The Resurrection

[Mister Agenda]

Of course they can.  They can also be proven through pragmatic methods, which is a lot more than you can say for religious beliefs.

Philosophy is no longer the best of human knowledge.  You are trying to tell time from a clock that has stopped.

This is one of those topics that comes up from time to time on forums like this one. 

Here is an old thread from this forum where empiricism was discussed:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-43125-page-3.html

You won't be allowed to post there, but some of the discussion is good.

These days Google helpfully offers an AI summary answer at the top of the page:

Empiricism cannot prove itself because, by its own definition, all knowledge comes from sensory experience, so there is no sensory experience that could verify the statement "all knowledge comes from sensory experience" - essentially creating a circular logic where the very idea of empiricism relies on an unprovable assumption about the source of knowledge itself; it's a classic "chicken and egg" problem within the philosophy of knowledge. 

and this one:

The idea that "empiricism can't prove empiricism" means that the very concept of relying solely on sensory experience to gain knowledge (empiricism) cannot be verified through sensory experience alone, creating a paradox; essentially, to prove that experience is the only source of knowledge, you would need to use some form of reasoning or intuition which goes beyond mere experience, contradicting the core tenet of empiricism itself. 

As with all AI we have to take it with a grain of salt, but it seems like a fair summary of the standard argument. 

It's similar with materialism. Materialists begin with the idea that only the material is real, so a materialist experiment which only accepts materialist methods and materialist results as reliable will rule out non-materialist answers a priori. 

It would seriously derail the thread to go further into this, but these are very standard arguments so if you're interested they won't be hard to find.

I don't disagree, but what can you prove with non-materialism? It hardly seems to be unique to materialism that it can't be proven in its own terms.

[The Grand Nudger]

Materialism has gotten as close as one can get to proof in philosophy.

[Angrboda]

Materialism has gotten as close as one can get to proof in philosophy.

What's the evidence for this proposition?

[Belacqua]

I don't disagree, but what can you prove with non-materialism? It hardly seems to be unique to materialism that it can't be proven in its own terms.

That's a good point.

Off hand (it's the middle of the night here) I suspect that every theory we have is in the end unprovable if we stay within the bounds of the theory itself. 

People are persuaded by one theory or another for reasons outside of the theory itself. So there is no empirical test we can do to prove that empiricism is best, but it's reasonable to be persuaded by its practical success. Other people claim that other systems are more likely, due to their (apparent) logical necessity. 

If someone claims that his favorite theory proves itself, that would invite some pretty careful examination.

[Angrboda]

Here's a hypothetical to consider:

Let's suppose that a scientist installs a flow meter in an effluent pipe emptying into a lake. The flow meter says that there is a large volume of effluent coming out of the pipe. His eyes tell him that nothing is coming out of the pipe. He verifies that the flow meter is operating correctly, but still nothing is coming out of the pipe.

Should the scientists conclude:
a) that the effluent is flowing because the flow meter is correct and his eyes are wrong;
b) that the effluent isn't flowing because his eyes are right but the flow meter is wrong;
c) that the effluent both is and isn't flowing;
d) that both can't be true because contradictory things cannot both be true.

Your answer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Materialism has gotten as close as one can get to proof in philosophy.

What's the evidence for this proposition?

Firstly, in that philosophy is not in the proof business.  That would be math.  Philosophy is chiefly concerned with conditional propositions.  In validity and soundness.  Reference and reliability.

(yes yes yes, western philosophy, contemporary philosophy, etc etc etc)  

It's not exactly true to say that materialism is axiomatic, because we didn't really begin with the notion and proceed from there.  What we found, instead, was that materialism was capable of producing sound premises which had utility in valid inferences.  Things which not only accurately described (apparent..hello empiricism!) truths, but that could also inform us of true things that were not readily apparent and when what was apparently true was in fact false.  All along the way the products of materialistic endeavors were compared and contrasted with other products and those products found wanting, or reducible to materialistic endeavors and processes themselves.  

To the point that, right here in this very thread, an alleged christian who is not a materialist is premising the possibility of divine action on the products of materialistic technological ability.  Materialism and it's products have become the concept to steal in any competing ideology and that's really all there is to suceeding at philosophy.  When your ideas become critical to everyone elses ideas and even (or especially) to countervailing premises.

Bringing it back to the initial comparison, this is itself a conditional state of affairs. The god botherers could god a mass into orbit at any time and change peoples minds about this...but we're not even being treated to this as a premise at present. We're hearing about god the materialistic mechanic. Spirit as just another type of matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's a hypothetical to consider:

Let's suppose that a scientist installs a flow meter in an effluent pipe emptying into a lake.  The flow meter says that there is a large volume of effluent coming out of the pipe.  His eyes tell him that nothing is coming out of the pipe.  He verifies that the flow meter is operating correctly, but still nothing is coming out of the pipe.

Should the scientists conclude:
a) that the effluent is flowing because the flow meter is correct and his eyes are wrong;
b) that the effluent isn't flowing because his eyes are right but the flow meter is wrong;
c) that the effluent both is and isn't flowing;
d) that both can't be true because contradictory things cannot both be true.

Your answer?

C, he has a leak between the meter and target area.  I used to deal with this roughly every 48 hours. If not c, then b.

[Angrboda]

What's the evidence for this proposition?

Firstly, in that philosophy is not in the proof business.  That would be math.  Philosophy is chiefly concerned with conditional propositions.  In validity and soundness.  Reference and reliability.

(yes yes yes, western philosophy, contemporary philosophy, etc etc etc)  

It's not exactly true to say that materialism is axiomatic, because we didn't really begin with the notion and proceed from there.  What we found, instead, was that materialism was capable of producing sound premises which had utility in valid inferences.  Things which not only accurately described (apparent..hello empiricism!) truths, but that could also inform us of true things that were not readily apparent and when what was apparently true was in fact false.  All along the way the products of materialistic endeavors were compared and contrasted with other products and those products found wanting, or reducible to materialistic endeavors and processes themselves.  

To the point that, right here in this very thread, an alleged christian who is not a materialist is premising the possibility of divine action on the products of materialistic technological ability.  Materialism and it's products have become the concept to steal in any competing ideology and that's really all there is to suceeding at philosophy.  When your ideas become critical to everyone elses ideas and even (or especially) to countervailing premises.

Bringing it back to the initial comparison, this is itself a conditional state of affairs.  The god botherers could god a mass into orbit at any time and change peoples minds about this...but we're not even being treated to this as a premise at present.  We're hearing about god the materialistic mechanic.  Spirit as just another type of matter.

Those endeavors might very well be successful even if monism is false. The one does not impute the other. What you're engaged in is an appeal to ignorance. The alternatives that I have considered are false, therefore my alternative is true. This is a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle.

[The Grand Nudger]

Reasonable people can disagree.

You asked for evidence that materialism had gotten as close to proof as was possible in philosophy, which is not in the proof business. I added specific detail but could have simply said that it is the most successful form of philosophical inquiry by that forms own stated metrics. It could be that the whole universe was engaged in a grand conspiracy to make it seem so when it is not....but that would require one hell of an explanation itself..and if we ever do find out that's the case...just as it has before, it's going to come from materialistic endeavors and processes. In the strongest sense of that objection the so called laws of logic are themselves in error...and we're just talking about the realtive utility and effectiveness of various heuristics.

I don't think god-thinking is going to come out on top of technological-thinking even in that comparison, and, apparently...neither do contemporary christians.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Really? Google "Divine Antonym". My first three hits were "mortal", "human", and "mundane". So clearly there are people who believe that humans aren't gods and gods aren't human. Imagine that.

We're not talking about antonyms here. There's no such thing as an antonym for cat, and yet dog and bird are together all equal members of some category.