Everyone has a philosophical filter

[bandit4god]

We know abiogenesis happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

This is a quote from another post I'm using to illustrate that atheists/theists inevitably apply a philosophical filter to their answers to the Big Questions, thus having tremendous influence over their worldview.

Between neutrality and "knowing it happened", there is a step in there the poster skipped over.  Quite understandable because it's a philosophical step made so fluidly by so many, they've come to accept it as a priori truth.  The step is asking and answering, "What is an acceptable type of explanation?"

Three contestants in this derby:
- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

The quote above is evidence of a naturalistic philosophy, belief in the Brute Fact that nature and its attendant laws are the cause of all things.  Don't be fooled... despite the claims of many atheists, this philosophy is extra-scientific.  Science says nothing about the types of explanation one can deem viable.  Only philosophy can do that.

The implications of this are many.  For example, if the probability of successful abiogenesis of a robust organism is 1 in 10^1000 during the 300 million year windown in which it could have occurred, those holding to a naturalistic philosophy would still buy that lottery ticket.  They have no other choice! 

In the end, it's one's philosophy about which type(s) of explanation is/are in the running that holds the power over his/her worldview, not mere science.

[Asmodean]

Me, I think one can approach the scientific dilemmas through science and the philosophical ones through philosophy. And because philosophy is as flawed as the philosofer from whos musings it is derived, I dislike that approach, leaving what I can not attribute to science, common sense or educated guesswork in the don't know-drawer.

Is my world view influenced by philosophy then, or is my approach to philosophy a product of my world view?

[bandit4god]

Is my world view influenced by philosophy then, or is my approach to philosophy a product of my world view?

The country of Western philosophy has three cities left standing:
- Naturalism:  nature and its attendant laws constitute the "Brute Fact" of reality
- Theism:  God's existence is the Brute Fact of reality
- Positivism:  One's own consciousness is the Brute Fact of reality

Most people choose their city through a sloppy patchwork of inductive reasoning, defaulting to their upbringing, and/or which city's rules they prefer most.  Which ever Brute Fact you choose--and, by extension, which philosophical city--has profound implications on every other decision in your life, including your worldview.

[Asmodean]

- Naturalism:  nature and its attendant laws constitute the "Brute Fact" of reality

I don't subscribe to that as worded.

Reality is a construct which is largely defined by an individual's perception of nature on a personal level.

- Theism:  God's existence is the Brute Fact of reality

Don't subscribe to that either.

Gods are concepts attempting to explain the unexplained by invoking the unexplainable until proven otherwise.

- Positivism:  One's own consciousness is the Brute Fact of reality

Not that either. Consciousness is a process within which personal reality is defined, but being subjective to its holder, its defining properties are flawed.

Which ever Brute Fact you choose--and, by extension, which philosophical city--has profound implications on every other decision in your life, including your worldview.

My world view is largely defined by my experiences and accumulated knowledge and is subject to change with changing facts. I do not, nor do I desire to, sit in a philosophical city.

[Whitney]

How does one atheist jumping to the conclusion of abiogenesis in a single sentence equate to all atheists don't know how to separate science and philosophy?

What's the context of that quote anyway?

[Recusant]

We know abiogenesis happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

This seems to me to be merely a statement which puts forward the circumstances to the best of current scientific knowledge:

1) The available evidence indicates that the earth--for a considerable period during its formation--was sterile, simply because early conditions were such that the life which now inhabits it could not have existed on it during that era.

2) Life now exists on earth, thus there must have been some point when it began to exist here.

Panspermia is a possibility, but though pre-biotic chemicals have been found outside of earth, there certainly is no credible evidence that life exists elsewhere in the solar system.

* * *

Bandit4god, what is the basic difference beteen your "personal explanation" and your "conceptual explanation"? To me they seem like two aspects of the same idea. Maybe I'm just not subtle enough, but until I understand why they deserve two spots in your "derby," I'm going to combine them under the heading of "conscious entity," which is opposed to "natural processes."

The quote above is evidence of a naturalistic philosophy, belief in the Brute Fact that nature and its attendant laws are the cause of all things.  Don't be fooled... despite the claims of many atheists, this philosophy is extra-scientific.  Science says nothing about the types of explanation one can deem viable.  Only philosophy can do that.

In this particular case, we are discussing a phenomenon, life, which we know to exist as a part of the natural world. The systematic study of the natural world is what is commonly understood when we use the term "science." That type of science is a tool to study the natural world, and does not concern itself with the supernatural by definition. We cannot use science as a means to exclude supernatural explanations, because it simply doesn't address them. On the other hand, science is of no use in furthering any possible understanding of supernatural explanations. So you can "deem viable" any kind of explanation you like, but any effort to support supernatural explanations with science is antinomic.

Science has shown itself to be remarkably effective when it comes to studying the natural world. Since life is a part of the natural world, it is entirely reasonable to apply such a useful approach with a strong track record of success to try to understand it.

In support of a "conscious entity" explanation, we have religious belief and assertions based on that belief. This approach has served humanity for thousands of years, but it has also repeatedly proved to be inadequate when it comes to explaining natural phenomena.

You are welcome to champion it, but I'll stick with what works, thank you.

The implications of this are many.  For example, if the probability of successful abiogenesis of a robust organism is 1 in 10^1000 during the 300 million year windown in which it could have occurred, those holding to a naturalistic philosophy would still buy that lottery ticket.  They have no other choice!

It's your use of discredited and fallacious arguments such as this which elicited the sardonic and scornful responses you received from some members during your previous time here, bandit4god. I admit that I may have tended in that direction myself on occasion, though I do strive to control the impulse, in deference to the standards of this forum. Still, I'm not going to dignify the above by spending the time coming up with a reiteration of arguments that have already been made. If you think that presenting this chestnut is an effective tactic, please read "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" by Ian Musgrave. If you have some sort of prejudice against Talk Origins, I'm sure I can find another source which presents essentially the same demolition of the "it's too mathematically improbable to have happened that way" objection to natural abiogenesis.

[bandit4god]

I wasn't asserting that's the probability of abiogenesis, Rec--just asserting that the "screen" or "filter" applied to the question of life existing necessitates that a naturalist accept any probability, no matter how extreme, because it's the only game in town.

Lets go at this from a different angle...

Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

[BullyforBronto]

Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

OK, so that would look something like this, then?

Natural explanations (Oops, better not show my bias)

Possible explanations
Supernatural (Untestable)
Natural

Natural explanations

[bandit4god]

What a curious response... something can only be true if it's testable?  That, too, is a philosophical stance. 

[Too Few Lions]

Between neutrality and "knowing it happened", there is a step in there the poster skipped over.  Quite understandable because it's a philosophical step made so fluidly by so many, they've come to accept it as a priori truth.  The step is asking and answering, "What is an acceptable type of explanation?"

Three contestants in this derby:
- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

Personally I think your logic is flawed b4g. I don't think you can give the three different divisions you've created equal weight, and they are three divisions of your creation. I would contest that what you refer to as 'Personal explanation' and 'Conceptual explanation' are merely the remnants of outdated thought systems and attempts to explain the existence of life and the universe by people a few thousand years ago who had very little real knowledge on the subject. For me they don't even enter into the equation, you're creating a step that doesn't need to exist. A scientific approach starts with the available evidence then works back from there trying to be as objective as possible, I don't see any other logical way to try and understand something. If that leads us to a belief in a creative force behind the universe then so be it, but for most people involved in that field I think it probably doesn't

[Davin]

The country of Western philosophy has three cities left standing:
- Naturalism:  nature and its attendant laws constitute the "Brute Fact" of reality
- Theism:  God's existence is the Brute Fact of reality
- Positivism:  One's own consciousness is the Brute Fact of reality

I subscribe to none of these, but your claim that they are the last three cities seems to imply a filtered world view where one must subscribe to one of them. I don't agree (not only because it's a false dichotomy), I just think there must be good reasons to accept something, good reasons like: empirical evidence, tested theory and individually verifiable results. I can accept, reject and remain neutral on any thing individually without subscribing to any world view. No filter at all.

[Tank]

I wasn't asserting that's the probability of abiogenesis, Rec--just asserting that the "screen" or "filter" applied to the question of life existing necessitates that a naturalist accept any probability, no matter how extreme, because it's the only game in town.
{snip}

It's the only game in the universe as far as atheists are concerned. 

[BullyforBronto]

Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

OK, so that would look something like this, then?

Natural explanations (Oops, better not show my bias)

Possible explanations
Supernatural (Untestable)
Natural

Natural explanations

bandit4god

What a curious response... something can only be true if it's testable?  That, too, is a philosophical stance.

I'm not making any claims about truth. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot proceed with supernatural explanations. A supernatural explanation is a stopping point. How can it be possible to study or know anything about a cause that is outside of what we can readily observe in nature?

[Asmodean]

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.

Actually, no. Or rather, it is possible in some cases but absolutely unnecessary.

Because science is a tool for understanding nature, a "natural explanation" may well be anchored in science and not philosophy and, for that very same reason, it takes no philosophical leap to use this tool to answer a question relating to nature, the same way as it does not take a philosophical decision to use a hammer to beat down a nail. It is quite simply the tool meant for that particular job.

In the interest of laziness, we often shorten what we say and drop the disclaimers, but that doesn't mean that the tools we are using to explain, in keeping with my current metaphor, how the nailhead you see is a part of a larger unit within the woodwork are philosophical rather than scientific.

[Recusant]

I wasn't asserting that's the probability of abiogenesis, Rec--just asserting that the "screen" or "filter" applied to the question of life existing necessitates that a naturalist accept any probability, no matter how extreme, because it's the only game in town.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

Lets go at this from a different angle...

Imagine the poster of the quote at the start of this thread sat down with a blank sheet of paper.  At the top he writes, "How is it that life exists?"

A few seconds later, he writes just below that, "Natural explanations" and then begins to write out the possibilities.

My point is this: by writing "Natural explanations" at the top of his paper, he is not a making a scientific decision, he's making a philosophical one about the nature of acceptable explanation.  If he instead wrote merely "Possible explanations" and set out to list and test each of them using a combination of logic, inductive probability, and science, he would be coming at the question with a much more expansive philosophical lens.  The great trick of the university today is that we've not only taught students to unconsciously skip this philosophical step, assuming natural explanations a priori.  We've gone beyong that to condition them to consider the step itself as superstitious, foolish, and unscholarly.

I think I understand your position better now, and you do have a point. There is a sort of "philosophical filter," in that we as a species have learned that the most effective way to learn about natural phenomena is through science. We generally do not teach students to look for supernatural explanations of natural phenomena, though that route was once much more common. Since life is to all appearances a part of the natural world (there is no evidence to the contrary but assertions by those who support a supernatural origin) we teach students who wish to explore the origin of life to seek explanations using science, which by definition only pursues natural explanations for natural phenomena. To me this appears to be a very reasonable filter, in that up to this point supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (e.g. "lightning comes from Zeus") have consistently been shown to be allegorical or downright false. I don't know how acknowledging this filter will further knowledge though. If it became pro forma to do so, it seems to me that it would only be returning to an earlier time in our history when those who wished to understand and write about the natural world had to get the permission of the church to be allowed to publish. Only now it would be a quick nod in the church's direction: "Though a supernatural explanation for this phenomena may be possible *tugging the forelock*, it seems to be a natural phenomena, so I will be pursuing a natural explanation."

EDIT: I see that Asmodean has made a post saying something very similar to my post, and in a more succinct and effective way, I think. Still, since I've written it I might as well post it.