Rationalism without physicalism

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
spoirier
Student
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: Le Havre, France
Contact:

Rationalism without physicalism

Post #1

Post by spoirier »

Considering debates between atheists and religious people, it seems to me that one of the main obstacles to the understanding and convergence of views is that both sides have a clue on a different aspect of things, and thus cannot accept the other's view just based on the lack of this clue on the other's position.

Religious people have a clue that mind is different from matter and there is a life after death. As something that seems obvious to them, they cannot seriously consider a view rejecting that.
Atheists notice the irrationality (bad logic, fallacies, bad knowledge) in the religious people's ways of thinking and replying, and thus cannot take them seriously in other issues such as the metaphysical ones.

My own view is a combination of both : I accept rationalism, that is the scientific method as the only available way to difficult truths (after observing that other ways failed); still I reject physicalism as an absurdity, something that cannot explain existence as we experience it (the famous cogito ergo sum, the fact that our existence really means something beyond mathematical existence, which cannot result from the laws of physics alone).

More details here on how I articulate these two positions on different issues, especially where they might be seen as in conflict.

Questions : does anyone here also have a position of rationalism without physicalism ? In this case, is there any disagreement on some of the details I listed in the above page ?

I don't know any popular label to describe it. Do you know one, or would you have a suggestion for it ?

Is there any statistical data about the proportion of people with such a position ?

Already we may place many of the researchers in parapsychology into this category, as they approach the supernatural with the scientific method.
However there are many more people with this philosophical position, that don't actually work on scientifically tracking the traces of the paranormal.

Examples of names of scientists that fit (?) in this category : Kurt Godel, John Gribbin, Paul Davies, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, Eugene Wigner, Erwin Schrödinger (though the latter two have effective interests in religion, namely Hinduism). There would also be the Physics Nobel Brian Josephson, though I would diverge from him as it seems to me that some of his views do not to fit well with proper science. Any further names ?

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Re: Rationalism without physicalism

Post #2

Post by Burninglight »

spoirier wrote:Already we may place many of the researchers in parapsychology into this category, as they approach the supernatural with the scientific method.
However there are many more people with this philosophical position, that don't actually work on scientifically tracking the traces of the paranormal.

Examples of names of scientists that fit (?) in this category : Kurt Godel, John Gribbin, Paul Davies, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, Eugene Wigner, Erwin Schrödinger (though the latter two have effective interests in religion, namely Hinduism). There would also be the Physics Nobel Brian Josephson, though I would diverge from him as it seems to me that some of his views do not to fit well with proper science. Any further names ?
Scientist are finding that the paranormal exists. Scientist will find scientific explanations for the supernatural, but it will be demonic explanations. The point is the supernatural realm exists. Billions have experienced it in one degree or another. Some may not have but that doesn't change the fact that if something exists now something always existed and will always exist. I call that something someone who is God our Creator who lives outside the confines of time and space which are His creations. When the Bible says the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. I think the context of that is really the fool has said no to God in His heart. In order for him to be a fool, he has to know God exists and say No to Him. A true atheist, if such a thing really exists cannot commit the sin of blasphemy, because one has to know God exists to blaspheme against Him or know that God is doing a certain thing and attribute the credit to Satan!

Post Reply