How Can you not believe in the Metaphysical?

[FreshlyMinted]

Apart from people who just don't know or aren't fully convinced either way, I don't understand how someone can not believe in at least a higher power/order. The basic question being if you just ask "How?" over and over you eventually come to a cause for which you cannot find an effect. Regardless of the idea that "we just don't know yet" as soon as we find out, we will have another effect for which we must find another cause. And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

 

[niftydrifty]

Apart from people who just don't know or aren't fully convinced either way, I don't understand how someone can not believe in at least a higher power/order. The basic question being if you just ask "How?" over and over you eventually come to a cause for which you cannot find an effect. Regardless of the idea that "we just don't know yet" as soon as we find out, we will have another effect for which we must find another cause. And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

Is there a name for the "it must be there because it just is" fallacy?

 

[rivrrat]

Apart from people who just don't know or aren't fully convinced either way, I don't understand how someone can not believe in at least a higher power/order. The basic question being if you just ask "How?" over and over you eventually come to a cause for which you cannot find an effect. Regardless of the idea that "we just don't know yet" as soon as we find out, we will have another effect for which we must find another cause. And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

Not having the answer to a question doesn't automatically mean we should believe in mythology.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Is there a name for the "it must be there because it just is" fallacy?

I don't follow...

@riverrat- not mythology, metaphysics. The huge branch of philosophy that addresses the ultimate cause amongst other things. And besides, you fail to address the heart of the issue. I say that you cannot have a complete philosophy of the world (which includes its origins) without subscribing to something metaphysical, meaning it doesn't adhere to normal "rules" of cause and effect.

If you just don't know and don't claim to know then you are not part of the group that I am addressing. However, if you begin to describe the world from a purely western scientific perspective then you will inevitably reach the roadblock of not knowing what came before whatever it is that you just discovered. The dilemma is that once you figure out what THAT is you MUST have another thing causing the first or your argument relies on the metaphysical.

 

[John Doe]

The dilemma is that once you figure out what THAT is you MUST have another thing causing the first or your argument relies on the metaphysical.

Why must something have a cause to remain physical?

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Why must something have a cause to remain physical?

From what I understand, if something doesn't have a cause yet exists then that falls into spontaneous generation which is totally bunk and decidedly not physical.

Unless our entire foundation of physics as a science is wrong (which may indeed be the case) then cause and effect is a pillar of what constitutes the physically possible

 

[John Doe]

If something always existed, it doesn't have a cause yet exists. According to your post, that means it was spontaneously generated, which isn't the case. (It was never generated).

Your definitions need fixin' up. Also, it's not clear what you mean by metaphysical. Ghosts? Spirits? Gods? Or just "not explainable by physics"?

 

[rivrrat]

I don't follow...

@riverrat- not mythology, metaphysics. The huge branch of philosophy that addresses the ultimate cause amongst other things. And besides, you fail to address the heart of the issue. I say that you cannot have a complete philosophy of the world (which includes its origins) without subscribing to something metaphysical, meaning it doesn't adhere to normal "rules" of cause and effect.

If you just don't know and don't claim to know then you are not part of the group that I am addressing. However, if you begin to describe the world from a purely western scientific perspective then you will inevitably reach the roadblock of not knowing what came before whatever it is that you just discovered. The dilemma is that once you figure out what THAT is you MUST have another thing causing the first or your argument relies on the metaphysical.

No, I don't know and I don't claim to know (and really, don't care). However, I disagree that even in describing the world from a scientific perspective that you must have an answer OR your answer must be metaphysical. Most scientists would just state that they don't know either. It isn't a black or white thing. There are theories, there are speculations, and every day we prove or disprove pieces and parts of all of them.

 

[roderic]

... And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

no need to end the chain...

 

[CosmicScherzo]

Pretty much boils down to "I don't understand it. It must be magic".

 

[Manc Skipper]

Metaphysicsdidit is much harder to spell, though.

 

[AgentM]

Yep, not understanding something is not a valid argument for there to be "something else" (God, metaphysics...Flying Speghetti Monster) present.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Yep, not understanding something is not a valid argument for there to be "something else" (God, metaphysics...Flying Speghetti Monster) present.

Right, but once again that kind of thing is not what I'm talking about. I think that there are two options: I don't know and don't claim to know, or there are things that happen that are not explicable by our current understanding of physics

Furthermore, if you show me a timeless entity that is the ultimate cause of everything... how is that not metaphysical and even mythical?

 

[Cephus]

Is there a name for the "it must be there because it just is" fallacy?

The Fallacy from Wishful Thinking? :doh

No, actually, it falls under the Fallacy from Personal Incredulity. The individual cannot imagine a situation where x is not true, therefore x must be true. It's really a failure of the imagination and a desire to know things which cannot currently be known.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

The Fallacy from Wishful Thinking? :doh

No, actually, it falls under the Fallacy from Personal Incredulity. The individual cannot imagine a situation where x is not true, therefore x must be true. It's really a failure of the imagination and a desire to know things which cannot currently be known.

Well... actually there are major physicists (if you need the citation, wait until I get home) who imply their believe that there must be a metaphysical component in the world and especially in the origins. If not, then our ideas of physics need to be changed considerably.

I disagree with your accusation that I lack imagination. I consider the possibility of something happening that is outside the bounds of our current knowledge base (which is how new areas of research begin) whereas you have resolved yourself to only accept those explanations that can be conceived given our current scientific framework. That isn't progress or imagination, that is stagnation.

I don't say you must believe in a god or even a conscious creator just that we are coming to a point where we either need to accept that sometimes things happen that are against "the rules" or change our description of "the rules"

 

[Manc Skipper]

We know the "rules" don't fit precisely yet, that's why a "theory of everything" is still out there on the horizon. Why do you think things are stagnating if metaphysics is not accepted as science? I would suggest the reverse is true.

 

[CosmicScherzo]

FreshlyMinted, if a supernatural first cause can be eternal and itself causeless, why can't the universe?

 

[FreshlyMinted]

We know the "rules" don't fit precisely yet, that's why a "theory of everything" is still out there on the horizon. Why do you think things are stagnating if metaphysics is not accepted as science? I would suggest the reverse is true.

Well... here we're saying the same thing. The literal definition of Metaphysics is "Beyond Physics" so any time you incorporate something that was not considered physics at one point into the cannon you are accepting metaphysics as science. This has happened many times throughout history, people just don't see it as such. I think that throwing out an idea simply because it conflicts with some kind of 'scientific intuition' is stagnation. Throwing something out because observable facts disprove it is how it's done. Now you may at this point say that another way to throw out theories is a lack of observable facts in support, but I postulate that there are observable facts pointing to a metaphysical (given our current notion of physics) origin of the universe. If you disagree I can cite them.

----

CosmicScherzo, if you believe that the universe is eternal and was always here then you do, in fact, believe in the metaphysical since canonical science through observable facts given our current understanding of physics say that this is not the case.

 

[Manc Skipper]

When science emerged as an experimental and empirical method of enquiry, it diverged from its origins in "natural" philosophy, leaving metaphysics to become the philosophical non-empirical enquiry. The two are opposite sides of a coin.

 

[CosmicScherzo]

CosmicScherzo, if you believe that the universe is eternal and was always here then you do, in fact, believe in the metaphysical since canonical science through observable facts given our current understanding of physics say that this is not the case.

Canonical science? Never heard of it.

Science doesn't claim the universe is infinite or finite. We just don't know yet. Consider though, if nature is infinite and therefore has no external creator, where's the need for the metaphysical?

 

[Databed]

Metaphysical simply applies to things that there is no science to explain. At one time the heavens belonged to that realm.

It is very likely that there are things so far beyond known physics and our ability to understand we would have no choice but to call it metaphysical. But to draw conclusions based on our inability to understand makes a lot less sense than attempting to explain things with known sciences that we have a firm grasp on.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies

 

[Cephus]

Well... actually there are major physicists (if you need the citation, wait until I get home) who imply their believe that there must be a metaphysical component in the world and especially in the origins. If not, then our ideas of physics need to be changed considerably.

That's nice but it doesn't prove any more than just because you have a degree behind your name doesn't mean you're an entirely rational person. There are plenty of scientists, such as NIH director Francis Collins, who are also staunch Christians. Most of them don't let their religious beliefs interfere with their scientific work, they've found a way to turn off their irrationality when they go to work and turn it back on when they walk into a church.

I disagree with your accusation that I lack imagination. I consider the possibility of something happening that is outside the bounds of our current knowledge base (which is how new areas of research begin) whereas you have resolved yourself to only accept those explanations that can be conceived given our current scientific framework. That isn't progress or imagination, that is stagnation.

I absolutely agree that there are plenty of things that happen outside the bounds of our current knowledge, every time we answer questions about the universe, more questions get posed, it's a never-ending process and the moment we answer that very last question, science has no more purpose. However, what I'm criticising isn't that we don't know things, most certainly that's the case, it's that people think that just because we don't know things, it gives them license to just make something up to fill the void. It's no better of an option today than it was at the dawn of human civilization when tribes of humans, huddling in the muck, when they couldn't explain what lightning was, made up a god to explain it. It was a wrong tactic then, although I can certainly forgive them for doing so, they had no other means for examining the world, and it's a wrong tactic today. If you don't know something, be honest about it and say you don't know. Don't make something up when you clearly just don't know.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

That's nice but it doesn't prove any more than just because you have a degree behind your name doesn't mean you're an entirely rational person. There are plenty of scientists, such as NIH director Francis Collins, who are also staunch Christians. Most of them don't let their religious beliefs interfere with their scientific work, they've found a way to turn off their irrationality when they go to work and turn it back on when they walk into a church.

Nor does it prove anything to have 5 golden gavels on debatepolitics.com. In fact, I would argue that those with Ph.Ds are more qualified than armchair experts to make claims on the experimental/theoretical boundaries of the sciences because they more fully understand what those boundaries are. Education is not without value although it isn't proof of intelligence. Furthermore you are implicating that bias towards religion is a major stumbling block for those who I plan on citing. This is not the case. Once again, I am at school so I can't look up my sources, but I can assure you that many even anti religious doctors concede that there is something out there that cannot be explained by pure cause and effect science

I absolutely agree that there are plenty of things that happen outside the bounds of our current knowledge, every time we answer questions about the universe, more questions get posed, it's a never-ending process and the moment we answer that very last question, science has no more purpose.

I totally agree with you here

However, what I'm criticising isn't that we don't know things, most certainly that's the case, it's that people think that just because we don't know things, it gives them license to just make something up to fill the void. It's no better of an option today than it was at the dawn of human civilization when tribes of humans, huddling in the muck, when they couldn't explain what lightning was, made up a god to explain it. It was a wrong tactic then, although I can certainly forgive them for doing so, they had no other means for examining the world, and it's a wrong tactic today. If you don't know something, be honest about it and say you don't know. Don't make something up when you clearly just don't know.

We are saying... essentially the same argument pointed in different directions. I think that society has learned some kind of gut reaction whenever you talk about something that people feel is unscientific. Whatever criteria that may imply, people knee-jerk away from explanations that use concepts that people have decided are just too crazy to be true.

Yes, I do believe in a god and the Judeo-Christian God but that doesn't color my thinking nor does it cause me to challenge the facts of observation.

The observations are in: either there is an infinite chain of causality which is metaphysical in and of itself and basically implies that our searching of the ultimate origins of the universe is futile

or there is an original cause of everything that was not created. I believe that this is the case and I call this being God. That doesn't have to be the case for you or anyone else, but the fact is that something without an original cause that is the progenitor of all existence is metaphysical in being outside the bounds of explanation by modern day science

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Believe and knowing are not the same. I am fully open to the possibility of alternate explanations. What I think everyone else needs to do is take a step back from modern science and realize that the explanations offered are impossible or invent infinite beings to explain the one that comes after.

 

[John Doe]

metaphysical in being outside the bounds of explanation by modern day science

Like I said earlier, your definition of metaphysical is fuzzy. If being metaphysical just means not explainable by current science, then probably everyone here believes in the metaphysical.

Now what? This doesn't imply anything else.