deism vs. materialism

David McDivitt david at subjectivist.org
Tue May 10 04:32:14 CEST 2011


On 5/9/2011 3:32 AM, Daniel Davis wrote:
> I don't get your point, but I suppose I often don't. A materialist would more accurately say that he has models that have worked to a given accuracy. The whole talk of "law" is just a leftover metaphor from deistic thinking. There are no physics cops enforcing physical laws, and no one but deists think there is.
>
> The regularities are observed. If you ask why, I may show how one regularity can be derived from another regularity in our models. Lacking such, the only answer to give is "that's what we see, when we can break that regularity down further in terms of other regularities, we'll let you know."
>
> But why, Mommy, why? Sometimes you don't have any why.
>
> I don't see what is dishonest about such a view.

Dan, when you say "regularities are observed ", they are regularities in 
our own logic and refinements in observation. The point is we are 
"probably right" most of the time. Truth disappears when based on 
certainty, but becomes more solid when based on probability and 
reasonings to support probabilities. It may seem we are discovering and 
identifying "real" things, but each of those real things is expressed by 
an idea with the expectation or value judgment what it should be. 
Realism happens at the point we stop asking why. Some people never do 
ask why and take all the definitions of things in their environment for 
granted.

Ideas are very rigid. We maintain them. Logic is very rigid. Reality or 
realism on the other hand changes all the time. We live in a world of 
established ideas and expectations of what things should be. The best 
challenge a realist might make would be, "You say you make observations, 
but what are you observing if nothing is real?" This catches one off 
guard because of the circular reasoning it invokes. What happens when we 
examine supposed realness, see assumptions made, and see a need for 
greater definition? We have a new realness, and that goes on, and on, 
and on. There is therefore no realness.

The classic debate between a materialistic atheist and a theist is over 
existence and fantasy. But what they have are two contending ideas that 
differ in utility and pragmatism. Religion did not facilitate emerging 
technology over the past several hundred years very well, but 
constrained it. Therefore religion is being replaced with new and better 
thinking. It doesn't make any difference what really exists. There is no 
such thing. However, when materialists make existence assertions, they 
conflate by moving from empirical arguments to reality arguments, and 
reality arguments are circular. Empiricism leads to better logic and 
better ideas, not better understanding of "what is".

Surely you will agree most people don't think things through this far. 
They do not see the world as however many rigid ideas encompassing 
everything they touch and play with. I agree physical law is "just a 
leftover metaphor from deistic thinking" as you say, but thinking today 
remains very much deistic, in the same state Descartes left it. I do not 
see deism as having gone away. Some sense of underlying authority is 
still required and that goes back to Plato's universals.

Physical law is an idea, but the common understanding of physical law is 
obedience. Most people also feel we may not know all about physical law 
and have yet to discover much of it. My opinion is we have many things 
yet to observe, to have new and better logic and better ideas, but we 
have nothing to discover. We do not discover but make things up as we 
want or need them. I do not like the word "discovery" because it implies 
finding yet another one of Plato's universals, or helping him identify 
more that exist.

-- 
yes, I dare to be subjective!



More information about the nonserviam mailing list