Conversation - part 5

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

It seems that Derek wrote this in a hurry and maybe did not even intend to post. I received a notification about the post and copied the text, but later was not able to find it in the comments feed.  Some of his ideas here are confusing to me and seem to be contradictory. It is also clear that he did not view the video debate on "Can science explain everything?" as he makes no reference to its content. This my be why he does not understand my argument about science not being able to explain the "why", which leads him to spend a lot of time going in circles. The questions "how" and "why" are very different questions and real science has never pretended nor intended to answer the question "why". Derek is equating logical reasoning with science, which is another problem. Science is a subset of logical reasoning and depends completely on the use of logic whereas logical reasoning is a much broader concept and foundational to the existence of modern science.

He concludes by saying that I have provided no evidence or reasoning for him to change his views, which is his issue, not mine. My intention was never to provide conclusive evidence, but to engage in a conversation which challenged both of us to think more deeply and fully about these ideas. Our entire conversation is about clarifying terminology and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of certain perspectives. What is this if it is not the process of reasoning?

Derek wrote:

Let me just respond to a few points. I disagree with whatever you think "materialism" is. Materialism, at least from my perspective, is the direct consequence of the realization that religious rhetoric (soul, spirit, transcendence, etc...) is meaningless (without definition), and that arguments in support of religious claims are, in my experiences, all flawed. To use the term "material" in "materialism" is honestly silly, since it is a philosophical rabbit hole in and of itself attempting to pinpoint a concrete definition for what it means to be material. Just know my materialism is best described as my observation that all attempts to explain to me why "logic/science can't explain everything" have been deeply flawed, and illogical in nature. I fail to see to what extremity this belief can be taken. "A materialistic worldview also denies the value of love, grace, hope, forgiveness, joy, and such, as meaningful or essential to human nature." - I disagree, I would argue that psychology and biology can quite competently explain why things such as love, hope, forgiveness, etc... can be viewed as important to society and to the individual. The only real difference is that you claim these things' value with respect to humanity cannot be explained by logical reasoning, which I haven't seen anybody demonstrate. You claim that science can't ever answer the "why" of things... which is really the crux of our disagreement. I think what you really mean to say is that science hasn't yet explained everything. That's not how you word it, but that really is what you mean. You can, as you are doing, always focus on details which science hasn't yet uncovered, and then claim this to be evidence that science DOESN'T explain the "why", when in reality science HASN'T YET explained the "why". This is a crucial difference that I think you still are missing. Let me word things a bit differently now. The claim "science never really addresses the "why" of things" is an affirmative claim that science and consequently logical reasoning have inherent limitations in their ability to explain observable phenomena. I need some sort of demonstration of this being true, or some example of something science CAN'T explain, rather than examples of things science HASN'T YET explained. Any demonstration of why science/logic can't explain a particular phenomena would work as well. I'm really not a complicated person to convince, I just need some sort of demonstration that you are right, that's all. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable, am I? If you were to actually present me with some piece of evidence that science has inherent limitation, I would be completely open to studying it in depth, and honestly it would fascinate me. However, without any sort of evidence or reasoning in your favor that I can perceive, I must say I'm still unconvinced of many of your claims.

Commentary:

As we see, Derek and I continue to struggle with basic definitions of words. First is the issue of materialism. A better term for this is naturalism because materialism can also mean a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. Materialism as a philosophy is a position which denies the existence of anything that is outside the natural world or scientific explanation. There is a logical fallacy in this which is obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside but which seems to escape those committed to this position. There are many other challenges to a materialistic view of the universe, some of which are addressed here. Of course, I also need to be aware of my own blind spots and be humble enough to accept the critique of others as I try to align my beliefs about the world with the evidence available to me. One amazing aspect of the Bible is that it accurately describes the human condition with both the worst and the best examples, aligning spiritual realities with the real experiences of real people. You can read a lot more about these ideas in my post Comparing the scope of faith and science

In my response I began to shift my interaction with Derek to find out who he is and what aspects of his personal history have shaped his current beliefs. I felt that this change would help me understand him better and also would be more productive than to continue a debate about definitions that we can't seem to agree on.

My response:

I've seen another response from you but it is not showing up in this thread... You have captured the essence of our discussion, however, and this is exactly where I most need to continue questioning my own assumptions.

You say that you "disagree with whatever I think 'materialism' is". Here is a definition of materialism (or we could use the term “naturalism”) - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. -- I’m not sure how this is confusing or silly because this is a very common definition and certainly did not come from me. Definitions don’t come from our experiences but from an understanding of how the word is used and a limitation on what the word does not refer to.

You also mention that you are easy to convince if I could provide you with some evidence. This sounds great but we are still having trouble with agreeing on what evidence is or which type of evidence is acceptable. Thankfully, it is not really my responsibility to convince you, but rather your responsibility to evaluate what you believe and why you believe it. I might say that "this is one thing that science is not able to explain" but you might say “not yet” and we are back where we started. I do want to tell you that I am constantly evaluating what I believe and why I believe it. Admittedly, my starting point may be quite different from yours and this certainly shapes how I filter and process information. Beginning with Genesis 1:1 gives both a purpose for the universe as well as a key to interpret everything from the perspective of how and why God interacts with his creation throughout history. As C.S. Lewis says “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen - not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” If I refuse to accept the resurrection of Jesus, an historical fact that the Jewish religious leaders and the Romans knew to be true but could not accept while the disciples and multitudes of Christians have died (and continue to be killed for) believing, then I deny what is as plain as the sun in the sky.

Thankfully we are both able to discuss this respectfully and I really appreciate your good questions. I wish we could sit and talk because I’m sure there is a good story behind your life and why you have come to the conclusions you have.

Questions for you:

What types of evidence do you consider acceptable regarding explanations about the universe or about God? How can you be sure these are valid? Are there experiences in your life that have modified your "list of acceptable evidences"? Why is that? What circumstances might force you to adjust your most basic beliefs about the world?