|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eric Hovinds presuppositionalism argument
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I enjoy watching a lot of debates and recently came across some Eric Hovind videos.
(By the way please don't think I'm saying that people like Eric Hovind represent all Christians and all christian argument. I don't.)
Anyway the gist of his argument can be summerised as follows.
Eric: "The existence of knowledge only makes sense if we presuppose Gods existence".
Atheist: "That's not true".
Eric: "Could you be wrong about everything you know?"
Atheist: "Well...my senses tell me that..."
E: "But could your senses be wrong? Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that your senses aren't feeding you false information?"
A: "Well...yes I could be wrong. Bet lets get back to the topic at hand. Here's why I think you're wrong".
E: "But how do you know? You already admitted you can't know anything."
A: "But I could argue the same thing. How do you know god exists?"
E: "Because I have divine revelation from god".
A: "But you just said we can't know anything".
E: "No no that's your world view not mine".
And so on. How would you combat this slippery argument? On the face of it it seems silly I know but surprisingly I've seen a lot of people caught off guard and struggle to answer. For the masochists among you here's a video of Eric using the same argument for most of an hour.
Eric Hovind debate
[ 03. March 2015, 11:55: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are plenty of flaws there; but 'I have a divine revelation' is pure assertion, and not an argument. If assertions are permitted, then I have a revelation from Chthulu, and he says, eat more nuts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Hmm
The one jump is where he takes best-case scenario for religion and worst-case scenario for non-religion.
Perhaps if you forced him to be on board at each point as well. But he kind of has that wrapped up (by begging the question). And not quite sure how to counter-twist.
quote:
A: "But you just said we can't know anything".
Another jump though is that we don't know nothing. We need to qualify things by saying "our senses are claiming...[X happened]", one possibility is that they are lying, another is that they are right. So we may not be certain about our knowledge, but it may be possible for us to have the knowledge (or may not*).
*though for it to appear as consistent as it is, it's more likely that it's just missing a 'in the currently running matrix program' qualifier if it's not real.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
The obvious starting point to me would be to question "how do you know it is a divine revelation?" - If it comes from anything they have ever read, then by their denial of the reliability of sensorial data they are prohibited from using any kind of written source.
If they appeal to the divine revelation having come direct into their heads, then how would they discern what is divine from Descarte's demon?
The weakest link (out of several) is the epistemology of the revelation.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The problem - and the solution - is the use of 'world view'. In Hovind's world view, God speaks to him. In the atheist's world view, there is no God to speak.
Reality, as an externality which we interpret through our world view, shows these two world views as mutually exclusive. They might both be wrong, but they cannot both be right.
It's his presupposition that Hovind has to prove, before he proves anything else. And has been shown, that's a much tougher ask.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
It seems that this is a watered down version of the 'Van-Tillian' presuppositionalism that I've seen coming out of Reformed circles for a while. See also Douglas Wilson debating Christopher Hitchens.
I presume Hovind has picked up on it, and is aiming at the more populist end of the market.
[ 03. March 2015, 12:33: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The atheist seems a bit feeble to me. I know where the bathroom is. OK, there is a chance that it's moved, or I'm confused, but I don't therefore dismiss all knowledge or ability. I would counter-argue very vigorously!
Hume even made a joke about this - he says somewhere that skepticism is all very well, but he would still leave a room by the door, not the window.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Thinking about it more (on route to the shops)
I think the first problem, is that the straw-atheist has to realise that in one sense the argument is valid. The counter to this is to realise that he doesn't have to fight it.
That is without some cosmic-validator (which we can call 'God'), we are left without our knowing if our knowledge on a firm footing.
However the question of validating the validator is valid and of course meta-stable (ish) and outside the scope. It would have to be taken on faith (again ish).
And basically it could be that all we've got is the hope that leaving by the door will be the right thing this time...in which case it's all we've got.
[that reads a bit negative, but I'm sure it could be put a bit more optimistically, in any case (I assert) that both us theists and atheists are in some sense stuck with it, whatever spin you put on it]
The other alternative is (if you are informed in advance) is to resolutely affirm something that you can quickly and convincingly spin into a closed loop. This would of course be profoundly dodgy as our eye's do lie. But if you can get a consession out here, you can play it when he calls on his spiritual sense.
The second trick, having framed the debate to get the debatee to defend too much, comes in the implicit assumptions. Which I thought I'd got but am struggling to put in words.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I also find it a very hollow kind of debate. I was comparing it with the Russell/Copleston radio debate, which gave space to each man, to develop a point fully, without the yes/no staccato rhythm, as if in a court room. I suppose the internet has reduced debate to a kind of ping-pong, without charity.
[ 03. March 2015, 15:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Eric: "The existence of knowledge only makes sense if we presuppose Gods existence".
Atheist: "That's not true".
The Atheist had "lost" as soon as s/he spoke. S/he should have asked Eric to define his terms and argue his hypothesis. I haven't gone through it rigorously, but I suspect that with any defensible definition of "knowledge", Eric's assertion is hogwash.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the atheist is utterly feeble. It's a kind of three card trick.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
To me, it sounds rather smug.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I can just see all the converts flocking in, when they see this debate. Probably like those crowds hammering on the church door, shouting 'kalam, kalam!'
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think there are other ways to attack Eric's remark than to confront it directly. I might ask him to pin down the meanings of his words. I might also seize upon his notion that knowledge necessarily derives from sensory data. It seems to me that I have knowledge about myself, for instance, that does not come from the senses. Likewise, one might consider questions of logic and mathematics which do not depend on the senses.
Eric's claim is huge, a sweeping assertion. Would he say there can be no communication unless we presuppose the existence of God? If so, how could he carry on a discussion with agnostics?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems to rely on a false dilemma between certainty and doubt, as if the doubt is paralyzing, and does not permit logic or argument (since you can't be certain of anything). Oh gee, we used to argue this in the 6th form.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
As a moderate Anglo-Catholic, I'm not the best apologist for a very conservative Reformed system of apologetics that I haven't really studied in 15 years. With that caveat...
quote:
originally posted by quetzalcotl:
There are plenty of flaws there; but 'I have a divine revelation' is pure assertion, and not an argument. If assertions are permitted, then I have a revelation from Chthulu, and he says, eat more nuts.
Really? You had a divine revelation from Cthulu? When did that happen? Who else has this experience? What difference does it make if Cthulu exists or not? The ultimate claim of presuppositional apologetics is that all of our ways of knowing ultimately presuppose the existence of the God of the Bible. Lovecraftian monsters especially not one as minor as Cthulu don't provide a sufficient basis for our epistemology.
quote:
originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Another jump though is that we don't know nothing. We need to qualify things by saying "our senses are claiming...[X happened]", one possibility is that they are lying, another is that they are right. So we may not be certain about our knowledge, but it may be possible for us to have the knowledge (or may not*).
The presuppositional apologist would likely say you don't really live like your senses might be wrong. The worldview claim is not a dodge but the heart of the argument. Ultimately, the presuppositional apologist will argue that you live your life as if the God of the Bible actually exists whether you admit or not.
quote:
The obvious starting point to me would be to question "how do you know it is a divine revelation?" - If it comes from anything they have ever read, then by their denial of the reliability of sensorial data they are prohibited from using any kind of written source.
If they appeal to the divine revelation having come direct into their heads, then how would they discern what is divine from Descarte's demon?
quote:
originally posted by Sipech:
The obvious starting point to me would be to question "how do you know it is a divine revelation?" - If it comes from anything they have ever read, then by their denial of the reliability of sensorial data they are prohibited from using any kind of written source.
If they appeal to the divine revelation having come direct into their heads, then how would they discern what is divine from Descarte's demon?
But, the presuppositional apologist doesn't deny the reliability of sensory data because the God of the Bible makes sensory data reliable. What they want to know is why you believe sensory data is reliable. I imagine they get past Descartes demon the same way Descartes got past Descartes demon.
quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's his presupposition that Hovind has to prove, before he proves anything else. And has been shown, that's a much tougher ask.
He doesn't have to prove it because he is presupposing it. The presuppositionalists are clear what they are presupposing. They want to find out what you are presupposing and if you really act on those presuppositions.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This argument reminds me a bit of Lewis's argument in relation to reason - that if reason occurs via natural processes (for example, evolution), we have no guarantee that it is reliable. (Rather like the OP argument that if we are not certain of our knowledge, then it is unreliable).
However, I don't think we have to be certain. We might all exist in the Matrix, but we can pragmatically put that on one side, and enjoy our tea, or whatever you call it. In fact, my tea might be a delusion, but I'll take the risk.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
From what I can gather, Hovind is really out on the extremes, and certainly his Father seems a very controversial figure.
Presuppositionalism has its more mainline advocates. Van Til has been mentioned. It does have some points, and has affinities with Calvinism, because it basically believes that there is no overarching framework of discussion within which atheists and Christians can engage. You cannot reason to God, and will only believe if (and for Calvinists this is a rather big if) God "shines into your heart" and reveals himself to you.
What they would add is that it is not only they who are acting on presuppositions, they are just more aware of it.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Another jump though is that we don't know nothing. We need to qualify things by saying "our senses are claiming...[X happened]", one possibility is that they are lying, another is that they are right. So we may not be certain about our knowledge, but it may be possible for us to have the knowledge (or may not*).
The presuppositional apologist would likely say you don't really live like your senses might be wrong. The worldview claim is not a dodge but the heart of the argument. Ultimately, the presuppositional apologist will argue that you live your life as if the God of the Bible actually exists whether you admit or not.
That's what that bit was meant to be addressing.
In that case the double negative wasn't being emphatic. We do know something, we may only KNOW that our senses are acting as if XYZ. But we do know that.
It may be a possibility that the senses are wrong, (regardless of the existence or not of God), but it may be a possibility that they are right. Regardless in any case it's all we've got to go on (again regardless of the existence or not of of God).
And on the whole it adds up as though they were right (e.g. my sensation of remembering asking for a tv on a phone and my sight of seeing something tv like). It's definitely a good workable worldview that our senses are good Whether we ascribe that to coincidence and take that on faith, or pass the matter up a level and have faith that God's given us good senses. Isn't really any different in outcome.
Philosopo-Academically we might have to be ready to put big footnotes on everything when asked,
In practice we can walk through the door and trust that when God says he is the Truth he isn't lying.
[ 03. March 2015, 18:35: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would have thought that we do live probabilistically, as if our senses might be wrong, partly because sometimes they are. We check things and sometimes we double check. When the echo of the Big Bang was first detected, the scientists checked to see if it was pigeons in the dish!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This argument reminds me a bit of Lewis's argument in relation to reason - that if reason occurs via natural processes (for example, evolution), we have no guarantee that it is reliable. (Rather like the OP argument that if we are not certain of our knowledge, then it is unreliable).
However, I don't think we have to be certain. We might all exist in the Matrix, but we can pragmatically put that on one side, and enjoy our tea, or whatever you call it. In fact, my tea might be a delusion, but I'll take the risk.
That's interesting, it does.
But then I vaguely agree with that one and am more suspicious on this.
I wonder what the reason is ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
(I suspect that I feel the CS Lewis is rejecting a (fictional) proposition with his arg, while this is affirming the inverse. But not sure if that is actually the case (I know the passage but can't find it)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I agree with the argument he (Eric) is making, but maybe no the way he is making it. A basic atheist stance is that the senses are fallible - so therefore spiritual experiences are delusional. Turning that argument back on itself is valid - as is to say "that's your world view, not mine". If senses are delusional, then the scientific instruments are no less reliable - because the only way we can pwerceive the data is through our senses. Furthermore, everything that is material and solid in our lives (i.e. anything not wholly contained in the ethereal realm of ideas and thoughts) is perceived through the senses, so to argue from a delusional sense pov is to immediately let go of any claim to a sense of reality, or the capacity to trust anything. The converse - trust in ones own senses - is a prerequisite for any form of embodied spirituality. i.e. any spirituality that relates to day-to-day life rather than just a "nice idea".
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm on a phone, so can't do links, but Anscombe had an interesting rejoinder to Lewis. I suppose in the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the vogue du jour, so science does not aim for truth or reality. Well, it works, more or less. As I was taught, scientists make observations of appearances, and leave the rest to God.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that we do live probabilistically, as if our senses might be wrong, partly because sometimes they are. We check things and sometimes we double check. When the echo of the Big Bang was first detected, the scientists checked to see if it was pigeons in the dish!
Oh..it goes beyond that. Every single second of the day, you assume that what we call the laws of nature will remain the same and not suddenly change. On what rational basis do you make that assumption? The fact that they haven't yet is no guarantee that they won't. In fact, doing science at all presumes the existence of the God of the Bible.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that we do live probabilistically, as if our senses might be wrong, partly because sometimes they are. We check things and sometimes we double check. When the echo of the Big Bang was first detected, the scientists checked to see if it was pigeons in the dish!
Oh..it goes beyond that. Every single second of the day, you assume that what we call the laws of nature will remain the same and not suddenly change. On what rational basis do you make that assumption? The fact that they haven't yet is no guarantee that they won't. In fact, doing science at all presumes the existence of the God of the Bible.
I would have thought that that kind of axiom is a guess, which is then tested out. For example, there may be states of affairs, where the normal laws are abrogated; as an example, determinism has been abandoned in some areas of science. Einstein argued that time does not flow evenly, a la Newton. Nature is very weird.
But the guesses are non-rational, (not irrational, as Anscombe correctly says).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think if you're going to be a foundationalist - that is you think that in order for something to count as knowledge it has to be either evidently true or provable from things that are evidently true - then divine revelation is as good a starting point as any and better than sense data. If the atheist sticks to the claim that the problem with belief in God is that it's not provable, then the presuppositionalist has got the atheist.
However, foundationalism is highly problematic. Nor is it made much better by claiming that the foundations needn't be self-evident, but need merely be presuppositions. If the atheist thinks that something is off about the argument, but can't be sure what it is, it's probably because at root the atheist knows that foundationalism is problematic, but can't articulate that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Isn't it that foundationalism is guesswork?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh..it goes beyond that. Every single second of the day, you assume that what we call the laws of nature will remain the same and not suddenly change. On what rational basis do you make that assumption?
On the basis that it seems to have happened in this way many times before. It is simply simpler to imagine that the universe works in a way which is understandable and predictable (if not fully understood and predicted, of course, due to the lack of full information). The alternative is that the universe is impossible to understand or predict.
Of course, some areas of science are based on the fact that nature will suddenly change at some point in the future which is hard to predict - for example volcanoes erupting, earthquakes etc.
quote:
The fact that they haven't yet is no guarantee that they won't. In fact, doing science at all presumes the existence of the God of the Bible.
Science is not capable of giving guarantees.
And 'doing science' does not presume anything about a deity, hogwash.
[ 03. March 2015, 20:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The basis of reality is belief and thought. If this is explored rationally through the senses, it is found experientially to be correct. Or at least self-consistent, as a triad. Belief, thought, senses as a reliable subjective observation tool. If the material world is considered to be reality, then this inevitably again leads to a necessity to requirte the senses to be unreliable, because they often throw up data which is inconsistent with that starting point, and require thought itself to have a physical basis. This in turn, lwhen the argument is followed to its logical conclusion, leads to an automaton model of all of the living world.
Goswami has formulated quantum mechanics from this starting point (Thought being the creative force), and 10 years ago (I don't know the current status) his wa sthe only QM formulation that was consistent with all experimental results.
For anyone who wants to sit on the fence, the options are thin on the ground - either matter is primary and free will, identity and purpose are illusional (as is experience), or spirit is primary and there is at least some correlation between experience and "reality". Even if I were not already convinced there is a God, the choice is rather stark.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Goswami has formulated quantum mechanics from this starting point (Thought being the creative force), and 10 years ago (I don't know the current status) his wa sthe only QM formulation that was consistent with all experimental results.
So I looked up Goswami on Wikipedia.
If anyone wants to know what a Wikipedia page that has not had proper editing looks like, take a look.
Needless to say - as a qualified scientist with more than passing familiarity with relativity and quantum theory - I have not heard of any scientist agreeing that the whole of the current model of QM can only be explained by a single mystic's philosophy. I'd go so far as to call the claim entirely false.
Here's one for the presuppositionalists:
Am I right in understanding that this approach requires the God of the Bible to exist as a philosophical basis for all other epistemology? How then does one determine that the Bible exists at all, or that it is about a deity rather than about car maintenance or ear surgery?
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Well, since he was teaching QM at the time (and happily discusses the various different QM formulations and the way the fit the data or don't), I guess that's a professional disagreement. I don't find Wiki very reliable at all when there is any degree of controversy - it often seems to gravitate to the lowest common denominator.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I haven't the time or patience for the video, but the dialogue in the OP sounds like a couple of freshman philosophy majors after the third pint. I have more coherent arguments with myself (even after the third pint). And I always win them... Who is this Eric guy, and why does anyone take him seriously?
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
A basic atheist stance is that the senses are fallible - so therefore spiritual experiences are delusional.
Who claims that? One thing does not follow from the other. And conversely the validity of spiritual experiences does not follow from assuming the infallibility of the senses. There are many missing steps in this argument.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Here's one for the presuppositionalists:
Am I right in understanding that this approach requires the God of the Bible to exist as a philosophical basis for all other epistemology? How then does one determine that the Bible exists at all, or that it is about a deity rather than about car maintenance or ear surgery?
t
By not accepting foundationalism. Presuppositionalism seems broadly committed to a coherence view of what makes beliefs justified - he is pointing out that the materialist view is incoherent, not that he has a better epistemological foundation.
I find all of these arguments a bit smartass, and I'm not sure they prove much. I think it IS useful to point out to committed materialists that they are often carelessly using the word "knowledge" (usually as opposed to "faith") without proper consideration of what it means to know something. Most of the time when we are saying we "know" something, our concept includes or is dependent on something that is, in fact faith. But it doesn't get you any further than that.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Well, since he was teaching QM at the time (and happily discusses the various different QM formulations and the way the fit the data or don't), I guess that's a professional disagreement.
I don't think teaching QM necessarily prevents one from spreading BS. He's basically midway between the whackier side of Roger Penrose and Deepak Chopra.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it that foundationalism is guesswork?
I don't think so.
Rationalism and classical empiricism are both forms of foundationalism: you start from something that we are supposed to be certain of - either axioms of reason or else sense data - and from that we are supposed to prove each step, every time using the previously established steps as evidence. One ought not to believe anything that one hasn't established in that manner, or at least one ought only to give it confidence equal to the likely probability.
Unfortunately, the steps from axioms of reason or sense data to, say, the natural sciences, tend to be highly handwavy, in a way that suggests that the scheme is fundamentally flawed. There are arguments that expose flaws in the scheme directly: one being that in order for something to serve in a logical deduction we have to be able to refer to it when it isn't there; therefore no assertion that it is present, even the thought 'this is a x', can be self-evident, or even evident with a measurable probability.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
By not accepting foundationalism. Presuppositionalism seems broadly committed to a coherence view of what makes beliefs justified - he is pointing out that the materialist view is incoherent, not that he has a better epistemological foundation.
Presuppositionalism is I think closer to foundationalism than not. If it thinks it can sort beliefs into presuppositions and not presuppositions it is agreeing that knowledge has a deductive structure - that you start from presuppositions and suppositions and work on to conclusions.
A coherence theorist would I think be happier with the claim that no beliefs have axiomatic or presuppositional status.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it that foundationalism is guesswork?
I don't think so.
Rationalism and classical empiricism are both forms of foundationalism: you start from something that we are supposed to be certain of - either axioms of reason or else sense data - and from that we are supposed to prove each step, every time using the previously established steps as evidence. One ought not to believe anything that one hasn't established in that manner, or at least one ought only to give it confidence equal to the likely probability.
Unfortunately, the steps from axioms of reason or sense data to, say, the natural sciences, tend to be highly handwavy, in a way that suggests that the scheme is fundamentally flawed. There are arguments that expose flaws in the scheme directly: one being that in order for something to serve in a logical deduction we have to be able to refer to it when it isn't there; therefore no assertion that it is present, even the thought 'this is a x', can be self-evident, or even evident with a measurable probability.
A very interesting post. I thought you had mentioned atheists smelling a rat in relation to religious foundationalism; I know plenty of them who say that it's based on guesswork; however, in the interests of fairness, I often reply that there's nothing wrong with a decent guess.
Incidentally, in relation to science, there are various sayings that it progresses over the graves of bad ideas; I think Planck made the rather lugubrious point that it progresses one funeral at a time. Quite a counterblast to any notion of certainty.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, in relation to science, there are various sayings that it progresses over the graves of bad ideas; I think Planck made the rather lugubrious point that it progresses one funeral at a time. Quite a counterblast to any notion of certainty.
I think we have to be careful with this notion, it doesn't mean that science can never state anything with certainty. Once we move to the realm of experimental science rather than science as natural philosophy, 'bad' ideas tend to involve approximations to reality, rather than being incorrect on all levels.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, in relation to science, there are various sayings that it progresses over the graves of bad ideas; I think Planck made the rather lugubrious point that it progresses one funeral at a time. Quite a counterblast to any notion of certainty.
I think we have to be careful with this notion, it doesn't mean that science can never state anything with certainty. Once we move to the realm of experimental science rather than science as natural philosophy, 'bad' ideas tend to involve approximations to reality, rather than being incorrect on all levels.
Fair enough. I was just guying the idea, that since we can't be certain that the sun will rise, therefore we are paralyzed by uncertainty.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
By not accepting foundationalism. Presuppositionalism seems broadly committed to a coherence view of what makes beliefs justified - he is pointing out that the materialist view is incoherent, not that he has a better epistemological foundation.
Presuppositionalism is I think closer to foundationalism than not. If it thinks it can sort beliefs into presuppositions and not presuppositions it is agreeing that knowledge has a deductive structure - that you start from presuppositions and suppositions and work on to conclusions.
A coherence theorist would I think be happier with the claim that no beliefs have axiomatic or presuppositional status.
Hmmm, I'm not sure about this. I'm not sure coherence denies knowledge has a deductive structure, just that warrant is implied by fit with the collection of other warranted beliefs, rather than by connection to a solid foundation. So beliefs are still deduced one from the other, but there isn't any one foundational truth from which all other truths are deduced. Deduction per se still takes place.
Preuppositional apologetics is, AFAICT a discipline in which you try to highlight others' presuppositions and point out that they are incoherent. I don't think it necessarily then implied Christianity has solved the foundation problem, but rather that the propositions gain warrant by coherency in a way the unbelievers' do not. As I said, not my cup of tea because it seems a rather smartass game.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In the OP, 'you've already admitted that you can't know anything', is really taking liberties. Surely, in a live debate, the opposite side would question this vigorously. This is the false dilemma, it seems to me. Either we are certain, or know nothing. Well, no.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In the OP, 'you've already admitted that you can't know anything', is really taking liberties. Surely, in a live debate, the opposite side would question this vigorously. This is the false dilemma, it seems to me. Either we are certain, or know nothing. Well, no.
Which plays to the idea that pre-suppositionalism is not so much about debating, as shutting the other person up.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In the OP, 'you've already admitted that you can't know anything', is really taking liberties. Surely, in a live debate, the opposite side would question this vigorously. This is the false dilemma, it seems to me. Either we are certain, or know nothing. Well, no.
Which plays to the idea that pre-suppositionalism is not so much about debating, as shutting the other person up.
Yes, I've heard them called 'shut up, that's why' arguments.
I can imagine that when you first encounter it, it might throw you off balance, as the OP seems to demonstrate. But after that, you will know to fire back, when those misrepresentations start to flow.
It seems awfully jejune to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I find the issue of axioms interesting, and presumably a presupper will charge that materialism, naturalism, physicalism, et. al., are based on axioms that are either weak or irrational, or something equally bad. Some serious reading on the Munchhausen Trilemma is called for; or shall I have a drink instead?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In the OP, 'you've already admitted that you can't know anything', is really taking liberties. Surely, in a live debate, the opposite side would question this vigorously. This is the false dilemma, it seems to me. Either we are certain, or know nothing. Well, no.
Which plays to the idea that pre-suppositionalism is not so much about debating, as shutting the other person up.
A few things on that...
One, conservative Calvinists of that stripe have a different goal than other apologists. The point is not to convince you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. In their view, only the elect will come to salvation regardless of how good or bad the argument happens to be. Pointing out that one's epistemology is incoherent unless the existence of God is assumed demonstrates that each of us knows instinctively that God exists. It's the same basic underlying reason for why Westboro Baptist Church isn't concerned with converting anybody. The Presuppositionalists I've met have been decent enough people.
Second, in order for a debate to take place, the two sides have to have some agreement about what counts as a good argument. Presuppositionalists hold that believers and unbelievers don't share enough common assumptions to make a normal debate possible. Therefore, the debate must begin at the most basic level of how we know what we know.
Third, new atheists smugly arguing warmed over logical positivism and using ridicule as their primary rhetorical weapon can't really complain the other side isn't arguing in good faith.
[ 04. March 2015, 15:09: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, conservative Calvinists of that stripe have a different goal than other apologists.
In general the disciples of Van Til and Bahnsen are in the minority even amongst the conservative Reformed, even if you get a watered down variant of bits of pre-suppositionalism elsewhere.
quote:
Pointing out that one's epistemology is incoherent unless the existence of God is assumed demonstrates that each of us knows instinctively that God exists.
To an extent - though I remain convinced that presuppostionalism is bad philosophy - though as I find most of them to be batshit, I suppose you could argue that I go into the debate with unfair presuppositions.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In the OP, 'you've already admitted that you can't know anything', is really taking liberties. Surely, in a live debate, the opposite side would question this vigorously. This is the false dilemma, it seems to me. Either we are certain, or know nothing. Well, no.
Quite. IME it's materialists conflating knowledge and certainty which is where a bit of this can be useful.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Conservative Calvinists of that stripe have a different goal than other apologists. The point is not to convince you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. In their view, only the elect will come to salvation regardless of how good or bad the argument happens to be. Pointing out that one's epistemology is incoherent unless the existence of God is assumed demonstrates that each of us knows instinctively that God exists.
That sounds very close to what Sye ten Bruggencate argues. I have to admit I'd find it...disconcerting to debate with someone who believed I was lying. When I've heard this argued before I've wondered if it comes from a belief in hell. Could the believer be reasoning as follows:
- Hell exists.
- God is just.
- A just god couldn't send infants and the unknowing to hell.
- Therefore everyone knows God exists.
Something like that?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The presuppositionalist isn't accusing your of lying but being blinded by the effects of sin. Is it about Hell? In a round about way, I suppose it is for some of them.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
