“What We Expect To See”: A Materialist Logic Lapse.
In a recent communication with proponents of Atheism, the phrase, “what we would expect to see”, came up. This was in reference to something non-physical that has a Materialist Just So Story attached to it in order to make it seem less likely to be non-material in nature.
This phrase, “what we would expect to see”, is used from time to time, and its use mimics a scientific phrase in which an experimental result is compared favorably with a prior hypothesis. The phrase bears the borrowed weight of the scientific discipline, yet is very much out of its element in discussing entities that have no physical characteristics such as mass/energy or space/time.
Empirical science wisely limits its own range of possible endeavors to entities that DO have mass/energy and space/time. This limit is voluntary. It is a functional inhibition on the empirical process, not a philosophical limit on reality.
So endeavoring to expand into the realm of non-physical entities is a leap outside the boundaries of empiricism. Certain historical sciences start outside of empiricism by discovering information – say clay pots – and developing hypotheses about the pots, their location and so on; but as much as possible, empirical methods are used to validate the hypotheses. And such historical sciences still remain within the boundaries of mass/energy and space/time.
When an entity that exists, undeniably, outside of the boundaries of physical reality is it reasonable to place physical expectations upon it? Why would mathematics, to take a basic instance of a non-physical entity, be expected to have weight, velocity, temperature or any other physical characteristic? It would not. So why should any non-physical entity conform to a physical “story” that is “what we would expect to see”?
Not only is the “expectation” itself an incorrect logical structure, but any conclusion that is drawn using such an expectation is thereby guaranteed to be incorrect as well.
So why would this statement be used so often by Atheists and Materialists? Being logically incorrect in its assumption of physical characteristics for non-physical things is a natural course for them, even habitual. This is because it is necessary to assign characteristics to a multidimensional deity that would render it arguable in the limited realm of Materialism, and thus be deniable. So, for example, not ever actually seeing a deity qualifies as a “reason” to deny its existence.
But the denial comes first, and the qualification of the denial comes later, as a justification. And this is the fallacy of Rationalization, where the conclusion is assumed first and the premises are then created, sorted and stacked in its favor. It is just not rational, nor is it logical.
So the phrase, “just what we would expect”, is a copped phrase from a legitimate pursuit, science, and is illegitimately applied to non-physical entities, outside and beyond the physical pursuit of science. Whenever I see the phrase, I first grimace at the inappropriate use, then I smile at the transparency of the attempt to persuade using false precepts.
3 comments:
This phrase is not offered in relation to the non-physical entity, but rather the claimed physical influence this non-physical entity has.
Examples: evidence of design in the universe; evidence of god's presence in people's lives; the supposed healing power of prayer.
These are claims about the physical world and hence subject to scientific enquiry. But these claims carry absolutely no weight when scientifically examined.
Indeed, the Universe behave exactly as you would expect it to if there were no outside influence.
The physical evidence to which you refer is abundantly available; it is rejected precisely for the reason that it cannot be allowed- if Philosophical Materialism is to be preserved as "truth" (the conclusion determines the evidence).
For example, biologists have to remind themselves that the designs of which they speak are "really not designs" by definition, not by proof, or by rational expectation.
Also, the claims of the influence of prayer, and evidence of God in people's lives... any investigation of these things is already biased against them due to the presupposition of Materialism. It is easy to create unsubstantiable stories to support Philosophical Materialism; it is not easy to investigate individual instances of "God working in someone's life".
Example: The inability of meth addicts to leave the addiction except under the influence of a religious transformation in an extremely high percentage of cases is well documented; this data will of course be rejected. It has to be in order to preserve the preassumption of Materialism and Atheism. Investigation of such a phenomenon will require interviews and studies which will reject the interviewee's input in favor of some sort of fabricated "psychological" just so story.
The same thing again for Colson's prison recidivism program: recidivism decreases dramatically to around 10%, when the inmates are exposed to the possibility of God acting in their lives. Compare this to the extremely high rate when prisoners are restricted to Atheist / Secular influences.
The argument fails rationally at every turn. Materialists reject that failure of their argument at the risk of their own intellectual honesty. Once intellectual discipline and honesty is compromised, future intellectual compromise is easy, even seemingly mandated; regaining intellectual integrity is very, very difficult.
Intellectual disintegrity (i.e. lies) must be protected with more lies.
Post a Comment