A somewhat more philosophical post than I usually do... I wrote this up during an exchange w/ a theologian differentiating two ways we can gain knowledge.
To a theologian:
Let's start with mathematical truths -- I think that they are true and in a very real sense constitute knowledge. Knowledge about something that is abstract, however. One of the features of abstract subjects, in my view, is that it is quite possible to make real progress in them without new inputs. Euler, an amazing mathematician, placed in a shielded box and given enough time could make real progress in mathematics.
I mean this to contrast methods of inquiry about external reality. When it comes to external reality -- how stars work, the rules that govern the motions of the planets, etc., a physicist in a box could make lots and lots of models and guesses and arguments... but, unless he re-analyzes data from before he came into the box, he won't make progress in physics.
For example, Einstein, with the data of Mercury's weird orbit and the results from Michelson, could be put in a box, and with enough thinking could come up with General Relativity.
However, Einstein, placed in a box before the first experiments in quantum mechanics were done, would never end up concluding quantum mechanics. He might, given infinite time, detail hundreds of thousands of possible physics on small scales that includes our modern conception of QM, but he would be in no position to choose one from the others with any confidence at all. He might even pick what he thinks is the most beautiful physics at small scales, but what counts is not beauty or arguments, per se, but whether his physics matches reality.
That brings me to what I think is our main point of conflict between our approaches.
I fully acknowledge that progress can be made in all areas of mathematics and much of philosophy from internal reflection and argument without any new data coming into a person's head. When a person thinks that this abstract knowledge can tell us something specific about external reality, the existence of God for example, they are simply making a category error.
Can theology reason out the attributes of what would be a perfect being? Sure. Can abstract reasoning alone tell us something about external reality? Possibly... although I'm having a hard time thinking of an example where it's happened before.
Keep thinking about the difference between math and physics. If you wander too far away from direct measurement and experience, you can do a lot of work, and convince yourself of quite a lot... although you won't learn much about external reality.
I'm not expecting this to be unanimously agreed upon -- comments?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b8f35b7f-4c01-4a7b-aee5-91edfce23a1b)
{ 4 comments }
As a physicist married to a mathematician, I'm confident saying that this sounds like a very accurate characterization! I have no problem with the debates that theologians have about their religions, and actually find them really interesting, but I wish that they (and their readers) were more conscious of the fact that all their argumentation is implicitly prefaced with, "If a deity exists with properties x, y, and z…."
I suppose I am joining the conversation late; however, I'd like to make a correction as to what the reasoning actually is. The reasoning is this:
Many people are in a search for God, the God of scripture. The God of scripture is omnipotent, Eternal, ominiscient. Eternal maning having no beginning or ending. If they can find any such substance or being it is God by definition. Scientifically, there must be something eternal, since we have never witnessed anything that came into existence from nothing. Evolution cannot be an explanation because we have not witnessed it and anything scientific must be witnessed, tested and proven.
(Coment continued)
Therefore,
A. There must be a cause which needed no cause, because it already was (this is not ex nihilo since it did not "come" at all).
B. This cause must not be governed by laws of nature since it needed no cause and is self-sufficient (since it didn't need nature before nature came into existence), it is therefore above nature or "supernatural".
C. This eternal being must also, by being self-sufficient, be above the "powers" or abilities of nature, therefore making it, by natural definition be "omnipotent".
D. Since it is above nature and caused nature, it stands to reason that this supernatural, omnipotent being, wwould know everything there is to know about it's own effect or creation, therefore omniscient.
E. An eternal, ominiscient, omnipotent being, matches the description of the God of scripture, therefore it is God.
That's why I tend to think of theology as a house of cards. You can build very elaborate theological structures based on sophisticated philosophical argumentation and reasoning, but as soon as you add in the stipulation of evidence and confirmation with the external world the entire edifice collapses in on itself.
Comments on this entry are closed.