We Should Care About Your Personal Incredulity Why Now?
| November 20, 2017 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
Prominent atheist John W. Loftus gives us an example of a common atheist argument from the size of the universe when he writes:
I think it’s [i.e., the vast size of the universe] even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God who supposedly created the universe for the specific purpose of gaining the affections of people on this lone planet of ours. If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us on a flat disk in a much smaller universe like the one the ancients believed existed.
This argument is a hot mess, a mishmash of factual errors,* self-serving assumptions and faulty logic. But let us set most of that aside and focus on Loftus’ argument from personal incredulity.
The argument from personal incredulity takes the form of “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.” Notice how Loftus exhibits this fallacy. His argument boils down to the assertion that he cannot imagine why God, if he existed, would have created a large universe. A large universe surely exists. Therefore, God does not exist.
Here is the critical question that is left unanswered: Why should the poverty of John Loftus’ imagination concerning God’s motivations matter to us?
The argument from personal incredulity is a species of the “argument from ignorance.” Duco A. Schreuder writes: “These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one’s understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality.”
Just so. The limits of Loftus’ understanding about God’s motivations does not change what is true. Indeed, if a God powerful enough to create such a vast universe exists, we can be certain that our understanding of him would be extremely limited. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that very limited understanding should be the foundation of an argument for his non-existence.
___________________________
*His assertion that the ancients had no conception of the scale of the universe, for example, is pure bunkum: “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.” Ptolemy’s Almagest, Book I, Chapter 6. See also, Psalm 8 (“When I consider thy heavens . . . What is man, that thou art mindful of him?”).
107 Responses to We Should Care About Your Personal Incredulity Why Now?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A cruel, almost epigrammatic expose ; but how could you address his nonsense and avoid cruelty ?
We already have Pauli’s : ‘It isn’t even wrong;’ Now we have vis-a-vis Loftus’ ‘argument’ from credulity:
It isn’t even an argument, but an assertion from narcissism!
Barry, where would science be if anyone really took arguments from personal incredulity seriously?
The history of science is full of examples of facts that challenge our understanding. How about:
Insects do not arise naturally from the soil in the spring, as the ancients supposed. They go through life cycles we would not recognize if we did not make a point of studying them.
But if we operate from the point of view of incredulity, why would we research the matter? Worse, when we did research the matter, we discovered that omne vivum ex vivo – all life comes from previous life. Hence the maddening origin-of-life controversy.
Credulity is bad in principle but incredulity can be a barrier to knowledge.
Apparently it was ok to believe in God when people thought the earth was flat or was the center of the universe, but not anymore.
God not only created the universe he sustains it in its existence. So why should it be small?
I bet Loftus, if he really tried, could come up with reasons to be disbeliever given a small universe too.
An honest question (yes, honestly!) – what’s the theistic response to arguments like Loftus’? I’m not asking to argue for him, I’m genuinely curious. I can see a couple of possible lines of argument (with different theological implications), but I assume that other people have thought about this more deeply.
C.S. Lewis wrote a lengthy takedown of this argument that the universe is vast, therefore God is unlikely. I read it in his book Miracles (chapter 7), but he probably says similar things elsewhere.
It’s hard to find a short excerpt that can stand apart from the rest of his arguments, but this point specifically about Christian belief is relevant:
“Christianity does not involve the belief that all things were made for man. It does involve the belief that God loves man and for his sake became man and died. I have not yet succeeded in seeing how what we know (and have known since the days of Ptolemy) about the size of the universe affects the credibility of this doctrine one way or the other. … If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely.”
But do check out his full discussion in the book.
Even from a strictly secular and harsh point of view the argument doesn’t work. Atheists love to say “The whole purpose of having a God is to fill in the stuff you can’t imagine.”
Well then, the stuff Loftus can’t imagine MUST fall into the God Department, whether a god exists or not.
In the New Testament, the the book of Romans, chapter one, it states that God’s invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature can be clearly seen through what He has created so that all people are without excuse. That pretty much entails that the universe is going to be of mind-staggering proportions. It is a picture of His eternal power. A mind-bogglingly huge universe is a statement about an even more impressive Creator behind it.
it would help if we taught the much stronger science that explains the actual size and age formation and structure of the universe. as it is much for straightforward and logical than the standard SCM. Then those who considered it would not be so incredulous of the actual science only of why no one taught them SPIRAL before 🙂
here is how SPIRAL that predicts the CR and a universe that approximates the sphere of the visible universe not ‘Flat’ w/ no ongoing cosmic expansion, compares to the vastly greater claims of SCM.
SPIRAL vs SCM info-graphic: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/317415683
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins writes: “The Argument from Personal Incredulity is an extremely weak argument, as Darwin himself noted [when it comes to theory of evolution by natural selection.] In some cases it is based on simple ignorance.” (p 38)
Blogger Robert Van de Water make this point about the above quotation:
https://athoughtfulchristian.com/2014/02/10/the-personal-incredulity-argument/
Like so many atheists Loftus needs to study up on logic. Arguments based on logical fallacies aren’t really arguments because they are DOA.
I think it’s [i.e., the small size of the universe] even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God, a ‘Maximally Great Being’, who created this midget universe for the specific purpose of impressing us with his power.
If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us a vast universe like the one the ancients believed existed.
The cheese-mites asked how the cheese got there,
And warmly debated the matter;
The Orthodox said that it came from the air,
And the Heretics said from the platter.
They argued it long and they argued it strong,
And I hear they are arguing now;
But of all the choice spirits who lived in the cheese
Nobody thought of a cow
Conan Doyle
Hand to the forehead, head shake, then laughter
Were God like the imaginary ‘gods’ atheists describe, definitely I still would be an atheist too.
BA,
As it’s now a web era, looked. It’s actually Bk I Ch 6, which in translation is:
So, from C 150 – 180 BC, this was on record in the longest running science textbook of all time. Backed by a telling observation.
The cosmos was known to be so much bigger than our home that an earth on scale of thousands of miles across is comparatively infinitesimal. At least many millions or billions of miles across, likely much more.
So, why is it suddenly argued that the cosmos is now known to be very large and this reduces us to insignificance and casts doubt on the reality of God or the import of a fine tuned cosmos?
We need to look back at C S Lewis’ remarks on this particular atheistical argument. Were it not for the poetry in our souls that converts numbers into sublimity, the numbers would have no persuasive force, no better than numbers in a table of logarithms or the like. So, it is a shadow we cast that stirs us.
Not that that is ridiculous, it’s the shadow of a being made in the image of God with eternity in the heart, longing for a joy that can only be fulfilled beyond this world.
The very business of Heaven: joy unspeakable and full of glory.
KF
KD, point indeed. KF
PS: Psalm 19:
Psalm 19Amplified Bible (AMP)
The Works and the Word of God.
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And the expanse [of heaven] is declaring the work of His hands.
2
Day after day pours forth speech,
And night after night reveals knowledge.
3
There is no speech, nor are there [spoken] words [from the stars];
Their voice is not heard.
4
Yet their voice [in quiet evidence] has gone out through all the earth,
Their words to the end of the world.
In them and in the heavens He has made a tent for the sun,
5
Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6
The sun’s rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
7
The law of the Lord is perfect (flawless), restoring and refreshing the soul;
The statutes of the Lord are reliable and trustworthy, making wise the simple.
8
The precepts of the Lord are right, bringing joy to the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether.
10
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
11
Moreover, by them Your servant is warned [reminded, illuminated, and instructed];
In keeping them there is great reward.
12
Who can understand his errors or omissions? Acquit me of hidden (unconscious, unintended) faults.
13
Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous (deliberate, willful) sins;
Let them not rule and have control over me.
Then I will be blameless (complete),
And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.
14
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable and pleasing in Your sight,
O Lord, my [firm, immovable] rock and my Redeemer.
Thanks for the correction KF
BA, no prob. Ptolemy was appealing to the import of the celestial sphere model of the heavens, a sphere of effectively infinite radius. That is why local horizon acts as through it passes through the centre of the sphere, we are not appreciably different from it; 4,000 miles away . . . and by c 300 BC Eratosthenes’ clever inference from shadows at Summer Solstice at Syene and Alexandria had scaled the Earth to be this sort of size. Likewise, how sundials work. In short, abundant, readily accessible evidence but we are likely to overlook the significance. Ptolemy, a brilliant man, drew that evidence together and highlighted its implications for the scale of the heavens 1800+ years ago. So, atheists making this sort of argument need to ponder why theists did not find the scale of the heavens troubling 1800 years ago or — per PS 19 — 3,000 years ago. Let the atheist answer to Ps 19. KF
PS: Psalm 8 too:
Psalm 8Amplified Bible (AMP)
The Lord’s Glory and Man’s Dignity.
To the Chief Musician; set to [a]a Philistine lute [or perhaps to a particular Hittite tune]. A Psalm of David.
8 O Lord, our Lord,
How majestic and glorious and excellent is Your name in all the earth!
You have displayed Your splendor above the heavens.
2
Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes You have established strength
Because of Your adversaries,
That You might silence the enemy and make the revengeful cease.
3
When I see and consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have established,
4
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of [earthborn] man that You care for him?
5
Yet You have made him a little lower than [b]God,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6
You made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
8
The birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
9
O Lord, our Lord,
How majestic and glorious and excellent is Your name in all the earth!
Footnotes:
Psalm 8:1 Or perhaps to a particular key; meaning uncertain.
Psalm 8:5 LXX reads angels; Heb Elohim is usually translated “God” or “god.” But it can also mean “gods” (with a lowercase “g”) when it is used with reference to the pagan gods of other nations. See, for instance, Ex 20:3: “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me.” Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew as there are in English, the meaning of Ps 8:5 is ambiguous. It may be saying that humans were created a little lower than God Himself, or it may say that humans were created a little lower than the heavenly beings.
Bob above asked a reasonable question. My question concerning the Christian God is this: is it not likely that God has played the same role countless times throughout this vast universe as he has done here? That is, he has guided/created life in worlds that he has helped make habitable, and at some point entered into a spiritual relationship with creatures when they reached a certain stage of development, either having analogous relationships through a “son of God” or through something else?
That is,given his omni-attributes, is it not likely, or at least possible, that he has entered into the same type of relationship, equally special, with other living creatures throughout the entire universe as he has with humans here on earth?
Even though we can only know what is happening on our planet, I would think there is no reason to believe that similar types of things haven’t happened,in respect to God’s activity and relationships, on countless other planets. That seems more in line with the creation of vast universe than the idea that our planet is the only one singled out by God.
JDK, C S Lewis long ago pointed out that if God chose to create other races across the cosmos, that would not substantially alter his relationship with us. He spoke in terms of a dose given to a sick sheep on a farm in England. We should also note that given impacts on planets, spores of life in our solar system will have spread as far as gas giant moons. Moreover, on the account in the Hebrew-Christian scriptures, there are hints that in reality as a whole we are not alone, there is a messenger race that seems to be extra-dimensional to us though capable of interacting with us, the angels. Possibly, more than one such race, too — non-humanoid forms are described (cf. cherubim). Likewise, we see suggestions of different domains of reality, suggesting a limited multiverse — ponder, heaven. The description of the New Jerusalem suggests a massive orbital satellite as in effect a city in near space — geostationary? Where there would be a problem, ironically, is for accounts pivoting on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as such point to the extreme rarity of life. Oddly, multiple civilisations on a galactic or cosmic scale would strictly lend weight to design as explanation of life, but of course that is — predictably — not how it would be spun in the media. KF
PS: What if we will one day be given the job of carrying the gospel to the stars? I see no inherent reason why a one saviour per planet rule is needed. And the God of theism is radically different from a one god per planet with a celestial family narrative to go with it.
KF,
Good comments, as usual. Thanks.
So when an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnimpresent God gets around to creating, He thinks big? Makes perfect sense to credulous me.
But the “Meh, the universe is so big there can’t be a God” argument suffers from a fatal empirical flaw, making it as invalid as a “Meh, the universe is so small there can’t be a God” argument would be. Because God also thinks small.
The fact is, on a human-sized scale, the universe is just as small as it is big. And its mathematical midway point between the size of a Planck length and that of the cosmos just so happens to be about the size of a human egg cell, which just so happens to be the smallest-sized object that can be seen by the naked eye.
Yes Gertrude, human beings live in the center of the universe size-wise. Go figure.
See The Scale of the Universe 2.
kf writes,
Agreed. As I at least implied in my post, God could have, given his infinite capacities, as special a relationship with countless other creatures on different planets throughout the universe as he does with us.
What Loftus is doing, is trying to take Christianly seriously for the purpose of criticism.
One could just as well scale this criticism up and say that God didn’t even need to create a universe at all to have relationships with us. Or are you saying that God can only have relationships with physical things?
Furthermore, God is supposedly perfect and needs nothing, yet he did not have a material body. However, all versions of the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being. A being with a physical body isn’t the greatest possible being? If not, then why do we need one?
Something does’t add up.
In the same sense, God supposedly is all knowing, yet he created organisms in the order of least to most complex. This order is completely unnecessary as, being all knowing, he could have created them in the order of most to least complex, or even all at once.
IOW, the explanation of God does not explain that phenomena nearly as well as other theories. For example, Neo-Darwnim does explain that order. Nature cannot build organisms until the knowledge necessary to construct them was created.
What are examples of incredulity? the inability to believe ideas such as, knowledge can come from something other than an authoritative source, knowledge doesn’t need a foundation and that induction is impossible, despite a laundry list of criticisms that refute them.
That’s incredulity.
The simple answer to Loftus’ so-called objection is that size doesn’t matter.
However, one big “elephant in the room” sized fact– at least according to our current scientific understanding– is that universe was created instantaneously, which means that everything the world would become was in some sense potentially seeded right at the beginning. There was no plan or purpose behind that? That just happened all by chance?
The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree. The purpose of a fertilized human egg is to become a person. There is no real purpose to any of that?
The universe did not just come into being for no reason. Who would be foolish enough to defend such a view?
For the life of me, I don’t see how atheistic naturalists/materialists can explain how the universe was created instantaneously. For some reason they keep missing that “little fact.”
Doesn’t matter in what sense?
While I would agree that size is not evidence that proves a theory, it is is something to be explained by a theory.
Theism doesn’t explain the size of the universe. It’s just as compatible with the early Hebrew conception of the universe and our modern day conception of the universe, or even no universe at all. “That’s just what God must have wanted” doesn’t explain anything.
First, that’s a straw man. Second, that’s incredulity.
Even the limited theories we do have explain far more than “that’s just what God must have wanted”.
What Loftus is doing, is trying to take Christianly seriously for the purpose of criticism.
Made me laugh.
Here is a fascinating quote from St. Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis in the fifth century.
Notice that Augustine neither condones nor condemns the view that stars could be in essence other suns. Of course the science of his day really couldn’t answer these kind of questions. However, he does show a real respect for what we today call the natural sciences.
My point is that 1600 years ago Christian theologians were dealing with the idea that we lived in a universe of mind staggering size. It’s not a new or modern issue. By the way Augustine was not some obscure “backwater” theologian.
Yeah. Theists claim they want to be taken seriously, but then object when you try. It’s rather humorous.
CR, With all due respect you have yet to show that you are willing to try to understand what theists mean when they speak of God, nor what the alternatives on being are going to be — directly connected. As for the point that there is a discipline of thought, logic, that is capable of warrant to relevant degrees, there seems to be a roadblock imposed by over-reach of your understanding of Popper’s teachings. I suggest that one key context here is the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. Mathematics. Please, re-think. KF
PS: The evidence is, the size, components, laws and such of the cosmos are all tied together in a fine tuned operating point that enables the sort of life we have, starting from C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based forms on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. So, that space is widely spread out in the span of time where we exist is functional.
jdk @ #19
Number and size mean nothing to an infinite God? He would have undergone that suffering, so terrible beyond our imagining for any one of us, alone – which is to say that He loves each one of us as, if none of the rest of us existed. It is an absolutely primordial axiom of our Christian faith. The spiritual realm is on a different level, of a different category all together from the physical.
We hear very little about it, but we are called to be adopted members of the very family of the most Holy Trinity, in a mystical body of which Christ is the Head and we, the members. – incorporated in it, and yet retaining our individual personalities, albeit enhanced by a perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
That seems to me to be the nub. I suppose it is a bit like us, when we look at a baby or a toddler. Its diminutive size, if anythng would only inspire greater awe in us. It makes me laugh with incredulity, when I see wee wellingtons or shoes left outside the front-door of other flats – at the thought of little human beings, as small and, normally, as perfectly-formed and perfectly functioning, as humming-birds. Most of us are too spiritual to despise diminutive physical size as a reflection of inferiority of the individual concerned.
Whether the vast universe, microscopic cell, or sub-cellular components, all are exquisite, exhibit design, purpose and are awe-inspiring as the psalmist [David] said. The size of all the above is irrelevant to the discussion of whether there is a Creator, whose existence is self-evident at all points and levels.
Loftus’ personal incredulity is a self-reinforcing delusion, which means he will always embrace his incoherent philosophy and disregard the ubiquitous evidence for God. Because it’s what he wants, for whatever emotional reason, he will never consider evidence that runs contrary to his baseless conclusion.
‘Number and size mean nothing to an infinite God?’
To think otherwise is a primordial misunderstanding.
(I was too late to insert it in my post above).
@KF
I asked you to point out where you disagreed with an article on the philosophy of science. You didn’t even try to engage it.
Hi Axel. Re 31. I understand all that. My point, which I don’t think you or anyone else has addressed, is that it seems to me that such an infinite God, given this vast universe he has created, would have entered into a relationship such as he has with us with countless other creatures throughout the universe (creatures whose existence he has caused to be just as he has caused ours.)
Does this seem like at least a reasonable hypothesis?
Jdk,
Your point is theological and speculative. What hypothesis is there to be proposed?
Sure it’s a theological, speculative hypothesis. But the question is whether it is possibly a reasonable hypothesis, or whether there is a reason, theological or otherwise, to think it unlikely, or even rule it out.
Let me be more explicit.
Lets assume that an omni-everything God created this vast universe; created a planet with all the right conditions to support life; intelligently designed and created, in some way or another over time, creatures with which he at some point entered a spiritual relationship; and ultimately made it possible for those creatures to gain everlasting life through belief in a person sent to represent God in human form (or however you wish to characterize Jesus.).
Now here are two possibilities:
A: our one planet is the only place in the universe that God has created such a situation.
B: God has done somewhat the same thing countless times throughout the universe.
Why should one believe A? Why is B not a more likely scenario?
CR,
That’s because it is a tangent on a tangent. I intervened from 30 above on a secondary point largely because you at 24 on were mis-framing theists and theism, which you have never soundly and cogently addressed.
My original contribution from 14 on was an accepted minor technical correction, by digging up Almagest and citing Bk I Ch 6 in entirety as above. Notice BA’s response. This was used in the context of addressing the current re-appearance of the argument against God from incredulity over the scale of the observed cosmos, and in that context Ps 19 and 8 are highly relevant.
If you want, here are my notes on your linked article — in another post and entirely — as presented at which is on phil of sci when the question I addressed was your distortion of the idea of God held by theists. See the category error? Anyway, I note on your linked article, just once I will not go off on the tangent in a red herring chase:
From 64 in New Scientist thread:
See why I did not think it necessary to go around the same old bush yet again?
Especially on a matter that is a further tangent, injected because someone — pardon fair comment — has a bee in the bonnet?
Let us refocus the key point from the above, and in so doing, can you kindly show us that you actually seek to understand theism and theists.
KF
I am waiting . . .
Me, too, re: 37 …
JDK, I am actually indifferent across A and B. Unfortunately for the Drake Eqn, we have the great silence. That’s what is of concern. KF
1. If God helped create appropriate planets and life, etc., throughout the universe in ways similar to how he is claimed to have done here, then the Drake equation is meaningless. (It’s pretty meaningless anyway.)
2. Even if life developed enough to have a relationship with a God who has made himself present on many planets throughout the universe, the chances of them having sent some signal that we would receive at this time is miniscule, especially given the spectrum of distances, and thus time differentials, between us and other stars and galaxies.
So I don’t think that the absence of evidence here is at all evidence of absence.
But the question I am asking is not whether we think there is other life out there, but whether there is any reason for a Christian to believe, not believe, or even object to the idea that what we see having happened here has been likewise divinely played out countless times throughout the universe?
The OP addresses the question of how to reconcile that vast universe with God’s special attention to our little world, a mere speck in the universe.
Rather than drawing the conclusions that Barry rejects in the OP, I am offering the hypothesis, which reconciles this vastness with God’s special attention, that God has engaged in an similar attention in many other places, perhaps billions and billions.
I’ll point out that my questions have actually been addressed to Axel and OldArmy (and possibly even Barry) due to some of their posts above. But they haven’t returned to respond.
JDK, I have never found reason to doubt existence of other morally responsible races in the Christian or Hebraic scriptures. In fact, there may be multiple, extradimensional races that appear in them, usually discussed as angels etc. When it comes to our own observed cosmos, it seems there is space enough and there are planets enough, though most exoplanets are radically different from our Earth and most stars are in multi-star systems that may make orbits not stable enough. BTW, sims of our own system raise questions on planetary stability in the very long run. The Drake eqn at least put issues on the table and led us to realise there is a question on the great silence. KF
PS: Inasmuch as it is Thanksgiving week in the US, some of that folks not here may be explained. Axel is in the UK but his visits are occasional, he does not seem to come here on a daily basis. Even for me, it is a particular challenge given a local multidimensional chess game that hit a new level when a govt nearly collapsed and is playing onward like Paschendaele, multiplied by the personal challenge of a close bereavement that hit a lot harder than even the “it’s going to hurt really badly” that I expected. That’s why I have posted v few OP’s recently.
PPS: Within the historic Christian faith’s sources, there is little support for what looks like a somewhat LDS view.
see here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pretty-discouraging-news-from-exoplanet-research-were-not-sure-what-to-look-for/
@KF,
First, as I’ve argued before, theism is a specific case of foundationalism and justificationism. In theism, God is an authoritative source of knowledge. While empiricism was an improvement, it just exchanged one authoritative source, God, with another authoritative source, experience in the form of empirical observations.
Whether something is relevant to a subject depends on one’s understanding of that subject. Confusion on a subject can result in confusion of what is relevant to it. Your apparent belief about whether some ideas are subject to criticism would be shared with empiricists and theists alike because they are specific cases of the same philosophical view.
Second, the article was referring to the paper “The Logic Of Experimental Tests, Particularly Of Everettian Quantum Theory”. This refers to the role of empirical observations in science. If you think agree with significant aspects of what was presented, and that it represents a straw man or character of science, then it would seem that you would agree with Everettian Quantum Theory. Yet, your responses seem to indicate this is not the case. So, there must be some significant difference here that explains this lack of agreement.
Furthermore, while evolution is more widely accepted, I suspect that differences in respect to tests of theories and your rejection of the theory are relevant here as well.
From the paper…..
Here, Hall summarizes how Everettian Quantum Theory vastly better explains observations. And he points out how probably is not valid in choosing between theories.
So, my question is, if what was presented was such a straw man or reductionist cardboard cut-out of science, then why isn’t Everettian Quantum Theory more broadly adapted? Why have’t you accepted Neo-darwinism?
And Why are you still an inductivist?
To rephrase, from the article.
Now, it would seem that either you are mistaken about some key aspect of the article, such as the argument made about the philosophy of experimental tests (which you probably didn’t read and took out of context), or that the author is mistaken in some fundamental way.
Either way, that seems to suggest there is some great divide between Popperians and everyone else, in which case the divide is not ludicrous.
kf. I’m not talking at all about “extradimensional races”. I’m just talking about living creatures such as humans. Also, no matter what we may know about the scarcity of favorable planets, if one accepts that our planet is privileged for life due to God’s design, then obviously he could act similarly, however he implements design, in many other places.
But I consider that you have answered my question more or less in the affirmative: there could be multiple (perhaps many, perhaps billions) living creatures throughout the universe that have had an experience analogous to the Christian one here, which makes the “vast universe” problem not a problem.
@KF
This isn’t reductionism. Criticism actually expands science, not constricts, since it is compatible even more ways of creating knowledge. This is much richer than some set of rules, even if they were possible. Nor is it the reflection of one reading of Popper. Are you suggesting this doesn’t reflect his Critical Rationalism? Are you saying Deutsch isn’t a Popperian?
Ideas in science and philosophy both start out as conjectures which are subject to criticism. What differentiates philosophy from science is that includes criticism in the form of empirical tests. This represents a unification of of the growth of knowledge in both science and philosophy.
Inductive reasoning is not inherently provisional. That’s because the same observations can be explained in an infinite number of ways. IOW, we don’t actually use inductive reasoning because it’s impossible. No one has formulated a principle of induction that anyone can actually use, in practice.
“Involving facts” is a vague statement. How are facts involved?
So, then what role does induction play, if any?
Is induction as a “methodology” probably true because it supposedly worked in the past? Yet, there are other explanations for the very same thing in question. Are you saying you provisionally accept inductivism? Have you provisionally accepted Foundationism, despite all of the criticism of it?
You seem to want your cake and to eat it too.
One one hand, when we point out that Genesis seems to point to the Hebrew conception of the universe, theists claim it actually reflects the vast scope of the entire universe, with those lights representing other suns like ours, etc.
But, on the other hand, you now seem to suggest that it does not actually reflect that scope of the universe. Specifically, it there could have been other “earths” created in the universe around those very suns, in which God created other variations of “man”. Why would the Bible described the creation of those suns without describing the creation of those other “earths” and other variations of “man”?
“It’s possible that God did X” is a conjecture, as there are an infinite number of explanations for what we observe. So, my question would be, how might we find an error in that conjecture?
Hmmm, CR. I think maybe you are misunderstanding where I’ve coming from. I am certainly not asking questions that have anything to do with what the Bible says about the universe. Also, I know quite well that I am, as someone said above, engaging in theological speculations: I don’t think there is any way we can know, ever, very much at all about whether life exists on other planets, especially in other galaxies.
I’m just exploring the idea that if one accepts the Christian view about design and the relationship between God and human beings on earth, then it seem to me reasonable to accept, or at least entertain, the hypothesis that he has repeated that throughout the universe rather than having just engaged in this way with the earth.
I am interested in what other have to say about this point.
CR:
First, this is not correct, as metaphysics [roughly, study of worldviews] is not reducible to epistemology:
Second, despite the many attempts to dismiss the idea of a finitely remote start-point for reasoning and warranting knowledge claims that is readily seen from the emergence of chains of warrant. They cannot go on forever, or we would get nowhere. We have finitely remote start points, which may be partly based on what we observe, partly on how we reason and seek coherence, partly what is self-evident, partly, what seems good to us. In short, there is an irreducible element of faith.
Next, we cannot escape seeking truth at some level, as even the case you cited and demanded a response demonstrated.
After this, Theism is not a system of blind appeal to the authority of God to ground knowledge etc. In relevant part, it answers, how do we get a world in light of the logic of being, and in light of our presence as rational and responsible significantly free creatures who are inevitably morally governed.
Going on, justificationism is a term of derogation and dismissal, not a proper response. It is readily seen that we may err, and that error exists is self evidently, undeniably true, I showed this above in brief. Therefore, collectively, we need to provide reasonable warrant for what we hold to be true or right etc. An individual needs not warrant the whole panoply of knowledge, indeed, cannot. But collectively, we do need to give a reason for the views, hopes, expectations and policies we have. And, might and/or manipulation are not good enough for that.
Such warrant is inevitably limited and finite, often beset with difficulties and more.
This is why we collectively have a responsibility of comparative difficulties analysis. On, factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork).
God can and in my experience does reveal truths that can be recognised as knowledge and can and does reveal himself in a personal relationship so that one may come to know and trust God. But that is utterly different from providing a reasonable answer on why one may fulfill intellectual duties to truth, reason etc and be a theist. Though, actual experience of God in relationship is personally decisive.
And, for the Christian, part of that will be the witness of the 500 as recorded within 5 – 25 years and passed down to us in an unbroken chain regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, and the wider witness of the millions to the life transforming power of that risen Christ.
That is specific to the Christian tradition and witness.
We were not discussing that, I spoke above to generic ethical theism, which is a worldview and is assessed on those terms. That is why I took time to address necessary being and the need for a finitely remote world root. It would also be what we need a being at world root level that bridges the IS-OUGHT gap. After centuries of debates, the only serious candidate is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our nature.
As is predictable, you do not have another such candidate. Or, you would have long since provided it.
Finally,l as for inductive reasoning, we all use it, starting with trusting the food we eat and the water we drink.
Here is Locke’s anticipation of the sort of views of our time that challenge that sort of thing, in his introduction to his essay on human understanding, section 5:
And yes, Locke respected the insights in the Holy Bible.
I repeat, we are inductive thinkers starting with what we trust to eat and drink and onward from there.
Enough for now,
KF
JDK, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility of other races on other planets and in other solar systems, and even in other sub-cosmi. Just, we should recognise that speculation is speculation and Science Fiction is just that, fiction. You asked and I responded on what the Judaeo-Christian scriptures say that may be relevant to the matter, which is where extra-dimensionality came in. KF
@JDK
I’m trying to take that idea seriously, for the purpose of criticism. That means assuming that idea is true, in reality, and that all other accepted Christian views are also true, and that everything should conform to them.
Specifically, I’m referring to a Christian view that Genesis reflects our modern day conception of the universe, as opposed to the Hebrew conception of the Universe.
Or to rephrase, if there are no consequences for any Christian views, when taken individually or as a whole, then how can we possllty hope to find errors in them?
CR, perhaps Wiki on the modern understanding of induction may help as a 101:
Argument that supports. I do not like the “probability” language for various reasons, I would suggest the term, plausibility. I also hold that in this sense, abductive reasoning in the sense of inference to best supported explanation, is inductive.
Induction being reasoning on more or less cogent support, not entailment.
Truth, I take it — echoing Ari — is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not.
KF
CR, your latest remarks lead me to again point out that ethical theism is a general worldview position that roots reality in the necessary and maximally great being we call God, it is not a matter of the theology or scriptural or oral traditions of any given religion or mere comparison of such religions or the like. KF
Thanks, kf. Two further points:
You write,
Good, but that doesn’t answer my question. My question is it reasonable, from a Christian perspective, to entertain the possibility that God has engaged with some (perhaps a very large number) of those races, including offering the prospect of salvation, in ways similar to the ways he has engaged with us?
Also, you write,
Just a side note: I looked back at my posts and I don’t believe I asked about Judaeo-Christian scriptures. I’m assuming this discussion with me is about Christians who accept the current vastness and age of the universe.
KF @ #51 brings up some good points about reasoning and logic. It reminded me of a problem in logic that I recently ran across which can be presented very simply and concisely. What follows is my personal effort to present the problem.
Consider the following position:
Donald J. Trump is officially the 45th President of the United States. However, including Trump only 44 men have served as President.
Is this proposition true or false?
What kind of reasoning and logic would you use to prove that it is true or false?
Can you assign probabilities to the proposition? Does it do you any good (other than one or zero) to say that it is probably false or vise/versa probably true?
I am going to argue that the proposition is true.
Do you agree with me? If you don’t, how would you prove me wrong?
JAD,
First, a factual check confirms a 45 count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Second, the proposition is self-contradictory. A set of discrete elements cannot have in the same sense and circumstances cardinality 44 and 45.
However, if the ambiguity between President Elect and actual President is slipped in and the timeline is after Nov 8 ’16 but before a certain moment Jan 20 was it 2017, we can have 44 serving and one elect.
But that elect is not a President, as not sworn in.
KF
JDK, I gather some LDS folks speak in pretty much those terms; though I stand to be corrected. Historic, apostolic Christian theology is decisively shaped by the Bible, properly exegeted. This in turn pivots on the testimony of the 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus and his view of the Hebraic scriptures that prophesied Messiah, specifically a suffering servant. There is no support in the relevant scriptures for such a view. Speculation down that line without actual evidence of such a race seems ill advised. We could speculate that one day we would be missionaries to the stars, as I recall coming up in some sci fi. Surviving Tulareen [?] Posleen (a fictional dragon-like race with a range of ability from subrational cannon-fodder to so-called god-kings) becoming Catholic Christians after a formal battle of champions, IIRC. The extradimensional beings discussed are discussed in terms of permanent loss of a first estate in the Scriptures, though I have seen Sci Fi that has angels going back to the side of Heaven . . . speculative stuff of dubious status. We could speculate on other things too, but without significant support from that frame of thought. My own inclination is that that which is truth will be true together, and if some thing X is well warranted as true then some thing Y which is inconsistent with X has a low plausibility of truth. KF
kairosfocus,
I’m sorry to ask but are you a priest? Or a former one?
JAD,
It is correct that only 44 men have been president, but Trump is the 45th, at least according to the way these things are counted. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th.
Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. The proposition is true, and can be checked with verified facts.
DaveS and JDK are correct but they didn’t answer my other questions. What kind of logic and reasoning are we using here? It appears that KF didn’t read the Wikipedia article very carefully. Here is a more official source.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents
JAD,
I would say we are counting two sets: Presidents and men who have been president, then comparing the two counts. I don’t see any place for probability in this question. My 2 cents, anyway.
My explanation: a U.S. President is not just President of the country but President of his (or her, if we ever get there) Presidency. If a President is defeated in an election that ends his Presidency. If he is re-elected that continues his Presidency. However, if he is defeated and runs again and defeats his successor, as was the case with Cleveland, he begins another or new Presidency. So one person can have two Presidencies and get counted twice as President. Theoretically Cleveland could have done it a third time (he lived till 1908.) Terms limits now limits Presidents two consecutive or non-consecutive terms. Nevertheless, what happened with Cleveland could happen again.
Is the reasoning here an example of deductive or inductive logic?
No induction, only deduction here.
Right. Of course, the deduction includes a lot of propositions about the real world that are true, such as two discontinuous presidencies by the same person count as two, but two continuous presidencies count as one; and also lots of facts like George Washington was the first president, John Adams the 2nd, etc. You can’t use deduction in a vacuum: you have to have propositions about the world being discussed that are accepted as true.
daveS
You arrived at this conclusion via deduction?
JAD, I stand corrected on the specific historical point. KF
Mung,
Yes, I believe so.
J-Mac, No, in fact I am a lifelong Protestant. KF
JDK, facts about the real world are generally accepted on an inductive basis. That is, investigations, observations etc that strictly support but do not necessitate the truth of their conclusions. For instance I missed the peculiarity of how Americans count “Presidents” above, and because Wikipedia uses a table I missed the double-count. That BTW, is a definitional stipulation but its relevance is a matter of observed, contingent fact. Deductions concerning contingent, factual matters generally bring to the table issues arrived at inductively which are open in many cases to disputes if people are sufficiently motivated to challenge premises as they reject conclusions. This then leads to onward disputes and the chain of warrant problem, thence our finitude, fallibility and — too often, ill-will. KF
God loves all his children. 🙂
KF @69:
That’s a simple example of honesty.
Thanks.
Interesting conversation:
@75 follow-up:
KF, aren’t you a priest of the High Priest?
1 Peter 2:9-10 (ESV)
Commentary from the Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
Commentary from MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV):
Mung @73
That’s true, but what do you understand by “his children”?
Check this out:
John 1:1-5,9-14 (ESV)
By the way, God loves all humans, even those who are not His children.
However, only His children will be with Him forever.
KF,
BTW, NT priests of the High Priest are also His saints.
Dionisio, yes, I understand the NT context but assumed that J-Mac was speaking in the cultural sense. He would likely not know that Priest is Presbyter, elder. Bishop is Episkopos, overseer, as in supervisor. Saint is one set aside to God in Christ and more. I have not been ordained in any denomination that has “priests.” All this is of course tangential to the issues in the thread above. KF
KF @79,
Yes, this is off topic in this thread.
Mine was a rhetorical question, intended mainly for your interlocutor and other readers here, so they realized that words have meaning established above and beyond our own personal preferences.
All true followers of Christ are His priests in the OT meaning, as it is written in 1 Peter 2, regardless of denomination. Actually, there are no denominations in the church founded by Christ, who is the true High Priest, as it was understood in the OT.
Also all true followers of Christ are His saints, though still He’s changing each of us -a process called ‘sanctification’ in the NT.
This was an opportunity to present the Scriptures to the readers, some of whom might be lost sheep who will recognize the voice of Truth. Those opportunities should be used every time they appear. You do it relatively often. Definitely more often than anybody else here. Well done! Thanks.
kf, I don’t believe that I know that George Washington was the 1st president through inductive reasoning. It’s just a fact.
I suppose you could say I know it inductively because lots of different sources have told me that over the years, and there have been no counter-examples or denials, but I don’t really think that is how the word inductive is intended to mean used.
However, if “induction” is meant to cover all of our knowledge that is arrived at via observation and experience, on the grounds that all we ever do is accumulate conclusions which are in theory provisional (no matter how very unlikely that is), then I could paraphrase what I said earlier by saying all deductive reasoning about the world must necessarily also include propositions whose truth is arrived at inductively.
I’m not sure that is a standard understanding of induction, but I may be wrong.
JDK,
Pardon but you are unfortunately using an older understanding of inductive reasoning, which would now be regarded as a part of the case. The modern view is in short, that arguments where premises (which may be descriptions of experience or observation etc) SUPPORT as opposed to entailing the conclusion are inductive.
Let me clip Wikipedia again as at 54 above:
That reports and other data support the claim that Mr Washington was first President (under the 1787 Constitution . . . ) do not entail that he was such in reality. The warrant is morally certain as qualified by me — I gather others held a presidency under the 1778 arrangements — but that is not the same as logical entailment.
KF
Dionisio, well said. You may enjoy the exchange that begins with this comment — https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-do-ricky-gervais-and-the-assyrian-king-sennacherib-have-in-common/#comment-644240 — and the one I made right after it. KF
KF (& jdk, et al),
It seems to me that the reasoning JAD used in #65 is purely deductive. In this context, it appears we are to assume that the cited information regarding who was president at various times is simply true. For example, I don’t think we’re meant to assume that there is some uncertainty about who occupied the White House in 1967.
Furthermore, no one who looked at the puzzle has concluded that it’s (say) 99.999% certain that 44 men have been president of the US and Trump is the 45th president. We’ve all said that the original statement is flatly true. In particular, I don’t see any induction in post #65, which is really what the question is about.
Hmmm. That makes every bit knowledge, aside from direct observation, a product of inductive reasoning. I can see how technically that might be true, but it seems to me that some nuances might be useful.
I can see, outside my window, that I own a blue car. I’ve seen it often. That’s a pretty direct observation. And yet, if I tell someone “I own a blue car” when the blue car is not in fact present, that is now an inductive, and hence provisional, conclusion.
I think there was a cat in one of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy books that took this philosphical position.
PS to my #84:
If I were to suddenly blurt out, apropos of nothing, “Dawkins is a man; all men are mortal; therefore Dawkins is mortal”, then ask you whether I am engaging in inductive or deductive reasoning, then obviously everyone would respond “deductive”. This example is simpler, yet parallel to JAD’s, AFAICT.
PPS: What JAD does in #65 is explain how a conclusion follows (with absolute certainty) from a collection of premises. That’s clearly deduction.
DS, My context is that empirical observation, record etc can mount up to moral certainty but they do not assure utter certainty. Yes, if we accept the US way of counting JAD’s conclusions are entailed by the premises but that also happens when a Sci Hyp is used to make predictions we set out to test. My context is the warranting of the facts is also on the table. BTW, in Jamaica IIRC, we have had three Prime Ministers with separated terms, Michael Manley, Portia Simpson-Miller and Andrew Holness. I doubt that Jamaicans would accept the US style count. Busta, Sangster, Shearer, Manley, Seaga, Manley again, Patterson, Simpson-Miller [first woman], Golding, Holness, Simpson Miller again, Holness again. In the DR I gather there were two who exchanged office for many years too. KF
KF,
I guess we’ll have to consult JAD for more clarification on context.
What I see in #65 is an argument that a conclusion follows from a collection of premises (i.e., deduction).
DS, I hear you, and I do not deny that that is there too. However, note in 57: “Is this proposition true or false?” This requires soundness not just entailment, and so it necessitates addressing warrant for the premises and even the issue of definitions. Once that is in hand, we face issues of support rather than onward entailment alone or self evidence. KF
PS: Thanks to WJM and some onward reading, I found some further materials in the other thread that are worth pondering on my basic point. When Wm Colby of the CIA warns as I found, regarding the Franklin case, we should sit up and take duly sobered notice.
KF,
I agree with this, although I’m not sure about definitions—I treat those as abbreviations, essentially, so I don’t see them creating any issues unless they are not well-formed.
KF @83:
Thank you for pointing to those comments in that thread.
I’ve read some of them. Definitely deep and always timely.
DS, it seems to me that US practice is different on counting Presidents, where you have had Grover Cleveland counted as 22 and 24 separately, this being the same individual. I doubt that for example the UK would count Sir Winston Churchill as two separate Prime Ministers given his term in the 1940’s and his term in the 1950’s; the UK being where English came from, but then US praxis is that of the largest population of native English speakers in the world. (I think India has the largest population of English speakers in a country where English is an Official Language, but for most English will not be their Mother Tongue.) In Jamaica, I doubt that the cases of separated terms would be counted as two different Prime Ministers each, also. Next time I can ask someone from the DR, I will ask about their practice. So, definition is a critical issue here above and beyond that of how facts are established as accurate to reality and with what degree of certainty. KF
KF,
Obviously one has to be clear on precisely what definitions are being used.
DS, yes. KF
JDK, 85:
No, there are many types of knowledge that are introspective and logical, e.g. Mathematics etc. Some things are self evident. others are known by logical entailment from things taken as true etc.
However, in many cases, we are dealing with knowledge that is warranted on support not entailment, support that is a lot less than utterly or even morally certain. For example, scientific knowledge especially where we go beyond direct observation.
Observation is also subject to challenge in at least some cases, e.g. optical illusions etc.
So, we need to recognise how much of our knowledge base is a matter of acting on confidence in warrant that is not beyond all doubt or even all reasonable doubt.
KF
@jdk, your #35 and #37
‘Sure it’s a theological, speculative hypothesis. But the question is whether it is possibly a reasonable hypothesis, or whether there is a reason, theological or otherwise, to think it unlikely, or even rule it out.’
I don’t see how it could be ruled out, jdk, but I don’t think you accorded the ideas which you said you’d already pondered, the merit they deserve; neither the ineluctable finitude of all matter, nor the aspect that primarily persuades me, namely, the combination of our littleness and our possible relative sparsity being meaningless to God, are in any way able to detract from his love and esteem for us, plausibly deliberately intended to indicate to us the gulf between the whole of material creation and our essentially spiritual nature, each one of us uniquely loved, as if God had created no one else.
An assertion is not an argument. Why is in not reducible to epistemology? How is this not a tenet of a specific epistemological view?
To quote Deutsch.
Are you saying that both empirical observations and theism do not share the key feature of being authoritative sources? You seem to argue for at least one of those in this very thread.
You keep asserting this despite being presented alternate explanations for the growth of knowledge. Again, I’m saying that when we stop, we do not do so merely to prevent an infinite regress. We stop because we lack good criticisms of an idea.
Good explanations are few and far between. Even more so are good criticisms of those explanations. One of the properties of good explanations is that they are hard to vary without significantly reducing their ability to explain the phenomena in question. So, we don’t need to arbitrary stop at some point. We stop because we’ve run out of good explanations and criticisms of those explanations.
Again, when presenting any ideas as basic beliefs, why did you present those specific ideas instead of others? Because you criticized them in relation to other ideas. The ones you picked you found as lacking good criticisms. If you held them immune to criticism, then you’d have no reason to present them specifically, as opposed to some other ideas. Right?
Seeing truth cannot mean seeking to discard errors in conjectured ideas?
It’s unclear how “seeking truth” requires a specific epistemology being true. If you define seeking truth as a specific epistemology that would be an argument by definition.
I’m having problems finding expanded details on the exact terms “ethical theism” when searching via Google. Perhaps you can provide links that unpack that or go into more detail by what you mean by “a world in light of the logic of being” or “our presence as rational and responsible significantly free creatures who are inevitably morally governed.”
It seems to me that you are trying to account for things that have yet to be established. Or as I mentioned, earlier, it’s unclear there actually is a job opening for which God is the best candidate. Even if there was such an opening, perhaps you can explain how God performs that job?
Would it be accurate to state that you believe in God because you believe there must be some necessary being to account for [logic|morality|rationality] and that you believe God is that necessary being?
If so, wouldn’t that be putting the cart before the horse?
Furthermore, are you saying we do not have moral moral knowledge, but only some reason to assume that moral knowledge, if we had it, was enforceable? Even if that were the case, which I’m not suggesting, what good is that when we find ourselves in concrete moral problems?
If you find yourself in situation X do you say, “there is some moral value or duties we must obey… if only I just knew what that value or duties was?” If God isn’t the source of moral knowledge, then what good is it when people are actually faced with moral problems?
If we have to guess what is the right moral knowledge in a specific situation, then criticize our guesses, then why should I be under some obligation to follow them? IOW, why should I care if some values or duties are inferable if we don’t know what they are? How does that actually solve the problem?
And if it was though criticism that we choose specific values and duties, then isn’t the details of the contents of that criticism that makes it moral knowledge, as opposed to some authority?
it’s as if someone conjectured the solution to the problem of getting an aught from an is by suggests there is some being that bridges the gap in some inexplicable way. But that just pushes it up a level without improving it because people still do not agree on what values or duties one would need to adhere to.
Without a means of deriving what those aughts are, which would be moral knowledge, then what good is it? How does it improve our situation?
The above is criticism of the idea for the existence of said job opening and the idea that “hiring” God to fit it would actually improve our situation, in practice.
Why would I present a candidate for a position that doesn’t exist and cannot be filled?
Wha’s the difference, in practice, between “I believe that X is a moral value or duty, rooted by God” and “I believe X is a moral value or duty.”? How does adding God to the equation help when face with concrete moral problems?
For example, take the problem of unwanted and dangerous pregnancies. Of the top of my head, this would include the knowledge of how to transform raw materials into an artificial womb or the knowledge of how to implant embryos into mothers that cannot conceive and want children? Isn’t that moral knowledge?
What good does God “rooting” enforcement of some unknown values and duties help in the face of that specific problem?
@JDK
If there is no way of taking that seriously, for the purpose of criticism, then in what sense is what other people have to say important? Are you suggesting what they say isn’t criticism?
If they do not consider other ideas they think to be true, in reality, as part of that criticism, then how is this a fruitful endeavor?
If everything is possible and there are no consequences to our ideas then how can we ever hope to find errors in them?
CR
What is your definition of valid knowledge?
CR, I have no idea how your comments apply to the posts Ive written. It seems like a large miscommunication is going on, but I don’t know what it is. It’s probably not worth pursuing further, though.
CR,
Metaphysics and epistemology are considerably different subject matters, though both are main components of Philosophy. Let’s try AmHD:
Again, you have refused to address things as they are, and have tried to weaponise “assertion” by way of evading reasonable discussion.
It should be obvious that matters of epistemology will come up in metaphysics, and that matters of metaphysics will come up in epistemology, just as matters of logic and ethics will come up or be implicit while doing both. But each of the four will be distinct. Trying to collapse any of the four into the others will impoverish one’s thought.
Going further, your attempt to characterise theism as in effect implicitly fallacious appeal to authority is more of an accusation than a reasonable view. As was already pointed out, ethical theism is a worldview which can be summarised. Summary that describes how some people view the world is a matter of accurate description, open onwards to comparative difficulties analysis, not an imposition of a demand for blind adherence to any given authority. Philosophy by its very nature is not authoritarian.
The empirical, likewise, is a description of responsiveness to experience and/or observation, not a fallacious imposition of blind loyalty to a given authority. AmHD again, by way of summarising what is generally meant:
This is closely linked to the challenge of warrant of knowledge claims, but not in a vicious or fallacious manner.
Now, this can be turned into empiricism, summarised by AmHD:
That is a particular epistemological viewpoint, and it is plainly fundamentally flawed. But one can appeal to the empirical where it is relevant without implying or committing oneself to empiricism.
You continue to use your favourite dismissive assertion that I have merely asserted, when you touched on my observation on infinite regress.
At this point, you are speaking with disregard to truth, as not only is the challenge of such regress well known — i.e. the Münchhausen/Agrippa trilemma — but I outlined it several times above. In a blog comment thread, one cannot reproduce reams of debates on every point. Especially, when the matter is obvious: A requires warrant on B, but B now requires C etc. So, we face infinite regress or question-begging circularity or some reasonable, non-question-begging finitely remote start-point framework. This similarly applies to a regress of contingent causes.
It is easily seen that it is futile to try to cross an endless span in finite-stage steps. For, after any finite degree of k steps, k, k+1, k+2 etc can be put in endless 1:1 onward match with the set of naturals 0, 1, 2 etc. A property of endless incremental succession. Besides our own finitude will run out in finite time and we will never reach an endlessly remote or extensive “far side”. For causal succession, it is the endless succession that counts.
A causal circle [involving origin of each stage], likewise will require that something causes its own origin. For warrant, the fallacy of grand question-begging is obvious.
The solution to this last is to recognise that by applying comparative difficulties at worldviews level, one is not begging the question when one stops at his or her first plausibles constituting a faith-point. For causality, we face a finitely remote world root that as was outlined, will need to be a necessary being. The issue then is, what are reasonable or serious candidates. Where, this last is constrained by the fact that just to reason responsibly and freely about it, we are morally governed, thus the IS-OUGHT gap has to be bridged.
This BTW is more than enough to answer the no job opening rhetorical gambit. And the self referentiality is a caution.
As to my use of ethical as a modifier for theism, I have long since pointed out in answer to you that this is by way of emphasis on a point that is too often neglected, not a distinct school of thought. The null result on a Google search simply underscores that neglect. Surely, you will understand that the IS-OUGHT gap is fundamental, and that it is a longstanding issue that the follies of the gods etc are no proper context for bridging the gap. That’s a point highlighted by Plato in the Laws Bk X 2350+ years past. As I clipped on just this morning in another thread. The inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature is a serious answer and it draws out why the emphasis is important.
Likewise, I pointed out that it is a generally true fact that we find ourselves morally governed towards the truth, a matter that is BTW at the focus of arguments. Unless, the whole point is cynical manipulation. And in evidence I pointed out that your own citation inadvertently revealed the force of this impulse that governs us. See 38 above, just before my point 14 in response:
In context of the argument you cited with seeming approval, this was self-referentially incoherent.
We could go on and on but enough has been pointed out for me to call on you to revise your approach to date.
G’night,
KF
PS: FYI, here is Plato in The Laws, Bk X:
PPS: Let me also add, from F H Bradley, Appearance and Reality as I suspect some of the Kantian ugly gulch issue may be at work in all this:
PPPS: BTW, as an appeal to basic courtesy in argument and basic responsibility, I should note that your constant projection of a false claim to me and others about attempting to secure immunity to “criticism” is little more than a strawman caricature of your own manufacture. What do you think that my pointing to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power is, i/l/o the infinite regress/ circularity/ finitely remote start point is, but the very opposite of locking out responsible discussion of alternatives? Have you not understood that: that a self-evident truth will be seen (by one of sufficient background to see clearly) as true and as necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial, is nothing but a gross failure before the comparative difficulties challenge? Do you not see the significance of using “error exists” as a capital example of what a self evident truth is and how it is established? Likewise, to ask the courtesy of allowing a worldview to speak in its own voice is little more than asking that one try to understand the other instead of imposing loaded strawman caricatures. On fair comment, you have caricatured both ethical theism and the recognition that observation and experience are valid approaches to knowledge. Not to mention, inductive reasoning [modern sense] as a legitimate approach in logic and epistemology.
F/N: I took a moment to do a DDGo search and this essay is there among the top several hits: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ethical-monotheism Kindly note, “theism” is a short form for “monotheism.” The essay will provide useful food for thought, though it fails to understand Christian ethics i/l/o say Eph 2:8 – 10, salvation is by grace through faith not by works [given our radical moral failure] but leads to good works as the necessary overflow of a transformed person being brought to manifest holiness and goodness. KF
Origines,
Generally, I would argue that “knowledge” is used in a weak form sense: warranted, credibly true (and reliable) belief.
Drawing out, slightly:
Of course in today’s day and age, “faith” and “belief” are often despised and dismissively contrasted with “science,” “reason/rationality” and “knowledge,” etc. as though acknowledged faith/trust/belief is invariably ill-warranted.
Such reflects dominance of radical secularism and evolutionary materialistic scientism, which, ironically are not well warranted, are not trustworthy (being fallaciously rooted, esp. through self-referential incoherence and/or the fostering of ill-advised cognitive biases) and should not be permitted to act as gate-keepers on what we regard as knowledge.
KF
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/what-is-knowledge/