Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Balder]

Jim,

In your conversation with me as well as your debate with Stratnerd, you appear to be equating "natural" with "material," concluding from that that anything that is immaterial (such as thought) is unnatural or extranatural. Similarly, you appear to be arguing that anything that transcends matter is extra-natural.

Instead of directly refuting your claims, I will offer my own views -- which I think are more coherent than the model you appear to be presenting. I would suggest that there are multiple levels to reality, and that the higher levels transcend and include the lower levels. You can observe this pattern of transcendence and inclusion in the material world (molecules transcend and include atoms, cells transcend and include molecules, organisms transcend and include cells) and in the psychological realm (with higher stages of cognition transcending and including -- building on -- lower stages). I agree with you that mind transcends and includes matter (allowing for top-down causation as well as bottom-up causation). Mind is thus is transcendent and extra-material, but I disagree that this pattern of transcendence and inclusion is un-natural. The pattern appears to be pervasive and in fact is a defining feature of the world as we know and experience it.

Does this worldview refute strict materialism? Yes. Is it compatible with theism? Yes, but not exclusively. Is it intelligible only in a Biblical paradigm? No.

You also appear to be suggesting that particular features of the world only make sense, and can only exist, if a transcendent entity also possesses them. But you do not appear to be approaching this in a consistent manner. For instance, you insist that the existence of personality and rationality demand the existence of a rational, personal God, whereas you do not likewise insist that the existence of matter demands a material God.

Personhood, in the order of the world we observe around us, transcends and includes lower orders of being (material, instinctual), but there is no reason to insist that ultimate reality must be "personal" and yet "immaterial." I believe it is more logical and consistent to maintain, as certain spiritual traditions do, that there are transpersonal realms of being, just as there are transmaterial ones. If there is an absolutely transcendent reality which is the source and ground of all manifest reality, it would transcend all of the interrelated and interdependent features of the known world.

Best wishes,
Balder

 

[Balder]

I can't edit, so I'm posting my modified paragraph here:

Does this worldview refute strict materialism? Yes. Is it compatible with theism? Yes, but not exclusively. Is it intelligible only in a Biblical paradigm? No. Is it compatible with an evolutionary perspective? Yes, in modified form (not tied to a materialist paradigm).

 

[Balder]

I know you've got your hands full, but if you respond to the above post, I would also be interested in a response to my post #347, given your strong assertions that Stratnerd's worldview leaves him stranded without justification for reliable knowledge or use of the tools of science.

I'm including it below for your convenience:

Hi, Jim,



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.


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 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.


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

 

[aharvey]

aharvey

Hi aharvey,

Thanks for your comments.Here is my chain of reasoning:

• God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
• God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
• Therefore:
  1. Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
  2. Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.

I realize you may want further detail or clarification. I leave it to you to request exactly what you're interested in. I will be happy to elaborate.

Sigh… I think I was pretty explicit in my ‘exact interests.” So where exactly is the "Evolution is not science" conclusion logically derived here?

aharveyThere was unequivocal affirmation in his statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."

Here and elsewhere you seem to have trouble with the concept of “if.” One can accept the conclusion but reject the premise! Or are you bound to agree with my leguminous definition of supernatural?:

“If one defines supernatural as anything that involves peanut butter, then Reece’s pieces(TM) are supernatural.”

aharveyThat's the one I'm using, aharvey. We have to be careful not to confuse the supernatural (or extra-natural) itself from the application or effects of the extranatural. We all use the extranatural laws of logic and mathematics in our daily experience. But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.

See, here’s where one gets the impression that you’re doing everything you can to obsfuscate the issues. Defining all abstract concepts as being supernatural fits neither the dictionary definition nor the generally understood conception of the term; instead it trivializes the term.

aharveyStated more carefullly, I would say that which is true is the same as that which is rational, and vice versa, by the ordinary understanding of those terms.

Are you referring to an earlier post by mighty_duck? I'll have a look and try to comment later. There's a lot here I haven't read yet.

It's Stratnerd's term, aharvey. I'm using it the way he does. You can check his posts for discussion of it. He gives plenty of examples. I don't think I've violated it in any way.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I confess to being a bit stunned that you are so comfy equating “rational” with “correct.” But rather than dwell on the incorrectness (irrationality?) of that position, let me simply observe that such a view seems to equate “Is evolution science?” with “is evolution correct?,” something you explicitly argued against at the beginning. Can one be internally inconsistent and still be rational?

 

[aharvey]

You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions do need to be proven. Presuppositions do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:

"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]​

Note that your definition refers to "one's" beliefs, "one's" thinking.

Presuppositions are completely personal and individual; they do not transcend that individual, no matter how strongly they are held by that individual. They are the ultimate conditional statement. You simply cannot use a presupposition to draw conclusions that are relevant to anyone that does not hold that same presupposition.

My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

Okay, let’s see if you are willing to provide this chain of logic! But I do need to point out that “God’s existence” is not the presupposition that drives your arguments. You have already, and repeatedly, asserted that presupposing God is not good enough. Normally, though not always, you use the phrase “God of the Bible,” not just “God.” Your presupposition is a literal and inerrant Bible, from which you conclude God exists.

But who am I to say what your presuppositions are? Well, here’s an interesting assignment. Try to make your case starting with the presupposition of “God’s existence,” but without presuppositioning that the Bible is literal and inerrant. Now try to make your case starting with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, but without presupposing that God exists.

The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

I’m guessing you’re using the word “proof” in your own unique fashion, but just in case, let me repeat my request that you make explicit the chain of logic that must back up a legitimate proof claim. That is, walk us through the steps that lead from “Theist using math” to “God exists. QED”

I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.

I think we’re long overdue for an explicit clarification on what exactly you mean by “justify.” Are you (here at least) trying to equate it with “prove”? It almost seems like it, given you just finished telling us that your presupposition has been proven. Throughout this debate, you keep referring to the need to “justify” our use of logic without invoking logic, but my common sense and my dictionary say that to justify something means to show that it is, um, rational. How rational do you think it is to demand, as you appear to be, that someone show the rational basis for something but explicitly forbid them from using a rational argument?

Logic would not exist.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Sentences would not exist.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Just remember that your proofs cannot be based on your own personal presuppositions, unless you have previously proven your personal presuppositions (without invoking those self-same presuppositions, of course!).

 

[Clete]

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Just remember that your proofs cannot be based on your own personal presuppositions, unless you have previously proven your personal presuppositions (without invoking those self-same presuppositions, of course!).

Interesting that you demand that he do the very thing that you cannot. :think:

 

[mighty_duck]

Interesting that you demand that he do the very thing that you cannot. :think:

Clete,

We're not the ones making outragous claims, like "knowledge is not possible without The God of the Bible". Once a presuppositionist makes that claim, he can't just sit back and continue asserting it. He needs to prove it.

What Jim and other TAGers like to do is set up a critera where NO worldview is "rational", then point their fingers at another worldview and laugh that it isn't "rational". All we ask is that Jim explain how his worldview is "rational" by the same criteria that he rejected our worldview.

It can't be done (unless you yourself are omniscient).

 

[mighty_duck]

<edit>

Proof would need to include both that his worldview is possible, and that all other worldviews are impossible.

 

[SUTG]

"knowledge is not possible without The God of the Bible". Once a presuppositionist makes that claim, he can't just sit back and continue asserting it.

mighty_duck and aharvey,

I hate to say I told you so, but I called this back on page 5, I think. Since you heard it here first, you guys owe me a beer or something, at least.

 

[Clete]

Clete,

We're not the ones making outragous claims, like "knowledge is not possible without The God of the Bible". Once a presuppositionist makes that claim, he can't just sit back and continue asserting it. He needs to prove it.

What Jim and other TAGers like to do is set up a critera where NO worldview is "rational", then point their fingers at another worldview and laugh that it isn't "rational". All we ask is that Jim explain how his worldview is "rational" by the same criteria that he rejected our worldview.

It can't be done (unless you yourself are omniscient).

He has already done so several times. Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[SUTG]

Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

...and your claiming that it has happened doesn't mean that it has.

 

[Balder]

He has already done so several times. Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

If it has been done, I think it would be good of you or Hilston to point out exactly where this has happened. What posts? What statements? I am interested to see if the "proof" cited is anything more than bald assertions, which I've come to expect in TAG debates.

 

[SUTG]

I've proven that the Green Bay packers won the last ten Superbowls.

Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[Clete]

If it has been done, I think it would be good of you or Hilston to point out exactly where this has happened. What posts? What statements? I am interested to see if the "proof" cited is anything more than bald assertions, which I've come to expect in TAG debates.

Post 363 to start. I haven't read the entire thread and so I can't site any other posts at this time, aside from the posts in the Battle Royale itself, which Jim won in round 2 by the way, or at the very least he had laid the ground work for an inescapable victory. You might start by looking in Jim's second round post for your proof, it's in there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jukia]

Post 363 to start. I haven't read the entire thread and so I can't site any other posts at this time, aside from the posts in the Battle Royale itself, which Jim won in round 2 by the way, or at the very least he had laid the ground work for an inescapable victory. You might start by looking in Jim's second round post for your proof, it's in there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I went back and read post 363. What a waste of time. It all boils down to the standard fundamentalist rant---the Bible says so, it must be true, I believe it cause the Bible says so, therefore it is true, only my Biblically based knowledge has any value or any truth, and on and on and on.

What nonsense.

My recollection however is that I do like some of his art. The world would have been better served if he had been doing more art rather than spending time attempting to "debate" with Stratnerd.

 

[mighty_duck]

Post 363 to start. I haven't read the entire thread and so I can't site any other posts at this time, aside from the posts in the Battle Royale itself, which Jim won in round 2 by the way, or at the very least he had laid the ground work for an inescapable victory. You might start by looking in Jim's second round post for your proof, it's in there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I wasted (more of) my time on 363 as well. Like I said, Jim attacks my worldview because I can't "justify" my use of logic.
While he can justify his use of logic by using the God presupposition, he can't justify the use of the God presupposition. So he has the same problem, just taken one level further.

Clete,
If this argument is so clear to you, why the smokescreen? The only thing we have a clear idea of are the presuppositions (God of the Bible, The Inerrant Bible).

How can you justify your knowledge of the presuppositions? I'm not asking who made God, I'm asking how can you prove that your presuppositions are true?

 

[SUTG]

What nonsense.

I'll second this. Post 363 just contains assertions of what we want Hilston (or Clete) to prove, or even show a compelling reeason to believe.

Check out this chestnut:

the use and application of the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature are justified because of the existence and attributes of God.

I think this "proof" could stand to be fleshed out a bit more. :yawn:

 

[SUTG]

While he can justify his use of logic by using the God presupposition...

Even the God Presupposition doesn't give any variety of justification that is worth anything. What good does this type of 'justification' even do? Hume's Problem of Induction remains even after you perform this type of pseudo-justification.

Usually the term justification is used in epistemology to refer to logical justification or rational justification for holding a belief. Why go through the trouble of inventing some sort of transcendental justification when it doesn't gain you anything?

 

[avatar382]

You know what I would LOVE to see?

A Christian TAGer and a Muslim TAGer debate which worldview is correct. :chuckle:

Now that would be something!

Anyone want to give a crack at what such a debate would look like?

 

[mighty_duck]

I've just read another thread here , where Clete is first introduced to this worthless argument. In the beginning of the thread, Clete asks Hilston all the questions we are asking. Jim gives him the same run around. Somewhere along the way, he must have had a "eureka!" moment, and from there on he leaves all his good skepticism behind: he directs all his skepticism at other worldviews, while being blind to his own worldview's faults. I think Clete is in a unique position to answer his own questions:

This sounds exactly like "The Bible is true because it says it is true." How am I wrong?
...

You've explained nothing! All you've done is declare conclusions without explaining how you came to those conclusions. You now seem to be saying that it is unbiblical to make such explanations but that there is no resistance to explanation.
....
No I haven't been given any [explanation]. All you've said is that the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary which would be an excellent first line of a well thought out argument but on its own it amounts to your word against the skeptic's. What is your opponent supposed to do, take your word for it?
...
I don't understand your resistance to fleshing out the arguments for your own position.
...
What precisely is that argument then? It seems to me that it amounts to "God exists because the Bible says He does."
If so, why is the Bible true? "Because God wrote/inspired it."
How do you know that God inspired it? "Because the Bible says He did."
I'm sorry Jim but if this is about how it would go, you just don't get any more viciously circular than that! This cannot be a valid argument.

How am I wrong?
...

It would seem to me to be only fair that if Jim is saying that your presuppositions are invalid and his are valid that he should at least be willing to explain why this is true. Like I'm always reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so.
...
Very well then, by what means are [the grounds for claiming objectivity] justified?
...

I think that the point everyone is trying to get you to see is that without having done the work to establish this all you are really saying amounts to "I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise." Surely you can see that this just will not do! You've jumped to the conclusion without telling the story. You've told the 'what' without saying anything about the 'why'.
In order for you to establish this it would be necessary to walk through at least part of this one logical step at a time and clearly show how the opposing world-view is logically incoherent. Just declaring that it is incoherent isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

It would be great if Clete could walk us through that "eureka!" moment. Flesh out Jim's arguments like He himself once wanted.

Unless of course he became wise to the fact that this isn't a rational argument at all. It is a parlor trick aimed at putting an unprepared unbeliever in a tight spot, while holding a holier-than-thou attitude. And of course drawing fire away from his own indefensible fairy tale worldview.