Atheist Logic Loops and Lapses #2

Materialist Misappropriation of Empiricism

This Materialist Logic Lapse is closely related to the one in the previous post. This post is a more general treatment of the same issue. In order to begin an analysis of this particular failure of logic it is necessary once again to make very clear what empiricism is and what it can and cannot do.

Empirical science is the pursuit of cause and effect observations that produce the laws that govern the physical behavior of the universe and its contents. Philosophically neutral, empiricism chooses voluntarily to limit its endeavors to the physical, measurable aspects of our physical reality. So in this limited sense, empiricism is “functionally materialist”.

However, being philosophically neutral, empiricism makes no claims about that which it cannot perceive or measure. Those who hold that there “is no existence or reality” beyond the overtly physical are Philosophical Materialists (also known somewhat erroneously as Naturalists – erroneous because a deity could be natural but not material).

So, succinctly,

empiricism requires (a) a physical cause, and (b) a physical effect.

What then would empiricism be able to make of the secondary effects of a non-natural deviation, interference, or singularity in the physical universe? Such effects are claimed and documented, some of which are general in nature and described statistically, and others – many others – are anecdotal and not general in any sense. How does empiricism approach instances of a physical effect produced by non-physical cause?

Empiricism does not pretend to approach such a mixed arrangement of the physical and non-physical because this includes parameters that are outside its chosen operating field. What empiricism does do, however is to attempt to find a physical cause to replace the supernatural cause in order to determine if the cause is actually physical. This is perfectly acceptable to all levels of logic and rationality. If a statue weeps blood, it must be investigated for trickery and fraud, and the material, physical cause - if found - be made known.

But what if a material, physical cause cannot be found? What empirical conclusion is to be declared? Should it be concluded that the material cause exists, but it merely is not yet known? This last position is not empirical, it is Philosophical Materialist. It is based on a denial of non-material reality, a basis that it cannot prove, one that it cherishes without proof. The proper empirical conclusion would be that, at worst, testing for a physical cause is not conclusive.

This leads the believers in Philosophical Materialism to create fanciful answers out of the whole cloth of their fertile imaginations, answers not verifiable yet declared true in order to preserve the limits of Materialism anyway. So here lies the logical disconnect, the fallacy of attempting to claim empiricism as a basis for denying non-natural causes: empiricism won’t and can’t do that. It is a false assumption. The fallacy is exacerbated by the intellectually dishonest use of just-so stories as "truth" claims for the cause.

This failure of logic is so commonplace that Materialists use it without further thought; however, the trap is transparent with just a little investigation.

To repeat a refutation of Philosophical Materialism: It cannot be physically proven that non-physical reality does not exist; in fact non-physical entities are known to exist, including mathematical relationships, universal laws of physics, logic, not to mention human conceptualization and philosophy itself. A philosophy cannot rationally reject philosophy. Philosophical Materialism is false.