The following discussion occurred on Facebook in May 2017. My first name is James. So, it's usually me who is being referred to when the name "James" is used. My comments are those by "AP" [for Annoyed Pinoy]. The discussion has been slightly edited and it's not always chronological (since Facebook threads can be commented on at any time). I've only included those portions where I interacted with others, or others interacted with me. Initials are used to maintain anonymity.
FYI, Many of the comments and points I made in the original Facebook discussion (which I've recorded in this blog) I also wanted to make in John Loftus' blogpost HERE. Both discussions occurred approximately the same time. However, by the time I was ready to make the same points there, I was already mentally fatigued because I had already had long involved discussions with multiple people in multiple threads simultaneously. In addition to that, it was clear to me that the atheists I was dialoguing/debating with there were especially unreceptive, resistant and antagonistic. I felt I had done more than enough to clear the field of objections to Christianity so that those with a seeker's heart might reconsider the possible truth of Christianity. On Loftus' blogpost, I posted with the Nickname "BibleLosophR".
The Original Post on Facebook that began the discussion was the following by CN.
CN: William Lane Craig, the man to whom our little club is dedicated, has spent his life selling the notion that Christianity is a truth which can be realized by carefully studying history, nature, and the physical universe. He makes his living assuring his followers that the religion they were taught as children need not merely be accepted on blind faith, but that anyone who sincerely and thoroughly evaluates the available evidence can reasonably conclude that the core claims of Christianity are, in fact, true.
His religion, he claims, rests not on uncritical acceptance of culturally transmitted stories, but on a rigorous foundation of intellectual analysis and inference.
A week or so ago, I posted an argument here demonstrating that Theism cannot be rationally affirmed. This argument was met with no significant opposition. It undermines Craig's approach the matter of Christianity's truth wholesale.
It proves, in fact, that Christianity is *not* a conclusion to which a sincere and careful thinker can arrive by evaluating the evidence. It is *not* a conclusion which can be reached by carefully analyzing the nature of the universe or the historical facts surrounding the resurrection narrative. It is *not,* in fact, reasonable at all.
I am actually quite comfortable, on the strength of this one essentially unopposed argument, in declaring that the purpose of this page has been fulfilled. "Reasonable Faith," referring both to the body of work around which Craig has built his ministry and the notion that his religion can be reasonably affirmed by a sincere and careful seeker of truth, has been debunked. Craig's faith is not reasonable, and if you believe the same thing that he does, we can say with essentially perfect confidence that your faith is not reasonable either.
AP: I'd say that only a knowledgeable and philosophically adept presuppositionalist could answer your arguments. Unfortunately, most presuppositionalists like myself aren't very capable. In general, we'd point out that in comparison to atheism(s) [i.e. various atheistic worldviews], Christianity better provides for the preconditions of intelligibility. Grounding the metaphysical existence of, and/or epistemological belief in things like the laws of logic; abstract entities; laws of nature; laws of morality; genuine objective value (e.g. human dignity etc.); assumption of the general reliability of our sensory and cognitive faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as sources of justified true belief; the existence/knowability/orderly nature of the external world; the adequacy of language to describe the world; the use of the principle of induction; causation etc.).
Some capable presuppers include folks like Paul Manata, James Anderson, Steve Hays et al.
CN: Yeah, I gotta tell you, presuppositionalism is not promising.
AP: I'm curious, have you ever listened to the Paul Manata vs. Dan Barker debate? I think Manata did a great job. The only major disagreements I would have with Paul in the debate is his assumption of Young Earth Creationism (I'm an Old Earth Creationist), and his cessationist position on Revelation (which made his response to Dan's "talking cat" parallel weak). If you're interested, here's the debate on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/140QVvwL9dU
CN: i'll have a listen
CN: Well, I'm through the first ten minutes, wherein Paul makes a remarkable fool of himself. Either his argument is an attack on something Dan actually believes, in which case it is irrelevant to the question, here, because Dan's beliefs are silly and not representative of atheism, or Paul's attack is against a pure straw man, in which case it is still irrelevant.
His basic contentions, that there cannot be any atheistic grounds for rational epistemology and that atheism is internally inconsistency, are both obviously false.
It may be that what *Dan* believes provides him no grounds for rational epistemology, or that what Dan believes is internally inconsistent, but Paul has made it inescapably clear in his intro that his critique cannot possibly apply to atheism in general.
AP: Well, it is a debate and so it only makes sense that he addresses his opponent's position. If I recall correctly, later on he'll make more comments that do apply to atheism in general.
CN: I'm about five minutes into Dan's response, and in all fairness, it is...bad. like, he's all over the place. He's rambling. His presentation is *way* worse than Paul's.
Even so, Paul *at best* may have some critique of Dan's particular melange of beliefs. He's going to have to change tack almost completely in order to actually offer any argument that's even *relevant* to the issue under discussion in this thread.
CN: Paul's first rebuttal is scattered. Dan isn't capitalizing--I suspect if he were familiar with the typical presupp spiel, he would be able to, because Paul's stuff is predictable and mostly nonsense, and the result is sort of a scattered back and forth where Paul doesn't have any points to make and Dan isn't on the ball enough to point that out.
AP: Well, I'll grant you that Evidentialist, Classical, and Cumulative Case apologetics (by themselves apart from a presuppositional framework) are very weak. There are 5 major approaches to Christian Presuppositionalism, except for one, they all affirm the use of evidences [without being "evidentiaLIST"].
I haven't read your latest argument against theism, I probably wouldn't understand it. But even assuming (ad arguendo) that theistic belief cannot be arrived at rationally, that doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational (i.e. contrary to reason). I don't know if you do claim theism [i.e. theistic belief] is IRrational.
MJR: Yup, exactly why Dan Barker is one of my least favorite atheist debators.
CN: Dan has made a significant mistake in his treatment or morality, here in the middle of Paul's first cross-examination, but Paul of course fails to actually make any relevant points off of Dan's error.
CN: What I claim is that theism is not a belief that can be affirmed rationally.
AP: "What I claim is that theism is not a belief that can be affirmed rationally."
Affirmed rationally, or defended rationally? Are you saying all forms of theistic belief are necessarily irrational, illogical and incoherent? Surely, some things are rational to believe even if one couldn't rationally or empirically or historically defend the belief (e.g. your belief that your grandmother told you you're her favorite grandchild on your 10th birthday).
AP: You're within your epistemic rights to believe your grandmother said you were her favorite despite the fact that you can't prove it and despite the fact that your siblings and cousins reject your claim.
CN: "Affirmed rationally, or defended rationally?"
Both.
"Are you saying all forms of theistic belief are necessarily irrational, illogical and incoherent?"
No.
"Surely, some things are rational to believe even if one couldn't rationally or empirically or historically defend the belief (e.g. your belief that your grandmother told you you're her favorite grandchild on your 10th birthday)."
Memory typically serves as sufficient evidence for high-prior proposals.
You might adopt some logical rules or rules of thought without evidence, but we wouldn't call this "rational" and, indeed, we could say pretty easily that it would be irrational to accept these rules *as ontologically weighty propositions* without going through some rational process to justify the ontological weight of those propositions.
CN: Yeah, sorry, man. I'm about halfway through this, and I gotta stop. This debate is grating. Dan is doing a terrible job, and Paul is just reciting the typical presupp spiel, and not even doing a good job of it. He makes no points, does not argue against atheism in general or for Christianity in general. All he is doing is picking at isolated bits from Dan's book while the two of them bicker ineffectually back and forth about...nothing, basically.
I think if I engaged in the same debate with this guy, it would be obvious that he has nothing to contribute to the conversation. My guess is that he doesn't really understand most of what he is saying, so word-for-word typical is his spiel. He sounds like he's reading off of cue cards he downloaded from Turek's website.
AP: Fast forward to his rebuttal period.
I think Paul's rebuttal is at 39 minutes and 55 seconds.
CN: I'm at 40:55. I guess I could keep listening, but, frankly, it just dropped dramatically in quality.
Paul was coming off as (at least sort of) polished when he was just reciting his script, and Dan has been a mess the whole time, but as soon as Paul actually started departing from the script to start making his own points, it became immediately obvious that he had no more intelligent contribution to offer than Dan did.
AP: Are you saying that your belief regarding your grandma's statement is non-rational or arational?
AP: I don't know if you're still listenin, but Paul's closing statement is at 1:00:00.
CN: Well, I don't personally have any such belief.
If I did, it would depend on the details of my memory, and whatever evidence speaks to how generally reliable my memory is.
CN: I'm not. I'll jump to 1:00:00 if you really think it's worth it, but I have no expectation at this point that it will be.
I'll bet it's just the same predictable script he started out with, completely ignoring whatever was said in response
HP: his assumption of Young Earth Creationism proves his emphatic ignorance. He must have failed geology
AP: Science on secular grounds cannot prove or disprove anything. Much less YEC.
Science has presuppositions or axioms which cannot themselves be proven scientifically but must be assumed in order for science to be done. Some of those presuppositions include:
(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world;
(2) the orderly nature of the external world;
(3) the knowability of the external world;
(4) the existence of truth;
(5) the laws of logic;
(6) the [general] reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment;
(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world;
(8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly");
(9) the [presumed] uniformity of nature and [propriety of the use of the principle of] induction;
(10) the existence of numbers.
(11) causation
These make sense in theism, but the various atheistic worldviews have difficulty grounding such axioms. Most atheists live by "faith" (so to speak) when they operate with these working/operating assumptions.
Also, atheism has to overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism which defended by even some atheists. Elminative Materialism holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, deliberations, decisions and acts of will aren't real. If you can't overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism then you have no business arguing against YEC.
AP: Generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper wrote:
"First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... [W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses.... [I]n science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement;... our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths."- Karl Popper
Popper went on to say: "It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."
The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.- Karl Popper
Basically, "science" on atheism reduces to conjectures (i.e. guesses) and alleged "refutations". But even the "refutations" aren't really true refutations since science, on secular grounds, cannot lead to any truth.
AP: Some secular books that destroy the possibility of science on secular grounds see the following books:
Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume
The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell
Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle's Metaphyics
Or read Christian philosopher Gordon Clark's book, "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God" which I HIGHLY RECOMMEND. He's a Clarkian Presuppositionalist (I'm Van Tillian presupper). Nevertheless, his critique of science is devastating. Though, I'm not an empiric skeptic like he was.
CN: Well, most of that is pretty obvious nonsense, of course. We can construct a logical and rigorous theory of science without most of those assumptions, as Jaynes proved in "probability theory, the logic of science."
Moreover, theism does no better a job grounding any of those assumptions than any number of comparable atheistic worldviews.
JP: James wrote: "secular books that destroy the possibility of science on secular grounds"
Destroy? I honestly don't think there's much merit in those things you list. Not because they don't carry any merit in their own right, but because of how you're using them here.
Of course science doesn't "disprove" solipsism. :)
And, sure, most epistemic endeavors suppose the 1st law, self-identity, for example; I'm not sure why you think that's somehow an argument against science. By all means, try to toss that out, and give it some thought; there isn't anything in particular that's itself, including this statement, no individuation either.
What of causation then? Science has demarcated seemingly acausal events, and come up with coherent models thereof.
If "the ground" of existence is something else, then "it" does not exist.
Science is model ==> evidence convergence. Empirical, self-critical, bias-minimizing. The convergence methodologies are commonly inductive. Obviously you can't change the evidence (observations, facts, experimental results, etc), hence the models converge on that. That's roughly scientific justification standards, and science remains the single most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history, no contest (medicine, physics, you name it). And you may take that as evidence of self-justification, science meets it's own criteria.
Au contraire. It's kind of telling that critique has been pushed into such corners. But, I for one, do indeed want to see objections. Why on Earth would they come from theism, though?
MJR: Basal assumptions: the universe exists (we aren't just a brain in the vat)
We can learn something about the universe.
Models with predictive capabilities are more likely true that models without.
Presupps make all of these assumptions and more. This makes their position inferior. It makes extra unnecessary assumptions.
P.S. science most definitely can demonstrate that the earth is much much older than 6k years.
AP: "And, sure, most epistemic endeavors suppose the 1st law, self-identity, "
While some atheists are not materialists (e.g. some are Platonists), most atheists are materialists. Given materialism, there's nothing material you can point to that's unchanging. The logical law "A is A" doesn't apply to anything physical because everything physical is contingent and changing. Moreover, such atheists still have to surmount many of the issues I brought up earlier. For example, the problems and implications of Eliminative Materialism, justify their assumption of the uniformity of nature, make sense of their use of induction, the assumption of the general reliability of their sensory and cognitive faculties etc. Most forms of atheism are like boats littered with holes. It's not enough to plug one hole. One needs to plug most or all holes simultaneously and in a non-contradictory fashion. Some solutions atheists offer for one problem contradict or undermine their solutions for other problems and vice versa.
" I'm not sure why you think that's somehow an argument against science."
What I'm against is a secular foundation for science. I'm not against science. As a Christian I believe that God made the world to be investigatable and discoverable. Also, that our cognitive and sensory faculties are, by design, adapted to our environment. While EAAN might not be sound, it does show the difficulties rationally affirming naturalism. Also, there are problems with Evolutionary Reliabilism.
The Evolutionary Basis of Self-Deception
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iRUtwdVJsOTVuOTQ/view
Two Senses of 'Reliability' in Evolutionary Epistemology
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iZE5VUlNycFVoSU0/view
The Circularity of Evolutionary Reliabilism
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iMnhOUXVPZ2RhUTQ/view
"What of causation then? Science has demarcated seemingly acausal events, and come up with coherent models thereof."
Secular science has never proven either causation or acausal events. Regarding the former, David Hume has demonstrated that. Regarding the latter, just because something doesn't seem caused doesn't mean it wasn't caused. You'd have to be omniscient to rule out all causal factors. Just because you can't detect a cause doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"The convergence methodologies are commonly inductive."
Induction, on secular grounds, can never lead to truth or certain knowledge, as Popper said in the quotes I gave. That's because no amount of induction can tell us anything final. For all you know, any future discovery could controvert absolutely everything one once held as certain or provisional. Secular science must and can only ever be provisional. At best most atheistic worldviews can only lead to an operationalist or instrumentalist view of science. It's only pragmatic, and can never lead to apodictic truth.
"Obviously you can't change the evidence (observations, facts, experimental results, etc), hence the models converge on that. "
That assumes that the universe is uniform. For all you know, the fabric of spacetime along with it laws and constants are constantly changing from metaphorical cotton, to gold weave, to polyester, to clay but you never realize it. Just like in those time travel movies where people don't realize the world has changed (e.g. Time Cop). For all you know the laws of nature are different in other galaxies. No earthbound scientists has proven universal uniformity. Universal both in in time and space.
"...and science remains the single most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history, no contest (medicine, physics, you name it)."
Theories can work which are nevertheless false. For example Newtonian physics can get men on the moon and back even though most acknowledge it's false. There is no such attraction between bodies as Newton postulated. Examples could be multiplied.
"And you may take that as evidence of self-justification, science meets it's own criteria."
No, you haven't show how secular science isn't just stipulating things and playing games with made up baseless rules.
Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/
Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use
Is Most Published Research Wrong?
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q
AP: "Basal assumptions: the universe exists (we aren't just a brain in the vat)"
You'd need to explain what you mean by "ex-ists". Its etymology means to be "out of being". As R.C. Sproul said, "Now the idea of existence says to exist is to stand out of something. And the idea meant to stand out of being. So that something that exists is something that has one foot in being, and the other foot in becoming, or in non-being. Unless it’s connected somehow to being, it couldn’t be. We wouldn’t be human beings, we would be human becomings. And if it had both feet in being, it couldn’t be a creature. Well the point I’m saying is that we don’t want to think of God like this."
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/rc-sproul-proves-god-does-not-exist/
Stipulating we aren't brains in a vat isn't an argument. For all you know you are Hilary Putnam's brain in a vat. Being manipulated by an Ungerian Mad Scientist. With no other real brains to keep you company. Or maybe you're dreaming, or being tricked by a Cartesian Daemon. In fact, for all you know, divine idealism or divine occasionalism might be the case.
"We can learn something about the universe."
Another unargued assumption.
"Models with predictive capabilities are more likely true that models without."
That assumes that there is no Cartesian Demon who's trying to trip you up intellectually. And even granting that slogan, so what? Theories believed to be false sometimes work better than theories believed to be true. False theories sometimes work.
"Presupps make all of these assumptions and more. This makes their position inferior. It makes extra unnecessary assumptions."
I don't know which assumptions you're referring to. The ones I mentioned, or the ones you just mentioned. Either way, such assumptions make better sense given theism than atheism. Christian theism can ground them, while the various atheistic worldviews either can't or have much more difficulty doing so. Nor have you addressed the problems I outlined above in my previous posts.
"P.S. science most definitely can demonstrate that the earth is much much older than 6k years."
I'm an Old Earth Creationist who believes the universe is billions of years old. But given atheism, there's no way one could really tell us the age of the earth. In fact, given atheism, maybe the B theory of time and Minkowski's block universe is true. Which means eternalism is true. In which case, the earth has no age.
P.S. Christianity is compatible with either the A or B theory of time.
MJR: They are the Base assumptions we all make. You don't argue for assumptions. They're assumptions. And you can't escape them anymore than I can.
MJR: You have to start with the same assumptions I just mentioned. It doesn't make any more sense to add god to your assumptions then make some assinine remark that they make more sense under theism. Considering I make fewer assumptions, sticking to the bare minimum of what's necessary, I'm not seeing any evidence for any sort of god.
AP: Some assumptions cohere more and better in some worldview than in others. Also, Christianity is all for faith assumptions. Atheists usually berate theists for their "faith" assumptions. Yet, they themselves have unargued for assumptions which they exempt by labeling them "working/operating assumptions". But it begs the question to assume they're 1. true, and 2. actually work.
You stipulate the the universe exists and can know things about it. You haven't given us a plausible worldview that can make sense of that. How do you know you can know anything about the universe, and what do you think you know about it? Do you know enough to know that God isn't necessary metaphysically or epistemologically?
Occam's Razor isn't an infallible principle. It doesn't tell us what is necessarily true, only what is to be preferred. Scientists sometimes count elegance in a theory as a greater guide than simplicity in telling them which theory is more likely true. So, sometimes a more complex theory is preferred if it provides greater explanatory power and scope.
Moreover, I showed you how atheism often undermines or at least seriously calls into question those assumptions, given atheism. You haven't actually addressed my points above which I posted to to you or to others in this thread.
AP: Given Christian theism, we were meant to have such working assumptions because we were to infer them from General Revelation and Special Revelation. However, given atheism, the universe didn't guide the evolution of our sensory and cognitive faculties to be truth acquiring and producing. For all you know, you never learn anything really true about the universe. You're like the slave in Plato's Cave who never sees things for/as what they really are. Like a color blind dog who'll never know about the blue sky.
The philosopher William James once said, “We may be in the world as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.”Read more:
www.reasonablefaith.org/emotions-and-deciding-whether-christianity-is-true
Given theism, humans are more like Newton when he said, "I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."- Isaac Newton
Science first truly flourished in Christian Europe because Christianity instilled an expectation of discover in the world from it's wise, rational and intelligent Creator.
MJR: They're necessary to function. That doesn't make them a "faith" assumption. We all make them. I just keep my assumptions limited to the bare minimum, and infer from there.
AP: Given atheism, maybe CHAOS rules the world. As Aristophanes put it:
Whirl is King, having driven out Zeus-Aristophanes
Alternatively translated:
No, a thousand times no! The ruler of the world is the Whirlwind, that has unseated Zeus.
"There is not, no; for Vortex reigns having expelled Jupiter."
Vortex is king, and has deposed Zeus.
It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of 'chance.' - Van Til
MJR: Atheism isn't threatened by the bare minimum assumptions unless there were actually evidence for god.
MJR: I would say given the evidence, Christianity is almost certainly false.
AP: I've listed some evidences in my comments at this thread:
[I've created a blog based on those comments HERE]
I've also collected some in my various blogs. For example here:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/
I need to begin my day and so have to leave the conversation for now. I'll be back tonight. Thanks for the chat.
MJR: Great, but if you're using evidence and arguments for god, that can only possibly follow after the base assumptions. Though I still find the logic trying to demonstrate gods existence is seriously flawed.
CN: " Some assumptions cohere more and better in some worldview than in others."
Note that this isn't quite right. Coherence is binary. There is no such thing as cohering "more" or cohering "better." There is only "coherence" or "incoherence."
JP: James wrote: «[...] there's nothing material you can point to that's unchanging. The logical law "A is A" doesn't apply to anything physical because everything physical is contingent and changing»
I don't think you quite understand the 1st law. :D The processes that occur are the processes that occur - ontological self-identity. At any one time, an object is the object - ontological self-identity. Tautologies are true - propositional self-identity.
James wrote: «Secular science has never proven [...]»
Since my background is over in mathematics, I can't help but notice the haphazard use of the word "proof". Technically, proofs are deductive, whereas by far most epistemics go by justification. And justification come in various forms, not just deductive.
That aside, why on Earth have you inserted "Secular" in front of "science"? As briefly mentioned above, science is largely methodological. I know you'd like to hijack science for religious apologetics, but you might as well write "Yellow science".
James wrote: «Induction, on secular grounds, can never lead to truth or certain knowledge»
Ah, certainty. So, by "knowledge" you mean "certainty" (in your various posts here)? To know p (some proposition), you then also have to know that you know p. Ad infinitum. Sorry, that's not how it works. And then there's the diallelus. By inserting your variety of theism you've just added more to your burden.
James wrote: «That assumes that the universe is uniform»
Suppose there are no regularities. This would make it impossible for us to learn. We find both.
James wrote: «playing games with made up baseless rules»
:D
Your demand for others to disprove solipsism (and brains in vats and all that) is misplaced. By all means, go right ahead and disprove solipsism; take it as a challenge.
That aside, how do you think you ever learned anything, from the time you were born? By interacting with the world. In absence of non-deductive learning we get exactly nowhere.
JP: MJR wrote: wrote: "I would say given the evidence, Christianity is almost certainly false."
Not just Christianity. Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, ... It's all fantastic speculation, that has become ritualized ignorance. Contemporary theology is the fossilized remains of superstition acquired by non-teleological evolution. And then theists start deferring to ontologized abstracts, making their "otherworldly" entities sterile and inert. Go figure. :)
AP: I've been busy and I've already devoted a lot of time to this thread. Thanks for the chat everyone. Here are my final comments:
"I don't think you quite understand the 1st law. :D The processes that occur are the processes that occur - ontological self-identity. At any one time, an object is the object - ontological self-identity."
The very reason Plato denied knowledge was possible in this contingent world was because its changing. For example, Apples can turn into humans, humans into sharks by the process of digestion. A is never A because there never is an unchanging "A". Only in the unchanging realm of forms did Plato think knowledge was possible.
"Great, but if you're using evidence and arguments for god, that can only possibly follow after the base assumptions. Though I still find the logic trying to demonstrate gods existence is seriously flawed."
Your base assumptions float in nowhere. I would argue you don't have enough axioms [much less justifiable ones] to make sense of the world or develop a viable worldview.
"That aside, why on Earth have you inserted "Secular" in front of "science"? As briefly mentioned above, science is largely methodological. I know you'd like to hijack science for religious apologetics, but you might as well write "Yellow science"."
I already explained that. One can attempt to do science with a secular or atheistic worldview(s). Whether one postively and explicitly holds to metaphysical naturalism or one takes the more modest position of methodological naturalism. IF, hypothetically speaking, Christianity is true [as I believe, rightly or wrongly], then only science done with Christian presuppositions would count as true knowledge from God's, and therefore as well man's, perspective. Fortunately, non-Christians borrow enough from the Christian worldview that much of secular science is useful. I'm hesitant to say "leads to scientific truth" since, I'm not sure it does. I lean toward scientific anti-realism.
"Ah, certainty. So, by "knowledge" you mean "certainty" (in your various posts here)? To know p (some proposition), you then also have to know that you know p. Ad infinitum. Sorry, that's not how it works. And then there's the diallelus. By inserting your variety of theism you've just added more to your burden."
Yes, the regress problem is real. I anchor my knowledge to the ontology of God's existence and the epistemology of God's revelation. Non-theists cannot make that move. I don't claim an internalist and infallibilist epistemology. It seems to me that it's incumbent on non-theists 1. to claim, 2. to actually possess and 3. to fulll an internalist and infallibilist constraint on knowledge. Otherwise, they really don't know anything (as I claimed above). Like they say, there are no free lunches in philosophy.
As Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til wrote regarding knowledge, "My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods." Elsewhere, he wrote, "Man can rejoice in the mystery that surrounds himself because he believes that no mystery surrounds God. If mystery should be thought of as surrounding God, then nothing would remain for man but utter despair. A child who knows that his father is a millionaire does not need to have more than a dollar in his hand."
The consistent Christian unashamedly/unabashedly acknowledges he's walking by faith in God's revelation. Whereas various non-Christians who lean toward rationalism, when pushed can't given rational arguments to ground their rationalism. The non-Christians who lean toward empiricism can't rationally or empirically ground their empiricism. While irrationalists are self-contradictory in speech and behavior.
"Suppose there are no regularities. This would make it impossible for us to learn. We find both."
No, you're asserting and begging the question of both. Just because it appears to you, or you think you are learning or that there are regularities in the world doesn't mean you are or there is. Given, Christianity, I agree both are true. But given atheism, I'd like to know how such is possible ontologically and epistemologically.
"Your demand for others to disprove solipsism (and brains in vats and all that) is misplaced. By all means, go right ahead and disprove solipsism; take it as a challenge."
I was challenging non-theistic (specifically non-Christian) epistemologies which begin with man as the source and measure (homo mensura). I begin with God (deus mensura), God as the measure of all things. Mine is a revelational epistemology. I was looking for how non-theists can claim to have any knowledge at all. I haven't see any good arguments.
"That aside, how do you think you ever learned anything, from the time you were born? By interacting with the world. In absence of non-deductive learning we get exactly nowhere."
Christianity allows for the use of deduction, induction, abduction, reduction, innoduction etc. It's because I live in a world created by an orderly God that there are such things as kinds, categories, species, universals. Why I can have confidence in the general reliability of my sense perceptions and rational faculties etc. Why I can assume things like causation, regularity, order, induction, general uniformity etc. Why I can think in terms of laws of logic, laws of nature and laws of morality.
MJR: //Your base assumptions float in nowhere. I would argue you don't have enough axioms [much less justifiable ones] to make sense of the world or develop a viable worldview.//
And yet due to your own subjective lens, you're stuck in the exact same boat I am. You make the exact same assumptions and then make more. I would argue that your additional assumptions are unwarranted.
CN: Note that axioms are allowed to '"float in nowhere," so to speak. They do not need to be grounded in prior ontological assumptions.
AP: "Note that axioms are allowed to '"float in nowhere," so to speak. They do not need to be grounded in prior ontological assumptions."
Technically, that's true given some systems and mathematics. When it comes worldviews, that's a weakness since such axioms could be completely arbitrary and ad hoc. The difference is that in "Omni" types of theism (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam) some axioms or presuppositions are revealed from by an omniscient and omnisapient all powerful providential God.
to MJR:
" You make the exact same assumptions and then make more. I would argue that your additional assumptions are unwarranted."
Our common assumptions fit with the remainder of my worldview, while yours often do not. I say often since there are different types of atheistic worldviews and I don't know which one you hold to. For example, most forms of atheism are materialistic and so have to overcome the hurdles of Eliminative Materialism. Given my worldview, my presuppositions are warranted and non-arbitrary. Most forms of atheism undermine (or seriously call into question) our common assumptions.
AP: The overarching point is that theism (like that in Christianity) can in principle consistently claim knowledge and truth. Whereas in atheism, one cannot, even in principle, claim knowledge and truth. At best atheists can attempt to argue for what works/pragmatism (though, even that's questionable).
MJR: I'm sorry but that just looks like word salad to me. You make the same base assumptions I make. I try to keep my assumptions limited to the bare minimum. I'm not assuming materialism or naturalism or whatever you want to call it, I believe that's where the evidence points.
MJR: Christianity doesn't give you any special powers of knowledge that I don't already possess.
AP: Tell me one substantial thing you know given your epistemology and ontology. Not something like, "I know I'm not omniscient." Something really positive.
MJR: I don't even know what your actually asking for?
MJR: Are you suggesting that because I can't know with certainty that I'm not a brain in a vat that I can't really know anything?
Great. But we're all in that boat.
AP: Christianity, gives us the framework in which to make sense of the world, as well as making sense of making sense of the world. As C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
Given your atheism, you can't know that the sun has risen, nor can you make sense of your your knowledge that it does rise. As a Christian, I believe you do know things, but you can't explain your knowledge given your non-Christian worldview. If you were consistent with your worldview, you'd admit you don't know anything of consequence. But, because you're made in God's image and live in God's created world, you actually do know things.
AP: So, you admit that you can't really know anything? Good. I agree. I disagree that we're in the same epistemological boat.
MJR: Christianity doesn't give you any extra special power to know with certainty anymore that I could.
MJR: You haven't shown that your not. you've basically just said that you were because Christianity blah blah blah, but the reality reality is your stuck behind your own subjective lens just as I am behind mine.
AP: The power is not in me. I agree we're the same. The power is in God and in His General Revelation (which reaches everyone) and Special Revelation (which reaches some). That coupled with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit provides a basis for genuine knowledge (even if not apodictic or infallible).
MJR: Which could all be part of the program feeding into your brain.
MJR: I have no general revelation of any such god. So that doesn't reach everyone
AP: I admit I'm fallible. I"m glad you admit that given atheism, no true knowledge is possible and that everything of consequence is provisional. Hence, you can't say that Christianity is false. Only that I might possible be wrong about Christianity. I'm content with that. Especially since there are many other lines of converging evidence that suggest Christianity is true.
AP: The topic of General Revelation is discussed in my books on Christian apologetics. This isn't the medium to describe it in full and defend the concept.
AP: oops, not ***MY*** books on apologetics. I mean in books by Christian apologists.
MJR: If by "true knowledge" you mean 100% certainty, then I would argue that no world view at all can offer you that. So I'm not really sure what your issue is?
AP: I"m not talking about psychological certainty. That comes and goes for even false beliefs. I'm talking about knowledge. In fact, it's possible to have knowledge with a low degree of certainty, while another person can have a high degree of certainty of something that's actually false. IF Christianity is true, then I can have knowledge because the Revelations of the Christian God are from a God who is all knowing, all powerful, all controlling [providentially], and all truthful God.
MJR: Sorry but "if" isn't a very convincing argument. Further I've seen no reason to believe a god is giving us any sort of revelation much less exist.
MJR: I recognize that I can't prove the external world exists. But I can at least learn about the reality I inhabit. And we all do that regardless of God's existence.
Also, I'm still not even sure what you mean by true knowledge? You seem to agree that we could all be wrong, which only puts you back in the same boat I'm in.
CN: James: it's not really a weakness in world-views at all.
You assume that God exists and then deduce from that that inference works.
I just assume that inference works.
Your grounding for inference is precisely as shaky as mine, mine just cuts out an unnecessary and unhelpful extravagance that yours includes.
AP: The IF wasn't an argument for the truth of Christianity. I asked you to see things from the perspective within the Christian worldview.
MJR: I still don't see what you mean by "true knowledge"? If Christianity is true god gives you revelation? So what? I've seen no reason to think Christianity is true.
MJR: And a lot of reasons to think it's false.
AP: CN, why assume that inference works in light of the problems Eliminative Materialism gives you along with the problems of Evolutionary Reliabilism? Along with the fact that if there is no God, then maybe acausal things happen all the time and you're not aware of it such that the reasoning of your brain isn't reliable. The fabric of the universe and its laws might be continually changing analogous to the timeline of a time travel movies.
AP: It's refreshingly honest of well known atheist and debunker John Loftus to admit for years (and on multiple occasions) that 1. Christianity has not been absolutely refuted/disproved (i.e. proven false); and 2. despite all that he knows and all the arguments against Christianity, it's still possible that Christianity is true. He thinks the likelihood is less than 1%. Nevertheless, no one can say that their rejection of Christianity is based on the positive evidence against Christianity.
AP: MJR, If you like, you can tell me what you think is the THE GREATEST "proof" or evidence that disproves Christianity. If I can show why it isn't really a good reason, then maybe that would go a long way in making room for Christianity in your mind.
MJR: James, I said I've seen plenty of reasons to think it's false. I've also been repeatedly admitting that I agree 100% certainty is impossible. So why should him giving it a less than 1% chance of being true be any different than anything I've been saying here?
MJR: // Along with the fact that if there is no God, then maybe acausal things happen all the time and you're not aware of it such that the reasoning of your brain isn't reliable. The fabric of the universe and its laws might be continually changing analogous to the timeline of a time travel movies.//
You realize that this could still be the case even if God exists?
AP: Because, Loftus' arguments against Christianity are terrible. See the book review links I've collected in my blogpost here:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-reviews-of-recent-atheist-authors.html
AP: "You realize that this could still be the case even if God exists?"
Not the Christian God.
MJR: Only if you assume the Christian god actually is exactly how it's described. But I've seen little reason to think it exists, much less exactly as described.
AP: That's an external critique, not an internal critique of Christianity. Either way, I'm not aware of a good argument against Christianity. Or even one that would undermine any of his claimed attributes in Scripture.
MJR: I've been doing this long enough to know your just making a general statement. I'm sure you don't find them convincing else you would drop it. I'm afraid I do find them very convincing.
MJR: I'm not interested in arguing whether it's internally consistent. Lots of things can be internally consistent and still be wrong. Internal consistency isn't a measure of if it's true.
AP: Name your best example of an argument or an evidence that seriously undermines the truth of Christianity.
CN: "eliminator materialism" has nothing to do with my position.
There is no problem of "evolutionary reliabilism."
More to the point, you are *missing* the point. Why assume that there is a god?
Because, according to you, this affords you the grounding you need for functional epistemology.
But, of course, assuming the functionality of some Epistemology accomplishes the exact same thing. I have exactly the same reason for assuming the functionality of some logic as an inferential and Epistemology all framework as you have for assuming that God exists, and there simply aren't any significant problems that follow from this approach.
MJR: //MJR, Name your best example of an argument or an evidence that seriously undermines the truth of Christianity.//
while I think there's several, I think asking for this is just just a distraction.
AP: I'm not sure it's true, but it's been said by William Lane Craig that most philosophers now generally agree that the deductive problem of evil (PoE) fails, such that philosophers now focus on (or resort to) the inductive/probabilistic PoE based on gratuitous evil. But then the skeptic has to argue for gratuity.
Which version of PoE are you presenting/putting forth as a good argument against Christianity?
MJR: James, I really think that's just a distraction from the actual conversation. I know there's a bunch of cop-out answers to the objections, but I just don't find them even slightly persuasive.
CN: The more important issue is that there is nothing which undermines the assumption that the logic of of probability theory actually grounds a functional epistemically and inferential methodology.
Even if I just made this assumption as my basal assumption, I would have neatly escaped the entire force of your argument, here, James.
AP: "But, of course, assuming the functionality of some Epistemology accomplishes the exact same thing. I have exactly the same reason for assuming the functionality of some logic as an inferential and Epistemology all framework as you have for assuming that God exists, and there simply aren't any significant problems that follow from this approach."
Don't you find your approach completely ad hoc and arbitrary? I mean, given atheism, it would be just as plausible (if not more so) that nihilism and global skepticism are the natural position to take.
Take for example the laws of logic as abstract entities. Abstract entities makes sense in my non-materialistic worldview. Do, they make sense in your atheistic worldview? Are you a materialist? If so, do you think the laws of logic are material? Or are you an atheistic Platonist? If the later, on what basis do you believe in Platonic forms?
Or given materialism, why assume you can actually deliberate and reason? Presumably you know about the EAAN. I acknowledge that it isn't sound, but at least it should give atheists a reason to question whether they are reasoning.
Given cosmic impersonalism, why assume that reasoning is possible. Whereas, given cosmic personalism (i.e. theism), it only makes sense that some creatures would reason and be rational like their Creator.
I'm not sure, but I think even atheist Sam Harris is doubtful that emergentism can account for consciousness.
Atheist Thomas Nagel himself was strongly criticized by his fellow atheists when he doubted the presently offered naturalistic explanations of consciousness (cf. his book [I believe "Mind and Cosmos"].
AP: Is Consciousness an Illusion? by Thomas Nagel
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/
The Case Against Reality
http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
Evolution May Obscure Reality, Says a Cognitive Scientist and Evolutionist
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/05/evolution_may_o/
The Hard Problem of Consciousness
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/
Problems of Consciousness
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#ProCon
Eliminative Materialism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/
CN: My assumption is no more ad hoc than yours, and atheism is a conclusion which follows from applying my assumption rigorously to the task of learning about the world--not a further assumption that I also make.
So, no, this just isn't an issue.
Also, I'm not a materialist (not that this would be a problem, either.)
AP: There is a difference. Mine is a revealed worldview (or at least a claimed one). Yours admittedly, is not. Given your worldview, maybe ultimate reality or just plain reality is beyond your ability to know. You're dislike of that possibility doesn't make it any less possible or ("probable" given the problems that consciousness has in a world without God).
CN: The mistake you're making here is in your interpretation of the ordering of my beliefs.
"Given cosmic impersonalism, why assume that reasoning is possible?"
I don't.
I assume reasoning is possible, then use that reasoning to conclude that cosmic impersonalism is probably true. Does this undermine my assumption that reasoning is possible? No. Because cosmic impersonalism is not inconsistent with reasoning being possible. That I could not go the other direction (assume cosmic impersonalism, then use that to justify a belief that reasoning is possible) simply isn't relevant at all.
AP: As the philosopher William James once said, “We may be in the world as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.”
CN, you might be like that dog. Never really understanding even basic reality.
AP: Why assume reasoning is possible?
CN: Why assume God exists?
CN: James: you might also be like that dog, never really understanding even basic reality.
AP: Determinism doesn't *necessarily* preclude the possibility of reality of reasoning. Whether of materialistic/naturalistic determinism, or theistic determinism (I do hold the latter). However, determinism is compatible with undermining reasoning. Given atheism, maybe, the laws of nature, biology, chemistry (etc.) interfere with man's reasoning capacity. You're not really deliberating, you're just coming to conclusions which are forced upon you deterministically by physical laws.
CN, I'm glad you're not a dogmatic materialist.
AP: "Why assume God exists?"
Because God has revealed Himself in nature, in Scripture, through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. Because there are historical reasons, textual reasons, inductive reasons (like scientific), philosophical reasons, deductive and and abductive reasons. Because of supernatural reasons (e.g. answered prayer and miracles). Because of existential reasons. Because of moral reasons. etc. etc.
MJR: That's not an assumption if true. But I've seen no reason to think it's true.
CN: You're not answering the question: all of those are alleged reasons for concluding that God exists, but recall that you assume God basally, a priori. None of those can be reasons for the a priori assumption of God's existence.
After all, you rest the reliability of your reasoning in your assumption that God exists. You can't then turn around and justify that assumption by the very reasoning you assume it in order to ground.
So, again: why do you assume, as a basal assumption on which you ground your confidence in reason, that God exists?
AP: Read for example Craig Keener's two volume book on Miracles. If you've already read atheist christopher hallquist's review of the book, read the book for yourself. Instead of depending on a secondary source who's got a clear ax to grind. He's not the most objective critique. See for example the fact that Jeffrey J. Lowder disagree with him when he (Hallquist) claims William Lane Craig is totally dishonest.
MJR: Why? What does that have to do with what's being discussed?
AP: CN, "After all, you rest the reliability of your reasoning in your assumption that God exists. You can't then turn around and justify that assumption by the very reasoning you assume it in order to ground."
Presumably you've listened to the Greg Bahnsen (Christian) vs. Gordon Stein (atheist) debate. Stein asked the same question. Bahnsen said that it's no inconsistent to both presuppose God's existence as well as to believe (and argue) that God's existence is evidenced in the world. I totally agree. That's not contradictory at all. Otherwise, it would be illegitimate to argue for the laws of logic using logic. Of course it's legitimate to argue for the laws of logic, and to use them to argue for them.
AP: Why? What does that have to do with what's being discussed?"
Keener's book is just one line of evidence that supernatural event happen. Or if you want a non-Christian evidences for the supernatural or something like the supernatural, listen to the podcasts at http://skeptiko.com/.
AP: For those who haven't listened to it, Here's the famous Bahnsen vs. Stein debate:
https://youtu.be/anGAazNCfdY
AP: I'm done for tonight. Thanks for the discussion MRJ and CN. Good night. :)
CN: James: I haven't, it's just an obvious flaw in your response.
There is no inconsistency in both assuming God's existence and concluding that the evidence points to his existence, but you still can't say that your reason for accepting his existence is the evidence when you ground your inferential methodology on the assumption that he exists.
Why do you make the assumption that he exists in the first place?
CN: Also, it *is* illegitimate to argue for a logic from within the system defined by that logic.
JP: Whoa. This sub-thread became busy. :)
James wrote: «The very reason Plato denied knowledge was possible in this contingent world was because its changing. For example, Apples can turn into humans, humans into sharks by the process of digestion. A is never A because there never is an unchanging "A". Only in the unchanging realm of forms did Plato think knowledge was possible.»
I'm guessing you're referring to Heraclitus. Yet, that's still not the same as the law of self-identity. Even process-philosophers don't just toss out identity.
James wrote: «Fortunately, non-Christians borrow enough from the Christian worldview that much of secular science is useful.»
As mentioned, science is methodological, doesn't matter what you believe, your medical doctor is still your best bet if your kids fall ill. But, what exactly is borrowed here...?
James wrote: «I anchor my knowledge to the ontology of God's existence and the epistemology of God's revelation.»
Really? Why? Should we all just make things up as we go along?
James wrote: «Whereas various non-Christians who lean toward rationalism, when pushed can't given rational arguments to ground their rationalism. The non-Christians who lean toward empiricism can't rationally or empirically ground their empiricism.»
Reasoning and evidence are two of a pair; thinking otherwise is just a false dichotomy. I don't think a whole of people aren't eclectic.
But what "ground" would you want? Logic is internally consistent, that's all. Existence (expressed as "truth" linguistically) is already the ground. As mentioned, if "the ground" of existence is something else, then "it" does not exist.
James wrote: «No, you're asserting and begging the question of both. Just because it appears to you, or you think you are learning or that there are regularities in the world doesn't mean you are or there is. Given, Christianity, I agree both are true. But given atheism, I'd like to know how such is possible ontologically and epistemologically.»
No, not begging the question at all, just following the evidence. It's not related to a/theism either. If there were no regularities, then these posts wouldn't have come about. And strict determinism isn't required either, rather we've found certain phenomena comes through as non-deterministic (and can be modeled and understood as such). I have no particular reason to think otherwise.
James wrote: «I was challenging non-theistic (specifically non-Christian) epistemologies which begin with man as the source and measure (homo mensura). I begin with God (deus mensura), God as the measure of all things. Mine is a revelational epistemology. I was looking for how non-theists can claim to have any knowledge at all. I haven't see any good arguments.»
You keep mentioning this "God" character. :) You also appear to reject anything non-Christian. How odd. Protagoras aside, don't confuse the measurer (us) and the measured (whatever). Simply supposing Christianity is not epistemology.
Going back to the list you posted on May 15th, I still don't see much of consequence to a/theism. You can presuppose anything you like, even solipsism if you prefer, but that doesn't make it so.
Let me ask: How do you determine /what/ something is (quiddity)?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
No comments:
Post a Comment