This article exists in the never-land where anyone can edit it, somewhat like wikipedia articles. So what you read might not be exactly what I have read. Nonetheless, the high points can be quickly encapsulated here, and that is what I will comment on.
The gist of the article is simply to decorate the differences between "majesteria" in Gould's terms. Hume called the differences to the fore, and now a planar viewpoint is given. This could have been better done in terms of "branes" perhaps, but still the visual aspect works: Reality is on plane U, but we exist on plane X.
If plane X doesn't intersect plane U in any way, then we cannot know that we are not in contact with reality. But we can investigate our own plane, plane X, and find the rules that are consistent with existing on it, and perhaps never know the difference.
Now, if plane U does contact plane X briefly, we cannot verify anything about the characteristics of plane U, except through the experiences of others who witnessed the contact. The author(s) of the paper are of the opinion that such hearsay is of no value. The evidence must be widely corroborated and backed up with archaeological evidence. In other words, only material evidence of such an intersection of planes is considered valid.
In the meantime, all observations of plane X must be given their due, and be considered valid, despite any contradictory hearsay about plane U.
At this point in the article, the fuzz starts to appear. An assumption is made as to what the desire of the creator on plane U wants of his creatures on plane X: honesty. And violating intellectual honesty as seen by the writer(s) is idolatry. So to deny, say science, is idolatry which goes against God.
In their final analysis, the author(s) pit idolatry against obedience. One cannot deny science in favor of questionable hearsay evidence. And then the dagger: God must be unfair to demand obedience: The authors would "rather spend eternity somewhere else".
The argument has run aground.
Within the materialist limitations placed upon plane X, and the rejection of witness testimony, only plane X can ever be investigated. Plane U cannot be known to exist, and is therefore rejected. This is the standard philosophical materialist argument. The philosophical materialist argument is self-defeating (an argument is not material, so a materialist argument is self-contradicting: a paradox).
The final statement in the article indicates the underlying worldview of the protagonist(s): there is no plane U. The entire argument is just another twist on the same old philosophical materialism fallacy.
4 comments:
Samuel Skinner
I'm reminded of Star Wars here. They have magical powers known as the force and... they cope with them and factor them in. If "supernatural" occurs often enough than people will cope with it and take it for granted. If it occurs rarely than it will be a mystery. However, this presumes that there are multiple planes of existance that interact like randomly and sporadicly. Such an arrangement isn't stable- the two if they are attraced or repeled by each other should either push off or combine.
So, no it doesn't make sense to treat certain things as "supernatural". It is just an admission they don't have the evidence. The best example of this would be the fact that claims of supernatural decrease through historic time in direct relation to education.
Samuel Skiner said,
"The best example of this would be the fact that claims of supernatural decrease through historic time in direct relation to education."
As always, correlation does not prove cause. My circle is quite well educated, but has stories - told only in private - of the inexplicable, materially speaking. Reluctance to relate these stories outside the privacy of trusted listeners is based upon the reality that anyone who maintains such things in a secular / atheist society is automatically labelled a kook, and has thus limited opportunities of all kinds.
The educational failure in the US is not really related to concrete, rational thought, and it is not intended to be. Rational thought has to be engendered outside the ravages of the education system.
The attitude of aggressive secularism cuts off the flow of information that secularists might otherwise receive; they would ridicule it anyway, so it is pointless. The secularist / atheist knee-jerk response to any intersection of the planes would be to declare the phenomenon imaginary, mass hysteria, self-delusion, etc. There is no form of personal testimony that will convince the sec / ath of anything beyond his will to accept.
So until the planes intersect at his particular space-time location, the sec/ath will not believe anything of the sort.
BTW, there is no reason to believe that the intersection of two branes would be a violent event. Read "reason" as: material evidence, so much in demand by sec/ath's.
Samuel Skinner
I meant attributing events to supernatural causes. That has essentially stopped. We don't attribute history to the divine acting through humanity.
The educational system in the US has so many holes it isn't funny. They don't even teach evolution everywhere for fear of pissing of the natives!
Aggresive secularism? Have you ever heard of skepticism? The idea of "that is nice prove it"? People make outrageous claims constantly- and we have to use evidence to judge its validity. No evidence, no reason to take it as true.
"Planes"? Are you making up your own physics as you go along? Haven't you ever heard of Occum's Razor?
Skepticism is self-defeating: are you skeptical of skepticism? Or are you skeptical of only those things you prefer not to believe?
Now, a quick light beam focused onto the concept of "evidence" for you. All, repeat: all, evidence is probabilistic. The probabilities you assign are up to you and are filtered through your own world view. If your world view is Philosophical Materialism, then only tangible evidence is allowable to you.
If so, you cannot allow any testimony from any source, because testimony is not tangible, it is abstract. It cannot be measured or affected by force or gravity; it does not reflect light, warp space, etc.
So your available informative input is limited to your own observations. Now this probably doesn't happen for you, and you probably accept testimony that conforms to your worldview, and you reject that which does not. So be it. But understand that the filtered approach is not objective, it is subjective. And being subjective, it is not an accurate reflection of the full realm of reality. Moreover it is not consistent with Philosophical Materialism.
Please reread the post. I was responding to an article that used planes as a metaphor. I responded in the language of the metaphor already being used by the article. You didn't comprehend what I wrote. And BTW, Occam's Razor is not a law of physics. It is a suggestion of parsimony.
Post a Comment