We've been discussing the fact that the Objectivist viewpoint is self defeating, precisely, because it must assume what it cannot verify objectively. You can read some of that discussion here, and Dawson's attempt to respond to me in the comments of the previous post, as well as here and here.
I tried to point out that Dawson, and his ilk, are merely begging the question with pretty much every argument, and question, they pose to me. Dawson, of course, denies this and claims that he has no assumptions, but rather reasons to his worldview without first assuming it. He is just experiencing unmediated reality and reasons from there. But I wanted to show how this is being done at the foundations of their argument. He summarizes the Objectivist stance, and what follows is my summation of that argument:
1. Existence exists.
2. I experience what exists through my sensory perception.
3. Man is a blank slate, and his finitude does not hinder his ability to explore the true nature of reality; and thus, nothing initially hinders this perception or the identification that follows (i.e., there seems to be a hidden premise here that the senses are reliable in perceiving whatever exists).
4. I can therefore confirm through my senses that what exists is the natural world.
5. I also experience imagination.
6. I can imagine things that are not real and so make a distinction between what is imagined and what is real.
7. Ergo, things that are imagined are not real unless one can verify them through sensory perception or the conceptualization of reality that is rooted in that sensory perception of an unmediated reality.
8. If things that are imagined, and cannot be confirmed through sensory perception or the conceptualization that is rooted in it, are not a part of reality, then God, angels, demons, souls, etc. are not a part of reality.
9. Hence, none of that exists.
The Objectivist, therefore, thinks that he has logically found a way to describe reality apart from presupposing his view of reality. He just starts with what exists.
Here is the problem with that, and anyone savvy in the field of epistemology already sees the problem here.
1. The statement that existence exists is vague. In fact, it assumes that what exists is what is being experienced to exist by our senses. But this point is already at dispute by half of the world's religions. How would Dawson and his crowd answer the question, How do you know existence exists without begging the question that it does? How do you know it exists without first believing the metaphysical claims of Christian Scientists, for instance, is false and yours true?
2. But since I am a Christian, I am willing to grant P1 (Premise 1), which is why Dawson, in attempting to pigeonhole me to a primacy of consciousness fails at this point. We both agree that existence exists. We both agree that there is a reality beyond my consciousness of it (I would actually argue, however, that it is Objectivism that ties reality with my consciousness by assuming that what I experience must be what is real, since I am the standard and judge of what is real--hence, it is Rand, not her critics, who commit the fallacy of the stolen concept; but I'll save that for another day).
This, then, brings us to P2. How exactly does one know that what he is experiencing is, in fact, what exists? How does a man in a mental ward, who sees persons who do not exist, and thoroughly believes that they exist to the extent of talking to them, feeling the sense of touching them, and even loving them? How does the dog know what color the rose is (which was an objection that goes unaddressed by Dawson when he attempts to describe what is happening when a dog perceives--this has nothing to do with my argument)? In other words, how does one know that he is experiencing reality unless he first knows what reality is, and can, therefore, confirm that what he is experiencing is truly reality, as opposed to the man in the mental ward? In other words, this also begs the question.
3. The most obvious of cases in which he begs the question is in stating that man is a blank slate. Christians believe that man is in rebellion against God, born with a desire to supplant God, and without God in the world, so that the reality he begins to assess is distorted by these desires. He does not want to conclude in favor of God, so he makes arguments about reality that do not include Him.
God is also not a part of his reality because he has no relationship with God, so this lack of relationship distorts his understanding.
Of course, Hindus, Buddhists, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, etc. believe that we are trapped in an elaborate delusion and that there is no physical world, only the illusion of it. Hence, we are not born as blank slates, but as deceived aspects of a universal mind that has come to believe it has individuality.
My point is that Dawson has to beg the question as to human nature before he can even come to an understanding of human nature. One cannot make claims about human nature without first assuming something about it, since he is using human nature to assess the truth about it.
4. There is no reason to believe that my senses can perceive reality unless one first assumes it. In fact, here the naturalistic assumptions come out strongest. How exactly do I know that my senses would pick up aspects of reality that are beyond its abilities to perceive without first assuming that reality exists as only that which I can perceive? In other words, I must first beg the question as to what exists and my capabilities of accessing that information before I even begin to make the above argument made by Objectivists. Yet, I cannot assert what I need to prove by the very assertion that needs to be proven. That is exactly what is being done here by Dawson and his ilk.
5. How does one make a distinction between imagination and what is not imagined? Again, one must beg the question in order to obtain to such knowledge. I must first know what reality is and then argue against anything that does not accord with that, but supposedly I am arguing for reality by using imagination. How exactly am I arguing to what is real by using what is not real without first identifying what is not real by what is real?
6. I am completely incapable of making a distinction between what is real and what is not without begging the question as to what is real in the first place.
7. The entire conclusion fails as to a logical argument. If Dawson wants to restate all of this as just stuff he believes without any evidence to establish it first, then he'd be fine. But he wants to claim that he is being objective, so he ends up ignoring all of this question begging.
8 and 9. Since the entire argument fails, and P7 is without warrant, 8 and 9 are false conclusions as well.
Hence, his argument does not merely beg the question at one point, but at every point. His argument is nothing more than a pure, unwarranted belief asserting itself as objectively true and pretending to be an argument.
The idea that a must rely on b in order for its justification tells us that b must be justified, and that eventually we get to the idea of the "given." But this idea is precisely what must be assumed, and this is not a mere irreducible axiom, as it is only irreducible if one begs the question of his own worldview first. It is not irreducible in all possible worlds and worldviews. Hence, it cannot be held as a given.
It doesn't matter if I can define non-physical objects, or can make a good case for a Christian epistemology, or can find this or that methodological naturalism in the Bible (why would I find it there? The Bible makes more sense in arguing that faith is primary in making justifications for our beliefs about reality). That's all smoke and mirrors, folks. It's "lawyerese." I know. I was going to become a lawyer at one time. They're rhetorical parlor tricks. Even though I have answered these, and can answer them further, I don't have to answer any of them in order for my objection to be true (which is why I originally said, and still affirm, that Dawson is making a tu quoque). This sort of thing works on layman, but Dawson's Jedi mind-tricks aren't going to work on me, even though he seems to have actually fooled himself with them.
In fact, look at the questions given to me, "How do you distinguish between what is real and what is imagined?" "How do you discern between truth and error." In other words, if you don't assume naturalism and the Objectivism that relies upon it, how can anyone empirically verify what is true? But this too begs the question as to whether I can or should be the one to verify ultimate truths. It also begs the question as to whether such is possible. I have argued that such is not possible, even within the Objectivist methodology, as it must assume what it must prove to make its case.
Instead, my interlocutors are so entrenched in their worldviews they cannot even see what they are doing. Even their questions beg the question and assume that man is reliant upon himself to discern questions of ultimate reality.
In this, they are right that if left without Objectivism, as many atheists have concluded, man can really know nothing. He must just believe and reason from there. I agree with these latter atheists. However, because I believe that man is reliant, not upon himself, but God, through faith and reason, man can come to a sufficient knowledge of the world through the analogy of language. Hence, revelation is mandatory if God exists and we are to know the true nature of ourselves and the reality in which we live. But I don't believe you're going to find that revelation in philosophy and science. You're only going to find that in the Bible.
Without revelation, and without the acknowledgement that man must first believe and then make sense of what he experiences (Objectivism has a problem confusing the chronology of experience with the logical justification of what we believe about our experience), we are left, with Dawson and his friends, up an epistemological creek without a paddle.
B.C.:
ReplyDeleteThe statement that existence exists is vague.
How so?
In fact, it assumes that what exists is what is being experienced to exist by our senses.
No it doesn't.
But this point is already at dispute by half of the world's religions.
The Appeal to Belief fallacy.
How do you know existence exists without begging the question that it does?
"Existence exists" is an axiom. It is self-evident.
But since I am a Christian, I am willing to grant P1 (Premise 1), which is why Dawson, in attempting to pigeonhole me to a primacy of consciousness fails at this point.
The axiom of existence and the issue of metaphysical primacy are not tied together. One can grant the axiom of existence and accept that existence holds metaphysical primacy or one can grant the axiom of existence and accept that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy.
How does a man in a mental ward, who sees persons who do not exist, and thoroughly believes that they exist to the extent of talking to them, feeling the sense of touching them, and even loving them?
This isn't even a sentence. The man doesn't "see" anyone since there is nothing for photons to interact with. The man doesn't "hear" anyone since there is no movement of air molecules. It all takes place in his imagination. All he has to do is say these "people" are supernatural and the reason no one else can perceive them is they've got the wrong metaphysic. What if this same man claimed to "see" Jesus, angels, demons, or souls?
NAL you always cut right to the chase, beautiful!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you boys seem to not get the fact that you're still begging the question. Existence is being defined by your worldview.
ReplyDeleteExistence exists is vague because it doesn't define "existence." When one moves along in the argument, we see that your group defines it according to your philosophic naturalism. Hence, your worldview is being assumed at the get go.
This is evident even in your lame attempt to rebut what I said about the man who sees people who are not really there. There is no way for him to know that what he is seeing is an illusion unless he believes the report of those who have a greater knowledge of reality than he does.
The sentence should read: How does a man in a mental ward, who sees persons who do not exist, and thoroughly believes that they exist to the extent of talking to them, feeling the sense of touching them, and even loving them, distinguish between people who exist and those who do not?
Your describing that the man doesn't see anyone or hear anyone from your perspective. But he sees and hears others. We do not sense what he does, and thus, argue that he sees and hears nothing, since we sense nothing there. The point, which you conveniently dodged, is that if senses cannot distinguish reality from imagination, then only having faith in the report of others will allow for that distinction. Otherwise, the man remains in his delusions.
"The Appeal to Belief fallacy."
No, it isn't. My point is that your view of existence is not irreducible in all worldviews, and hence, you have to beg the question and assume your worldview in order to set up your view of existence as an axiom. Unless you can show it to be irreducible in all worldviews, your claim is false.
As for your attempt to get me on a technicality of one particular definition of "seeing" or "hearing," when those words are used to refer to more than one perceiving the movements of air molecules and whatnot, I take it that you had nothing that served for a better rebuttal. This is a joke of an answer to what I've said above. You boys are just going to church and preaching to your choir now. Your faith is strong.
And that should be the only point taken here. You haven't touched my argument. I said that I would grant that existence exists, but as soon as you begin to describe your methodology of interpreting existence and identifying what it is, you show that faith in your metaphysic is primary.
B.C.:
ReplyDeleteExistence exists is vague because it doesn't define "existence."
Existence is the sum total of everything that exists.
Your describing that the man doesn't see anyone or hear anyone from your perspective.
The man doesn't see anyone because you said they don't exist.
We do not sense what he does, and thus, argue that he sees and hears nothing, since we sense nothing there.
I don't agree. We sense the same things. It is his imagination that leads him to believe something exists.
The point, which you conveniently dodged, is that if senses cannot distinguish reality from imagination, then only having faith in the report of others will allow for that distinction.
It is not the senses that do the distinguishing, it is consciousness.
Otherwise, the man remains in his delusions.
Oh, sweet irony.
"Existence is the sum total of everything that exists."
ReplyDeleteAnd what does that include? God? Or are you assuming that existence is the sum total of everything detectable by the senses and the conceptualizations brought forth from it, thereby excluding anything undetectable by the senses?
It is clear that this is what is being done as the argument proceeds. Hence, it is clear that you are begging the question and presupposing what you have to prove at the very start.
"The man doesn't see anyone because you said they don't exist."
So if you were that man who thought he was seeing someone, in order for you to come to the conclusion that they do not really exist, and therefore, you don't really see them, you would have to believe my report to you that they don't, as you are incapable of acquiring that information yourself. Hence, as you say, they don't exist because I, someone who has a more accurate account of reality, say they do not, and you believe me.
"I don't agree. We sense the same things. It is his imagination that leads him to believe something exists."
Something you would only know by having a more accurate assessment of reality through direct experience. Yet, whose direct experience is more accurate? Yours or his? And how do you know this?
"It is not the senses that do the distinguishing, it is consciousness."
Yes, consciousness using the senses. That was my point. The senses are always involved, and so to say that they don't do the distinguishing in your view is nonsense. They provide the data to be distinguished, yet they can provide no information here to allow your consciousness to do so. In short, your senses fail to deliver the necessary information for your consciousness to conceptualize properly and reason to reality.
"Oh, sweet irony."
It is. It truly is.
For further reading:
ReplyDeletehttp://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/01/is-ayn-rand-a-good-philosopher-rand-on-the-primacy-of-existence.html#more
Hello again, B.C.,
DeleteFor further reading:
____________________
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65665336/Introduction-to-Objectivist-Epistemology-Harry-Binswan
____________________
The “Maverick Philosopher” on Objectivism
by Dawson Bethrick
http://katholon.com/Vallicella.htm
____________________
Also see:
Do Objectivists Try to "Define God out of Existence"?
By Dawson Bethrick
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/01/do-objectivists-try-to-define-god-out.html
There's also a nice comment thread that follows this blog entry.
_____________________
And if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me your understanding of a stolen concept?
Thanks.
Ydemoc
B.C.:
ReplyDeleteAnd what does that include? God?
If God exists, then it includes God.
Hence, as you say, they don't exist because I, someone who has a more accurate account of reality, say they do not, and you believe me.
No, because that was the premise you set up in your thought experiment.
Something you would only know by having a more accurate assessment of reality through direct experience.
No, something I know by the way light works, by the way sound works, and by the way the senses work.
Yet, whose direct experience is more accurate? Yours or his? And how do you know this?
By reason. I reasoned it because you set up the thought experiment with the premise that the people didn't exist. If you want to change the thought experiment to one where your premise is gone, that would be more interesting.
The senses are always involved, and so to say that they don't do the distinguishing in your view is nonsense.
So, if the senses were not connected to a brain, they could still do the distinguishing?
In short, your senses fail to deliver the necessary information for your consciousness to conceptualize properly and reason to reality.
I disagree that it's a failure of the senses or the delivery system. The senses are relatively straightforward (compared to the brain) biological systems whose failure mechanisms manifest in different, and known, ways.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe “Maverick Philosopher” on Objectivism
ReplyDelete"No, something I know by the way light works, by the way sound works, and by the way the senses work."
ReplyDeleteNo, your knowledge of the mechanisms through which your senses work has nothing to do with your ability to know whether real entities are having some sort of relationship with you. Are you seriously suggesting that you can just go into a mental ward and tell everyone to start using their knowledge of the way light, sound, and the senses work and you can just cure them of their delusions? I'd like to see that. In reality, you did not reason to that information by way of reasoning how light or sound works. The only way you know they don't exist is because I told you they don't. If I set up the experiment by saying you are having a relationship with a person that you are convinced you see, hear, and touch, but may or may not exist, how would you go about discovering whether they do or do not? And don't give me a vague answer that you would use reason. Lay out the process for me and let me see how you would get there. Thanks.
Thanks Ydemoc. I'll read up.
ReplyDeleteMy definition of a stolen concept is one where the individual has to use the concepts that belong exclusively to his opponent's view in order to make the case for his critique/argument. He does so either by using the concepts directly or the underlying concepts upon which those concepts necessarily rely. The argument must need the concept in order for it to be effective, and yet, it is being contradicted by the argument being made. Hence, it is a type of self defeating argumentation.
Actually a stole concept fallacy is not when you rely on your opponent's view, but the one objecting to a concept while relying on it. For example, when you say:
Delete«How do you know existence exists without begging the question that it does?»
You are challenging that existence exists while relying on it. You cannot make questions without existence existing. In other words, the question is absurd because it attempts to cut the branch where it rests.
Corollary: since any attempts at denying that existence exists is beyond absurd, commits a stolen concept fallacy, that existence exists is not "beggin-the-question." It's an axiom.
Photo,
ReplyDeleteNice reply!
Ydemoc
Hi again, B.C.,
ReplyDeleteI'll have something to say on this as well, as time permits. In the meantime, please allow me to submit another link for further reading on the matter:
Stolen Concepts and Intellectual Parasitism
by Dawson Bethrick
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/06/stolen-concepts-and-intellectual.html
Thanks.
Ydemoc
Thanks Ydemoc,
DeleteI did read this one already. Let me say a couple things:'
1. That was my definition of the stolen concept.
2. Dawson has to keep up this canard that Christianity believes in the primacy of consciousness. Christianity is rooted in the primacy of the existence of God, and therefore, existence is primary. Dawson's critique is a strawman that he carries over from Rand.
3. His argument that a biological process is needed for consciousness to take place is merely begging the question again of his naturalistic worldview. You have to believe that your view is correct first in order to make this argument, yet it is the very belief that Christianity would hold to be false.
I find in Dawson's works so far a lot of strawmen arguments and question begging. And, frankly, I'm not sure how one can maintain what he does without it.
Hi BC,
Delete1. I don't think that you read the link. I think you assumed (wrongly) from the pure title. Dawson makes the distinction between stolen concepts and intellectual parasitism. He does not conflate the two.
2. He does not "have" to keep up that claim. Many other Christians have indeed confirmed that they believe in the primacy of consciousness. You are the first to claim otherwise in many years that I have read what Christians come and claim at Dawson's blog.
3. Nope. It's not begging the question, it's being consistent with what we do know. We do know that consciousness is something biological entities have. We humanity have been imagining that consciousness can be held by other stuff. But knowledge so far remains in biological entities. Proposing that something other than biological entities can have or has consciousness should be followed by some proof. That we can imagine so does not make it so.
I don't see how something would be a straw man argument when Dawson pays lots of attention and discusses at large the implications given to him by many Christians. Conflicting with one another as they are. There's a reason why his posts are so long.
Now I'm a liar. You love to make up those realities, don't you?
Delete1. I did read it. You don't seem to understand my definition. That's fine. I'm weary of these constant technicalities concerning nomenclature. I was going to just cut and paste the same definition that Dawson gives, but thought I would explain it further. Lesson learned.
2. Actually, he does have to keep it up, because his argument depends upon it. If Christians also believe in the primacy of existence, then the argument fails.
3. "Nope. It's not begging the question, it's being consistent with what we do know. We do know that consciousness is something biological entities have."
Yep, it absolutely is, because you cannot say that you know something in part and therefore you know it en toto. That's the problem you're having. It's like arguing that you know that deers have horns but have never experienced goats having horns; therefore, goats don't have horns. Because consciousness is something biological entities have is not an argument for their exclusively having it. That is pure nonsense. What you are trying to argue is that you can only verify that biological entities have consciousness and therefore, since you beg your naturalistic worldview, that man is capable of acquiring the knowledge needed to make assessments concerning reality on his own, etc., one can only posit that biological entities have consciousness and nothing else. I have revelation, however, that says otherwise. I believe that report, and therefore, I know that other entities besides biological entities have consciousness. Since my worldview causes me to conclude something different and have a different epistemology, then I would have to give up my worldview and accept yours in order to conclude the same about your worldview and methodology of inquiry. That should tell you that you (and Dawson) are, in fact, begging the question.
Hi BC,
Delete1. Here's your definition:
«My definition of a stolen concept is one where the individual has to use the concepts that belong exclusively to his opponent's view in order to make the case for his critique/argument.»
Dawson explains that this is not what objectivists mean, that the stolen concept fallacy is what I explained above, a fallacy where you deny a concept while relying on it. Whether it is your opponent's concept or not does not make it into the equation. We might discover our own faulty thinking by discovering that we are committing such a kind of fallacy in our own arguments.
2. Nope. Thats but one argument of many. I have been reading what Dawson writes for quite a while, and this is far from being his only point. Again, if you read carefully enough you would see that he posits many counterarguments as he has heard from diverse Christians. That your particular way of Christianity admits primacy of existence does not mean that all of them do. That this is all you have heard from Dawson does not mean that you know his worldview and arguments against Christianity "en toto."
3. «Yep, it absolutely is, because you cannot say that you know something in part and therefore you know it en toto.»
But I never said that I knew it "en toto." I said that so far that's what we do know and that proposing something else requires you to prove so. Imagining does not make it so. therefore there's no question begging at all.
«It's like arguing that you know that deers have horns but have never experienced goats having horns; therefore, goats don't have horns.»
Even though that's far from what I said (see above), at least the deer and goats are within close enough categories to be able to argue that goats could have horns, even if we have never seeing goats with horns. But arguing for a non-biological consciousness that's also disembodied "non-material" and such nonsense? That's way too much to ask given what we do know.
«Because consciousness is something biological entities have is not an argument for their exclusively having it.»
Nope, but is a very strong reason to be skeptical of claims about things other than biological having it. If you say that the stone over there has consciousness you would be much closer to convincing me than about some "non-material" whatever else. Yet, I would still be skeptical and prefer to let you prove it, rather than accepting it just on your say so.
«What you are trying to argue is that you can only verify that biological entities have consciousness and therefore, since you beg your naturalistic worldview, that man is capable of acquiring the knowledge needed to make assessments concerning reality on his own, etc»
Actually, no. All I said is that it is consistent for Dawson to rely on what we do know.
«I have revelation, however, that says otherwise. I believe that report, and therefore, I know that other entities besides biological entities have consciousness.»
Well, in order to do so you rely on nonsense. On accepting something as "revelation" and then claim that such thing, that's only in your imagination, is the real deal. That I would not call knowledge, but fantasy.
«Since my worldview causes me to conclude something different and have a different epistemology, then I would have to give up my worldview and accept yours in order to conclude the same about your worldview and methodology of inquiry. That should tell you that you (and Dawson) are, in fact, begging the question.»
What it tells me is that it is you who is begging the question, and that you will resist to the end before you even try and understand what we are really saying.
Sayonara.
That's how I defined the stolen concept. Read me again.
ReplyDeleteActually, I was referring to a specific understanding of existence that Objectivists seem to hold, not a generic statement about existence. If existence merely means anything that exists then everyone holds to a primacy of existence and therefore it can be an axiom. But there is an implicit understanding of existence that is evident in how the argument proceeds, namely, that what exists in external to myself. In that case, it begs the question and is not an axiom. This fact is displayed in the arguments that Objectivists make that distinguish between those who supposedly hold to a primacy of consciousness over a primacy of existence. That argument fails is existence is not defined at the get go by a particular worldview as opposed to others.
If we want to define existence generically, then I'm fine with that, but then everyone believes in the primacy of existence at that point. The issue is what actually exists.
B.C.:
DeleteIf existence merely means anything that exists then everyone holds to a primacy of existence and therefore it can be an axiom.
Wow! You really have no understanding of the difference between the axiom of existence and the primacy of existence.
Why don't explain to me how they are not related.
ReplyDeleteI already did.
DeleteEveryone I know begins with the axiom that existence exists. Everyone I know argues from a primacy of existence. I know of no worldview that does not begin with that premise and argue in such away. It's what you think exists and how you know such a thing that is at issue.
ReplyDeleteIf this is so why do you keep arguing against it?
DeleteI haven't. I said, IN THE CASE OF OBJECTIVISM, there is clearly an assumed identification and definition of "existence" that automatically precludes God. It doesn't seem to be the case at the first mention of the axiom, but as one moves on in the argument, it is clear that it becomes attached to it by the second premise.
DeleteIt seems that since you rely so heavily on "faith" in "a report" - that report being the Bible, then it is imperative that this report be accurate. I don't see how anyone can simply have faith in a book, without critically examining it first. The Bible's reliability, consistency, coherence and its claims about the natural world have to comport with what we can verify.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Bible makes theological claims on the nature of the physical world. Science can falsify those claims since they cross into science's domain - and it has. Modern cosmology and biology have utterly destroyed the biblical account in Genesis. Archaeology has shown that many of the Bible's stories are mere allegories. And critical scholars have shown that there are numerous forgeries and interpolations in the New Testament as well. Given how inaccurate the description is of the physical world the Bible portrays (and I've merely cracked the surface) one could reject that report even without presupposing naturalism. A theist could just as easily conclude that the Bible bares too many contradictions, inaccuracies, and hallmarks of being man-made.
And given what we know about the physical world, it is much more compatible with naturalism than with theisms like Christianity. The fundamentalist Christian even has to deny science in order to make his worldview work and he therefore has to deny his own senses. Any worldview that has to deny well attested scientific facts is self-defeating.
With what are you evaluating the Bible's claims? What you don't understand, and we've been down this road before, so I don't suspect you will get this, is that all of these disciplines are guided in their interpretations by presuppositions in ultimate beliefs. That's why if one's ultimate beliefs in the Bible are of an orthodox Christian variety, then he will conclude differently than you have. I'll give you an example from what you've said.
DeleteThe Bible supposedly makes claims concerning cosmology and biology. Now, to you, anything the Bible uses to communicate to its people, it is claiming. To me, it is only the point being communicated that the Bible is communicating, not everything it uses to present the idea.
Now, what is more likely to be the case? That the Bible, if God's Word to man, would use human language and concepts known to the ancient recipient in order to communicate truth, or that He would use the language and concepts of 21st Century man to communicate to the ancient recipient?
I think my presupposition is more consistent with what reality. What you have to show is that it is illogical for God to use such things to communicate truth to His people. I hardly think you can do so.
What you also have to show is that the use of these various disciplines, that are also used to support the Bible by others, are not being guided to their conclusions by their presupposed worldviews, or that their worldviews are justified without assuming that they are self evident, or some nonsense like that.
There you go again with your presuppositionalist accusation. If I treat supernaturalism and naturalism as two competing hypotheses, judging by what we can investigate from the physical world and with logic, naturalism fairs better. Now I'm not claiming that I can prove naturalism, I'm just saying it is more probably true than false, since the supernatural realm you believe in is indistinguishable to me from one's imagination.
DeleteAnd I fully get that there is a camp of Christianity that looks at the Bible's narrative as symbolic, I didn't know you were in that camp. But the point being communicated is also illogical, and Christians can't even agree on the correct interpretation. That's why Christianity fails on logic too.
What's more likely the case to me, is that if god is indeed all-knowing, perfectly moral and infallible, he'd figure out some way to make his message timeless and not such that it would appeal to Iron-age tribesmen. I mean couldn't god put some infallible knowledge in his word, like say, something about DNA, or something about the fact that germs kill, or something about slavery being, oh, I don't know - wrong?
You're presupposition - which is that all of Christianity is true as a starting point - is not at all consistent with reality. Look, I was an agnostic for several years. When I started learning philosophy I began to really question the existence of god, and the major world religions. And after years of searching, which included doing tremendous research into the natural sciences and into philosophy and the many interpretations of religions, given what I now know about the natural world, I simply cannot reconcile it with the god of Abraham. They are simply too incompatible. I'd have to suffer from massive cognitive dissonance if I became a believer, and I can't deal with that.
But look, you can believe whatever you want, I'm all about freedom of the mind. My flag goes up mostly when religious beliefs become public policy. Because remember, we're not talking about the existence of unicorns and mermaids here. We're talking about god and religion. And there are people who say they have the right to tell me what to do, because their god gives them that power. Therefore the stakes are very high, and the amount of evidence one has should be proportional to the claims they are making.
"I'm just saying it is more probably true than false, since the supernatural realm you believe in is indistinguishable to me from one's imagination."
ReplyDeleteThat's a non sequitur. Your ability to distinguish natural and supernatural causes have nothing to do with probability. Probability has to be based on what you know--and in this case, what you know about the supernatural, which is impossible knowledge to you without revelation.
Given revelation, it is far more probable that my interpretations of those things are correct. So probability has to do with what you already assume as a metaphysic.
"You're presupposition - which is that all of Christianity is true as a starting point - is not at all consistent with reality."
You'd have to know what reality is first in order to make that claim, and you don't have the knowledge available to you, apart from revelation, to do so.
"And after years of searching, which included doing tremendous research into the natural sciences and into philosophy and the many interpretations of religions, given what I now know about the natural world, I simply cannot reconcile it with the god of Abraham."
And the fact that many can reconcile them, and even see how they work with what God has said, should give you pause in considering whether your study of those has been under the assumptions of naturalism that then have interpreted these things for you and precluded any other conclusion but the one you have come to.
"And there are people who say they have the right to tell me what to do, because their god gives them that power. Therefore the stakes are very high, and the amount of evidence one has should be proportional to the claims they are making."
We've discussed this before. Give me some fundamentalist Christian telling me I can't drink or smoke any day over a dogmatic atheist who must force conformity violently to secure his rule over lesser animals. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot don't help your case here in pretending that it is only Christians in power who would tell you what to do.
“That's a non sequitur. Your ability to distinguish natural and supernatural causes have nothing to do with probability. Probability has to be based on what you know--and in this case, what you know about the supernatural, which is impossible knowledge to you without revelation.”
DeleteI know about the supernatural from what other people say about it. I don’t need a direct revelation myself. And from what they say about it looks logically inconsistent and incompatible with the physical world. And I know that most theists will simply believe their religion on faith over anything else. I debate them all the time. Faith in their religion overrides any and all evidence to the contrary. It’s a dishonest epistemology.
“Given revelation, it is far more probable that my interpretations of those things are correct. So probability has to do with what you already assume as a metaphysic.”
Oh really. Your personal Christian interpretations are more correct that all other Christians and all other theists? If you’re going to base your worldview on presupposed faith in your particular religious interpretation first, you have no basis of making that claim.
“You'd have to know what reality is first in order to make that claim, and you don't have the knowledge available to you, apart from revelation, to do so.”
Well I have access to physical reality. And it doesn’t agree with any religion. One must deny parts of physical reality in order to make religion work into their worldview. That’s why religion is dishonest.
“And the fact that many can reconcile them, and even see how they work with what God has said, should give you pause in considering whether your study of those has been under the assumptions of naturalism that then have interpreted these things for you and precluded any other conclusion but the one you have come to.”
I spend a tremendous amount of time refuting the claims of natural theology and I know exactly how those kinds of apologists operate. They too have to deny some of the most well attested facts we get from science and twist other data to make it compatible with their religion. I’ve yet to see any apologist accept science as it is. And these apologists also suffer from cognitive dissonance and I catch them on it all the time. So no, sorry, I’ve called out the bull crap in many a debate with theists of all religions trying to reconcile actual science with theology.
“We've discussed this before. Give me some fundamentalist Christian telling me I can't drink or smoke any day over a dogmatic atheist who must force conformity violently to secure his rule over lesser animals. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot don't help your case here in pretending that it is only Christians in power who would tell you what to do.”
Oh right, because Pol Pot and Stalin are the only atheists ever to run a country, and they’re the only predominately atheist societies. Sorry dude. You cannot conflate atheism with communism. That would be as ignorant as me conflating all of theism with radical Islam. Some of the most secular and atheistic countries in the world today are also some of the freest and safest. Japan and Sweden for example are like 60-70% + atheistic. I’ll take Sweden over the 90% Christian Uganda any day, thank you. And would you prefer a modern secular democracy like the US over, say, the Holy Roman Empire during the height of the inquisition? I’d hope so. Using extreme examples from the past is not the point. I never said only a theist could try to tell me what to do. But communism is dead. I don’t worry about it. But in the here and now freedom in the West is challenged by radical Islam and Christianity who each want to impose their religious based laws on the populace but who have nothing but faith on their side to justify why I should be forced to observe their religious interpretations.
"I know about the supernatural from what other people say about it. I don’t need a direct revelation myself. And from what they say about it looks logically inconsistent and incompatible with the physical world."
ReplyDeleteThat's not quite what I meant. But in any case, you have to know that A is A and not AB, but in order to know that A is A and not AB, you'd have to have knowledge that A is not AB. Yet, all your knowledge is just based on describing A. Hence, you have no ability to say whether A is A or A is AB. You can (1) remain agnostic toward it, (2) believe a report that claims to be from a being who knows that A is or is not AB, or (3) completely guess that A is A and not AB based on nothing more than the idea that you just perceive A, which begs the question. So you're going with a guess then?
"And I know that most theists will simply believe their religion on faith over anything else. I debate them all the time. Faith in their religion overrides any and all evidence to the contrary. It’s a dishonest epistemology."
Funny that the only consistent epistemology between yours and mine is mine, but mine gets called "dishonest." I'm not pretending to know information that is impossible for me to know through experience and reason.
And whether you realize it or not, you have a faith and it dictates your interpretation of the evidence, so of course, no one with Christian faith is going to convince you because you hold to ultimate believes and an epistemology that precludes it, all the while pretending to be approaching the subject through pure reason and science. Talk about dishonest.
"Oh really. Your personal Christian interpretations are more correct that all other Christians and all other theists?"
Actually, I was referring to that which is between your interpretive grid and mine, but yes, I do think a Christian interpretation is more consistent than other theists because I obviously believe that Christianity is true, and therefore, describes reality, whereas all other worldviews are rebellious fantasies.
"Well I have access to physical reality. And it doesn’t agree with any religion. One must deny parts of physical reality in order to make religion work into their worldview. That’s why religion is dishonest."
That's funny because I have access to physical reality too and I don't see anything contradictory. BTW, physical reality isn't going to agree or disagree with anyone because it's not a mind. Hence, you have to interpret the data with a mind in order to get that agreement or disagreement you're looking for. That means you're interpreting it through a grid to fit your assumed ultimate beliefs, so again, of course, it's not going to agree with any religion because you've already precluded any religion, but a naturalistic one.
"I spend a tremendous amount of time refuting the claims of natural theology and I know exactly how those kinds of apologists operate."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "natural theology"? You mean evidentialists? I spend a lot of time setting them straight too. You and I should color coordinate our outfits as well. What does this have to do with my argument?
"They too have to deny some of the most well attested facts we get from science and twist other data to make it compatible with their religion. I’ve yet to see any apologist accept science as it is."
That's likely because you conflate "science" with your philosophical commitments to naturalism. I've yet to meet a well educated Christian who just denies scientific facts, but they are going to interpret them within a theistic framework.
"And these apologists also suffer from cognitive dissonance and I catch them on it all the time. So no, sorry, I’ve called out the bull crap in many a debate with theists of all religions trying to reconcile actual science with theology."
That's probably because they start from the wrong foundation, being duped into thinking that we can meet on neutral ground and argue from there. But I'm not sure where you think I was trying to reconcile science with theology. That's not really what I do, unless you're using science loosely to refer to things like archaeology, historiography, etc. I've said many times that I'm agnostic on questions concerning origins and the process of creation, so I'm open on those things, which is much more than I can say for most atheists who have to stay within a particular interpretation or they give up the ship.
“That's not quite what I meant. But in any case, you have to know that A is A and not AB, but in order to know that A is A and not AB, you'd have to have knowledge that A is not AB. Yet, all your knowledge is just based on describing A. Hence, you have no ability to say whether A is A or A is AB. You can (1) remain agnostic toward it, (2) believe a report that claims to be from a being who knows that A is or is not AB, or (3) completely guess that A is A and not AB based on nothing more than the idea that you just perceive A, which begs the question. So you're going with a guess then?”
DeleteOh, so a report says it’s AB, and another “report” says its AC, and another says its AD, and neither has any good evidence backing up this claim other than the report says so. Dubious epistemology you’ve got there. No I will not take a report on faith, especially when the report is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and interpolations. I will conclude that AB does not exist because there’s no evidence for it, and for all practical purposes AB’s existence and nonexistence are indistinguishable. We do that with everything else in our lives.
“Funny that the only consistent epistemology between yours and mine is mine, but mine gets called "dishonest." I'm not pretending to know information that is impossible for me to know through experience and reason.“
No, you’re pretending to know all of reality because a book says so. Faith has never been a reliable means of obtaining knowledge, that’s why every religion fails to describe biology, cosmology, psychology, and pretty much the entire physical world properly.
“And whether you realize it or not, you have a faith and it dictates your interpretation of the evidence, so of course, no one with Christian faith is going to convince you because you hold to ultimate believes and an epistemology that precludes it, all the while pretending to be approaching the subject through pure reason and science. Talk about dishonest.”
I’d have to twist the facts to interpret the evidence in the realm of Christian theism. There’s no way to take the data as it is, and reconcile it with Yahweh and the Good Book. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. That’s why so many theists are science deniers. The only possible way to come close, would be to water down Christianity so much to the point where it’s barely even Christianity. But then I’d be accused by people like you of being a fake Christian. So what’s the point?
“Actually, I was referring to that which is between your interpretive grid and mine, but yes, I do think a Christian interpretation is more consistent than other theists because I obviously believe that Christianity is true, and therefore, describes reality, whereas all other worldviews are rebellious fantasies.”
How is a religion that was developed before Christianity and far from its influence a rebellious fantasy? What were they supposed to do, somehow know Christianity was going to develop?
“That's funny because I have access to physical reality too and I don't see anything contradictory. BTW, physical reality isn't going to agree or disagree with anyone because it's not a mind. Hence, you have to interpret the data with a mind in order to get that agreement or disagreement you're looking for. That means you're interpreting it through a grid to fit your assumed ultimate beliefs, so again, of course, it's not going to agree with any religion because you've already precluded any religion, but a naturalistic one.”
Not at all, I concluded a naturalist one because of the natural world’s incompatibility with religion. And do you accept that we live in a 13.8 billion year old universe and that life on earth evolved over billions of years? You simply cannot deny those two facts and have a tenable worldview.
“What do you mean by "natural theology"? You mean evidentialists? I spend a lot of time setting them straight too. You and I should color coordinate our outfits as well. What does this have to do with my argument?”
DeleteI only mentioned this because you mentioned that some Christians think the natural world supports theology.
“That's likely because you conflate "science" with your philosophical commitments to naturalism. I've yet to meet a well educated Christian who just denies scientific facts, but they are going to interpret them within a theistic framework.”
Well science does operate under methodological naturalism (for good reasons), and even Christian scientists like Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Ken Miller check god at the door when they enter the lab. But that’s not exactly the issue here. Let me ask you this. If a scientific fact somehow contradicted your current theology, would you amend your theology or deny the fact? I’m pretty sure you’d deny the fact. The most admirable theists will amend their theology to fit the facts. That’s being reasonable. But still, many have to deny certain aspects of science that are just as well attested as any other parts, strictly for theological reasons. That’s the problem.
“That's probably because they start from the wrong foundation, being duped into thinking that we can meet on neutral ground and argue from there. But I'm not sure where you think I was trying to reconcile science with theology. That's not really what I do, unless you're using science loosely to refer to things like archaeology, historiography, etc. I've said many times that I'm agnostic on questions concerning origins and the process of creation, so I'm open on those things, which is much more than I can say for most atheists who have to stay within a particular interpretation or they give up the ship.”
Well you have to understand that many people are carried to atheism because of the science showing the evolution of life. We don’t presuppose our atheism first and then try to back it up. The evidence carries us to atheism. So it’s not as if we’re forced to accept evolution – if it wasn't for evolution (and many other scientific theories too) we would have to abandon atheism as you rightly say.
"Oh, so a report says it’s AB, and another “report” says its AC, and another says its AD, and neither has any good evidence backing up this claim other than the report says so."
ReplyDeleteAnd your lack of any report or evidence says it's A. What's your point? Are you suggesting that if there are multiple claims then the probability is that none of them is true?
"Dubious epistemology you’ve got there."
I'm not sure what you think is dubious about it. It's pretty straight forward. Yours, however, is quite dubious, as it is self defeating.
"No I will not take a report on faith, especially when the report is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and interpolations."
As interpreted by your worldview and overly literalistic hermeneutic.
"I will conclude that AB does not exist because there’s no evidence for it, and for all practical purposes AB’s existence and nonexistence are indistinguishable. We do that with everything else in our lives."
No, we don't. You're not doing it with your assumed metaphysic and epistemology, and those are the issues that we are directly talking about.
"No, you’re pretending to know all of reality because a book says so."
No, I believe that Someone who knows all of reality has conveyed it to me through a book. You're the only one pretending to know all of reality in order to make your assessments as to which epistemology is most reliable when assessing metaphysical claims, not me.
"Faith has never been a reliable means of obtaining knowledge,"
Then you're in trouble because all you have is faith in your own ability to obtain information that you cannot obtain in order to make this claim. How exactly do you know that faith has never been reliable of obtaining knowledge? That begs the question and assumes you have verified that revelation has never been received, God does not exist, and there is no supernatural element to the universe. You're getting quite a lot of mileage out of pure guesswork.
"that’s why every religion fails to describe biology, cosmology, psychology, and pretty much the entire physical world properly."
What religion fails to describe any of these? Where do you think Christianity attempts to describe them? Are you seriously including psychology as a science? That's debatable within itself.
"I’d have to twist the facts to interpret the evidence in the realm of Christian theism."
That's only because you've predetermined their interpretation with your atheistic worldview and epistemology. I'd have to twist a lot of my interpretations to try and fit your atheistic worldview too. That's what happens when you interpret according to an ultimate belief system, as we all do.
"There’s no way to take the data as it is, and reconcile it with Yahweh and the Good Book."
ReplyDeleteWow, there's no way, huh? I guess you need to inform all of the people who think there is. I didn't realize you've placed reconciliation in the realm of the impossible.
"It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole."
Or theism into a fabricated atheistic universe. I agree. They don't fit. That's why I just believe reality to be that of the Triune God and don't try to force a fantasy world where atheism true on it.
"That’s why so many theists are science deniers."
Theists don't believe in riding in cars and using microwaves? Wow, I never knew . . . Oh, you were talking about your naturalistic worldview again. Yeah, we deny your take on science because it's nothing but your worldview asserting itself over true knowledge.
"The only possible way to come close, would be to water down Christianity so much to the point where it’s barely even Christianity. But then I’d be accused by people like you of being a fake Christian. So what’s the point?"
I agree it would be a watering down. That's why I would learn how to interpret facts within the context of revealed truth.
"How is a religion that was developed before Christianity and far from its influence a rebellious fantasy? What were they supposed to do, somehow know Christianity was going to develop?"
The Bible discusses that. You need to learn your Christian theology.
"Not at all, I concluded a naturalist one because of the natural world’s incompatibility with religion. And do you accept that we live in a 13.8 billion year old universe and that life on earth evolved over billions of years? You simply cannot deny those two facts and have a tenable worldview."
Why do you think they have a worldview. I already told you I'm agnostic on those issues. The Bible doesn't speak to them and I don't believe we have the capability of really knowing them. It may be that old. It may be younger. God may have created directly or through the process of evolution. I frankly don't care, as I see absolutely no incompatibility between them.
"I only mentioned this because you mentioned that some Christians think the natural world supports theology."
Data only supports the worldview that interprets the data when it first is allowed to interpret it. As we have already concluded, you cannot use physical data to confirm a naturalistic hermeneutic. You have to assume that from guessing.
"Well science does operate under methodological naturalism (for good reasons), and even Christian scientists like Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Ken Miller check god at the door when they enter the lab."
I hardly would describe it that way. It depends on what question your asking about the subject. If they're attempting to discover something about a physical trait, why would they need to check God at the door? God is the God of the physical and the non-physical, the natural and the supernatural. Believing that something has a supernatural cause does not preclude its natural cause. That's a commonly used false dichotomy by you and your circle of friends.
"But that’s not exactly the issue here. Let me ask you this. If a scientific fact somehow contradicted your current theology, would you amend your theology or deny the fact?"
What scientific fact would contradict my theology? Sounds like another instance of you confusing your worldview with facts. That question is like me asking you, "What if my divinely revealed theology contradicted your worldview, would you give up your worldview? I'm guessing you would say, no. Why is that? Because you see your worldview as primary in interpreting phenomena, as I see my divinely revealed theology the same way.
"I’m pretty sure you’d deny the fact."
It depends what it is and whether it's a genuine fact that stands apart from your ultimate beliefs interpreting it.
"The most admirable theists will amend their theology to fit the facts. That’s being reasonable. But still, many have to deny certain aspects of science that are just as well attested as any other parts, strictly for theological reasons. That’s the problem."
ReplyDeleteAgain, I know of nothing that contradicts theology. That's just begging the question again. And it's hardly admirable that they're likely confused about their interpretive authorities and beliefs.
"Well you have to understand that many people are carried to atheism because of the science showing the evolution of life."
Which is pretty sad because that stems from a misinterpretation of the biblical literature and a confusion of a naturalistic worldview with what may be a plausible interpretation of the data. There are plenty of great theologians who are evolutionists (B. B. Warfield to name my favorite). I don't agree with them making such a stance, but it's hardly the crux of Christianity that it has been made out to be.
"We don’t presuppose our atheism first and then try to back it up."
Of course you do. You just don't realize what lies behind your epistemology, which is a metaphysic rooted in atheism.
"The evidence carries us to atheism. So it’s not as if we’re forced to accept evolution"
The evidence is interpreted by a worldview that assumes atheism (theoretical or practical) and so it supports atheism. What a coincidence.
"if it wasn't for evolution (and many other scientific theories too) we would have to abandon atheism as you rightly say."
Which is why it's the only game in town and there is too much at risk for atheists. That's one of the reasons I don't fully trust it--that, and the fact that you all seem to be completely oblivious as to what you are assuming in your "objective analysis" of data.
"And your lack of any report or evidence says it's A. What's your point? Are you suggesting that if there are multiple claims then the probability is that none of them is true?"
ReplyDeleteThe evidence says it’s A. I don’t need a “report” written by people who thought the earth was flat. Each claim has to be evaluated on its evidence in the big picture. I don’t trust “reports” at face value.
“I'm not sure what you think is dubious about it. It's pretty straight forward. Yours, however, is quite dubious, as it is self defeating.”
Not believing in invisible things for which there exists no evidence is not dubious. It’s reasonable.
“As interpreted by your worldview and overly literalistic hermeneutic.”
It’s still full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and interpolations on any interpretation. Lest you suppose liberal theology is the only way to go.
“No, we don't. You're not doing it with your assumed metaphysic and epistemology, and those are the issues that we are directly talking about.”
What exactly do you think my assumed metaphysic is again?
“No, I believe that Someone who knows all of reality has conveyed it to me through a book. You're the only one pretending to know all of reality in order to make your assessments as to which epistemology is most reliable when assessing metaphysical claims, not me.”
Well I know for a fact that “revelation” is unreliable. It’s gotten virtually every kind of knowledge that could be verified wrong. That failed track record is why your worldview is based on fairy tales and hallucinations.
“Then you're in trouble because all you have is faith in your own ability to obtain information that you cannot obtain in order to make this claim. How exactly do you know that faith has never been reliable of obtaining knowledge? That begs the question and assumes you have verified that revelation has never been received, God does not exist, and there is no supernatural element to the universe. You're getting quite a lot of mileage out of pure guesswork.”
So-called revelation is guesswork, and it’s consistently been wrong time & time again. If revelation was reliable, it would give us real useful knowledge that we can take to the bank. Instead it resembles masochistic ramblings about guilt and ego and pictures of nature that are demonstrably false. If you want to base your worldview on this most untrustworthy of epistemologies go ahead.
“What religion fails to describe any of these? Where do you think Christianity attempts to describe them? Are you seriously including psychology as a science? That's debatable within itself.”
Yours does. In Genesis, as well as many other books. It tries to explain the whole of reality from why we have disease to suffering to our psychological nature. Not only is it wrong on all of the science to explain these things, it even contradicts itself.
“That's only because you've predetermined their interpretation with your atheistic worldview and epistemology. I'd have to twist a lot of my interpretations to try and fit your atheistic worldview too. That's what happens when you interpret according to an ultimate belief system, as we all do.”
No what I mean was I’d have to deny certain facts by twisting them to fit a particular theism. Theism prevents one from acknowledging all the facts as they are. As an atheist I don’t have to deny any facts. I can just accept them as is because they all perfectly comport with the atheistic worldview. That’s why most scientists are atheists.
“Wow, there's no way, huh? I guess you need to inform all of the people who think there is. I didn't realize you've placed reconciliation in the realm of the impossible.”
ReplyDeleteI do inform them. But the more educated people are in science, the less Christian they become. So most educated people in this realm have watered down their belief in Christianity that they’re barely recognizable as Christians. I don’t have a major problem with them. And yes, they still suffer cognitive dissonance, they just willfully ignore it for the most part.
“Wow, there's no way, huh? I guess you need to inform all of the people who think there is. I didn't realize you've placed reconciliation in the realm of the impossible.”
I do inform them. But the more educated people are in science, the less Christian they become. So most educated people in this realm have watered down their belief in Christianity that they’re barely recognizable as Christians. I don’t have a major problem with them. And yes, they still suffer cognitive dissonance, they just willfully ignore it for the most part.
“Or theism into a fabricated atheistic universe. I agree. They don't fit. That's why I just believe reality to be that of the Triune God and don't try to force a fantasy world where atheism true on it.”
And believing in a triune god who sacrifices himself, to himself to save us all from himself is not a wicked old ill-thought out fantasy? I can’t square that belief and all its baggage with reality.
“Theists don't believe in riding in cars and using microwaves? Wow, I never knew . . . Oh, you were talking about your naturalistic worldview again. Yeah, we deny your take on science because it's nothing but your worldview asserting itself over true knowledge.”
Many theists do indeed deny the same science that gives us microwaves and other technology when it applies to things that contradict their theology. So yes, some are breathing contradictions.
“I agree it would be a watering down. That's why I would learn how to interpret facts within the context of revealed truth.”
How do you know you have revealed truth it is not in any way verifiable?
“The Bible discusses that. You need to learn your Christian theology.”
Explain Mr. Theologian.
“Why do you think they have a worldview. I already told you I'm agnostic on those issues. The Bible doesn't speak to them and I don't believe we have the capability of really knowing them. It may be that old. It may be younger. God may have created directly or through the process of evolution. I frankly don't care, as I see absolutely no incompatibility between them.“
You have to make a choice, otherwise you’ll admit that your worldview has lesser explanatory value. Being agnostic on those two facts would be like a “Christian” being agnostic on the resurrection. Are you really prepared to fully accept evolution, even though you’d have to abandon belief in Adam and Eve? Accepting evolution is great, I commend any theist who does so, but it opens up huge theological issues that most people ignore. That’s one reason I can’t be a Christian.
“Data only supports the worldview that interprets the data when it first is allowed to interpret it. As we have already concluded, you cannot use physical data to confirm a naturalistic hermeneutic. You have to assume that from guessing.”
No, I can use physical data (as well as logical data) to know that it doesn’t comport with any known theology and conclude that they’re all false. That leaves me with deism or atheism. Since a deistic god is virtually indistinguishable from his nonexistence, there’s no reason I should hold such a belief.
“I hardly would describe it that way. It depends on what question your asking about the subject. If they're attempting to discover something about a physical trait, why would they need to check God at the door? God is the God of the physical and the non-physical, the natural and the supernatural. Believing that something has a supernatural cause does not preclude its natural cause. That's a commonly used false dichotomy by you and your circle of friends.”
ReplyDeleteMethodological supernaturalism is not science. You can believe that evil demons control events behind the scenes if you want, but no one’s reality is affected by them as we have perfectly good natural explanations for everything you think they do. Funny how the demons always behave in ways science can describe and predict.
“I hardly would describe it that way. It depends on what question your asking about the subject. If they're attempting to discover something about a physical trait, why would they need to check God at the door? God is the God of the physical and the non-physical, the natural and the supernatural. Believing that something has a supernatural cause does not preclude its natural cause. That's a commonly used false dichotomy by you and your circle of friends.”
Methodological supernaturalism is not science. You can believe that evil demons control events behind the scenes if you want, but no one’s reality is affected by them as we have perfectly good natural explanations for everything you think they do. Funny how the demons always behave in ways science can describe and predict.
“What scientific fact would contradict my theology? Sounds like another instance of you confusing your worldview with facts. That question is like me asking you, "What if my divinely revealed theology contradicted your worldview, would you give up your worldview? I'm guessing you would say, no. Why is that? Because you see your worldview as primary in interpreting phenomena, as I see my divinely revealed theology the same way.”
For example, the fact that there never was an Adam and Eve whom many Christians believe are critical for making sense of the whole resurrection. Would you accept that? And your divinely revealed theology would have to be backed up by facts. That’s the whole issue here. If it had facts to support it, of course I would accept it. But it doesn’t. It only has faith.
“Which is pretty sad because that stems from a misinterpretation of the biblical literature and a confusion of a naturalistic worldview with what may be a plausible interpretation of the data. There are plenty of great theologians who are evolutionists (B. B. Warfield to name my favorite). I don't agree with them making such a stance, but it's hardly the crux of Christianity that it has been made out to be.”
Oh I am perfectly aware a Christian can accept evolution. I spend my time focusing on debating them and for the most part I ignore creationists. But accepting evolution opens up huge theological issues, like the fact that there was no Adam and Eve, and suffering existed long before humans came on the picture. I’ve laughed at how Christian evolutionists dance around this issue and there are about as many ways to try to explain it away as there are protestant denominations. If you disagree with evolution due to your faith, then you simply have an untenable worldview that is self-defeating.
“Of course you do. You just don't realize what lies behind your epistemology, which is a metaphysic rooted in atheism.”
ReplyDeleteNope. Sorry dude. Most atheists are former Christians. When they realized how faulty faith is and how incompatible Christianity is once you stop denying the scientific facts, it leads you straight to atheism.
“The evidence is interpreted by a worldview that assumes atheism (theoretical or practical) and so it supports atheism. What a coincidence.“
Nope. The evidence convinces us that the theology of various faiths cannot be reconciled in a reasonable manner.
“Which is why it's the only game in town and there is too much at risk for atheists. That's one of the reasons I don't fully trust it--that, and the fact that you all seem to be completely oblivious as to what you are assuming in your "objective analysis" of data.”
Evolution has always been the only game in town. It’s here to stay and never going anywhere. Even Augustine said Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. And I’ve listened to many theistic interpretations of the data, and on par, reconciling the data with theism is laughable. It forces one into sophistry and deception and to draw ridiculous conclusions that there’s no data for on purely theological reasons. Like for example, I’ve known many Christians and Muslims that will accept evolution, but not human evolution, because that means no Adam and Eve (Oh no!), even though human evolution is just as well attested for in the data as any other species. They do so purely for theological reasons. Their religion prevents them from absorbing all the facts.
I could continue this conversation forever because the amount of ignorance in your rebuttal is astounding; but I'm going to just ask one thing that I've been trying to get at this entire time:
ReplyDelete"The evidence says it’s A."
What evidence, that does not beg the question that A is A and not AB, says it's A and not AB?
"The evidence says it’s A."
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence, that does not beg the question that A is A and not AB, says it's A and not AB?
The ignorance of your epistemology and its conclusions are astounding.
What is A? And what evidence do you have that it’s AB? A “report”? That’s it? Why that report and not another report? Have you critically examined all the reports and determined yours is more accurate? Is that even possible? I have access to the same report, don’t I? Why should I believe it at face value? Shouldn’t I at least be as critical with the report as you are with evolution? If the report is known to be inaccurate in some areas, and has contradictions in others, and known interpolations in others, shouldn’t I take that into consideration, and doesn’t it diminish the integrity and trustworthiness of the report? If after examining several competing “reports,” I conclude that none of them are trustworthy, am I unreasonable to reject the claims made by the report?
So your response is:
Delete1. ad hominem, therefore, A is A and not AB.
2. tu quoque, therefore A is A and not AB.
3. beg the question, therefore, A is A and not AB.
4. the fallacy of composition, therefore, A is A and not AB.
Of course, 3 really frames your whole non-answer to my question.
Here's mine, even though you didn't answer the question, but rather deflected it with an irrelevant response.
1. The Bible claims that AB is AB and not just A.
2. It has never shown itself to be disproved in that which it seeks to put forth as true.
3. I, therefore, have no reason to doubt P1.
4. There is nothing to say that AB is untrue except one who simply believes that it is not true.
5. One gets his beliefs that it is untrue, therefore, not from evidence that disproves its veracity, but from a conflicting ultimate belief system that precludes certain claims made by the Bible, like AB is AB, and interprets it in a way that accords with his worldview.
The assessment that the Bible has contradictions is due to (1) misreading literature and misunderstanding how communication within a language game works (and so focuses on details that have nothing to do with the message being conveyed), and (2) a matter of which belief one comes to the Bible with in order to set up his hermeneutic.
The assessment that it contains inaccuracies is also due to the ignorance of how to read literature found in 1 above.
The assessment that the Bible has interpolations is irrelevant to whether the Bible is divinely inspired and conveys truth.
So basically, your argument can be summed up by the following: The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!
DeleteIsn't that really what I'm dealing with here?
Well, if we're over simplifying, I could just sum your up by saying that you basically believe,
Delete"I say it, I believe it, that settles it!"
I like mine much better, as I believe my source is the omniscient divine Being who would know, whereas yours is from a finite and fallen being who wouldn't know.
I say it because that's what the evidence shows. It's not my opinion. You have no evidence, so you have to rely on presuppositionalism. You rely entirely on faith in a discrepant account. So answer the following for me. Should I believe it at face value? And shouldn’t I at least be as critical with the report as you are with evolution?
DeleteWith what will you be critical of it? You have to judge one view with another. Hence, you have to first assume that what you are judging it with is true and reliable. But you have no way of knowing that of your belief unless you just believe it first without evidence. Evidence is data interpreted by your belief, as your belief selects and determines the value of data. Hence, when you ask whether you should be as critical as I am toward evolution, these are not similar. My skepticism toward evolution does not exclude the possibility of its claims being true. Your skepticism toward the Bible does exclude the possibility of its claims. These two different kinds of skepticism are apples and oranges.
DeleteSo do you accept evolution or not? And why are you skeptical of it? Pretend you had to make a choice.
Deletebtw, conversion flows both ways . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/about/
Speaking of Tennant...
DeleteA Reply to Tennant on Theistic Foundationalism vs. the Objectivist Axioms
Friday, October 24, 2008
by Dawson Bethrick
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/10/reply-to-tennant-on-theistic.html
Actually, I think I'll give this one another read myself!
Ydemoc
Of course if we all read Dawson like he reads the Bible, he'd have a hissy fit. I'd advise him to stick with philosophy. Historiography and literary interpretation are obviously not his forte.
ReplyDelete