tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6195186933341460366..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Naturalism without causal closure?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79295902410534139392009-10-25T19:49:06.081-07:002009-10-25T19:49:06.081-07:00cranes > skyhookscranes > skyhooksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75724120841764292362009-10-25T03:03:22.837-07:002009-10-25T03:03:22.837-07:00You seem to be erroneously suggesting that there&#...You seem to be erroneously suggesting that there's some important difference between the mysteriousness of a universe where irreducibly mental causation is always there and a universe in which it only springs up after several billion years with human brains. Mental causation is just as "fundamental" in the latter universe as in the first - it just requires different special conditions (like the evolution of brains) to be met before it becomes active. The real question, the real mystery, is how there could be such high-level causal relationships between minds and complex arrangements of physical matter. And this is just as much, if not more so, a question on theism as it is on any other position.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35239684416249774772009-10-24T10:30:27.014-07:002009-10-24T10:30:27.014-07:00But on a theistic scenario, and all other scenario...But on a theistic scenario, and all other scenarios that make something rational metaphysically fundamental, you don't have to transition fro a situation in which reason is absent to one in which it is present. "In the beginning was the word." That which is self-existent has rational characteristics. <br /><br />Terms like "super-magical ghost" obscure the discussion. They sound good to fellow members of the Church of the New Atheism, but they don't do much for people trying to think this through from the other side.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68488801660108639862009-10-24T05:27:02.626-07:002009-10-24T05:27:02.626-07:00I really fail to see how theism is supposed to sol...I really fail to see how theism is supposed to solve this problem. Since God is supposedly an incorporeal mind causing all sorts of physical events, you still have to explain what gives rise to God's causal efficacy over the physical universe. Maybe you'll reply that God's existence and therefore his causal powers are necessary, and so is in no need of explanation. But without independent motivation for this claim, you could just as easily posit that necessarily physical structures like brains summon into being immaterial souls with brute causal powers. I would much sooner believe that brains necessarily give rise to magical ghosts than believe there's a super-magical ghost who's existed since the beginning of the universe!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693985638589020492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18960314022027925602009-10-22T07:57:57.219-07:002009-10-22T07:57:57.219-07:00Thanks Vic, I'm not necessarily opposed to tha...Thanks Vic, I'm not necessarily opposed to that, yet it has been my experience that false hypotheses can have a lot of explanatory power, and true hypotheses can have none. Maybe a 'prior probabilities' post is in order? I wrote a paper on this once, I'll try to dig it up and post it on my blog. <br />Anon - read Vic's second paragraph and pay close attention to the last sentence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79254563317617690422009-10-21T19:18:30.819-07:002009-10-21T19:18:30.819-07:00I believe that if an event in the world is more li...I believe that if an event in the world is more likely given hypothesis A than hypothesis B, that is evidence that hypothesis A is true and hypothesis B is false. I'm a Bayesian and a subjectivist about prior probabilities.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27076175395834272822009-10-21T18:03:27.293-07:002009-10-21T18:03:27.293-07:00What do you mean by explanatory power not being li...What do you mean by explanatory power not being linked to truth? What does it mean for something to be "linked to truth?" And I'm curious how this is relevant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67589709235389255662009-10-21T16:59:54.455-07:002009-10-21T16:59:54.455-07:00That was a nice post. What if the naturalist just ...That was a nice post. What if the naturalist just doesn't have the answers to these questions? You wrote "But isn't this whole thing more probable given theism than it is given ordinary naturalism." but surely you don't think that explanatory power is linked to truth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50460586668149487432009-10-20T19:22:24.083-07:002009-10-20T19:22:24.083-07:00Glad to see Absolute Idealism getting a mention.Glad to see Absolute Idealism getting a mention.Gordon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03223834584232283601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58658587695106764392009-10-20T17:07:28.632-07:002009-10-20T17:07:28.632-07:00Great post Victor.Great post Victor.Travnoreply@blogger.com