Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

AS vs eyewitness experience, “non-testimonial” evidence and the reasonableness of Ethical Theism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent UD thread on evidence vs selectively hyperskeptical dismissal, AS has been challenging that “religious” belief [= theism as worldview, worked into way of life]  is ill founded, lacks evidence beyond testimonials, and the like. (Such is not new, already at UD I have had occasion to rebut his blanket dismissals of religious “dogma.”)

At 64, he sums up his perspective particularly succinctly:

AS, 64: I think religions have an emotional appeal that some people are more susceptible to than others. For those that succumb to that emotional need, evidence is superfluous. Those that lack that need aren’t swayed by testimony. Whether they might be impressed by evidence other than testimony is yet to be tested.

This is the old religion as a crutch fallacy.

(BTW, when I all but broke my ankle one Christmas morning as a student and had a doctor tell me I was very lucky once the X-Rays came out, I learned a lesson about crutches: when you need one, you need one real bad. Just ask the lovely and ever-cheerful Sis N, a lifelong Polio victim who walks with the aid of a pair of crutches and the most impressively muscled arms I have ever seen on a woman.)

Now, while debating theism is not the main purpose of UD, there is a matter of intellectual justice vs secularist prejudice — and even in some cases bigotry — here; the tendency to scorn theists as intellectually inferior emotional wrecks depending on unwarranted blind “faith” must be set straight.

As, BTW, John Lennox does very well here:

[youtube YPaBXf0gXNg]

Nor should the parting words of testimony as an eyewitness and chief spokesman of the 500+ witnesses at the core of the Christian contention, the Apostle Peter, about to be judicially murdered by Nero on a false charge of arson at Rome in AD 64, be ignored:

2 Peter 1:13 I think it right, as long as I am in this  body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14  since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon,  as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

 16 For we did not follow  cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but  we were eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . .

19 And  we have the prophetic word [E.g. Isa 53, c 700 BC] more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention  as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For  no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God  as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [ESV]

Where (given the Christian Faith is a primary target) I note, this is what Peter was talking about, vid:

[vimeo 17960119]

Or, as Barrister Frank Morison so aptly put the matter eighty plus years past now:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . .

Why did it win? . . . .

We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 – 115.]

Where also, we would do well to bear in mind the remarks of famed jurist (and former skeptic) Simon Greenleaf, in the opening chapter of his treatise on evidence (where, such of course includes eyewitness testimony and record of same):

Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [–> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction.

Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. 

The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them.

The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.

By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]

So, trying to sweep the report of millions of people whose lives have been transformed by meeting God off the table is patently ill-advised.

Now, too, I replied to AS initially at 165, pointing to the significance of worldview foundations:

KF, 165: Evidence and linked argument regarding the reality of God needs to be assessed in light of worldview foundations and comparative difficulties.

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}
A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

In that context, to blanket-dismiss the experience of millions across the world and across the ages of life-transforming encounter with the living God, is tantamount to implying general delusion of the human mind. This leads straight to self-referential incoherence. I suggest, you may find it relevant to contrast the chain and the rope. KF

Of chains, ropes and cumulative cases
Of chains, ropes and cumulative cases

PS: I point out that evolutionary materialism credibly does entail general delusion by way of self-referential incoherence, e.g. as the well known evolutionary theorist Haldane noted:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. [–> and in response to a silly distractor, what Haldane says here is pivotal and needs to be seriously attended to and addressed on its merits.]]

In reply to this, AS went off on a tangent as to why denominations and variants of theism exist and why their adherents quarrel or even fight. To which the basic answer is obvious, we humans are factious. Then, at 176, AS repeated his challenge and dismissal of testimony, in reply to a question on what research he has recently done on religious evidence:

AS: None, recently. Where do you suggest I start, bearing in mind that testimony isn’t going to cut it for me?

Of course, this is already a clear case of selective hyperskepticism, dismissal of a cumulatively powerful category of evidence in a context where AS patently knows that eyewitness testimony on experience, is a crucial component of a lot of knowledge and decision-making. There are millions who have met and been transformed by God, so much so that in my longstanding 101 critique of evolutionary materialism as self-referentially incoherent, I noted:

c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this [a priori evolutionary materialistic] meat-machine picture.  So, we rapidly arrive at Crick’s claim in his  The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as “thoughts,” “reasoning” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies. 

The Derek Smith two-tier controller cybernetic model
The Derek Smith two-tier controller cybernetic model

d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [[“nature”] and psycho-social conditioning [[“nurture”], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds — notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! —  is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised “mouth-noises” that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride.

A neural network is essentially a weighted sum interconnected gate array, it is not an exception to the GIGO principle
A neural network is essentially a weighted sum interconnected gate array, it is not an exception to the GIGO principle

(Save, insofar as such “mouth noises” somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [[How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin — i.e by design —   tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.])

e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways?  Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And — as we saw above — would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain?

neurobrain750

f: For further instance,  we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion.  Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent “delusion” is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it “must” — by the principles of evolution — somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism.

g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around, evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too.

h:  That is, on its own premises [and following Dawkins in A Devil’s Chaplain, 2004, p. 46], the cause of the belief system of evolutionary materialism, “must” also be reducible to forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity that are sufficiently adaptive to spread this “meme” in populations of jumped- up apes from the savannahs of East Africa scrambling for survival in a Malthusian world of struggle for existence.  Reppert brings the underlying point sharply home, in commenting on the “internalised mouth-noise signals riding on the physical cause-effect chain in a cybernetic loop” view:

. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions. [[Emphases added. Also cf. Reppert’s summary of Barefoot’s argument here.]

AS comments:

AS, 189: KF writes:

…to blanket-dismiss the experience of millions across the world and across the ages of life-transforming encounter with the living God, is tantamount to implying general delusion of the human mind.

Well, “delusion” is a bit strong, but, yes, I do think people who believe that the various gods exist are mistaken. But I don’t think belief in something that is not true is per se a terrible thing. It is only when religion is used as an excuse to attack the out-group, be they infidels, women, gays and so on, that it becomes something that must be opposed.

Of course, we have just come off a century where ideologies of irreligion, atheism, materialism, scientific racism or class-ism, amorality disguising itself under the label of advancing novel rights and rescue for favoured groups [= the essence of fascism]  and the like, secularism and evolutionism were used as a key part of agendas that murdered well over 100 millions, just inside states. Names such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or even Hitler (who definitively was NOT a Christian, pace too many atheistical online rants), are not to be found in the generally acknowledged lists of religious leaders. Nor is such exactly news, Plato long since warned 2350 years ago, speaking in the voice of the Athenian Stranger in The Laws bk X:

Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .  [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”)], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse], and not in legal subjection to them.

But, the core issue needed some elaboration. So, at 207, I pointed to ontological and linked issues. This, I believe, should be headlined for record:

I have long since suggested that we start with the foundations of worldviews and then overnight, that we focus on a pivotal issue, root of being in a necessary being and of what character. Cf here for an outline i/l/o modes of being and ontology:

https://uncommondescent.com…..eat-being/

I must assume that you have not simply ignored a linked discussion, in haste to drum out talking points in disregard of there being another side to the story.

If you all are unable to recognise this as addressing a body of evidence on the general approaches of inference to best explanation, comparative difficulties and particularly grand sense-making, in light of evidence accessible to all who would inquire, then it shows logical, epistemological and broader philosophical impoverishment.

Which, is unsurprising.

Let me do a basic outline of key points:

1: A world, patently exists.

2: Nothing, denotes just that, non-being.

3: A genuine nothing, can have no causal capacity.

4: If ever there were an utter nothing, that is exactly what would forever obtain.

5: But, per 1, we and a world exist, so there was always something.

6: This raises the issue of modes of being, first possible vs impossible.

7: A possible being would exist if a relevant state of affairs were realised, e.g. heat + fuel + oxidiser + chain rxn –> fire (a causal process, showing fire to depend on external enabling factors)

Fire_tetrahedron

8: An impossible being such as a square circle has contradictory core characteristics and cannot be in any possible world. (Worlds being patently possible as one is actual.)

9: Of possible beings, we see contingent ones, e.g. fires. This also highlights that if something begins, there are circumstances under which it may not be, and so, it is contingent and is caused as the fire illustrates.

10: Our observed cosmos had a beginning and is caused. This implies a deeper root of being, as necessarily, something always was.

11: Another possible mode of being is a necessary being. To see such, consider a candidate being that has no dependence on external, on/off enabling factors.

12: Such (if actual) has no beginning and cannot end, it is either impossible or actual and would exist in any possible world. For instance, a square circle is impossible,

One and the same object cannot be circular and square in the same sense and place at the same time
One and the same object
cannot be circular and
square in the same
sense and place at the same time

. . . but there is no possible world in which twoness does not exist.

13: To see such, begin with the set that collects nothing and proceed:

{ } –> 0

{0} –> 1

{0, 1} –> 2

Etc.

14: We thus see on analysis of being, that we have possible vs impossible and of possible beings, contingent vs necessary.

15: Also, that of serious candidate necessary beings, they will either be impossible or actual in any possible world. That’s the only way they can be, they have to be in the [world-]substructure in some way so that once a world can exist they are there necessarily.

16: Something like a flying spaghetti monster or the like, is contingent [here, not least as composed of parts and materials], and is not a serious candidate. (Cf also the discussions in the linked thread for other parodies and why they fail.)

Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation of Adam
Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation of Adam

17: By contrast, God is a serious candidate necessary being, The Eternal Root of being. Where, a necessary being root of reality is the best class of candidates to always have been.

18: The choice, as discussed in the already linked, is between God as impossible or as actual. Where, there is no good reason to see God as impossible, or not a serious candidate to be a necessary being, or to be contingent, etc.

19: So, to deny God is to imply and to need to shoulder the burden of showing God impossible. [U/D April 4, 2015: We can for illustrative instance cf. a form of Godel’s argument, demonstrated to be valid:]

godel_ont_valid

20: Moreover, we find ourselves under moral government, to be under OUGHT.

21: This, post the valid part of Hume’s guillotine argument (on pain of the absurdity of ultimate amorality and might/manipulation makes ‘right’) implies that there is a world foundational IS that properly bears the weight of OUGHT.

22: Across many centuries of debates, there is only one serious candidate: the inherently good, eternal creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty, respect, service through doing the good and even worship.

23: Where in this course of argument, no recourse has been had to specifically religious experiences or testimony of same, or to religious traditions; we here have what has been called the God of the philosophers, with more than adequate reason to accept his reality such that it is not delusional or immature to be a theist or to adhere to ethical theism.

24: Where, ironically, we here see exposed, precisely the emotional appeal and hostility of too many who reject and dismiss the reality of God (and of our being under moral government) without adequate reason.

So, it would seem the shoe is rather on the other foot.

In the day since, there has been a tip-toe around. But, given that there has been a global challenge to the basic rationality of theists, rooted in a priori evolutionary materialist scientism, it is appropriate to headline this matter as a question on science, scientism, worldviews, cultural agendas and society. END

 PS: Trollish conduct will not be tolerated. Comment at UD is a privilege on good behaviour — basic civility and what in my neck of the woods is termed broughtupcy; especially in a world where there are any number of soap boxes out there and a blog can be set up in fifteen minutes at no cost. Abuse of privilege will lead to forfeit.

PPS: It seems some notes on first rules of right reason are required:

red_ball

Here we see a bright red ball on a table, marking a world partition {A | NOT_A }.

From this we can generalise to see the force of first principles of right reason:

Laws_of_logic

That is, the world partition pivoting on our ball or any entity having a distinct identity immediately imposes that A is A, A is not also at the same time and in the same sense NOT_A, and that anything will either be A or not A but not both or neither. This directly applies to for instance what happens when we try to communicate. As noted in comment 98 below to P:

. . . you object using a definite, structured language based on distinct sounds and using text that is based on distinct symbols. That is already pregnant with implications that decisively undermine your argument (i.e. WJM is right). Let me go to an often neglected classical source, Paul of Tarsus, speaking to requisites of articulate, intelligible language and implications thereof:

1 Cor 14:7 If even inanimate musical instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone [listening] know or understand what is played? 8 And if the war bugle gives an uncertain (indistinct) call, who will prepare for battle?

9 Just so it is with you; if you in the [unknown] tongue speak words that are not intelligible, how will anyone understand what you are saying? For you will be talking into empty space!

10 There are, I suppose, all these many [to us unknown] tongues in the world [somewhere], and none is destitute of [its own power of] expression and meaning. 11 But if I do not know the force and significance of the speech (language), I shall seem to be a foreigner to the one who speaks [to me], and the speaker who addresses [me] will seem a foreigner to me. [AMP]

In short, the very project of communication in symbolic language or music depends on and manifests the self evident nature of distinct identity, linked contrast and associated dichotomy. A is A (let’s use the bright red ball sitting on a table case in point I have used here at UD for years . . . I will append to OP for reference) directly distinguishes itself via a dichotomising world partition:

{ A | ~ A }

As immediately present corollaries of distinct identity (LOI), we have LNC, that A AND ~A cannot hold of the same thing and sense, and also excluded middle (LEM) by virtue of partition: A X-OR ~ A.

These are first, self evident truths that we must imply or acknowledge just in order to communicate.

So, my first, foremost point, is that it is thereafter useless to seek to dismiss the reality and presence of foundational, self evident truths.

To try to protest such is to hopelessly depend on them, it is absurd. Manifestly absurd.

The case you attempt to make collapses with literally the first word of your own, in comment no 83:

{Y | ~Y} + {o | ~o} + {u | ~u}

 

 

 

 

 

Comments
O, TV is today's version of Plato's cave shadow shows. KFkairosfocus
March 18, 2016
March
03
Mar
18
18
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Woman vanishes during live TV broadcast.Origenes
March 18, 2016
March
03
Mar
18
18
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
F/N: On the appeal to democracy/public opinion trends in a cave of shadow shows cf here on the Ac 27 test: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2013/01/acts-27-test-1-on-celebrating-new-year.html KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Popperian, arguments about theism are not at all comparable to someone's experience with God. You are comparing mangoes with gravel. That someone declines to get into a long complicated debate has nothing to do with whether or no they have a genuine experience with God. And, to then use such to suggest there is not a serious case to be addressed does not speak well for you. As for the rest, it can wait. I'll just suggest that my description of AS' tone and substance on several threads of exchange is unfortunately apt. If you doubt, cf an earlier corrective thread linked in the 1st para of the OP. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
KF: First, setting up some unamed persons as strawman representatives of theism is a fallacy of the first order.
Are you suggesting their testimony, or mine, is not relevant if we know exactly who they are? That seems to be rather problematic for a great deal of the Bible as many sources are not known exactly known or in question.
KF: Yes, many who believe in God are uninterested in arduous debates, especially with someone likely to go into all sorts of side issues and side tracks requiring a fair degree of sophistication to answer. But that does not equate to theism or theists in general.
Except, explicitly saying they do not want to know if theism is false and that any kind of criticism is unwelcome and will be completely ignored is not the same as merely being "uninterested in arduous debates". Simply put, they do not want to live in a world where God doesn't exist. And they sustain this by consciously ignoring criticism.
KF: Which is what was put forth by AS as representative of a fairly common class of atheistical skeptic who hold “religion” in contempt as irrational and dangerous.
Which I addressed in my first comment. Janism isn't dangerous, yet it's a religion. The problem is someone claiming to have infallibly interpreted an infallible source. That's what is irrational and, yes, dangerous. As is presenting the false dilemma of justifications or nihilism, with both justify themselves. IOW, I'm suggesting you're part of the problem which you rally against.
Imagining, themselves to be paragons of brilliance and intellectual virtue.
At which point, you're putting words into AS' mouth. We've made progress since then. However, this doesn't mean we have an ultimate solution. Should we me more advance civilizations, they will have more advanced explanations for how knowledge grows, but they will improve on the ones we have.
For, you are forced to depend on distinct identity just to type letters in words and sentences, and by arguing that say I am in error, you are forced to face the undeniable truth, error exists. Likewise, you are undeniably conscious and more.
Again, I've already addressed this in 147, 222 and 240. Apparently, you simply have no response, other than to repeat it. One key point you have yet to address is differences in our approach knowledge. Specifically, staring with a problem, then conjecturing explanatory theories how the world works which might solve them, then test those theories for errors, then repeating the process when even better problems appear. The idea that I'm conscious or the idea that things will not spontaneously change into something else, thus violating the law of identity, is one of those ideas. Yes, they play a key role in a host of other explanations, but they are ideas none the less. You, on the other hand, seem to think we cannot make any progress at all without having ultimate foundations from which to work from. But this is a philosophical position, which theism is a special case of. Perhaps you think this philosophical position is itself self-evident and therefore not subject to criticism?
KF: You will see — if you will simply read what is in the OP rather than what you imagine is there — that I start from the existence of a real world in which we are conscious, minded, morally governed creatures. Much stems from that as one reflects on possible vs impossible beings, non-being, contingent being and necessary being. Including, particularly, that if ever there were an utter nothing then nothing would forever obtain. Something is; so, something always was. And, a serious candidate for that is God.
Again, I do not need to have ultimate solutions to solve problems because I'm not a justificationist. The lack of such is a problem for you, not me. So, you have a "serious candidate" for a position that doesn't actually need to be filled. Nor have you explain how it actually "fills" anything in practice. Reason always comes first.
PS: If you are puzzled on mindedness, I suggest this can wait as it is secondary to recognising that we are conscious, rationally contemplative creatures. I simply point here on to an outline in response to evolutionary materialism at 101 level, with particular reference to the implications of the Smith Cybernetic system model:
I'm not puzzled, KF. Adding God to the mix does not actually add to the explanation. Is God conscious and does he use logic? If so, where did his consciousness come from? Where did God's logic come from? Why doesn't God's properties need to be explained, while ours does? Again, this sort of arbitrary dismissal of criticism was addressed in my first comment.
Bartley: If one attempts to provide reasons for the supporting argument then an infinite regress can be forced by anyone who presses for more supporting statements which in turn demand justification. It appears that this can only be avoided by a dogmatic or arbitrary decision to stop the regress at some stage and settle on a belief at that point. This dilemma creates ‘conscientious objections’ to open-mindedness because a logical chain of argument apparently justifies resistance to counter arguments by suggesting that the only way out of the infinite regress is to place an arbitrary limit on criticism at some point: ‘Here I stand’. To the despair of people who believe in reason, their opponents can defeat the principle of open-ended criticism and debate on impeccably logical grounds, simply by pointing to the problem of the infinite regress.
Theism is an example of the sort of ‘conscientious objections’ that Bartley is referring to. It prevents progress, which is a key property of bad philosophy. It says that moral knowledge cannot genuinely grow because it has always existed and actually does not change. Yet we seem to see examples of just this: the growth of moral knowledge. Take the example of PTSD. Our knowledge of the effect that waging war has on human beings has grown. Yet, the Old Testament suggests that Yahweh wasn't merely a tribal god, but the one true God who has always known all moral knowledge, yet commanded the Israelites to commit genocide against the Midianites and Amalekites. We're not talking about bombing enemy targets and troops from the air or even fire fights with infantry from a distance with a M16 - which still leaves some soldiers traumatized - but actually killing women and their unborn children with a sword. Why does Yahweh seem to be unaware of how traumatizing this would be? Why not simply make them disappear rather than desensitize the Israelite men to committing violence against women and children? The explanation is, moral knowledge genuinely grows, just like all of our knowledge. Do you really think that the trend of accepting same sex relationships and marriage is going to reverse itself? How will you explain this if it does not?Popperian
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Popperian: First, setting up some unamed persons as strawman representatives of theism is a fallacy of the first order. Yes, many who believe in God are uninterested in arduous debates, especially with someone likely to go into all sorts of side issues and side tracks requiring a fair degree of sophistication to answer. But that does not equate to theism or theists in general. And it for sure does not address either the fact that just to pose an objection you have to rely on what you would deny, or that in the OP some serious issues are put on the table that at minumum mean that theism is a serious worldview, not irrationality tantamount to delusion. Which is what was put forth by AS as representative of a fairly common class of atheistical skeptic who hold "religion" in contempt as irrational and dangerous. Imagining, themselves to be paragons of brilliance and intellectual virtue. Your attempt to undermine the structural pattern that worldviews inevitably rest on finitely remote first plausibles that ideally should pass the bar of comparative difficulties and should include first principles and first truths of reason that are self-evident as plumbline testing guide-stars, also fails. It seems that it simply will not register with you short of undeniable, personally crushing system collapse, that your stance fails the simple test of what happens as you begin to speak or type. For, you are forced to depend on distinct identity just to type letters in words and sentences, and by arguing that say I am in error, you are forced to face the undeniable truth, error exists. Likewise, you are undeniably conscious and more. Plumbline truths like this are foundational and cut clean across your attempted scheme. It is factually inadequate, incoherent and explanatorily defective. It is not a serious worldview. Even as, a priori evolutionary materialism, for all its lab coat clad pretensions and airs, is irretrievably incoherent and is not a serious worldview. You will see -- if you will simply read what is in the OP rather than what you imagine is there -- that I start from the existence of a real world in which we are conscious, minded, morally governed creatures. Much stems from that as one reflects on possible vs impossible beings, non-being, contingent being and necessary being. Including, particularly, that if ever there were an utter nothing then nothing would forever obtain. Something is; so, something always was. And, a serious candidate for that is God. From which, we may ponder the ontological-modal, cosmological and moral issues, leading to recognition that something like God will either be impossible or else actual. And that is the challenge the atheist or fellow traveller faces: God is either impossible or actual, and there is no serious argument on the table that God is an incoherent concept as a square circle is. The nexus between modal ontological and moral considerations then yields a characterisation of God that is a yardstick test: inherently good, eternal creator, necessary and maximally great being, worthy of service by doing the good. (Where, let us do evil that good may come is its own patent refutation.) All of this is long before one looks at traditions, religions, scriptures, evidence of prophecy and fulfillment, life transforming encounter with God, the history of Jesus of Nazareth. But, in particular Jesus of Nazareth is critical further, decisive, evidence. (Accordingly, I suggest you take the time to actually watch the linked video on the Case for Christ, as a basic 101 that I am confident will be helpful to someone open to actual evidence.) KF PS: If you are puzzled on mindedness, I suggest this can wait as it is secondary to recognising that we are conscious, rationally contemplative creatures. I simply point here on to an outline in response to evolutionary materialism at 101 level, with particular reference to the implications of the Smith Cybernetic system model: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#introkairosfocus
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
KF, First, it's unclear how criticism of the argument you presented in the PO is not relevant. I've spoken to several theists about their beliefs, many of which I'm closely related to. Two have told me point blank on multiple occasions that if Christianity is false, they do not want to know. Any evidence or arguments that suggest it is false is simply not welcome. Are these people not theists? Another presented arguments that were justificationist in nature. Again, When one gives up on the quest for justification, which is an epistemological view on knowledge, the vast majority of your argument simply looses it’s appeal. Again, what I want from my ideas are then content, not their providence. Furthermore, I've pointed to criticism of the idea that justification is actually possible, which has yet to be addressed without repeating the party line that justification is necessary. Nor has anyone explained how it would actually work, in practice. From this article on fallibilism
It is hard to contain reason within bounds. If you take your faith sufficiently seriously you may realize that it is not only the printers who are fallible in stating the rules for ex cathedra, but also the committee that wrote down those rules. And then that nothing can infallibly tell you what is infallible, nor what is probable. It is precisely because you, being fallible and having no infallible access to the infallible authority, no infallible way of interpreting what the authority means, and no infallible means of identifying an infallible authority in the first place, that infallibility cannot help you before reason has had its say.
To use an example, you used reason, of some sort, to personally decide that the one true God wouldn't act like Mohamed, but would act like Yahweh. You use reason to determine that ISIS is wrong about killing apostates. Yet both claim to be infallible sources. Although it was based on bad philosophy, reason had its way first. So, again, I'm suggesting that theism is a special case of a specific epistemological position on knowledge. One that has not withstood significant criticism. As such, it seems that not only is theism not a crutch you need, but a crutch you cannot actually use, in practice. You're confused about actually justifying your beliefs, since it isn't actually possible in practice. When pointed out, you merely claim, we must because without it there could be no knowledge. But, again, that's a false dilemma which is justified by justificationism itself.
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically."
It's unclear how the author could calculate the probability that a theory is true or probably true. Probably is only useful in the case of inter-theory propositions where the theory constrains all the possible outcomes. However, the author is assuming it's useful in the probability of a theory itself. How does he know all the possible outcomes? What of the probabilities of theories we have yet to propose? IOW, he is grossly overestimating the usefulness of probability. Furthermore, it's unclear how one's mind being "non-material" solves that problem. How does it work, in practice? How does the non-maternal interact with the material? Could we ever know how God works? if not, you're drawn a line which you claim that reason cannot pass. How do you know the line actually exists there, rather than somewhere else? And, again, the quest to make them "sound" is a quest for justification.Popperian
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
LOF: 1: Testimony and record are inextricable from any significant knowledge base so general or selective hyperskepticism on testimony is absurd; cf my clip from WJM's successor thread at 256: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/as-vs-eyewitness-experience-non-testimonial-evidence-and-the-reasonableness-of-theism/#comment-558095 2: To put it in other terms, credible convergent eyewitness reports and record that is fair on the face coming from reasonable chain of custody are important at worldview level and in the ongoing life of our civilisation to the point where trying to burn down or dismiss such when it points where one would not go, is not a healthy sign. 3: The claim I find obnoxious is not that people are usually emotionally engaged in their religious views (or other forms of worldviews for that matter . . . it is easy to see that the New Atheists are angry at God, inclined to attack or even persecute those who believe in God, and generally are so caught up that they are oblivious to how boorish, sophomoric and ill-bred they come across as . . . ) but the blanket dismissal of such as dismissive of evidence. 4: I note, there are three main levers of persuasion, pathos, ethos, logos. Of these,
a--> emotions are deeply embedded with perceptions, judgements and evaluations and so b --> whether or not they are appropriate pivots on the soundness of these. Next, c --> while we rely on authorities starting with dictionaries and teachers etc for 99+% of real world arguments, no authority is better than underlying facts, reasoning and assumptions. Thus, d --> the critical form of argument is the least persuasive, the acquired taste and skill/art of fact and logic leading to sound or at least reliable conclusions when done right. Where, e --> to warrant A, requires B, thence C, D . . . so we face the triple issue infinite regress vs circularity at some level that begs questions vs a finitely remoteset of first plausibles tested per comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power; cf OP. Where also, f --> self-evidence is not a synonym for obviousness (the obvious, not least, can be wrong). Instead, g --> it denotes truth claims or principles that -- once understood in light of our experience of the world as rationally contemplative thinkers -- will be seen to be true and to be necessarily true on pain of PATENT absurdity on attempted denial or dismissal. (Cf. Error exists.)
5: In the above, the pivot of the argument is not a futile attempt to prove to the unreasonable -- people who show yet again willingness to burn down the house of reason itself, and who wish to play games with what evidence is, and many other rhetorical stunts -- but simply to show that ethical theism (in the teeth of very loaded strawman caricature attacks) is a reasonable view. 6: so, whether or not I show passionate concern to stop a dangerous stereotyping and scapegoating attack is not directly relevant to the matter. 7: What I have done is to highlight that credible evidence exists, that evidence should not be given short shrift to one's convenience, that evolutionary materialist objectors have serious rationality problems to the point where they may well be exerting a projective turnabout defensive mechanism, and to point out on the cumulative impact of moral and ontological considerations, that generic ethical theism is a reasonable worldview. 8: Indeed, it is at least as plausible as other serious alternatives, on comparative difficulties -- especially once it is seen that our being under moral government points to a world foundational IS capable of bearing that weight, multiplied by God as a serious candidate to answer to why there is something instead of nothing. 9: with the challenge there to those who would deny or dismiss theism, that as God is indeed a serious candidate necessary being, once his existence is possible, he will be actual. So, there is a serious issue on the table to be answered, not evaded. And it is doubly serious given the sort of contempt, strawman tactic stereotyping and scapegoating behaviour that are now increasingly being directed to Christians specifically; much of it coming from radical secularist activists (including many in halls of power). So, it is not good enough to suggest that if you feel strongly about a matter your case can be dismissed. There is no lack of focus on the pivotal question of credible warrant . . . at least on the part of those who have defended ethical theism above. It is seriously time for rethinking. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
KF: " In so doing, I took time also to highlight that testimony and record are — pace attempts to scant such — very important and effective forms of evidence that should not be subjected to general or selective hyperskepticism." Testimony is certainly evidence, but to call it effective, and to base a world view on it, is questionable. With regard to the claim that a large factor in the appeal of religion is emotionally based, I think this is self evident. All people have to do is read your comments, and those of other theists, to demonstrate this. These comments are presented with far more passion than would be expected if emotion was not at the heart of them.lack of Focus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
F/N: This thread responds to a specific accusation:
AS, 64: I think religions have an emotional appeal that some people are more susceptible to than others. For those that succumb to that emotional need, evidence is superfluous. Those that lack that need aren’t swayed by testimony. Whether they might be impressed by evidence other than testimony is yet to be tested.
It is now a full two weeks since the OP above was posted in response to the clear patters of strawman caricature, stereotyping, scapegoating and stigmatising of ethical theists and theism; under colour of intellectual superiority of atheism or at least highly skeptrical agnosticism linked to evolutionary materialism imagined to be the "scientific" and/or "informed" view of the roots of reality. That stereotype and caricature (as can be seen) is that people believe in God because of an emotional susceptibility and sense of need that leads them to lean on an imaginary crutch; making such inherently irrational and -- from repeated lists of real and imagined sins of especially the Judaeo-Christian Faith tradition -- a potential or actual menace to progress. Where, "faith" seems to be held to be inherently emotional and lacking in/despising of evidence. In response, in the OP, I took time to embed a video of John Lennox of Oxford responding to the stereotype, and to put on the table a summary video on the pivotal historical evidence and underlying record of eyewitness testimony at the root of the Christian Faith, the obvious principal target. In so doing, I took time also to highlight that testimony and record are -- pace attempts to scant such -- very important and effective forms of evidence that should not be subjected to general or selective hyperskepticism. There was time taken to deal with worldview and warrant foundations, highlighting that given impossibility of infinite regress for us and the need to avoid question begging, sound worldviews rest on first plausibles that are finitely remote but sustained on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. Time, also being taken to show the relative reliability of cumulative cases based on converging mutually supportive lines of evidence: ropes vs chains. In that context, time was taken to directly challenge the vaunted superiority of evolutionary materialism, on grounds of the self referential incoherence long since summed up by J B S Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
After such preliminaries, the demand for non-testimonial evidence was addressed by reflecting on the nexus of ontological and moral considerations that we face as morally governed persons in a world full of contingent beings. The primary aim was not to "prove" theism to hyperskeptical objectors who across time -- and as the above thread of comments illustrates -- are willing to burn down logic, first principles of reason, self-evident plumbline first truths and more (and, such dare project irrationality on us for believing in God?). Such cannot really be reasoned with, only exposed for the reasonable person to see for himself or herself. Instead, this nexus illustrates one way in which convergent and mutually supportive lines of investigation underpin the reasonableness of ethical theism as a worldview choice and cultural movement. In particular, it is patent that some moral truths are self evident, such as that kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering a young child is wrong and were we to encounter such in progress, we have a duty of rescue. That is, we find ourselves as beings governed by OUGHT, pointing to a world-foundational IS that properly grounds that OUGHT. After many centuries of debates, the only serious candidate to be such is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of service by doing the good. (Onlookers should notice the studious lack of an alternative to such in the above thread, as a token of how strong a point this is.) Linked, we can look at the nature of being/non being in a world where it is a highly material question to ask, why is there something rather than nothing, non-being. Especially where that something includes morally governed, responsibly free and intellectually reflective beings, ourselves. For, if ever there were an utter nothing, as non-being can have no causal capacities, such would forever obtain. Something always was, raising the issue of possible vs impossible being, and of contingent vs necessary possible beings. With, a flame and its underlying enablinf on/off causal factors (fuel, heat, oxidiser, chain reaction) serving as a key illuminating case study on being, cause and contingency vs necessity of being. Where, of serious candidate necessary beings, The God as just described is foremost. An exploration of necessary being then reveals a startling point: a serious candidate necessary being will be so connected to the substructure of possible or actual existence of a world, that it will be either impossible -- due to irreconcilable contradictions of core characteristics -- or else actual. Actual, as a world exists. So, we see that as the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being is a serious candidate, such will either be impossible of existence or actual. In short, to be rational, all an ethical theist needs to hold, is that s/he believes that such a God is possible in light of appropriate reflections on modes of being and our existence as morally governed creatures. And, to reject such, the objector needs to either be in a position to show God contingent and unlikely in the actual world (which cuts across key characteristics long understood as characterising God, starting with Eternality, independence of the world, and being "The Great I AM" etc.) or else that the God conceived of by ethical theism is impossible. A glance above and elsewhere will suffice to show that the sort of stereotyping and dismissive objectors being addressed, are patently unwilling to take up this challenge. (If you doubt me, skim through the first 38 comments above.) That speaks volumes, utter volumes. And so, it seems that we must consider whether the eagerness to brand ethical theism as irrational may in fact be a manifestation of the defensive psychology and linked rhetoric of the projective turnabout assertion and accusation. For, on inspection, it rather seems that the shoe is on the other foot. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
Barry, If you'd like to create a separate thread to discuss number of criticisms that have yet to be addressed, I'm more than glad to continue there. However, KF has made it clear he isn't interested in addressing them here. There is a pivotal issue on the table, on abusive stereotyping and scapegoating behaviour; which you and others have studiously avoided addressing now that it has been directly confronted. KFPopperian
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Clarice: It seems you need to answer to: 1: Sir Francis Crick, Nobel Prize holding Molecular biologist, in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
. . . as well as to 2: Wiliam Provine in his 1998 Darwin Day keynote at U Tenn:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
. . . not to mention 3: Sagan and Lewontin, in the latter's 1997 NYRB article Billions and Billions of demons:
. . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NYRB, 1997. If you think this excerpt is "quote mining," I invite you -- or more relevantly the astute onlooker -- to read the wider excerpt, highlights and annotations here on.]
In short, putting your unwarrnated but attitude-revealing personalities aside for the moment, a priori evolutionary materialism dressed up in the lab coat (2350 years ago it was philosopher's robes) is a serious reality, and it needs to answer to the implied self referential incoherence laid out in the OP. Or, maybe this summary will be a good reference point, from 4: famed evolutionary biologist J B S Haldane's thoughts:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Where also, if someone is naive enough to think that such lab coat clad evolutionary materialism does not have sobering moral implications for those enmeshed in it, let 5: a certain Dr Clinton Richard Dawkins speak, from a Sci Am piece on God's utility function, 1995:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . . The true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival. But DNA is not floating free; it is locked up in living bodies, and it has to make the most of the levers of power at its disposal. Genetic sequences that find themselves in cheetah bodies maximize their survival by causing those bodies to kill gazelles. Sequences that find themselves in gazelle bodies increase their chance of survival by promoting opposite ends. But the same utility function-the survival of DNA-explains the “purpose” of both the cheetah [--> i.e. predator] and the gazelle [--> i.e. prey] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
Utter amorality and total meaninglessness leading to anomie, in short. All, duly dressed up in the Lab coat, and often pronounced with crisply polished educated accents. I do note that your insistent resort to an abbreviation that implies an accusation of hidden agenda Creationism on the part of design theory advocates and your mischaracterisation of a quick but substantial survey of the worldviews issues connected to scientific work on origins and the design alternative, is best answered by simply repeating what you failed to cogently address -- an that evasiveness while hiding behind a cloud of toxic squid ink and making a fast getaway, seems to be getting to be a habit on the part of objectors in and around UD:
1: The design inference proper, is about inferring design as process on empirically reliable tested signs, as opposed to inferring the identity or nature of relevant candidate designers. 2: The positive evidence associated with that abductive inference to best current explanation as a form of inductive reasoning, for example include the only observed adequate cause of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I), and the linked analysis of sol system or observed cosmos scale blind chance and necessity search of configuration spaces for the describing info once it is beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. 3: The verdict here is that on a trillion member database of observed cases FSCO/I is reliably produced by intelligently directed configuration (= design), and design is the only plausible cause, so FSCO/I — among other such — is shown to be a highly reliable sign of design as causal process. 4: Thus, we are epistemically and logically entitled to infer from observed sign to its empirically and analytically associated cause, design as process. 5: This particularly applies to two main cases. Historically, first and foremost, the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that sets up a world in which C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, protein using cell based life is enabled. 6: Secondly, to the FSCO/I rich features of such life, from its origins and across major body plan origins to that of our own, including our peculiar mental, linguistic and moral characteristics. 7: As the OP points out, once we make a claim A and hold it warranted, that leads to, why so. Thence, B as grounds. Thereafter, C, D, . . . So, we face infinite regress, circularity or else finitely remote first plausibles able to hold their ground on comparative difficulties. 8: This ties directly to a reasonable understanding of knowledge: well warranted, credibly true (thus, inter alia reliable . . . ) belief. 9: Unless one accepts and trusts an item, K, it is not a candidate for knowledge in a world of knowing subjects, S1, S2, . . . Sn including ourselves. 10: For some Sj to know K, K needs to be accepted with grounds that it is well warranted, and credibly true (thus, inter alia reliable . . . ); albeit perhaps open to correction. (Though, there are certain foundational self-evident plumbline truths such as first principles of right reason stemming from things having distinct identity and the Royce proposition, error exists, or the fact of conscious rational contemplativeness, that are self-evident and thus are standards to judge other things by. What is self-evident will be true, will be seen as true once properly understood, and as necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 11: In this context, we all have clusters of start-point first plausibles that define our worldviews and so must live by faith, but such ideally will be well-informed, anchored on evidence with plumbline first truths that keep things aligned, meeting the comparative difficulties tests (factual adequacy, coherence, balanced explanatory power), and so is a responsible, reasonable faith-point. 12: this is as opposed to a sense of “faith” that is a commonplace among the schooled classes of our day, faith as blind beliefs clung to without regard for evidence as a blind leap to have some subjective anchor-point in a world on the other side of the ugly gulch between subjective inner world and whatever is as things in themselves. 13: From F H Bradley on, it has been pointed out, first, that postulating such an ugly gulch that tries to deny knowability of the outer world, itself implies strong knowledge claims regarding that world and is thus self-referentially incoherent. 14: A sounder base, is to accept first plausibles with plumbline first truths, and to use the pivot, error exists. This is undeniably true and self evident. It is a case of truth and of knowledge to utter certainty. So, schemes that would deny or dismiss such are decisively undermined by counter-example. 15: One of the issues in the thread and OP above as well as the background debates, is evidence. Wikipedia provides a useful in a nutshell, testifying against known interest on the force of the matter:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the “facts of the case.” Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.
16: Thus, evidence will include observations, empirical findings, testimony and record [including that of experimenters and journals etc], first truths, logical inferences on such that are not readily apparent, and more broadly, associated chains of claimed warrant that present such. 17: And while an explanation in the abstract is not equal to evidence, inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties across alternatives that has led to identification and warrant of a given explanation as best thus far, is evidence. 18: In short, we need to make explicit acquaintance with abductive inference to best explanation as a major feature of scientific and general inductive reasoning. 19: In actuality we have invisible rays that are information-bearing all the time, we can them radio waves. Which, are used in remote control, and thus may be embedded in FSCO/I rich irreducibly complex systems. And, until we detect and decipher such, we may well see a mysterious seeming guidance from nowhere visible. 20: Such a case should give us pause before reverting to strawman caricatures soaked in snidely dismissive or demonising ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion.
Shoot the spear through the middle of the squid ink cloud and kalamari for dinner, it looks like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMcxtMNXAvg KFkairosfocus
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
I will translate Popperian's 259 into more readable (if also somewhat more salty) English: "My [SNIP: rear -- ed., KF per broken window theory] aches from the sound kicking to which it has just been subjected. I am going away now."Barry Arrington
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
KF, What I want from ideas are their content, not their providence. It's really that simple. To quote Popper...
The question about the sources of our knowledge . . . has always been asked in the spirit of: ‘What are the best sources of our knowledge—the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?’ I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist—no more than ideal rulers—and that all ‘sources’ are liable to lead us into error at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: ‘How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?’
When one gives up on the quest for justification, which is an epistemological view on knowledge, the vast majority of your argument simply looses it's appeal. That's been my point all along. I don't need my ideas to have providence. Perhaps you do. But the absence of providence is a problem for you, not me. You'll have to excuse me for thinking the strategy of projecting your problem on me, then claiming I'm irrational for not joining you, does not make for a compelling argument. I suspect further discussion will be fruitless. So, on that note, I'll take my leave.Popperian
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
k, you type a lot of repetitive, irrelevant words, which include your usual, malicious and self-righteous attacks on lab coat wearing monsters that you fearfully imagine are living under your bed waiting for you to relax your vigil against evil so that they can devour you and steal your soul but you never actually engage on the merits of what matters and is real. The quotes of statements by Joe are very relevant in the sense that the extent of evidence you IDCers demand from scientists is vastly greater than what you are willing and able to provide for your IDC claims, along with the fact that you and the other IDCers not only tolerate Joe and other IDCers like him, including yourself, but you enable and encourage Joe and other IDCers like him, yet you would maliciously attack any non-IDCer who says what Joe says. Even non-IDCers who are civil are maliciously attacked and banned here on a regular basis. Frankly, this is a religiously motivated bigotry and hate site, and you dish out bigotry and hatred at a level that is unsurpassed. For once in your life you should take off your sanctimonious blinders and take a good long look at yourself and your fellow IDC travelers. If you creationists want respect from scientists you'll have to earn it, and you will never earn it by maliciously attacking scientists and the evidence and theories they have worked hard to develop, and by demanding vastly more evidence than you're willing and able to provide for your IDC claims, and by being dishonest about your motives and agenda. You may have seen the following quote before: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Attributed to Albert Einstein) Ask yourself: What are the results of you and your fellow IDC travelers doing the same thing over and over again?Clarice
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
AS offers his 3rd and 4th bluff. Neither of those links offer any jurisdiction where witnesses are required to provide physical evidence, nor do the links lead to where such a requirement is being considered.William J Murray
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
AS, you would also do well to carefully ponder the matters laid out here by WJM: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/everything-you-believe-is-based-on-personal-experience-and-testimony/ Let me clip it:
In other threads, certain people have claimed that personal experience and testimony are not as valid as other forms of evidence. In fact, some would dismiss thousands of years and the accumulation of perhaps billions of witness/experiencer testimonies because, in their view, personal experience and testimony is not really even evidence at all. The problem with this position is that everything one knows and or believes is gained either through (1) personal experience (and extrapolation thereof), or (2) testimony (and examination thereof), for the simple fact that if you did not experience X, the only information you can possibly have about X is from the testimony of others. In a courtroom, for example, the entire case depends on testimony, even when there is physical evidence, because the jury relies upon the testimony of those that produce and explain what the physical evidence is, how it is relevant, and explains why it is important to the case. Unless the jurors are swabbing cheeks and conducting DNA tests themselves, the DNA evidence is in principle nothing more than the testimony of an expert witness. The jurors have no means of ascertaining the DNA “facts” for themselves; they entirely rely upon the testimony of what they assume to be a highly credible witness. When a gun is entered into evidence, it is a meaningless fact – it’s a gun. The jurors rely entirely upon the testimony of law officers to inform them where the gun was found, if it was the right caliber, who owned it, etc. All of that information is presented through testimony. Further, establishing motive and opportunity are forms of logical arguments, established via testimony, which counts as evidence. Similarly, unless one is a research scientist in fields where one believes certain theories to be valid, he is (and we are as well) entirely dependent upon testimonial evidence – found in the form of research papers, books and articles written by such scientists. “Peer review” is nothing more to the reader than the testimomy of supposedly credible sources that the testimony of the authors is not blatantly false or contain factual errors. Outside of what we personally experience, virtually all of our knowledge comes from testimony delivered via some form of media or another. We consider the source of the testimony, and the media it is delivered through, credible or non-credible to one degree or another – but that doesn’t change the fact that when we read or hear it, it is nothing more than testimony. If you are a scientist conducting research, you are personally experiencing the process and accumulation of data. Beyond that, it is only testimony to others unless they perform the same experiments. Often, the conclusions of scientific research hinge upon the testimony of other researchers, which may turn out to be fraudulent or mistaken. So, when anyone says that testimony and personal experience are dismissible forms of evidence, they are obviously using (consciously or not) selective (and logically incoherent) hyperskepticism against an unwanted idea, because everything any of us believe or call ‘knowledge” is gained/extrapolated (hopefully using logic and logical arguments) via personal experience and/or information gained via testimony . . .
KFkairosfocus
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
AS, no-one has seriously argued that eyewitness testimony is 100% reliable. That is why there are all sorts of provisions for cross examining and even impeaching it. But to extrapolate from that to blanket dismissal is folly, patent folly given the pivotal role of testimony and record of such in all significant bodies of knowledge. In short, that we must be careful of error does not become carte blanche for general or selective hyperskepticism, as credible testimony and record are key foundational components of evidence and knowledge. You need to move to a position where you are willing to accept that everyday reality, to become a reasonable person. KF PS: It is also the longstanding case that it is a dictum of jurisprudence and serious affairs that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a word be established." That Scots law would emphasise it is unsurprising as this dictum is a well known, Dominical scriptural saying drawing on a ruling in the Mosaic code. Common Law and its Scottish variants, are deeply influenced by that context, not least tracing to Alfred the Great and his Book of Dooms. I suggest, however, that -- for good reason -- there is no requirement that testimony be specifically supported by physical exhibits or evidence or generally by circumstantial evidence. Both classes of evidence can be taken separately and carry probative value in their own right. Of course, one seeks mutual support with multiple strands, but that rope vs chain point is a distinct matter.kairosfocus
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
Clarice, While much of the above is rather tangential to this thread (which responds to a science, worldviews and cultural agendas theme and accusation of irrationality targetting today's target of the daily two-minute hate, as evolutionary materialist ideology these days typically dresses in a lab coat as opposed to the philosophical garb of Plato's day . . . ), some notes. I write such in hopes that you will examine them, instead of filtering them out and dismissing them through being locked up in some ideological scheme or other. The following will probably sound strange but I think on what you have posted is needed:
1: The design inference proper, is about inferring design as process on empirically reliable tested signs, as opposed to inferring the identity or nature of relevant candidate designers. 2: The positive evidence associated with that abductive inference to best current explanation as a form of inductive reasoning, for example include the only observed adequate cause of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I), and the linked analysis of sol system or observed cosmos scale blind chance and necessity search of configuration spaces for the describing info once it is beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. 3: The verdict here is that on a trillion member database of observed cases FSCO/I is reliably produced by intelligently directed configuration (= design), and design is the only plausible cause, so FSCO/I -- among other such -- is shown to be a highly reliable sign of design as causal process. 4: Thus, we are epistemically and logically entitled to infer from observed sign to its empirically and analytically associated cause, design as process. 5: This particularly applies to two main cases. Historically, first and foremost, the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that sets up a world in which C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, protein using cell based life is enabled. 6: Secondly, to the FSCO/I rich features of such life, from its origins and across major body plan origins to that of our own, including our peculiar mental, linguistic and moral characteristics. 7: As the OP points out, once we make a claim A and hold it warranted, that leads to, why so. Thence, B as grounds. Thereafter, C, D, . . . So, we face infinite regress, circularity or else finitely remote first plausibles able to hold their ground on comparative difficulties. 8: This ties directly to a reasonable understanding of knowledge: well warranted, credibly true (thus, inter alia reliable . . . ) belief. 9: Unless one accepts and trusts an item, K, it is not a candidate for knowledge in a world of knowing subjects, S1, S2, . . . Sn including ourselves. 10: For some Sj to know K, K needs to be accepted with grounds that it is well warranted, and credibly true (thus, inter alia reliable . . . ); albeit perhaps open to correction. (Though, there are certain foundational self-evident plumbline truths such as first principles of right reason stemming from things having distinct identity and the Royce proposition, error exists, or the fact of conscious rational contemplativeness, that are self-evident and thus are standards to judge other things by. What is self-evident will be true, will be seen as true once properly understood, and as necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 11: In this context, we all have clusters of start-point first plausibles that define our worldviews and so must live by faith, but such ideally will be well-informed, anchored on evidence with plumbline first truths that keep things aligned, meeting the comparative difficulties tests (factual adequacy, coherence, balanced explanatory power), and so is a responsible, reasonable faith-point. 12: this is as opposed to a sense of "faith" that is a commonplace among the schooled classes of our day, faith as blind beliefs clung to without regard for evidence as a blind leap to have some subjective anchor-point in a world on the other side of the ugly gulch between subjective inner world and whatever is as things in themselves. 13: From F H Bradley on, it has been pointed out, first, that postulating such an ugly gulch that tries to deny knowability of the outer world, itself implies strong knowledge claims regarding that world and is thus self-referentially incoherent. 14: A sounder base, is to accept first plausibles with plumbline first truths, and to use the pivot, error exists. This is undeniably true and self evident. It is a case of truth and of knowledge to utter certainty. So, schemes that would deny or dismiss such are decisively undermined by counter-example. 15: One of the issues in the thread and OP above as well as the background debates, is evidence. Wikipedia provides a useful in a nutshell, testifying against known interest on the force of the matter:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.
16: Thus, evidence will include observations, empirical findings, testimony and record [including that of experimenters and journals etc], first truths, logical inferences on such that are not readily apparent, and more broadly, associated chains of claimed warrant that present such. 17: And while an explanation in the abstract is not equal to evidence, inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties across alternatives that has led to identification and warrant of a given explanation as best thus far, is evidence. 18: In short, we need to make explicit acquaintance with abductive inference to best explanation as a major feature of scientific and general inductive reasoning. 19: In actuality we have invisible rays that are information-bearing all the time, we can them radio waves. Which, are used in remote control, and thus may be embedded in FSCO/I rich irreducibly complex systems. And, until we detect and decipher such, we may well see a mysterious seeming guidance from nowhere visible. 20: Such a case should give us pause before reverting to strawman caricatures soaked in snidely dismissive or demonising ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion.
In that light, we can refocus the point in this thread. One of the major worldviews in our civiliation os ethical theism, but al too many a priori evolutionary materialists dressed up in lab coats and their fellow travellers, would wish to deride and dismiss such as inherently irrational or even delusional, emotionally clinging to imaginary crutches without evidence, and being a menace to progress. That such is a strawmannish sterotype that feeds polarisation and bigotry should be patent, and is further supported by an extension of the above. That is, ethical theism is a legitimate and far from blind worldview, once we look at the cumulative force of a convergent cluster of evidence and argument with associated logic. And, in the OP I particularly took time to use the observed cosmos as key evidence no 1, on the nature and origin/source of being through ontological considerations. A root necessary being is a serious option. Then, with the moral issue that we find ourselves under the government of OUGHT, this points to a world foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. Where after centuries of debates, only one serious candidate exists: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of service by doing the good, and of ultimate loyalty and allegiance, i.e. worship. Not, as a matter of blind adherence to what we may read in books from classical times, or associated traditions of worship, but as a consequence of worldviews analysis through philosophy that inter alia will reckon with scientific evidence that points to design. And, as this blog also exists for the wider, worldviews and cultural agenda issues, such is a suitable topic to be reflected on. Where also the fact that after two weeks or so, we find advocates of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller views unable and/or utterly unwilling to engage the matter on the merits, speaks loud volumes indeed. And, not in their favour. KFkairosfocus
April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
Which ID advocate said the following? "It doesn’t matter who or what IDists infer is the intelligent designer." "But IDists, including Behe, don't attribute anything to God." "ID is NOT synonomous with supernatural forces (ie God)." "ID doesn't know (or want to guess) who the designer is." "Science requires POSITIVE evidence" "That means you have to produce POSITIVE evidence for what you claim can/ did happen." "Bald claims are meaningless to science." "The burden is on anyone making a claim." "Faith is faith. In the absence of evidence people have faith. Faith is not science." "Explanations are not to be confused with real evidence." "Just repeating it doesn't make it so, assface. You actually have to present something for your words to count." "And it doesn't matter what people say you scientifically illiterate asswipe- it matters what they can demonstrate." "Instead of playing games why don’t you at least try to support your position? Or is your position so pathetic that it cannot be supported? Ignorance is one thing." "Perhaps aliens (who themselves evolved naturally without having IC)are bombarding our planet with invisible and undectable rays of energy that allow Irreducibly Complex Structures to form in living things. This scenario may not seem very likely on a theological level, but that does not matter. The point is that it is possible to infer Intelligent Design without implying God. Any notion to the contrary, I believe, is a result either of ignorance or of wishful thinking." "I wouldn't run to any "God" hypothesis and I would fight to the death anyone who attempted to make ID into a religious argument."Clarice
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Popperian, You pounced on an analysis of why foundations are inevitable in human reasoning, and why therefore we should target reasonable faith with key self evident truths [e.g. error exists, it is wrong to kidnap, rape, torture and murder a child for one's pleasure] and first principles of reasoning as plumbline to test if we build aright. This has been repeatedly used by you in pulling the thread away from its proper focus on a grievous, loaded stereotype that theists allegedly are swayed by emotions, lean on an imaginary crutch, lack and don't want evidence, and are generally irrational. In response, over and over again, it was patiently pointed out that in the relevant sense, we cannot avoid such foundations and self-evident truths. It was even pointed out to you several times, that just to type a response, you are forced to rely on what you would dismiss. Now, you obviously want to further pull off track to a separate debate on recent phil contentions on "Foundationalism." This, despite warnings. You leave me with two alternative possibilities:
a: you are a crank who cannot see beyond his favourite hobby-horse (and does not care on concerns on scapegoating stereotypes and where the hostility and bigotry they foster tend to end up . . . ), which he is still flogging long after it became defunct. Or, b: you are deliberately using this as a red herring as it is a rhetorically convenient distractor; that is, you are a willful enabler.
That is a sad pair of options to have to pick from. The more charitable is a. I therefore counsel you to go get a sense of proportion, and wake up to some ugly trends in our time. And no, I have no need to go farther than what has been already addressed starting with the infographic in the OP. I am confident, that is enough for a reasonable person. What remains clear is the astonishing fact that having luridly strawmannised ethical theists as irrational, over coming on two weeks, those who tried to set the strawmen alight have been patently unable to justify their claims. And, in many cases, it turns out that the irrationality is patently on the other foot. It is high time for responsibility on the part of those who take such presumptions concerning theists and set up bigoted stereotypes and scapegoats. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
KF, We seem to be going round and round. Did you see #222? Why don't you start out by indicating which epistemological variant you are referring to as found at this Wikipedia page on Foundationailsm? Options presented there are classical foundationalism, modest foundationalism or Internalism and externalism. Or perhaps you think none of those are appropriate?Popperian
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
I thought the thread was over.lack of Focus
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Popperian, Do you realise that every time you type a post, you rely on distinct identity and what flows from it as foundational, e.g.: C | ~C + a | ~a + n | ~n Likewise, notice how often you assert or imply that particular, describable states of affairs are so in say:
“Idea X might be wrong” is a bad criticism because it’s applicable to all ideas. So it cannot be used in a critical way.
Such should show you -- or at least the reasonable onlooker, that the position you are pushing is self referentially deeply incoherent. You cannot live or think consistent with it. Beyond that, the ontological, moral and broad evidential issues beckon us to consider how the despised and caricatured theists actually have demonstrated that they are not merely leaning emotionally on imaginary crutches. Time for re-thinking. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
I choose to non-foundationally dismiss your “criticism” because it smells funny.
Can you explain how "smell" of one's criticism has anything to do with how knowledge grows? How does that work? Do you mean, intuition? But all ideas start out as guesses, intuitions, of how to solve problems, which can be wrong. So intuition alone is insufficient without criticism of some form. What criticism do you have other than it could be wrong? "Idea X might be wrong" is a bad criticism because it's applicable to all ideas. So it cannot be used in a critical way.Popperian
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Popperian, right now you come across as riding a hobby-horse (one that is long since defunct . . . ), while effectively distracting from a significant issue having to do with undue hostility to and stereotyping of millions. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
do you notice that there is a serious issue of mischaracterisation of millions on the table as hopelessly irrational, succumbing to emotional appeals and leaning on an imaginary crutch, God; allegedly making us out to be irrational and a danger to progress?
KF, I'm merely trying to illustrate the connection with epistemology and theism, which no one seems to even acknowledge, let alone disagree with. Many non-theists are also justificationists, and I'm suggesting they are confused about how knowledge grows as well. So, no, I'm not singling out theism. I'm criticizing justificationism in all forms. Are you disagreeing that theism does not represent a specific case of the idea of authoritative sources of knowledge? As to the danger of nihilism, I'm pointing out that the dichotomy presented by justificationism actually justifies nihilism. That's the mischaracterization I'm referring to. From this article on fallibilism
The theory of knowledge is a tightrope that is the only path from A to B, with a long, hard drop for anyone who steps off on one side into “knowledge is impossible, progress is an illusion” or on the other side into “I must be right, or at least probably right.” Indeed, infallibilism and nihilism are twins. Both fail to understand that mistakes are not only inevitable, they are correctable (fallibly). Which is why they both abhor institutions of substantive criticism and error correction, and denigrate rational thought as useless or fraudulent. They both justify the same tyrannies. They both justify each other.
Are you suggesting my criticism isn't sincere? IOW, your argument includes the idea that justificationism is the only game in town. However, not only have I pointed to criticisms of justificationism that have not been addressed but I've referenced alternative theories of knowledge that explain the same observations without the same problems and are universal. Namely, they do not make special exceptions for morality, biological complexity, etc. How is that not relevant?Popperian
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
(continued: I was interrupted several times yesterday and posted prematurely) Different explanations are compatible with the same observations. This includes explanations for what I or anyone else does. As for using a stollen concept, from this entry on Objective and Objectivist Dogmas...
Critical rationalism is more concerned with objective dogmas. An objective dogma is an idea or argumentative strategy which does nothing but deflect criticism. One may have a critical attitude or stance and yet still play host to an objective dogma: its dogmatism does not depend on any subjective attitude, but rather the logical structure of the dogma itself. A subjective dogmatist may be relatively benign. If an experiment appears to contradict his dogma, then he may studiously inspect instruments for defects, run the experiment again to reproduce results, or survey possible modifications of the dogma. The subjective dogmatist may fulfill a useful service by exploring possible counter-criticisms; he is certain that someday the apparent refutation will be explained away and, of course, he might be right. An objective dogma, however, is like a spam filter that casts its net too broadly: it removes inbound criticism before it can properly reach the recipient’s attention. Objective dogmas are usually disguised as pragmatic heuristics, self-effacing scepticism, or even logical fallacies; they immunise their hosts from particular kinds of feedback, while often appearing to be the epitome of self-criticism or logical reasoning.
The entry goes on to argue that no possible conclusion is justifiable and how an objective dogma, in the form of "stolen concept", was used to completely ignore the criticism presented. I'm suggesting that is what you're doing here.Popperian
April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Popperian, do you notice that there is a serious issue of mischaracterisation of millions on the table as hopelessly irrational, succumbing to emotional appeals and leaning on an imaginary crutch, God; allegedly making us out to be irrational and a danger to progress? At this stage, your secondary issue over foundations of rationality etc [and you have long since been answered on the inevitability of foundational, self-evident truths but have kept repeating already answered points] is becoming a side-tracking of a thread with a primary focus on a serious matter. I am going to ask you to connect your remarks to the focal ontological and moral issues that raise the point that ethical theism is a responsible and reasonable worldview choice; one further supported by various lines of evidence that form a strong cumulative case. Where, one of the focal things to be explained is why there is a world, in which there are beings such as ourselves who find ourselves under moral government. Where also, serious candidate necessary beings -- including God -- are either impossible or else actual, being inextricably embedded in what it means for a world to exist. KF (Thread Owner)kairosfocus
April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
Popperian, How are you expecting me to evaluate your words? Logically? According to what binding principles? Without being required to refer to or operate in accordance with any foundational principles by which a proposition, argument or criticism can be evaluated (under the expectation that such principles are universal, fundamental and authoritative in arbiting such disagreements), I choose to non-foundationally dismiss your "criticism" because it smells funny.William J Murray
April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply