Less Faith, More Reason

[Fade the Butcher]

By STEVEN PINKER

http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=515314

There is much to praise in the new Report of the Committee on General Education. It is original, thoughtful, and well-written, and reflects considerable work on the part of our colleagues on the Task Force on General Education. The entire Harvard community should be grateful for the progress they have made and the issues they have asked us to address.

I have two reservations, however. The final report will attract wide attention in academia and in the press, where it will be read not for its specific recommendations, but as a once-in-a-generation statement on the nature of higher education from the world’s most prominent university. As such, we should be mindful of the way the report frames the goals of general education, and not just its suggested menu of courses. This means affirming the goal of the university as the institution dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and reason. (There is certainly no shortage of forces in the world pushing toward ignorance and irrationality.)

My first reservation pertains to the framing of the “Science and Technology” requirement, which aims too low. I think the problem lurks in some of the other sections, but I will leave it to my colleagues in other departments to comment on those.

The report introduces scientific knowledge as follows: “Science and technology directly affect our students in many ways, both positive and negative: they have led to life-saving medicines, the internet, more efficient energy storage, and digital entertainment; they also have shepherded nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, electronic eavesdropping, and damage to the environment.”

Well, yes, and I suppose one could say that architecture has produced both museums and gas chambers, that opera has both uplifted audiences and inspired the Nazis, and so on. It makes it sound as if the choice between science and technology on the one hand, and superstition and ignorance on the other, is a moral toss-up! Of course students should know about both the bad and good effects of technology. But this hardly seems like the best way for a great university to justify the teaching of science.

The report goes on to emphasize the relevance of science to current concerns like global warming and stem-cell research. It even mandates that courses which fulfill the Science and Technology requirement “frame this material in the context of social issues” (a stipulation that is absent from other requirements). But surely there is more to being knowledgeable in science than being able to follow the news. And surely our general science courses should aim to be more than semester-long versions of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Missing from the report is a sensitivity to the ennobling nature of knowledge: to the inherent value, with consequences too far-reaching to enumerate, of understanding how the world works. For one thing, it is a remarkable fact that we have come to understand as much as we do about the natural world: the history of the universe and our planet, the forces that make it tick, the stuff we’re made of, the origin of living things, and the machinery of life, including our own mental life.

I believe we have a responsibility to nurture and perpetuate this knowledge for the same reason that we have a responsibility to perpetuate an appreciation of great accomplishments in the arts. A failure to do so would be a display of disrespect for our ancestors and heirs, and a philistine indifference to the magnificent achievements that the human mind is capable of.

Also, the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition. The discoveries of science have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live: for example, that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that all the hope and ingenuity in the world can’t create energy or use it without loss; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.

I believe that a person for whom this understanding is not second-nature cannot be said to be educated. And I think that some acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of scientific knowledge should be a goal of the general education requirement and a stated value of a university.

My second major reservation concerns the “Reason and Faith” requirement.

First, the word “faith” in this and many other contexts, is a euphemism for “religion.” An egregious example is the current administration’s “faith-based initiatives,” so-named because it is more palatable than “religion-based initiatives.” A university should not try to hide what it is studying in warm-and-fuzzy code words.

Second, the juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like “faith” and “reason” are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these. Imagine if we had a requirement for “Astronomy and Astrology” or “Psychology and Parapsychology.” It may be true that more people are knowledgeable about astrology than about astronomy, and it may be true that astrology deserves study as a significant historical and sociological phenomenon. But it would be a terrible mistake to juxtapose it with astronomy, if only for the false appearance of symmetry.

Third, if this is meant to educate students about the role of religion in history and current affairs, why isn’t it just a part of the “U.S. and the World” requirement? Religion is an important force, to be sure, but so are nationalism, ethnicity, socialism, markets, nepotism, class, and globalization. Why single religion out among all the major forces in history?

There is also considerable disagreement over whether religion really is the driving force behind the conflicts that are commonly attributed to it. Many people in Ireland insist that the Ulster conflict is about British rule versus Irish unification, not about Protestantism versus Catholicism. And among the Islam-aligned forces with which our country is currently entangled, Saddam Hussein’s Baathism is more secular and nationalist than it is religious. Whether or not religion is a major force is a question best left to our colleagues in history, government, and area studies, in the context of the broadest possible study of world affairs. This empirical issue should not be prejudged in the categories of a general education requirement.

Fourth, if the requirement is supposed to be about the clash in the history of ideas between religion and reason in Western thought, here again it seems far too arbitrary and specific a choice for a general education requirement. Why not rationalism and empiricism, or idealism and materialism, or the subjective and the objective?

Finally, if the requirement is meant to be the union of all or any of these (some students concentrate on Islamic jihad, others on the Reformation, still others on the argument from design or the ontological argument for God’s existence, still others on biblical history), it just doesn’t hang together as a coherent requirement.

Again, we have to keep in mind that the requirement will attract attention from far and wide, and for a long time. For us to magnify the significance of religion as a topic equivalent in scope to all of science, all of culture, or all of world history and current affairs, is to give it far too much prominence. It is an American anachronism, I think, in an era in which the rest of the West is moving beyond it.

These reservations should not be seen as a dismissal of the report, which has many excellent analyses and recommendations, but as a contribution to the discussion of where to go from here.

[Macrobius]

By STEVEN PINKER


Second, the juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like “faith” and “reason” are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these. Imagine if we had a requirement for “Astronomy and Astrology” or “Psychology and Parapsychology.” It may be true that more people are knowledgeable about astrology than about astronomy, and it may be true that astrology deserves study as a significant historical and sociological phenomenon. But it would be a terrible mistake to juxtapose it with astronomy, if only for the false appearance of symmetry.



Most of Pinker's arguments and obiter dicta are contingent and beside the point, as to his objections to the Faith vs. Reason requirement. The core of his argument is in this point. However, we may discuss the others if you feel they are relevant after dealing with this one.

First, we must understand that Pinker is misconstruing the word 'reason' and giving a meaning that does violence to the entire university curriculum. As an expert in brain function and language (I believe) he may posit any definition he likes as to what 'reason' is provided it furthers his Work -- at least I am told scientists enjoy that sort of freedom with regard to their discipline. However, in a University with many disciplines, there needs to be some coordination as to what 'reason' is, if it is the object of the entire enterprise as he asserts. How could one, say, study the History of Reason if the Scientists and Historians could not agree on what it was they were studying?

Now, here is a bit of history about the word 'reason' (Latin ratio, Greek logos). In its classical and Christian uses, i.e., the meaning of the word until quite recently, there was a sort of explanatory paradigm lurking in the background, with religious or philosophical content. That is 'reason' (or logos) is a loaded term. When God speaks, say in the Bible, there is God's 'thought' or 'nous', his 'logos', and his 'spirit'. The spirit is analogous to the breath of God, carrying the message. Ultimately, there is a sort of spirit-matter duality, since the 'medium' of the message is at once spiritual and necessarily (for humans), as physical as breath, ink on paper, or carvings in stone.

The logos is, if you like, the conceptual content or meaning. It is intermediate--a sort of ratio--between what is in your mind and what you actually said (sound waves in a medium). Philosophical and religious references to Logos play on all this symbolism and physicality, but in the world of Science we have thoughts, logos ('what was said', independent of the medium and maybe the language in which it was fixed), and material respiration.

The second important connotation of 'reason' (logos) comes from geometry. The Greeks considered it important that measurement was possible. One number 'measures' a number if they are evenly divisible. In that case, one can construct a rectangular array of the divisor and dividend, showing indeed that one number measures another commensurately. However, in two-dimensional *space* you can show that some lines (like the diagonal of a square) are incommensurate with the unit side used to construct them--the numbers are unreasonable, or as we usually say, irrational. The symbolic interpretation of this is that spirit and matter, as units, are incommensurate, but man is a ratio-animal (a rational animal) who can tie together the spiritual world of ideas and the world of matter.

Thus, the classical philosophic and religious conversation about Faith and Reason adheres to what I have said -- and if one does not have this as background knowledge, engaging the authors in 'the great conversation' is likely to be a vain exercise, even at Harvard, a place not known for vanity. Alternatively, I believe these terms can be parsed in the sense Kant would give them, which is fine for the German academic tradition in which Science as we presently know it took hold.

However, if one rejects both the Neo-Platonic and Christian spin on 'Faith and Reason', or some philosophy such as Kant's, then one really has no clear basis for making pronouncements on it. In particular, the philosophies of Ayer and Popper, and the tradition behind them, have been particularly sterile and devoid of scientific results. No discoveries have resulted from positivism or by positivists in regard to their empiricist, positivistic beliefs. On the contrary, without the intuition of a Newton or an Einstein, the higher sort of discoveries seem closed altogether.

Thus, hawking a bit of unwarranted and futile philosophy that falsifies the greater proportion of 'Reason' in the majority of the subjects taught, and claiming one has something better is just a claim -- and a snake oil one at that. Pinker should stick to doing what he is good at, and not philosophise naively and embarrasingly about education.

[Macrobius]

In case someone missed the gist of my argument:

1. If we want to call something bad we call it 'religious'. This is like calling something 'poopy' in pre-school, as in 'you poopy head'.

2. Pinker likes 'Reason' and dislikes 'Faith'.

3. However, both terms are terms from a philosophical and religious discussion. 'Reason' has just as much 'religious' content to it as 'Faith', except in terms of a particular non-scientific, sterile and non-productive philosophy which we may ignore (unless someone can provide a coherent defense of it).

4. Thus, Pinker has a dilemma. He can (1) hawk adherence to a notion that is fundamentally religious, and hence be a poopy-head like all advocates of religion, (2) redifine it to suit his taste, and break the university as having any purpose at all, (3) adhere to a defenseless and sterile philosophy willfully, in which case he is just being poopy again.

Thought I'd make it simple for those who have trouble thinking Logos-fully.

[Fade the Butcher]

That is 'reason' (or logos) is a loaded term. When God speaks, say in the Bible, there is God's 'thought' or 'nous', his 'logos', and his 'spirit'. The spirit is analogous to the breath of God, carrying the message. Ultimately, there is a sort of spirit-matter duality, since the 'medium' of the message is at once spiritual and necessarily (for humans), as physical as breath, ink on paper, or carvings in stone.

The Bible is simply unintelligible gibberish.

[Macrobius]

The Bible is simply unintelligible gibberish.

Your argument, if it is entitled to that designation, ends as follows if pursued: most of what has ever been said is rubbish, hence most of what is done at Harvard is rubbish. Of course, Pinker is too polite to say this. However, you are merely chosing my option (2). You cannot possibly have a coherent theory of what education is for, at least in anything remotely like its current comprehension. If you have such a theory, please exhibit it.

[LeoAlbus]

In case someone missed the gist of my argument:

1. If we want to call something bad we call it 'religious'. This is like calling something 'poopy' in pre-school, as in 'you poopy head'.

2. Pinker likes 'Reason' and dislikes 'Faith'.


I think Pinker sees very little of fruitful components in religious faith, ie fixed belief in that science conveys to the pursuit of the given truth of God, what ever it may be adhered from (Koran, Bible, Torah, Bhagadvita).

And since there is such an increadible minority of atheists or even agnostics in the world, not to just focus on the US, this by itself appeals to the underdog sense, that atheism isn't considered as reasonable as religious adherence.

Naturally any scientific mind of critical thought will eventually challenge this, since religion doesn't rest nor depend on science.
And since religion doesn't depend on science, yet puts a lot of weight in becoming blended with it, any sane mind of science will regard religious claims as the unproven assertion while going what the facts of the laws of nature convey.

As so, in terms of scientific coherence, it isn't atheist or agnostic scientists job to prove religious claims to be reasonable or unreasonable, because by the laws of nature as we know it, itheistic claims are unreasonable by default, thus reason as far as science is concerned has nothing to do with religion.
However, it doesn't have to exclude it of course, we just can not see how it includes it.

[Fade the Butcher]

Your argument, if it is entitled to that designation, ends as follows if pursued: most of what has ever been said is rubbish, hence most of what is done at Harvard is rubbish. Of course, Pinker is too polite to say this. However, you are merely chosing my option (2). You cannot possibly have a coherent theory of what education is for, at least in anything remotely like its current comprehension. If you have such a theory, please exhibit it.

I don't see how any of this relates to what I said above. Pointing out that alchemy and astrology are pseudoscience and have no business in a university curriculum in no way implies that other legitimate sciences are invalid.

[Macrobius]

I don't see how any of this relates to what I said above. Pointing out that alchemy and astrology are pseudoscience and have no business in a university curriculum in no way implies that other legitimate sciences are invalid.

The problem with this view, of course, is that Newton was an Alchemist and it was in virtue of his views on Alchemy ['As it is above, so below', straight from the Emerald Tablet no less], not his Empiricism, that he made his greatest contributions. Thus, your exclusionary rule would in fact 'break' Science. Actually, the History of Science department at Harvard was grappling with just these facts about the genesis of the scientific method, back when I was there, lo these many years ago -- around the time this Feyerabend cat (Petr was quoting) was there, give or take, though I never met him.

My point is that limiting 'reason' to one anachronistic parsing of the term, claiming the privilege of nominalists to define things how they please (and even good old Quine wasn't that crude about it), makes a hash of the curriculum, because in order to push one agenda for Reason it renders the propositions of the other subjects nonsense. Unless of course you allow them the privilege of defining Reason the way *they* please, which personally I detest as the introduction of pseudo-Science.

The pathetic tendency of Science to take Astrologers and Alchemists from the past and claim they were Scientists, all the while denigrating Astrology and Alchemy, so as to perpetuate the untenable claim that modern Science is any older than Kant or Hegel or Dalton and Faraday even, is precisely the sort of Untruth in defence of bias that makes Science a closed sub-rational system well beneath anything Augustine would call Faith or Reason.

By Science I mean, of course, the actual community we observe today, in which any participant of sufficient training and intelligence may be an apprentice, and which hands on certain cultural prejudices which are, in my experience, completely unlike the yesterday's Postivism you are peddling. I've been a Scientist, and I know quite well what they are like and how much (little) they think about the philosophy of what they are doing.

I'm sorry if I insist on my Scientists being real ones, and not some caricature out of Jules Verne or the fiction of Bertrand Russell.

[Fade the Butcher]

The problem with this view, of course, is that Newton was an Alchemist and it was in virtue of his views on Alchemy ['As it is above, so below', straight from the Emerald Tablet no less], not his Empiricism, that he made his greatest contributions.

There is nothing whatsoever problematic about this view. Both alchemy and astrology are widely regarded as being failed sciences. They don't generate valid predictions about the natural world and thus contribute nothing valuable to human knowledge. As for Newton being a Christian who dabbled in alchemy, that is irrelevant to his foundational contributions to science. Darwin himself studied theology, but that has no revelance to his contributions either. While I can appreciate your antiquarian interest in the history of science, which I happen to share, science has moved on in the last several centuries and has no need of the ballast it jettisoned centuries ago.

Thus, your exclusionary rule would in fact 'break' Science.

Just the opposite is true. You desire to 'break' science by abolishing the distinction between science and pseudoscience. And for no other reason than modern science being inconsistent with your strange religious beliefs.

Actually, the History of Science department at Harvard was grappling with just these facts about the genesis of the scientific method, back when I was there, lo these many years ago -- around the time this Feyerabend cat (Petr was quoting) was there, give or take, though I never met him.

Discussions of alchemy and astrology are entirely appropriate insofar as they relate to the history of science. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean either of the above can be considered valid sciences. The same can be said of theology. It is a failed science. That would compare theology to modern medicine speaks volumes about the failure of the former in comparison to the latter.

My point is that limiting 'reason' to one anachronistic parsing of the term, claiming the privilege of nominalists to define things how they please (and even good old Quine wasn't that crude about it), makes a hash of the curriculum, because in order to push one agenda for Reason it renders the propositions of the other subjects nonsense.

Your point is basically that you dislike modern science, so science should be redefined to suit your fancy, and reason and other foundational terms too while we are at it. Fortunately, modern scientists have better things to do than to play around with words all day and speculate about vacuous non-observable entities like Scholastics.

Unless of course you allow them the privilege of defining Reason the way *they* please, which personally I detest as the introduction of pseudo-Science.

I don't see anything problematic about how reason and science are currently defined. I can see why this might be problematic from a religious standpoint though. I can also understand the motivation to dissolve reason into non-reason and science into non-science in other to render both as worthless as faith in explaining the natural world.

The pathetic tendency of Science to take Astrologers and Alchemists from the past and claim they were Scientists, all the while denigrating Astrology and Alchemy, so as to perpetuate the untenable claim that modern Science is any older than Kant or Hegel or Dalton and Faraday even, is precisely the sort of Untruth in defence of bias that makes Science a closed sub-rational system well beneath anything Augustine would call Faith or Reason.

Augustine contributed absolutely nothing to human knowledge. In fact, insofar as the history of science is concerned, he was an negative influence whose influence was in large part responsible for reducing science to mere encyclopedic apologetics for fairyology for the next several centuries.

By Science I mean, of course, the actual community we observe today, in which any participant of sufficient training and intelligence may be an apprentice, and which hands on certain cultural prejudices which are, in my experience, completely unlike the yesterday's Postivism you are peddling.

That's news to me. See, I was completely unaware that astrology and alchemy are now considered science, but what do I know?

I've been a Scientist, and I know quite well what they are like and how much (little) they think about the philosophy of what they are doing.

This a failing of philosophy, not science. After all, science has come a long way in the last several centuries.

I'm sorry if I insist on my Scientists being real ones, and not some caricature out of Jules Verne or the fiction of Bertrand Russell.

The alchemists, theologians, and astrologers, right?

[Macrobius]

There is nothing whatsoever problematic about this view. Both alchemy and astrology are widely regarded as being failed sciences. They don't generate valid predictions about the natural world and thus contribute nothing valuable to human knowledge. As for Newton being a Christian who dabbled in alchemy, that is irrelevant to his foundational contributions to science. Darwin himself studied theology, but that has no revelance to his contributions either. While I can appreciate your antiquarian interest in the history of science, which I happen to share, science has moved on in the last several centuries and has no need of the ballast it jettisoned centuries ago.


Judging from Newton's product, it would be more accurate to describe him as a Hermeticist who dabbled in Christianity. In any event, I would read the works of Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs on the History of Science. She's made a career of studying Newton's, er, dabbling. I think if your characterisation is correct then Nicholas of Cusa is another such 'failed scientist'.


Just the opposite is true. You desire to 'break' science by abolishing the distinction between science and pseudoscience. And for no other reason than modern science being inconsistent with your strange religious beliefs.


Not so strange really -- quite the norm in the Western Tradition, as the textual evidence would abundantly indicate to you *if* you chose to read any of it.


Discussions of alchemy and astrology are entirely appropriate insofar as they relate to the history of science. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean either of the above can be considered valid sciences. The same can be said of theology. It is a failed science. That would compare theology to modern medicine speaks volumes about the failure of the former in comparison to the latter.


Your distinction between how to do Science and the actual History of Science is rather odd, and not quite in keeping with your insistence on the unity of the History of the Cosmos with the current processes of the Cosmos. Indeed, the variance is rather telling, in that whenever an intelligent discussion goes on, it is classed as 'failed' but as soon as the historical record becomes mute, it is priviliged with speak all sorts of wonderful things. One might think your legal procedure for evidence amounts to insisting that *MATERIAL* and circumstantial facts are always superior to any *WITNESS* who might interpret them.

This leads to one little problem however -- when the process involves projecting psychological content into a substrate (as in Alchemy and QM), then the material itself doesn't really speak any words at all. No theory results, without the psychological contents being projected, i.e., without irrationality of a superior type.


Your point is basically that you dislike modern science, so science should be redefined to suit your fancy, and reason and other foundational terms too while we are at it. Fortunately, modern scientists have better things to do than to play around with words all day and speculate about vacuous non-observable entities like Scholastics.


Not at all -- I like Science and enjoyed it enough to devote 30 odd years of my life to it. I still like it. Alas about the scholastics, their logical training was quite necessary to science, and the fruits of their labours are quite embedded in it. Haven't you noticed the odd similarity between Science and Monasticism? Both seek Theoria through Praxis. One seeks union with God, the other with Nature. Both operate through an intellective faculty, in fact. Science is just the dual of Monasticism -- like the Four Knights' open, it copies Christianity move for move, down to the last little details of Criticism and Biblical Literalism. Nominalists are quite the Literalists, you know. Common blood shows.


I don't see anything problematic about how reason and science are currently defined. I can see why this might be problematic from a religious standpoint though. I can also understand the motivation to dissolve reason into non-reason and science into non-science in other to render both as worthless as faith in explaining the natural world.


The only problem with current definition, and the freedom of definition, is when those definitions are pushed, anachronistically, to misread the past. The past is the Philosophers' Stone for us Moderns. We read into it anything we like -- it remains forever beyond our knowledge, yet we know all sorts of wonderful things about it. We find our Evolutionary Gold there, as valuable as any of Newton's discoveries, quite as wonderful, and found by much the same process.


Augustine contributed absolutely nothing to human knowledge. In fact, insofar as the history of science is concerned, he was an negative influence whose influence was in large part responsible for reducing science to mere encyclopedic apologetics for fairyology for the next several centuries.


Not knowledge really, and maybe not much wisdom, but to Understanding his contributions were quite creditable. (I leave aside the theory, propounded by Thomas Cahill, that he discovered what you and I now mean by 'ourselves' -- i.e., that locate an actual advance in consciousness to him particularly). However, if one is a materialist I understand that Knowledge == Understanding is part of the equation, and you may have missed the contributions as insignificant in your paradigm.


That's news to me. See, I was completely unaware that astrology and alchemy are now considered science, but what do I know?


What indeed? If they aren't, you will be hard pressed to find 'scientists'. Kepler cast horoscopes -- probably was paid for his services. Newton wrote over a million words on Alchemy in his private notes -- that's rather a large number of internet posts, if you tote it up. He wrote an equal number of the primordial tradition of wisdom and its consequences for True Christianity (which he considered identical with the ancient secret wisdom of the universe). His mathematics, alchemy, physics, primordial religion, and astronomy were all much related and cut from whole cloth. To distend this garment is simply to take the parts you like and call them 'Science' is to misunderstand it.


This a failing of philosophy, not science. After all, science has come a long way in the last several centuries.


So let me get this straight. Scientists don't think about philosophy, and that is because it has nothing to offer compared to science. Science has so outstripped philosophy that by comparison the latter is impoverished, sterile, and uninteresting.

Well, that certainly makes a nice story, but the facts of the History of Science (and the sources of inspiration necessary for doing Science), as well as the psychological projections necessary for creating the past, all point to another interpretation.


The alchemists, theologians, and astrologers, right?

Certainly, if you want there to be any 'scientists' before about 1800. That's up to you -- you're the one who likes to define things in the modern usage. But if you like scientists before 1800, that's what they'll have to be precisely what you say, and that essentially.

[Fade the Butcher]

Judging from Newton's product, it would be more accurate to describe him as a Hermeticist who dabbled in Christianity. In any event, I would read the works of Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs on the History of Science. She's made a career of studying Newton's, er, dabbling. I think if your characterisation is correct then Nicholas of Cusa is another such 'failed scientist'.

Newton, Darwin, Mendel, Ockham, Copernicus, Aristotle and so on are important for their foundational contributions to science. I'm not seeing the point you are trying to make here. You seem to be trying to say that alchemy is a science because Newton (a famous person) was an alchemist. If so, that is an invalid argument. If that is not what you are suggesting, please clarify. You don't have a penchant for coming across clearly. Darwin was the founder of evolutionary biology. That doesn't mean natural selection is the only mechanism involved in evolution or that Darwin was right about the details of heredity.

Not so strange really -- quite the norm in the Western Tradition, as the textual evidence would abundantly indicate to you *if* you chose to read any of it.

Modern science evolved out of natural philosophy. No one denies that. You seem to be saying that science is natural philosophy because that has traditionally been the case. If so, that is another invalid argument. It sounds even stranger coming from someone who rejects nominalism. Shouldn't you be able to tell us what science "essentially" is? I'm guessing this wouldn't include any reference to Christianity. Christianity was unknown to Aristotle and contributed virtually nothing to Hellenistic science.

Your distinction between how to do Science and the actual History of Science is rather odd, and not quite in keeping with your insistence on the unity of the History of the Cosmos with the current processes of the Cosmos.

Neither astrology, alchemy, or theology can legitimately be considered sciences because they fail to generate valid testable predictions about the natural world. There is simply nothing to them. As someone who claims to have been a scientist for decades, certainly you should know this.

Indeed, the variance is rather telling, in that whenever an intelligent discussion goes on, it is classed as 'failed' but as soon as the historical record becomes mute, it is priviliged with speak all sorts of wonderful things.

The burden of proof is upon alchemists, astrologers, and theologians to demonstrate that their disciplines generate knowledge about the natural world. They have done nothing of the sort.

One might think your legal procedure for evidence amounts to insisting that *MATERIAL* and circumstantial facts are always superior to any *WITNESS* who might interpret them.

The truth or falsehood of any given proposition is not dependent upon what any given authority has to say about it.

This leads to one little problem however -- when the process involves projecting psychological content into a substrate (as in Alchemy and QM), then the material itself doesn't really speak any words at all. No theory results, without the psychological contents being projected, i.e., without irrationality of a superior type.

You are being incredibly vague here. Are you suggesting here that alchemy is a science or that the methods of alchemists actually work?

Not at all -- I like Science and enjoyed it enough to devote 30 odd years of my life to it. I still like it.

I will assume here you are referring to natural philosophy. That's not science.

Alas about the scholastics, their logical training was quite necessary to science, and the fruits of their labours are quite embedded in it.

It is my understanding that modern science grew out of the rejection of Scholasticism in the Late Middle Ages and culminated with its repudiation during the controversy over Galileo. The Scholastics did make several foundational contributions to science though like the rejection of realism.

Haven't you noticed the odd similarity between Science and Monasticism? Both seek Theoria through Praxis. One seeks union with God, the other with Nature.

As you know, there was nothing resembling science in the West during the heyday of monasticism in the Early Middle Ages. The monasteries of the period simply carried on the Late Roman encyclopedic tradition without adding anything in the way of new knowledge. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Greek scientific tradition found its way to the West though translations of Arabic and Greek texts into Latin. The Platonic corpus arrived in the West in the fourteenth century and the materialistic theories of Democritus were revived in later translations in the sixteenth century. Also, while we are on the subject of the monasticism and its relationship to science, why don't you relate for us the story of Bernard, his denunciation of Abelard, and Abelard's conviction for heresy? :D

Both operate through an intellective faculty, in fact. Science is just the dual of Monasticism -- like the Four Knights' open, it copies Christianity move for move, down to the last little details of Criticism and Biblical Literalism. Nominalists are quite the Literalists, you know. Common blood shows.

Christianity is based on faith, authority, superstition, and supernaturalism. Science is based on reason, observation, experiment, and naturalism. The two have always been in tension because they are diametrically opposed. The truth is that the rise of Christianity was a major factor in the destruction of Hellenistic science during Late Antiquity. The reduction of science to the role of "handmaiden to theology" literally extinguished science for centuries in the West.

The only problem with current definition, and the freedom of definition, is when those definitions are pushed, anachronistically, to misread the past. The past is the Philosophers' Stone for us Moderns. We read into it anything we like -- it remains forever beyond our knowledge, yet we know all sorts of wonderful things about it. We find our Evolutionary Gold there, as valuable as any of Newton's discoveries, quite as wonderful, and found by much the same process.

I don't know of anyone who fails to recognize the distinction between modern science and natural philosophy, so this doesn't strike me as being problematic.

Not knowledge really, and maybe not much wisdom, but to Understanding his contributions were quite creditable.

What did Augustine contribute to knowledge, wisdom, reason, or understanding?

(I leave aside the theory, propounded by Thomas Cahill, that he discovered what you and I now mean by 'ourselves' -- i.e., that locate an actual advance in consciousness to him particularly). However, if one is a materialist I understand that Knowledge == Understanding is part of the equation, and you may have missed the contributions as insignificant in your paradigm.

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

To distend this garment is simply to take the parts you like and call them 'Science' is to misunderstand it.

What is wrong with that? Darwin and Copernicus were also wrong about all sorts of things.

So let me get this straight. Scientists don't think about philosophy, and that is because it has nothing to offer compared to science. Science has so outstripped philosophy that by comparison the latter is impoverished, sterile, and uninteresting.

Science has made far more progress at resolving old controversies than philosophy. That's all I was saying. Indeed, science has been cannibalizing philosophy for centuries. All the sciences were once subsumed by natural philosophy.

Well, that certainly makes a nice story, but the facts of the History of Science (and the sources of inspiration necessary for doing Science), as well as the psychological projections necessary for creating the past, all point to another interpretation.

Are you suggesting that philosophy and theology have made more progress than physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and astronomy in the last several centuries?

Certainly, if you want there to be any 'scientists' before about 1800. That's up to you -- you're the one who likes to define things in the modern usage. But if you like scientists before 1800, that's what they'll have to be precisely what you say, and that essentially.

How can astrology, astronomy, or theology be considered sciences?

[Macrobius]

To keep the conversation from becoming too fragmented, I'm going to focus on this, which I believe is the real point of dispute. We can return to Newton, Alchemy, natural philosophy vs. science and so forth if you like, but really i think the focus is the evidentiary claim made here:


The truth or falsehood of any given proposition is not dependent upon what any given authority has to say about it.


This, in response to my statement that circumstantial evidence and the reports of witnesses are distinct claims, and the latter superior to the former. Authority is a special kind of witness (though a witness of suffient moral character, i.e. not given to lying or delusion, can be said to be the authority in regard to their own observations; and a written record of primary witness, such as a scientific logbook kept by trained observers who are being truthful, can be said to be authoritative in regard to what happened in the experiment).

Circumstantial evidence is nice (if witnessed and interpreted by someone with sufficient knowledge), but fundamentally all phenomena which are 'captured' by a Mind must go through the process of witnessing something. In the absence of this, we do not really have the primary data for doing Science or anything else humans like or should engage in, including the experience of Art or spiritual experiences.

The difference between the atheist viewpoint and the Christian, stripped down to its essentials, is not that of the Rational and Faith-free vs. the Sub-rational and emotive, but a question of the *credibility* of the differing witnesses involved. The Christian claims lay great emphasis on the moral character of those doing the witness -- they are specifically named Righteous, or Justified. In addition, their writings have a special character that makes them intrinsically credible, however I quite well understand that this is a matter of Tradition and correct interpretation. I can see how the scriptures, mis-interpreted and without sufficient knowledge on the part of the interpreter, can be quite as mysterious as any scientific formula, and in fact ludicrous. However, this is not at all the case for the Inner Tradition, where the meanings are understood, and the pre-eminent moral character of the Saints stands behind the interpretation.


What did Augustine contribute to knowledge, wisdom, reason, or understanding?


Crede, ut Intelligas, which is as true for Science as it is for Christian Theology.

[Arminius]

Too many people believe (have "faith") because it is what they were told to do as children. They don't actually think for themselves. They are sponges, absorbing what they are fed. They don't care about reason, science or other beliefs. They are content to be ignorant, because throwing off that ignorance requires them to give up their intellectual laziness - and lets face it, they don't have time because Desperate Housewives is on TV.

[Macrobius]

Too many people believe (have "faith") because it is what they were told to do as children. They don't actually think for themselves. They are sponges, absorbing what they are fed. They don't care about reason, science or other beliefs. They are content to be ignorant, because throwing off that ignorance requires them to give up their intellectual laziness - and lets face it, they don't have time because Desperate Housewives is on TV.

True enough. Many of them become Scientists or Atheists as a result of their unexamined Faith, too.

[Fade the Butcher]

To keep the conversation from becoming too fragmented, I'm going to focus on this, which I believe is the real point of dispute. We can return to Newton, Alchemy, natural philosophy vs. science and so forth if you like, but really i think the focus is the evidentiary claim made here:

This would be a good place to start, yes.

This, in response to my statement that circumstantial evidence and the reports of witnesses are distinct claims, and the latter superior to the former. Authority is a special kind of witness (though a witness of suffient moral character, i.e. not given to lying or delusion, can be said to be the authority in regard to their own observations; and a written record of primary witness, such as a scientific logbook kept by trained observers who are being truthful, can be said to be authoritative in regard to what happened in the experiment).

I was making a logical point. The truth or falsehood of any given proposition exists independently of what any given authority has to say about it. And no, authority is absolutely not superior to direct evidence, especially with respect to science.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.

This isn't to say it is inappropriate to cite authorities. Authorities can and should be cited under certain discussions. That doesn't imply that 1.) a proposition is true because an authority says so or 2.) that authority is superior to direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is nice (if witnessed and interpreted by someone with sufficient knowledge), but fundamentally all phenomena which are 'captured' by a Mind must go through the process of witnessing something. In the absence of this, we do not really have the primary data for doing Science or anything else humans like or should engage in, including the experience of Art or spiritual experiences.

This isn't a convincing argument for two reasons.

1.) No one has direct unmediated access to reality. This includes all competiting authorities.
2.) We rely upon reason and evidence, primary independent criteria, to sort amongst the competiting truth claims of secondary competiting authorities.

The difference between the atheist viewpoint and the Christian, stripped down to its essentials, is not that of the Rational and Faith-free vs. the Sub-rational and emotive, but a question of the *credibility* of the differing witnesses involved.

No, I disagree. The Christian attaches an irrational, unwarranted, worshipful, reverence to authority and this is the primary source of all the delusions they suffer from. P isn't true because A believes P is true.

The Christian claims lay great emphasis on the moral character of those doing the witness -- they are specifically named Righteous, or Justified. In addition, their writings have a special character that makes them intrinsically credible, however I quite well understand that this is a matter of Tradition and correct interpretation.

The Christian uses reason and evidence to sort through competiting claims just like the rest of us in their everyday lives. It is only with respect to their strange religious beliefs that their skepticism vanishes. Sam Harris makes just this point in The End of Faith:

"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."

I can see how the scriptures, mis-interpreted and without sufficient knowledge on the part of the interpreter, can be quite as mysterious as any scientific formula, and in fact ludicrous. However, this is not at all the case for the Inner Tradition, where the meanings are understood, and the pre-eminent moral character of the Saints stands behind the interpretation.

The various claims in the Bible are not true because your local priest says they are.

Crede, ut Intelligas, which is as true for Science as it is for Christian Theology.

This is not true of science. Scientific knowledge is always tentative.

[Macrobius]

We are narrowing in on the difference, I think. Somewhere between your discussion of appeals to authority and your use below of 'unwarranted' we tripped over the crucial point.
Let's start with Authority:


I was making a logical point. The truth or falsehood of any given proposition exists independently of what any given authority has to say about it. And no, authority is absolutely not superior to direct evidence, especially with respect to science.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.

This isn't to say it is inappropriate to cite authorities. Authorities can and should be cited under certain discussions. That doesn't imply that 1.) a proposition is true because an authority says so or 2.) that authority is superior to direct evidence.


Leaving aside some necessary sharpening (I would prefer 'A asserts the judgment that P is true.' and such), and leaving aside the specialness of some statements, such as witnessing to interior states, I still think you are over-generalising a fairly good precept to over-state your case.

First objection: as useful as this might be with regard to the general laws about natural phenomena that are the domain of the scientific method, about which we have substantial agreement, it cannot apply with regard to *all* truths, esp. particular or 'one off' ones, even with regard to physical truths.

Let's consider some other kinds of (quite physical and natural) truth. Society has needed to establish truths long before it had the scientific method to do so, and some of those methods are by no means obsolete since the Scientific Revolution. I refer in particular to legal truths. Like Science, Law has truths, generalisations, evidentiary procedure, and many other features that are at once 'pre-scientific' but also in potential conflict with Science. Legal disputes are not 'phenomena' though one could certainly investigate them that way -- purely descriptive and non-normative. They are well within the scope of Reason, as witness the famous dictum that a law contrary to reason is bad law, and no law at all. (Leave aside the fact that this dictum may not be followed in particulars, or that bad judges may fail to recognise it).

Yet the application of the Law is in the end to particulars -- 'Thou shalt not kill' ends up being 'A shall be punished for murder'. Science is ancillary to this proceding, and if chemistry proves the gun cannot have been fired, A might get off. However, it is the authorities, which are various but include at least Tradition, Legislation, and what the Judge says in this case.

The procedure of law includes both circumstantial evidence and testimony, and with good reason. In the case of non repeatable events (and miracles, divine revelation, and similar claims fall in this category), human witness, properly judged, is required to establish the truth of the matter. This is true for two reasons: (1) some things in Law are beyond the domain of physical science, and not testable by its means, except in ancillary ways, and (2) non-repeatable events [and scientific experiments in their individual aspect have this character], are intrinsically particular and only knowable by direct experience or testimony of direct experience. The *legitimate* acquisition of authority, both in Law and Religion, is based on adequate, reasonable treatment of individual testimony for singular events.

Law is not a lower species of scientific truth, but a higher one, as high as the social order is about physical nature. As one proceeds up the chain of being, the cases become more particular, and the generalisations fewer. It is precisely here that human intellect, and ultimately divine pronouncements, are needed. We cannot argue, 'well, this case is non-falsifiable since V cannot be murdered again and in any event having A murder someone else is impractical'. Nor can we argue parsimony: 'well, the simplest explanation is A did it, so let's convict him.' Nor are the terms of the Law, used against Tradition, arbitrary and conventional. As to Authority, we have the Word of God Himself, which you choose to mock elsewhere, that 'Thou shalt not kill'. It is quite proper, rational, in accord with human nature and society, to affirm what is universally known as a Legal principle, and applied and applied well wherever Civilisation can make it so. Long before anyone knew about theories of Evolution, or did any sort of Social Science, this law was well-established on authority.

Now one might argue that the Legal truths are truths of a different order, and that 'ought' and 'is' cannot be mixed. Thus far I can agree. I would say, however, that there must be a sort of correspondence principle between them -- the lower, physical truths may not contradict the legal, higher ones. Yet to insist that physical truths have the right to overthrow legal truths, even to be the sole arbiter of facts in legal disputes, is to de-humanise the law and make it inferior. Wisdom prohibits that the inferior should dictate to the superior, as we have agreed.

The practice of Medicine and Psychiatry likewise has an individual or particular component, as well as a more general physical one. If we make a paired comparison of the success of these two fields since the Scientific method has existed, we can see that in so far as humans share healthy bodies, but psyches are quite individual [though by no means dis-similar in all respects] -- it is precisely as we progress up the chain of being that we encounter problems generalising, and the possible conclusions on a *scientific* basis become problematic and difficult to establish.

My second objection is your notion of 'direct evidence' which is too narrow even for Science. Science conventionally includes Astronomy, Cosmology, and Natural History. None of these are susceptible to 'direct evidence' *or* 'experiment', and thus fail to fit the Scientific Method's paradigm completely. They deal with particulars, (partially) inaccessibles, and areas where experiments are presently and likely forever impractical. The quantum regime has similar, though less severe, disabilities.

The most one can say to these regimes, is that like the Law, or Quantum Mechanics, that there must be some sort of correspondence principle. Whatever procedures are used to make the investigations, they cannot *contradict* the parallel level. However, correspondence principles in general ('as above, so below') are tricky to apply.


This isn't a convincing argument for two reasons.

1.) No one has direct unmediated access to reality. This includes all competiting authorities.
2.) We rely upon reason and evidence, primary independent criteria, to sort amongst the competiting truth claims of secondary competiting authorities.


Unmediated access to reality is of several potential kinds, depending on how communicable the experience is. It may be 'unspeakable' or it may be communicable by symbols, so that if two people have a similar experience, they can recognise the likely similarity, without being able strictly speaking to communicate it. Finally, it may be a kind of Revelation that can be put into words and communicated generally, as with some prophecies. Whether something can be signed, symbolised, or is 'whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent' is more a matter of corporeality of the object than of Reality.

I believe my argument above establishes that evidence and authority are more than just conflict resolution rules, but intrinsic to any field where Reason may be applied. I agree, however, that physical phenomena in their non-particular aspect (i.e., not miraculous or revelatory and merely phenomenal and corporeal), are subject to their own proper rules. The Scientific Method is very successful in this limited, humble area.

We would doubtless disagree on the *direction* of any proposed correspondence principle. You would probably claim (at least) the right to insist the experiences and tribunals I am calling higher conform to the laws of physics, and be subject to a parsimony inspired by these physical investigations. I would seek a correspondence principle in which the higher determines the lower. To me, insisting on the primacy of corporeality and sensation is exactly an inversion of the order of nature, making both Man and God a slave to what is least Law-like. The provisional generalisations of Science, based on phenomena, cannot dictate Law -- they barely suffice for the most humble application, formulating logical consistency. Even that requires intelligence not found in the data themselves -- it is significant that Newton's hope that all formulae could be empirical ones had to be dropped. We admit semi-empirical formulae and not all tests are hypothesis free by any means.


No, I disagree. The Christian attaches an irrational, unwarranted, worshipful, reverence to authority and this is the primary source of all the delusions they suffer from. P isn't true because A believes P is true.


There are valid grounds, as I have said, for accepting some arguments from authority. This cannot be done arbitrarily and without reason, or ad hoc -- that does violence to reason and is likely to lead to fruitless speculation, as the hypothesis is too powerful for the evidence, and overwhelms it -- but arguments from authority are not invariably fallacies.

Christian Theology has a particular point here: The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth, is Truth Himself speaking. The only analogy in science would be some sort of 'Nature herself speaks' (not unlike the sort of procedure that does an experiment without a hypothesis then fits an empirical curve to it). The Logos, or Law, is evident both ways in Revelation -- the ability of Nature to speak the Law, *and* the more anthropomorphic, if you will, or social articulation of it, are both present in Holy Tradition.


The Christian uses reason and evidence to sort through competiting claims just like the rest of us in their everyday lives. It is only with respect to their strange religious beliefs that their skepticism vanishes. Sam Harris makes just this point in The End of Faith:

"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."


One might as well say that Scientist abandons his Science when he enters the courtroom, since his 'skepticism vanishes' and he accepts non-scientific reasons for the verdict. Ditto for the voting booth, or any other activity that cannot be reduced to the elements of nature.


The various claims in the Bible are not true because your local priest says they are.


There are several factors -- (1) Revelation in fact, (2) transmission through a witness, unbroken chain, (3) miraculous and prophetic confirmations, also with witnesses, (4) coherence and conformity to the Holy Fathers, (5) self-authenticating nature of text, i.e. ability of God speaking to transform lives, (6) fruit born by belief, and correspondence of the progress of this fruit with previous descriptions, (7) the parishioner's direct experience in prayer of the divine, depending on his capacity and progress, (8) confirmation by other Church members of all of the above, in the last resort, in the present, by direct contact with living Holy Fathers and Mothers. Not least (9) correspondence with the Law of Nature, in which case the very stones cry out, should human witness fail.

These are non-negligible.


This is not true of science. Scientific knowledge is always tentative.

Science, in any event, must believe something (axioms, hypotheses) to make progress. You are right, that Science treats these as provisional, but that is precisely because it deals with generalities involving non-intentional objects. We do not always have the luxury of arguments from generality, simplicity, and similar powerful tools. Sometimes it is more important to be Right that True, and if both are uncertain it is better to pick Authority. In the end, the coincidence of the two is a philosophical question, and beyond the bounds of Science to answer. Certainly, 'it is only right to reason by the Scientific Method' alone, as a rule of conduct, cannot be established either by Science or any other means.

Sometimes we need to make decisions that are authoritative and certain. That we lack the capacity or knowledge to do so is a skeptical assertion, but not established with sufficient warrant to halt the physical, social, and spiritual life of Mankind dead in its tracks.

[Fade the Butcher]

Leaving aside some necessary sharpening (I would prefer 'A asserts the judgment that P is true.' and such), and leaving aside the specialness of some statements, such as witnessing to interior states, I still think you are over-generalising a fairly good precept to over-state your case.

I disagree. The truth or falsehood of any given statement exists independently of the authority making that statement. A good example of this would be the use of geocentric passages in the Bible by the Catholic Church at Galileo's trial. In that case, neither papal authority or law was a higher tribunal than reason and evidence. Even the Catholic Church has since rejected geocentrism and exonerated Galileo on the basis of the evidence.

First objection: as useful as this might be with regard to the general laws about natural phenomena that are the domain of the scientific method, about which we have substantial agreement, it cannot apply with regard to *all* truths, esp. particular or 'one off' ones, even with regard to physical truths.

This seems to be a misunderstanding of my position. I was making a logical point, not a scientific one.

Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.

^^ That's a fallacy. The laws of reasoning inform both science and law. It is possible for authorities to err. The judicial system takes this into account and is set up in such a way that it is possible to overturn convictions on appeal if there were flaws in the trial or if important evidence is later uncovered.

Let's consider some other kinds of (quite physical and natural) truth. Society has needed to establish truths long before it had the scientific method to do so, and some of those methods are by no means obsolete since the Scientific Revolution. I refer in particular to legal truths.

I'm actually glad you brought this up. If you had ran this by me before you made this long post, I could have saved you much exertion by pointing out to you that the legal system doesn't recognize the "authority" of the Bible either. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools specifically because it advances a narrow religious agenda.

Like Science, Law has truths, generalisations, evidentiary procedure, and many other features that are at once 'pre-scientific' but also in potential conflict with Science. Legal disputes are not 'phenomena' though one could certainly investigate them that way -- purely descriptive and non-normative. They are well within the scope of Reason, as witness the famous dictum that a law contrary to reason is bad law, and no law at all. (Leave aside the fact that this dictum may not be followed in particulars, or that bad judges may fail to recognise it).

In the United States, we use positive law. Positivism is the notion that laws are conventions and have no necessary connection to truth or morality. Statutes are passed by elected national and state legislators who are falliable men. These men can always be thrown out of office. They can't legislate gravity or evolution out of existence through mere invocations of their authority. Furthermore, laws are always subject to revision because they are still arbitrated by reason and evidence. I'm glad you pointed that out. The moon still wouldn't be made of cheese if George W. Bush said it was.

Yet the application of the Law is in the end to particulars -- 'Thou shalt not kill' ends up being 'A shall be punished for murder'.

You are conflating natural law with positive law. A federal judge ordered Roy Moore to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court a few years ago. How come? Because our legal system is not based on natural law. It is not a capital offence in this country to be an atheist.

Science is ancillary to this proceding, and if chemistry proves the gun cannot have been fired, A might get off.

How come? Why can't the judge simply use his authority to declare such a man a murderer? Because he is supposed to be an impartial authority that uses reason and evidence to arbitrate criminal proceedings which trump authority.

However, it is the authorities, which are various but include at least Tradition, Legislation, and what the Judge says in this case.

Yet that judge can be overruled on appeal, especially if he has misused his authority. A man isn't necessarily a murderer because he has been convicted of a crime. The truth of the matter exists independently of the authority who arbitrates the proceedings.

The procedure of law includes both circumstantial evidence and testimony, and with good reason. In the case of non repeatable events (and miracles, divine revelation, and similar claims fall in this category), human witness, properly judged, is required to establish the truth of the matter.

Such claims are still arbitrated on the basis of reason and evidence. Imagine the following scenario: a man rapes a woman unaware that his crime is being recorded by a security camera. Suppose this man claims that the individual caught on tape is a demon who has assumed human form and raped the woman in order to frame him. Chances are he is overwhelmingly going to be convicted of the crime. In any case, the truth or falsehood of the incident exists independently of the individual arbitrating the proceedings. Unverifiable knowledge is given short shrift in science and law.

This is true for two reasons: (1) some things in Law are beyond the domain of physical science, and not testable by its means, except in ancillary ways, and (2) non-repeatable events [and scientific experiments in their individual aspect have this character], are intrinsically particular and only knowable by direct experience or testimony of direct experience.

The truth or falsehood of these things is still entirely independent of the authority making the claim. And no, scientific experiments are not intrinsically particular and knowable only by direct experience.

The *legitimate* acquisition of authority, both in Law and Religion, is based on adequate, reasonable treatment of individual testimony for singular events.

This is utterly false. The Bible is full of contradictions and verifiable falsehoods about the natural world. It is based on faith, not reason.

Law is not a lower species of scientific truth, but a higher one, as high as the social order is about physical nature.

This is nonsense. In our legal system, demonstratable scientific truth trumps legal authority all the time. Innocent men convicted of rape are acquitted quite regularly on the basis of DNA evidence.

As one proceeds up the chain of being, the cases become more particular, and the generalisations fewer. It is precisely here that human intellect, and ultimately divine pronouncements, are needed.

There is no such thing as a chain of being or a need for divine pronouncements in its highest levels. That is nothing more than unverifiable metaphysical gibberish.

We cannot argue, 'well, this case is non-falsifiable since V cannot be murdered again and in any event having A murder someone else is impractical'. Nor can we argue parsimony: 'well, the simplest explanation is A did it, so let's convict him.'

Falsification is the elimination of alternative explanations. The explanation that John has been murdered and is dead can be falsified by John walking into a courtroom and sitting down. In that case, the simplest explanation would be that John was not murdered in the first place, not that he was resurrected from the dead by divine intervention.

[quote]Nor are the terms of the Law, used against Tradition, arbitrary and conventional.

You seem to be unaware that our legal system is not based on the authority of the Bible and thus lends no support to its claims.

As to Authority, we have the Word of God Himself, which you choose to mock elsewhere, that 'Thou shalt not kill'.

That is, if you accept the claims made in the Bible on the basis of faith. There is no verifiable evidence that the Bible or Korean is the word of the creator of the universe.

It is quite proper, rational, in accord with human nature and society, to affirm what is universally known as a Legal principle, and applied and applied well wherever Civilisation can make it so.

I'm not aware of any universally applicable legal principle that validates the Bible is the "Word of God Himself." Our legal system certainly isn't based on this notion.

Long before anyone knew about theories of Evolution, or did any sort of Social Science, this law was well-established on authority.

Once again, the moon isn't made of cheese because George W. Bush or anyone else says it is.

Now one might argue that the Legal truths are truths of a different order, and that 'ought' and 'is' cannot be mixed. Thus far I can agree.

Such "truths" are tentative and subject to revision because authority has no necessary connection to truth. A man can be convicted of being a murder in one trial, but the conviction can be thrown out on appeal. According to your reasoning, a man is simultaneously capable of being and not being a murderer because of the pronouncements of different authorities.

I would say, however, that there must be a sort of correspondence principle between them -- the lower, physical truths may not contradict the legal, higher ones.

I would say that your argument that legal truths are "higher" than physical truths is utterly unfounded. Gravity cannot be legislated out of existence.

Yet to insist that physical truths have the right to overthrow legal truths, even to be the sole arbiter of facts in legal disputes, is to de-humanise the law and make it inferior.

This happens in our legal system all the time.

Wisdom prohibits that the inferior should dictate to the superior, as we have agreed.

We have not agreed on this issue.

The practice of Medicine and Psychiatry likewise has an individual or particular component, as well as a more general physical one. If we make a paired comparison of the success of these two fields since the Scientific method has existed, we can see that in so far as humans share healthy bodies, but psyches are quite individual [though by no means dis-similar in all respects] -- it is precisely as we progress up the chain of being that we encounter problems generalising, and the possible conclusions on a *scientific* basis become problematic and difficult to establish.

That is to say, human behavior is more complex because the human brain is a more complex organ and is thus more difficult to understand.

My second objection is your notion of 'direct evidence' which is too narrow even for Science. Science conventionally includes Astronomy, Cosmology, and Natural History. None of these are susceptible to 'direct evidence' *or* 'experiment', and thus fail to fit the Scientific Method's paradigm completely.

Einstein's theory of general relativity generates predictions about the motions of celestial bodies that can be observed and verified. Evidence from the past can also be found in abundance and corroborated against other lines of evidence.

They deal with particulars, (partially) inaccessibles, and areas where experiments are presently and likely forever impractical. The quantum regime has similar, though less severe, disabilities.

Quantum theory is actually highly predictive.

The most one can say to these regimes, is that like the Law, or Quantum Mechanics, that there must be some sort of correspondence principle. Whatever procedures are used to make the investigations, they cannot *contradict* the parallel level. However, correspondence principles in general ('as above, so below') are tricky to apply.

All of the above can be corroborated with various forms of material evidence. In geology, for example, the age of the earth can be corroborated by dozens of dating methods.

Unmediated access to reality is of several potential kinds, depending on how communicable the experience is. It may be 'unspeakable' or it may be communicable by symbols, so that if two people have a similar experience, they can recognise the likely similarity, without being able strictly speaking to communicate it. Finally, it may be a kind of Revelation that can be put into words and communicated generally, as with some prophecies. Whether something can be signed, symbolised, or is 'whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent' is more a matter of corporeality of the object than of Reality.

There is no such thing as unmediated access to reality, as our access to reality is mediated by our senses. The world we experience is merely an approximation generated by consciousness. In contrast, other species experience reality in different ways because their sense organs are tuned differently. Certain species of bats are able to navigate in complete darkness through echolocation. Dogs have a far superior sense of small. Butterflies can see further into the electromagnetic spectrum. The reality we experience is blurred further by differences in intelligence between and within populations and the opaque barriers of custom and language. No one is immune from this (including all competiting religious authorities with their irreconcilable truth claims).

I believe my argument above establishes that evidence and authority are more than just conflict resolution rules, but intrinsic to any field where Reason may be applied.

You have failed to established that authority has any necessary connection to truth. I will return to the example I used above. The moon still isn't made of cheese in spite of whatever George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Pope Benedict or anyone else might have to say about it.

I agree, however, that physical phenomena in their non-particular aspect (i.e., not miraculous or revelatory and merely phenomenal and corporeal), are subject to their own proper rules. The Scientific Method is very successful in this limited, humble area.

It in incumbent upon theists to demonstrate that there is a non-material world. Of course, it is impossible for them to do so on the basis of material evidence, so they can only believe in such a world on the basis of irrational faith.

We would doubtless disagree on the *direction* of any proposed correspondence principle. You would probably claim (at least) the right to insist the experiences and tribunals I am calling higher conform to the laws of physics, and be subject to a parsimony inspired by these physical investigations.

Yes. I would demand that you demonstrate that the "authority" you cite is a higher tribunal than the material world itself. By all means, let's see the Pope or his equivilant use his magic powers to perform miracles. Let's see him cast a spell and make a T Rex appear out of thin air in the middle of NYC.

I would seek a correspondence principle in which the higher determines the lower. To me, insisting on the primacy of corporeality and sensation is exactly an inversion of the order of nature, making both Man and God a slave to what is least Law-like.

To me, that is the equivilant of believing in magic, and a gross perversion of reality as it exists. Consciousness is an emergent property of matter, not the other way around.

The provisional generalisations of Science, based on phenomena, cannot dictate Law -- they barely suffice for the most humble application, formulating logical consistency.

Scientific evidence is enough to exonerate innocent men convicted of rape and murder in our legal system.

Even that requires intelligence not found in the data themselves -- it is significant that Newton's hope that all formulae could be empirical ones had to be dropped. We admit semi-empirical formulae and not all tests are hypothesis free by any means.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how we are to sort amongst the thousands of competiting authorities. Your solution, although you refuse to admit it, is that you accept every wild claim of single one on the basis of faith.

There are valid grounds, as I have said, for accepting some arguments from authority.

There are no such valid grounds. The legal system, as we have seen, doesn't lend support to your argument either. The judicial and legislative system is set up in such a way to eliminate mere invocations of authority insofar as this as possible. And no, divine revelation is generally not admissible as evidence.

This cannot be done arbitrarily and without reason, or ad hoc -- that does violence to reason and is likely to lead to fruitless speculation, as the hypothesis is too powerful for the evidence, and overwhelms it -- but arguments from authority are not invariably fallacies.

This is precisely what Christians do when they interpret the Bible. They arbitrarily and without reason pick and choose amongst different methods of interpreting specific passages, especially when such passages are contradicted by physical evidence. And yes, arguments from authority are fallacious.

Christian Theology has a particular point here: The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth, is Truth Himself speaking.

If so, Truth Himself falls hopelessly into contradiction.

The only analogy in science would be some sort of 'Nature herself speaks' (not unlike the sort of procedure that does an experiment without a hypothesis then fits an empirical curve to it). The Logos, or Law, is evident both ways in Revelation -- the ability of Nature to speak the Law, *and* the more anthropomorphic, if you will, or social articulation of it, are both present in Holy Tradition.

The Bible is contradicted by the evidence of the material world in numerous scientific disciplines.

One might as well say that Scientist abandons his Science when he enters the courtroom, since his 'skepticism vanishes' and he accepts non-scientific reasons for the verdict.Ditto for the voting booth, or any other activity that cannot be reduced to the elements of nature.

A verdict in a court of law is a tentative approximation of truth, on the basis of reason and evidence, subject to revision, by reason and evidence. This is why such convictions are overturned all the time.

There are several factors -- (1) Revelation in fact, (2) transmission through a witness, unbroken chain, (3) miraculous and prophetic confirmations, also with witnesses, (4) coherence and conformity to the Holy Fathers, (5) self-authenticating nature of text, i.e. ability of God speaking to transform lives, (6) fruit born by belief, and correspondence of the progress of this fruit with previous descriptions, (7) the parishioner's direct experience in prayer of the divine, depending on his capacity and progress, (8) confirmation by other Church members of all of the above, in the last resort, in the present, by direct contact with living Holy Fathers and Mothers.

As you well know, I contest all of the above.

Not least (9) correspondence with the Law of Nature, in which case the very stones cry out, should human witness fail.

This is your biggest problem. The Bible does not correspond with either reason or the evidence of the material world. That happens to be the major reason why people reject the Bible as authoritative.

These are non-negligible.

Science, in any event, must believe something (axioms, hypotheses) to make progress. You are right, that Science treats these as provisional, but that is precisely because it deals with generalities involving non-intentional objects. We do not always have the luxury of arguments from generality, simplicity, and similar powerful tools.

Methodogical naturalism, for example, is tentative. Assume x, y, and z and proceed accordingly.

Sometimes it is more important to be Right that True, and if both are uncertain it is better to pick Authority.

There are an infinite number of potential authorities. We still rely upon reason and evidence to arbitrate amongst them.

In the end, the coincidence of the two is a philosophical question, and beyond the bounds of Science to answer. Certainly, 'it is only right to reason by the Scientific Method' alone, as a rule of conduct, cannot be established either by Science or any other means.

I don't believe anyone denies the existence of superstitious forms of knowledge.

Sometimes we need to make decisions that are authoritative and certain. That we lack the capacity or knowledge to do so is a skeptical assertion, but not established with sufficient warrant to halt the physical, social, and spiritual life of Mankind dead in its tracks.

Both theists and non-theists use probabilistic knowledge derived from reason and experience to make decisions all the time in their ordinary lives. My life and the lives of hundreds of millions of atheists across the world hasn't been stopped dead in its tracks because we refuse to recognize the authority of religious sects and they knowledge they claim has been revealed to them by their imaginary gods.

[Macrobius]

Obviously, there are many points of disagreement in the previous post. However, I am well aware that many persons, including those of the atheist persuasion, have various opinions about the legal system. However, those do not relate to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, or to the Law as commonly interpreted in the West. As point of information, here is James Wilson, Associate Justice of the first US Supreme Court, delivering his lectures on Law. Wilson was, you might know, the person who persuaded Pennsylvania to become the second state to adopt the Consitution, and the first of the large states to do so (alongside Delaware). He gave these lectures at the University of Pennsylvania, the year after the Consitution was adopted. Since the Government was meeting in Philadelphia, as it happened George Washington (not yet elected President) decided the lectures worth attending.



Here is the (Federalist) view on what the Law is and where it comes from:

http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson1.htm

Entire work: http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson.htm


Of law there are different kinds. All, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1. Divine. 2. Human laws. The descriptive epithets employed denote, that the former have God, the latter, man, for their author.


The laws of God may be divided into the following species.


I. That law, the book of which we are neither able nor worthy to open. Of this law, the author and observer is God. He is a law to himself, as well as to all created things. This law we may name the "law eternal."


II. That law, which is made for angels and the spirits of the just made perfect. This may be called the "law celestial." This law, and the glorious state for which it is adapted, we see, at present, but darkly and as through a glass: but hereafter we shall see even as we are seen; and shall know even as we are known. From the wisdom and the goodness of the adorable Author and Preserver of the universe, we are justified in concluding, that the celestial and perfect state is governed, as all other things are, by his established laws. What those laws are, it is not yet given us to know; but on one truth we may rely with sure and certain confidence ― those laws are wise and good. For another truth we have infallible authority ― those laws are strictly obeyed: "In heaven his will is done."


III. That law, by which the irrational and inanimate parts of the creation are governed. The great Creator of all things has established general and fixed rules, according to which all the phenomena of the material universe are produced and regulated. These rules are usually denominated laws of nature. The science, which has those laws for its object, is distinguished by the name of natural philosophy. It is sometimes called, the philosophy of body. Of this science, there are numerous branches.


IV. That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. This law has undergone several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different ways in which it has been promulgated, and the different objects which it respects. As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures, it has been called revealed law.


As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has beep denominated the law of nations.


But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God.


Nature, or, to speak more properly, the Author of nature, has done much for us; but it is his gracious appointment and will, that we should also do much for ourselves. What we do, indeed, must be founded on what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.


You may not immediately recognise this fourfold classification. It comes from the first chapters of Richard Hooker's _Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_. For the most part, he got it from the scholastics -- mostly Aquinas.

Now, I really don't know the justification of your claims about positive Law. I suppose the Law is whatever you can get any random group of suckers to believe it is, and you can make your claims if you like.

But when the Founding Fathers said 'Law', they meant what everyone else meant by the word. There's nothing special about Epicureanism and its verbal fetishes, that it should determine what our Legal system is all about. The fact we are uneducated and have forgotten these things is no excuse, except for the reality factor of Legal Realism, which is that if you forget the Past, you can just make it up however you like.

[Fade the Butcher]

Obviously, there are many points of disagreement in the previous post. However, I am well aware that many persons, including those of the atheist persuasion, have various opinions about the legal system.

As you know, the highest legal tribunal in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution as a secular document. American law is not based on the "authority" of the Bible.

Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1960-1969/1968/1968_7

Conclusion

Yes. Seven members of the Court held that the statute violated the Establishment clause. Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortas stated that the law had been based solely on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, who felt that evolutionary theories directly contradicted the biblical account of Creation. This use of state power to prohibit the teaching of material objectionable to a particular sect ammounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion. Justice Fortas wrote, "The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment." The two other members of the Court concurred in the result, writing that it violated either the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (because it was unconstitutionally vague) or the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.

Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513

Conclusion

Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three-pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."

However, those do not relate to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, or to the Law as commonly interpreted in the West.

1.) The U.S. federal government is a secular institution.
2.) The word "God" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.
3.) The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion.
4.) The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution as a secular document and has struck down laws based on the "authority" of the Bible.
5.) There are no theocracies anywhere in the West today.

I think it is safe to say that our legal system is not based on the authority of the Bible and lends no support to that argument. Even Intelligent Design, which makes no use of the Bible or its alleged authority, was ruled religious and in violation of the establishment clause last year in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005).

http://coop.www.uscourts.gov/pamd/kitzmiller_342.pdf

As point of information, here is James Wilson, Associate Justice of the first US Supreme Court, delivering his lectures on Law. Wilson was, you might know, the person who persuaded Pennsylvania to become the second state to adopt the Consitution, and the first of the large states to do so (alongside Delaware). He gave these lectures at the University of Pennsylvania, the year after the Consitution was adopted. Since the Government was meeting in Philadelphia, as it happened George Washington (not yet elected President) decided the lectures worth attending.

That's interesting. The U.S. federal government is still a secular institution and our legal system is still in no way based on the authority of the Bible. Thus, I fail to see your point, as you have argued that law somehow lends support to the notion that the stories found in the Bible are true. The truth is that the courts regularly strike down any statute that smacks of religion. As for the Founding Fathers and their attitudes towards religion, you failed to mention that many of them were suspicious of Christianity and outright hostile towards certain forms of it like Catholicism. In fact, the Quebec Act was cited as one of the Intolerable Acts that justified the American Revolution. But while we are quote mining:

Thomas Jefferson:

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." 1787 letter to his nephew

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Unknown

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Unknown

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter." letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." Notes on Virginia

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" Letter to von Humboldt, 1813

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" Letter to H. Spafford, 1814

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." in a letter to S. Kercheval, 1810

"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" From Jefferson's biography

"I never told my religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged others' religions by their lives, for it is from our lives and not our words that our religions must be read."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

"The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible."

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”

“It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist.”

James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." April 1, 1774

"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

John Adams:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed."

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years." letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted in In God We Trust and 2000 Years of Disbelief

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles." letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" etter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world." "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardi

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it." letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Di

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven...”

Thomas Paine:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all." From The Age of Reason, pp. 89

"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." The Age of Reason

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity." Age of Reason

You may not immediately recognise this fourfold classification. It comes from the first chapters of Richard Hooker's _Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_. For the most part, he got it from the scholastics -- mostly Aquinas.

The U.S. Constitution is an ingenious document written by skeptics who were positively suspicious of authority of any sort. Various authorities were created to cancel out other authorities. The authority of ecclesiastics was abolished altogether.

Now, I really don't know the justification of your claims about positive Law. I suppose the Law is whatever you can get any random group of suckers to believe it is, and you can make your claims if you like.

I'm saying that our legal system is based on positive law. Laws are human conventions and don't have any necessary correspondence to truth or morality.

But when the Founding Fathers said 'Law', they meant what everyone else meant by the word.

The word "God" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but the establishment of religion is specifically prohibited. The First Amendment also expressly sanctions freedom of religion and freedom of speech which directly contradict the Ten Commandments.

There's nothing special about Epicureanism and its verbal fetishes, that it should determine what our Legal system is all about. The fact we are uneducated and have forgotten these things is no excuse, except for the reality factor of Legal Realism, which is that if you forget the Past, you can just make it up however you like.

This is confusing? Why are you rejecting the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the authority of the scientific community while trying to make an argument from authority about law and the natural world?

[Macrobius]

As you know, the highest legal tribunal in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution as a secular document. American law is not based on the "authority" of the Bible.


Which makes it a good thing, then, that Wilson's lectures are on the Law, mostly traditional, or Common, Law (and some Civil), and not the Constitution alone, which as a Federal compact was by no means the foundation of all Law in all the members states; mostly, it was a treaty between States. His comments to put the Constitution in perspective, however.

Nevertheless, it was by no means a done deal -- controversial in the Marshall court and for some time afterwards -- that the Federal government had anything to do with Common Law. The imposition of Common Law on two levels, that of States and at the Federal level, was incoherent from the beginning. The religious establishment of the majority of states, ending finally with the last, Massachusetts, in 1832, is not in question.

Your 5 points are acceptable with regard to the Federal government. 'Theocracy' in the context of the American States is a slam word, but even so, if there are none today a fortiori there are no Positivist Theocracies.


Why are you rejecting the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the authority of the scientific community while trying to make an argument from authority about law and the natural world?


*Excellent* question.

[Fade the Butcher]

Which makes it a good thing, then, that Wilson's lectures are on the Law, mostly traditional, or Common, Law (and some Civil), and not the Constitution alone, which as a Federal compact was by no means the foundation of all Law in all the members states; mostly, it was a treaty between States. His comments to put the Constitution in perspective, however.

The status quo is that the Constitution is a compact amongst the American people as a whole, not the several states. The Articles of Confederation was such a treaty and it was replaced by the Constitution in which the states surrendered their sovereignty, or so the theory goes. In any case, this is irrelevant. There is no established church in any state either and the constitutions of all the states secure their citizens all the rights and liberties of the federal constitution.

Nevertheless, it was by no means a done deal -- controversial in the Marshall court and for some time afterwards -- that the Federal government had anything to do with Common Law. The imposition of Common Law on two levels, that of States and at the Federal level, was incoherent from the beginning. The religious establishment of the majority of states, ending finally with the last, Massachusetts, in 1832, is not in question.

See above. This is a moot issue. There is established church in any state and the secularism of the federal constitution is extended to all of the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court can strike down any state statute it can construe of establishing religion in any form, and has done so on several occasions.

Your 5 points are acceptable with regard to the Federal government. 'Theocracy' in the context of the American States is a slam word, but even so, if there are none today a fortiori there are no Positivist Theocracies.

There is no established religion in any state of the union either.

[Macrobius]

It is time, I think, to present closing arguments and summaries for this thread and the other one:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16357

where we have been discussing much the same thing -- viz., Authority, in the context of Faith vs. Reason.

My argument on this thread is that Pinker has a tendentious notion of 'Faith' that does violence to the university curriculum he professes to defend. The fact that that curriculum was debauched long ago, and may well be beyond saving of any sort or maybe even caring is a side matter. Universities we still have and they are important to whatever still remains of Reason.

What Pinker objects to, I suppose, is the certain attempts to introduce Faith back to its rightful place. Those efforts may well be misguided and themselves as harmful to Faith as he thinks they are to Reason. However, his antipathy does not excuse sloppy thinking. Even if his opponents are of the more deluded sort, and I quite agree they may be, we expect better of an intellect of Pinker's stature.

What we get is some trite moralising about the triumph of Reason over Faith, the sort of crowing that has been going on, without basis, since the Revolution.

My points are twofold: first, that Faith and Reason are *both* terms with religious *and* scientific context. One cannot posit them to be completely separate without taking on very specific metaphyiscal and philosophical presumptions, that have no justification in either Faith or Reason: viz., some sort of self-estabilishing 'Reason' that has, it is alleged, no starting assumptions or beliefs, and in which all 'Faith' is delusional and unmerited.

That these presumptions have nothing to do with the real world, still less with the world that we believe in with reason, on the basis of sound reasonings from admitted premisses, or evidence, would have been evident to most of mankind, certainly the educated portion, for most of the last few thousand years. Faith and Reason are the twin currencies of Truth.

The most telling point, as regards argument from Authority, is the continuing evasion we have seen of any difference between general principles, laws, or regularity, from particular, non-repeatable, personal events. This gap leads us from a useful principle in general, that argument from authority is fallacious in certain contexts, to its elevation as a metaphysical principle, to claim in effect that no authority shall be permitted anywhere near Truth. This is the flip side of banishing teleology -- both authorship and telelology involve a notion of perfection (a perfected maxim, a perfected process) -- and both are arbitrarily proscribed. This is fiat, not Reason. The banishment may be argued as good fo r Science. It cannot be so argued for all domains, all of Life, all of Truth. Unless, of course, one choses to view all those from a materialist *and* universalist perspective.

The second point of difference, which seems to me most paradoxical in the case of empiricism and phenomenalism, the the denial of authority to the observer, the witness, the author of legislation, and even the leading lights of Science and Law to say what it is they are doing. One would think empiricists, of all people, would put primacy on the evidence of testimony, since circumstantial evidence can hardly be interpreted without a chain of witnesses, as well as a chain of observers and experimenters, to provide the Science needed to interpret primary, witnessed, data.

In all cases, the intelligent person is primary, and if his observations and testimony do not have weight, then no observations and testimony have weight. Not only is the authority and primacy of Testimony over Circumstance superior to general laws, it is their very ground. There is no such thing as Unintelligent Truth. At least, there is no justification beyond faith in materialist metaphysics for believing such a thing, paradoxical materialist noumenon that it must be, can or must exist. If the materialists were to apply the skepticism they reserve for mystical experience to their own matter, they would find equal occasion for doubt.

Those who are not interested in dallying in materialism, but want to know Truth, will get it only one way, which way is divided into the direct and the indirect: by themselves or by communicating with others who have in turn gotten it for themselves. Those who do this most perfectly will be authorities, and the prime source for what we, collectively, know. In Science, these prime sources are those who do the experiments, and those who formulated the theories being tested.

We must not be mesmerised by the potential, possible (i.e., material) side of Scientific generalisations. Falsification is an important feature of a limited class of contingent propositions. In Science itself, it is rarely an issue -- Scientists will expend 100 times more labour on statistical arguments of probability than determining if a hypothesis is falsifiable. For most subjects of scientific inquiry it would be hard not to be in the most general, barest, sense of possible. But that doesn't make everything in the world repeatable, reproducible, and subject to 'doing Science' by any means. Successful (true, even provisionally true) generalisations are much rarer than the notion of mere falsifiability might suppose.

Necessity and Contingency go hand in hand: the physical laws of Science deal with matters that are quite contingent in a broad sense, but subject to the necessity of laws. As we approach the personal and intelligent, we find less generality (and hence a more limited scope of possibility, if you like), and yet paradoxically it is here we find true choice, free will, as well.

Faith and Reason have their place in both domains, both the 'necessary faith' one has in sense perceptions, which 'force themselves' upon one, and the freely-given assent of faith, with regard to Necessity. Science expends most of its Reason on that least rational of things, matter, often seeing the reflection of the intelligible as it peers into contingent chaos. Yet Reason also has its place as we approach the Certain, the True, and the Necessity of intelligibles and intellect.

At least, so have Rational, Intelligent minds in all ages held.