Seeking the Next Step

Scott,
Please allow me to explain myself and who I am a little more completely. There should be no need for you to guess as to who I am or what I think. First, I absolutely do not question the validity of disciplined empirical science. Here’s why. I received my science education in electrical engineering in the early 1960’s, when vacuum tubes were still the established technology and semiconductors were a curiosity of physics. I spent 33 years as an engineer and I had to relearn the newest science and technology at least every 4 years. I was there for the transition from vacuum tubes to semiconductors. I was there for the birth and growth of microprocessors, PCs and scary software. I was there for the design of 10 to 20 million component integrated circuits which were completely designed by characteristic software. By the time I left the field where I had engaged in semiconductors, logic circuitry design including microprocessor emulation systems, and semiconductor design, (receiving patents in several categories), the half life of the education of science and technology R&D types was less than 3 years. So I am very familiar with the process of empirical statistical experimental design and certain areas of science, as well as the supplanting of old concepts with new ones. I tell you this to provide an insight into my professional background, and to provide a background for the next paragraph.

Second, my website began as a pile of evidence on my desk, when I first began to question my chosen faith: atheism. The atheism of empiricism had wormed its way into being my (unexamined) worldview. So many things about atheism as a worldview just did not add up. For 40 years I had accepted the lack of a god, and had presumed the validity of the historical sciences without any but superficial investigation on my part. When we retired to raise cattle, I had time to reflect. When I looked into the processes and conclusions of the historical sciences, I was, quite frankly stunned. This impetus served to focus my analysis onto the most basic things that can be believed, and I went about completing the education that I did not receive in the college science arena. This included study and understanding the process of logic and rational thought, and the bottom line reasons for considering them to be valid pursuits and fundamental to all western thought, including empiricism. From this I built up a method for me to use to analyze every proposition, and I began to look at (a/A)theism with a much better education.

So I am definitely a supporter of empiricism; a skeptic of historical science’s extrapolations; a seeker for logical steps into the reality that very likely exists beyond the capabilities of the process of empiricism; and a huge fan of the logical / rational process.

I did NOT intend to attack, or appear to attack, the discipline of empiricism as a valid and useful technique. My hope for this discussion is to try to determine if there is any reality beyond the capability of empiricism to detect, and if so, how do we arrive at the first step toward apprehension of that (non-physical) reality.

I am curious how you segment your theism and your empiricism. Do you believe in separate non-overlapping magesteria?

I personally suspect that that there is a non-separate meta-reality superset that encompasses the physically perceived reality, and that this meta-reality might one day be investigable by techniques available to humans but possibly dissimilar to current empiricism (perhaps a meta-empiricism). An example of this is string theory which has a “beautiful” mathematical underpinning, but no way to physically detect it. Another mathematical model is the Theory of Maximum Entropy Production which seems both to support and to refute evolution, depending upon how you choose to bend it. A biological example is the concept of brain plasticity vs. Monism.

I’ll keep this short, since I am not sure that you want to go to that first step beyond empiricism, which was my original objective, although I might not have been clear enough in my statement of it.

Again I thank you for your considered participation in this discussion.

BTW, Atheist websites use the logo with the red A capitalized. You use the “Friend of A” logo (which I unapologetically stole from you ) with a capital A. I also use the capital A for “Atheism”, which is an activist belief and social agenda system that is parasitic to the non-theism of empiricism. The capitalization of Atheism serves to differentiate it against the “small a” atheism, which is not a worldview or dogma. Again, I agree with the voluntary (a)theism of the empirical discipline.

It is the philosophical, agenda-driven (A)theism that I feel is not sustainable, logically. But I don’t want to attack (A)theism, either. I would like to develop a separate, independent path between empiricism and any reality that might exist beyond empirical self-imposed boundaries.

I hope you get your chemicals back!

Stan Stephens