Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[mighty_duck]

...when his comrade, mighty_duck, ....

Ouch Jim! It doesn't take much on these forums for a guy to get labled as a pinko commie. I guess my fate here is sealed

:Commie:

 

[Stratnerd]

Maybe he thinks you're a fellow home brewer. Join me, and I guarantee eternal hoppiness.

 

[Hilston]

I think induction stopped working ...

I think induction stopped working ...

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic.

How did you reach this conclusion? You used your own worldview, with your axioms, and judged that in your worldview you have an explanation for logic.

I don't have axioms, m_d. You've missed the point. You and I agree on the verity of logic, but you have to pretend to be a Creationist in order to think that way. The Creationist understands that the nature and character of the Creator makes sense of universal laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature, and is indeed the Source of them. Hence, the Creationist does not need to resort to "axioms" because his tools and methods of learning are justified. He can confidently rely on the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature because of the God who is back of them.

Much like person B has an explanation for why dogs have hair.

The error in that thinking is two-fold, m_d. First, you're missing a fundamental metaphysical question in all of this: What is modus ponens and how is it justified? P implies Q. How did you get to "P"? Let alone "Q" and that word in-between ("implies")? You must borrow from the Creationist's toolbox in order to even set up your example. You can plug anything you want for "P" and "Q" ("All glick have cooties; Blark is a glick; Blark has cooties"), but you still cannot justify why the chain follows.

Second, the statements themselves must be justified in order to have any meaning or value. It is inane to stipulate "all dogs have hair," without any concern of whether or not it is a true statement. So neither person in your syllogism has a justified explanation. If either person wants to stipulate "All dogs have hair," he will have to either assert that it is true by definition, which is meaningless, or he will have to claim to have exhaustive knowledge, which is impossible for finite beings.

If you had used my worldview, there is no way you could have reached that conclusion, since logic is an axiom, and therefore is rational by definiton.

You continue to miss the point, m_d. You walked into the Creationist world the moment you thought "All ..." With every subsequent thought and its attending word that entered your mind, "dogs" ... "have" ... "hair," you firmly planted yourself into the Creationist paradigm.

You created [laws of logic]? Did you create them to be universal? Or are they merely conventions?

Every person must choose their axioms, and make deductions based on those.

So obviously, then, everyone must end up with different axioms, right? That must mean there are all kinds of different sorts of logic being applied everywhere in academia, right? So I would guess, in the preface of every textbook, publication and paper, there must be an explanation of the types of logic being used in that particular work, otherwise, those reading it would not be able to follow it, right? But then again, I wonder what kind of logic would be used in every case to explain what kind of logic was being used in every case?

Their conclusions are only as good as their axioms.

Since you admittedly cannot justify any of your axioms (hence the term "axiom"), your conclusions are unjustified. Given your definition of axiom above, "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate," how do you ascertain which axioms are "good"?

If the laws of logic are only analytically true (true by definition), why then do the laws of logic have so much success in our experience (synthetically true)? "True by definition" has no usefulness or value unless it comports with what is found in our experience. If we change the definition, does that then change what we find in our experience? Of course not. Does reality align with the way we stipulate terms? Or are we compelled by the nature of reality to conform our understanding to what we find in our experience, in reality? The answer is obvious.

For the Non-Theist, the axioms aren't chosen arbitrarily. They are self evident, ...

What does "self-evident" have to do with what axioms are "chosen"? What does "self-evident" mean? Are we "obligated" (since it isn't arbitrary) to "choose" only the "self-evident" axioms? Why?

... and as a result model reality pretty well.

You're begging the question in the extreme, m_d. You're using "axioms" to make a value judgment about how well "axioms" model a reality that presume to understand by way of "axioms."

The larger question is: If you do not have infinite and exhaustive knowledge about the dogs, how do you justify the general premise? You can't even get started until you've done something that only an infinite and all-knowing God can justify, i.e. exhaustive knowledge concerning hirsute canines. Even by setting up your syllogism, you tacitly affirm the God you're determined to push away from you. Furthermore, how do you know that modus ponens is going to work in this case? Does modus ponens always work? How do you know? If you don't know, then on what basis do you proceed on the assumption that it is going to work this time?

Chances are, if I do choose an arbitrary axiom, it will start conflicting with reality- (IE if I do find a hairless dog, I may have a problem. ...

You're not getting this, m_d. What if I said, "I think the inductive principle stopped working this morning." Do you see the problem with the statement?

Incorrect. I'm saying both Person A AND Person B, by presuming to state a universal claim that they themselves could not possibly know by personal experience, are pretending to be Creationists, without openly affirming it.

They aren't pretending to be anything. They have axioms, and they make valid deductions from them. They are both making rational decisions.

Anyone who presumes to use modus ponens, regardless of how they identify P or Q, whether by investigation or by so-called axiom, is pretending to be a Creationist. That is to say, the logical relationship posed by modus ponens only makes sense and is only justified on the Creationist worldview.

But you will claim "holding those axioms is itself irrational!". How would you make that deduction, except by using YOUR worldview and YOUR axioms.

You're missing the point again, m_d. Holding ANY axioms is irrational. The Creationist doesn't have any axioms.

Had you used their axioms, then you would have deduced they are rational. This is an external critique, instead of an internal one. Internally, all axioms are rational. If external critiques are fair game, then I will happily critique your God and Bible axioms from within MN.

You can't without presuming my worldview. To invoke something called "Methodological Naturalism," you have to presume to understand what "Method" means. The concept of method requires the Creationist conception of reality in order to make sense. In every sentence you make, in every thought you have, and with your every expectation that your next breath will give you lung-filling life-sustaining air, you presume upon the Creationist worldview in order to so.

Neither Person A nor Person B, apart from having a means to confirm the verity of their universal statements ("All dogs ...", "All aliens ...") has justified knowledge.

How so? Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of the sensory faculties, they cannot justify the use of their eyes. Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of their minds, they cannot justify moving from concept A to concept B. Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of the inductive principle, they cannot justify the logical construct of the proposition, regardless of what the proposition purports to say. You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

You moved from claiming they are irrational, to them lacking "absolute" knowledge of the verity of their axioms.

It's a package deal, m_d. Lacking exhaustive knowledge about their claim forces them to relegate the claim to "axiom." Their inability to ground their axioms (which is what makes them axioms) while blindly accepting them to be true is what makes them irrational. Their inability to account for the verity of the inductive principle makes them irrational.

Will you concede that both worldviews are internally rational?

You've got to be kidding me. I know you want me to at least concede the form of the argument is consistent within a particular worldview, whether we're talking about dogs and hair, or glick and cooties. What I'm telling you is that all worldviews wander into the Creationist worldview in order even construct the argument. It's a shell game, m_d, and you don't even realize that you're doing it.

This in no way means either is true, just that deductions made are internally justified, when reduced to the systems axioms.

Note what you're proposing: A worldview in which knowledge can be rational and justified AND untrue (!!!). And I'm supposed to find this a compelling argument for Methodological Naturalism? You've GOT to be kidding me.

 

[Hilston]

Balder at Tinker Creek ...

Balder at Tinker Creek ...

Are you suggesting that, because I do not believe the Bible is divine and infallible, I am incapable of assessing its claims or interpreting its ideas? Is unwavering, unshakeable belief in something a prerequisite for being able to properly evaluate it?

The Bible indicts those who oppose it. Therefore, there is a built-in conflict of interest for those who oppose it when it comes to understanding what it says. Those who are opposed to the concept of God and the Bible will find myriad reasons to dismiss the Book. Those who affirm that it is God's infallible and inerrant Word will give reasons to support the Book and to explain supposed discrepancies or contradictions. It's not that you're incapable of understanding what it says. But you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly. Having unwavering, unshakeable belief in God and the Bible as His Word means that the believer no longer foolishly sits in judgment of it, but rather realizes that it sits in judgment of him.

Because surely you’re well aware that this criticism has been directed more than once at fundamentalist believers: “You can’t reason with them. Evidence and rationality count for nothing if they contradict something fundamentalists already believe.”

I can't speak for the fundies, but I can tell you that the statement itself presumes my worldview. Evidence and rationality are meaningless (let alone something called a "contradiction") in a Godless, mindless, impersonal universe. The moment someone wants to criticize me for not being convinced of evidence, I want to know why they're pretending to be a Creationist. The use of evidence invokes the uniformity of nature and logical inference, neither of which is justified in the methodological naturalist's view of reality.

Having fun turning the tables?

"There is no table" in the Methodological Naturalist's world.

What do you mean by “laws of logic”? Can you articulate them?

This kind of question always intrigues me, because you understand the words I write, and I don't have to explain to you the laws of grammar. Logic is inherent in grammar, isn't it? Yet I don't have to articulate the relationship between subjects and predicates, inference and uniformity, etc. Without logical inference, you would not be able to understand my syntax. Without uniformity, you would not be able to understand my semantic. The very posing of the question shows that you and I know perfectly well what we're talking about when we say "laws of logic."

I take it you are familiar with various human systems of thought and modes of cognition, the higher forms of which do not exist a priori, but which are developmentally emergent. Are you talking about something other than this?

You're scaring me, Balder. Latent forms of cognition? Or further sophistication of existing forms of cognition? How do you tell the difference?

What specific Biblical passages are you drawing on to support your claim that God is supremely logical?

Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:

Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain (= inane, empty) in their reasoning, and their foolish* heart was darkened.
(*foolish = Greek asunetos - unintelligent, refusal to synthesize and comprehend)​

(He seems rather hot-headed and unpredictable in many OT descriptions of him.)

By the way, this is exactly what I meant when I said: "... you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly." Believers understand God is longsuffering and just. They look at God's actions, which gainsayers call "hot-headedness" and "unpredictability," as due wrath and due process.

What fun! Dismissing the scientific worldview as a myth ...

This is your presumption. I haven't dismissed the scientific worldview. I've described the Foundation of it, which most people irrationally reject. Science is wonderful. The advances of technology are wonderful and real. And this is all in spite of man's rejection of his Creator. Adam continued to till the ground and grow his food -- to use the tools of science -- even after he rebelled against his Creator. Science didn't stop working because of man's rebellion. It doesn't mean that rebels cannot do science. It means that they cannot justify, in terms of their rejection, what they are doing. They cannot justify, in terms of their presumed autonomy, the things they claim to know.

... while defending an account replete with talking snakes and magic fruit!

Again, this is exactly what I meant when I said: "... you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly." Believers understand that the "talking snake" was a shining seraph, a glorious angel named Lucifer. Critics mistakenly miss the symbolic language. The word translated "serpent" in the English is actually "shining one" in the Hebrew. Word correlations and usage bear this out even further. And you miss the point by referring to the "magic fruit." The fruit wasn't the issue. Nor was the eating of it. The issue was presumed autonomy. Would man rely upon God's knowledge and wisdom, or would man try to become his own god? Lucifer tempted Adam, through Eve, to become autonomous in his reasoning. Adam was standing right there and watched as Eve, his guinea pig, ate the fruit. Adam presumed to autonomously judge God's commands and to test them using an experiment suggested by Lucifer. This is essentially what you're doing, Balder. You're conducting your own experiments, presuming to think autonomously and to question God's wisdom. You want to be your own god and to sit in judgment of God's commands.

Have you ever read Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? A naturalist’s poetic reflections on the natural order? In it, Dillard discusses the often horrific and violent “order” of the natural world; her encounters with these “facts of nature” challenge her understanding and faith in God.

This shows that Dillard, like Adam, is not committed to her Creator. She presumes to sit in judgment of Him based on her own autonomous reasoning.

I wasn’t thinking of this book, really, when I posed my question, but I was thinking of those features of the natural world which seem unnecessary, inefficient, almost incidental (I think engineers call them kludges.)

I'm sure the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was viewed by Adam as a kludge. What autonomous men call "junk DNA" will probably come back to haunt them someday.

In many ways, the order of the world is majestic and breathtaking, but there are aspects of it which, at least from a design perspective, don’t make a lot of sense – especially if a Perfect Designer is supposed to have made things this way on purpose. And if God is also loving, just, and compassionate, one wonders why the whole natural world – and not just fallen man – lives largely by “tooth and claw,” tormented by diseases and parasites, regularly threatened by the elements.

The Fall did not only affect man. It affected all of Creation.

Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.​

But again, the presumed autonomy of human beings refuses to pay attention to what the Creator says, and rather sits in judgment of Him. It's no wonder He can be such a "hot-head."

Is our universe the way God designed it, or do you believe that diseases began to spread, animals to eat each other, and stars to die, only after Mankind disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit?

Yes, and yes.

Thanks for your questions.

In contrapposto,
Jim

 

[Balder]

Second, the statements themselves must be justified in order to have any meaning or value. It is inane to stipulate "all dogs have hair," without any concern of whether or not it is a true statement. So neither person in your syllogism has a justified explanation. If either person wants to stipulate "All dogs have hair," he will have to either assert that it is true by definition, which is meaningless, or he will have to claim to have exhaustive knowledge, which is impossible for finite beings.

Creationists are in the same boat. The Bible does not contain pronouncements about everything in nature; it does not contain infinite information. It consists of a finite number of statements, most of which are not even relevant to scientific or naturalistic inquiry. If you do not find any mention in the Bible of whether or not all leopards have spots, you are similarly incapable of commenting upon the characteristics of leopards with "absolute certainty" (or the pretension thereto). You can't appeal to the character of God, either, to help you answer this question with more assurance than any follower of any other paradigm. You are similarly unjustified in making any such pronouncement, according to your paradigm.

 

[Balder]

Darn the lack of an edit button on this thread; strike the word similarly in the last sentence.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Jim,

Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of the inductive principle, they cannot justify the logical construct of the proposition, regardless of what the proposition purports to say. You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

If the whole natural world fell along with man, and if the heart of man is wicked and deceitful (both Biblical claims), then how do you know you can still trust your senses or what you see in the world, both of which are cut from the same “fallen” fabric? The universe is now messed up; its order has been overturned by our rebellion. You have admitted elsewhere that Christians are just as capable of being deceived and of having hallucinations as anyone else. In a fallen, disordered world, in a body that is wedded to sin and corruption, with a mind that is hopelessly wicked and deceitful, you have very shaky ground indeed to stand upon in making pronouncements about what is “real,” in a scientific sense, because your entire context is corrupt. You should, in fact, live in constant doubt about what you see, if in fact the Flesh (incl. your senses) and the Universe are products of the disorder Adam unleashed.

It doesn’t matter if a good and logical God gave you your senses or created the world, because our fallen, deceitful ancestors are the true “creators” of the present order we inhabit.

The Bible indicts those who oppose it. Therefore, there is a built-in conflict of interest for those who oppose it when it comes to understanding what it says. Those who are opposed to the concept of God and the Bible will find myriad reasons to dismiss the Book. Those who affirm that it is God's infallible and inerrant Word will give reasons to support the Book and to explain supposed discrepancies or contradictions. It's not that you're incapable of understanding what it says. But you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly. Having unwavering, unshakeable belief in God and the Bible as His Word means that the believer no longer foolishly sits in judgment of it, but rather realizes that it sits in judgment of him.

Aren’t you saying, essentially, that, because the believer has unwavering faith that this book contains absolute truth and is infallible, as an a priori belief, he will do everything he has to to “rationalize” what he finds in it? This recipe – starting out from such an inflexible position – will very likely work with any system of thought you come across. And, in fact, it does: It is called fundamentalism, and it has led to men to commit all sorts of logical contortions, and to carry out all sorts of violence, in order to preserve their “inviolable” position against perceived threat. A threat which, by the way, is established at the outset by taking that very position!

Do your ideas here also preclude you from being able to pass proper judgment on Evolution, as a belief system? After all, you do not believe in it with unwavering faith, and its proponents condemn you for that lack of belief in what is perfectly “evident.”

I can't speak for the fundies, but I can tell you that the statement itself presumes my worldview. Evidence and rationality are meaningless (let alone something called a "contradiction") in a Godless, mindless, impersonal universe. The moment someone wants to criticize me for not being convinced of evidence, I want to know why they're pretending to be a Creationist. The use of evidence invokes the uniformity of nature and logical inference, neither of which is justified in the methodological naturalist's view of reality.

I agree with you that, in an utterly insentient or mindless universe, it is hard to explain the eventual emergence of subjectivity and sentience, along with the particular expressions of those things that you are discussing here. But I disagree that the only “answer” to the existence of sentience and rationality and meaning is to presuppose your particular worldview.

This kind of question always intrigues me, because you understand the words I write, and I don't have to explain to you the laws of grammar. Logic is inherent in grammar, isn't it? Yet I don't have to articulate the relationship between subjects and predicates, inference and uniformity, etc. Without logical inference, you would not be able to understand my syntax. Without uniformity, you would not be able to understand my semantic. The very posing of the question shows that you and I know perfectly well what we're talking about when we say "laws of logic."

I ask because experience shows logic and reason to be quite useful, but not infallible, at least when humans employ them. You speak of the universal validity of logic, but since reason and logic are not perfect tools in human hands, I take it that you have not found them to be infallible in your own life. You have drawn wrong conclusions before, I am sure. Do you think it is possible that there might be cognitive functions that are even higher and more exact than the logical rules we follow to make sense of the world? Present research shows that many of our apparently abstract and “universal” categories of thought and “tools” of reasoning are grounded in embodied, sensorimotor experience. If you aren’t familiar with this thesis, check out Philosophy in the Flesh. If there is a supreme intelligence in and behind the universe, that intelligence may go far deeper in its knowing capacity than the connect-the-dots tools that we use.

I haven’t gotten to all of your questions, but this is what I could manage for now!

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Metalking]

Followers of the risen Christ were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking. Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
The truth will cause believers to reject sin and never allow them to yield to the lust of the flesh. Any doctrine that gives the believer the freedom to be devilish and antichrist is not of God.
Found this intetesting --It is an uncontested fact that the oldest worship site in the world is Glastonbury. Worship services had been carried on there and all about the "scepter'd isle" in the succession of St. Paul ( for whom the London Cathedral is named ) and St. Joseph of Arimathea ( who founded the wattle church there and planted his staff which still grows " The Holy Thorn ") . All this ecclesiastical history was occurring while the Romans were still feeding Christians to the lions.

 

[mighty_duck]

Jim,
I feel our exchange has become over heated, and that was not my intent. I will personally try to tone it down, but I'm an emotional guy
Thanks for taking the time to answer, in addition to the formal debate, and your already busy life.

I don't have axioms, m_d. You've missed the point. You and I agree on the verity of logic, but you have to pretend to be a Creationist in order to think that way. The Creationist understands that the nature and character of the Creator makes sense of universal laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature, and is indeed the Source of them. Hence, the Creationist does not need to resort to "axioms" because his tools and methods of learning are justified. He can confidently rely on the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature because of the God who is back of them.
...
You're missing the point again, m_d. Holding ANY axioms is irrational. The Creationist doesn't have any axioms.
...

A presuppositionist without a presupposition (axiom) is like a tuna sandwich without the tuna, or the sandwich

From what I understand, you differentiate between an axiom and your presuppositions in that the latter are "justified" or somehow grounded.

I think the main problem with our misunderstandings is that you haven't made you argument clear. We've gotten bits and pieces, but I still feel I am fighting a shadow. Please make your argument clear, especially how you feel your axioms are "justified".

The two presuppositions/axioms you have mentioned are:
1. The existence of the God of the Bible.
2. The inerrancy of the Bible.

From what I understand of TAG, it goes something like this. You have these axioms which builds your worldview, but they are really justified. How are they justified? Because of the impossibility of the contrary. Why is the contrary impossible? Because it is irrational. How do you determine if a different worldview is irrational? You take your own worldview with your own (yet unjustified) axioms, and use them to judge another. If the other worldview conflicts with yours, it is irrational. A conflict includes an axiom for which your worldview has a justification for.

Is this an accurate account? You may have guessed where I find the fatal flaw to be.

So obviously, then, everyone must end up with different axioms, right? That must mean there are all kinds of different sorts of logic being applied everywhere in academia, right? So I would guess, in the preface of every textbook, publication and paper, there must be an explanation of the types of logic being used in that particular work, otherwise, those reading it would not be able to follow it, right? But then again, I wonder what kind of logic would be used in every case to explain what kind of logic was being used in every case?

That's the beauty of MN. Everyone agrees on it, whether by axiom, or by deduction. If others add further axioms, that is their business, and they will either state it beforehand, or publish in places where their intended audience share these extra axioms.

Since you admittedly cannot justify any of your axioms (hence the term "axiom"), your conclusions are unjustified. Given your definition of axiom above, "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate," how do you ascertain which axioms are "good"?

What does "self-evident" have to do with what axioms are "chosen"? What does "self-evident" mean? Are we "obligated" (since it isn't arbitrary) to "choose" only the "self-evident" axioms? Why?

You're begging the question in the extreme, m_d. You're using "axioms" to make a value judgment about how well "axioms" model a reality that presume to understand by way of "axioms."

The only time when a decision is unjustified, is if it can't be deduced from it's axioms. That is what justification is.
A system is internally flawed, only when you can show there are internal conflicts, especially when mapped to reality.

For example, most people are wired so that pain feels bad, as does bodily injury. They will accept this as an axiom. If they suddenly adopt an axiom that gravity is for sissies (it's just a theory!) , they will find an internal conflict when they meet the next cliff.

So a "good" axiom, would be one that models reality well. This is assuming you accept reality and the human experience. If you don't, I will judge you (externally), and refuse to talk to you. That's the kind of guy I am. Same for someone who rejects logic, etc. God axioms are OK though, as we have enough common ground to talk, and hopefully for me to convince you that your axioms and deductions are internally at conflict.

You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

So now, All worldviews aren't just wrong, they don't really exist? I think you are misunderstanding how one builds a logic system, and what is an external and internal critique.

Note what you're proposing: A worldview in which knowledge can be rational and justified AND untrue (!!!). And I'm supposed to find this a compelling argument for Methodological Naturalism? You've GOT to be kidding me.

If person A or B has justifiably and rationally deduced that all dogs have hair, and you show them a hairless dog, their worldview should crumble, as it does a lousy job of modeling reality.

I have not began to argue for MN yet, I am attempting to show you where your argument fails. Once you no longer have an argument that "grounds" your axioms, then we can begin discussing why the God axiom should be rejected.

 

[Johnny]

Three questions:

1) Since you believe in uniformity, why do the very same principles that work well for nuclear physics fail to yield any explanatory power when applied to evolutionary science?

2) If it is because they contradict God, then where did they go wrong? In other words, if the universe was created within the past 7,000 years, then the proper application of logic, induction, the scientific method, etc, should yield data that points that way. Why does it not?

3) I am a Christian evolutionist. Although you certainly disagree with my interpretation of scripture, I have the same foundation for my logic as you do. Am I unjustified in my application? What if, hypothetically, Genesis was understood as non-literal?

 

[Mr Jack]

Followers of the risen Christ were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Christianity is far from having a monopoly on people who have died for their religion. If their actions are evidence for Christianity, why are these others not evidence for their own religions truth?

Found this intetesting --It is an uncontested fact that the oldest worship site in the world is Glastonbury.

*boggle* It is most certainly contested, most historians view as pure mythology. Have you any evidence?

 

[aharvey]

request for seemingly minor clarification

request for seemingly minor clarification

Common Hilston theme:

"When the Creationist scientist sees unusual behavior in the laboratory, he does not immediately assume that God did something differently, rather, he searches for a reason that is consistent with God's Word and the uniformity God has imposed on His creation. When the Methodological Naturalist adds 2+2, sits in a chair and does work in the laboratory, he is, in practical terms, unwittingly pretending to be a Creationist, because according to his own espoused conception of reality, none of this makes sense. In conceptual terms, he is actually appealing to magic and science fiction."

You repeatedly fault non-Biblical literalists because their justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to magic, whereas your view is better because your justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to the God of the Bible. But what do you mean by “magic”? My dictionary has several definitions of magic, most dealing with human control of certain natural or supernatural forces, or else “any extraordinary, seemingly inexplicable power.” I’m guessing you mean the latter, but better to hear it from you directly. And remember: Your definition of magic had better not apply to your conception of God, had it?

 

[Hilston]

Necessary and sufficient conditions ...

Necessary and sufficient conditions ...

Hi Balder,

You write:

The Bible does not contain pronouncements about everything in nature; it does not contain infinite information.

Of course. I haven't claimed otherwise. I don't get how this is relevant to the discussion.

It consists of a finite number of statements, most of which are not even relevant to scientific or naturalistic inquiry.

Its very existence is not only relevant, but essential. The passages I quoted are both necessary and sufficient conditions for the success of scientific inquiry.

If you do not find any mention in the Bible of whether or not all leopards have spots, you are similarly incapable of commenting upon the characteristics of leopards with "absolute certainty" (or the pretension thereto).

The point is not whether my particular senses or my particular reasoning are infallible (i.e., "absolutely certain" -- I know they're not -- I see things incorrectly and reason incorrectly all the time). Rather, the issue concerns whether or not the very concept of sensory data providing true data about the world, and whether or not such concepts as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature are true.

You can't appeal to the character of God, either, to help you answer this question with more assurance than any follower of any other paradigm. You are unjustified in making any such pronouncement, according to your paradigm.

You and m_d both seem to be hung up on the Ps and Qs. First, why would anyone make such a pronouncement ("all leopards have spots")? The point I was making was that the form of the argument, known in Rhetorical parlance as a syllogism, is itself unjustified according to Methodological Naturalism.

Major premise: All Ps are Q.
Minor premise: X is a P.
Conclusion: Therefore X is a Q.​

It doesn't matter if you want to plug P and Q with leopards and spots, dogs and hair, or glick and cooties. It is the form of the argument, the logical relationship, that the Methodological Naturalist cannot ground.

 

[Hilston]

Suspension of disbelief ...

Suspension of disbelief ...

Hi aharvey,

You write:

You repeatedly fault non-Biblical literalists because their justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to magic, whereas your view is better because your justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to the God of the Bible. But what do you mean by “magic”? My dictionary has several definitions of magic, most dealing with human control of certain natural or supernatural forces, or else “any extraordinary, seemingly inexplicable power.” I’m guessing you mean the latter, but better to hear it from you directly. And remember: Your definition of magic had better not apply to your conception of God, had it?

This is an excellent question. When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining.

Sadly, this is also what we're being asked to do regarding Methodological Naturalism. Nature is the magician. We are asked to suspend our disbelief that life could arise from non-life, that moral standards make any sense in a Godless, mindless universe, that the laws of inference and of mathematics could come into existence by accident.

Whereas the supernatural power to which I appeal is not inexplicable, let alone "seemingly so." There are the inscrutible, transcendent aspects of God that defy our comprehension, but our inability as finite creatures to comprehend the infinitude of God is not an appeal to magic as described above. There is no suspension of disbelief, because this God is the Creator and can do the things He claims to do.

If one wants to say there is a "magic" about the Existence and Being of God in that His infinitude defies explanation, that's fine. But the "magic" of God's Being posits a personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind that is behind such things as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature. It makes sense of human experience, the laws of logic and mathematics, human dignity and moral standards. But to believe that these things could arise from the Void is to truly suspend one's disbelief. The sad thing is that this is not merely about entertainment or a magic show. This is about reality, and science, and how we know what we know.

Thanks for your excellent question.

 

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

You write:This is an excellent question. When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining.

Sadly, this is also what we're being asked to do regarding Methodological Naturalism. Nature is the magician. We are asked to suspend our disbelief that life could arise from non-life, that moral standards make any sense in a Godless, mindless universe, that the laws of inference and of mathematics could come into existence by accident.

Whereas the supernatural power to which I appeal is not inexplicable, let alone "seemingly so." There are the inscrutible, transcendent aspects of God that defy our comprehension, but our inability as finite creatures to comprehend the infinitude of God is not an appeal to magic as described above. There is no suspension of disbelief, because this God is the Creator and can do the things He claims to do.

If one wants to say there is a "magic" about the Existence and Being of God in that His infinitude defies explanation, that's fine. But the "magic" of God's Being posits a personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind that is behind such things as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature. It makes sense of human experience, the laws of logic and mathematics, human dignity and moral standards. But to believe that these things could arise from the Void is to truly suspend one's disbelief. The sad thing is that this is not merely about entertainment or a magic show. This is about reality, and science, and how we know what we know.

Thanks for your excellent question.

I will certainly thank you for an excellent answer if one is forthcoming. You have yet to define what you mean by "magic," as you pejoratively and creatively apply the term to scientific inquiry. I already know that you disapprove of our supposed reliance on "it." Tell us what you mean by it.

And why it doesn't apply equally to your bulletproof God concept, especially as you agree that one could apply the term "magic" to God, but meaning something else. But what? Well, you say that God is not inexplicable (and thus can be "explained, understood, and accounted for," but is instead inscrutable (and thus "cannot be easily understood, is completely obscure and mysterious, unfathomable, and enigmatic"), transcendant (and thus "beyond the limits of possible experience"), and defies our comprehension.

I hope your entire argument is not based on such silly word games.

 

[Hilston]

"Now you see it ..."

Hi aharvey,

All I would ask is for you to read more carefully what I've written.

You have yet to define what you mean by "magic," ...

What I mean by magic is what we understand when we see a magician: Someone using deception to give the appearance of inexplicable power. I thought what I wrote might have sufficed to define it: "When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining." Let me make it even more precise: Magic is the use of sleight of hand, legerdemain, prestidigitation, parlor tricks, misdirection and deception in order to give the appearance of inexplicable power.

... as you pejoratively and creatively apply the term to scientific inquiry.

I've never applied the term "magic" to scientific inquiry. I apply it to the worldview of those who presume to do science as Methodological Naturalists.

... Well, you say that God is not inexplicable (and thus can be "explained, understood, and accounted for,") ...

Correct, that is, regarding that which God has revealed about Himself to us in His Word. We are given information about God that explains certain of His attributes, His character, His nature, etc.

... but is instead inscrutable (and thus "cannot be easily understood, is completely obscure and mysterious, unfathomable, and enigmatic"), transcendant (and thus "beyond the limits of possible experience"), and defies our comprehension.

Correct, that is, regarding his Being and Existence. If you'll re-read what I wrote above, I was careful to indicate what exactly is inscrutable about God: His Being and Existence.

I hope your entire argument is not based on such silly word games.

Not word games, aharvey. Just an effort to be precise, albeit admittedly flawed.

 

[SUTG]

If one wants to say there is a "magic" about the Existence and Being of God in that His infinitude defies explanation, that's fine. But the "magic" of God's Being posits a personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind that is behind such things as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature. It makes sense of human experience, the laws of logic and mathematics, human dignity and moral standards. But to believe that these things could arise from the Void is to truly suspend one's disbelief.

The could just as easily arise from the "Void". If you could only show the impossibility of the contrary, you could raise the above statements from the level of fanciful assertion to something more meaningful.

Given Hume's Inductive Skepticism, how does positing a "personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind" solve anything? The same problems remain.

Induction always makes an inference from the observed to the unobserved. Even if you believe in the UoN based on your presuppositions, your inductive inferences still aren't any more certain than those of a non-presuppositionalist. You might choose to say that non-presuppositionalists have no reason whatsoever to infer that the sun will rise next Thursday. Your reason might be that 'the Christian God has created the universe such that it reflects His logical character', or whatever, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're making an inference to the unobserved. (next Thursday) Neither of us has any idea whether the Sun will rise next Thursday, according to Hume.

Say we were given the following sequence of data taken from some sort of measurements in the natural world and asked to guess on the continuation of the sequence:

1,2,3,4,5,6...

We can invoke induction and guess that the unobserved, or the data represented by the remainder of the sequence, will resemble the observed. You would say that only the Creationist (or one pretending to be a Creationist) has any justification for filling in the continuation of the sequences. He is justified in placing a numeral '7' at the end of the first list whereas the non-creationist is not. An Inductive Skeptic would say that no-one, including Creationists, has any reason at all to say that it is even more likely for there to be a '7' in the next position than any other numeral.

What about a Creationist who thinks that the sequence will go 1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6...? Is he also justified? His justified reasoning is that the sequence will repeat every sixth place. What about a Creationist who think the sequence will go 1,2,3,4,5,6,4,4,7,8? His justified reasoning is that the series is identical to the integers but with the addition of two number 4s after every 6 integers.

This is what is interesting about Inductive Skepticism. It is logically possible for the next number in the sequence to be anything. We don't know until we are given the next measurement. What can justify our guess of the next number? Only the presupposition of the Christian God?

If you agree with the Inductive Skepticist about our reasoning without God to justify it, how does positing the Christian God fix the problem?

 

[aharvey]

Okay, I didn't expect you to favor the card shark definition of "magic"! So when you refer to "magic", you are saying someone invokes it as a conscious form of misdirection, i.e., when they know otherwise. So we've got proponents of MN saying that something is inexplicable that they know really isn't, versus you saying that that something really is explicable as being an attribute of an inexplicable entity... No, no word games there!

It would also be useful for you to demonstrate that MN knowingly deceive in this manner. Otherwise you're falsely accusing people who really don't know the ultimate basis for something.

And just out of idle curiosity, where is that explicit reference in the Bible for the Godly basis for logic? You may recall this exchange:

Originally Posted by aharvey

"--- We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."

Response by Hilston

"It's not an inference. It is explicitly stated in the Bible, which is God's inerrant and infallible revelation to mankind. "

Where does the Bible explicitly state that God is the source of all logic?

Honestly, I suspect that all this "logical" verbiage is a red herring, and that in fact the reason you reject evolutionary theory (and the Big Bang theory) and accept other scientific disciplines, is simply and entirely because the first two make statements that conflict with your Biblical presupposition, and the others don't. The underlying logic is much more direct than you are admitting:

If the Bible is inerrant, then anything that contradicts any part of it in any way is incorrect.

You don't need any more than that. Unfortunately, you don't have any more than that. Your conclusions are only as correct as your presuppositions, but that fact doesn't make your presuppositions correct! So you're stuck making peculiar, self-limiting claims like if the Bible is inerrant, then parts of the Bible are inerrant and supporting evidence for my presuppositions exists all right, but they won't make any sense to you unless you already accept my presuppositions as true.

 

[Hilston]

"Now you see it ..."

Hi aharvey,

All I would ask is for you to read more carefully what I've written.

You have yet to define what you mean by "magic," ...

What I mean by magic is what we understand when we see a magician: Someone using deception to give the appearance of inexplicable power. I thought what I wrote might have sufficed to define it: "When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining." Let me make it even more precise: Magic is the use of sleight of hand, legerdemain, prestidigitation, parlor tricks, misdirection and deception in order to give the appearance of inexplicable power.

... as you pejoratively and creatively apply the term to scientific inquiry.

I've never applied the term "magic" to scientific inquiry. I apply it to the worldview of those who presume to do science as Methodological Naturalists.

... Well, you say that God is not inexplicable (and thus can be "explained, understood, and accounted for,") ...

Correct, that is, regarding that which God has revealed about Himself to us in His Word. We are given information about God that explains certain of His attributes, His character, His nature, etc.

... but is instead inscrutable (and thus "cannot be easily understood, is completely obscure and mysterious, unfathomable, and enigmatic"), transcendant (and thus "beyond the limits of possible experience"), and defies our comprehension.

Correct, that is, regarding his Being and Existence. If you'll re-read what I wrote above, I was careful to indicate what exactly is inscrutable about God: His Being and Existence.

I hope your entire argument is not based on such silly word games.

Not word games, aharvey. Just an effort to be precise, albeit admittedly flawed.

Thanks again for the exchange.

 

[Hilston]

Can't explain why my post showed up twice. Please forgive the redundancy.