It might be my misreading or misremembering of Quine. It's been many, many years since I took philosophy (about 20). So, strike that comment for now. I'll go back and re-read Quine and his critics. (My philosophy professor was distinctly Kantian, and had an intrinsic dislike of Quine. That's the only reason I even remembered who Quine was.)

Synthetic statements are tested against objective reality. Their truth is contingent upon their correlation with observation. As synthetic statements are built upon a base of analytic statements, the analytic statements are tested against reality by their ability to support synthetic statements.

EDIT: stupid discussion of the nature of matter removed, as it was stupid. Instead, please enjoy the next couple of paragraphs.

One of the analytic truths of science is that the universe is consistent. That is, performing an experiment will provide consistent results. So far, that has turned out to be true. As a cornerstone of science, that's a good thing. However, it might one day turn out that an experiment gives inconsistent results, and that might call into question the validity of that assumption.

The same thing with the coherence of the universe. Scientists generally make the assumption that the current principles of the universe are applied consistently across the universe. There is not a zone that is innately different from the other parts of the universe.

EDIT the second:

Ah, ferget it. Even those aren't analytic. I guess I can think of no analytic truth in science, save the basic axioms of mathematics. There are things that are assumed true for the purpose of being tested in the future, but that's it.

This is something that will require much deeper research and thought.

1) Mathematics is one. The consistency of the universe is another. The observability of the universe is yet another.

2) I too am sceptical of induction. It is a useful tool for creating a possible set of hypothesis, and that is all. In science, induction is used as a creative tool, while deduction is used as a selection tool. If you contingently assume an hypothesis is correct, then you use deduction to make predictions concerning something unknown. If those predictions are true, then the hypothesis is a little less contingent. If at any time a deductive prediction proves false, then the hypothesis is invalidated.

The fact that most hypothesis are wrong pretty much shows that induction alone is an inefficient tool. That doesn't negate its usefulness.

Because a Western view has given us science, which has a high degree of correlation with observed reality?

What Kuhn described isn't a flaw in the universe, or even of understanding. He merely described the natural progression of scientific understanding from no knowledge, through the evolutionary process of refinement, then the revolutionary process of questioning our assumptions because of an accumulation of contrary evidence. He in no way said that science is flawed. Quite the contrary: he was illustrating that science works.

This revolutionary process happened during the first part of the twentieth century, as evidence pointed that Newtonian physics was a special case of more general principles. Newton's laws still get us to the moon, and were sufficient to describe the motion of the planets.

Our understanding of the universe is contingent. However, I believe we can say with some assurance that it is less contingent than it was even a century ago.

Sir Francis Bacon was of one time, and we were of another. At the time, we didn't even have Newton's laws of motion, let alone quantum theory and relativity. As our view of the universe becomes more complete, I see less room for God. I can understand that you see not only more room, but more certainty.

Anyway, thanks. I've learned a lot from this conversation.

>>>The only problem where metaphysics is concerned is that only assumptions can be made. As todangst has pointed out, metaphysics tends to borrow its mechanism of logic and rules from the natural world, which is later claimed to not have any bearing on the situation. Even if we try to dodge the semantic mess we find ourselves in, it's still a case of crying foul every time an argument is applied to something that cannot be substantiated. Trying to apply rules of argument to immaterial things just leads to imagination-based exercises. It wouldn't matter if you were deducing or inducing from assumptions that can't be assailed because they're other-worldly<<<

I'm glad you wrote this because it highlights a significant point: since I am not a positivist I don't reject claims about non-material entities. I see no reason why I should. If everything reduces to matter (i.e. empirical / the physicalist school), then logic must be material too. If that is true then logic loses its universality and necessity. This was my point to Vessel: logic is reduced to bio-chemical and stimulus-response subject to physical laws. As such it is also deterministic: we are not really "thinking" freely. We are just subjects of chemical interactions.

Many other problems present themselves as well. For example, are numbers "material"?

>>>You must see that your statement is a non sequitur. God must exist, because otherwise nothing exists. I can't see the one statement as following the other. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, and "God" in this case takes some other meaning.<<<

No, not at all. I am saying that what is "factual" presupposes a theory a priori. You can't predicate something as factual without a theory. There are no brute facts. By presupposing the Christian theory (or worldview) I can account for logic being universal, invariant, and abstract entities. All other worldviews -atheist or otherwise - are unable to do that and actually undermine reason. BTW- I'm not dodging the question about all other worldviews, but I'm trying to keep this from getting to big. But if you ask a specific question I will answer it.

>>>First prove the existence of God, then use the same argument for Atlantis. You may find that you can prove the existence of Atlantis.<<<

Its a tremendous philosophical mistake to assume all factual questions are answered in the same way. Proving modus ponens and global warming or dark matter are not answered in the same way, although I think you know that already.

>>>I'm sure that when you were writing your article, you didn't expect flowers and candies from atheistic readers.<<<

Of course not. But I didn't come close to the juvenile remarks used here. I used nothing more direct than someone like Dawkins hasn't already. This is something I (and Philip Johnson) have found: atheists love to ridicule, but don't like it when its used on them. They squeal.

-M

I am not sidestepping what you wrote. I read it carefully to make sure I got what you were/are saying. First of all I appreciate the retraction of certain statements being analytic, and adopting the more general positivist approach (e.g. "I guess I can think of no analytic truth in science, save the basic axioms of mathematics.&quot

The irony is that I do think that your statement: "One of the analytic truths of science is that the universe is consistent." is analytic! I agree with that and wished you wouldn't retract it. This is where Quine was so helpful. Analyticity ought not be restricted to logic, tautologies, math, etc. Analytic statements can be meaningful, not just trivial. For example, for me "God exists" is analytic and necessary.

If synthetic judgments are the only meaningful statements, and they are left to empirical methods of verification (i.e. the correspondence theory of meaning) then they are contingent and uncertain. In this sense I think Hume is right and we cannot connect one domain of experience with any other, except by prejudice. This would make science impossible. But I think he has yet to be answered.

Kuhn's genius is in showing that there is no such thing as full objectivity in science. All paradigms are incommensurable: the rules for one cannot be use to evaluate another. IOW there are no universal standards by which to judge scientific theories. There is only truth for a "paradigm". Kuhn is to science what Quine is to logic. I agree with them both- and they are/were both atheists!

>>>Sir Francis Bacon was of one time, and we were of another. At the time, we didn't even have Newton's laws of motion, let alone quantum theory and relativity. As our view of the universe becomes more complete, I see less room for God. I can understand that you see not only more room, but more certainty.<<<

The scientific method followed the advance of Christianity West as Christianity provided a worldview that encouraged it. Its interesting that you mention Newton and then Einstein/Bohr et. al. If anything Quantum mechanics shows us incommensurability: what governs the subatomic does not work in General Relativity.

You may remember that this so bothered Einstein that he quipped, "God does no play dice!" To which Stephen Hawking retorted, "Not only does God play dice; He throws them where we can't see them"

>>>Anyway, thanks. I've learned a lot from this conversation.<<<

Likewise. Its been good to be engaged again. I certainly am not trying to convert anyone. I just appreciate the challenge.

-M

And I corrected you on this repeatedly. Logic is a tool for determining valid inferences from invalid ones. It cannot be anything but universal. Valid inference is always valid and invalid is always invalid. Both invalid and valid inferences are possible in any existence, state of affairs, environment. As far as necessary, logic relies on reasoning for its existence. It is a reasoning tool used to determine valid inferences and therefor it depends on the existence of reason so, no, it is not necessary, but anywhere reasoning exists logic can be employed and when employed, no matter by whom or what, it will necessarily be a tool for determining valid inferences.   

What does this even mean? If we are chemical reactions, as the materialist believes, what do you think it means to say we are subject to chemical reactions? To me it can only mean we are subject to what we are. That's hardly a startling revelation.

Now what exactly do you think "thinking freely" means? I would like you to describe how (the means by which) someone is supposed to make a decision freely, avoiding all determining factors.  

Everything is material.

First, this is simply a claim you are making. You can not support the claim that there are no brute facts. I can say that there are no valid presuppositions just as easily. In truth, the claim of the actual existence of a god is a brute fact claim.

No, you can't. If logic (I'm guessing you mean valid reasoning though I don't know why or how one can or would distinguish here between valid and invalid reasoning ?) is dependent on a god then it is not necessarily universal nor invariant. It is only so, so long as the god wants it to be. If it is not dependent on a god, if god is subject to a universal invariant logic, then a god can not account for logic.

Back to the parenthetical above. Does god account for invalid reasoning as well? If so, how then do we (lowly human subjects) distinguish between invalid and valid reasoning or inferences? If not, then does invalid reasoning not exist?

Incorrect, as I've been trying to explain. But, even if this were correct, it would not be sufficient reason to consider 'a god exists' (Christian or otherwise) to be a true statement.

Here is my question. Back up your claim that no other worldview can account for logic or reasoning or whatever you think can't be accounted for.

Well, that's not actually a question, but it is a fundamental problem with the presupper's worldview. They claim that their worldview is necessary because all others fail, but this would require they show that all others fail, not just that some others fail. If they can not do so then they lose all grounds for presupposing their deity as necessary. Of course, this is an impossible challenge for the presupper to meet but that isn't a flaw with the challenge, it is a flaw with the preuppositionalist's worldview.

As do theists, as is evident by your writing. It is a human reaction, not an atheistic or theistic one. Do you or Phillip Johnson really think you have found this? It seems like a well known fact of human nature obvious to any child. I do like how you have attempted to proclaim it a flaw in the atheists character though. So clever with the passive aggression. That, by the way, is not an insult. It is merely an observation. But, then again, I'm an atheist who respects Dawkins and Harris and especially Dennett and therefor I'm most probably intellectually inept, so maybe it was an insult and I just don't realize it. 

To the materialist, logic reduces to the material in the sense that we use synapses, etc., certainly. But to conclude from that immediately that we aren't thinking is a stretch for me. Do we not wrestle with our thought processes, and exert a certain amount of will upon them? How do you make the jump from "material thought" to absolute determinism?

Logic is really just a protocol - a standardized form of expression - so I'm not sure how it's not "universal", unless you mean that the standards are controversial. Is it the uncertainty of the whole thing that drives you away from a "secular" logic? All I see is different ways of presenting things with different forms of logic, so its universality really isn't a problem for me.

I guess the difficulty I have is understanding why you don't reject claims of non-material entities. I suppose you've been pretty specific, in that you'll reject any non-Christian immaterial entities, but that still seems arbitrary to me. There's no specific passion to my rejection of non-material entities, either: they don't tend to show up, so I don't tend to bother with them. Maybe you should tell me how you ended up on the philisophical path you did (you said before that as a physicist you were unsatisfied with certain aspects of positivism, but didn't specify which). 

Yes, in the sense that we understand numbers through physical processes. If you mean more complex concepts like imaginary numbers, human beings have an amazing capacity for fantasy, which I would base equally in physical interactions. The very fact that different parts of the brain "light up" when a person is thinking of numbers as opposed to listening to music points to physical thoughts.

Ah. I misunderstood what you were saying. But here again, I see no framework more successful than the scientific method for bringing reality together with a probable explanation. Certainly it will never explain the supernatural, but you can't give me rules for the supernatural, because that would be pretending to know something that you couldn't possibly know.

But logic can be nothing but a method of discourse, so being "universal" really can't be done. If you believe that would immediately lead to solipsism, then I'd have to ask you again why your idea of the world is so inflexible. Assuming that we need to be either 100% sure or 100% unsure all the time is an unusual perspective to me. And positivism has the reasonable explanation of creative imagination to account for abstract entities and the use of logic. You'll have to tell me why you think that would undermine reason. Is it a matter of trusting ourselves?

I was just teasing after the Atlantis comment. God and Atlantis only have their immateriality in common, as far as I can see.

I think we're still dancing around the same points, though. I trust the physical world to behave consistently (within a margin of error), and I'm still not sure why you require an extra variable in the form of a deity in order for that to work.

Thanks for reading carefully. I'm not sure what I wrote, on re-reading it.

The reason I retracted "consistent universe" as an analytic truth is because it may be proven empirically. As we are able to probe deeper into the universe, we may even be able to prove it exhaustively (thought that is highly unlikely). At least we'll be able to make a significant survey to support the idea.

But this is an interesting effect. It seems to me (not based on anything I've read, just what I've been thinking over the last few days) that science starts with some analytic assumptions (call that set A). Those assumptions are used as a starting place for exploration into a domain. The truths of A are used to create synthetic statements that are then tested empirically against observable reality. At this point, all the statements in A are also being tested. As they are successfully tested against reality with every synthetic statement based upon them, the statements of A are no longer analytic, as they have been tested. At any point, the assumption of truth (that is, taking as logical truth without empirical evidence, which is the basis of calling something "analytic," other than the tautological) becomes a presumption of truth (assuming it is true based on evidence).

I'm not explaining this clearly, I know. It's not entirely clear to me yet, and I don't have the philosophical background to put it in a familiar framework. But I'm working on it. The best words I have are "assumption" and "presumption," and I don't think there's enough difference between them to really explain what I'm driving at here.

Hume is right only when there is the scientific domains are completely unconnected. This is frighteningly infrequent. Almost all domains of knowledge are interdependent; or, at least, a dependency graph would show they are all connected by no more than two or three degrees of separation. In fact, the division among "domains" is arbitrary, and based more on convenience and interest than on actual physical separation.

The fact that this interdependence (among domains of study) produces a cohesive whole is amazing, and reassuring.

Quantum mechanics gives exactly the same results as Newtonian dynamics on a sufficiently large scale (that is, a scale that is still sub-microscopic). In that way, the old paradigm and the new are sufficiently congruent to show that the old understanding is a bounded subset of the new. This is true of most of the paradigm shifts to which Kuhn referred. Basically, we reach a point where our knowledge leads us to the next level. Our knowledge increases. We don't lose the old knowledge; it is usually supplemented by new domains, new conceptions. The old are most often still valid, within their purview.

And there are universal standards by which we judge scientific theories. It's called "reality." All scientific theories are only as good as their correlation with observation, which we assume is the sensation of reality. As our understanding of reality increases, so does our understanding of the limits of our own knowledge. ("The higher you climb, the less that you know.&quot

Very true. The current great quest of physics is the unification of the various extremes -- the extremely small (the realm of the quantum) with the realm of the very massive or very fast (the realm of relativity). And for that, I have no answer.

At one time, while I studied physics, I'd hoped to work on that answewr. My dream when I was 15 (25 years ago) was to find work at CERN. The real world intervened, as it so often does, and though my education was in physics, I now program computers for a living.

One of the things I've learned from my career in computers is this: information theory is just as fundamental to the universe as mathematics. Our conception of abstraction comes from these fundamentals. As we are able to empirically sense physical phenomena, we are also able to work out the fundamental logic and mathematics of the universe.

The theory of evolution through natural selection pressure on phenotypes which are expressions of genotypes is a specific instance of a more general law: everything possible is contained in chaos, and reality filters out that which does not fit with reality. This is rather more poetic than is really is, and less poetic than it deserves. However, the basis of our ability to learn (aside from the path through evolution which led to our ability to learn) is the same fundamental process as that which governs evolution.

This is no more astounding or unbelievable than the claim that the laws that govern the arc of a thrown baseball also hold the planets in their orbits. (There are better, less obvious examples, but I've had exactly one too many beers to think of them right now.)

Strangely enough, I believe (from my strongly biased standpoint of a computer geek) that information theory will transform science the same way quantum mechanics did sixty years ago. Not that I have any way to prove it at the moment, other than its application to our understanding of evolution. But I suspect that the answer to a unified theory lies in information theory. (Also: quantum theory will be proven to be a special subset of information theory.) All that's just conjecture on my part, though.

As far as Christianity's role in science: while Western Christianity was suffering itself through the dark ages, Baghdad was a center of enlightenment. Muslim scholars were busy inventing algebra, and working on astronomy, and biology, and all kinds of things that didn't even have names. Then, Muslim intellectualism fell to fundamentalism.

There is a parable there, somewhere.

While I hold this view as well, I think Mr. Fields is talking about logic as some entity unto itself, removed from the physical intellectual mechanism, but (maybe) also a law in and of itself. I'm not sure how that works, but I'm trying to follow. I think it's that humans can't agree on a completely 100% standard approach, etc. outside of an immaterial reference point, therefore that reference point must, by necessity exist. That may not be it, but I'm having a bit of a struggle with the concepts.

Here's where I get stuck in the mud, since people have obvious subconscious mechanisms. Which ones can we ascribe to ourselves, and which to a deity? It's confusing, to say the least. Beyond logic (which certainly does not represent the bulk of the average person's brain activity), there's an entire universe in miniature to be understood, so we don't even yet know what we could potentially blame on a god, much less that the mechanisms we understand could somehow be immaterially guided.

To someone like me, who's never been a believer, it's difficult to understand the necessity of adding the immaterial to the mix, so I hope your questions get answered. This has been an interesting crash course in non-positivist thinking. 

He actually seems to equivocate between logic and reasoning constantly.  It makes for confusing conversation. 

When he claims that a god is needed to account for logic what this says to me is that he thinks a god is needed to account for there being a difference between valid and invalid inferences, as this is all that there needs be in order for there to be logic (aside from the reason needed to employ it).

But there is a reference point. It is the validity of the inference. Valid inferences are always valid, necessarily so even. And the same is true for invalid inferences. But, even if there were no reference point, for some particular thing which needed a reference point, without some immaterial (?) source this would not at all establish that some immaterial source was actual.

While logic may be a fundamental part of the universe in the same way that mathematics and the universal constants are a part of the universe, the part I don't grasp is how this leads to the necessity of God's existence. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to reduce to, "The universe is so beautiful and complex and yet still consistent, it must have been made by God." Argument-by-sunrise. ("Can't you see God in the beauty of a sunrise?" I was once asked.)

This is why I put the question to you, because there have been points here where I've been walking through the reasoning to get at the conclusion that necessitates an extra (presumably intervening) deity, and it looks like it's just being fitted into a perceived gap. But I'll wait until after the "anything other than the Christian worldview undermines reason" explanation to get deeper into that. 

Okay, so I'm not crazy. You really do have to do mental loops to try and grasp the extra variable that does not present itself, even just as a hypothetical. It reminds me of the "luminiferous aether" theory of the 19th century.

I don't think (although it remains to be seen) that he's using the majesty = God argument. And I don't necessarily see "logic" as a fundamental part of the universe any more than "English" is. The language of mathematics is given to subtle changes in expression, and universal constants are just our measurements with a specifc number system to a certain margin of error. That's not to say "it's all realitive" and give up because we'll never know for 100% sure. I don't buy that defeatist (and strangely nihilistic) approach to inquiry. But a bit of wiggle room is available there, even if we aknolwedge the massive success afforded by logical, mathematical, and empirically-based thinking. Here's where I'm not sure where this is going, because to instantly put God into the gaps is an obvious jump to a place outside the reasonable.

On the other hand, Vessel's focus on "validity of statements" is more to-the-point. If it's going to be a logical argument, regardless of the standard of manipulating the statements, the statements themselves have to be tested for validity. You've been wrestling heavily with the analytic statement, and I have to agree with you that in the context of falsifiable statements (a la Popper), analytic statements can only increase in certainty or be eliminated through empirical testing (cause frankly, that's all we got). So again, I'm not sure where this argument is going, but I have a feeling it's along the lines of "We can't be 100% sure, therefore God." I'm hoping there's more to it than that.

Our expression of mathematics is certainly not fundamental, but the usefulness of mathematics in explaining physical phenomena shows there is something fundamental about the universe that our mathematics accurately models. The same is true of logic; the fact that logic, in its various modes, has proven so effective indicates that reality has a fundamental feature which is closely modelled by our use of logic.  I guess this goes back to the Platonic ideals, at least in a limited fashion. Perhaps this is the crux of his arguments.

But then again, I'm terrifically ignorant of philosophy. Three classes (one of them in asthetics), and reading (for personal enjoyment) Hume, Spinoza, and Kant is definitely not sufficient to be entirely effective in these discussions.

Absolutely. But that might be too positivist for Mr. Fields, since it's the physical world being modelled. I don't think the amazing success of positivist thought and evidence is enough in a metaphysical argument. I'm learning as I go, to tell you the truth.

It puts you ahead of most. And I don't know what equips you to deal with metaphysics anyway. Is there a metacalculus?

Wow guys! i go away for a few days and there's a whole page of very good questions, some misunderstandings, and thought-provoking ideas; and while I would love to respond I am one person trying to answer three of you all. I just can't do it. In my Compuserve days (which was the last time I got this involved) I found that the cut and paste grew to the point that the main points got lost in the mix.

Soooo, I fear that I must retire. I would very much like to continue with the three of you (Vessel, Will, and Nigel) via email if you wish. Then I can respond individually. You may reach me at [email protected]

If not, that's cool.

And Will, please call me Marty

 Honestly, who gives a crud??? 

You people (or just "people" if you don't like the "you people" phrase) will be fighting this BS for eternity...

The Atheists will be arguing that it's not a religion and showing everyone how silly theists are and

The theists will be claiming the atheists are mentally ill, demon possessed, or soulless.

Why is it even an issue?  Just go do something productive.  What a total waste of time! No one is ever going to "win" this.

Sigh!   Why don't you all get into 911 Truth and change the government or something...  LOL!!!

 Hey!  I actually wrote to this guy like a year ago with an e-mail account that I never use and I loged in today and saw that he responded to me!  In my first e-mail I basically just sent him a child-like, hate filled letter, basically stating:  "you're an arrogant prick and I don't like you.  Go suck off Jesus."  He replied saying "Do you really think you've accomplished anything?  You're exhibit A in my op-ed."  This response made my heart soar with happiness because today I got to reply to him.  This is what I wrote to him, enjoy it:

"My, aren't you pretentious?  No surprise that you'd be such a hypocrite.  Here you are labeling a whole swath of people as arrogant as you make claims like "I can show you the meaning of life," how absurd.  The level of ethnocentrism in your writing is disgusting.  If you're so excited to go into the next world, why don't you hasten the process and jump in front of a moving car?  The answer is obvious, you're not done exploiting those poor people who actually labor for a living; they toil to provide you with a life which you do not deserve.  Fucking capitalist pig.

 You are not special, glorified, anointed, nor will you have any significance after you die.  The only thing you will be worth is the meaningless material inheritance you've stolen from people who actually worked, which you will pass on to your children. Oh and to answer the question you asked me nearly a year ago:  Yes.  Also, I don't really care if I am exhibit A in your silly little op-ed; it's full of lies anyway.
 

Have a great day, douche-bag!"

Yeah, fuck that guy.  I'm glad I had that back and forth with him.  It really makes me feel like I had an affect on him; why else would he have replied in the first place?  This makes me so overjoyed.  Killing Christian ideology one douche-bag at a time!