I don't think certainty can have levels. One can have levels of confidence in beliefs, the highest level being certainty.

I think we need to talk about the problem of induction here, this is that we have no way of knowing with certainty that the past will be like the future. In fact, we have no reason at all to believe this, other than circular reasoning. This would be a crippling state of paralysis if we required such certainty, which is called complete skepticism. This applies to all metaphysical positions and there is no way out of it.

Most people just assume that the future will be like the past, once you do this you can make all kinds of claims about reality. This is how we "overcome" the problem of induction. We ignore it.

You seem to be saying that substance dualism provides a way out of this, that your belief in an immaterial substance allows you to be more confident in your conclusions about reality. But again, I just do not see how this is the case.

You seem to be advancing presuppositionalism, that god has a way of instilling truths in your psyche, that are unavailable, unless one believes in the immaterial?

You seem to be saying that materialists believe they can know everthing about the universe with certainty? That may be what you mean by universal objective truth claims? This is not what I believe, nor what Ithink any materialist believes. For the reason you advance and mine, and the uncertainty principle.

Not at all. There are three main positions: (1) Complete skepticism, (2) Realism, (3) Complete certainty. The materialist is left in a state of complete skepticism, they can know nothing (which is an absurd position).

The hylomorphic realist (i.e., most Aristotelian-Thomists) believes you can know much, but not everything, about reality with a good certainty, but not perfect certainty.

I do not see why this is the case. Truth is truth, irrespective of whether there is only material in the universe, substance dualism, or idealism is true.

Yes, truth is truth. But what kind of metaphysics (e.g., materialism, dualism, hylomorphism, idealism) supports the fact that we could actually know truth is up for grabs.

Remember, we are dealing with two things--the truth of reality and our human intellect and ability to actually know truth. So if we hold a position that concludes that the knowledge of truth is not possible (e.g., materialism), we either must hold that an incoherent (i.e., untrue) position is true--which is contradictory--or we simply state that materialism is not true.

For example, a claim that hydrogen gas in sufficient density will undergo nuclear fusion into Helium is a scientific universal truth claim, but has nothing to do with brains.

Before the scientist even starts looking at hydrogen atoms and fusion, she must have other universal principles about matter/energy that under gird all of material reality. This means it will also apply to a purely material human intellect. So again, the target is necessarily constantly moving.

"...science is trying to make universal truth claims about material reality,
this includes the material intellect that is trying to make the truth
claim."

No, a scientist making a claim of universal truth about the universe may be making no claim about his own brain, or any brain. For example, a claim that hydrogen gas in sufficient density will undergo nuclear fusion into Helium is a scientific universal truth claim, but has nothing to do with brains.

"Truth is knowing reality *as it actually exists*"

I disagree. Truth is better described as "reality as it actually is", not "knowing" reality as it actually is. Reality would be what it is, irrespective of if there is any intellect or not.

"you can never know reality as it actually is" I agree, you can believe you know reality as it was, recognizing that in the time it has taken for the information to be received and processed in your brain, reality has changed. You can never be certain that it even was that way because, ultimately, you cannot be certain of your senses. You can only hold beliefs about how reality is. Beliefs about reality that are very confident we might call knowledge. But technically speaking, these are beliefs.

You seem to be saying that materialists believe they can know everthing about the universe with certainty? That may be what you mean by universal objective truth claims? This is not what I believe, nor what I think any materialist believes. For the reason you advance and mine, and the uncertainty principle.

"We must conclude that universal and objective truth is not possible if materialism is true." I do not see why this is the case. Truth is truth, irrespective of whether there is only material in the universe, substance dualism, or idealism is true.

But I've totally lost your point.

Okay--so we agree now that science is aiming to make universal truth claims about material reality. This leads right into Dr. Kreeft's point that if the human intellect (which is what is "doing science") is purely a material entity, and science is trying to make universal truth claims about material reality, this includes the material intellect that is trying to make the truth claim.

Truth is knowing reality *as it actually exists*, as Kreeft points out. So as you try and make a new truth claim about reality using a purely material intellect, that material intellect has changed and you now can't know reality as it actually is. In fact, you can never know reality as it actually is because the knowledge of material reality is part of material reality itself (if the intellect is purely a physical entity). So you are aiming for a moving target (i.e., truth) that you can never hit.

We must conclude that universal and objective truth is not possible if materialism is true.

(Which matches up exactly with the conclusion of my argument from my essay 2 months ago which came at this question from a slightly different angle, but nonetheless reached the same conclusion.)

Sure, I'll retract that. Science makes truth claims, with the caveats I noted above. But I've totally lost your point.

disagree that science makes universal truth claims about the universe.

If science is not aiming to make universal claims then the scientific method is completely undermined. Is not the purpose of science to make models and propose explanations that are repeatable so that they can be confirmed and tested? If the claim is not universal, then repeatability is destroyed.

If a person makes a claim that is not universal to a certain type of material being, then there is no way that repeatability is possible and should even be expected.

For example, a scientist runs a test in Arizona many times and keeps getting the same result. He proposes that it is a universal truth that when he does X to Y, Z happens. The only way to scientifically confirm this in China is for another scientist to run the same test. But if science is not making universal truths, not only can the scientist in China not confirm the American scientist, the American scientist can't trust his own test because he could do the same test 1000 times and he still can't declare a universal truth from it (because on your account, science can't discover universal truths)!

So on the view you are proposing, you have killed science...RIP ;)

One might just as well say that all reality is spiritual reality, as Plotinus (A.D. 205-270) does. In a superb, logical system he describes the hierarchy of being, with all its degrees and activities, linked together at the summit by the Absolute, the One. This is the first fundamental principle (or hypostasis). The Absolute is beyond and outside all categories of being. It is absolutely transcendent; nothing can be predicated of it; it does not even know itself. From the One emanates all being as a by-product of self-contemplation. There is no beginning and not time in this production. The second fundamental principle is Intellect (the “Nous” or Divine Mind). It can be analyzed and the subject-object antithesis is already there. The Nous contemplates the (Platonic) Forms, the archetypes of all the things that have present and future existence. Below Intellect comes Soul (the third fundamental principle). The external activity of Soul is Nature, the intelligible structure of all that is in the sensible world. The end of the chain is matter. Since the human soul participates in The One it can go from the lower to the higher. Hence the yearning to understand the ultimate reality.

Is Plotinus right? I think we simply do not know. But it sounds so much more poetic than materialism. But maybe poetry can also be reduced to simply "matter"?

I disagree that science makes universal truth claims about the universe. Science proposes models to understand empirical evidence, all of its claims are contingent, and can and often do change. Scientists propose theories to explain empirical evidence, some of the theories are better established than others.

In terms of your dilemma, it is the latter, science cannot claim that any of its theories are absolutely true.

Materialism and reductionism are not scientific theories, they are philosophical positions.

I'm with you there Doug. I find an unending 'chain' of contradictions within my attempt to understand Catholicism. So many unrelated 'definition'. The conflation of faith with belief for instance, being just one of them. The concept of faith as a 'theological virtue', which suggests it is not an 'idea' but a 'state of being'. Their whole undefined idea of 'gift'. I won't go into the dynamics of power, and what I feel is inherent in the cosmological proofs, in contrast to the proofs based on intuition. I am not discredit the possibility of finding new meaning with the old. Jurgen Habermas was explicit about this. And I do know within my life experience, that I have sometimes rejected something only to find it anew later. But I also find limiting factors within the EN thesis. I also am aware that I do not understand things 'perfectly'. If I define faith, as my own understanding of the paradoxes within my perceptions and conceptions of reality, (as per Kierkegaard) that gives me confidence to feel that I have 'personal' justification, even though my explanations of same may be considered 'incoherent' by others. There is a blessing in madness!!! (Just one point of view, or attempt at defining 'justification by faith'.....But I'm with you essentially on the vagueness of the meaning. Do we have faith in axioms, and mathematical constructs, for instance, which are unrelated to 'experience'. or should I say the 'empirical'.
If I could live long enough I would reread all the philosophy I have to date, and maybe find that I could overcome a few 'prejudices'!!!!

Am still having difficulty understanding the 'meaning' precisely of supervenience: Definition; the lower properties 'determine' the upper properties. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supervenience/ Another expression of epiphenominalism. Do the upper properties ever determine the lower properties? Super- above, beyond, transcendent. even = meta!!!???? I'm not 'giving up'. The search for 'coherence' - wholeness is a life time project. The most important thing for me is to 'understand my self', even if that implies examining contexts which may seem 'irrelevant' to others. But I do believe that in attempting to understand historical situations, we should be aware of their relationship to our understanding of current events, etc.etc.etc. It is the understanding of 'relationship' that is most important to me. Also - the term Mike used - creation. Can this not essential define an object, subject as 'contingent'??? No I agree neither with the arguments of Sn and En. Both to my interpretation are 'fundamentally evangelists' pushing primarily their own - point of view. Although the arguments may be said to be more 'coherent' on EN, I find that there is more 'freedom of expression' on SN. Just my take. But I'm perhaps 'prejudiced' because BV hasn't banned me or given my comment, or person, a negative judgment. Thanks again, BV. And have you noticed, in the past while, some EN people have admitted to some 'snark' in humor? Anyway, I don't want to follow their example and go on about it for years and years. I really have better things to do. Love, again. I really know so little, and yet I can 'believe' in the concept immortality, especially as I once had a supervenience?, rational intuition? of what I interpreted to be evidence,i.e. revelation of same. And I 'allow' you to be free to interpret this in any way you like! My mind perhaps does include a 'level' of 'apprehension' intuition, whatever that is indeed transcendent to 'space and time' If it did not I would not be able to 'apprehend' a generalized/universal concept that was inclusive of the phenomena. At least so I think/believe. But please, correct me or enlighten me as to whether this is indeed so, and hopefully better than that: 'how' it is that I can have such an experience. Yes, let's be scientific about this, but please don't be like some psychiatrists and even priests, etc. etc. and treat me like an 'object'. Thanks.

.