; but rather a prompt to contemplate of the tension between the Unity & Plurality and Being & Change. The difference between East and West is that, starting with the Greeks, the West’s intellectual tradition has approached the problem using rational inquiry whereas in the East various spiritual practices evolved to invoke experiences of gnostic insight. I see these as complimentary approaches, not in direct conflict.

I think you're failing to address the point, which is, if you have equivalent theories, that conflict, both of which "make sense," yet neither has empirical content, on what basis should we prefer one to the other? On who has the most eloquent spokesperson? On which side produces the most papers? On who has the most adherents? What is your criteria for demarcating fact from fancy in non-empirical theories? Reason? I think we've already been there.


As long as I'm here, I'll point out another flaw, which is that you rely on "popular" conceptions of 'god' to inform how we should derive the properties of reality. The current conception of Him is far from unanimous, either currently or historically. So which "attributes of god" are you going to draw upon which are not plagued by one fallacy or another in invoking them. You're a Christian, so god to you means one thing. As a Shakta Hindu, it means something else. As a Taoist, it may mean something else. Again, what demarcation criteria are you using to pick which version of 'god' to base inferences on, and how is that criteria not ultimately fallacious and arbitrary?

[MindForgedManacle]

You’ve mentioned the preponderance of atheists among philosophers before. What you say is true. Earlier I chose not to address it since it seems like an argument from authority similar to “4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest”. I imaging parallel discussions of metaphysics happen in theology departments and do not cross the academic divide.

You misunderstand me, though I should point out that an argument from authority, when referencing an actual authority(ies) on the topic is not actually logically fallacious.
My point was that if you think that theist philosophers, on the topic of causality, have evaded circularity while atheist philosophers on this topic have not, I have no clue how you're justifying that given that discourse on causation has effectively been non-theistic, at least beginning with Hume and onward.

No, I do not agree with presuppositionalism. I think it’s stupid. And yes this is more of an axiom, but (I think) one that tacitly accepts an active role for intellect. My thoughts on this remain sketchy. I’m still thinking about the issue. We can drop it for now.

Mmkay.

I will need to know more about entropy theories. I believe you mentioned Sean Carroll? In the same way that you do not understand my primal matter/informing principle distinction, I’m not fully understanding your references to entropy. I trust that you have put much thought into it and have background knowledge that remains unexpressed.
With respect to your second point, yes, ultimately everything does go back to Divine Will, but I’m stopping short of that holding to intentionality (awareness & choice) as a fundamental aspect of reality that supplies essential attributes.

Lol, you have way too much confidence in regards to the extent to which I've thought out all my philosophical positions. :p

From what I [think I] understand of Carroll's work on the topic it goes something like this:

The Big Bang is a chance from a more ordered state to an increasingly disordered one. This phenomenon of increased disorder is what we calk entropy. Given that the Big Bang was such an event, it's unsurprising that our current cosmological models indicate that only very simply elements were present in the early universe. However, as the amount of disorder increases - which is necessary purely as a matter of statistics - more complex elements are created via nuclear fusions, which in turn is ultimately responsible for complex phenomenon like life.

Not exactly. We all agree that some aspects of reality are readily apparent and everyone (except radical skeptics, like Hume) accepts them, either tacitly or explicitly. I say that based on these facts, you can identify common principles unite them into a single theory. I’m not saying that God IS the unifying principle, since (as you observed) that only pushes the problem back. I am saying that the deduced unifying principles are consistent with those commonly attributed to God.

The problem is that some of these 'readily apparent aspects' are just assumptions which are generally just made on the basis of pragmatism, not from any real metaphysical insight.

There seems to be no shortage of ‘quantum woo’. From ‘What the #&^% Do We Know” to “The Secret”. I find it silly but also somewhat entertaining. That said, I do believe that quantum process deserve serious consideration since a) they bear directly on the fundamental structure of reality and b) some problems, like mind-brain interaction, haven’t advanced using 19th century physics.

Oh I agree quantum mechanics deserves consideration, just that there is a considerable amount of woo-woo made on the basis of it, and ALL of it contrary to all but 6% of physicists.

If you find it more interesting, I would not mind focusing on the problems you see with panetheism. I welcome the serious criticism. I do not doubt that some are valid, since no philosophical system is entirely complete; questions always remain.

Some general objections that come to my mind are the seeming conflicts between it and orthodox Christian beliefs, though I don't know how much your beliefs are in line with the orthodoxy. For example, it is commonly held that, as per the Bible, God is not of this world, he is separate from it and that unatoned for sin cannot be in the presence of God. Yet under panentheism, it seems all these things are necessarily the case. Sin is then very much within God himself.

---

I'm not so sure about this. Rational thought is valid by definition IN THE CONTEXT of ideas which are validated by rational thought. There's a dangerous self-reference there that shouldn't be dismissed so readily.

You misunderstand me. In that context, by 'rational thought' I meant logic basically. Perhaps a better way of putting what I meant is that, contrary to presuppositionalists, the claimthat logic itself needs some kind of external justification to determine its validity is nonsense. Logic is the means by which something is declared valid or not. The rough equivalent of that would be to claim that it's sensible to ask "What is the measure by which you measure that your measuring device is as long as it is?" Clearly this will not do, seeing as our measuring devices are the means by which we measure things.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some general objections that come to my mind are the seeming conflicts between it and orthodox Christian beliefs, though I don't know how much your beliefs are in line with the orthodoxy. For example, it is commonly held that, as per the Bible, God is not of this world, he is separate from it and that unatoned for sin cannot be in the presence of God. Yet under panentheism, it seems all these things are necessarily the case. Sin is then very much within God himself.

Yes, my beliefs hardly qualify as orthodox. I like to think that my views line up with the essentials of the faith, even with those of GC and Drich. My sympathies lie with Process theology, but I haven’t committed to that line of thinking just yet. I think there is much to be said for a god that creates by kenosis, withdrawing Himself (in some sense) to make room for our independence.

@Rae, the empirical content of my view is based on the fact that we can have empirical content at all. My view is that experience is the source from which people get knowledge by reasoning from it. In contrast to this, your non-dualist believe undermines the very idea of empirical knowledge, since the only true reality is Brahman.

[sven]

Atheistic stances place a larger number of phenomena into the “brute facts” category. Naturalistic philosophies have a few more ‘brute facts’ that many atheists feel need no further explanation. Such phenomena include: the link between efficient causes and their effects, the world’s apparent ability to ‘self-organize’...

self-organize? Did you make that word up yourself?
Nothing wrong with that. But think of it this way -- the universe begins, evolves, life appears on earth, and then we become sentient and able to reflect and reason. One day one of us draws a pattern in the sand and says, 'Look, this is everywhere in nature! Nature can order itself, and therefore it must be sentient! Nature must be God!'
We observe what we believe to be patterns, but in fact it is just us observing and copying matter following the path of least resistance and calling this a pattern. Patterns are important to us, because if we can recognize them it helps us survive. That is why we sometimes think clouds look like hearts, or faces, or whatever. We look for patterns and the reason behind them all the time. But if a cloud looks like a pig, is it a pig?
To me, the flying pig in the sky is about as real a concept as this 'self-organization' that you speak of, because I am an atheist.