If we always seek to overly differentiate ourselves from another person or group, we may end up finding that we define ourselves out of existence.
Ever wonder how evil queens are made? I mean, why was the queen so fixated on Snow White's beauty? Why not be content to define herself apart from Snow White? It seems insane for an older woman to compare her beauty with that of a younger woman. It's seems like she was going to lose that battle from beginning. Maybe if she allowed herself to think of her own beauty in the right context, rather than within a foreign context, she might have seen a lot more beauty there instead of the ugliness she saw when attempting to compare apples and oranges. Hatred toward such a compared foe led to her seeking to do anything to get rid of that foe. She just wanted to stand apart from Snow White, but she just destroyed herself in the end. A beautiful woman destroyed, for what? All to fight the possibility of being compared to another that made her look bad.
The planes of 9/11 came crashing into our lives one day while I was attending WTS for my Biblical and Targumic Aramaic class with Dr. Lowery. I entered the main building and met there an unusually large crowd plastered to the tv. That's when I was informed that a plane had hit the first tower, and they still knew little as to what was going on. I left before class started to get home to my wife and son in northern PA. When I finally did, I arrived home to the news that a second plane had hit and that this was an Islamist attack on American. I remember saying to my wife, "This may have been done by Muslims, but Christians are going to pay for it." Since that time, I have seen nothing to discount that prediction. Whenever Islamic fundamentalists are spoken of in the liberal media today, conservative Christians aren't far behind. It's hard for me not to believe that our media's fixation on fundamentalist Islam is largely due to its desire to topple conservative Christianity. I actually wrote a book on Islam when I was nineteen, but scrapped it after realizing that almost no one I spoke to really wanted to read about it. That's all changed now, and not necessarily all for the better, especially for conservative Christians. They're not being compared to something more beautiful. They're being "uglified" with something ugly.
Because of this successful campaign to lump Christians in with Muslims, the church has spent a lot of time, both individually and collectively, trying to differentiate itself from Islam. In fact, there is a widespread attempt to paint conservatives this way so that people shy away from becoming, or staying, conservative Christians.
After all, it's those conservative Christians who are rigid in what they believe like Muslims. It is those reformed Christians who believe in a God who determines things like Allah. It is those evangelicals who want to press their religious opinions, gained from the Bible, in the political sphere just like Muslims do with Sharia law. It's those conservatives who believe that the genders have roles just like those patriarchal and oppressive fundamentalist Muslims do. And it's those conservatives who believe that their Bible is the Word of God, again, just like Muslims treat the Quran. And they believe that homosexuality is wrong too, all those crazy fundamentalists that is. They're the prom queen now being walked onto the dance floor with their
ugly cousin. This caricature is likely due to many a person leaving
conservative Christianity/churches, simply because the caricature has
convinced him or her that conservative organized religion is bad.
Hence, the further you can distinguish yourself from Muslims in our culture, the more enlightened, humble, loving, and harmless our culture thinks you are. You're good to go. But the more like fundamentalist Islam you are, the more primitive, arrogant, hateful, and dangerous you are. Being like Islam in our culture is much like having the religious cooties, and anything one can do to make sure everyone knows that he does not think like that crazy fundamentalist (Muslim or Christian) is a step up for us in this society.
I definitely think that this is why we have seen a rise in works that seek to undermine the inerrancy of Scripture. If you notice, most errantists are concerned with these very issues: jihad, patriarchy, oppressive law codes, sexual conduct, an angry and judgmental God, etc. They never seem to doubt the inerrancy of those passages that present Jesus in terms in which our culture might interpret as more enlightened (i.e., more accommodating to our way of thinking in modern culture).
Although, there were many works concerning holy war in the Bible before, the attempt now to dismiss these passages as "not from God" has increased sevenfold since 9/11. The same goes for a lot of these issues. We can't be like these primitive people and their tribalistic religion. That would be like agreeing to Islam, which we all know to be as bad as agreeing to be a Nazi. You don't want to be a religious Nazi, do you?
The problem is, having studied most of the commonly familiar world religions, one can compare almost all of our ideas, regardless to what worldview you hold today, to those religions in a very disingenuous way, and lump them all together as something undesirable and to be dismissed. In fact, if you want to find similarities with any undesirable group, you can. Nazis believed in the concept of love. Liberals believe in the concept of love. Therefore liberals are to be grouped with Nazis. If every liberal wished to differentiate himself from that picture, he might end up denying love itself.
And that's precisely the problem with differentiating yourself, not due to true differences, but because you don't want to be associated with a particular group. In essence, by arguing this way against conservative Christianity, many Christians have allowed Islam (and liberalism) to determine what a Christian should look like. In essence, Christianity is being defined out of existence.
Just because you have similarities in thought does not mean that you share associations with that group anymore than sharing biological similarities with chimpanzees makes you identical to one. There are important clarifications that differentiate us, and our positions, so that what is important is not that we believe X, Y, and Z like Muslims may, but that we believe Xa, Yb, and Zc as opposed to Muslims who believe Xe, Yf, and Zg. The same goes for any group identity. It is the power of pure dishonest rhetoric that uses the disrepute of one group in an effort to poison the well and ruin the reputation of another that is clearly distinguished from it in important ways.
Hence, when people like Ergun Caner want to paint Calvinism as deterministic like Islam, it is simply dishonest rhetoric. When someone like Lesslie Newbigin wants to paint inerrancy as Muslim, it is simply a long walk on a path of name-calling and ad hominem born from a genetic fallacy. Ironically, here, the genetics are Christian, not Muslim, which seems to be lost on all of these critics. Islam borrowed and edited many Christian ideas it came into contact with, so many ideas held by Muslims are simply biblical ideas (often ones that have been perverted by the religion). Hence, it is not in the overall idea (e.g. sovereignty, holy war, gender roles) that differentiates conservative Christians from Muslims, anymore than it is found in the idea of love held by both Nazis and liberals, but rather it is in the definitions, distinctions within, and applications of these ideas by which we are differentiated from them.
Anyone can speak generically and make some sort of case to lump in one group with another in an effort to undermine any influence the voice of such a group may have in society. But responsible communication and just plain ethical integrity calls us to refrain from this when the similarities are only in name rather than in definition and execution of a general idea. Those outside of conservative Christianity looking in should remember this as well as those within conservative Christianity who find themselves wanting to jettison more conservative aspects due to these social and psychological pressures. If we don't stop this poor line of argumentation, we might find ourselves defined out of existence, either by ourselves or by others who may one day lump us in with some group of low repute. We must avoid doing this, and overreacting by throwing the baby out with the bathwater when others do it to us, because that's how we end up defining ourselves in the wrong context, and come out with a destructive view of ourselves. In essence, that's how evil queens are made.
"Nazis believed in the concept of love. Liberals believe in the concept of love. Therefore liberals are to be grouped with Nazis. If every liberal wished to differentiate himself from that picture, ..."
ReplyDeleteThis rhetorical move is actually worth trying out. If the Liberal doesn't want to disclaim the concept of Love, then you can use the same technique the liberal uses ... to then disclaim the Liberal's attempt to lump Conservative Christians together with Muslims.
I think hard line, uncompromising, conservative Christianity is the best way to define it out of existence. So keep up the good work!
DeleteAll beliefs are hard line and uncompromising when compared to what contradicts them. Do you mean to tell me that your atheism is soft and flexible enough to include theistic beliefs and ethics? Another award winning argument from you. The issue isn't what you consider hard line and uncompromising because it conflicts so harshly with your worldview. The issue is what worldview sufficiently interprets reality for us. That would not be yours, in case you were wondering.
ReplyDeleteBTW, here's a great article for you. If you had argued as the author does, I would have much more respect for your atheistic beliefs, as, even though they are self defeating, at least you would not be hypocritical and your mouth filled full with double-speak.
My atheism certainly includes some beliefs and ethics shares by some theists, just not the belief in god. What I obviously meant was strict fundamentalist inerrancy, which you obviously failed to understand.
Delete"The issue is what worldview sufficiently interprets reality for us."
And yours does? Seriously, any worldview that forces you to deny most science can't possibly be compatible with reality.
I'm not a fan of Rosenberg's hard line reductionism and nihilism. He's been heavily criticized by other atheists. And his views don't represent atheism by the way, in the same way that a radical Islamist's views don't represent every theist's.
And why is atheism self-defeating? I want to hear your knock down argument against it. If it's any good I'll write a blog about it.
http://www.proginosko.com/2013/08/the-atheists-guide-to-reality/#more-1611
ReplyDelete"My atheism certainly includes some beliefs and ethics shares by some theists, just not the belief in god."
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say that you either have an inconsistent atheism that assumes theism, or you don't realize that beliefs and ethics are based in your view metaphysical presuppositions.
"What I obviously meant was strict fundamentalist inerrancy, which you obviously failed to understand."
This post wasn't about strict fundamentalist inerrancy, nor do I hold to such. Hence, I obviously failed to read your mind, since your comment supposedly was meant to be interpreted by some other context not provided by you or this post.
"And yours does? Seriously, any worldview that forces you to deny most science can't possibly be compatible with reality."
What you consider science is debatable. And according to an atheistic worldview, you have to deny that science gives any real knowledge. You just don't get that. You're also begging the question as to what can interpret reality when you reduce it to a need to be interpreted by "science." Christian theism accounts for a universal basis of logic, morality, and science. Atheism accounts for no such thing. So, yes, my worldview does and yours does not.
"I'm not a fan of Rosenberg's hard line reductionism and nihilism. He's been heavily criticized by other atheists. And his views don't represent atheism by the way, in the same way that a radical Islamist's views don't represent every theist's."
I'm not interested as to whether you're a fan, or other atheists criticize him, or he doesn't represent what most of you atheists tell yourselves about your religion. He, as Nietszche was before him, has taken atheism to its only logical conclusion. Your crowd of new atheists is still trying to save the ship while you fill it with holes. It's complete nonsense. What he says ARE the logical conclusions of an atheistic worldview, whether you and the girls want to admit it or not.
"And why is atheism self-defeating? I want to hear your knock down argument against it. If it's any good I'll write a blog about it."
Because it denies theism on the grounds that it is not empirically evident. But neither is the metaphysic that is needed to assume the validity of empirical verificationism. It thus assumes a metaphysic for which it has no empirical evidence in order to argue that things without empirical evidence, like theism, cannot be rationally affirmed. That's just one of the self defeaters within the worldview. You can read the article for others.
"Which is to say that you either have an inconsistent atheism that assumes theism, or you don't realize that beliefs and ethics are based in your view metaphysical presuppositions."
DeleteNo my atheism is consistent with the disbelief in any gods. My metaphysical views are derived from a careful analysis of the evidence backing them up and its rival views.
"This post wasn't about strict fundamentalist inerrancy, nor do I hold to such. Hence, I obviously failed to read your mind, since your comment supposedly was meant to be interpreted by some other context not provided by you or this post."
So you support liberal inerrancy?
"What you consider science is debatable."
All science is debatable. Your side is losing the debate...badly.
"And according to an atheistic worldview, you have to deny that science gives any real knowledge."
Why so?
"You're also begging the question as to what can interpret reality when you reduce it to a need to be interpreted by "science." Christian theism accounts for a universal basis of logic, morality, and science. Atheism accounts for no such thing. So, yes, my worldview does and yours does not."
Who says an atheist must give into scientism? Rosenberg? No atheist has to accept that the only truth comes from science. Christian theism's basis for everything is faith in an invisible being. It's virtually no better than any other religion's basis for anything.
"Your crowd of new atheists is still trying to save the ship while you fill it with holes. It's complete nonsense. What he says ARE the logical conclusions of an atheistic worldview, whether you and the girls want to admit it or not."
Says you. But why should I take your word for it? There are plenty of other competing views in atheism, in fact an umbrella of philosophies fit right under it. Rosenberg holds no monopoly on the godless.
"Because it denies theism on the grounds that it is not empirically evident."
So we should all believe everything is true until there is empirical evidence to disprove it?
Atheism is more than simply just a lack of verification for theistic claims, there are also defeaters built right within nature that we know from science that falsify many religions. But let me ask you, how does one affirm a metaphysical claim as fact without science? Besides logical truths, science is the best way to know what is true, and it has worked wonders in allowing us to debunk unsubstantiated nonsense. Even in the absence of science, if you use logic, you're presupposing that logic is valid. Don't we all have to grant some presuppositions to make sense of the world? How do you verify your religion is true over others without granting presuppositions?
"No my atheism is consistent with the disbelief in any gods."
ReplyDeleteYes, I know. Hence, you don't have the same beliefs and ethics as theists.
"My metaphysical views are derived from a careful analysis of the evidence backing them up and its rival views."
Oh really? And by what do you analyze and interpret evidence? You're simply oblivious to the fact that you have to believe in a metaphysic in order to analyze the validity of a metaphysic. Evidence is interpreted by your metaphysics. That's your conundrum, which you clearly have not thought through.
"So you support liberal inerrancy?"
There are other things besides liberalism and fundamentalism. Both are two sides of the same Enlightenment coin. Also, there is no such thing as "liberal" inerrancy. Liberals don't believe in inerrancy because they're liberals, i.e., their interpretive authority is direct experience, not the reports of Scripture.
"All science is debatable. Your side is losing the debate...badly."
You're arguing against caricatures. I have no view of most scientific theories specifically. I only harp on the limitations of knowledge that can be gained from science either way.
"Why so?"
That's a huge argument to make. Suffice to say, both finitude and biological determinism without transcendence make it impossible to know anything. You only have chemicals affecting your brain and working toward preservation, not knowledge of the world around you for some other purpose of knowing "truth" about the universe.
"Who says an atheist must give into scientism? Rosenberg? No atheist has to accept that the only truth comes from science. Christian theism's basis for everything is faith in an invisible being. It's virtually no better than any other religion's basis for anything."
1. Atheism has nothing but scientism, otherwise, your arguments against theism are irrelevant, as knowledge can be gained through non-empirical means via faith.
2. I never said Christianity wasn't of faith. I've always maintained that Christianity, as all belief systems and worldviews, are known only through faith. That includes atheism.
"Says you. But why should I take your word for it? There are plenty of other competing views in atheism, in fact an umbrella of philosophies fit right under it. Rosenberg holds no monopoly on the godless."
Says logic. The problem is that you don't spend your time logically working out worldviews. I do. He is right and you just don't like it. But you offer no real critique. Atheism is nihilism. There is no other conclusion. You make up whatever meaning and purpose you want for everything, but that's just it, you're making it up.
ReplyDelete"So we should all believe everything is true until there is empirical evidence to disprove it?"
Reading is fun and valuable. Again, you need to learn that. I argued that NOTHING is empirically verified, as one must assume a metaphysic first in order to verify empiricism. You evaluate evidence with a metaphysic that cannot be evaluated by evidence. That's the nature of ultimate beliefs.
"Atheism is more than simply just a lack of verification for theistic claims, there are also defeaters built right within nature that we know from science that falsify many religions."
Hahaha. Yeah, once you interpret nature according to an atheistic naturalism, i.e., once you beg the question by assuming your worldview as the correct interpret grid through which we should see nature.
"But let me ask you, how does one affirm a metaphysical claim as fact without science? Besides logical truths, science is the best way to know what is true, and it has worked wonders in allowing us to debunk unsubstantiated nonsense."
No science has debunked a metaphysic. That's why it's called META-physics. You debunk metaphysics with other metaphysics, and you can only know through belief in the right metaphysic. If you have the wrong one, then you will misinterpret the entirety of life and meaning in the universe. So empiricism cannot evaluate metaphysics. That's simply self evident in all of our worldviews.
"Even in the absence of science, if you use logic, you're presupposing that logic is valid. Don't we all have to grant some presuppositions to make sense of the world?"
Exactly, now you're beginning to understand what I'm saying. Hallelujah! You have to presuppose via FAITH what is true metaphysically speaking, which means you can only believe your worldview is true. You cannot prove it true.
"How do you verify your religion is true over others without granting presuppositions?"
Because I take what I BELIEVE to be true, i.e., metaphysical knowledge from God in the Bible, as a sufficient knowledge of certain metaphysical realities by which I judge all other claims of knowledge concerning metaphysical reality, which is precisely what everyone else does, even though they don't realize they're doing it. Hence, I can only judge empirically verifiable claims by empiricism. I cannot judge metaphysical claims with empiricism, because that is sheer nonsense. Empirical knowledge must be ultimately interpreted by metaphysical knowledge because it gives us the worldview and measuring standards/boundaries by which we must judge all other knowledge claims, not vice versa.
"Yes, I know. Hence, you don't have the same beliefs and ethics as theists."
ReplyDeleteNot all beliefs theists have are based in their religion, some are nonreligious. Most common ethics are shared by all people regardless of whether they believe in god.
"And by what do you analyze and interpret evidence?"
All we have are our senses and our brains to interpret the world around us. If you're metaphysical worldview involves things that defy scientific laws that are unseen, why not believe any religion and fantastic claim?
"There are other things besides liberalism and fundamentalism."
Have you ever notice that you never find a conservative who believes in a liberal god, and a liberal that believes in a conservative one? Yeah I have. It's pretty obvious that we create the god we want in our own image.
"both finitude and biological determinism without transcendence make it impossible to know anything."
No it doesn't. We could be determined to know the truth. And guess what, knowing the truth works towards an organism's preservation. Hasn't the human race been doing better since we learned germs cause diseases instead of demons like your silly book says? Yeah we have.
1. Atheism is not scientism. Have you ever heard of philosophy? How do you know knowledge can be gained via faith? I suppose it's all based on - you guess it - faith.
2. You're taking the word faith and stretching it. If we learn something via logic or science, how is that learned via faith?
"The problem is that you don't spend your time logically working out worldviews. I do."
Then why are you still a Christian? Oh yeah, faith.
"Atheism is nihilism. There is no other conclusion."
Rosenberg believes there is no purpose at all to anything. I only disbelief that there is an objective purpose to life, I can still have a subjective one. Rosenberg even denies that. Remember, nihilism is the doctrine that there is no objective purpose, that I agree with happily.
"I argued that NOTHING is empirically verified, as one must assume a metaphysic first in order to verify empiricism."
We already agree that every worldview assumes some axioms. We simply have no good reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are not capable of discerning reality.
"Yeah, once you interpret nature according to an atheistic naturalism,"
No not at all. Naturalism is popular now because many of the theistic assumptions about the world have been debunked by science. We arrive at naturalism through how horrible supernaturalism explains the world.
"No science has debunked a metaphysic."
So the flat-earth & geocentric worldviews Christians held until Copernicus was not a metaphysical worldview debunked by science? Right.
"You debunk metaphysics with other metaphysics,"
So how do you debunk African witch doctors? Or do you believe their claims?
"You have to presuppose via FAITH what is true metaphysically speaking, which means you can only believe your worldview is true."
And you really think faith is a valid way of obtaining the truth? Don't you realize that other people of other religions will do the same? How can I, as a third party skeptic, know who's "knowledge" gained via faith is true?
"Because I take what I BELIEVE to be true...etc"
Yes, no one denies that we don't have all the answers to reality. But if you're going to grant faith as a valid methodology of obtaining truth, how can we know anything is true? Why shouldn't I believe the Muslim or the Hindu whose worldview is derived from the same method as you? Metaphysical worldviews do cross over into the domain of science, though not all of them. They have to conform to what we know are facts today. If they do not, why should any logical person still hold them?
Am I illogical for not believing the faith based claims of thousands of people who cannot produce a shred of good empirical evidence to support their validity?
"Not all beliefs theists have are based in their religion, some are nonreligious."
ReplyDeleteNo belief is nonreligious. Until you understand that, you won't get the rest of what I've said here.
"Most common ethics are shared by all people regardless of whether they believe in god."
That's because we live in a theistic universe. The question is whether these shared ethics on the surface are warranted by both theistic and atheistic produced worldviews.
"All we have are our senses and our brains to interpret the world around us."
You don't interpret the world around you with brains and senses. You acquire filtered data through them. Interpretation takes a worldview, and your begging the question when it come to yours.
"If you're metaphysical worldview involves things that defy scientific laws that are unseen, why not believe any religion and fantastic claim?"
My metaphysical worldview doesn't defy scientific laws, but it sees scientific laws as the working of a physical universe, not laws that bind metaphysical and transcendent beings and elements.
"Have you ever notice that you never find a conservative who believes in a liberal god, and a liberal that believes in a conservative one? Yeah I have. It's pretty obvious that we create the god we want in our own image."
Or say there isn't one in order to suit ourselves. It's called depravity. That's why we need an external, transcendentally sourced authority to interpret reality or we will distort it.
"No it doesn't. We could be determined to know the truth."
Determined by what? I'm talking about biological determinism. It's not a mind that directs you to truth, but preservation. It could direct you to some accuracy of reality for that purpose, again assuming it is some kind of mind, but in reality, it's just using whatever, true or false, to preserve you. Your brain makes you hallucinate some times to save your life. Hence, it seems that there is no way of knowing whether you have been determined to know reality or a false reality.
"And guess what, knowing the truth works towards an organism's preservation. Hasn't the human race been doing better since we learned germs cause diseases instead of demons like your silly book says? Yeah we have."
If we're determined to know the truth, why is that the majority of humans, both now and throughout history, have believed in deity? If you say that we needed it then but not now, then your brain isn't bringing you to truth, but using whatever illusions to preserve you.
"1. Atheism is not scientism. Have you ever heard of philosophy? How do you know knowledge can be gained via faith? I suppose it's all based on - you guess it - faith."
No, it uses scientism to make its case, as you have this entire time, even in this paragraph btw.
Actually, I know this empirically when I try to argue logically, as I have to base my arguments eventually in a premise that cannot be proved without assuming that premise.
But I believe I can argue logically because of my worldview. I don't believe you have a basis for arguing logically, as the world is chaos and chance, not order and predictable for atheism. You have to assume my worldview in order to use logic and science the way you do. That's what's so comical and sad about it. Knowledge is impossible for you.
"2. You're taking the word faith and stretching it. If we learn something via logic or science, how is that learned via faith?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not. You don't get what I'm saying. Faith in a presupposition and ultimate belief is necessary in order to use and believe that logic is effective in determining truth. You can't argue without faith in an assumed metaphysic.
"Rosenberg believes there is no purpose at all to anything. I only disbelief that there is an objective purpose to life, I can still have a subjective one. Rosenberg even denies that. Remember, nihilism is the doctrine that there is no objective purpose, that I agree with happily."
Sure, and Neo can have a purpose in the Matrix as a computer programmer, but such a purpose is delusional and false. Hence, subjective purpose that is not met with an objective purpose is meaningless, and therefore, without true purpose. You can live in the looney bin and make up your own reality as you like, but reality, in an atheist system, has no real purpose.
"We already agree that every worldview assumes some axioms. We simply have no good reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are not capable of discerning reality."
You are horribly confused here, and it's why we're going round and round on this. Your faculties just accumulate data. They don't provide you with a philosophical view of the data. Your worldview does that. Hence, your assumed ultimate beliefs provide the worldview you use to interpret this data. That's why atheists don't interpret the world the same way as theists. That's obvious, is it not? Even in your saying that our cognitive faculties are capable of interpreting reality, you are simply assuming empirical verificationism using different semantics to describe it. I already argued that such is self refuting.
"No not at all. Naturalism is popular now because many of the theistic assumptions about the world have been debunked by science."
Nope, sorry to burst your bubble, but they haven't, because, as every thinker knows, you can't debunk or prove a metaphysical belief with physical observations. Again, that seems obvious to everyone but your brilliant parishioners.
"We arrive at naturalism through how horrible supernaturalism explains the world."
Funny, that's how many come to theism from atheism. LOL. Nice try, but that's complete nonsense. Naturalism is a worldview that you believe first in order to interpret the world and what you think of supernatural claims. No supernaturalist believes that supernatural claims don't explain the world well.
"So the flat-earth & geocentric worldviews Christians held until Copernicus was not a metaphysical worldview debunked by science? Right."
ReplyDeleteUm, no Dude, they weren't. Flat earth and geocentricism are physical, not metaphysical. Keep up with the argument please.
"So how do you debunk African witch doctors? Or do you believe their claims?"
By how they measure up to biblical claims concerning those things. Hence, I evaluate other faiths with my faith. I've been saying that the whole time. That's all anyone can do but evaluate metaphysical beliefs by their own metaphysical beliefs, which is why atheists are constantly doing it, even if they are clueless, and they are, that they are in fact doing it.
"And you really think faith is a valid way of obtaining the truth?"
If it isn't, then no one can know the truth, as it is the only way for any of us to know anything. You already admitted such, but don't get how much ground you've already given up because you're still arguing for some sort of proved atheism while admitting that nothing can be proved without first having faith in certain unproved ultimate beliefs upon which one's logic and analysis of the world are based.
"Don't you realize that other people of other religions will do the same? How can I, as a third party skeptic, know who's "knowledge" gained via faith is true?"
How can I, as a third party skeptic of atheism, know who's "knowledge" gained via faith is true, since atheism also gains its knowledge via faith?
"Yes, no one denies that we don't have all the answers to reality. But if you're going to grant faith as a valid methodology of obtaining truth, how can we know anything is true?"
You can't because YOU'RE NOT GOD. You see, that's your biggest problem, and the biggest problem with you atheists, you think you have to have the knowledge of God, but you can't. Hence, you puff up science to be more than it is in order to pretend for yourselves that you can know objectively. Nonsense. You all are in the dark. We only have faith to guide us, and only God can bring us to that faith. Without Him, we are lost. And He chooses that path for many as a punishment for their rebellion and evil toward Him and others. I cannot find out the truth via empiricism, because I cannot know what metaphysic is true via empiricism. Hence, I can only believe the report or choose to disbelieve, but all of my knowledge is based upon that belief. If it is wrong, my entire worldview is wrong, and I have no real knowledge of the world. If I am right, then I have the opportunity to know other things in light of those metaphysical foundations. But it is all via faith that I take hold of them. You cannot know. You can only believe in order to attempt to know.
"Why shouldn't I believe the Muslim or the Hindu whose worldview is derived from the same method as you?"
Because I believe the Bible is true and it contradicts those worldviews. Hence, I believe they are false religions because I believe God has communicated to us in the Bible.
"Metaphysical worldviews do cross over into the domain of science, though not all of them. They have to conform to what we know are facts today. If they do not, why should any logical person still hold them?"
No, they don't. You don't understand what metaphysical means or how much these beliefs govern our logical argumentation and analysis. Facts are data. Knowledge is the meaning of data. The meaning put to facts cannot contradict facts. That's a category confusion.
"Am I illogical for not believing the faith based claims of thousands of people who cannot produce a shred of good empirical evidence to support their validity?"
Yes, because you already do. You're an atheist. Until you understand how profound that statement is, you'll continue to argue in the dark while proclaiming how enlightened you are.
“No belief is nonreligious. Until you understand that, you won't get the rest of what I've said here.”
ReplyDeleteWe all grant axioms, but science and logic work because they’ve proven themselves to allow us to make sense of our world, no such parallel exists for theistic faith.
“That's because we live in a theistic universe.”
That’s a faith based, unsupported assertion. We have the same ethics because we’re all biologically the same and evolved under the same conditions.
“You don't interpret the world around you with brains and senses. You acquire filtered data through them. Interpretation takes a worldview, and your begging the question when it come to yours.”
And what’s the best way to get an unfiltered assessment of the data? Science. Because it’s independently verifiable and falsifiable.
“My metaphysical worldview doesn't defy scientific laws, but it sees scientific laws as the working of a physical universe, not laws that bind metaphysical and transcendent beings and elements.”
You have no evidence transcendent beings exist.
“Or say there isn't one in order to suit ourselves. It's called depravity. That's why we need an external, transcendentally sourced authority to interpret reality or we will distort it.”
How can you even know any external transcendent anything exists since on your worldview our senses are biased by our interpretations? Couldn’t your theistic beliefs simply be part of a bias driven by a Christian environment in the same way a Hindu’s and Muslim’s is?
“Determined by what? I'm talking about biological determinism….”
How does anyone know the truth? We know the truth either by logic or empirical verification. That’s how we can confirm our beliefs to be true or not. Your worldview posits a god who purposely deceives some people and then predestines them to hell for it. That’s some insane basis for knowledge.
“If we're determined to know the truth, why is that the majority of humans, both now and throughout history, have believed in deity?.....”
Because evolution favors false positive beliefs rather than false negatives. You can say in a way that we have evolved to believe there is intentionality behind natural processes. For a longer explanation, read my post here http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/05/alvin-plantingas-evolutionary-argument.html
“No, it uses scientism to make its case, as you have this entire time, even in this paragraph btw.”
Faith has proved itself to be an unreliable source of information. Perhaps if it had a better track record, it’d have a higher intellectual standing.
“Actually, I know this empirically when I try to argue logically, as I have to base my arguments eventually in a premise that cannot be proved without assuming that premise.”
And your premise is that Christianity is true. Presuppositionalism at it’s finest. E.g. Christianity is true. Therefore, Christianity is true. LOL.
“But I believe I can argue logically because of my worldview. I don't believe you have a basis for arguing logically, as the world is chaos and chance, not order and predictable for atheism. You have to assume my worldview in order to use logic and science the way you do. That's what's so comical and sad about it. Knowledge is impossible for you.”
It is impossible for logic to not exist. It’s embedded into all possible worlds, therefore the theist has no greater claim to it than the atheist. The world we live in exhibits stunning regularity according to natural laws. Laws that by the way remove the need for supernatural intervention. What’s sad is your Calvinistic presuppositionalism.
“Faith in a presupposition and ultimate belief is necessary in order to use and believe that logic is effective in determining truth. You can't argue without faith in an assumed metaphysic.”
ReplyDeleteYou presupposition is that Christianity is true. How about this, I say your mind and thinking is unreliable because you were hit on the head by a rock as a kid. Prove this is false. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognize a proof when you see it. So it fails." Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: "But prove to me your mind is not addled". Which you won't be able to, for the above reason. Isn’t presuppositionalism great?
“Sure, and Neo can have a purpose in the Matrix as a computer programmer, but such a purpose is delusional and false. Hence, subjective purpose that is not met with an objective purpose is meaningless, and therefore, without true purpose….”
Looney bins contain people who have beliefs that are empirically unsubstantiated, like hearing voices, Christianity and messiah complexes. As long as my subjective purpose is to my own liking, I don’t have to posit an objective one.
Let me ask you a question. If you only had one choice, would you rather live in a world where atheism is true, or Islam is true? Just curious.
“Your faculties just accumulate data. They don't provide you with a philosophical view of the data. Your worldview does that. Hence, your assumed ultimate beliefs provide the worldview you use to interpret this data. That's why atheists don't interpret the world the same way as theists. That's obvious, is it not?”
You are admitting that our minds accumulate data in an accurate unbiased fashion before any worldview has the possibility of corrupting it. Well, most theists simply just refuse to believe in any data that contradicts their worldview, and I’m talking about scientific data. Many simply assume their religion is true first, based primarily on emotional responses to it, and any evidence against it they conclude is the devil trying to corrupt their faith. That sounds like you.
“Even in your saying that our cognitive faculties are capable of interpreting reality, you are simply assuming empirical verificationism using different semantics to describe it. I already argued that such is self refuting.”
I never once ruled out logic as a means to know truth. But I suppose Calvinism forces you to believe we can be deceived by god. So under your worldview it’s impossible to ever trust your senses. Even your faith in god can be a deception from god. That’s why other Christians react in such disgust when I ask them in they’re a Calvinist.
“Nope, sorry to burst your bubble, but they haven't, because, as every thinker knows, you can't debunk or prove a metaphysical belief with physical observations. Again, that seems obvious to everyone but your brilliant parishioners.”
Wrong. Metaphysical beliefs are not purely non-physical. As science advanced, beliefs that were once metaphysical either became physical when they were confirmed, or were debunked as the products of mankind’s overactive imagination.
“Funny, that's how many come to theism from atheism. LOL. Nice try, but that's complete nonsense. Naturalism is a worldview that you believe first in order to interpret the world and what you think of supernatural claims. No supernaturalist believes that supernatural claims don't explain the world well.”
No that’s how many come to atheism from theism. Unsubstantiated claims of theism will only drive you as far as your faith in them has fuel. Thing is, every religion has supernatural claims, and your methodological worldview would allow them all to be granted as truth. Thus, everyone would be locked into their theistic views and there’d be no talking sense to anyone because they’d all presuppose their religion is correct.
“Um, no Dude, they weren't. Flat earth and geocentricism are physical, not metaphysical. Keep up with the argument please.”
ReplyDeleteYou perhaps don’t understand the term metaphysical. Beliefs about the world that are unverified or cannot yet be described scientifically are metaphysical. Geocentrism was a metaphysical worldview, before it was debunked. If you’re defining terms your own way, as you often do, we are going to disagree on semantics.
“By how they measure up to biblical claims concerning those things. Hence, I evaluate other faiths with my faith. I've been saying that the whole time….”
There’s a difference here. You presuppose the entire Christian religion on faith, via presuppositionalism. I presuppose our cognitive faculties are capable of discerning reality because we can empirically verify many things about our world. Your presupposition is incommensurably greater than mine. If the witch doctor’s spells or beliefs have no basis in reality via their falsifiable claims, I think I have a better basis for discerning reality than you do. Christianity even grants that witches exist, and that they should be put to death. No evidence whatsoever supports the validity of witchcraft. Yet another thing the biblical authors got wrong.
“If it isn't, then no one can know the truth, as it is the only way for any of us to know anything....”
I never said I proved atheism. I’ve been saying all along that there’s no evidence to believe in the supernatural. Hence, disbelief is a justified default position until we have good reason to believe otherwise.
“How can I, as a third party skeptic of atheism, know who's "knowledge" gained via faith is true, since atheism also gains its knowledge via faith?”
We have a method for independently verifying claims. It’s called science. Faith can’t verify anything other than mankind’s credulity.
“You can't because YOU'RE NOT GOD. You see, that's your biggest problem, and the biggest problem with you atheists, you think you have to have the knowledge of God, but you can't….”
You can’t prove your god exists. And his existence has no more basis in reality than any other concept of god. WITH faith we are lost in a sea of confusion where anyone’s belief, no matter how absurd it is guides their reality. I’m not saying that all knowledge is gained via science but science has proved itself as being a reliable way to verify our beliefs about the world. It is ridiculous to base your beliefs about the world from a book that contains stories and descriptions of reality that has been disproven by history and archaeology, especially when considering we know the human mind is capable of hallucination and deception.
“Because I believe the Bible is true and it contradicts those worldviews. Hence, I believe they are false religions because I believe God has communicated to us in the Bible.”
Well there’s no reason to go much further considering we will go round in circles. You believe the Bible is true. Good for you. Every other believer will believe their book is true. Their religions contradict yours. So per your methodology, your religion is false because theirs contradicts it. You’re not offering me anything to go on that distinguishes your religion from any other.
“You don't understand what metaphysical means or how much these beliefs govern our logical argumentation and analysis. Facts are data. Knowledge is the meaning of data. The meaning put to facts cannot contradict facts. That's a category confusion.”
Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of metaphysics:
a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
This would cover flat earth beliefs, geocentricism, demons causing diseases etc.
“Yes, because you already do. You're an atheist. Until you understand how profound that statement is, you'll continue to argue in the dark while proclaiming how enlightened you are…”
ReplyDeleteSo if someone tells me their god is real and their religion is true, I should just accept it as truth at face value? (Sigh) The inanity and credulity of religion is perfectly exemplified by you. Remember, you’re the one arguing that we know that which we cannot see and verify. I’m just saying that we cannot know to be true anything we don’t have good evidence for. My position is the rational one. The history of religion is one of shrinking metaphysical knowledge that is continually being shown to be more and more false, while our knowledge about the world grows via science. If you want to call it “faith” fine, call it what you want. I will gladly take a domain where knowledge is growing rather than shrinking, and that has proved itself to be the most reliable method for obtaining facts.
"We all grant axioms, but science and logic work because they’ve proven themselves to allow us to make sense of our world, no such parallel exists for theistic faith."
ReplyDeleteScience and logic work because we live in an ordered universe that can be predicted rather than a chaotic one built on chance.
We all grant more than axioms. We all have to believe things that cannot be verified and are not self evident. Until you get that, and you don't, you will never get why everything else you've said here is so self defeating.
"That’s a faith based, unsupported assertion. We have the same ethics because we’re all biologically the same and evolved under the same conditions."
So you and I have the same ethics as Hitler and Mao? How about Ted Bundy? Do you and I have the same ethics as cannibals? As Muslim jihadists? If your hypothesis was true, then we should all have the same ethics. We don't, so you're assertion is false.
"And what’s the best way to get an unfiltered assessment of the data? Science. Because it’s independently verifiable and falsifiable."
1. No perception of data is unfiltered. You need to read up on your post-enlightenment philosophers.
2. Science is a method. It, therefore, uses verification and falsifiability. It is not itself falsifiable. Second to this, metaphysics are not something that science can evaluate, as I've argued already. Empirical verificationism assumes a metaphysic that cannot be verified. It also is incapable of verifying any other metaphysical claim. Hence, your argument is a strawman.
"How can you even know any external transcendent anything exists since on your worldview our senses are biased by our interpretations? Couldn’t your theistic beliefs simply be part of a bias driven by a Christian environment in the same way a Hindu’s and Muslim’s is?"
Again with your "how do you know" questions. You want to know independently of your senses, which are bound to the physical. Too bad. You have to know through faith, which is my entire point to you. You ALREADY do this, whether you get that or not.
"How does anyone know the truth? We know the truth either by logic or empirical verification. That’s how we can confirm our beliefs to be true or not. Your worldview posits a god who purposely deceives some people and then predestines them to hell for it. That’s some insane basis for knowledge."
OK, prove to me that the metaphysical premise that there is no other knowledge that goes beyond the reach of science and logic by using science and logic to do it, without assuming your conclusion. Good luck.
While we're at it. Prove to me, via science and reason, that God definitively does not exist. Show me all of the evidence that cannot be interpreted in any other way by another worldview, simply because science and logic definitively prove it. Again, good luck.
If you can't do these things with science and logic without assuming the metaphysical presuppositions needed to establish your claim, then you are merely begging the question (HINT: You're begging the question).
"Because evolution favors false positive beliefs rather than false negatives. You can say in a way that we have evolved to believe there is intentionality behind natural processes."
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving my point. That means that natural selection works toward preservation, not truth concerning reality. That means you have no way of knowing what is real. That's exactly what I argued.
"Faith has proved itself to be an unreliable source of information. Perhaps if it had a better track record, it’d have a higher intellectual standing."
So you don't believe anything reported in history actually occurred because you weren't there to empirically verify it? Or do you have faith in the report? Your claim is nonsense. Faith is our primary way of knowing, since it dictates everything else. Empirical means are a secondary way of knowing that must be put in the context of the primary, which is why you and everyone else does so, even if, again, you're clueless to what you're doing.
"And your premise is that Christianity is true. Presuppositionalism at it’s finest. E.g. Christianity is true. Therefore, Christianity is true. LOL."
And your premise is that atheism is true. Clueless presuppositionalism disguised as evidentialism at it's finest. E.g. Atheism is true. Therefore, Atheism is true. LOL.
"It is impossible for logic to not exist. It’s embedded into all possible worlds, therefore the theist has no greater claim to it than the atheist. The world we live in exhibits stunning regularity according to natural laws. Laws that by the way remove the need for supernatural intervention. What’s sad is your Calvinistic presuppositionalism."
This is an incoherent rant. 1. Logic has to exist in all possible theistic worlds because it is universal. In order for it to be universal, you have to have a universal mind that produces it. Logic isn't matter, but mind. Hence, the reason why it must exist in all possible theistic worlds is because God exists. In an atheistic universe, however, it cannot exist as universal because there is no universal mind. There are only chemicals working to self preserve, not necessarily give you a sufficient view of reality. Ergo, since logic is universal, and not merely conventional, atheism is false.
The stunning regularity makes no sense in a world of chance and chaos without order and transcendent purpose. You observe one thing but postulate it's opposite. Oh atheism so reasonable.
"You presupposition is that Christianity is true. How about this, I say your mind and thinking is unreliable because you were hit on the head by a rock as a kid. Prove this is false. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognize a proof when you see it. So it fails." Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: "But prove to me your mind is not addled". Which you won't be able to, for the above reason. Isn’t presuppositionalism great?"
Your analogy is false. You're discussing something that can be empirically verified through science, AND, can be verified by faith in a report of witnesses who will confirm or deny the claim. A metaphysical claim cannot be verified with science, but can be a report that is believed. So your analogy fails.
"Let me ask you a question. If you only had one choice, would you rather live in a world where atheism is true, or Islam is true? Just curious."
ReplyDeleteIslam. Because the rulers of Islam can be held in check with the understanding that God exists, as long as certain lesser ideas are changed. It can also give ethics to society and make it better.
Atheism holds no rulers in check, as we have seen with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. And it makes its people immoral, arrogant, and narcissistic. We have yet to see a fully realized atheistic culture, but if you really want to see one, watch the Discovery Channel. Animals who do what they wish, without consciousness of God, create hell on earth for one another.
If you're asking me whether I would rather have radical jihadist Islam oppress and kill everyone or atheism oppress and kill everyone, then I see no difference between them. One does whatever it wishes in the name of God and one does whatever it wishes without God.
"You are admitting that our minds accumulate data in an accurate unbiased fashion before any worldview has the possibility of corrupting it. Well, most theists simply just refuse to believe in any data that contradicts their worldview, and I’m talking about scientific data. Many simply assume their religion is true first, based primarily on emotional responses to it, and any evidence against it they conclude is the devil trying to corrupt their faith. That sounds like you."
I didn't say the accumulation of data was unbiased. I said that our faculties merely accumulate data. We experience data, not as it is, but as we perceive it. THEN, we go on to interpret data and its meaning with our reason that is based upon our metaphysical worldview. Hence, it's all filtered. Nothing is directly experienced. Again, you would have to be transcendent to directly experience something, and you're not. All you have is faith to know. Without it, you can know nothing.
"I never once ruled out logic as a means to know truth."
Logic can only function on premises that logic cannot prove. Ergo, my argument is not about logic, but the necessity of faith in metaphysical premises from which one must reason.
"But I suppose Calvinism forces you to believe we can be deceived by god. So under your worldview it’s impossible to ever trust your senses. Even your faith in god can be a deception from god. That’s why other Christians react in such disgust when I ask them in they’re a Calvinist."
Ugh, you understand Calvinism as well as you understand my arguments, which is to say that you don't. God doesn't deceive people. The world is already deceptive without our trusting Him. Hence, He gives people over to the world they love when they want to be gods themselves and interpret and find solutions for universal problems on their own. You're a child in the dark, and you want to proclaim how much you know by touching objects in the room with styrofoam poles.
"Wrong. Metaphysical beliefs are not purely non-physical. As science advanced, beliefs that were once metaphysical either became physical when they were confirmed, or were debunked as the products of mankind’s overactive imagination."
Wrong. Metaphysical beliefs are purely non-physical because beliefs aren't material. Second to this, metaphysical reality, whatever it may be, is just that, META-physical, i.e., beyond the physical. Please name some metaphysical belief that was debunked by science, and I'll show you that it is the metaphysical presuppositional belief of naturalism that is debunking it, not science.
"No that’s how many come to atheism from theism. Unsubstantiated claims of theism will only drive you as far as your faith in them has fuel. Thing is, every religion has supernatural claims, and your methodological worldview would allow them all to be granted as truth. Thus, everyone would be locked into their theistic views and there’d be no talking sense to anyone because they’d all presuppose their religion is correct."
ReplyDeletePeople become atheists for a variety of reasons, but there are many who are duped by the idea that science has anything to do with metaphysical beliefs. That's the atheist canard in Western culture. So, of course, many do come because they are deceived into thinking that one has to do with the other. But no one comes because such has ACTUALLY been done. Such are the myths of atheism.
Second to this, you can't speak reason to anyone in order to get them to change their metaphysical beliefs because those beliefs dictate what is metaphysically true already. They dismiss claims that contradict them, which is why I can't talk sense to you and get you to acknowledge what is most logical. You're blind faith runs too deep. Only God can change unbelievers into believers. But people can change their ultimate beliefs by a transfer of faith, not a discovery made through logic and science.
"You perhaps don’t understand the term metaphysical. Beliefs about the world that are unverified or cannot yet be described scientifically are metaphysical."
All beliefs are metaphysical, as they are not material. Reality that cannot be verified is metaphysical, which is how I'm using the term. It is not simply that something is verified. There are tons of physical things in the world that are unverified empirically. Those don't make up metaphysics. Physical objects in the universe are physical. Sorry to burst your bubble again, but you're misusing the term to suit your argument. You are essentially arguing that someone's theory of a physical object that is not yet empirically verified is metaphysical. That makes all scientific theories that cannot be empirically verified as metaphysics. That's nonsense.
"Geocentrism was a metaphysical worldview, before it was debunked. If you’re defining terms your own way, as you often do, we are going to disagree on semantics."
We are disagreeing because your definition is not how the term is used. Metaphysics deals with the essential makeup of existence, reality, the world that is not empirically verifiable.
"There’s a difference here. You presuppose the entire Christian religion on faith, via presuppositionalism. I presuppose our cognitive faculties are capable of discerning reality because we can empirically verify many things about our world. Your presupposition is incommensurably greater than mine. If the witch doctor’s spells or beliefs have no basis in reality via their falsifiable claims, I think I have a better basis for discerning reality than you do. Christianity even grants that witches exist, and that they should be put to death. No evidence whatsoever supports the validity of witchcraft. Yet another thing the biblical authors got wrong."
ReplyDeleteNice try, but no cigar. Your presuppositions don't give you a greater ability to discern PHYSICAL reality than mine, because we both use empiricism to evaluate physical reality. We also both use faith in our metaphysical presuppositions to discern metaphysical claims, so you actually are in the exact same boat in that regard. However, I have more of an ability to know metaphysical reality than you do, because I at least have a belief that someone who is transcendent has revealed the nature of the universe to us. You have no such belief, so although I might have put my faith in the wrong place, it is more likely that I will know what is metaphysically true if my faith is well placed. If my faith is misplaced then we are in the same boat of lacking all knowledge in the area. Either way, it is impossible for you to know, but possible for me to know. Hence, my worldview gives me the possibility of a greater visibility of world.
"I never said I proved atheism. I’ve been saying all along that there’s no evidence to believe in the supernatural. Hence, disbelief is a justified default position until we have good reason to believe otherwise."
Exactly, because you can't prove your metaphysical claims with logic or science. However, you clearly have absolute faith in a metaphysical naturalism that determines what you see as evidence and how you interpret that data. Hence, your default position is your presupposition. Ergo, atheism is true because atheism is true.
"We have a method for independently verifying claims. It’s called science. Faith can’t verify anything other than mankind’s credulity."
You can see how much your presupps dictate what you believe. You're becoming a complete contradiction because what is self evident within both our systems is in conflict with what you want to believe about logic and science's power to know reality. You want to assume your beliefs, interpret evidence with them, and then claim that you only believe what you do from the evidence. Okay dokey.
"You can’t prove your god exists."
And you can't prove that he does not. Ergo, that's why you have to believe atheism first and then argue from there.
"And his existence has no more basis in reality than any other concept of god."
Actually, that's not really true, but I'm trying to get this one concept across to you so I'll avoid going into why other views of god can be disproved.
"WITH faith we are lost in a sea of confusion where anyone’s belief, no matter how absurd it is guides their reality."
With faith we are completely dependent upon God for bringing us to the right conclusion, which is exactly what the atheist fears, a loss of his self deified autonomy. Unfortunately, that's all we have, as we are not gods ourselves who transcend space and time.
"I’m not saying that all knowledge is gained via science but science has proved itself as being a reliable way to verify our beliefs about the world. It is ridiculous to base your beliefs about the world from a book that contains stories and descriptions of reality that has been disproven by history and archaeology, especially when considering we know the human mind is capable of hallucination and deception."
ReplyDeleteAgain, you want to say that we can know other ways besides science. Agreed. I've been trying to argue that the entire time. But then you want to say that science has disproved the Bible via history and archaeology, again, two sciences you really don't seem to understand. Even if I were to grant all of the so-called refutations of history and archaeology, those aren't the metaphysical claims made by the Bible, nor are they what the Bible teaches, since it is teaching metaphysical things or things in history that are not verifiable (as no ancient history is verifiable btw).
But, of course, archaeological and historical evaluation function more like metaphysical beliefs, and are in fact often drive by them, than they do like physical objects to be evaluated by the physical sciences.
"Well there’s no reason to go much further considering we will go round in circles. You believe the Bible is true. Good for you. Every other believer will believe their book is true. Their religions contradict yours."
And the same goes for atheism. That's why we're left with belief.
"So per your methodology, your religion is false because theirs contradicts it."
No, but they would believe that, and it is possible that they are right. I just don't BELIEVE that they are. Just like you don't BELIEVE that they are.
"You’re not offering me anything to go on that distinguishes your religion from any other."
I haven't argued for that yet with you (although I have on this blog many times), but that will have to be for another day.
"Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of metaphysics: a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology"
Thanks for the Wikipedia quote, but what you don't seem to understand is that it relates to the metaphysical beliefs concerning these things. In other words, "cosmology" refers to the ESSENTIAL nature of the universe, not the physical makeup of the universe. You're confused here.
"This would cover flat earth beliefs, geocentricism, demons causing diseases etc."
This would cover the essential nature of the earth, not geocentricism, which is physical, and it would cover demons causing diseases in terms of a primary or essential source of a disease, not the natural means through which the disease is born and disseminated. I think you don't understand supernaturalism. It is not the belief that all things are non-physical, but that all things have a non-physical makeup or source to them.
"So if someone tells me their god is real and their religion is true, I should just accept it as truth at face value?"
No, you would accept or reject it based upon whether you choose to believe it. That's exactly what you do already, absent of any evidence or ability to know whether your own metaphysical beliefs concerning naturalism are really true. (Sigh)The inanity and credulity of religion is perfectly exemplified by you and your atheism.
ReplyDelete"Remember, you’re the one arguing that we know that which we cannot see and verify. I’m just saying that we cannot know to be true anything we don’t have good evidence for."
Which is the self defeater I mentioned at the get go. You just refuted your own argument, but are too clueless to get that. If you can't know anything to be true that you can't verify with "evidence" that must be interpreted and analyzed by a worldview that we cannot verify, then you can't know anything at all, including what you think you're verifying with "evidence." That's why you are a dogmatic fideist in evidentialist clothing.
"My position is the rational one."
If rational describes your irrational self defeating belief system then I see why you think atheism is true.
"The history of religion is one of shrinking metaphysical knowledge that is continually being shown to be more and more false, while our knowledge about the world grows via science."
You only believe this canard because you have a false definition of supernaturalism and think that discovering the physical means and properties of something debunks any spiritual/metaphysical quality it may have. You're deluded by a massive category confusion here.
"If you want to call it “faith” fine, call it what you want. I will gladly take a domain where knowledge is growing rather than shrinking, and that has proved itself to be the most reliable method for obtaining facts."
I'd rather have a faith that is proved by evidence that is proved by faith by evidence that is proved by faith by evidence that is proved by faith by evidence that is proved by faith, etc. etc. etc. Can't you hear yourself?
“Science and logic work because we live in an ordered universe that can be predicted rather than a chaotic one built on chance.”
ReplyDeleteChance can produce order. You’re just assuming nature would always be total chaos for no reason.
“We all grant more than axioms….”
Agreed. You’re free to believe in angles and demons and anything you’d like. The thing is determining how justified and supported your beliefs are. In science we can infer things from other things for good reasons, like black holes etc. Since the supernatural has never produced anything useful and has never explained anything, your justification is based entirely on faith that is emotionally based.
“So you and I have the same ethics as Hitler and Mao? How about Ted Bundy? Do you and I have the same ethics as cannibals? As Muslim jihadists? If your hypothesis was true, then we should all have the same ethics. We don't, so you're assertion is false.”
No no no. I never said all people have the same exact morals. I said there is a basic core morality that is embedded by nature into humans. But nature isn’t perfect. So some people are born without the ability to be moral, and cultures skew morality in bad directions, often because of religion, like yours. You have to explain why people are born psychopaths who are physiologically incapable of even being moral, and why under your worldview, god drew that up in his grand blueprint for humanity. It’s a bigger problem for you than me.
1. Comparing science to faith in an assessment of the world around us is a no brainer, science wins. Science also shows us how neurologically we perceive the supernatural. It shows us that it’s all in your head. And this is found cross-culturally. There’s nothing special about Christianity.
2. You completely misunderstood what I said here. I didn’t say science itself was falsifiable, I said the data is independently verifiable and falsifiable. It’s you who’s making the straw man. Some metaphysics can be confirmed or ruled out by science. If in my metaphysical worldview I think demons cause diseases, science can rule that out as a possibility. And it has.
“Again with your "how do you know" questions…”
Epistemology is an important domain of philosophy, don’t you agree? You have to be able to explain away all the so called transcendent experiences of people in other faiths that contradict yours. For if Christianity is true, why would non-Christians claim to have experiences of the divine? What can you provide me that indicates your so called spiritual experiences are “real” and theirs isn’t? You can’t. Which is why your whole worldview is based on emotion and hallucinations.
“OK, prove to me that the metaphysical premise that there is no other knowledge that goes beyond the reach of science and logic by using science and logic to do it, without assuming your conclusion. Good luck.”
Well, if religious faith was a viable way to obtain true knowledge that is unattainable through science and logic, that would be demonstrated. It hasn’t been, ever. There is no such truth that exists that is derived from religious faith. The only so called “truths” are the ones that exist in your heads which neuroscience shows us is a mental condition found in all human cultures. Even your own religion is filled with contradictions, absurd logic and false metaphysics. It is clearly the product of the human imagination. You’ve provided no reason at all to take Christianity seriously.
“While we're at it. Prove to me, via science and reason, that God definitively does not exist…..”
There are too many concepts of god. You’re arrogantly assuming your personal concept of god exists and is what “God” refers to. Even within Christianity there’s a wide range of god concepts. A liberal Christian and a conservative Christian, I’d argue, do not really believe in the same god. I think you might even agree with me on this. You’d have to describe your god in full detail for me to even attempt to disprove it.
“If you can't do these things with science and logic without assuming the metaphysical presuppositions needed to establish your claim, then you are merely begging the question (HINT: You're begging the question).”
ReplyDeleteI think assuming Christianity to be true as a metaphysic is the biggest example of begging the question.
“Thanks for proving my point. That means that natural selection works toward preservation, not truth concerning reality. That means you have no way of knowing what is real. That's exactly what I argued.”
You’re making Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism here, which has been repeatedly rebutted. The reason why we need science so badly is because our beliefs are not always true, but evolution doesn’t entail that all beliefs false. Science is the best way to determine if our beliefs are true or not, that’s what I’ve been arguing all along. Evolution also by the way, explains why there are so many religions and gods that are only the product of our minds, Christianity included. You have to explain, why on theism, we have so many false beliefs. I can provide a scientific explanation, what’s yours?
“So you don't believe anything reported in history actually occurred because you weren't there to empirically verify it? Or do you have faith in the report? Your claim is nonsense….”
Human history is a bit different. It’s not exactly a science. When I say faith, I’m talking about religious faith, i.e. revelation. There are at least 4 or 5 meanings to the word faith. Perhaps I wasn’t so clear, or perhaps you over generalize everything. And by the way, history and stories do get embellished over the years; this is clearly evident in the gospels, which I wouldn’t even call history. So we have to take all history with a grain of salt. I’m sure you don’t accept the miracles in other religions right? By what means do you falsify them without presuming Christianity?
“And your premise is that atheism is true. Clueless presuppositionalism disguised as evidentialism at it's finest. E.g. Atheism is true. Therefore, Atheism is true. LOL.”
LOL. You’re so predictable. I knew you would say this after I wrote it. No it’s more like: we have no evidence for the supernatural, we have good reasons to support atheism (evolution, neuroscience that shows religious experiences are just brain phenomena, and many more etc.), therefore atheism is true. And btw atheism is not necessarily the assertion that god doesn’t exist, it is at a bare minimum, simply the disbelief in god.
“This is an incoherent rant. 1. Logic has to exist in all possible theistic worlds because it is universal. In order for it to be universal, you have to have a universal mind that produces it. Logic isn't matter, but mind….”
1. Logic is not a mind. A mind is the thinking aspect of a physical brain. It is an emergent property. Logic doesn’t think, it’s not a mind, it doesn’t have a personality, it’s just what we call the rules that govern the impossible.
2. The impossibility of the impossible is why logic necessarily exists. No deity required.
3. Ergo, everything you said is false and demonstrates a textbook example of bad logic.
“The stunning regularity makes no sense in a world of chance and chaos without order and transcendent purpose. You observe one thing but postulate it's opposite. Oh atheism so reasonable.”
This is based on a baseless assumption that without god the universe would just explode. Learn some science buddy. The laws of physics describe how regularity exists. And besides, in the long term, the universe is moving towards chaos, it’s called the second law of thermodynamics.
“Your analogy is false. You're discussing something that can be empirically verified through science, AND, can be verified by faith in a report of witnesses who will confirm or deny the claim. A metaphysical claim cannot be verified with science, but can be a report that is believed. So your analogy fails.”
ReplyDeleteBut you’re presupposing that your mind is not addled and can think properly. Therefore anything you say is false. The witnesses are all in your head, they don’t exist, it’s all part of your damaged brain. No one can trust anything you say. BTW, so called religious experiences can be described as merely brain phenomenon by neuroscientists. If that constitutes being “empirically verified through science” I think we’d then have a sound basis for justifying naturalism. And yes, metaphysical claims can be verified and falsified by science.
“Islam. Because the rulers of Islam can be held in check with the understanding that God exists, as long as certain lesser ideas are changed. It can also give ethics to society and make it better.”
Fair enough. But believing that god exists never stopped any determined murderer. Just look at how Muslims have killed each other for 1,400 years, often over religion. As have Christians.
“Atheism holds no rulers in check, as we have seen with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. And it makes its people immoral, arrogant, and narcissistic. We have yet to see a fully realized atheistic culture…”
LOL. Atheism is just the disbelief in god, it is not itself an ethical philosophy. I've always thought that the religious worldview that demands the greatest cosmic significance to human life and its talents was anything but the humble portrayal that we so often hear. Nothing could be more arrogant, more self-centered and conceited, and more solipsistic than thinking that the entire cosmos – all that exists and all that ever will – billions upon trillions of stars and galaxies – were all created and designed for us. And I say to those folks who need this belief to feel special, you can believe that if you like, but please don’t insult my intelligence and try to tell me that this human-centered worldview is humble.
There are no fully atheistic cultures, but US states that are the least religious also have the least crime, and atheists are extremely underrepresented in US prisons. Also, countries where religiosity is very low, and atheistic rates are high, have less violent crime than highly religious ones. I’m talking about Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic etc. Don’t tell me atheism leads to violence, that’s a fallacy I can’t believe still exists.
“I didn't say the accumulation of data was unbiased….”
I suppose that means many creationists will just never accept the evidence for evolution because their worldview won’t accept it. The “evidence” for the supernatural is in your head. I don’t have access to that.
“Logic can only function on premises that logic cannot prove. Ergo, my argument is not about logic, but the necessity of faith in metaphysical premises from which one must reason.”
Logic works, and this is demonstrably so, as does science. We can empirically and independently experience its wonders and progress. What has religious faith demonstrated? Shouldn’t the metaphysical claims of religion have some kind of explanatory power that can actually help us understand our world better in ways that are not purely in one’s head?
“Ugh, you understand Calvinism as well as you understand my arguments, which is to say that you don't. God doesn't deceive people. The world is already deceptive without our trusting Him…”
Then how do you explain JE 20:7, EZ 14:9? Jeremiah says that the Lord deceived his own prophet. God himself says that he deceives his own prophets in order to get rid of them.
“Second to this, you can't speak reason to anyone in order to get them to change their metaphysical beliefs because those beliefs dictate what is metaphysically true already….”
ReplyDeleteThat’s why religious belief is so irrational. When one discards evidence that contradicts their metaphysical beliefs it is the height of absurdity. The evidence we have should be our guiding force, not faith. But since you’re a Calvinist, who believes humans are incapable of knowing anything apart from god’s grace you’re worldview forces you to reject any evidence against your religion. At least science has a proven track record of debunking irrational beliefs, faith in god has no such parallel.
“All beliefs are metaphysical, as they are not material. Reality that cannot be verified is metaphysical, which is how I'm using the term. It is not simply that something is verified….”
It appears that we are using the term metaphysical in different ways. As always it comes down to semantics. When I said “belief” I again was referring to what the belief entails in the external world, not the literal belief of it in your head.
“We are disagreeing because your definition is not how the term is used. Metaphysics deals with the essential makeup of existence, reality, the world that is not empirically verifiable.”
I agree that we disagree. Do you agree?
“Nice try, but no cigar. Your presuppositions don't give you a greater ability to discern PHYSICAL reality than mine, because we both use empiricism to evaluate physical reality. We also both use faith in our metaphysical presuppositions to discern metaphysical claims, so you actually are in the exact same boat in that regard. However, I have more of an ability to know metaphysical reality than you do, because I at least have a belief that someone who is transcendent has revealed the nature of the universe to us…”
LOL. But science has shown us that the nature of the universe that the biblical god has revealed turns out to be false. Science contradicts it. Now if you belief that nature deceives us and we have to belief on faith that the bible is correct even though massive evidence contradicts it, then this only shows the world how unbelievably irrational Christianity is. Your last statement amounts to this: “My beliefs are true because my beliefs say they are true.”
“Exactly, because you can't prove your metaphysical claims with logic or science. However, you clearly have absolute faith in a metaphysical naturalism that determines what you see as evidence and how you interpret that data. Hence, your default position is your presupposition. Ergo, atheism is true because atheism is true.”
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t you agree that a lack of evidence for something works against its truth? If the only evidence comes from your head, and we know through neuroscience that our brains deceive us via hallucination and other things, there is no justification for me taking your theological claims any more serious than the Muslim’s or the Hindu’s. And btw we can indeed use logic and science to falsify various religions and theistic concepts, so at best I’d be left with deism, which is virtually impossible to disprove. I actually wouldn’t mind living in a world where deism was true believe it or not.
“You want to assume your beliefs, interpret evidence with them, and then claim that you only believe what you do from the evidence. Okay dokey.”
No. There is just no good evidence for me to assume your beliefs. On balance, mine weighs with greater evidence.
“And you can't prove that he does not. Ergo, that's why you have to believe atheism first and then argue from there.”
Certain concepts of god can indeed be falsified. Sometimes though logic alone. I don’t know your personal concept of god, and until I did, I couldn’t begin to falsify it.
“With faith we are completely dependent upon God for bringing us to the right conclusion, which is exactly what the atheist fears, a loss of his self deified autonomy. Unfortunately, that's all we have, as we are not gods ourselves who transcend space and time.”
Then why is the bible so false on so many things? Also, the bible even says god deceives us, as I mentioned before. And minds cannot transcend time. A timeless mind is by definition, non functional. Ergo, your whole concept of god is illogical.
“… you want to say that science has disproved the Bible via history and archaeology, again, two sciences you really don't seem to understand. Even if I were to grant all of the so-called refutations of history and archaeology, those aren't the metaphysical claims made by the Bible, nor are they what the Bible teaches, since it is teaching metaphysical things or things in history that are not verifiable (as no ancient history is verifiable btw).”
The bible makes several metaphysical claims and it makes several historical claims, many of both are refuted by science, history and archaeology. All you have left is faith.
“And the same goes for atheism. That's why we're left with belief.”
How does one come to know Christianity to be true without of course the presupposition that it is? Do you even have evidence that you could argue for to a Muslim or an atheist to the truth of Christianity? Or is it for you, purely a spiritual knowledge that must come from within?
“No, but they would believe that, and it is possible that they are right. I just don't BELIEVE that they are. Just like you don't BELIEVE that they are.”
No, I don’t believe that they are correct for good reasons, because we have evidence that falsifies many religious beliefs. I’m sure you’d agree there exists evidence that can falsify certain religions even without having to presuppose Christianity.
“I haven't argued for that yet with you (although I have on this blog many times), but that will have to be for another day.”
Fair enough.
“Thanks for the Wikipedia quote, but what you don't seem to understand is that it relates to the metaphysical beliefs concerning these things. In other words, "cosmology" refers to the ESSENTIAL nature of the universe, not the physical makeup of the universe. You're confused here.”
ReplyDeleteI didn’t get that from Wiki, I got it from Webster’s, where Wiki got it from. The essential nature of the universe is physical. Anything nonphysical that we know about is an emergent property (with the exception of dark matter and energy that we haven’t discovered yet, but that we describe physically).
“This would cover the essential nature of the earth…and it would cover demons causing diseases in terms of a primary or essential source of a disease, not the natural means through which the disease is born and disseminated. I think you don't understand supernaturalism….”
I never alluded to the idea that supernaturalism posits everything to be nonphysical. I am aware of the concept of substance dualism. But do you actually believe demons cause diseases via germs? Wow. I can’t help but laugh when I hear otherwise educated people still believing such things in the 21st century.
“No, you would accept or reject it based upon whether you choose to believe it. That's exactly what you do already…”
No, I look at evidence for and against claims I think a little more strongly than you do. Let me ask you this, if a scientific fact contradicted your theology, would you accept faith over science or science over faith?
“Which is the self defeater I mentioned at the get go. You just refuted your own argument, but are too clueless to get that….”
No I haven’t at all. We have good evidence that the methodologies of naturalism via science and logic work. We have NO evidence religious faith works as a methodology other than to explore the human imagination. We know that natural world exists, we can verify it. Even if we’re in a computer simulation, the simulation would be the natural world. And the natural world contradicts the historical and metaphysical claims made by every religion, including yours. That’s how we know Christianity is false. Debating with Calvinists is so arduous because you grant faith in god as the ONLY way to know truth. You’re like that crazy Sye Ten Bruggencate guy.
“If rational describes your irrational self defeating belief system then I see why you think atheism is true.”
No, irrational describes a person who believes in things while good evidence contradicts it.
“You only believe this canard because you have a false definition of supernaturalism and think that discovering the physical means and properties of something debunks any spiritual/metaphysical quality it may have….”
I am well aware the supernatural is beyond the natural and physical. But the supernatural can affect the natural in ways that are in principle detectable by observing the affect on the natural. No such affect on the natural world has ever been discovered. And since we know human minds believe all sorts of crazy metaphysics, there’s no logical reason to believe in the claims made by religion. It doesn’t help our knowledge and it offers no explanatory power.
“I'd rather have a faith that is proved by evidence that is proved by faith by evidence that is proved by faith by evidence that is proved by faith by evidence that is proved by faith, etc. etc. etc. Can't you hear yourself?”
“The bible is true because the Bible says it’s true” “Christianity is true, therefore Christianity is true.” Your argument is a sad parody of yourself. Think of it this way. How can we know truth? We have several options: Science, logic, faith. Science has proven itself, logic has proven itself, faith has never proven itself. Truths about the world have to be truthful irrespective of whether anyone believes in them. Naturalism is not the presupposition, it is the conclusion since faith based beliefs are contradictory in nature and are proven to be unreliable.
I've already refuted all of this again and again. You just don't realize it because you don't get the arguments I'm making. Faith has proven itself by the fact that everyone, including yourself, needs it to operate logic and science in the first place, so you're just talking nonsense now.
ReplyDeleteBut beside all of this, I want you to show me how science has disproved a metaphysical claim. I think this should be interesting.
For instance, tell me how science can prove that an illness is primarily caused by bacteria and not primarily caused by a demon using bacteria as secondary causation.
You see, you don't seem to understand supernaturalism or metaphysical claims. No supernaturalism that I know of claims to believe in something spiritual as the sole cause of a physical ailment. It believes it is the first cause using something physical as secondary causation.
That's why the plagues in Egypt are all things that are naturally a part of Egypt's experience. God doesn't make up some giant monster out of nowhere to come inflict Egypt. He uses the physical/natural realm that He made as His instrument to inflict it.
So tell me how science can disprove that. I would loooove to hear it. And if you say that science can't disprove it, then you admit to me that science can say nothing about metaphysical claims. I guess that's why they call them the "physical" sciences.
You're assuming that if we have a natural explanation then we don't need a supernatural one. But that's merely your assumption, i.e., your metaphysical belief showing itself. If the natural explanation is merely the secondary cause, then in order to understand reality as it truly is, we must understand the primary cause. Without it, taking the secondary cause as the primary cause distorts reality. So that is precisely why you have to first believe a metaphysic that cannot be proven by empiricism in order to use empiricism correctly and determine the nature of reality concerning an event or activity.
“I've already refuted all of this again and again. You just don't realize it because you don't get the arguments I'm making. Faith has proven itself by the fact that everyone, including yourself, needs it to operate logic and science in the first place, so you're just talking nonsense now.”
ReplyDeleteI get the arguments you’re making. You’re a presuppositionalist, and to feel better about yourself, you accuse everyone else of doing the same thing. But there’s simply no comparison. You’re presupposing the entirety of a particular interpretation of Christianity as your starting point. I conclude with naturalism because of the abject failure of supernaturalism as a means to make any sense of our world. Thus, my worldview, naturalism, is made after an assessment of the best possible information I have available to me.
“But beside all of this, I want you to show me how science has disproved a metaphysical claim. I think this should be interesting. For instance, tell me how science can prove that an illness is primarily caused by bacteria and not primarily caused by a demon using bacteria as secondary causation.”
LOL. Wow. Only with religion do I interact with people who cling to such ancient beliefs. This is an epic shifting of the burden of proof. Demons are intentional agents, are they not? There is no evidence that disease is intentionally caused by an external intelligence and we have a lot of evidence that its causes follow natural, predictable patters. Diseases are mostly cause by genetics, unsafe behaviors (like smoking), and living in unclean environments. Why, if demons cause disease, would they be causing diseases according to such consistent patterns that match what we’d expect if they were totally natural and were compatible with what science can predict?
“You see, you don't seem to understand supernaturalism or metaphysical claims. No supernaturalism that I know of claims to believe in something spiritual as the sole cause of a physical ailment. It believes it is the first cause using something physical as secondary causation. That's why the plagues in Egypt are all things that are naturally a part of Egypt's experience. God doesn't make up some giant monster out of nowhere to come inflict Egypt. He uses the physical/natural realm that He made as His instrument to inflict it.”
To your first point, where in the Bible does it say demons use germs to do their dirty work and why didn’t any so called prophets in the Bible warn us of this? To your second point, what evidence do you have that the Jewish enslavement in Egypt ever took place? There are absolutely no records of it – historical or archaeological, that exists outside of the Bible. Lastly, if a properly documented disaster or plague happens somewhere in the world that has a natural explanation, then there’s no need to posit a supernatural cause. The supernatural has been rendered utterly redundant because of the advances of science.
“So tell me how science can disprove that. I would loooove to hear it. And if you say that science can't disprove it, then you admit to me that science can say nothing about metaphysical claims. I guess that's why they call them the "physical" sciences.”
Well, as I mentioned above, archaeology, which is a science, has not shown any evidence for the Jewish enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, the wandering in Sinai for 40 years or a military conquest of Canaan. All the evidence points in a different direction opposed to what the Bible says. All you have is faith, which I’m glad you admit to, but faith can blindly lead one to any religion.
“You're assuming that if we have a natural explanation then we don't need a supernatural one. But that's merely your assumption, i.e., your metaphysical belief showing itself. If the natural explanation is merely the secondary cause, then in order to understand reality as it truly is, we must understand the primary cause. Without it, taking the secondary cause as the primary cause distorts reality. So that is precisely why you have to first believe a metaphysic that cannot be proven by empiricism in order to use empiricism correctly and determine the nature of reality concerning an event or activity.”
DeleteAnd you’re assuming a supernatural agent for no logical reason when we have a perfectly good natural one. In other words, your metaphysical beliefs are redundant at best and at worst they’re absurd. The burden of proof is on you. You have to demonstrate there are signs of intentionality behind the behavior of diseases and natural disasters that we know have natural causes. And besides, as I told you before, your worldview can be explained scientifically by understanding our evolutionary past. But let me briefly explain it to you so that you may understand.
Imagine that you're a hominid walking on the plains of East Africa a million years ago. You suddenly hear a rustle in the bushes. Is it a lion or just the wind? It's safer to assume that it's a lion just in case because you'll be more likely to survive if you do. But if you assume it's just the wind and it is a lion - you're lunch! It's not a mystery to see why evolution has favored the former rather than the latter. The former is a type one error, a false positive. It's assuming that there's something there that isn't. The latter is a type two error, a false negative. It's assuming that there isn't something there when there is.
Our tendency to assume that there is some intentional agency behind what is often just an unintentional natural process, is the reason many psychologists, neuroscientists and biologists believe why we created many religions and gods. You could say, in a way, that evolution has favored false positives and beliefs that were baseless in reality. This explains why religious belief persists today in so many people along with superstition. Millions of years of evolutionary development are not easily shaked off. Without the proper use of science and logic, our imaginations will run wild with far-fetched ideas.
So, to wrap things up, not only is there a stunning lack of any evidence supporting your worldview despite the extraordinary size of the claims it makes, we have good evidence against your worldview derived from the natural sciences. So I’m not assuming a metaphysic, I’m concluding a metaphysic.
You didn't answer my question. You're all hot air. You've deflected to other issues, but you STILL don't get the arguments. I just don't think you ever will. You need to understand logic in order to do it, and you simply don't.
ReplyDeleteSo let me explain it again. You conclude with naturalism because you assume naturalism. That's why you find it the most convincing. Duh. I don't find it convincing because I don't assume it.
Again, I don't know how many ways I can explain this. You think there is no other reason to posit a supernatural cause, but that begs the question. The question is not whether you have a need to posit another cause. The question is whether there is. If reality has a supernatural force as the primary cause, and you stop at the natural one as the primary, then you have distorted reality and have a warped knowledge of it. The same holds true if there is no supernatural cause and I assume there is. Ergo, it simply observing that there is a natural cause, and you don't need to go any further as a naturalist, isn't evaluating whether there is a primary supernatural cause. It's just assuming your conclusion within your presuppositional belief system. Your faith is strong.
I knew you couldn't use science to evaluate a metaphysic. What you're doing is merely assuming your metaphysic, begging the question, and then lying to yourself and others by saying that you're just concluding such because there is a lack of evidence.
Evidence is data. You interpret it with your metaphysic, so there is no lack of evidence for any belief system. There is only the belief system that drives it to its conclusions.
" I conclude with naturalism because of the abject failure of supernaturalism as a means to make any sense of our world."
It makes no sense to one entrenched in his philosophic naturalism and bows at that altar. It makes perfect sense to me and most of the world. You're again leading with your conclusions, and as such, just making wild assertions.
"There is no evidence that disease is intentionally caused by an external intelligence and we have a lot of evidence that its causes follow natural, predictable patters."
You mean you don't have any empirical experience of a metaphysical being. How would that be possible in the first place? By what measuring stick would you measure evidence for something that is not physical? Again, you're clueless as to how ridiculous you sound when you try to argue that science has proven that an ailment cannot be caused by a demon using a natural cause because we know that there is a natural cause involved. That's a non sequitur. How many logical fallacies are you going to rack up today?
You can explain my worldview within your philosophical framework because all religions can do that. Here's mine for yours.
ReplyDeletePeople were made by God but then wanted to be god. They thus rebelled and came up with as many religions and worldviews as they could to calm themselves from the guilt and impending judgment that they knew would take place for their evil. The pinnacle of that is atheism which gets rid of God altogether. The atheist assumes this position and tries to posture himself as being smart for doing it and everyone else as dumb for not because he's trying to psychologically appease himself. He wants to comfort himself that he is OK for living life in such a godless manner. Hence, atheism is a psychological disorder that distorts reality, thought up to drown out the convicting voice of the Holy Spirit that the individual's evils are shameful and condemned by a Holy God.
See how that works?
In case you didn't understand the first sentence, let me expound on it. You can fit all data into your worldview because data does not create the worldview. The worldview interprets the data. That's why your assumed, unprovable, unwarranted metaphysical beliefs come first and everything else is argued from them.
DeleteIn my assumed metaphysic, God is properly basic, and you need Him for logic and the predictability of scientific laws to function. Hence, your view, in my view, is complete nonsense that does not make sense of our world and attempts to argue that if you see a scalpel performing surgery, there is no need to posit a surgeon. To do so, in your absurd view, would be redundant.
"So, to wrap things up, not only is there a stunning lack of any evidence supporting your worldview despite the extraordinary size of the claims it makes, we have good evidence against your worldview derived from the natural sciences. So I’m not assuming a metaphysic, I’m concluding a metaphysic."
DeleteSo, to wrap things up, not only is there a stunning lack of any evidence supporting your worldview despite the extraordinary size of the claims it makes, we have good evidence against your worldview derived from universality of the laws of logic and the natural sciences. So I’m not only assuming a metaphysic, I’m concluding a metaphysic by assuming a metaphysic, which is what everyone does, including you. You just are clueless about it, and your continual immersion in garbage quality arguments found in books published by Prometheus Press are evidence of how much you haven't thought about this issue, but are being spoon fed self defeaters.
Oh boy. One more time. I don’t conclude with naturalism because I assume naturalism. I conclude with naturalism because supernaturalism fails to help me understand anything meaningful about reality. It’s in direct conflict with what we know about the natural world and if I assumed it to be true, I’d have to suffer from massive cognitive dissonance. You’ve offered absolutely no good reasons why I should even consider supernaturalism given its already demonstrated abject failure.
ReplyDelete“The question is not whether you have a need to posit another cause. The question is whether there is. If reality has a supernatural force as the primary cause, and you stop at the natural one as the primary, then you have distorted reality and have a warped knowledge of it.”
If there’s no need, you’re admitting that your whole worldview is irrelevant, it’s superfluous. It’s like wearing a jacket on a day that’s 90 degrees. It’s just useless. Not only that, it’s going to cause you problems. “If reality has a supernatural force as the primary cause…” Yeah, what reason do you have to believe that? Does that help me explain what causes disease or help me predict their future occurrence? It’s just an extra layer of redundant nonsense that you add to keep your worldview afloat.
You know back when science was called natural philosophy, there were supernatural hypotheses abound. Over the years it became evident that they were all ultimately useless and actually hurt the progress of science. And one by one they were falsified with natural explanations. Now you want to cling to the idea that earthquakes and floods and diseases are really caused by demons that use natural forces to achieve it. And yet, they all occur according to consistent natural predictions with absolutely no sign that there’s any intelligence behind their existence. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is.
“I knew you couldn't use science to evaluate a metaphysic. What you're doing is merely assuming your metaphysic, begging the question, and then lying to yourself and others by saying that you're just concluding such because there is a lack of evidence.”
You know ever since you got hit on the head as a kid you’ve been unable to make a good logical argument. It’s too bad. You admit that the supernatural has nothing going for it, except in wishful thinking in hoping that it is exists, and being content with imagining that it does exist, when it fails even on logical grounds to be useful or practical.
“You mean you don't have any empirical experience of a metaphysical being. How would that be possible in the first place? By what measuring stick would you measure evidence for something that is not physical?”
You don’t even have logical grounds for assuming that demons walk among us and are causing havoc. When I said “evidence” you assumed I only meant empirical evidence, that’s your fallacy. You have no evidence whatsoever.
“People were made by God but then wanted to be god…”
You embody the self-loathing masochistic Christian ethic quite well. Again, this is another fallacious exercise. Plenty of people call themselves “Christians” while knowingly “sin” everyday. Most people become atheists due to how absurd and untenable theism is when examined. Yeah, I’m so ashamed to be insulting the imaginary god who lives in your head. Muslims say the same exact thing about Christians. In order for your worldview to make sense, you have to deny scientific data and logic, thus, far from having a metaphysic where you can claim the copyrights to science and logic, you worldview is actual opposed to them. How ironic.
All I hear are the desperate attempts from a man who knows he’s losing an argument, who knows his worldview is not the one supported by the evidence, and whose only defense is to proudly admit that he presupposes everything he believes in on faith, with NO evidence, and he tries to drag everyone else into his boat, because I guess misery does indeed love company.
" I don’t conclude with naturalism because I assume naturalism. I conclude with naturalism because supernaturalism fails to help me understand anything meaningful about reality."
ReplyDeleteYou can't hear yourself. You only know whether it helps you understand reality if you know what reality is first. You only know the nature of reality if you assume a metaphysic that is a belief about the nature of reality. Hence, you have to assume naturalism in order to conclude naturalism and make the comment you just did. Wake up and follow the logic.
"It’s in direct conflict with what we know about the natural world and if I assumed it to be true, I’d have to suffer from massive cognitive dissonance."
No it isn't. The problem is that it's in direct conflict with what you think you know about the natural world given your metaphysical assumptions. Everyone can see that but you and your cult of blind followers.
"If there’s no need, you’re admitting that your whole worldview is irrelevant, it’s superfluous. It’s like wearing a jacket on a day that’s 90 degrees. It’s just useless. Not only that, it’s going to cause you problems. “If reality has a supernatural force as the primary cause…” Yeah, what reason do you have to believe that? Does that help me explain what causes disease or help me predict their future occurrence?"
No, you once again don't get it. There is no need to argue for anything more or less given one's worldview. The issue is what is real, not what one CAN conclude given his assumptions. Your argument is fallacious. You assume that anything more than the least common denominator is useless. It's only useless if it doesn't describe reality. Your view of reducing causation to empirically verifiable causes is useless in describing reality if there really is a primary supernatural cause. So you're argument is bogus.
Second to this, if the primary cause is spiritual, then both a supernatural remedy and a natural remedy may work. In fact, a natural remedy may be aided by a supernatural one like prayer. You have no way of evaluating such. You just have to believe that it doesn't. So be it. That's your blind faith.
Third, if I were to assume that all I need to do is look to the instrument for causation, rather than what may be using the instrument as the primary cause, I would actually have a completely absurd view of the world. Computers with no programmer, scalpels with no doctors, cars with no drivers, etc. Your argument suggests that if I find an instrument I have no need to find an operator, and to posit such is ad hoc. Nonsense.
"And one by one they were falsified with natural explanations. Now you want to cling to the idea that earthquakes and floods and diseases are really caused by demons that use natural forces to achieve it. And yet, they all occur according to consistent natural predictions with absolutely no sign that there’s any intelligence behind their existence. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is."
ReplyDeleteAgain, you're just asserting something that any thinking man knows to be untrue. You're clearly not a scientist nor a philosopher. Science hasn't falsified supernatural hypotheses because it can't. Your scientism has taken you to an absurd position of believing that science has actually explained away what science cannot examine at all. If science cannot examine something, and that makes it invalid and irrelevant, then empirical verificationism via science is invalid and irrelevant. Again, you just don't get it. You're too influenced by people who only think they understand this argument. Think again. "Thinker."
"You know ever since you got hit on the head as a kid you’ve been unable to make a good logical argument."
I can turn this around on you and say the same thing. If humans are determined to believe according to survival, and there is no universal laws governing logic that stem from an objective and transcendent mind, you have no way of knowing anything. You are the kid hit on the head. Your finitude of both potential and experience renders your experience and our ability to evaluate it worthless. The fact that others who are all like you and have been hit in the head by that same finite rock and conclude as you do only proves the point, You're without the ability to know. But lucky for me I believe we can know by faith. You don't. You think we can only know via empiricism and hence we need transcendence to know. You're out of luck on that one, aren't you?
"You don’t even have logical grounds for assuming that demons walk among us and are causing havoc. When I said “evidence” you assumed I only meant empirical evidence, that’s your fallacy. You have no evidence whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteLogic functions from a faith based position. Hence, I have plenty of logical grounds to speak about demons from my worldview. You're getting sloppy with your assertions. I don't have empirical grounds that I can take to a lab and observe. I never said I did. That was my whole point. It's metaphysical and cannot be known, as your metaphysical hypotheses cannot be known, through physical observation. That's not the same as logic and reason.
"In order for your worldview to make sense, you have to deny scientific data and logic, thus, far from having a metaphysic where you can claim the copyrights to science and logic, you worldview is actual opposed to them. How ironic."
Where has my worldview denied scientific data and logic? That's your cult's problem. It confuses your faith in your worldview, and the subsequent interpretation of the data with your worldview, with the data itself. That's not only erroneous in terms of epistemology, it's just bad scholarship.
"All I hear are the desperate attempts from a man who knows he’s losing an argument, who knows his worldview is not the one supported by the evidence, and whose only defense is to proudly admit that he presupposes everything he believes in on faith, with NO evidence, and he tries to drag everyone else into his boat, because I guess misery does indeed love company."
All I hear are the desperate attempts from a man who knows he's losing an argument, who knows his worldview is not the one supported by the evidence, as evidence needs a worldview to interpret it in the first place, and whose only defense is to hold onto an untenable idea that uninterpreted data gives him a worldview by which he can interpret the data once he's interpreted the data. You have no evidence of your metaphysical views. You have absolute blind faith with nothing to back it up. You merely reason from your religion, one which you are not even savvy enough to notice that you have. I hardly therefore would trust your analysis of another person's religion if you cannot even recognize your own.
“You can't hear yourself. You only know whether it helps you understand reality if you know what reality is first. You only know the nature of reality if you assume a metaphysic that is a belief about the nature of reality. Hence, you have to assume naturalism in order to conclude naturalism and make the comment you just did. Wake up and follow the logic.”
ReplyDeleteYour entire reality exists inside your head. What matters is whose worldview is better supported by what we can all experience in the external world. Mine is, yours isn’t. You can’t even provide any evidence that yours is true, or that it is even well supported logically. If there is absolutely no reason to assume the supernatural for me to make logical sense of the world around me, and that includes what we know empirically and logically, then the supernatural is metaphysical baggage. And no, I’m not going to imagine that demons exist just to try to justify supernaturalism, that’s circular.
“No it isn't. The problem is that it's in direct conflict with what you think you know about the natural world given your metaphysical assumptions. Everyone can see that but you and your cult of blind followers.”
Give me a few good reasons to consider that Christianity is true. Tell me how it better explains reality. I’m open to the possibility that there’s some kind of supernatural dimension. I just don’t have a reason to.
“No, you once again don't get it. There is no need to argue for anything more or less given one's worldview. The issue is what is real, not what one CAN conclude given his assumptions. Your argument is fallacious. You assume that anything more than the least common denominator is useless. It's only useless if it doesn't describe reality. Your view of reducing causation to empirically verifiable causes is useless in describing reality if there really is a primary supernatural cause. So you're argument is bogus.”
Yeah, “IF” there really is a primary supernatural cause. You haven’t been able to make a good argument to show that your worldview is anything but redundant. That’s why it’s fallacious.
“Second to this, if the primary cause is spiritual, then both a supernatural remedy and a natural remedy may work. In fact, a natural remedy may be aided by a supernatural one like prayer. You have no way of evaluating such. You just have to believe that it doesn't. So be it. That's your blind faith.”
Again there’s big “if” here. There’s never been any empirical study to show that prayer works and if it did it would have effects on the physical world that are verifiable. There’s never been any study whatsoever to show that it does. The lord doesn’t work in mysterious ways, he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. The burden of proof is on you to show that primary causes are supernatural. And so far you’ve failed miserably.
“Third, if I were to assume that all I need to do is look to the instrument for causation, rather than what may be using the instrument as the primary cause, I would actually have a completely absurd view of the world. Computers with no programmer, scalpels with no doctors, cars with no drivers, etc. Your argument suggests that if I find an instrument I have no need to find an operator, and to posit such is ad hoc. Nonsense.”
Fallacious analogy. We know computers have builders because we can empirically observe it. Natural forces that follow the laws of physics EVERY single time without any deviation need not be posited some “mind” behind them that controls them. It’s unbelievably redundant. Such a “mind” would be completely useless because it would be indistinguishable from purely natural unguided forces. There’s a reason why most scientists are not fundamentalists theists – you make horrible scientists and would retrogress our knowledge.
“Again, you're just asserting something that any thinking man knows to be untrue. You're clearly not a scientist nor a philosopher. Science hasn't falsified supernatural hypotheses because it can't. Your scientism has taken you to an absurd position of believing that science has actually explained away what science cannot examine at all. If science cannot examine something, and that makes it invalid and irrelevant, then empirical verificationism via science is invalid and irrelevant. Again, you just don't get it. You're too influenced by people who only think they understand this argument. Think again. "Thinker."
ReplyDeleteI never said science has falsified supernatural hypotheses, I said they are useless and never helped scientists gain information, therefore they are never used. I’m not scientistic, scientism is the view that we should ONLY believe to be true that which can be scientifically proven. I made no such claim. Your fundamentalism cuts science off from domains that it does reach into. That’s why your worldview is incompatible with our knowledge of science today. And now you want to say science is irrelevant. Great world view you have! It fits right in with your other beliefs since they’re in conflict with science – just deny science. And I'm an empiricist only to the extent that I privilege sense data over logically derived data because data derived from observation and experiment has been shown to violate classical common sense notions of logic. For example, no armchair logician could ever have deduced the logic behind quantum mechanics. Only through observation and experiment could we know such things to be true.
Everything else you said sound like the sad ramblings of a man who knows his worldview is unsupported by anything other than faith.
“I can turn this around on you and say the same thing. If humans are determined to believe according to survival, and there is no universal laws governing logic that stem from an objective and transcendent mind, you have no way of knowing anything….But lucky for me I believe we can know by faith. You don't. You think we can only know via empiricism and hence we need transcendence to know. You're out of luck on that one, aren't you?”
Yeah, you believe on unsupported faith that you can know by faith. I’m so tired of hearing your circular reasoning. Knowing by faith has been demonstrated to be unreliable. You still have yet to make a case that faith is a reliable means by which metaphysical truths can be gained or any truths. And now, for the last time I don’t rely solely on empiricism. Have you not heard anything I said past couple of days? In epistemology we've basically got two ways of gaining factual knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. The former is logical and the latter is empirical. And I’ve already refuted the notion that logic comes from a mind.
“Logic functions from a faith based position. Hence, I have plenty of logical grounds to speak about demons from my worldview. You're getting sloppy with your assertions. I don't have empirical grounds that I can take to a lab and observe. I never said I did. That was my whole point. It's metaphysical and cannot be known, as your metaphysical hypotheses cannot be known, through physical observation. That's not the same as logic and reason.”
Your logic basically looks like this: “the demons in my head are real because in my worldview I’ve decided they’re real, therefore I know they’re real. I don’t need evidence. My faith is evidence. If you don’t see the demons in my worldview you’re being close minded. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that demons control everything is wrong and needs to throw out science and logic. I don’t care if we have natural explanations or if there’s no evidence for my views, demons are real because my beliefs say they are real. And don’t ask me for any evidence, my worldview strictly forbids it….”
“Where has my worldview denied scientific data and logic? That's your cult's problem. It confuses your faith in your worldview, and the subsequent interpretation of the data with your worldview, with the data itself. That's not only erroneous in terms of epistemology, it's just bad scholarship.”
ReplyDeleteCult? Ha ha. Tell that to your brethren worshiping a human sacrifice. So you fully accept we live in a 13.8 billion year old universe and that humans slowly evolved over billions of years and that there never was an Adam and Eve? Really? How do you fit that into your conservative Christian worldview?
“All I hear are the desperate attempts from a man who knows he's losing an argument, who knows his worldview is not the one supported by the evidence, as evidence needs a worldview to interpret it in the first place, and whose only defense is to hold onto an untenable idea that uninterpreted data gives him a worldview by which he can interpret the data once he's interpreted the data. You have no evidence of your metaphysical views.…..”
All this amounts to is saying “I know you are but what am I.” Are you in grade school? And you say I have no evidence of my metaphysical views? Really? Your only evidence is a lack of evidence. It only exists in your head. Religion has never once painted an accurate picture of the world. We have plenty of good evidence of the abject failure of supernaturalism at being a useful guide at making sense of our world. I don't assume a metaphysic that the natural world is all that exists, I conclude that the natural world is all that exists because religious faith in the supernatural as an epistemology has shown itself to be inept at making sense of the world we live in. Not believing in demons and gods is not a religion, it’s merely the recognition that we have no evidence that such beings exist. Your only evidence lies in your imagination, i.e. it is literally all in your head. Sorry buddy, I stopped having imaginary friends long ago. But from the looks of your rhetoric, it appears you're still in grade school.
"Your entire reality exists inside your head. What matters is whose worldview is better supported by what we can all experience in the external world. Mine is, yours isn’t. You can’t even provide any evidence that yours is true, or that it is even well supported logically. If there is absolutely no reason to assume the supernatural for me to make logical sense of the world around me, and that includes what we know empirically and logically, then the supernatural is metaphysical baggage. And no, I’m not going to imagine that demons exist just to try to justify supernaturalism, that’s circular."
ReplyDeleteYou don't even see the cicularity in your argument. You're begging the question by saying, "What matters is whose worldview is better supported by what we can all experience in the external world." In other words, what matters is the naturalistic assumptions you believe are true in order to believe that what matters is the naturalistic assumptions you believe to be true. You have no argument.
"Give me a few good reasons to consider that Christianity is true. Tell me how it better explains reality. I’m open to the possibility that there’s some kind of supernatural dimension. I just don’t have a reason to."
The best explanation for what happened with Christianity is that Christ actually rose from the dead. The laws of logic and science need transcendence to function universally. God must be triune if He is a loving being by nature. The universe is ordered and finely tuned rather than going from chaos to a chanced order immediately back to chaos. The chances that chaos and chance would create such a universe is a practical impossibility. The fact that minds have risen from matter and chance is nonsensical. On and on and on it goes. There are a lot of reasons to suggest Christianity is true. But you have to believe, as anything else, in order to see. Like all things, including atheism, you cannot see in order to believe. That's not how our knowledge works.
"Yeah, “IF” there really is a primary supernatural cause. You haven’t been able to make a good argument to show that your worldview is anything but redundant. That’s why it’s fallacious."
We're just going round and round because you don't get it. Your argument from redundancy is irrelevant to what is true. An operator on a computer is redundant since the cause can be attributed to the computer, but it is often wrong to assume such a thing. There is nothing fallacious about redundancy, even if that were a true charge, as we're discussing the nature of reality, not what every reality would essentially need (of course, I don't think it is. Until now, I've merely been on the defensive. I haven't argued strongly for my offensive position yet). That's assuming that in all possible worlds, the only explanation is that of whatever mind perceives. That's like arguing that there is no need to believe that chocolate ice cream exists because someone has only ever experienced vanilla in his refrigerator. You cannot argue from what is to what is not. You can only include what is among the category of what is known to exist. It cannot exclude other things that may exist simply because it is not necessary in a particular worldview to believe anything else exists.
"Again there’s big “if” here."
Yes, that's the POINT! The "If" is the belief. "If" your metaphysical beliefs are true, then what you say here about empiricism needing to verify this or that may be valid (actually, it's likely still fallacious, as you cannot argue from what is to what is not), but "if" your metaphysical beliefs are false, then your reliance on empiricism to evaluate all things is misplaced. So the entirety of your objection rises or falls on metaphysical beliefs you hold that cannot be verified by the very empiricism and experience you give exclusive right to judge such matters. That was my original point.
"Fallacious analogy. We know computers have builders because we can empirically observe it. Natural forces that follow the laws of physics EVERY single time without any deviation need not be posited some “mind” behind them that controls them."
ReplyDeleteActually, the analogy is solid. You simply misidentified to what the analogy referred. I was not comparing empirically verifiable things with empirically unverifiable things. Then it would be a false analogy. I was, instead, however, showing that the argument from redundancy and reducing all things to secondary causes is fallacious.
"It’s unbelievably redundant. Such a “mind” would be completely useless because it would be indistinguishable from purely natural unguided forces."
Again, your argument form redundancy is fallacious and the fact that you cannot distinguish such a mind from natural unguided forces is precisely my point. That's why you have to believe first. Of course, I would argue that it's not entirely accurate to say such, since unguided natural forces should have no uniformity to them. There should be no universal laws that predict this or that to be the case, and science would therefore be impossible. But my point is that for the believer, he can only believe a metaphysic that produces naturalism or one that is supernatural in nature. There is nothing empirically verifiable to distinguish the two.
"I never said science has falsified supernatural hypotheses, I said they are useless and never helped scientists gain information, therefore they are never used."
They are useless for what? Examining the physical nature of something? Are they useless for examining the metaphysical world? Because you can't do that with science. Yet, every scientist on earth is forever using an assumed knowledge of the metaphysical world each and every day. So you're just flat out wrong because you don't understand how knowledge is obtained.
"I’m not scientistic, scientism is the view that we should ONLY believe to be true that which can be scientifically proven."
No, it isn't. It's the view that we can only KNOW and confirm what is true through science and reason that uses science. That's exactly what you've been arguing. If it isn't, your objections that supernaturalism has never been useful to a scientist or that there is no need to believe something about causation in the world where science has already identified a cause all fall flat.
"Your fundamentalism cuts science off from domains that it does reach into."
No, your beef is with most philosophers in major universities. That's why the belief that empirical verificationism as the only valid means through which knowledge can be obtained or used by reason to obtain has been rejected by them. It cannot verify its own metaphysical presuppositions.
"That’s why your worldview is incompatible with our knowledge of science today."
Nope. Nice try. It's incompatible with your unscientific worldview, not science. You sound like an infomercial in your use of the term "science."
"And now you want to say science is irrelevant."
No, I never said science is irrelevant. That would be absurd. I said it is irrelevant when one is attempting to evaluate metaphysical claims. It not only does not reach into those areas, but it must assume them in order for its conclusions about reality to be valid.
"Great world view you have!"
ReplyDeleteThanks! I thought it was pretty good myself. That's why it understands these issues much better than neo-atheists who don't seem to understand how knowledge is obtained.
"It fits right in with your other beliefs since they’re in conflict with science – just deny science."
What other beliefs? Again, assertion isn't argument. That's Logic 101.
"And I'm an empiricist only to the extent that I privilege sense data over logically derived data because data derived from observation and experiment has been shown to violate classical common sense notions of logic. For example, no armchair logician could ever have deduced the logic behind quantum mechanics. Only through observation and experiment could we know such things to be true."
Yeah, that's what an empiricist is. So you're a full-blown empiricist, which is what adherents to scientism are. You have an identity crisis going on here. You need to get better acquainted with yourself.
Your example is a great analogy for me. If science sometimes proves that reality is different than logic would dictate, then that means that reality cannot be acquired through reason. Yet, if we are discussing an area like metaphysics that cannot be accessed by science, then we are without knowledge of the reality of that area. If that is true, all we have is belief to access it. Right or wrong, it's all we have. From there, we can move out with logic and science, but not before. That has been my point this entire time.
"Everything else you said sound like the sad ramblings of a man who knows his worldview is unsupported by anything other than faith."
ReplyDeleteLOL. Everything else you say sounds like the sad ramblings of a man who doesn't realize that his worldview is unsupported by anything other than faith.
"Knowing by faith has been demonstrated to be unreliable."
LOL. If they've been demonstrated to be such, it hasn't been by you. You haven't demonstrated a single thing.
"You still have yet to make a case that faith is a reliable means by which metaphysical truths can be gained or any truths."
Yes, I have, because with each sentence you create about your conclusions they prove the very thing I've argued. In other words, you're making my argument for me. Keep going.
"And now, for the last time I don’t rely solely on empiricism. Have you not heard anything I said past couple of days? In epistemology we've basically got two ways of gaining factual knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. The former is logical and the latter is empirical. And I’ve already refuted the notion that logic comes from a mind."
1. Logic functions on a priori assumptions. A priori assumptions are only logical on that basis. What you want to argue is that you use logic to verify your a priori assumptions. But that's precisely the problem of your empiricism. You must use sensory data gained from human experience in order to reason because our reason is analogical. Ergo, both science and reason must be empirically oriented in your view if it is to be valid. Such is nonsense. You assume via faith your a priori assumptions that cannot be proven and supported by reason, and then we reason from there. That's the way it works. That's what you don't get. You think your presuppositions themselves are evidenced based, as though the evidence does not need them to be interpreted within your worldview to begin with.
"“the demons in my head are real because in my worldview I’ve decided they’re real, therefore I know they’re real. I don’t need evidence. My faith is evidence. If you don’t see the demons in my worldview you’re being close minded. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that demons control everything is wrong and needs to throw out science and logic. I don’t care if we have natural explanations or if there’s no evidence for my views, demons are real because my beliefs say they are real. And don’t ask me for any evidence, my worldview strictly forbids it….”
ReplyDeleteHahaha. I knew your reading skills were really hurting your ability to follow my argument, but wow.
1. I never argued that I make stuff up in my head. That's what your worldview does. I have faith in the report of the Bible and reason from there.
2. No one argued that faith is evidence. If you've been paying attention, you would have read that I said that faith must interpret evidence and therefore cannot be established upon it. Faith isn't evidence. It is superior to it.
3. I gave demons as an example. I wasn't arguing for demons. That's a different argument. But beside all that, you're just emoting now. That's a tell-tale sign that you realize you've lost the argument.
"So you fully accept we live in a 13.8 billion year old universe and that humans slowly evolved over billions of years and that there never was an Adam and Eve? Really? How do you fit that into your conservative Christian worldview?"
Actually, my worldview makes me much more critical and causes me to think through issues much more than yours. In your view, you need scientists to function as popes and current consensus to function as Scripture for you. The skeptic in me sees how finite humans are, how they, like you, are completely oblivious as to how they come to their conclusions, and that scientific consensus is constantly changing. I, therefore, would never speak absolutely on issues that are more historical, and function more like metaphysical beliefs than physical objects, than do things like rockets and medicine. So I remain agnostic on some of those issues, where I believe the Bible isn't really speaking, and believe the report of the Bible, where I believe it actually does speak, on others.
"All this amounts to is saying “I know you are but what am I.”
Exactly. I'm glad you got my point. I said it because I can say it, just like you can say it. That's because you're the pot calling the kettle black. You think you have evidence for something that is incapable of being supported by evidence and yet you continue to act as though you do no such thing. The amount of self deception is astounding.
"Are you in grade school? And you say I have no evidence of my metaphysical views? Really? Your only evidence is a lack of evidence. It only exists in your head. Religion has never once painted an accurate picture of the world."
Which you can only say if you know what an accurate picture of the world is, and you can only know what the accurate picture of the world is if you assume a worldview that lacks any evidence for itself in order to then interpret all things as evidence for it. You just don't get it and it's clear you're not going to.
"We have plenty of good evidence of the abject failure of supernaturalism at being a useful guide at making sense of our world."
Keep repeating this over and over and over again. Maybe you'll actually convince yourself that it's true. But it just isn't.
ReplyDelete"I don't assume a metaphysic that the natural world is all that exists, I conclude that the natural world is all that exists because religious faith in the supernatural as an epistemology has shown itself to be inept at making sense of the world we live in."
And you conclude that because religious faith in the supernatural doesn't make sense in a world interpreted by a naturalistic worldview, which is precisely why you DO assume a naturalistic metaphysic. I can't believe you are this clueless and don't get that simple observation.
"Not believing in demons and gods is not a religion, it’s merely the recognition that we have no evidence that such beings exist."
Evidence interpreted by a naturalistic worldview that assumes that there is no evidence for it at the get go, since all evidence has to be physical and these are metaphysical claims.
"Your only evidence lies in your imagination, i.e. it is literally all in your head."
Actually, it's in the Bible. I have faith in the report. Your worldview is completely imaginary and made up in your head. You cannot come up with it in any other way.
"Sorry buddy, I stopped having imaginary friends long ago. But from the looks of your rhetoric, it appears you're still in grade school."
I thought I would speak in a language you would understand, but next time I'll try for preschool and hope that you can get some of my arguments.
“You don't even see the cicularity in your argument. You're begging the question by saying, "What matters is whose worldview is better supported by what we can all experience in the external world." In other words, what matters is the naturalistic assumptions you believe are true in order to believe that what matters is the naturalistic assumptions you believe to be true. You have no argument.”
ReplyDeleteNo I’ve already answered that question. Religious faith as a means to know truths about the external world is about as reliable as guesswork. It has proven itself to be inept and an abject failure at making sense of our world. Your methodology for making sense of reality is pretty much entirely founded on the worst possible way one could explain reality. That’s why your worldview is completely and utterly absurd.
What you do, is believe in the supernatural first, then justify methodological supernaturalism from your already presupposed belief in the supernatural, so that it merely affirms your already existent belief in it. What I do is I’ve considered methodological supernaturalism compared with methodological naturalism, and naturalism far better explains the world we live in. Supernaturalism has never shown itself to compare explanatorily with naturalism. All it has ever shown itself to be, is completely redundant. You have to presuppose its existence, in order to justify its existence. Such is not the case with naturalism. With naturalism, one can determine it is the better of the two methodologies without presupposing any of them to be true. The only way one can do the same with supernaturalism is to presuppose its existence first, then justify it later. Your worldview is therefore epistemologically closed. (I.e. You believe the Bible is, by definition, a complete epistemological foundation -- it is unchanging; all the facts about reality are in. If it's in the Bible, it is a fact; if it's not in the Bible it’s not a fact.) Empiricism is epistemologically open. We may always get new perceptions that may radically change our conception of ontology.
“The best explanation for what happened with Christianity is that Christ actually rose from the dead. The laws of logic and science need transcendence to function universally. God must be triune if He is a loving being by nature. The universe is ordered and finely tuned rather than going from chaos to a chanced order immediately back to chaos. …. Like all things, including atheism, you cannot see in order to believe. That's not how our knowledge works.”
Now this is better than presupposing Christianity is true on faith. But according to your methodology the best explanation to explain Islam’s rapid spread is that Mohammad really did hear the angel Gabriel, and that Joseph Smith really did hear the angel Moroni. But in actuality, best explanation is always a natural one, because a miracle by definition is the least likely explanation.
“We're just going round and round because you don't get it. Your argument from redundancy is irrelevant to what is true. An operator on a computer is redundant since the cause can be attributed to the computer, but it is often wrong to assume such a thing. There is nothing fallacious about redundancy, … You cannot argue from what is to what is not. You can only include what is among the category of what is known to exist. It cannot exclude other things that may exist simply because it is not necessary in a particular worldview to believe anything else exists.”
Oh Right. I’m somehow irrational because I won’t believe in invisible demons that control everything in ways that are indistinguishable from natural forces. Sure…
We know empirically that computer programmers exist, we know no such thing about demons. So yeah, I can rule them out as simply a product of your imagination with the same ease that you rule out bigfoot and alien abductions.
“Yes, that's the POINT! The "If" is the belief. "If" your metaphysical beliefs are true, then what you say here about empiricism needing to verify this or that may be valid (actually, it's likely still fallacious, as you cannot argue from what is to what is not), but "if" your metaphysical beliefs are false, then your reliance on empiricism to evaluate all things is misplaced. So the entirety of your objection rises or falls on metaphysical beliefs you hold that cannot be verified by the very empiricism and experience you give exclusive right to judge such matters. That was my original point.”
ReplyDeleteWe can absolutely argue what is not from what is. We do this all the time in our criminal justice system and our everyday lives. Being reasonable would be impossible without it. Otherwise, we would let our imaginations run wild like animists did (for which we have good scientific explanations why that evolved and occurred.) And you cannot simply just dismiss my explanation why we tend to believe things that aren’t there, you have to break it down and show how it’s wrong. Given that we know why people tend to attribute agency to natural causes, your whole worldview basically falls apart, as does every other religion’s. So I have justified my worldview a lot better than yours. Yours pretty much relies entirely on faith even when there’s good evidence against that faith.
“Actually, the analogy is solid. You simply misidentified to what the analogy referred. I was not comparing empirically verifiable things with empirically unverifiable things. Then it would be a false analogy. I was, instead, however, showing that the argument from redundancy and reducing all things to secondary causes is fallacious.”
No the analogy was false, you were indeed comparing empirically verifiable things like doctors with scalpels and cars with drivers to believing that forces that we can fully explain as the result of mindless natural laws are somehow “really” being controlled by some animating intelligence. You have no evidence that there is a primary supernatural force, it’s literally just an idea in your head. Again, your “supernatural” cause is indistinguishable from predictable natural forces. In other words, its supposed existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence.
“Again, your argument form redundancy is fallacious and the fact that you cannot distinguish such a mind from natural unguided forces is precisely my point.…But my point is that for the believer, he can only believe a metaphysic that produces naturalism or one that is supernatural in nature. There is nothing empirically verifiable to distinguish the two.”
No my argument from redundancy is extremely warranted. Your animist tendencies are fallacious. If we can fully explain things in a completely natural manner and never once have a deviation, I think the case for naturalism is pretty strong. It takes a lot more faith to believe that the naturalist is wrong and the supernaturalist’s redundant beliefs that bear a striking resemblance to our animist ancestors, which can also be explained evolutionarily, are somehow right.
“They are useless for what? Examining the physical nature of something? Are they useless for examining the metaphysical world? Because you can't do that with science. Yet, every scientist on earth is forever using an assumed knowledge of the metaphysical world each and every day. So you're just flat out wrong because you don't understand how knowledge is obtained.”
ReplyDeleteThey are useless for explaining anything in our world. The evidence for the metaphysical world you believe in lies literally in your head. It never affects the physical world in any way we cannot explain naturally, and to a scientist it’s useless and redundant. It may give you spiritual pleasure. Fine. Just don’t impose that on society unless you can find good evidence for it that is accessible to other people. And no, scientists used to assume everything was supernatural in nature centuries ago. This view never held up under scrutiny. Tell me then how knowledge – true factual knowledge – is obtained then. List your methodologies from best to worse. Do it without begging the question.
“No, it isn't. It's the view that we can only KNOW and confirm what is true through science and reason that uses science. That's exactly what you've been arguing. If it isn't, your objections that supernaturalism has never been useful to a scientist or that there is no need to believe something about causation in the world where science has already identified a cause all fall flat.”
You’re definition agrees with mine when you said “that uses science” because your definition admits that scientism only allows science as a means for truth, but it rejects logic apart from science. Thus you falsely accuse me of scientism. And the thing is, in order for something to be considered true in the ontological sense, it has to be empirically or logically verifiable. Otherwise it isn’t truth. There is no good reason to still cling to animist beliefs like what you have. They neither help us explain anything useful nor do they even make logical sense.
“No, your beef is with most philosophers in major universities. That's why the belief that empirical verificationism as the only valid means through which knowledge can be obtained or used by reason to obtain has been rejected by them. It cannot verify its own metaphysical presuppositions.”
In the epistemological sense, empirical verificationism is by far the most reliable methodology to know what exists from what doesn’t. And as I’ve been saying, religious faith as a means to know truths about reality is an abject failure. So your whole worldview is based on the worse possible method of trying to know the truth. The Biblical view of the history of the world has been falsified by science, yet you still cling to it only through denying the scientific facts. Thus, your worldview forces you to deny the evidences of your own senses.
“Nope. Nice try. It's incompatible with your unscientific worldview, not science. You sound like an infomercial in your use of the term "science."”
LOL. I’m unscientific? Hilarious. You still believe we all descended from Adam and Eve on nothing but faith, even though science has proven they never existed. Show me how science, history and archaeology support the biblical narrative, I need a good laugh.
“No, I never said science is irrelevant. That would be absurd. I said it is irrelevant when one is attempting to evaluate metaphysical claims. It not only does not reach into those areas, but it must assume them in order for its conclusions about reality to be valid.”
ReplyDeleteIf I accept your use of the term metaphysical, then your supernatural claims are indeed beyond what science can directly confirm or deny. But the metaphysical beliefs you have, have implications on the physical world. (E.g. demons are real and they affect the physical world, and the biblical narrative is historically true.) Science and archaeology does cover the effects on the physical world that are implied from your supernatural beliefs. But they are at odds with one another and science tells us the origins of why we believe such supernatural things. Given this, and many others, your worldview is about as tenable as the witch doctor casting our demons in modern day Haiti. You just have a degree in pseudoscience.
“Thanks! I thought it was pretty good myself. That's why it understands these issues much better than neo-atheists who don't seem to understand how knowledge is obtained.”
By all means I’m still waiting to hear a really good case how knowledge is obtained. And I mean factual knowledge.
“What other beliefs? Again, assertion isn't argument. That's Logic 101.”
Really, then why have you been asserting an enormous metaphysical claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up? What’s the best “evidence” you can produce? The Bible? Ha ha.
“Yeah, that's what an empiricist is. So you're a full-blown empiricist, which is what adherents to scientism are. You have an identity crisis going on here. You need to get better acquainted with yourself.”
I never denied that I was an empiricist. I wear that label proudly. That’s why my worldview is more tenable than yours. Yours lies entirely in your imagination and has no discernible effect on the physical world.
“If science sometimes proves that reality is different than logic would dictate, then that means that reality cannot be acquired through reason.”
That’s why empiricism takes precedence over all other methodologies. Especially religious belief.
“Yet, if we are discussing an area like metaphysics that cannot be accessed by science, then we are without knowledge of the reality of that area. If that is true, all we have is belief to access it. Right or wrong, it's all we have. From there, we can move out with logic and science, but not before. That has been my point this entire time.”
But surely there are metaphysical beliefs that are on firmer ground than others. Beliefs are not all equal. Wouldn’t you agree that beliefs should be supported by as much evidence as possible?
“LOL. Everything else you say sounds like the sad ramblings of a man who doesn't realize that his worldview is unsupported by anything other than faith.”
No I actually have evidence that backs up my worldview. My worldview is tentatively based on the evidence we have. I’m not irrational for disbelieving in invisible demons that control everything. So you cry out, “You can’t disprove my invisible demons!” to which I reply, “Yes, I cannot disprove your invisible demons. But I can show that your invisible demons have no discernible effect on the physical world, and thus their existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence.” Then you’ll say something like, “You’re just presupposing a metaphysic of the nonexistence of my invisible demons.” And I’ll reply, “Au contraire. I conclude the nonexistence of your invisible demons because their existence is indistinguishable from their nonexistence. And you have failed to give one good reason or piece of evidence that they have any effect on the physical world that cannot be explained by mindless natural forces.“ And then of course you’ll just argue in circles ad nauseum.
“LOL. If they've been demonstrated to be such, it hasn't been by you. You haven't demonstrated a single thing.”
ReplyDeleteYes I have. Faith in the Bible has proven itself to be the most unreliable means to know ontological truths, and that’s all you have. I’ve demonstrated that your invisible demons have no discernible effect on the physical world, and that their existence is indistinguishable from their nonexistence.
“Yes, I have, because with each sentence you create about your conclusions they prove the very thing I've argued. In other words, you're making my argument for me. Keep going.”
The argument I am making is that religious belief, like in Christianity, is unreliable to discern reality, you keep proving my point for me.
“1. Logic functions on a priori assumptions. A priori assumptions are only logical on that basis. What you want to argue is that you use logic to verify your a priori assumptions. But that's precisely the problem of your empiricism. You must use sensory data gained from human experience in order to reason because our reason is analogical. Ergo, both science and reason must be empirically oriented in your view if it is to be valid. Such is nonsense. You assume via faith your a priori assumptions that cannot be proven and supported by reason, and then we reason from there. That's the way it works. That's what you don't get. You think your presuppositions themselves are evidenced based, as though the evidence does not need them to be interpreted within your worldview to begin with.”
Every epistemology uses logic as a starting point. It’s because we have very good reasons to believe that logical impossibilities are in fact impossible. There is no conceivable way a logical impossibility can exist. Now using that logic that we all have access to, I can classify all known methodologies for gaining knowledge. Although it is certainly true that you cannot use logic to prove logic and you cannot use science to prove science in that each has to be granted, or presupposed in a sense before it can even be used, logic and science have a demonstrably proven track record of working. They are reliable. When the scientific method was initially being developed, no one assumed it would work. It proved itself to be useful over time. Now what has religious faith demonstrably proven, or easier yet, what track record does it have that has shown it as a reliable means to discern any truths about what we know to be true?
“Hahaha.”
I’m glad you find how funny and absurd your worldview is.
“1. I never argued that I make stuff up in my head. That's what your worldview does. I have faith in the report of the Bible and reason from there.”
Even though history, archaeology and science have shown the Bible’s history of the world and explanation for things is totally false. That takes tremendous faith.
“2. No one argued that faith is evidence. If you've been paying attention, you would have read that I said that faith must interpret evidence and therefore cannot be established upon it. Faith isn't evidence. It is superior to it.”
LOL. Supposedly we both agree that science and logic are valid means to gain knowledge. Yet when science contradicts the described world of the Bible, it’s somehow not valid anymore, and your faith in the Bible trumps it. In other words your worldview forces you to deny empirical evidence that contradicts it. It’s untenable.
“3. I gave demons as an example. I wasn't arguing for demons. That's a different argument. But beside all that, you're just emoting now. That's a tell-tale sign that you realize you've lost the argument.”
No I was just telling you how you sound. That is, totally and utterly absurd. I think the demons in your head that must have sprang from that head injury you suffered from is preventing you from being rational about the evidence we have against the belief in actual demons and the biblical narrative.
“Actually, my worldview makes me much more critical and causes me to think through issues much more than yours. In your view, you need scientists to function as popes and current consensus to function as Scripture for you. The skeptic in me sees how finite humans are, how they, like you, are completely oblivious as to how they come to their conclusions, and that scientific consensus is constantly changing. I, therefore, would never speak absolutely on issues that are more historical, and function more like metaphysical beliefs than physical objects, than do things like rockets and medicine. So I remain agnostic on some of those issues, where I believe the Bible isn't really speaking, and believe the report of the Bible, where I believe it actually does speak, on others.”
ReplyDeleteThis is what I’ve been waiting for. You’re not a very convincing “skeptic” if you believe the Bible on faith. Sorry. And no, there is no comparison between believing the Bible and believing what the overwhelming majority of scientists affirm. They are extremely well attested empirically and there is no way we are going to falsify them with something like a Biblical account of creation. There are no authorities in science, and I do not take anything scientists say for granted. I look for competing theories, and I critically examine the evidence each theory presents. You do no such thing with your faith in the Bible.
“Exactly. I'm glad you got my point. I said it because I can say it, just like you can say it. That's because you're the pot calling the kettle black. You think you have evidence for something that is incapable of being supported by evidence and yet you continue to act as though you do no such thing. The amount of self deception is astounding.”
There’s a difference between your worldview and mine. You just assume a metaphysic that your beliefs are real despite good evidence falsifying their implications. I have evidence. I don’t assume my metaphysic. I didn’t say upfront “there is no supernatural” in my worldview. I was an agnostic for many years and considered the possibility of the supernatural. I’m perfectly willing to hear a good case for it. But your only case for it, is that you just have to believe that it is true on unsupported faith. That’s it.
“Which you can only say if you know what an accurate picture of the world is, and you can only know what the accurate picture of the world is if you assume a worldview that lacks any evidence for itself in order to then interpret all things as evidence for it. You just don't get it and it's clear you're not going to.”
No one fully understands reality. That’s what we’re all trying to find out right? It is best that we use the most reliable means of understanding it. You say demons exist, I see no evidence for it anywhere but in your head. And I’m somehow irrational for not believing in the demons in your head? Give me a break.
“Keep repeating this over and over and over again. Maybe you'll actually convince yourself that it's true. But it just isn't.”
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. I’m still waiting for your case that supernaturalism is a demonstrably useful guide at making sense of our world.
“And you conclude that because religious faith in the supernatural doesn't make sense in a world interpreted by a naturalistic worldview, which is precisely why you DO assume a naturalistic metaphysic. I can't believe you are this clueless and don't get that simple observation.”
No sorry. The failure of supernaturalism to explain and make sense of the things we can all see and observe when compared to a naturalistic explanation is the reason why I conclude with a naturalistic metaphysic. Naturalism explains things better. That’s a conclusion, not a presupposition.
“Evidence interpreted by a naturalistic worldview that assumes that there is no evidence for it at the get go, since all evidence has to be physical and these are metaphysical claims.”
ReplyDeleteWrong again. The existence of demons and gods are indistinguishable from their nonexistence, thus, they are redundant as I’ve repeatedly said. They behave in the very same way one would expect if they didn't exist. To have to believe in them first, in order to believe in them is circular reasoning on steroids. That’s all you’re offering me. That’s why Christianity is on the decline.
“Actually, it's in the Bible. I have faith in the report. Your worldview is completely imaginary and made up in your head. You cannot come up with it in any other way.”
Lol. Now the Bible is being use as evidence!! Hilarious. And the Quran is proof Islam is true. What you have to do is show how the stories in the Bible are historically and archeologically verifiable. And you have to explain away all the contradictions.
“I thought I would speak in a language you would understand, but next time I'll try for preschool and hope that you can get some of my arguments.”
Your language is hardcore presuppositionalism, taken on a massive kilo of faith. That’s why fundamentalism fails.