Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[polymath257]

I think this is a misunderstanding of how hings are explained in science. We cannot observe 'causes'. We can only observe correlations. The causal component is always in the theory. it is a construct, not a basic observation. And what constitutes a 'cause' depends on the theory.

So, when we say that charged particles cause electric fields, ALL we have is the correlation between charged particles and electric fields and a theory that describes how the two are correlated. The same is true for mass and gravity. The theory says that one causes the other, but that is a postulate of the theory, not some detailed mechanism.

Once we have underlying theories, we can 'explain' other things via causality, but when we do so we rely on that underlying theory.

So, we can explain chemical bonding in terms of 'electron sharing', more specifically in terms of the formation of molecular orbitals, but such an explanation relies on the deeper theory of quantum mechanics. We can explain how motors work, but only once we have the underlying theory of electromagnetism.

So, what I think will eventually happen is that we will have neural correlates to conscious experiences to the point that we could 'read minds' by looking at neural behavior. We could then point to specific neural activity and say that is the neural signature of the experience. This can even be tested by having subjects report their experiences.

And, my point is that this would be a perfectly good 'explanation' of conscious experiences in terms of neural behavior in the same way that we can say that the electrons in s system are an explanation for the electric fields observed. No deeper 'explanation' is required past the consistent correlation. What is required is exactly the 'translation table' between neural activity and conscious experience.

In other words, there is *only* a soft problem of consciousness, just like there is only a soft problem of electric fields or of gravity.

Okay.  Then explain to me how we know that ice cream trucks don't cause drownings?

Well, what is the data that suggests that they do? How localized is the correlation? How good is the correlation? Does it work at the level of individual ice cream trucks? How far away are the drownings and the trucks? What alternative hypotheses have been proposed? Do other types of trucks also correlate? Does geography matter?

More generally, suppose that I hypothesize that ice cream trucks cause drownings, what sort of data would test that hypothesis? And have we collected data in that context?

And if the hypothesis passes all tests that have been proposed to show it wrong, in what sense can we say that there is no causality?

If the correlation is strong, universal, and consistent, then maybe we actually do have evidence that there is causality.