How shall we determine if something exists or not, if we have no direct perception of it? Many people believe they DO have direct perceptions of a god, and while I will save my criticisms of those perceptions for another day, the fact remains that such are not sufficient evidence for sharing their beliefs with others. For someone else to adopt your ideas, you must either provide them with the direct perceptions so they can experience it for themselves or you must provide them with reasoning that concludes that your claim is at least probable.
In actuality, I believe that even with direct perceptions, probability is the best we can ever achieve. Some things in life we can assess as 99.9% probable, functionally they are as good as proven. I can reasonably conclude that I am alive, my senses provide me with information, and the sun will rise tomorrow. (For all you philosophy geeks out there, you may have detected the flavors of the problem of induction. I'll refer you to Karl Popper's solution to the problem as I believe it mirrors my own rebuttal. Enough of that for now.) Conversely, there are those things that we can determine to be .1% probable, or alternatively, 99.9% improbable. I can reasonably conclude that I am not going to be able to fly simply by thinking happy thoughts.
So how is it then that we assess probability? Precedence. If the sun has always risen in the past, then it is at least more probable that it will again. If we recognize patterns then we can make predictions, and better yet, having our predictions verified or refuted will further strengthen our understandings of the patterns. Consider a doctor making a diagnosis. A patient with a runny nose is likely to have an allergy or a cold. Yellowing of the skin may indicate liver failure. A doctor can even draw conclusions about novel illnesses based on their similarities to existing ones. How does the doctor know this? By studying the past we can make predictions of the present and future. Using precedence to judge probability is really quite intrinsic to the way humans process information and draw conclusions, you do it all the time. Arguably, what alternatives do we have?
So what about God: is there any precedence for his divine qualities? Well of course not, he is without equal. And not just without equal, he is without comparison. In fact, God is by definition completely and utterly without precedence. Can you think of any precedence of omnipotence? How about omniscience, perfection, telepathy, eternity, or the ability to exist outside of time and space, just to name a few others? What about all the magical stories from the Bible? Noah's ark anyone? Jonah and the whale? Rising from the dead? The creation of the universe ex nihilo? Any precedence of these? It seems that God and the mythologies that surround him were created with the sole purpose of being completely unlike anything we have ever experienced. Perhaps there is a usefulness to believing in the ridiculously improbable. For while God is by definition the most improbable being conceivable, he represents an idea that is in some form or another cherished by an overwhelming majority of the human population. Isn't it interesting that we use a belief in the improbable to justify a belief in absolute certainty?
Ironically, there are plenty of ideas that most of us would reject as silly that actually have far more precedence than a god. Bigfoot: we have a fossil record of similar creatures once existing, and there is a precedence of unknown animals being discovered in relatively recent times. The same applies for the Loch Ness monster. Aliens: We have a precedence of life forming on our planet, and we now recently have a precedence of planets existing in other solar systems. You get the point. I raise the perfectly valid question: If we can conclude that bigfoot is improbable, why not God infinitely more so? Could it be because Bigfoot isn't nearly as useful?
Now I realize that in my first paragraph I promised not to criticize people's personal revelations of god, but allow me to offer just this one tease: We have plenty of precedence of people "feeling" presences that aren't real, or "hearing" voices that are nothing more than illusions. A couple classes in psychology will suffice as a primer in the gullibility of the human mind. Or you need merely to look at the plethora of competing world religions to see that people can receive a personal revelation of a god that doesn't exist from sources that are hardly divine. Why then should it be reasonable for a theist to conclude that his personal revelations are any different from these existing explanations which are supported by plenty of precedence, but instead adopt the one explanation that is the quintessence of improbability? If artificial revelation is indistinguishable from divine revelation, and we have precedence for artificial revelation but none for divinity, how then can the theist reasonably claim evidence of god?
Plenty O' Comments for this article so be sure to read them, too!
You seem to be taking Hume's line here that "miracles" (read supernatural occurences) are improbable events. You also seem to invoke Troeltsch's principle of analogy (though you called it precedence and applied it to the nature of God as opposed to his application to historical events).
ReplyDeleteWhat this really entails though is that one rule out the supernatural right off hand, regardless of how much evidence there might be for it. Hume bears this out:
"There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise it would not merit this appelation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the experience of any miracle."
In other words, this is really a presupposition against supernatural occurences that demands the supernatural be rejected at any cost.
That aside, is Hume's argument valid? It seems to stem from a conflation of methodological naturalism (whereby scientific or historical inquiry prefers natural causes in events because in asserting this bias, one is more likely to find true causes since the universe as a whole seems to be more or less a closed system) and philosophical naturalism (the presupposition that only natural things exist).
As for not having analogies to God, this depends upon how strongly you want to stress analogy. If archaeologists excavate an island that they believe no human being has ever been to and find buildings that look like dwellings, but are not a type of dwelling they have ever seen before, they are entitled to believe that intelligent human life has been there. They do not know what kind of human life-- its artifacts do not bear resemblance to any of know human life they are aware of-- but certainly there is an analogy of intelligence that gives them ample room to reach this conclusion.
Similarly, in analogies to God, none of them will fit precisely. That doesn't mean they have no weight whatsoever. We acknowledge goodness, though we fail to see it exemplified perfectly in any human being. However, we may use reason or intuition to move upward to a perfect moral code (and perhaps a perfect moral being) that is its source. No one reasons perfectly, but our use of reason implies objective laws of logic (and perhaps a perfect reasoner). We create complex objects, and we notice that these bear a startling resemblance to objects in the natural world, etc.
A quick aside, you seem to base your objections on a belief that human beings are capable of reasoning and reading the natural world more or less accurately. Otherwise, you couldn't make an argument. Since natural selection does not intend to create highly reasoning beings capable of accurate observation, and the traditional God does, which presupposition comports more with the scientific method and with human reasoning in general?
Cody, Thank you for the thought provoking responses! I am complimented to have your considerations.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Hume and Troeltsch, be careful you are not making a straw man argument by attacking these gentlemen's ideas instead of mine. You spend the first few paragraphs doing so, but while my ideas may mirror theirs in some areas (I'm unfamiliar with Troeltsch and I've only recently been learning about Hume) my ideas are not derived from them (not directly anyways). You definitely seem more well read than I am, I will humbly admit. I will, however, object to your conclusion that I have prevented the "supernatural" from occurring in my reasoning, although I must raise the issue that "supernatural" is not yet sufficiently defined for us to discuss it. Things without precedence certainly CAN happen, otherwise how could the precedence have been established in the first place? The point is that inductively, explanations with higher precedence should be adopted. If a ghost were to suddenly appear before a crowd of people and be recorded by various instruments, each mind-independent measurement verifying and reinforcing the next, that would certainly establish some verifiable precedence of a new observation. If a ghost were to appear to a room full of like-minded people, and maybe one blurry photograph was taken, that would not. The point is not that supernatural things CAN'T happen, it's that they HAVEN'T happened, as best we can show with reliable information.
Even if I were to observe a ghost myself (I've experienced creepy things, but never anything so vivid as an apparition) I would have to assume, by following the law of parsimony, the conclusion the requires the fewest new assumptions. Psychology has shown a substantial precedence for the human mind to error and produce supernatural experiences that are not real. From hallucinations, to extreme emotional states, to simple cognitive biases. All of these do a great job providing explanations, and they require no new assumptions. A supernatural realm, on the other hand, is still riddled with vagueries and unexplained properties that nobody can agree upon. I could argue that the supernatural explanation doesn't actually explain anything, it just offsets the need for explanation to a magical realm where we conveniently stop asking questions. To make matters worse, no precedence of the supernatural has ever been established. (not for me anyways ,and not for a lot of people). If you hear God's voice and you're not willing to consider psychological explanations, then YOU might believe there is precedence, but good luck sharing that precedence with anyone. That's where the mind-independent measuring apparati come in handy. This is the entire foundation of reaching for objectivity.
Regarding your archeology analogy...a scenario is only as useful to us as we can connect it to reality. If such an event were to occur (who is to say it hasn't?), I can only assume that ongoing study of the site would continue to reveal additional information that would further explain how these artifacts came to be. Based only on the information you have provided (quite sparse, and heavily loaded with your interpretation that they have no precedence for their findings) I would conclude that there is still more precedence that it was a human dwelling - based on the fact that humans exist, they create dwellings, and they are known to populate islands. Human settlement remains the best conclusion, even in your analogy. Not because of some innate quality showing evidence of intelligence (read: "Design") in the houses. Not everything a human does is evidence of design, nor is design the only evidence for human existence. It would be extremely unreasonable, even given your analogy, to assume a supernatural prior denizen simply because there is a mystery surrounding the history of the site. Maybe angels built the houses....or aliens....Heck, at least bigfoot has more precedence, since we do at least have fossils of large anthropomorphic apes. I'm not trying to logically prevent the "angels hypothesis", as you accuse me of doing with your mention of presuppositions, instead I'm merely using the few "presuppositions" that we all share as responsibly as possible in our noble yet vain pursuit of objectivity.
ReplyDeleteYour comments on morality I will regrettably have to wait to respond to, as they are another lengthy subject altogether.
In regards to your final question, you use a couple of phrases that I would like to point out. You fault natural selection for not "intending" intelligence. You are correct, of course, but this may also be a straw man argument. 1.) a lack of intention by no means predicates a lack of capacity to produce, you know this I'm sure. 2.) Natural selection is but one of a few selectors that can interact with an organism's phenotype, and thus ultimately its genotype. Sexual Selection being a fantastic alternative, which very well could be considered capable of "intending" intelligence, since an intelligence is doing the selecting. But this is merely an aside, since intention was never necessary to begin with.
But this is not my primary point of contention. You seem to be using the word presupposition as synonymous with the word "Explanation" or "conclusion". I suggest that this reveals your hidden bias, and indeed the hidden bias in all of presuppositional apologetics. By believing that they can sneak the conclusion of god into the beginnings of reasoning (the presuppositions), the apologists believe they have cleverly avoided inserting him into the premises, and thus avoided begging the question. Alas, they have not. The fact that you believe you can choose a presupposition (why else would you have asked me which one I preferred?) shows that you think of your "presupposition" as a conclusion, an idea that can be reached, rather than an idea that must necessarily be so in order to serve as a starting point for reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself this, and I don't just mean rhetorically, what is a presupposition? What is it's purpose? Why is it necessary? I believe the answer is that presuppositions are only those ideas which are fundamentally necessary to the exchange of other ideas because they serve the framework by which all other points can be argued from. A presupposition must necessarily be shared by both parties in order for a conversation to be even remotely fruitful. It's not the language, but rather the syntax (I'm wondering how valid my analogy is). As an example, I can not have much of a fruitful conversation with an epistemological relativist, because he may or may not even agree that an objective reality exists (one of our presuppositions). I can no easier prove this presupposition to him as he could refute it. The reconciliation is futile. But you and I, on the other hand, do share many of the same presuppositions (I would argue we share all, since "God Exists" is not a valid presupposition), thus we are able to have wonderful and engaging debates, such as this one, where ideas can be exchanged and most importantly, evaluated. If God was truly your (logical) presupposition, and not just your conclusion, you would not feel compelled or even capable of debating it with me, much as I am not capable of debating objective reality with a relativist.
On a last note, I distinguished in the previous sentence that God was not your "logical" presupposition. Here the vagueness of words is masking what's actually going on (as always, I have such disdain for words). Most theists feel so strongly compelled to believe in god, that questioning his existence is completely out of the question. I realize this, I was a theist once myself, and an ardent supporter of Christianity. But this is not a choice made out of logic, nor are there observations that necessitate the conclusion. If every last apologetics argument were destroyed, wouldn't your faith in God remain? It's a choice made out of fear of chaos, or loyalty to an authority or cultural identity, or as I suspect in your case since you remind me of myself in my theist years, it's a decision brought about by an intense need to justify one's self as a morally good and intellectual person (a noble aim). It becomes the source and affirmation of those elements of your personality that are completely non-negotiable because to have those elements challenged would be catastrophic to self-identity. Thus the existence of god is assigned the same untouchable status. But the great part is, you don't need a god to be a moral or intellectual person. I am very much the same moral person I was 3 years ago, and I believe more so now that I am free to reach my own conclusions. Everything about you that is admirable and worthy, comes from YOU as much as it is a part of you, and isn't it so much more self-affirming that way???
I'm sorry if you felt that I misrepresented your arguments. I actually had a longer section on Hume and Troeltsch relating to historiography but I felt that it diverged too much from your main point so I removed it.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't my claim that you were necessarily deriving your ideas from Hume and Troeltsch, but that your line of thinking is very similar to theirs, though yours has more to do with the transcendental than historical (though you do seem to argue against the transcendental by means of arguing from the historical).
I'm not sure that I agree that we should prefer an explanation with fewer new assumptions. This seems to subject one to historical biases. In the middle ages, this line of thinking might have prevented the enlightenment and the scientific revolution. In our age, it could prevent further work on quantum mechanics since it challenges hitherto accepted Newtonian models of physics. I would say that we should go for the explanation that best explains the data, regardless of whether or not that explanation challenges our personal tastes, conditioned by the age in which we live. Certainly previous experiences have weight, and as a result they should be factored in when we are discerning what is the most likely explanation. But I'm not sure that this criteria by itself does anything other than to reinforce our own opinions.
You go on to say that design in the case of dwellings doesn't require a supernatural explanation. Well, of course it doesn't. That wasn't my point. My point was that there are certain features that strongly imply design, and my apocryphal archaeologists were perfectly in the right for noticing these features and suspecting a designer-- in this case a human one. Arguments from teleology do not prove the God of the Bible, but they do suggest design. They don't suggest a particular designer. That's true. However, the principle of analogy can still be invoked here with a great deal of validity.
"In regards to your final question, you use a couple of phrases that I would like to point out. You fault natural selection for not "intending" intelligence. You are correct, of course, but this may also be a straw man argument. 1.) a lack of intention by no means predicates a lack of capacity to produce, you know this I'm sure. 2.) Natural selection is but one of a few selectors that can interact with an organism's phenotype, and thus ultimately its genotype. Sexual Selection being a fantastic alternative, which very well could be considered capable of "intending" intelligence, since an intelligence is doing the selecting. But this is merely an aside, since intention was never necessary to begin with."
ReplyDeleteOn point 1, I would admit this as a general rule, but I still fail to see that it holds in this particular instance. On point 2, your example of sexual selection only works once intelligence has come into existence, so in other words the effect is producing the cause. I suspect you will say that sexual selection comes later and then works with natural selection in unison to produce greater intelligence. That's fine. But I still don't see how either can produce intelligence-- only intensify it.
"By believing that they can sneak the conclusion of god into the beginnings of reasoning (the presuppositions), the apologists believe they have cleverly avoided inserting him into the premises, and thus avoided begging the question."
Presuppositionalism tends to hold to a coherence view of truth. As a result, its major test is consistency. That is why presuppositionalists get away (or do they? I realize that's a controversial area) with starting with God-- their concern is not to start with some elusive neutral ground and see if the sovereign God deserves our belief, but to acknowledge the first principles that alone can make sense of everything else that exists.
I am not a strict presuppositionalist, by the way. I am interested in their ideas and find some value in that mode of thinking.
I agree with your definition of presupposition:
"I believe the answer is that presuppositions are only those ideas which are fundamentally necessary to the exchange of other ideas because they serve the framework by which all other points can be argued from. A presupposition must necessarily be shared by both parties in order for a conversation to be even remotely fruitful."
It is the claim of presuppositionalists that the fundamentally necessary idea is God, and that non-theists (perhaps unknowingly) do assume God when they engage in rational discourse, value judgments, etc. Non-theists often want to hold on to ideas that require the existence of God even though they reject the existence of God. They are inconsistent on this point.
I'm not sure that I follow this part. Can you elaborate?:
ReplyDelete"But you and I, on the other hand, do share many of the same presuppositions (I would argue we share all, since "God Exists" is not a valid presupposition), thus we are able to have wonderful and engaging debates, such as this one, where ideas can be exchanged and most importantly, evaluated. If God was truly your (logical) presupposition, and not just your conclusion, you would not feel compelled or even capable of debating it with me, much as I am not capable of debating objective reality with a relativist."
As for your assertions on why we believe in God:
"If every last apologetics argument were destroyed, wouldn't your faith in God remain? It's a choice made out of fear of chaos, or loyalty to an authority or cultural identity, or as I suspect in your case since you remind me of myself in my theist years, it's a decision brought about by an intense need to justify one's self as a morally good and intellectual person (a noble aim). It becomes the source and affirmation of those elements of your personality that are completely non-negotiable because to have those elements challenged would be catastrophic to self-identity. Thus the existence of god is assigned the same untouchable status."
I think perhaps now you are close to creating a strawman. For me, my movement to belief (yes, movement. I was a proud atheist throughout my teenage years) in the Christian God was based on three factors:
1. Removal of certain emotional barriers, such as studying with an SDA friend the topic of hell and deciding that the Bible actually supported an annihilationist view.
2. Grappling with positive arguments for the existence of God and the validity of the Bible.
3. A deep moving of the Spirit in my life that I wished to reject but couldn't ignore. This last point in some ways preceded the first two. I wanted to remain an atheist, but in my desperation to remove God from my life, I asked Him to leave me alone so I could attempt to remain an atheist.
I do believe that atheism leads logically to nihilism, but that isn't my main issue. Frankly, my large ego kept me from wanting to receive God. I liked the idea of being in control and not bowing to anyone else. God broke that down slowly, and is still having to work on it, frankly.
As far as cultural identity is concerned, I have always been counter-cultural in my mindset. In fact, I emulated 1960s radicals in high school. Even now, I identify as Christian but find myself outside of the camps of both the Christian and secular sub-cultures in my society. I do not come from a strong religious background, so that was not a pull to come back to faith either. I have confidence in the existence of God, both experientially and based on logical considerations. I'm not sure how much of an impact the over-turning of every logical argument for the existence of God would have on my faith. I suppose if it called into question the experiential aspect (as the loss of logical arguments tends to do), I would have to shed my belief in God. I am not a fideist.
I will say to be careful about analyzing others' "real" reasons for belief. Atheists can just as easily be psycho-analyzed and hidden, "underlying" reasons for their lack of belief can be postulated. If Christians are projecting a daddy into the sky, perhaps atheists have daddy issues and are driven by a desire to shed patriarchal authority. It is far safer to take someone's word on an issue until you have very strong evidence to the contrary.
Very quickly--
ReplyDeleteIt is the case that apologetics is more about demonstrating the reasonableness of Christianity to those who have barriers to it than it is about "saving people." William Lane Craig's book, Reasonable Faith, makes this the distinction between "knowing" and "showing." One can know God without requiring apologetic arguments for His existence (Alvin Plantinga's work on warrant and reformed epistemology is helpful on this point). Ultimately, if apologetic arguments are successful, they can only tear down intellectual barriers. Only God can save, and I believe that He only does so when the individual desires to know Him. The individual has to take the next step. Arguments were helpful for me in considering God, but as James wrote, "you believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19). Simple intellectual assent has no effect on this matter.
Cody, my apologies for my delayed response.
ReplyDeleteI'm worried we may start spinning wheels here, but in a final reiteration of my position (induction from precedence - aka parsimony, and the subsequent weakening of the God hypothesis) I would like to start by addressing your very understandable concern of historical bias. The critical distinction to make here now is the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is not tethered to the law of parsimony. It is limited only by imagination and the ability to test it. By testing the new idea, we create new observations that either confirm or deny it, thus hopefully establishing the precedence necessary to adopt the idea as a theory. In practice, the hindrance to new discoveries comes not from a limitation imposed by precedence (what you refer to as a historical bias) but from the current capacity to gain acceptable forms of observation to establish the new precedence. This is not a limitation of Parsimony, but is a natural limitation of knowledge and sensory experience.
A favorite example I give is this: Imagine you go back in time and using your grunt translator you manage to communicate with a group of cavemen. You try to explain to them all the scientific discoveries of the millenia to come. And what happens? Nothing. They have no foundation (read: precedence) for the ideas you're presenting. That doesn't make your information any less true, but they have no justifiable basis upon which to accept any of it (not in the short amount of time you have to teach them anyways) Are we to fault the cavemen for not understanding because of a lack of precedence? No. We understand that it takes a substantial progression of precedence experiences to build into the knowledge we take for granted today.
Quantum physics (what little I know of it) works the same way. It was a gradual exploration of observations and testing of hypotheses building upon a previous understanding of atoms and molecules. There wasn't just some scientist who one day proclaimed "Eureka! Quantum Entanglement!" without any precedence for his ideas. There wasn't some naive scientific community that then said, "Hey let's just accept what that guy said without any evidence (read: precedence)" No...that's how religion works.
In regards to the mysterious archeological dwellings...I admit my supernatural explanations were absurd, but nevertheless appropriate to the larger point I was trying to establish in criticizing the acceptance of supernatural explanations in general. More to your point, I need only remind that any analogy, any application of "the appearance of design" requires a precedence of past observations of a wide variety of human dwellings to reach this conclusion. It's not that the dwellings have some inherent "design" qualities that exist independent of the observer.
You continue with a new defense of presuppositionalism that it's primary purpose is to serve as a test of accuracy, what I will refer to as "internal consistency" Now I agree that internal consistency is a necessary criteria for any belief system, but it is inadequate to establish veracity. The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship Sauron. I digress from my absurditites....as you seem to admit, presup is only useful when discussing God with other theists/theist friendlies (i.e. preaching to the choir) It carries zero weight when discussing philosophy with those who do not start with that conclusion. To fault the atheist for this disconnect would not be fair. If the apologist wishes to discuss the eistence of God with an atheist, he must be willing to start on even ground, otherwise those metaphorical wheels will just spin and spin!
ReplyDeleteWe CAN do this however! Like I indicated we share presuppositions: those necessary for believing that we can gather information about the objective reality that we both experience. That's all we need, and what a great starting point it is. But alas, the apologists can't prove god from this starting point.
Instead it seems that presup was devised with the sole intent of disguising the "faith" defense as some complex philosophical notion, thereby hoping to render the atheist's criticism of faith as hypocritical - since we all have presuppositions!
The irony, is that all Presup manages to accomplish is to render both worldviews equitable, a position I know the theist does not actually believe. The only way to avoid this is to insinuate that the atheist actually, deep down, knows that god is real and is just in denial.
Wasn't it YOU who warned against the arrogance of proclaiming to know the opponent's "true beliefs"? I found it discouragingly ironic that afterwards you immediately proceeded with the very type of proclamation you chastised by suggesting Atheists have hidden, possibly Fruedian, explanations for their disbelief. To put that idea to rest, let me assert that while I'm not the first to submit to any authority, the idea of a supreme and perfect authority still appeals to me. It's calming and comforting to think that Big Daddy in the sky has everything under control.
Lastly, I appreciate you for delving into your reasons for theistic belief. While I feel like this comment thread is getting a bet unwieldy with all of our topics, I must acknowledge your position with a few ideas of my own.
ReplyDeleteClaiming falsifiability is very noble and uncommon amongst theists, and I commend you for it. I’ve noticed in your own blog that you do not proclaim the inerrancy of the bible either. As testament to this, would you be gracious enough to provide examples of hypothetical circumstances that could accomplish this falsifiability and disprove god? There are many established "naturalistic" explanations for "divine experiences", how are these insufficient, and how are your experiences different from those of others who are in error regarding the supernatural? If possible, to save the growing thread here, maybe you could post it on your own blog and link to it here?
Concerning your 3 reasons that drove your acceptance of theism. The third point reveals a contradictory nature of Christians’ perception of the “coming to Jesus” process. They want to believe that there was zero outside influence in the forming of their beliefs, but then later admit that the “holy spirit” was moving in their “hearts” the whole time. So they simultaneously were drawn to god and repulsed by him...the whole time. Does this really need a magical explanation? My point is that this “spirit” impetus can easily be explained, among other things, as cultural, social, and psychological influences. Even if you are “counter-culture”, no one can truthfully proclaim to have lived their entire life in a cultural vacuum without any religious influences on their identity. Not even I, as an atheist, can escape them. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who admitted that he was a "cultural Christian". If we had been born in Saudi Arabia, we would be discussing Islam right now. Cultural Influence...it's unavoidable, and I believe it's a huge component of the "still small voice of God".
Finally, for you to claim that theism was completely unattractive in your rebellious years is a tough pill for me to swallow. I can accept that you didn't enjoy all the philosophical ramifications of blindly adopting a foreign dogmatism. Is this why you still refuse the bible's scriptural inerrancy, despite this being a core component of Christianity? But if you want me to believe that, as an “atheist”, you asked god to leave you alone, then I’m afraid I have no choice but to challenge your understanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist is not someone who “doesn’t like god” and wants god "to go away". I personally loved god, I wanted him to stay! But once I realized he was a fantasy it was all for naught. Imagine how ridiculous that last sentence would sound if you had said “I wanted to remain an "asantaclausist", but in my desperation to remove Chris Kringle from my life, I asked him to leave me alone so I could continue not believing in him.” Forgive my bluntness, but if you want to stop believing in an imaginary friend, the best way is to stop talking to him. I did, and I discarded a lot of philosophically dissonant baggage in the process.
"More to your point, I need only remind that any analogy, any application of 'the appearance of design' requires a precedence of past observations of a wide variety of human dwellings to reach this conclusion. It's not that the dwellings have some inherent "design" qualities that exist independent of the observer."
ReplyDeleteYou move dangerously close here to confusing ontology with epistemology. Design does generally have certain hallmarks. Yes, it takes a mind to notice them. But an observer does not make a thing designed. Instead, a designed thing has certain evidences of its design, which an observer then may note, not note, or pretend to not note.
"as you seem to admit, presup is only useful when discussing God with other theists/theist friendlies (i.e. preaching to the choir) It carries zero weight when discussing philosophy with those who do not start with that conclusion."
I don't believe I admitted that. Quite the contrary, I said that non-theists presuppose God even if they do not do so consciously. Only by starting with God as a presupposition can we have coherence. A system can be coherent in itself-- so long as it doesn't let things outside of the system in-- but my claim is that the Christian God touches everything in the universe, and does so with coherence. I am not aware of other metaphysical systems that can also make this claim (though I realize that this could just be my subjective opinion).
"We CAN do this however! Like I indicated we share presuppositions: those necessary for believing that we can gather information about the objective reality that we both experience. That's all we need, and what a great starting point it is. But alas, the apologists can't prove god from this starting point."
I disagree with the last sentence (unless you are using "prove" to mean "demonstrate to such an extent that the atheist can't disagree")-- I think there are good evidential and philosophical arguments for God. But even apart from that, I do not grant to the atheist that he has any right to claim that he can gather reliable information about objective reality if God does not exist. In other words, what he is truly presupposing is MY worldview, and yet he claims to be refuting it.
"The irony, is that all Presup manages to accomplish is to render both worldviews equitable, a position I know the theist does not actually believe. The only way to avoid this is to insinuate that the atheist actually, deep down, knows that god is real and is just in denial.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it YOU who warned against the arrogance of proclaiming to know the opponent's 'true beliefs'? I found it discouragingly ironic that afterwards you immediately proceeded with the very type of proclamation you chastised by suggesting Atheists have hidden, possibly Fruedian, explanations for their disbelief. To put that idea to rest, let me assert that while I'm not the first to submit to any authority, the idea of a supreme and perfect authority still appeals to me. It's calming and comforting to think that Big Daddy in the sky has everything under control."
I do not claim that all atheists have a conscious belief of God. I do suspect that there is an extent to which this is known (perhaps unconsciously?) but suppressed, but that wasn't even my claim. My claim was that what most atheists believe logically entails theism, yet they reject it. Their worldview commits suicide-- it refutes itself. When I brought up hidden, Freudian explanations for atheism, I did so to show that one can use the same tactic the other way around. I was not advocating that they do so.
"But if you want me to believe that, as an 'atheist', you asked god to leave you alone, then I’m afraid I have no choice but to challenge your understanding of what it means to be an atheist."
I've heard this claim a lot, and I understand what you mean by it. My point was that I felt comfortable claiming unbelief. I had effectively removed God from my life and didn't feel conflicted about that. Until God's presence became too difficult to ignore. My emotional biases were against God, so I wanted to continue to live as if He didn't exist. I suspect that all atheists have similar experiences-- there are times when you don't doubt God's non-existence, but also moments where knowledge of His existence must be suppressed. I was dealing with cognitive dissonance-- holding conflicting beliefs. I disbelieved in God, yet I was experiencing Him. It made me uncomfortable. It was my desire to live as an atheist. That belief was more comforting to me because it allowed for me to live a life that seemed in my own control.
"Is this why you still refuse the bible's scriptural inerrancy, despite this being a core component of Christianity?"
ReplyDeleteI don't refuse the belief. I'm not sure what I said in my blog that communicated my disbelief in this. My honest opinion is that Scripture is divinely inspired, but of course is written by men. As a result, cultural and language barriers exist to understanding God directly from Scripture. Scripture might be inerrant (I'm quite open to that position and tend toward it), but whether or not it is, that doesn't change my opinion that it communicates true propositions-- at least in its core teachings. I also find prophetic utterances in Scripture difficult to explain naturalistically, so I find divine inspiration to be a more likely explanation for its content.
As for it being a core component, I don't think that one has to believe in inerrancy to believe in Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, death for our sins, and divine sonship. I would call those the core components-- the ontology of Christian faith. Inerrancy deals with an area of Christian epistemology. There are certain issues in working out how Scripture informs our epistemology. Issues such as hermeneutics-- what are the methods of interpretation we should use, what is Scripture intending to communicate (particularly in its varying genres), etc.-- need to be dealt with in creating a doctrine of how we should view and understand Scripture. As I examine those issues, it seems that the word "inerrancy" communicates a kind of mathematical accuracy that Scripture isn't intending to emulate. However, I do find that what it is communicating is true. Perhaps "infallible" is a better word.
Then unfortunately it sounds like your beliefs are not falsifiable, as it had appeared you were claiming, since you have fairly well quarantined any conceivable rejections through presuppositionalism. What effective rebuttal could exist, when you can just say that I require your conclusion to be true to even make my claims that it isn't? (an epistemologically incoherent position I might add). I would never dare claim this arrogance in response to your position. I start with: "We perceive our world" and then I work towards the next point, while you start with "we perceive our world because God exists". All of this I MUST subconsciously be aware of - BUT I'm just pretending to disagree by repressing your conclusion in my own mind...And thusly did the fingers enter the ears. What else could I say? What good are logic, reason, and evidence (proof) when all you really need are assertions? Why even engage in the facade of rational discourse? (Unless you are using "proof" to mean "the reiteration of ideas that CAN'T be disagreed with because they are self-reinforcing")
ReplyDeleteIf I may be so bold as to suggest that watching you reach a finish line that is identical to the start isn't just running in circles, it's not running at all. Either way I'm getting the disappointing impression that no matter my effort, it's impossible to beat a time of 0:00. It's too steep a handicap that you've bestowed upon yourself. Why don't you leave the presuppositional jargon behind and join me on the track?
Falsifiability....what would it take for you to be wrong?
God needs only to reveal himself in a way that isn't subjective. And yes, that would be miles closer to "proof" than anything so far proposed. Instead you FEEL god, nature SEEMS designed (despite the rigorous science), and it's your OPINION that the bible is infallible (because it says that it is). You claim objectivity...but where is it? I see only subjective reasons for belief. Where are the mind-independent measurements that can be disputed? Where are the externally verifiable conclusions? Objectivity IS falsifiability. They go hand in hand.
To claim that your subjectivity = objectivity is the ultimate epistemological suicide, but how worse it is that you would then criticize the atheist for exercising objectivity? I must say I expected better.
Absolutely astonishing:
"...(unless you are using "prove" to mean "demonstrate to such an extent that the atheist can't disagree")-- I think there are good evidential and philosophical arguments for God. But even APART FROM THAT , I do not grant to the atheist that he has any right to claim that he can gather reliable information about objective reality if God does not exist. In other words, what he is truly presupposing is MY worldview, and yet he claims to be refuting it."
Imagine that I had taken a position that the laws of logic don't really exist. You claim that they do, that in fact in my very attempt to make rational arguments against them, I am using them. "Ah," I respond, "it sounds like you're saying your belief in the laws of logic is non-falsifiable, because you can't argue against them without using them. As a result, there's no reason to take your position seriously." That would of course be ridiculous of me to say. Of course, in a sense both positions are falsifiable. If you can show me that the laws of logic don't exist without presupposing logic to do so, or that God doesn't exist without presupposing Him to do so, then of course both beliefs can be falsifiable. The real crux of the issue is whether or not you can do such a thing. Similarly, you have argued that we have starting presuppositions (and that God is not included in those) that deal with empirical testing and reasoning. Since most if not all of the ways we can know things fall under these two umbrellas, I have a sneaking suspicion that you would say they are not falsifiable. Why am I guilty of a philosophical sin but you are innocent?
ReplyDelete"it's your OPINION that the bible is infallible (because it says that it is)"
I never argued that the Bible is infallible because it says that it is. If it claimed to be incorrect on certain issues, that would certainly remove it as a candidate for being infallible, and its positive claim to be inspired by God does at the very least put it in the running, but it is not my position that the Bible is inspired by God because it says it is. It is my opinion that it is inspired by God because of its prophetic utterances (objective statements which can be proved or disproved) and because of my subjective relationship to it. The first point is one that can be communicated to others, the second point cannot be so easily communicated, but gives me epistemological justification to hold the belief that it is inspired.
"Objectivity IS falsifiability. They go hand in hand."
Not to beat a dead horse, but if that's the case, your belief that evidence or reason are trustworthy are merely subjective and cannot be held as universal truths. Your logical positivism (based on the ground of atheistic materialism) requires that there can be no truth at all. It is only on the ground of God's existence (which you really presuppose although perhaps unconsciously) that anything you say makes any sense at all.
Come, now. Logic is a process engaged in by humans. By simply using it there is evidence of its existence. Whether or not that process reaches accurate conclusions is certainly falsifiable. Nobody is debating this.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that logic can't be self-refuting doesn't make it unfalsifiable. It's like saying, "You can't prove your brain doesn't exist because you need your brain to do that." While technically correct, it's absurd and meaningless. Regardless, how is this a valid analogy to God? One does not use god to establish the existence of god. One uses logic and evidence to consider the existence of god.(or rather they DON'T, as is so often the case) In order for your analogy to be relevant, one must propose that god=logic & evidence. Only then can the analogy of self-refutation be appropriate. To purport that god=logic would be a very tedious task and not really consistent with the christian position.
One could also try to propose that logic COMES FROM god, and therefore can't be used against him. Despite your desire to beg the question, this is still a conditional statement. IF god exists, THEN logic would come from him and therefore couldn't be used to challenge his existence. This is tantamount to saying that if god existed you wouldn't be able to prove he didn't exist. Well duh. Following this logic, since there is a plethora of logic regularly used against god, not to mention a stark abundance of evidence against biblical claims, by means of Modus Tollens, god must NOT exist. Now I'm not arguing from this position, but rather showing the inevitable conclusion of claiming that god's existence implies his protection from logic.
You'll have to forgive me if I make strawmen arguments, but since your position has been getting less and less clearly supported, I have no choice but to swing into the darkness in the hopes of even grazing its phantasmic foundation. You continue to assert that god is necessary for ~engaging in thought~ but yet fail to show how. How could you? It's an empty claim that serves only to muddle the issue with absurd and irrelevant scenarios - pursuing not a conclusion to the discussion, but the prevention of such. Like a wild goose chase, round and round we go. Normally I would have quit by now, but I can't tell if you're intentionally blocking further discussion, or if you actually believe any of this.
So let's forget the web of obfuscating rhetoric up till now. I'm trying to boil it down into this: How do people choose between beliefs about reality? Should we not weigh them against our perceptions of reality? This is falsification. Granted, empiricism of this sort doesn't entitle us to certainty, or what you might call "Universal Truth". However, to claim anything beyond this limitation in your quest for certainty would require you to call this whole process into question, as you have indeed attempted. After all, isn't the exception to falsification the purpose of the supernatural in the first place? A magic realm where you can be absolutely correct.
But what have you really accomplished? The establishment of your ideas? No - merely the rejection of empiricism. But be forewarned. If you're going to postulate ideas that are exempt from falsification then you are castrating your mind's ability to judge fact from fantasy. Though you would seek only to protect your own beliefs from criticism, you open the door to something that looks an awful lot like relativism.
Please do give this some thought, and you might honestly find that while presuppositionalism sounded useful, it was ultimately untenable.
You say that logic is a process engaged in by humans. Is that your way of saying that laws of logic exist outside of human brains, or would you call them a human convention?
ReplyDeleteYou say that whether or not reasoning reaches accurate conclusions is falsifiable. Yes-- by using reasoning. If one grants that reason or empiricism are valid means of discerning truth, then one can discern when it doesn't work by using more reason and empiricism. You are being circular here. I do not disagree that reason and empiricism can help us to reach fairly solid conclusions. I'm just not sure why you would think it does if God doesn't exist. Here are a few reasons why:
1. If God does not exist, I suspect that you would fall back on a materialist philosophy of the universe. There are very few atheist idealists left. If this is so, laws of logic are merely social conventions. If they have definite existence and are universally true, then we must posit something that makes sense of the universe but cannot be touched or seen. But you reject that we should believe in such things.
2. If God does not exist, our ability to access the laws of logic could not be taken as a given. The process of reasoning accurately would be unintentional and not necessarily advantageous outside of those instances when right reasoning aids survival. Even if it were advantageous, what would the process of mindless, natural forces creating afresh the ability to assess outside information not directly bearing on one's survival or immediate environment look like? Just because something is helpful doesn't mean it can be made (particularly from unintentional forces).
3. If God does not exist, and we have no immaterial minds (if you believe that God doesn't exist but that we do have immaterial minds, I'd like to hear you explain how you hold such a position), our actions and thoughts are part of a pre-determined chain of events in the physical world. In other words, we do not reach conclusions BECAUSE they are reasonable, but because we cannot help but reach those conclusions. In other words, on atheistic materialism, reasonableness is not a criteria for why we come to any of our beliefs. Thus, the potential existence of laws of logic in an atheistic universe really has no impact on our thoughts anyway. We are slaves to physical matter and can never break free and be independent, rational beings.
If I have assumed that you hold to materialism, please forgive me and correct my error.
Technically, I said logic is falsifiable by evidence. By no means a perfect process, but then, I've always acknowledged the imperfection of humanity's access to information about reality. What I did not say, was that a reliance on evidence was falsifiable using evidence, no, that would be silly circular reasoning. The concept of falsifiability is a component of empiricism, not a proof of it. I'm not trying to prove the value of evidence, I'm assuming you already acknowledge it. If you don't value evidence, or you believe it to be of lesser value than your own whims and wishes and feelings then we have nothing more to discuss.
ReplyDeleteYou regularly refer to "laws" of logic, but this is not a term I use. It seems integral to your position. Perhaps you could clarify by defining it and providing examples so that I can appropriately respond? Nevertheless, as a tentative response to your three points:
1. I don't like to admit to labels like "materialism" when I can avoid it, although sometimes I will to facilitate communication. Labels come with too much philosophical baggage that I may not be aware you hold significance towards. I believe logic is a process that people engage in to understand the world outside of their heads. I believe all available information indicates that an external world either does exist, or is functionally equivalent to existing in such a way that its existence isn't worth challenging. As for distinguishing between material vs. immaterial - "the material" is obvious, but I would need you to define exactly what you mean by "immaterial". What defines it and how can we perceive it in a way that establishes it as a part of reality?
2. To the degree that logic is accurate, I can only guess it is wildly variable. However it can be made useful to us by gathering external information (evidence) and comparing with others to see if a consensus can be formed, which is why we even bother talking to one another. An earth filled with people who disagree on every conceivable point with no consensus would find humanity doomed. Interestingly, I admit that a consensus does not necessarily have to be 100% accurate with reality to be useful, nor would 100% accurate beliefs necessarily be useful if only one person believed them. Don't worry about 100% accuracy, because it's either unattainable or unrecognizable. No matter. We function anyways without it and our goal should be to improve that function by working with the best information available. Religions like yours on the other hand, take that concept and throw it out the window. They believe you can reach 100% certainty, and how convenient, they happen to have it ready for you based on your geo-temporal-economic demographic. (yes I made that word up)
3. I do tentatively subscribe to the concept of determinism. I say tentatively, because I'm very interested in finding some information that would show otherwise, however it becomes very difficult to maintain falsifiability in either position once you get down to a certain conceptual level. That being said, determinism doesn't exclude the reasoning process, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion or why your point is relevant. A computer can engage in reasoning. It receives information, processes that information using rules against other information, and then performs an action accordingly. You're welcome to propose that your free-will concept is a requirement for a conscious mind and therefore the reasoning process, but you can't then use that assertion to say that our rationality disproves determinism, that's called circular reasoning. If, however, you are just making an appeal to emotion by insisting how awful the implications of determinism must be, then again you're welcome to do so, but I don't follow the appeal.
Here again I've put some effort into working with your ideas, how about some reciprocity from you?
ReplyDelete1) Do you believe the "Supernatural" (aka immaterial?) is a magic realm you somehow access where you are entitled to absolute certainty because it is exempt from falsification? What else could it be? Is it falsifiable? How do you access it so that others may compare their perceptions with yours?
2) How does this exemption from falsification not castrate your mind's ability to judge fact from fantasy?
3) You've spent a great deal of effort unsuccessfully trying to invalidate my ability to use logic, but how exactly have you substantiated a position of your own? What positive arguments have you put forth that don't rely on assuming the conclusion in the premises? My original position in the blog post was the simple argument that there is no precedence for God or his attributes, thus he is the most improbable idea ever proposed. Not only have you failed to refute this, but you have failed to make any coherent counter position at all. How long must you carry such disdain for reason and clarity? For all the complexity you've brought to the discussion, the simplest idea remains.