Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:34 pm
What about ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and psychokinesis, should my absence of experience of them lead me to the conclusion that I should also take those things seriously? I have my own sense of the nature of reality and of what may or may not be possible, and I can only judge the likelihood of something in reference to that sense.
That doesn't seem right. That would mean you could never obtain any new knowledge or experiences, because you'd rule out anything you didn't already "have a sense of." But I doubt that's the way you operate.
There are metaphysical claims we should doubt, of course: reincarnation, telepathy, etc., because we have scientific grounds for doing so, adequate to the subject in doubt. Then there are metaphysical claims we really cannot doubt: that we exist, that we have minds, that reality means something and is, in some sense, present to us, that science and logic are useful, and so on. Then there are the middle metaphysical claims: those we are not sure of, but which we can explore. The whole question is, "To which of these three categories does God belong?"
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:Furthermore, science, or indeed Scientism, never looks for supernatural explanations to its unanswered questions, so it would seem very presumptuous of me behave as if I know better.
Science never looks to the supernatural for explanations not because there aren't any, but because science is not something that can deal with such things. It's the limitedness of science, not the absence of reality of metaphysical things, that is the real problem there.
But the supernatural doesn't explain anything; it's just a way of saying something can't be explained.
I don't remember invoking "the supernatural," but we can use that word if you prefer it. I would say, "the transcendent" or "the metaphysical," rather than "supernatural, " because "supernaturalism" is a word with baggage, and "metaphysical" has the good implication of something not contrary to the physical but supplemental to it.
And we all know metaphysical realities exist. One such is the phenomenon of "persuasion," which we are involved in now. Another is "minds," which we are engaging to do that task. A third is "identity," which you and I depend on to locate the origins of our relative opinions. Another is morality or ethics, which we frequently draw on to make arguments, even when we may claim it's all subjective. For that matter, "subjectivity" is a metaphyscial reality in which we all trust. Another is "aesthetic judgment," which we use to say how interested we are in a topic, but which science cannot really tell us is good or bad...and so on.
Science is great on the physical stuff; but we've all already seen how bad it is on metaphysics. It's a very-good-but-limited kind of thing.
