tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post787260979087735248..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Based on This Argument Alone The Best Any Believer Can Claim is AgnosticismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger246125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69159591414609105802010-01-14T16:28:38.660-05:002010-01-14T16:28:38.660-05:00Where did Rob go?
I thought he was going to conti...Where did Rob go?<br /><br />I thought he was going to continue to debate this topic.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12307050445876968852010-01-13T08:17:26.537-05:002010-01-13T08:17:26.537-05:00God, Atheism and Evidence: A Response to Veritas48...God, Atheism and Evidence: A Response to Veritas48<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9stJ8h2ilZU<br /><br />I think this vid help in the discussion. <br /><br />Yes, no?Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715319397553428894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80402204697680986562010-01-13T08:12:58.732-05:002010-01-13T08:12:58.732-05:00dguller, you intrigue me. Email me if you would. W...dguller, you intrigue me. Email me if you would. Who are you? <br /><br />Rob, you're interesting to me as well.<br /><br />You guys are indefatigable!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28523038117733899622010-01-13T07:35:30.287-05:002010-01-13T07:35:30.287-05:00Luke:
Thanks for the links. Lots of good argument...Luke:<br /><br />Thanks for the links. Lots of good arguments showing that religious arguments in support of a good God being necessary to explain the evidence of the world are bunk.<br /><br />I think that my argument is more general than Law's, however. Law is focusing specially upon the moral qualities of different supernatural scenarios. I am focusing generally upon ANY qualities of different supernatural scenarios. <br /><br />My contention is that it is impossible to identify a single supernatural scenario as the most justified one over and above all others.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89717751787330464282010-01-13T01:44:55.136-05:002010-01-13T01:44:55.136-05:00The main scholarly article on this kind of argumen...The main scholarly article on this kind of argument is Stephen Law's <i>The Evil God Challenge</i>, which I summarize <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2299" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2311" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64856294580495809212010-01-12T10:50:52.728-05:002010-01-12T10:50:52.728-05:00D,
Thanks. I look forward to observing the dialo...D,<br /><br />Thanks. I look forward to observing the dialogue between you and Rob.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71283387619195127132010-01-11T18:02:48.562-05:002010-01-11T18:02:48.562-05:00Chuck:
I concede that, given Rob's idiosyncra...Chuck:<br /><br />I concede that, given Rob's idiosyncratic definition of "faith", he avoids the fallacy of equivocation. However, in so doing, he does a number of things.<br /><br />First, he commits the "no true scotsman" fallacy.<br /><br />Second, he defined "faith" in such a way that it becomes both trivial AND useless to defend religious faith. <br /><br />Anyway, thanks for your input. We'll see how this discussion goes from here on in.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78490248605190483662010-01-11T17:16:48.570-05:002010-01-11T17:16:48.570-05:00Rob and d,
I am going to watch from the sidelines...Rob and d,<br /><br />I am going to watch from the sidelines. I don't agree with the concession on equivocatin (for the reasons I stated) but feel this is a debate between you two.<br /><br />I've benefitted from observing both sides of the debate.<br /><br />Best.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36021086906388743202010-01-11T16:09:14.046-05:002010-01-11T16:09:14.046-05:00As I’ve said a few times now, you do not commit th...<em>As I’ve said a few times now, you do not commit the fallacy of equivocation,</em><br /><br />ah, then I will adress more important matters and then some. But it will have to wait... perhaps a day or two or three. I must be off.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47180281188541747242010-01-11T15:39:22.360-05:002010-01-11T15:39:22.360-05:00And yes, I do criticize the reasons behind the fai...And yes, I do criticize the reasons behind the faith, because faith in and of itself is not reasonable. Only the REASONS that support it should be part of an argument of this kind. It was YOU who brought faith into it. If you agree to remove faith from the table, since your version actually underlies ALL beliefs, justified and unjustified alike, and just focus on the reasons that would make religious beliefs justified, then I will stop talking about equivocation.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16717202585524389282010-01-11T15:39:13.986-05:002010-01-11T15:39:13.986-05:00>> The only context in which I say that fait...>> The only context in which I say that faith is enough is that it is enough to show that agnosticism isn't, as John explicitely claimed, the only response to the argument of the topic.<br /><br />Oh Lord. He was saying that the only epistemically justified response to the argument is agnosticism. There are LOTS of ways that one could respond. One could howl at the moon. One could start dancing in the street. One could go to church. One could throw up. <br /><br />The specific issue is whether FAITH is an EPISTEMICALLY JUSTIFIED response. Your only argument in support of this position has to dilute the meaning of faith to the point that it basically underlies ALL our beliefs – epistemically justified and not -- and thus does not particularly apply to this issue at all. I mean, you are trying to justify RELIGIOUS FAITH in particular. My contention is that were you to venture outside the narrow circle of “belief without absolute proof” and into RELIGIOUS BELIEF and FAITH, then your argument collapses.<br /><br />>> There is no evidence from our senses that an external world exists over against a claim that there is only a mind that is vividly perceiving a consistent external world that is nevertheless imaginary and false.<br /><br />Really? Hang out with psychotic people, and see if there is no real difference between those who believe their senses are veridical and those who disbelieve them consistently. Also, you are forgetting that believing our senses is the DEFAULT position that we are hardwired to assume. It is only afterwards that we learn that not all our sense experience is veridical, but that it according to a background standard of believability. I mean, you could not even make the argument against the senses unless your senses worked sufficiently well to allow you to learn language and logic to begin with. If our senses are false, then you cannot be talking to me right now. <br /><br />These kinds of radical skeptical arguments eat themselves, as we both agreed, and thus are nothing but “intuition pumps”, as Dennett called them. They give us another way to imagine something we hold to be true. However, they are not ARGUMENTS. They do not hold validity unless what they are intuiting actually makes sense with our other well-established beliefs. Sure, it’s possible that if I jump off a building THIS time, then gravity won’t work, but I would bet 99.9999999999999% on the error of that belief. Again, just because you can sort of imagine something does not make it a genuine possibility, including that I am a solitary mind without a surrounding empirical world. Too much nonsense there to be believable, even though there is a 0.00000000001% chance that it is true.<br /><br />>> You cannot fault truth claims because faith is part of knowing them if you also hold to other truth claims where faith is relevent. However, you can criticisize the reasons behind the faith. You did that. it was legitimate. Recant the equivocation claim and I'd happily take it up again.<br /><br />Sure. Just admit that you are not talking about religious faith at all. Actually, you shouldn’t even use the word “faith” at all, because you are taking ONE PART of faith, i.e. its lack of absolute proof, and making it the WHOLE of faith. <br /><br />That is as valid a move as me saying that “love is bliss” as a basis of some argument while ignoring that love is ALSO pain (e.g. at the separation from one’s beloved). I could go on and on about how love is bliss, but what I am talking about is not LOVE, but something else. <br /><br />I would argue that that is what you are doing with faith. You are removing all the controversial features of it that actually distinguishes it from ordinary uncertain beliefs, and then saying that faith really is nothing more. It is clearly something entirely different from an ordinary uncertain belief, and just defining those features away for the sake of logical consistency does not change the fact that in the REAL world, those features are still present and require justification.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40143111719204459772010-01-11T15:37:24.176-05:002010-01-11T15:37:24.176-05:00<< 1) Religious skeptics criticize views on ...<< 1) Religious skeptics criticize views on grounds that they cannot be absolutely proven.<br /><br />2)But most religious skeptics also hold views that cannot be absolutely proven.<br /><br />3)Thus skeptics are not consistent in this criticism.<br /><br />FINALLY! <br /><br />(1) is wrong, and actually sets up a nice straw man. Religious skeptics criticize religious claims on the basis that they are highly unlikely to be true. Even Richard Dawkins concedes that it is POSSIBLE that there is a God, but concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support that proposition. <br /><br />My argument says that it is impossible for a believer to justify their specific supernatural scenario over others, because they would have to appeal to features of their specific supernatural scenario, which would be circular, and thus invalid. <br /><br />It doesn’t help your case to just say, “Yes, it IS possible, and therefore cannot be impossible, which negates the argument!” Don’t just SAY it’s possible, but demonstrate it by showing me how you could justify your supernatural scenario over the others. Go for it!<br /><br />>> These are preliminary considerations that are useful to atheists who actually do believe that we shouldn't believe in anything that cannot be scientifically proven or proven absolutely.<br /><br />More straw men. “Scientifically proven” does not mean “metaphysically certain”. It just means that it would be overwhelmingly unlikely if the particular scientific explanation would be false. And science is not the ONLY route to truth, but it IS the best tool we have to differentiate real patterns and phenomena in nature from chance occurrences that appear to have an underlying pattern. <br /><br />>> And where in lies the equivocation? I am not inconsistent here in noting that both religious views and religious religious skeptics both hold beliefs that absolutely proven.<br /><br />You are right that there is no equivocation when you have defined the terms in a highly idiosyncratic fashion to serve the purposes of logical consistency. As long as you remain within the strict confines of your definitions, I will no longer criticize your equivalences. But you should know that the scope of your argument narrows considerably, possibly so much that what you say becomes trivial and useless.<br /><br />>> What I should've said is that my argument doesn't depend on the degree being the same. After all, there is no objective measure of what degree of faith is allowable for good epistemology. Math and logic take the least amount of faith (granted the amount of faith is not objectively quantifiable) belief in an external world takes, more, science takes more than that and so on.<br /><br />True, there is no “objective measure”. However, there is faith in something that is philosophically consistent, constantly empirically validated, and is absolutely required for our survival and understanding at all, and faith in something that is philosophically inconsistent, rarely (if ever) empirically validated, and is unnecessary for our survival and understanding at all. No mathematical equation needed. If you disagree with the above, I would love to hear why.<br /><br />>> I don't agree that faith is all there is. I've already explained that, you disagreed, I am very unconvinced by your objections, but I'm not returning to it until I hear you abandon the whole equivocation claim. <br /><br />As I’ve said a few times now, you do not commit the fallacy of equivocation, if you stay within the narrow confines of your personal definitions of the terms. There. Now answer my objections to your objections.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38397524489698252282010-01-11T15:36:59.129-05:002010-01-11T15:36:59.129-05:00<< there is no reason on the basis of this c...<< there is no reason on the basis of this claim of yours that anyone should object to my first point. So why shouldn't we agree on my first point?<br /><br />Because you would have to show how it is possible to differentiate your supernatural scenario from other possible supernatural scenarios WITHOUT using anything that you already assume to be true WITHIN your specific scenario. For example, you could not say that God is good, and therefore cannot possibly be bad, because that is an ASSUMPTION from within your specific scenario. <br /><br />You would have to FIRST demonstrate that God MUST be good, based upon philosophical argumentation and/or empirical evidence from the world, and THEN you could rule out supernatural scenarios that include an evil God. My point is that you CANNOT do so, and the fact that you are STILL not doing so just proves my point. Why not just do so, and then you will have refuted my argument. <br /><br /><< It could indeed be the case that faith is a rational response. I didn't say that this IS reasonable but that we do have an option other than agnosticism to investigate that is POSSIBLY reasonable.<br /><br />Wow. So, you are not saying that faith IS a rational response, but that it COULD POSSIBLY be one? What is THAT all about? “Sure, my argument doesn’t REALLY support what I’m proposing, but MAYBE it MIGHT!?” Your whole argument depends upon faith BEING a reasonable response to agnosticism in the case where you are presented with MULTIPLE possible supernatural scenarios without any ability to justify one scenario over another. If you are conceding that you cannot demonstrate this, and that it MIGHT be a good response, then I think the case is closed.<br /><br />And remember that that was the whole point of my argument. I wrote: “I mean, since believers are big on creating conceptual space to make their positions logically POSSIBLE, then it is also possible that God is a Cosmic Trickster who takes pleasure in fooling them.” And here you are doing exactly what I said believers do. Namely, try to find SOME kind of wiggle room within the realm of possibility and once you think you have done so, declare victory. Why not focus on PROBABILITY instead of POSSIBILITY? If your standard is mere possibility, and not likelihood, then my argument stands, because it is POSSIBLE that God is a Cosmic Trickster, no?dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55142712188080092252010-01-11T15:36:36.436-05:002010-01-11T15:36:36.436-05:00Rob:
<< You are assuming that I am saying t...Rob:<br /><br /><< You are assuming that I am saying that the rational behind both the faith claims of atheists who are not radicle skeptics and the faith claims are for the same reasons. I absolutely am not saying that.<br /><br />I am happy that you acknowledge that the faith claims of atheists who believe in the validity of their senses are different from the faith claims of believers who believe in the existence of God. Since they are different, one can assent to one faith claim and not the other without any contradiction. If that is true, then who cares if atheists assent to some beliefs without absolute proof? They can still reject the faith claims of believers on the basis that there is an extremely low probability of their being true and a high probability that they are byproducts of bias, distorted reasoning and evidence, and/or wishful thinking.<br /><br />Also, you STILL haven’t provided an argument in support of your contention that atheists cannot criticize believers for justifying their beliefs on the basis of faith, because atheists also believe in some propositions that lack absolute proof. Come on, no more distractions and diversions: WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THIS POSITION?? Or, do you deny the truth of it altogether?<br /><br /><< I showed that this isn't clearly the case at all from number 2. Just because my number two requires more investigation does not change this.<br /><br />What “number 2” are you referring to?<br /><br /><< The veracity of math and logic is not embraced because they are absolutely provable but because they are self evident and/or properly basic (if there is a difference).<br /><br />Fine. I’ll concede that mathematics and logic are also not absolutely provable. The implication of this is that NONE of our beliefs are absolutely provable, and thus ALL must be taken on your definition of “faith”. So what? How does this POSSIBLY help you to differentiate between one supernatural scenario and another, especially by using “faith”? I mean, if “faith” underlies ALL our beliefs, then how can it help to differentiate between them? <br /><br />I mean, if our life presupposed the existence of oxygen to breathe, and someone changed their clothes to something else, then you wouldn’t explain that change in clothes on oxygen, right? You would have to appeal to something ELSE entirely, because oxygen would be required whether someone stayed in the same clothes or changed them!<br /><br />Similarly, if ALL our beliefs presuppose your version of “faith”, then both our justified AND unjustified beliefs would also presuppose “faith”. It follows that “faith” is IRRELEVANT to whether one belief is justified or not, because it is present in BOTH types!dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36214728084056717092010-01-11T15:28:13.276-05:002010-01-11T15:28:13.276-05:00Rob,
Additionally, your definition of faith withi...Rob,<br /><br />Additionally, your definition of faith within the two realms is the false premise on which this rests. You state that consistent faith between science and theism is defined thus, "belief that something is true in spite of absolute provability." <br /><br />That would not be the definition of faith when dealing with scientific "faith". Implicitly or explicity a faith in science adheres to probability, not provability, with incremental degrees of value correlating to statistical levels of confidence. Faith in science is related to quality of information. Faith in theism is related to trust. The former is discriminatory and the latter is a leap.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68921835554556737092010-01-11T15:14:42.389-05:002010-01-11T15:14:42.389-05:00Rob,
You don't get it.
You invent a meaning ...Rob,<br /><br />You don't get it.<br /><br />You invent a meaning for a word to satisfy your a priori conclusion.<br /><br />I work in the realm of science. In fact, I am taking a break from studying a tracking study right now that deals with physician perceptions.<br /><br />If you want to show me that your definition of faith (epistemic or otherwise) is consistent with the way the term is credibly used in the areas you are illustrating then I will agree. Until then what I see is someone who wants to believe his faith is reasonable changing the meaning of words to fit his desire to be correct.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21452977613652368962010-01-11T14:55:37.997-05:002010-01-11T14:55:37.997-05:00post 5 of 5
Chuck
You are dealing with a homo...post 5 of 5<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Chuck<br /><br /><em>You are dealing with a homonym that has an agreed upon meaning in the realms you consider.</em><br /><br />my usage is close to a couple of agreed upon meanings and it accurately describes how beliefs actually work. Words also serve convenience. Why should I constantly utter the phrase "belief that something is true in spite of absolute provability" when faith is an excellent stand in for the whole phrase. And that you can't find it spelled out in the dictionary is of little consequence and is poor linguistics considering a dictionary is not intended to be absolute nor exhaustive in linguistic range nor does it follow a philosophy that these meanings are to be strictly adhered to.<br /><br />No one agreed with Jean-Paul Sarte in his usage of the term "bad faith" prior to his using it nor does anyone criticize his view on those grounds. Why would they? There's no reason to. We can critisize it on legitimate grounds rather than mere word games. (and his term is much further removed from the general definition of faith than my term is of episetmic faith).<br /><br /><em>If you want to argue what you argue then one must live by the rules of your mind,</em><br /><br />These aren't the rules of my mind, that usage determines definition and that an individual can instantiate a definition for a specific purpose and context as this is how much scholarship even beyond philosophy works.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10442500835837818342010-01-11T14:54:57.620-05:002010-01-11T14:54:57.620-05:00post 4 of 5
I think that what Chuck and I are tr...post 4 of 5<br /><br /><br /><em>I think that what Chuck and I are trying to tell you is that you are free to define the terms that you are using however you like. However, if the term that you are defining ALSO have a well-known meaning that differs from your definition, then whatever you prove using your new definition of the term CANNOT be taken to imply to the broader meaning.</em><br /><br />It's not clear to me at all that what the broader meaning is. When atheists use the term, they often mean belief without evidence (irrelevent, not the same as, but consistent with my definition usually called blind faith). Then there is rational faith which is closer to what I speak of. Then there is faith as used in scripture which as I have very well explained (without challenge) is something that goes well beyond our consideration in epistemology.<br /><br />And the idea that your definition of faith in science is a broader meaning is woefully uninformed to the fact that most people don't even concieve the two as being coherent. And in fact, it is your definition. No one defines faith in science as the belief that science is trustworthy because of it's constent reliability even though it cannot be absolutely proven. Again (to your silence) this mixes the reasons for faith with the definition of faith. This is your own ad hoc definition imposed upon my thinking just to make the case that I equivocate.<br /><br /><em>So, even if your argument proves that faith (i.e. conviction without absolute proof) is reasonable, it does NOT follow that FAITH (i.e. religious faith) is reasonable,</em><br /><br />No it doesn't follow. It does follow against the thrust of the argument that faith in religious claims/belief in God may very well be reasonable (and hence, it isn't clear, as John Loftus suggested that agnosticism is our only response to the topic argument). I did not leave it there. I gave reasons why it is reasonable (and once we can get off this claim of equivocation, I'll return to it). If I wrote something that faith is all that is necessary, then I corrected that in my last post of the first page.<br /><br /><em>That is a valid, if unsound, argument. However, it does NOT follow from this argument that</em><br /><br />Actually, that DOES seem to be a matter of equivocation on the term "transcendence".<br /><br /><em>and commit a fallacy of equivocation in which if your limited version of faith is valid, then the broader version of faith is valid, too.</em><br /><br />Let me help make this clear. I don't say faith in God is reasonable and justified because faith in science is. Again, I may have poorly articulated my view speaking along a similar line. What I did intend to convey is that faith itself is not necessarily irrational if we are rational to hold faith in other areas. Again again, don't make me say it any more so please, understand this and stop writing as if I didn't explain it manyu times: that faith general can be rational DOESN'T GET US ALL THE WAY TOWARDS ANSWERING YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST BELIEF IN A BENEVOLENT GOD. It is a step in that direction. Maybe it was an unnecessary step for you as you are fine with acknowledging that belief in an external reality or in science is indeed belief held in faith, in spite of the ability to absolutely prove it. But for some people, it very well needs to be pointed out. I gave reasons why religious faith is reasonable. My complete answer to the topic argument cannot be judged apart from those reasons (and I won't return to them until we get the equivocation business out of the way).Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24356049357071299202010-01-11T14:52:48.581-05:002010-01-11T14:52:48.581-05:00post 3 of 5
You are clearly latching onto the no...post 3 of 5<br /><br /><br /><em>You are clearly latching onto the notion that faith must be a rational response to my argument, because it is all you really have.</em><br /><br />This is not a revelation. This is what I've been explicitely stating from the beginning.<br /><br /><em>It is pretty clear that the only real way of picking out one supernatural scenario over another is by virtue of one’s faith in that particular scenario.</em><br /><br />I don't agree that faith is all there is. I've already explained that, you disagreed, I am very unconvinced by your objections, but I'm not returning to it until I hear you abandon the whole equivocation claim. The reasons for my faith and your objection is legitimate business, but i strongly and confidently believe that the whole equivocation claim is indefensible junk. Get rid of the junk, then we can deal with the real business.<br /><br /><em>If you are really saying that the faith that you require to support your supernatural scenario over others is just “conviction without absolute proof”,</em><br /><br />it isn't JUST that. i don't know how you can say that it is JUST that considering I gave reasons otherwise. That you don't agree with those reasons doesn't mean that i am not offering them in support of my faith, that I am JUST offering faith. The only context in which I say that faith is enough is that it is enough to show that agnosticism isn't, as John explicitely claimed, the only response to the argument of the topic.<br /><br /><em>However, if you include differences in the degree of justification, then this argument is clearly false, because one can believe in our senses, because the evidence is 99% in their favour, and yet reject belief in God, because the evidence falls far short of that of our senses.</em><br /><br />There is no objective equation that will support that figure of 99%. There is no evidence from our senses that an external world exists over against a claim that there is only a mind that is vividly perceiving a consistent external world that is nevertheless imaginary and false.<br /><br /><em>One, if you do NOT include different degrees of justification of different types of faith,</em><br /><br />I absolutely do include it but not in the definition of faith. the degree of faith comes cognitively after the definition of faith.<br /><br /><em>One CAN reject religious faith despite having faith in our senses, for example, because our senses have FAR MORE justification to back them up than faith in God.</em><br /><br />Of course they can. I may have made a claim that looked like this towards the beginning of the discussion, but I was arguing against an absolute anti-faith position. You cannot fault truth claims because faith is part of knowing them if you also hold to other truth claims where faith is relevent. However, you can criticisize the reasons behind the faith. You did that. it was legitimate. Recant the equivocation claim and I'd happily take it up again.<br /><br /><em>That is a silly counterexample. The difference between 5 inches and 12 inches uses a single concept of “inch” that has ONE MEANING to it.</em><br /><br />It's an excellent counterexample because it demonstrates precisely that degree does not necessarily figure into definition. I don't know that it ever does. And inch doesn't have one meaning, not that that is even relevant.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65519229771751583112010-01-11T14:44:40.599-05:002010-01-11T14:44:40.599-05:00post 2 of 5
The stronger claim is that it is IMP...post 2 of 5<br /><br /><br /><em>The stronger claim is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate that one’s supernatural scenario is superior to another one, because one must utilize information WITHIN your supernatural scenario to justify it, thus engaging in circular reasoning.</em><br /><br />Okay. That doesn't contradict my first point. it would contradict other points that I've made, but there is no reason on the basis of this claim of yours that anyone should object to my first point. So why shouldn't we agree on my first point?<br /><br /><em>It depends upon what you mean by “reasonable response”.</em><br /><br />I didn't just call the options reasonable responses. They are <b>possibly reasonable</b> responses which can be explored. This does two things. It highlights in opposition to John's claim that agnosticism isn't the only clear option for us in light of your argument. There is also the possibility of faith. Number 2 it points out that we have an alternative trajectory of investigation. We can indeed probe why faith is reasonable here and we don't have to conclude agnosticism immeadiately. As for what you ask afterwords, you aren't treating that very claim as modest as it really is. It could indeed be the case that faith is a rational response. I didn't say that this IS reasonable but that we do have an option other than agnosticism to investigate that is POSSIBLY reasonable. you can critisize my reasons in the investigation that comes AFTER this claim if you want, but nevertheless at a preliminary stage, this demonstrates that it is premature to declare as John Loftus does that agnosticism is the only response. In assessing this, if you don't like my reasons that I offered, as far as this point is concerned, great, but it is a closed mind to suggest that we have already arrived at agnosticism before exploring the other option. <br /><br /><em>This is the sticking point where I believe you are equivocating. Please provide an explicit argument, including premises, for this position.</em><br /><br />1) Religious skeptics criticize views on grounds that they cannot be absolutely proven.<br /><br />2)But most religious skeptics also hold views that cannot be absolutely proven.<br /><br />3)Thus skeptics are not consistent in this criticism.<br /><br />Was it not your approach that we should not hold views that cannot be absolutely proven? That's fine, as i said, You can agree to my three points without agreeing that your argument has been completely dismantled. These are preliminary considerations that are useful to atheists who actually do believe that we shouldn't believe in anything that cannot be scientifically proven or proven absolutely. These are useful observations in light of your argument. More must be said, but these observations are still of use.<br /><br />And where in lies the equivocation? I am not inconsistent here in noting that both religious views and religious religious skeptics both hold beliefs that absolutely proven. I don't stand on this and say "there you see, I have demonstrated that faith claims about God are equal in every way to faith claims about external reality or science". I don't have to, it doesn't help me, I know it's not true. But there are some equivalences that are worth exploring and there are matters that aren't equivalent that are also worth exploring.<br /><br /><em>Your argument absolutely depends upon the degree of faith required, because if you insist that degree does not matter, then you have proven my point.</em><br /><br />Alright, I don't like the way I've worded that. What I should've said is that my argument doesn't depend on the degree being the same. After all, there is no objective measure of what degree of faith is allowable for good epistemology. Math and logic take the least amount of faith (granted the amount of faith is not objectively quantifiable) belief in an external world takes, more, science takes more than that and so on.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45237733213277706462010-01-11T14:36:30.091-05:002010-01-11T14:36:30.091-05:00post 1 of 5 reposted for editing,
dguller,
Firs...post 1 of 5 reposted for editing,<br /><br /><br />dguller,<br /><br /><em>First, provide me with an explicit argument for your contention that since atheists believe in truths that they cannot demonstrate to be absolutely true, that therefore they have no grounds to criticize religious beliefs upon the basis that they are taken on a matter of faith.</em><br /><br />By definition, my definition, believing something that cannot be absolutely proven is taking something on a matter of faith. I can only think that you're taking a step that I don't take to accuse me of equivocation. You are assuming that I am saying that the rational behind both the faith claims of atheists who are not radical skeptics and the faith claims in God are for all the same reasons and/or types of reasons. I absolutely am not saying that. I 100 percent recognize that there are differences (as well as some important similarities). Secondly, you insist that we take our beliefs on FAITH ALONE which has been explicitely contradicted by myself. Let's have no more of these mistaken insistences about what I am claiming. I'm here, I tell you what I mean, you have to accept what I mean is what I mean. That is the only way to have a fruitful dialogue.<br /><br /><em>First, regarding this idiotic “stand alone” issue. I think what John meant was that simply by virtue of my argument alone, one must be a religious agnostic.</em><br /><br />I showed that this isn't clearly the case at all from number 2. Just because my number two requires more investigation does not change this.<br /><br /><em>He did NOT mean that there are no counter arguments that might be made, that it is psychologically compelling, or whatever you think he meant.</em><br /><br />I don't see a difference.<br /><br /><em>Second, respond to my infinite supernatural scenario argument, as described below:</em><br /><br />No, I'll stick to the original argument. If you want to abandon it as a lost cause in favor of this one, that is fine by me. All I will say about this is that I can only compare a few feasible scenarios at a time. As for other claims in that argument, we don't need a whole new set of scenarios to discuss them. We don't need to discuss an infinite number of scenarios to discuss a dubious empiricism as you have suggested. As far as I can tell, the context of the argument of the topic is a fine place to discuss that.<br /><br /><em>That is the weaker claim, because ANY belief, with the exception of mathematics and logic, cannot be absolutely proven,</em><br /><br />On the side, you actually are wrong about that. Math can shown to be self coherent. Logic can be shown to be self coherent. Nothing outside of these two fields absolutely demonstrates their veracity. You can't even appeal to science (or any empirical data) since it is logic and math by which scientific claims are evaluated, not the other way around. It has not even been demonstrated that all of mathematics is logically coherent as Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead attempted to do so and ran into a paradox. The veracity of math and logic is not embraced because they are absolutely provable but because they are self evident and/or properly basic (if there is a difference).<br /><br />Their is only one piece of knowledge that is beyond any kind of conscious disproof, that is that thinking is taking place (which is even less ambitious than Descartes "I think therefore I am").<br /><br />But back to your claim, that virtually all claims have this feature doesn't make it weak. it makes the claim undeniably strong. If there is a weakness, it's probably that you are reading more into than I intend or need. It's only a small part of my reasoning.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9900401123542290472010-01-11T14:24:58.148-05:002010-01-11T14:24:58.148-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52305813175461525972010-01-11T13:23:58.290-05:002010-01-11T13:23:58.290-05:00Rob,
You are dealing with a homonym that has an a...Rob,<br /><br />You are dealing with a homonym that has an agreed upon meaning in the realms you consider.<br /><br />Your definition of faith as it pertains to either realm is invalid to their meaning (as used in either).<br /><br />If you want to argue what you argue then one must live by the rules of your mind, rather than empirical definitions related to real-world observations.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39274241653244130782010-01-11T12:57:01.192-05:002010-01-11T12:57:01.192-05:00Rob:
I think that what Chuck and I are trying to ...Rob:<br /><br />I think that what Chuck and I are trying to tell you is that you are free to define the terms that you are using however you like. However, if the term that you are defining ALSO have a well-known meaning that differs from your definition, then whatever you prove using your new definition of the term CANNOT be taken to imply to the broader meaning. So, even if your argument proves that faith (i.e. conviction without absolute proof) is reasonable, it does NOT follow that FAITH (i.e. religious faith) is reasonable, because “religious faith” is far MORE than just “conviction without absolute proof”.<br /><br />That would be like arguing as follows:<br /><br />(1) Humans intrinsically strive towards transcendence in their lives.<br />(2) God is transcendent reality.<br />(3) Therefore, humans intrinsically strive towards God.<br /><br />That is a valid, if unsound, argument. However, it does NOT follow from this argument that <br /><br />(4) Humans intrinsically strive towards a benevolent, all-powerful deity whose holy book is the Bible.<br /><br />The problem is that many people would agree that (4) follows from (1)-(3), because the REAL definition of “God” is NOT just “a transcendent reality”, but something more than that, i.e. a personal deity that possess a number of qualities. In fact, when most people think of “God”, it is of the broader concept and not the limited one in (2).<br /><br />Similarly, when you define “faith” in your specific and narrow way, then the reach of your conclusions is extremely limited, and they do not touch the bigger sense of faith. However, it is easy to lose sight of this, and commit a fallacy of equivocation in which if your limited version of faith is valid, then the broader version of faith is valid, too. This is not reasonable at all, and as long as you keep your aims limited, then I have no problem.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58966848708506362752010-01-11T12:44:45.921-05:002010-01-11T12:44:45.921-05:00Chuck,
Nothing you have described has satisfied m...Chuck,<br /><br /><em>Nothing you have described has satisfied me that you are not equivocating using the switch reference. </em><br /><br />Then explain. Don't assert. Take what I've said and show it to be lacking. If you are just registering your opinion that I've failed here, well, fine provided you don't expect me to agree or for me to think you understand that I've failed.<br /><br /><em>Just because you define faith in both realms the way you do does not mean that is the agreed upon use of that term relative to the realm we are discussing.</em><br /><br />There is no need to agree here. It is perfectly normal in philosophical discourse and has been modelled in philosophical publications that one can articulate his own definition of a term. If i am equivocating, then it is because i am not consistent with the definition, not because someone else doesn't want to recognize my definition. At the same time, there is a matter of taking a word, even if one provides a definition, it is nevertheless an (implicitely) loaded definition (it implies more than what the person is defining it. There is also arguing via pure definition. But none of those necessarily entail equivocation.<br /><br /><em>Faith has a specific definition when considering theological claims and an all-together different meaning when considering scientific claims.</em><br /><br />If you are right, it has nothing to do with me. I have defined, I have been consistent. that is all that is necessary to avoiding equivocation.<br /><br /><em>Deal with the way the term is used in practice, not the way you would like it to be used.</em><br /><br />This is poor linguistic theory. Usage determines definition and the context of usage may very well be as small as published paper, a book or even a comment in a blog topic. But my usage is close to more conventional usage and since I did not invent this usage, (John has posted on the issue before in response to other people who have used faith in this way). It is normal for the context of this debate.<br /><br /><em>Additionally, ignorance of the meaning of a term (as stated in your rationalization for the creationists use of theory) does not insulate someone from equivocation.</em><br /><br />It surely doesn't. But consistent usage of the term certainly does.<br /><br />And I don't rationalize that argument chuck. I have criticized it on solid grounds, not the poor grounds of a fallacy that isn't there. Course I later explained that I may be wrong about how flexible the meaning of equivocation is and I used the creationist example. The creationist did not define "theory" as applied to evolution and yet they want to use that term in how it is applied to evolution as a criticism. Since they did not define the term which they capitilize on, they have a weakness. that might be an equivocation, but it's not what I am doing. I am the one who introduced this argument and I have been very very specific in how I use the term "faith" and I have been consistent with it.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.com