Abstracta

There are certain non-material abstractions that we seem to be justified in believing in. I say "belief" because these items cannot be classified using the space-time, mass-energy constraints of materialism or its subdiscipline, empiricism. These are human constructs, yet are thought to exist... or are they?

Are we justified in believing the existence of the following constructs?

1. Number. For example, two is an abstraction; without it, there would exist just "instance, instance". Say we see multiples of the animal called "cow". We might say, "I see two cows", and that would be a valid statement. But without the human construct of numbers I must say, "I see cow, cow". Are we justified in believing that "two" is possessed of valid meaning, and therefore exists?

2. Fairness and justice. Fairness says "I deserve what I deserve". Justice says that unfairness should be rectified. Again, no tangible metrics can be brought to bear directly on "fairness". It is an abstraction, yet we believe it don't we?

3. Right vs. Wrong; Good vs. Bad. Right / wrong are abstracts and good / bad are measurement decisions. Many if not all Atheists reject Right / Wrong, but accept good / bad. Yet both are abstracts of the same degree.

4. Utopianism vs. Free will. Utopianism is the idea that man is perfectible, perhaps by sufficient education (science education?) to motivate each individual to do only that which is beneficial for the whole of mankind; free will is the idea that mankind will always be beset with those who are motivated by self centered needs, who seek to satisfy themselves at the cost to the whole of mankind. Motivation itself is an abstraction.

Civilization is built on concepts that are not material. Justice, human rights, the validity of governing power, spirit of cooperation, definitions of Right and Wrong, these are all abstractions in the material sense. They are not physical; they are then, metaphysical. Is it reasonable to believe that these are truly existing entities, even though they are human constructs? If so, what is the justification for believing so?

It is doubtful that many modern Atheists are not materialists. I have shown many times how philosophical materialism is self-refuting. Is there any reason to think that the abstractions we use daily are self-refuting?

In fact why do we believe that self-refuting concepts are not "good"? Refutation itself is a statement of the first principle, non-contradiction. This is a logical concept, not material.

We believe these things because they devolve to the "first principles", those ideas for which we can plainly see the validity, yet we cannot prove materially. The first principles are the bedrock of abstraction, without which - as Nietzsche showed - irrationality unrestrainedly ensues.

So if the principle of non-contradiction exists and is a valid entity, useful in our daily lives, and useful in the pursuit of science, then we are forced to believe that some metaphysical entities do in fact exist, and are valid.

This is a position from the defense of logic. It is not a religious statement. It is not true that if a statement supports non-material entities, it is religious. And this is a refutation of recent Atheist statements concerning my position on the matter. Logic itself is non-material; Materialism and the worship of materialistic science are false.

So the constant drumming for more education in science is, when coupled with the decadence of the overall education system in the USA, a one-sided viewpoint that overlooks the lack of education in literacy, history, arts and a general lack of motivation to stick it out in a dismal educational experience. Over half of American youth hit the streets long before they are even literate, much less scientists.

Perhaps the next post will address this: "Is Science Education a Moral Imperative?"