Here's one that's not so easy, unless you understand it: what do you mean by "cause"?
To avoid being mysterious, I'll observe that you're trying to put reality into the language. The reality has no problem with itself, but language certainly sometimes has problems with reality. So what does "cause" mean? — tim wood

Science is in essence an attempt to comprehend reality in terms of natural causes and effects. The underlying purpose is to achieve full comprehension.

Scientific materialism asserts that full comprehension of natural causes and effects constitutes full comprehension of reality; there is no need for consideration of a supernatural cause.

The assertion fails on its own terms because reality cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect--or in any other terms--because there is no understanding of individual particle events.

The absence of causality does not refute materialism. It refutes the proposition that knowledge of natural causes refutes theism. — GeorgeTheThird

Ok. Firstly, if you're going to use the lack/absence of causality in the quantum world to attack scientific "knowledge" which is, as you presume, about causal relationships and then use this gap to introduce god, you might want to investigate the reasons behind why there's no definitive understanding of causality at the quantum level. I know next to nothing about quantum physics but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations.

Secondly, and you did mention this, there's a difference between the behavior of individual particles and aggregates of particles. We may be uncertain about causality in the former but causality is well-established in the latter. For instance each particle inside a billiard ball behaves in accordance to quantum physics but the billiard all participates in a causal chain when somebody plays it.

The god of the gaps has mainly been about the macro, human-scale world where causality applies and in this domain, science has clearly identified and described causal relationships. The fact that you're trying to use quantum physics, a smaller region compared to what was initially all phenomena, is an indication that, indeed, the god of the gaps is shrinking in relevance.

I know next to nothing about quantum physics but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations. — TheMadFool

Yes, causality is just the simplest form of linear connection. Same thing with Complex Adaptive Systems and chaotic attractors. That's why it's called 'non-linear dynamics'. The relationships exist, they just aren't straightforward.

Yes, causality is just the simplest form of linear connection. Same thing with Complex Adaptive Systems and chaotic attractors. That's why it's called 'non-linear dynamics'. The relationships exist, they just aren't straightforward. — Pantagruel

:ok:

The appeal to science for support of materialism is fallacious because comprehension of the operation natural world is not proof that the world was not created by a supernatural being. The Judeo-Christian assertion is that increased knowledge of the natural world leads to increased appreciation of the Creator's genius. No scientific experiment can falsify that assertion. — GeorgeTheThird

I agree with that. But going even further, if sometime in the future we manage to show that there are things that happen within a living body that don’t get explained by the physical laws that apply to particles, for instance if we show that some particles within a living body break these laws, then that would be evidence that a living being is more than the particles that make up its body, that there is a fundamental difference between life and non-life. But I’d say that anyway experiencing feelings already shows that we are more than a body, feelings aren’t a bunch of particles, they are something else.

At the level of individual particle events, the universe is a black box. We have learned how to push the buttons and read the gauges on the face of the box, but we have no idea what is going on inside the box. — GeorgeTheThird

Well we describe how things change, but that doesn’t explain why they change, what makes them change, why they follow laws. Either some being is making them follow these laws, or the fact they follow these laws would be forever unexplainable. Personally I’d go with the first option. After all we are beings who create change through what we do, so maybe the change we see that doesn’t come from us comes from some other being.

The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes. — GeorgeTheThird

I know. But if you have 10 quintillion coins the deviation will be negligible which is why I said quantum mechanics predicts the behavior of aggregates of particles correctly 99.999999999% of the time so has it really failed?

Statistics (as you point out) show some understanding of particle events in the aggregate. The obvious question is, "What makes the individual particles behave as they do, so that they produce the aggregate behavior?"

For example, if 100 coins are thrown in the air and allowed to land on the floor, there will be about 50 heads and 50 tails. If the actual numbers are 52 heads and 48 tails, we might ask why that is so. The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes.

The classical laws of physics can, in principle, provide the answer so long as the initial conditions of the coins, and the environmental conditions, are known. The outcome is predictable and comprehended.

There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood. — GeorgeTheThird

Correct. It could be thousands of years before understanding all the nuances of particles interaction is understood.

There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood. — GeorgeTheThird

Precisely. It is not understood. It is assumed to be true, and that is precisely the assumption of scientific materialism: "The laws of the universe can be learned; they are universal; and man is capable of learning them".

Just because they are not understood, they are still understandable (this is an assumption).

But because we don't understand it, there is no reason to believe there are no rules.

It's a belief, that the assumption is correct. Just like your belief in the assumption that a god creates a causal relationship.

Firstly, if you're going to use the lack/absence of causality in the quantum world to attack scientific "knowledge" — TheMadFool

I am not attacking scientific knowledge. Not in the least. I work in the applied sciences, as an engineer. I make my living putting to use what the theoreticians have proposed and the experimentalists have demonstrated. I doubt anyone has more respect for those people than me.

which is, as you presume, about causal relationships and then use this gap to introduce god — TheMadFool

I haven't actually introduced God; I have not presented an argument for the existence of God. I have argued that the refutation of God on the basis of knowledge of the natural world has failed. This opens up the possibility of a real God for some who previously considered his existence impossible. Positive arguments for God are for a different discussion.

you might want to investigate the reasons behind why there's no definitive understanding of causality at the quantum level. I know next to nothing about quantum physics — TheMadFool

Knowing next to nothing, it is unwise to assume others know nothing without having done some reading on your own. (I did the same thing when I first became interested in relativity, and made a fool of myself on the physics forum.)

but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations. — TheMadFool

No, the equations are not causal. They describe probabilities of states, not causes of states. No cause for the state of a quantum system is known.

"A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it."
(emphasis mine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

See also the references I cited earlier, John Wheeler and Kenneth Ford.

Please note that I don't know enough math to understand or use the equations, so of course I only know what respected experts say about them. I certainly do not challenge them.

Also, as a side note, the equations of non-quantum physics are causal for the purposes of understanding the observable behavior of the natural world, but they contain no information about the cause of the behavior itself. For example, the equations of general relativity describe the warping of space and time in the vicinity of a massive body, but they say nothing about why a massive body has the observed effect upon space and time. In engineering terms, the equations are a functional specification, describing the behavior of the universe. Missing is a design specification, describing how the universe is built so as to produce the observed behavior. This is something to think about, if one is under the impression that modern science has a good understanding of what the universe is, as distinct from what it does.

there's a difference between the behavior of individual particles and aggregates of particles. We may be uncertain about causality in the former but causality is well-established in the latter. — TheMadFool

There is certainly a difference in predictability. The behavior of individual particles is completely unpredictable, while the behavior of particles in the aggregate is predictable to within some very small (but greater than-zero) percentage.

However, it is precisely this difference in predictability that reveals the complete lack of understanding of physical reality. What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior?

For instance each particle inside a billiard ball behaves in accordance to quantum physics but the billiard ball participates in a causal chain when somebody plays it. — TheMadFool

For all practical purposes, you are correct, of course. Technically, however, the location of a billiard ball is not known with certainty. The wave equation for the ball only describes the probability that it will be at some specific location. It's just that the range of uncertainty is extremely small, smaller than our ability to measure. (As I recall, it is even smaller than a single atom, but don't quote me on that.)

The god of the gaps has mainly been about the macro, human-scale world where causality applies and in this domain, science has clearly identified and described causal relationships. The fact that you're trying to use quantum physics, a smaller region compared to what was initially all phenomena, is an indication that, indeed, the god of the gaps is shrinking in relevance. — TheMadFool

On the contrary, the complete failure to comprehend individual particle behavior means that we have no understanding at all of why the macro world behaves as it does.

The universe is a collection of quantum particles. Again: What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior?

What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior? — GeorgeTheThird

What are the bases that you say that the universe is made of a collection of completely unpredictable particles?

On the contrary, the complete failure to comprehend individual particle behavior means that we have no understanding at all of why the macro world behaves as it does. — GeorgeTheThird

This is not a valid proposition to say that because we don't understand individual particle behaviour, we have no way of understanding why the macro wrold behaves as it does.

We can observe the macro world and draw conclusions how it behaves. WHY it behaves that way? There are two kinds of "why" questions: 1. explain the purpose. 2. Explain the mechanism.
Explaining the mechanism of why the macro world behaves as it does, is well explained by various theories. Explaining the purpose of why the macro world behaves, or why it behaves the way it does, is not possible.

Your argument involving little tiny particles and their unpredictability ("complete unpredictability") has nothing to do with the answers to the proposition "we have no understanding at all of why the macro world behaves as it does." We have understanding of why the macro world behaves as it does, in terms of the interactions effecting other interactions in the macro world. We have no understanding of why, as in what is the reason, the purpose, for the macro world to behave as it does.

Your arugment involving little tiny particles and their unpredidtability was a smoke screen you applied to convolute the "why" question, and it worked for a while, but it has been debunked.

Sorry.

The universe is a collection of quantum particles. Again: What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior? — GeorgeTheThird

I think the way forward here is to investigate the ideas of causation and explanation. We sometimes say that we've explained something when we have fit it into a pattern or law. Often enough these 'laws' are 'true for no reason.' That's just how things happen.

It seems to me that humans will always end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no reason, brute facts. What do you make of this? And how do notions of God/god fit in with this? Can the idea of God be more than another 'true for no reason' terminus for inquiry?

Very good points, @softwhere.

Thanks!

I just thought I'd add that I think that gods function as emotion-generating community-binding symbols. The temptation for many is to somehow take religion literally and be scientific. IMV this results in awkward attempts to prove God's existence as a physical object of some sort.

What does 'God is a spirit' who 'must be worshipped in spirit and in truth' mean? Well it's a text that remains endlessly open to interpretation. But I read 'spiritual' in terms of intersubjectivity and culture. What values drive a society? To what degree are a society's deities a reflection/project of that society's idealized self? If God is understood as radically distinction from nature, then how does this connect to a society's attitude toward nature (perhaps one of demystified utility.) In short, gods have a kind of psychological reality, not unlike the spectral being of justice or rationality. Indeed, as deities become abstract (mere concepts), they are more spectral than ever. I can't find rationality with my telescope, but I believe it exists.

What are the bases that you say that the universe is made of a collection of completely unpredictable particles? — god must be atheist

From the original post:

Every high level event in the universe is the sum of many individual particle events. (Gravity can be ignored in this discussion because there will be no gravity events without massive particles, and massive particles are the result of quantum events.)

Science knows of no cause for the outcome of any individual particle event. So, any given high-level event that has a known cause is the sum of many individual particle events, not one of which has a known cause. (Or has no cause at all, if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.)

In a later post I supported those statements with references to John Wheeler and Kenneth Ford. I could add more references, but really there is nothing controversial in those two paragraphs.

Everything we observe in the natural world resolves to individual quantum particles, and those particles are completely unpredictable so far as anyone knows. The prevailing theory, as described in Ford's book, is that the behavior of individual particles is fundamentally probabilistic--there is no cause. Some doubt the assertion of fundamental probability and leave room for future advances in physics to reveal a cause. But as things stand, no cause is known and the particles are completely unpredictable.

This is not a valid proposition to say that because we don't understand individual particle behaviour, we have no way of understanding why the macro world behaves as it does. — god must be atheist

I did not mean by this that we have no functional understanding of the macro world. As I mentioned, I work as an engineer; I make use of the laws of physics as I design electro-mechanical eqipment. My livelihood depends on the predictable behavior of the macro world.

I do mean that the predictable behavior of the macro world is in itself an astonishing thing. There is no reason for the macro world, which is a collection of unpredictable particles, to act in a predictable way. It's as though the output from a random number generator were to present as a set of logarithm tables.

Why does the macro world behave predictably according to mathematical laws, instead of randomly as one would expect a collection of unpredictable particles to behave? That's what we don't understand, and in that fundamental sense we do not understand reality.

I do mean that the predictable behavior of the macro world is in itself an astonishing thing. There is no reason for the macro world, which is a collection of unpredictable particles, to act in a predictable way. It's as though the output from a random number generator were to present as a set of logarithm tables.

Why does the macro world behave predictably according to mathematical laws, instead of randomly as one would expect a collection of unpredictable particles to behave? That's what we don't understand, and in that fundamental sense we do not understand reality. — GeorgeTheThird

I suggest looking into statistics. That explains how the macro world is quasi-deterministic. Resolving that difficulty, however, doesn't (in my view) solve the problem. At some point we have structures that are brute facts. Now at a later time we may weave this 'brute fact' into a more comprehensive structure. But whatever the most comprehensive structure is at the time operates as a brute fact. Or at least I haven't seen any good arguments against this yet.

I think the way forward here is to investigate the ideas of causation and explanation. We sometimes say that we've explained something when we have fit it into a pattern or law. Often enough these 'laws' are 'true for no reason.' That's just how things happen. — softwhere

I can go some distance down that road. The critical point in this discussion is that there is no knowledge of cause or reason for the predictable behavior of the collection of unpredictable particles that constitutes the macro world. And that means that scientific materialism has failed to explain the natural world in terms of cause and effect, and so has failed in its attempt to eliminate God as cause. Again, this does not prove the existence of God. But it does open the door to the possibility of his existence for those who felt the door was closed by scientific knowledge.

It seems to me that humans will always end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no reason, brute facts. What do you make of this? And how do notions of God/god fit in with this? Can the idea of God be more than another 'true for no reason' terminus for inquiry? — softwhere

I agree that we humans will often end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no known reason; they are brute facts so far as we can tell.

It seems to me that the "is" of the universe (as opposed to the "does") will always be in that category. We are not likely to find out how the universe was built such that massive bodies distort time and space, for example.

And yes, I suppose the existence of God is true (or not true, depending on perspective) for no reason that we can ever know. (The theist might add, in this life anyway.)

The question of practical importance is whether he does or does not exist.

I just thought I'd add that I think that gods function as emotion-generating community-binding symbols. The temptation for many is to somehow take religion literally and be scientific. IMV this results in awkward attempts to prove God's existence as a physical object of some sort. — softwhere

Well, if you will pardon me for saying so, that is just bad theology from a Christian (and Jewish) perspective. In the Scripture, God presents himself first to our reason; emotions will follow as, when, and if appropriate.

What does 'God is a spirit' who 'must be worshipped in spirit and in truth' mean? Well it's a text that remains endlessly open to interpretation. — softwhere

Taken by itself, the interpretation might be very broad. But even as a stand-alone statement, the interpretation is not open-ended. "Spirit" is separate and distinct from "physical", so an interpretation that makes God into a physical object of some sort is clearly outside the limits.

Taking into account the context of the statement and the Scripture as a whole, the sentence parses something like this:
"God is": God's existence is asserted as fact--as one of those things that just is. His existence is not asserted as an axiom to be mindlessly accepted. In the Scripture, God himself gives reasons for people to recognize his existence. But his existence is asserted as factual whether or not that recognition is given.

"God is Spirit": God is spirit, not physical; he exists apart from the physical world that he created. I won't try to give a comprehensive definition of "spirit." I will say that a major component of spirit is moral character. The physical world (atoms and such) is amoral. Spirit is moral: It is good, loving, truthful, faithful, and so on. These moral traits are real, not just electrical impulses in our brains.

"those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.":
"worship": God is worthy of our honor and obedience; our full commitment and devotion.

"in spirit": Human beings, though obviously physical, are also moral. Our honor, commitment, and devotion to God is moral in character, just as he is moral.

"and truth": Our worship must be genuine. No holding back, no acting nice on Sunday morning and then lying, cheating and stealing all week.

And that means that scientific materialism has failed to explain the natural world in terms of cause and effect, and so has failed in its attempt to eliminate God as cause. — GeorgeTheThird

For me the main problem here is that God ends up functioning as a piece of explanatory machinery, Himself unexplained. It's like painting a beautiful face on our ignorance. Now I think the concept of God is of great importance, but I have passed through the fiery brook. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/

I agree that we humans will often end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no known reason; they are brute facts so far as we can tell. — GeorgeTheThird

Right, because seemingly brute patterns can be woven into grander, more comprehensive patterns. So the 'brute fact' is not fixed but rather our currently most general theory of existence.

It seems to me that the "is" of the universe (as opposed to the "does") will always be in that category. — GeorgeTheThird

We agree. It is not how but that the world exists that is the mystical. (Wittgenstein).

And yes, I suppose the existence of God is true (or not true, depending on perspective) for no reason that we can ever know. (The theist might add, in this life anyway.) — GeorgeTheThird

Even in the next life, if there is one, I don't see how human cognition escapes from something being true for no reason. If all existence is explained in terms of God's nature (what he wants), then that nature is the brute fact. For me this involves the nature or concept of explanation. Just thinking about explanation reveals that the whole is inexplicable in principle.

Well, if you will pardon me for saying so, that is just bad theology from a Christian (and Jewish) perspective. In the Scripture, God presents himself first to our reason; emotions will follow as, when, and if appropriate. — GeorgeTheThird

We disagree here. To me humanism is a continuation of theology. I don't expect to change your mind, but I insist that God as theoretical object is a bad framework. For me this is religion infected by scientism. To use logic and science to 'prove' God is to make logic and science primary and God a merely piece of bad physics.

God is Spirit": God is spirit, not physical; he exists apart from the physical world that he created. — GeorgeTheThird

I think this symbolizes man's distance from nature as a self-creating cultural being.

Human beings, though obviously physical, are also moral. Our honor, commitment, and devotion to God is moral in character, just as he is moral. — GeorgeTheThird

This is where we start to agree. The spiritual is the moral is the cultural. That's why an evil creator wouldn't be tolerated. God represents humanity's highest values.

Feuerbach begins The Essence of Christianity by proposing that, since human beings have religion and animals don’t, the key to understanding religion must be directly related to whatever it is that most essentially distinguishes human beings from animals. This, he maintains, is the distinctive kind of consciousness that is involved in the cognition of universals.[10] A being endowed with such “species-consciousness” is able to take its own essential nature as an object of thought. The capacity for thought is conceived here as the capacity to engage in internal dialogue, and thus to be aware of oneself as containing both an I and a Thou (a generic other), so that, in the act of thinking, the human individual stands in a relation to his species in which non-human animals, and human beings qua biological organisms, are incapable of standing. When a human being is conscious of himself as human, he is conscious of himself not only as a thinking being, but also as a willing and a feeling being.

The power of thinking is the light of knowledge [des Erkenntnis], the power of the will is the energy of character, the power of the heart is love. (WC 31/3)

These are not powers that the individual has at his disposal. They are rather powers that manifest themselves psychologically in the form of non-egoistic species-drives (Gattungstriebe) by which individuals periodically find themselves overwhelmed, especially those poets and thinkers in whose works the species-essence is most clearly instantiated. [11] Such manifestations include the experiences of erotic and platonic love; the drive to knowledge; the experience of being moved by the emotion expressed in music; the voice of conscience, which compels us to moderate our desires to avoid infringing on the freedom of others; compassion; admiration; and the urge to overcome our own moral and intellectual limitations. The latter urge, Feuerbach contends, presupposes an awareness that our individual limitations are not limitations of the species-essence, which functions thus as the norm or ideal toward which the individual’s efforts at self-transcendence are directed. — link

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/#CritChri

God is worthy of our honor and obedience; our full commitment and devotion. — GeorgeTheThird

As I see it, we try to incarnate God (the highest values) and imitate Christ. For me these terms are mythical and metaphorical, but then I think the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical. While this may sound like a demotion, I don't think it is. Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives.

Again: What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior? — GeorgeTheThird

Well, perhaps it's an issue of viewpoint. Predictability, where it's exhibited (the macro world), is "always" about mass, velocity, acceleration, volume, etc which aren't affected by unpredictable quantum properties of particles.

It's something like how the color of a ball, take it to be quantum unpredictability, doesn't affect its mass, the very thing that helps us make predictions about the ball. The microscopic, unpredictable, quantum nature of objects are irrelevant to their mass, the key element of their predictability.

To me humanism is a continuation of theology. — softwhere

Hmmmm. As someone who converted from an atheistic, human-centered, and essentially selfish worldview to a God-centered life of service to God and my fellow man [aside: however poorly executed that life of service may have been so far, the 180 degree turn in outlook is real and genuine], I find it difficult to understand and impossible to accept that humanism is a continuation of theology. I understand from your final statement in this post why you say this, but I cannot agree.

I insist that God as theoretical object is a bad framework. For me this is religion infected by scientism. To use logic and science to 'prove' God is to make logic and science primary and God a merely piece of bad physics. — softwhere

I don't consider that the existence of God can be proven.

No scientific experiment can prove or disprove his existence because science is by definition limited to demonstration of natural behavior. (Which is why scientific materialism as a method of eliminating God is a dead end, even if the human race were to achieve full comprehension of the natural world.)

Logic cannot prove his existence because his primacy requires that his existence be at the start of any chain of logical propositions, not at the end.

So I think we agree that God's existence cannot be proven, and for somewhat similar reasons. And I think this agreement means that I also agree that "God as a theoretical object is a bad framework."

On the other hand, it is not unscientific or illogical for someone to consider the question of God's existence and conclude that he is. Indeed, the Scripture asserts that the evidence compels the conclusion that he is.

As I see it, we try to incarnate God (the highest values) and imitate Christ. For me these terms are mythical and metaphorical, but then I think the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical. While this may sound like a demotion, I don't think it is. Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives. — softwhere

I read all of your post, and perhaps ten minute's worth of the web page on Feuerbach. My impression is that your view (and Feuerbach's view) makes sense—to a point—if one begins with the assumption that the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical.

As I see it, your view stops making sense when you say, "Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives."

You speak of 'good' and 'honorable' as if these characteristics exist for humanity as a whole. If there is no spirit, there is no more connection between one human being and another than between one rock and another.

The notions of 'good' and 'honorable' are meaningless in a spiritless world. In a spiritless world, one nerve impulse is as good as any other, whether the impulse is to help an old woman across the street or throw her under a passing bus. None of it matters. The universe doesn't care whether the collection of particles we call "that woman" continues in its current configuration, or is dispersed from one end of the galaxy to the other. There is no such concept as 'value', no means by which such a quantity might be measured.

In a spiritless world, humanism is an illusion.

I welcome your response.

Well, perhaps it's an issue of viewpoint. Predictability, where it's exhibited (the macro world), is "always" about mass, velocity, acceleration, volume, etc which aren't affected by unpredictable quantum properties of particles. — TheMadFool

The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles.

As someone who converted from an atheistic, human-centered, and essentially selfish worldview to a God-centered life of service to God and my fellow man [aside: however poorly executed that life of service may have been so far, the 180 degree turn in outlook is real and genuine], I find it difficult to understand and impossible to accept that humanism is a continuation of theology. — GeorgeTheThird

We probably agree that secular culture is largely dominated by selfishness and materialism. I'd say look to leftist thinking (at its best) for the humanist continuation of Christianity. If one goes way back, early Christians were revolutionaries, at least by some accounts.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/

I don't consider that the existence of God can be proven. — GeorgeTheThird

I respect that. I suppose I was suggesting that God should not be conceived as an object at all. Metaphorically speaking, I think God (what I mean by that) is 'proven' in that 'He' is what does the proving to being with. Since you and I are united in English, we are already components of an infinite subject (shared evolving consciousness within language).

Here are two quotes to specify what I mean:

Feuerbach made his first attempt to challenge prevailing ways of thinking about individuality in his inaugural dissertation, where he presented himself as a defender of speculative philosophy against those critics who claim that human reason is restricted to certain limits beyond which all inquiry is futile, and who accuse speculative philosophers of having transgressed these. This criticism, he argued, presupposes a conception of reason is a cognitive faculty of the individual thinking subject that is employed as an instrument for apprehending truths. He aimed to show that this view of the nature of reason is mistaken, that reason is one and the same in all thinking subjects, that it is universal and infinite, and that thinking (Denken) is not an activity performed by the individual, but rather by “the species” acting through the individual. “In thinking”, Feuerbach wrote, “I am bound together with, or rather, I am one with—indeed, I myself am—all human beings” (GW I:18). — page

the I, the self in general, which especially since the beginning of the Christian era, has ruled the world and has thought of itself as the only spirit that exists at all [to be] cast down from its royal throne. — Feuerbach

You mention having had an 'essentially selfish' worldview. I too came from that direction. I liked all the evil thinkers, the egoistic and ironic thinkers. But as I kept reading philosophy and thinking about language, my initial understanding of the self evolved (I call it progress) to grasp our essential historicality and sociality. We think in terms of one rationality, one science. What 'I' am is mostly the cultural software-softwear-softwhere I've inherited.

My impression is that your view (and Feuerbach's view) makes sense—to a point—if one begins with the assumption that the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical. — GeorgeTheThird

I appreciate the charitable reading. Just to clarify, for me 'mythical' and 'metaphor' aren't the reductions that they seem to be. In some sense they have the most profound kind of being. To me it's only against the background of power-obsessed scientism that myth and metaphor are secondary concepts. I'm not accusing you of this scientism. I mean something like the dominance of technology on what taking the scientist as the true philosopher is grounded. Only the instrumental fictions of science are 'really' real seems like a common enough attitude. 'Philosophy is silly talk,' etc. Because it 'can't do anything.' (Perform technological miracles.) 'A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign.'

As I see it, your view stops making sense when you say, "Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives."

You speak of 'good' and 'honorable' as if these characteristics exist for humanity as a whole. If there is no spirit, there is no more connection between one human being and another than between one rock and another. — GeorgeTheThird

While I am pessimistic about what might actually happen with human beings, I think this denial of connection is incorrect. Our conversation exists within a shared field of meaning. The atomic notion of the human beings (minds locked in bodies) is, as I see it, a philosophical prejudice. It has in my view already been demolished in a tradition that stretches from Hegel to Derrida. I don't at all pretend that humans have solved the political problem.

A less abstract proof of our connectedness is the rhetoric of politicians. They appeal to freedom and justice. Even if humans often fail to live up to their ideals, these ideals are alive in us. We at least want to believe that we believe in them. And even the bitter cynic enjoys himself as partaking in the value of truth at all costs, including the cost of comforting illusions. That used to be my game. I saw us all as little profit-maximizing monsters, even if that profit wasn't simply money but perhaps prestige or self-approbation.

The notions of 'good' and 'honorable' are meaningless in a spiritless world. In a spiritless world, one nerve impulse is as good as any other, whether the impulse is to help an old woman across the street or throw her under a passing bus. None of it matters. The universe doesn't care whether the collection of particles we call "that woman" continues in its current configuration, or is dispersed from one end of the galaxy to the other. There is no such concept as 'value', no means by which such a quantity might be measured.

In a spiritless world, humanism is an illusion. — GeorgeTheThird

I understand this view. What humanism has to forfeit is the immortality of God. If we go, then all of our myths and living community spirit goes with us. Outside of the realm of spirit (which for me is culture and community), there does indeed seem to be a nature that is utterly indifferent to us. But declaring kindness meaningless because we can't find it in our physical calculations is questionable. It accepts science as the one true metaphysics. I don't think the choice is between traditional religion and a physics driven nihilism. I do confess that philosophical humanism doesn't offer everything that traditional religion does. And we live in surreal times. Hegel and Feuerbach lived in a century that believed in endless human progress. We live under the threat of climate change, nuclear war, capitalism run amok, etc.

Despite all this, I find my greatest joys in relationships with other human beings, real and virtual. If one understands spirit in terms of human relationships, then it is the distinctly human element.

I welcome your response. — GeorgeTheThird

I really enjoy our friendly and sincere conversation. Thanks for being a charitable conversationalist.

The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles. — GeorgeTheThird

What this post is a reply to was my "explanation".

I think mass and what happens to mass, motion is predictable and mass isn't affected by quantum weirdness. For instance, an electron's position may be a probabilistic wave function but its mass is always whatever it is and this allows us to predict the path an electron will take in, say, a magnetic field although the electron itself is nebulous wave function.

We need to understand what about particles is predictable. As far as I know, their motion is predictable and motion is mass-dependent and mass is independent of any quantum property of particles i.e. it remains fixed at a specific value for each particle.

What humanism has to forfeit is the immortality of God. If we go, then all of our myths and living community spirit goes with us. Outside of the realm of spirit (which for me is culture and community), there does indeed seem to be a nature that is utterly indifferent to us. But declaring kindness meaningless because we can't find it in our physical calculations is questionable. It accepts science as the one true metaphysics. I don't think the choice is between traditional religion and a physics driven nihilism. I do confess that philosophical humanism doesn't offer everything that traditional religion does. And we live in surreal times. Hegel and Feuerbach lived in a century that believed in endless human progress. We live under the threat of climate change, nuclear war, capitalism run amok, etc. — softwhere

There is a lot to think about in this final paragraph, and in the rest of the post. I'll need some time to work through it. It may be a few days before I give a full response, as this is a busy time with family and (I'll use your word here) community.

In many respects, we share a common set of values. You speak of kindness, justice, honor, freedom; of ideals and goodness. We are, as you might put it, connected as human beings, our fundamental philosophical differences notwithstanding.

Yet this particular difference matters a great deal, because of its implications: I consider that true goodness must be something more than a shared favorable opinion. A good act must be good, and a bad act bad, in and of itself, regardless of whether I like it or not. Otherwise, on what basis do we heap reproach on the Nazis, who believed they were doing humanity a favor by ridding the earth of the Jews? On what basis do I restrain myself today from rationalizing an act which six months ago I condemned as treachery? On what basis do we punish people with loss of property and freedom when they violate the community consensus of good behavior?

In short, morality must be absolute. There must be a Law-giver; there must be a Judge. There must be a real God whose essential nature is good. Jesus of Nazareth must be truly Christ of God, or he is (as has been said by others) a charlatan or a lunatic.

I may gain a better understanding of your position as I review your posts. I'll post again after I've had a closer look.

I, too, am enjoying the conversation.

I'll need some time to work through it. It may be a few days before I give a full response, as this is a busy time with family and (I'll use your word here) community. — GeorgeTheThird

Sure. Understood. I'll just reply a couple of points you made. Respond when you have time. I happen to have lots of free time lately.

In many respects, we share a common set of values. You speak of kindness, justice, honor, freedom; of ideals and goodness. We are, as you might put it, connected as human beings, our fundamental philosophical differences notwithstanding. — GeorgeTheThird

Right. So there's some kind of gut-level openness and empathy 'beneath' all the theory. Hume wrote well on this.

Yet this particular difference matters a great deal, because of its implications: I consider that true goodness must be something more than a shared favorable opinion. A good act must be good, and a bad act bad, in and of itself, regardless of whether I like it or not. Otherwise, on what basis do we heap reproach on the Nazis, who believed they were doing humanity a favor by ridding the earth of the Jews? On what basis do I restrain myself today from rationalizing an act which six months ago I condemned as treachery? On what basis do we punish people with loss of property and freedom when they violate the community consensus of good behavior? — GeorgeTheThird

This is a deep issue, not easily answered. But I'll try to sketch the problems with morality being absolute and fixed. Unless we feel in our hearts that the Law is just, we have to experience the Lawgiver as a tyrant. We'd also presumably be back in the wars of religion. Even if everyone accepts the existence of a Law and Lawgiver, there's still disagreement about who gets to be His Voice on earth. If we accept Christianity, for instance, which texts are relevant and how are they to be interpreted? Literally, metaphorically, speculatively? So from my point of view we as human beings are just stuck with having-to-interpret, with the angst and ambiguity of existence. We are the 'thrown open space' of/for endless interpretation, constantly thinking of our pasts differently as we entertain new possibilities for our futures. In this sense we 'are' time as
interpretation.

I do sympathize with the desire to escape from history and time into something eternal & solid. Capitalism is a permanent revolution that we just take for granted now. It strips away all the old sacred things and turns us all into commodities. And the world is changing too quickly for any of us to understand more than a fraction of it. A runaway machine. So perhaps all philosophy (inasmuch as it tries to replace religion) seeks some kind of structure or stillness in the noise and chaos. God is a king above all disaster, and the sage is a God-man. If history is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake, then the dream of a perfect philosophy is of that awakening, of being a king outside of time and space. Neo sees the code behind the chaos.

I think mass and what happens to mass, motion is predictable and mass isn't affected by quantum weirdness. For instance, an electron's position may be a probabilistic wave function but its mass is always whatever it is — TheMadFool

No, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that the mass-energy of an electron that exists for a short time is uncertain. See Bruce Schumm, Deep Down Things, Chapter 4, under the heading The Living Vacuum.

Schumm's book is readable by the layman, yet goes into considerable detail. I have intentionally avoided discussion of these details because I know I don't have a good grip on them. What Schumm makes clear, and every author I have read makes clear, is that we know nothing about what goes on when particles interact with each other. We only measure the results, and only as statistics in the aggregate.

No, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that the mass-energy of an electron that exists for a short time is uncertain. See Bruce Schumm, Deep Down Things, Chapter 4, under the heading The Living Vacuum.

Schumm's book is readable by the layman, yet goes into considerable detail. I have intentionally avoided discussion of these details because I know I don't have a good grip on them. What Schumm makes clear, and every author I have read makes clear, is that we know nothing about what goes on when particles interact with each other. We only measure the results, and only as statistics in the aggregate. — GeorgeTheThird

I was expecting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle but you forget that predictability is about aggregates of particles and not individual particles. The aggregate mass in the form of a a ping pong ball or the earth itself stays constant, allowing us to make accurate predictions about the motion of such objects.

The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles. — GeorgeTheThird


What this post is a reply to was my "explanation".

I think mass and what happens to mass, motion is predictable and mass isn't affected by quantum weirdness. For instance, an electron's position may be a probabilistic wave function but its mass is always whatever it is and this allows us to predict the path an electron will take in, say, a magnetic field although the electron itself is nebulous wave function.

We need to understand what about particles is predictable. As far as I know, their motion is predictable and motion is mass-dependent and mass is independent of any quantum property of particles i.e. it remains fixed at a specific value for each particle. — TheMadFool

Actually the assumption in the question is not the case. Large 'objects' are affected by quantum effects. Birds use strange quantum effects to navigate, plants us a kind of quantum computing to choose how to take in photons. We don't really know if the indeterminate patterns at the quantum level are not affecting especially lifeforms.

Note: I am not saying that these patterns indicate free will. I am just saying that microeffects can affect the movements and actions of macro-organisms.

Ain't nobody got time to read this whole thread, but I'm curious if anyone has brought up the causal closure of physics yet? I.e. that a physical thing is by definition anything that has any physical effect, so whatever it is that is causing the physical effects we see definitionally is physical, and something nonphysical, by definition, has no effect on anything physical.

Where the physical is pretty much synonymous with the empirical or the phenomenal or the experiential, so by definition we cannot ever experience any supposedly nonphysical phenomenon.