Reason and Circumstance Logic vs. Empiricism

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Reason and Circumstance Logic vs. Empiricism

asked 5 years ago

Greetings to the rabbi.
Do you think the cosmological evidence or in general the claim that every cause requires a causer can be overturned by empirical evidence such as quantum mechanics and the like (at least theoretically) that proves randomness that does not depend on a prior causer? And can empirical evidence overturn a logical axiom that every cause has a causer?
And what about the fiscal claim that matter cannot decay (but only the molecules that do not change)? Can this be proof that the world is ancient?
I hope I made myself clear. I’m not very knowledgeable in physics terms. Thank you very much.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

In principle, this is possible, if you are convinced that a certain thing does indeed have a cause. There is no reason why an a priori philosophical assumption can be refuted by empirical evidence. For example, Aristotle’s assumption that objects fall at a speed proportional to their weight was a priori and refuted empirically. The fact that matter cannot decay does not mean that matter was not created by God. What is the connection? At most, it could perhaps undermine the evidence for its existence (and I don’t think so either), but certainly not constitute evidence for its non-existence.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

דוד לוקוב replied 5 years ago

Thanks for the answer.

Are there any a priori axioms that cannot fall without overthrowing all human thinking?
And how much can one actually trust a priori evidence if so? Is everything in doubt until empirical evidence for its existence is discovered?

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

I don't know. I guess not.
Just because I said they can be empirically debunked doesn't mean I doubt it until it's done. That's what I think, but in principle I could turn out to be wrong. That's true of science as well, not just of a priori assumptions.

ישי replied 5 years ago

Why does the fact that matter cannot decay prove anything?

הפוסק האחרון replied 5 years ago

In thinking, everything is supposed to be questionable. In emotion, almost nothing.

When you look at the sunrise, the feeling that it is the sun that shines and moves remains the same. Even though they have proven that the Earth rotates around itself.

It seems that the Ramada determines the correctness of things according to emotion and uses reason to convince (convince?) others. This is most evident in the subject of free choice, where emotion says that there is indeed no reason for choice, while reason says that the feeling is created because we are not aware of the reason. And so it is with morality and so on.

An a priori axiom without which all thinking falls is that reason determines what is true. Which is not accepted by most thinkers (the delusional ones?).