Servile Conformist

Ockham, Tense, and Coyne

Daniel Fincke's blog post on Jerry Coyne caught my eye. Now normally, I don't pay much attention to Coyne, the Evolution VS Intelligent Design context isn't my thing (For the record, I think ID is tarted up creationism that is trying to legislate itself into credibility) and I don't find Coyne to be particularly insightful. At any rate, Coyne and his fan boys n girls were taking shots at a certain post-doc getting money from the Templeton Foundation,  and Dan wanted to highlight the reasons why their shot taking was misguided.

What bothered me most was a post Dan linked to from Verbose Stoic, who I think did a very insufficient job of explaining why that particular post-doc was useful. So I thought I'd take a crack at it myself.

Let us take these two symbolic statements:

(1) O(J) --> L(W(J))

and

(2) O(J) --> W(L(J))

Now let us understand the variables as:

O: it is now the case that…

W: it was the case that…

L: it will be the case that…

J: Jerry made a blog post on October 27^th.

(1) tells us that once Jerry made a blog post on October 27^th, it will always be the case thereafter that Jerry made a blog post on October 27^th. (2) informs us that since Jerry now made a post on October 27^th, it was always the case that Jerry made a blog post on October 27^th.

(1) Is obvious enough, that should pass without argument and most people today would affirm (2) without a problem, and guess what? So would William of Ockham, and so would most people who affirm either A or B theories of time. Had no idea there was an A or B theory of time? Don’t worry, I’m willing to bet that Jerry had no idea about it either when he made that blog post.

But there is a problem here, some seriously smart people would disagree with (2), and armed with tense logic, they’d make a strong case for it, showing that our actual natural use of language shows that we don’t really mean (2). If we understand the word “will” with any sort of predictive use, we find ourselves running into trouble. If I say, “Tomorrow the sun will set in the west.” do I mean that the sun setting in the west merely does occur, or that it must occur? Is the sun’s rising causally inevitable or am I saying that the chances of the Sun not setting tomorrow are so ridiculously high that it’s just common sense to state that it sets in the west?

If you agreed with, “the chances of the sun not setting tomorrow are so ridiculously high that it’s just common sense to state that it sets in the west”, to be consistent, you’d have to deny (2) as well.

And this is an example of why the Metaphysics of Time are an important topic, If you are like most physicists who affirm a tenseless theory of time (that’s B theory of time for you Coyne fans), denying (2) simply isn’t an option. Why is there a disconnect between how we speak and what Special Relativity strongly points to? Interesting question. And what does God have to do with it? Well, any description of time, A or B theory, requires us to use a God’s eye view of time to explain it. How counter intuitive is it to say one needs to step outside of time to even describe what’s going on? What does it even mean to be outside of time? I fail to see why the term “God” is somehow more “incoherent” than saying, “ I’m outside of time and I’m looking at a 4 dimensional cube that represents my universe”

Typically, if you preface a comment with, "This is an area about which I’m completely ignorant...", it helps to not comment at all.  Ahhh well:

 

 

Physicalism not falsifiable?

Over at the provocative blog The Warfare Is Mental, cl makes an observation that rocked my world a bit.  I’ll reproduce it here:

The same goes for the doctrine of physicalism. To date, all definitions of physicalism I’ve seen lead to meaningless philosophical gibberish. There is nothing, even in principle, that could reliably differentiate between a physical and non-physical cause.

This struck me rather hard for two reasons; the first is that it’s simple and two, I’ve been neglecting this problem when formulating my own metaphysical Naturalism. I don’t have an immediate answer for this, but something is in the works.

“The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist” by Matt Baglio

“The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist” by Matt Baglio is the story of Father Gary’s introduction, training, and eventual practice of the Catholic version of Exorcism, as told by journalist Matt Baglio. The book is worthwhile, but it might help others to know beforehand what this book covers and does not cover.

This book does not serve as a good introduction to what exorcist rituals are, and how they function from an anthropological or sociological function. The book also leaves out much of the biblical history that surrounds the topic, it would greatly enhance this book if the author had spent a few pages remarking about the fascinating and complex demonology that existed in the ancient Near East (and still does today). While the book quickly glosses over Jesus’ use of exorcisms, it fails to mention that there are contemporary Jewish accounts of exorcisms in Josephus’ “Jewish Antiquities” where a man named Eleazar extracts a demon through the nostrils of man in front of emperor Vespasian himself and the Talmud’s Hanina ben Dosa (himself from Galilee) who was reported to be widely feared by demons during that period. Also, few readers might find the book a bit too ethno-centric because it deals specifically with Roman Catholic exorcists.

Skeptics may be disappointed in this book’s perceived faithful narrative, because the author leaves the impression that he is a believing Roman Catholic (though I may be wrong). Baglio doesn’t ignore skepticism and does interview a few scientists who don’t believe in the phenomena of demonic possession or exorcism, but one can tell Baglio is nonplussed with them. The book does not blatantly assert that demons are a fact and that exorcisms with fantastical elements are truthful narratives, but simply ends with a, “Science can’t explain it all” and moves on.

The story is interesting and well written, moving along at a brisk pace and not getting bogged down in any unneeded detail, blatant ranting, or sanctimonious preaching. Father Gary and his Italian instructors are intriguing characters, and the Priest’s trials within the holy city give a remarkable glimpse at the culture found in the Vatican. It’s intriguing to see how Baglio portrays the Italian culture in Rome, making it out to be much more superstitious than I would have imagined, and how pervasive beliefs about Demons is. At times, it’s hard to take the narrative seriously, when Father Gary learns about curses and other bits and pieces of what I would consider “Roman Catholic Demonology”, because they seem a bit silly, like something you’d read in a bad fantasy story.

I enjoyed the book, and I was able to take a few useful things away from it, and I was glad that the book was not over the top like Martin Malachi’s work on demonic possession. I think most readers will be surprised on how the Roman Catholic Church conducts exorcisms, and I’m confident Roman Catholic readers will totally enjoy the faith promoting aspects, and the heavy emphasis on the sacraments and their role within the faith.