Keith Devens .com

Can the 'believing' worldview provide a "cogent reason for what we necessarily assume in all of our reasoning" , without begging the question against reasonable atheists or agnostics? Can it provide such a justification at all? I doubt it, but feel free to surprise me.

Rather than showing atheists as being unreasonable, I had concluded that the problem of induction exposed the somewhat pragmatic nature of science. I would have thought that the fact that it seems that many of our widely held beliefs have less rational justification than we would sometimes think would be a comfort to you, showing that sceince is not so far different from 'faith' as it would like to tell people. Instead you presuppose that Hume and Russell are wrong because you cannot get your head around their answer, and dig yourself a deeper hole to stand in. You misunderstand both the problem, and the implications of these problems with inductive reasoning.

Can the 'believing' worldview provide a "cogent reason for what we necessarily assume in all of our reasoning"... Can it provide such a justification at all?

Of course. Given that God created the universe and set it up to follow certain laws, and that He maintains those laws and has promised to do so in his Word, Christians have every reason to believe in the inductive principle.

Instead you presuppose that Hume and Russell are wrong...

I thought I was clear that I think they're right since I quote them approvingly and use their conclusions as evidence for my position. Hume and Russell are exactly right: upon their foundations they have no rational basis for the inductive principle. However, I have a different foundation than they do, which is why I do have a rational worldview.

One of the nicest illustrations of the futility of atheistic philosophy is the fact that the inductive principle -- essentially, the principle that past experience is a good predictor of future events, or in short, that "the future will be like the past" -- is simply without justification on an atheistic worldview.

Er, atheism is the belief that there are no gods. This doesn't rely on the inductive principle, they merely correlate.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can claim that the inductive principle can be without justification in any worldview whatsoever. Observation leads to the inductive principle. Atheists can observe just as well as anybody else.

All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood.

This is a straw man argument. As you state above, the inductive principle says what is a good indicator, not an infallible indicator.

I agree that there is an underlying assumption when you use the inductive principle - however this is the type of assumption that you need to make if you are going to state anything whatsoever. I assume that my memory is in some way accurate and not falsified or random. I assume that my senses tell me about my environment. I assume that the world isn't in a vast conspiracy to deceive me. I assume that, unless there is evidence otherwise, something that has happened a thousand times in the same way will happen again in the same way next time.

These are all assumptions that I can never prove to be true. Likewise, I assume that observing the present and making predictions about the future is worthwhile. So far it has been (assuming my memory isn't lying to me). So why are these assumptions a flaw in atheism?

How do you know that somebody hasn't surreptitiously altered every Bible you have ever come into contact with? How do you know that every church you have been in hasn't been an agent of Satan that is lying to you? You have to assume this isn't the case.

Assumptions are necessary to make sense of the world. If you don't assume things, then you are stuck with "this is a thought, therefore a thought can exist" and can go no further in making sense of the world.

Given that God created the universe and set it up to follow certain laws, and that He maintains those laws and has promised to do so in his Word, Christians have every reason to believe in the inductive principle.

Does the Bible actually say anywhere that God won't change the laws of nature? Surely miracles are by their very nature counterexamples to this claim. If miracles followed the laws of nature, then they wouldn't be miracles, would they?

atheism is the belief that there are no gods. This doesn't rely on the inductive principle, they merely correlate.

An atheist believes in much more than "there are no gods". Of course he also claims to have other knowledge, the ability to do science, and so on. The point is that his worldview cannot support or justify his ability to have knowledge and do science.

I don't see how you can claim that the inductive principle can be without justification in any worldview whatsoever.

I thought I was clear that I think the inductive principle is valid upon the Christian worldview.

Observation leads to the inductive principle. Atheists can observe just as well as anybody else.

You're completely missing the point. Under an atheistic system, observation is no justification for believing in the inductive principle. To re-quote Russell:

Hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question.

Back to you:

I agree that there is an underlying assumption when you use the inductive principle - however this is the type of assumption that you need to make if you are going to state anything whatsoever.

Indeed, and that's exactly my point. That under an non-Christian worldview the inductive principle is merely assumed, whereas the Christian has justification for his belief. Therefore, the non-Christian has no justification whatsoever in doing science, while the Christian is perfectly justified in doing science.

I gotta run, so I'll get to the rest of your comment later.

At the core of every person lies some amount of faith in something. I do not think it has to faith in a god to be reasonable. Christians merely take their leap of irrationality in a different area than atheists. The sort of atheist you seem to be depicting (which I think is unnecessarily restrictive... you can have an atheist who doesn't much believe in science) trends towards making as few assumptions as is pragmatically possible. Rather than assuming that there exists a God who sets up the rules of the universe, they can skip a step and just assume the rules. I think it's just as valid a worldview.

At the core of every person lies some amount of faith in something.

Indeed! And that core commitment has to support the rest of your worldview.

I do not think it has to faith in a god to be reasonable.

If you think an atheistic worldview can be "reasonable", then explain an atheistic worldview that can support an objective system of ethics, avoid Hume's skepticism, and support empirical knowledge at all by having a justification for the inductive principle.

Rather than assuming that there exists a God who sets up the rules of the universe, they can skip a step and just assume the rules. I think it's just as valid a worldview.

There's a big difference. If God created the universe and maintains its laws (etc.) there is a reason to believe in the uniformity of nature. Just assuming it is no justification at all. If you're arguing that I'm merely assuming "a god" the same as an atheist assumes the uniformity of nature, that's not the case at all. First, I'm not positing "a god", or a "god of the gaps" that I pull out of thin air to support my worldview, but rather the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Second, it's not a mere assumption, but I believe in it based on God's revelation, and it's necessary that one believe in that revelation or one winds up in skepticism.

The alternative is not simply what we take as our first "article of faith", but whether that article of faith and its associated worldview winds us up in skepticism or not.

Just noticed in my referrers:
http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2005/07/induction-and-atheism.html

From the above Sam, who considers me a "waste of carbon". Nice guy.

Okay, I agree that was a bit too much. I can get kind of over-excited at times. Please accept my apologies for any offence caused.

P.S.
You are still wrong ;-P

I think it's hilarious that people have beliefs and will constantly argue over their validity with people who disagree. Everything everyone believes is a result of some sort of propaganda, whether you want to believe that or not. Religion (or lack there-of), your feelings about capitalism, communism and consumerism, every political 'issue'. Even my view that 'everything we believe is persuaded by propaganda' is the result of propaganda that I've encountered.

I notice you have a lot of republican and christian propaganda links on your diary-webpage. It feels nice to surround yourself with ideas that you already know you agree with and argue/insult/spit-on worldviews you don't agree with, doesn't it?

Sam, thanks. Apology accepted. With regard to the description of my position in your post:

1.Induction is without justification under atheism.
2.Induction is part of all our reasoning, and is thus true.
Therefore it is non-sensical to be atheist.

I wouldn't quite put it that way. First, I'm not sure what it means for induction to be "true" (it's not a proposition). But I'd rephrase this way: 1. Induction is without justification under atheism. 2. Induction is part of all of our reasoning, and therefore necessary for a coherent worldview. 3. Since atheism has no justification for induction, it is non-sensical/irrational to continue to hold to that worldview. And 4. Since Christianity is the only worldview that is coherent and can justify induction, among other things, it is irrational to not be a Christian.

You are still wrong ;-P

Well, feel free to prove me wrong and provide justification for the very fact that I can be "wrong" (i.e. what's your objective standard for truth?).

J, I think it's hilarious that since I've challenged your worldview but you have no response you resort to personal attacks.

In any case, whereas I think we're discussing important life issues you think it's all just propaganda. Actually, your view is self-defeating: if it's all just meaningless propaganda there's no truth to be found anyway. So why bother even stating your position? If by your own admission you're just spewing self-serving propaganda I certainly have no reason to listen to you.

Another response:
http://utiannex.blogspot.com/2005/07/inductive-philosophy-and-strawman.html

Hmm... I wrote out a response to the above-linked post before I realized that Brent only allows people with Blogger accounts to comment. So, I'll just post it here and hope he sees it:

but where Kevin [he calls me Kevin] missteps is where he makes the assumption that atheism <i>is</i> science, and visa versa.

Where do I say this?

Anyway, my argument is not a straw-man because it applies to all atheistic worldviews.

Some individual atheists may lay claim to this "other knowledge", and to the ability to "do science", but it is not a requirement of atheism.

No, but it's a requirement for everyone who's not a skeptic. And if you're a skeptic, that's an admission of defeat anyway.

Perhaps I am a skeptic. Certainly I believe in a subjective sense of ethics, but I also believe that people should follow what they believe in; including consideration of other beliefs if that is the case. But I am not familiar with your objection to skepticism and why Hume's skepticism is a problem. It seems just an empty a problem as "This sentence is false," is in logic.

Mr. Devens,
How have you challenged my worldview? Do you know what my worldview is? I did not state my worldview.

All I basically said was that people tend to believe what they have been exposed to. The mere fact that most people have very similar worldviews to their parents illustrates this point clearly. Of course, this is not true 100% of the time.

Where is the personal attack that you claim I made? Are you referring to "I notice you have a lot of republican and christian propaganda links on your diary-webpage. It feels nice to surround yourself with ideas that you already know you agree with and argue/insult/spit-on worldviews you don't agree with, doesn't it?"? If so, I did not mean it as a personal attack - everybody does this, so all I meant to say was that you are like most people. Upon reading that quote again, I see how you took it. I am sorry - like I said I did not mean it that way. My English is very poor.

All I wanted to do is point out that different people have different outlooks on life,philosophy, whatever and that we should all try to understand others point of view without first declaring them 'irrational'. Everyone knows that mathematical logic and 'real-life' logic are not the same. example: In maths, if you know P => Q, then P And X => Q. Counter example in 'real-life': Orange juice is healthy to drink. Therefore, drinking orange juice and motor oil is healthy.

"In any case, whereas I think we're discussing important life issues you think it's all just propaganda."

No, I said it is 'influenced' by propaganda. I think it is important too!

"Actually, your view is self-defeating: if it's all just meaningless propaganda there's no truth to be found anyway. So why bother even stating your position? If by your own admission you're just spewing self-serving propaganda I certainly have no reason to listen to you."

Who is throwing personal attacks now? My views are worthless to you so you don't want to even read/hear them. Why do you Mr. Devens, allow for comments then? To argue for the sake of arguing? It seems that all you want is for people to become more like you and think more like you, but you have no interest is expanding your mind to learn about others.

Here is a personal attack: You, Mr. Devens, are conceited and arrogent, claiming your worldview is correct and all others are wrong. You do provide good links, but not very good commentary.

Regardless of your self-given labels, I hope you have a very fine life. I will not disrespect your diary anymore by commenting.

It is true that one cannot prove inductive science to be valid at all times.

However, you are wrong to disparage the assumption. The universe may or may not follow laws of physics and may or may not be consistent. However, in that case that the universe were acausal, no knowledge of any kind would be possible because 1) any proposition about the world could be both true and false simultaneously (no consistency/causality) and 2) nothing about the future could be inferred from experience. So, the the only universe we can actually know anything about is causal, self-consistent and has physical laws. Science is based on a heuristic. It is a reasoned game theoretical choice.

Atheists have a logical reason to put their stock in science. Science has been so successful that theists are eager to, after the fact, add science to the list of things they'll take on fath without reason.

I think I have a clearer idea of what you mean after reading your re-reformulation of my reformulation of your original point.

Are you so sure that "1.Induction is without justification under atheism"?

I agree that it does not seem possible to have deductive justification of induction. But is not Hume's claim that: "All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning"(p43) an attempt to provide some sort of justification.

The other problem iwth your argument that I can see (and this may seem a little underhanded, so I apologise in advance) is that premise 4:

"Since Christianity is the only worldview that is coherent and can justify induction, among other things, it is irrational to not be a Christian"

plausibly commits the fallacy of equivocation. You have no grounds, in this argument at least, to assert that it is soley the Christian worldview that provides the required justification. A more correct phrasing might be to substitute 'Theistic'for 'Christian' and so forth.

This causes other problems because if I wanted to be really difficult I would then claim that your argument is as good for proving that it is rational to be a Christian, as it is for proving that it is rational to be a Muslim, which shows that it logically implies two mutually exclusive entities (God and Allah), and that therefore the whole thing is bunk!

Sam, now the discussion is getting interesting! Not only because of the subject matter, but because you're sincerely engaging my argument. You're also now treating me like a reasonable person... thanks for that (seriously). A little respect goes a very long way.

I agree that it does not seem possible to have deductive justification of induction. But is not Hume's claim that: "All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning"(p43) an attempt to provide some sort of justification.

Ah, I love it. Hume's conclusion is that, since inductive reasoning is not justified, the reason we continue to reason the way we do is merely out of habit. I'd view it as an explanation, not a justification. It's an attempt for him to explain psychologically (as part of his investigation into human nature) why we continue to reason the way we do, even though that form of reasoning is provably unjustified/irrational (given his worldview).

...premise 4... plausibly commits the fallacy of equivocation. You have no grounds, in this argument at least, to assert that it is soley the Christian worldview that provides the required justification.

Oh, indeed. You're certainly correct. This is essentially my argument in outline -- there's a whole bunch to flesh out. However, by highlighting Islam as the alternative theistic view you're getting at what I believe is a crucial point. The foundation of our worldview has to be revelational in nature. All attempts at coming up with a workable non-Christian epistemology have failed. In the nature of the case, given our lack of omniscience, we ultimately have to be told what the nature of reality is by someone who is omniscient.

Also, I'm not defending "theism in general" since unless your worldview (even one with a god or gods in it) is based directly on a revelation from God you're no better off than with non-theistic views. Your worldview is equally without foundation. Also, not all theistic views are created equal (is that a pun?). They have very different content, and I'd argue that all other theistic views besides Christianity have internal contradictions that invalidate them as contenders to be the worldview that can save human experience from being reduced to nonsense.

So I've been very explicit that the only worldview I'm defending is specifically the Christian one. Islam, for instance, is filled with contradictions. As one example, Islam claims to follow the God of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. But, to pick one factual difference, the Bible claims that the line of God's chosen people continued through Isaac, and Islam claims that it continued through Ishmael. To explain contradictions like this, Islam holds that the Bible has been corrupted, and that only Mohammad's revelation is without corruption and that it's the "final word". But if God's prior revelation has been corrupted, then we should have no assurance that his most recent revelation is free from corruption as well. Islam kicks its own foundation out from under itself (and there are other examples I can give). I also think that there are important properties of the Trinity that are essential for having a coherent conception of God (I've written about this before). Islam's God is not Trinitarian.

we ultimately have to be told what the nature of reality is by someone who is omniscient

Why?

There's no need for deductive proof that there are laws of physics.

Here's an analogy. Suppose you must cross a desert and require water. I offer you a choice between two canteens of water. The first canteen has a 0.01 liter capacity, and the second has a 4 liter capacity. Which canteen do you choose? The big canteen might be empty, and the small canteen full. But that is irrelevant since you cannot survive your desert crossing on a 0.01 liters of water. If you consider survival to be winning in this context, you must choose the large canteen whether it is empty or not in order to have any possibility of winning.

Likewise, we are faced with a choice between two "realities", the first, a deterministic universe, and the second, one in which we can have no possibility of knowledge. We must choose the deterministic one if we are to possibly win anything.

Also, I don't understand how revelation constitutes proof. People receive conflicting revelations all the time.

They have very different content, and I'd argue that all other theistic views besides Christianity have internal contradictions that invalidate them as contenders to be the worldview that can save human experience from being reduced to nonsense.

Aha! This is where the rubber hits the road. What is your definition of nonsense?

I think that many theists consider a world without God to be not worth living in. From a game theory perspective, they perceive no winning option that fails to lead to theism (instead of "nonsense"). For them, my atheist arguments are like the contents of the small canteen: even if the atheists are correct, there's not enough water for them to live on. They are forced to conclude that the atheist arguments must lack a certain magic ingredient, for if they did not, there would be no moral absolutes and no purpose. If the atheists were right, all human morality and purpose would be our own, and they would prefer not to exist than to exist in such an arbitrary universe.

Interesting. Especially this:

The foundation of our worldview has to be revelational in nature. All attempts at coming up with a workable non-Christian epistemology have failed.

Does this mean that because I am not working from a ‘revelational’ worldview I can never make any headway with epistemological issues such as this? I hope not.

I am aware that you are not defending theism in general. If you were, then you would have stuck to some of the more traditional arguments right? ‘Undifferentiated’ theism is not what I would consider a readily defendable position. But the more specific a position that you take, the more specific points you have to defend.

For me part of where the solution you propose falls down is that even if it does solve (what I had taken to a purely epistemological) the problem with induction, you have many, many other philosophical and theological issues to deal with.
The other part is that philosophers find revelations are notoriously difficult to distinguish from hallucination and delusion. Experience does not count for much it seems.

For the record I personally have huge problems with the idea that induction is irrational. My personal view is that questioning universal regularities can be treated as a matter of two competing hypotheses. One is that there are regularities, the other is that there isn’t. Of course, no matter how much we observe, we can’t see all of it, and my attachment to universal regularities is clearly motivated more by custom than by rationale.

As for Islam…I would ask you this: Do not all Christians have the same problem? I know that there is not the same level of disparity, but the Bible and how we have interpreted it has changed over the years.
How do people know that their position is the right one? Especially considering how little snse we can make of the motivations and will of the infinite.

Does this mean that because I am not working from a ‘revelational’ worldview I can never make any headway with epistemological issues such as this?

I'd say so. Certainly in the entire history of western philosophy many brilliant minds have tried and failed. And its not only in epistemology that they've failed, but in every area of philosophy.

I am aware that you are not defending theism in general. If you were, then you would have stuck to some of the more traditional arguments right?

Probably. Though first cause arguments and the like are themselves only valid upon the Christian worldview

‘Undifferentiated’ theism is not what I would consider a readily defendable position.

I agree. Though any theistic view might be better than any atheistic view, since, for instance, at least a person would posit "some designer" other than "chance" for an explanation of the obvious design in the universe, but they still would have no way to claim to know much about that designer.

But the more specific a position that you take, the more specific points you have to defend.

I think it's the other way around. With my worldview based on the Bible I have all aspects of a coherent worldview justified at the outset, whereas the way philosophy has traditionally progressed is that one tries to find a basis for his epistemology, his metaphysics, his ethics, and so on all piecemeal.

For the record I personally have huge problems with the idea that induction is irrational.

I would too, if I didn't have justification for it in my worldview. But as I've argued, induction is rational and justified on my worldview.

My personal view is that questioning universal regularities can be treated as a matter of two competing hypotheses. One is that there are regularities, the other is that there isn’t. Of course, no matter how much we observe, we can’t see all of it, and my attachment to universal regularities is clearly motivated more by custom than by rationale.

Indeed, that's a pragmatic approach. It's along the lines of "Ok, induction and all knowledge is unjustified, but how am I to proceed anyway? Well, I'll pretend everything's fine." It's like with ethics... people who haven't thought about their foundation for ethics talk about good and evil as if they're real things, without having any justification for the notions. As a Christian, not only do I have justification for all of the above, but my worldview explains the non-Christian's behavior and motivation for thinking as he does as well.

As for Islam…I would ask you this: Do not all Christians have the same problem?... the Bible and how we have interpreted it has changed over the years.

The Bible has not changed, but different people have interpreted it differently, of course. That's not a problem within Christianity, since the fact that fallible and sinful men disagree on their interpretation of God's Word is even to be expected. That fact does not impinge upon the truth of the revelation itself.

How do people know that their position is the right one?

That's not the issue. The issue is that Christians have an objective standard to look to in case of disagreement, whereas the non-Christian has no justification for anything whatsoever.

For me part of where the solution you propose falls down is that even if it does solve (what I had taken to a purely epistemological) the problem with induction, you have many, many other philosophical and theological issues to deal with.

Indeed, there is much to work out and think about. But with a good foundation our philosophy can be fruitful, whereas the non-Christian works with no sure foundation. Jesus' metaphor of building a house on sand is apt.

doctor(logic), sorry I haven't been responding to you specifically, but I think most of your objections have been covered in my responses. However, one question you asked I think I should respond to specifically:

What is your definition of nonsense?

I'd say than any worldview that results in skepticism reduces our experience to nonsense.

But more than that... imagine a child being raped or an animal being tortured. The type of reaction we have to that is not merely one of preference. We want to say that it's actually wrong (evil). A worldview which cannot account for evil makes our natural reaction to such acts unintelligible.

The Bible has not changed, but different people have interpreted it differently, of course.

Oh come on! I can go out right now and buy several differnt versions of the Bible. Albeit that the differnces are subtle, but there seems to be reaonable evidence to suggest that the Bible has changed over the course of its existence.

A worldview which cannot account for evil makes our natural reaction to such acts unintelligible

Evil eh? I was kind of hoping this might come up in the conversation somewhere. How do you account for what has typically been termed 'the problem of evil'? I'm sure you are familiar with how the argument goes: Omnipotent God letting bad things happen to innocent people etc.
I would be very interested in hearing your views on this issue.

Regarding the problem of evil, I've blogged about it before:
http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2004/Mar/24/the-problem-of-evil

I'll quote the main part of that post:

I really like this argument, because it turns out that it backfires on the atheist. The problem of evil is not logically a problem for the Christian, but is one for the atheist. In short, the existence of "evil" requires objective moral standards which are only provided on the Christian worldview. Therefore, the atheist who brings this up as an objection against Christianity must first "borrow" from the Christian worldview in order to then level the objection at it.

Back to you:

Oh come on! I can go out right now and buy several differnt versions of the Bible. Albeit that the differnces are subtle, but there seems to be reaonable evidence to suggest that the Bible has changed over the course of its existence.

I think you mean different translations. Also, any variation in the source texts we have is always footnoted. The translators are meticulous about noting where there are slight variations in the source documents or possible reasons to choose one translation over another. You can look through any bible yourself and check out the footnotes. Let me know if you come across any you think are critical.

Sam, also see C.S. Lewis on the problem of evil.

Just to backtrack a little, where was it established that our worldview had to be coherent?

Heh, well you can choose to have an incoherent worldview if you like, but that kind of requires you to give up logic. If you give up logic, the very possibility of rational argument or discussion goes away, so we really can't even discuss whether you should have a coherent worldview without first assuming that you must have a coherent worldview. It's like arguing against the law of non-contradiction.

That's probably a good point. Surprisingly this attitude of giving up on logic is quite common amoungst students at our faculty. They are all, of course, post-modernists so what can you expect? Still I can't help but wonder because not much that either of us has said rules out the possibility that we don't actually have a coherent worldview.

But more than that... imagine a child being raped or an animal being tortured. The type of reaction we have to that is not merely one of preference. We want to say that it's actually wrong (evil). A worldview which cannot account for evil makes our natural reaction to such acts unintelligible.

We generally categorize things as evil when they inspire fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict. We each have our own fears and this leads all of us to have unique definitions of evil.

I have no need to "borrow your worldview" to object to those things which cause me (and almost everyone else) fear and horror.

Similarly, those things which bring me happiness, satisfaction, and pleasure are good. Since humans have an instinct for empathy, the good also includes those things that bring goodness to others. We each have a unique view of what is good, just as we have a unique view of what is evil.

DL,
Well, I have a moment here....
"We generally categorize things as evil when they inspire fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict. We each have our own fears and this leads all of us to have unique definitions of evil."

Are mice evil?

They have all the attributes you discussed. Therefore according to your worldview they are evil.

Mickey Mouse (and all those Mouseketeers) would not like to hear that.

"Similarly, those things which bring me happiness, satisfaction, and pleasure are good. Since humans have an instinct for empathy, the good also includes those things that bring goodness to others. We each have a unique view of what is good, just as we have a unique view of what is evil."

Nazi Germany loved to murder Jews in horrendous ways. It made them happy. It gave them satisfaction. According to your worldview it was good.
I'll give you another one... Martin Luther King's attempt to change the race culture in America. It was against the well established legislative and legal determination of the time. The majority of Americans were satisfied with the status quo and were happy with the situation. Under your worldview King was evil.
Or how about the Soviet Gulags....the communists were very happy with putting dissidents away in Siberia
Or the Reign of Terror...It was exceptionally supported by the French.
I could go on and on.

See how the atheist argument can't hold up. It's just silly. It is relativistic and arbitrary. Under a Christian worldview we can make sense of what evil is. Only under the Christian worldview can you have moral absolutes that determine good and evil and give meaning to it. In order for the atheist to do so (determination of a universal meaning of good and evil) you must borrow from my Christian worldview,

Keith, you're right.

Thanks, Buffy. You're making my point quite well.

You're saying that the reason to believe in Christianity is that it agrees with us that certain things are evil. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say we can only know what is evil by way of the Bible and then justify it by listing the near universally objectionable things the fall into the Biblical definition. You chose Christianity for its compatibility with your idea of good and evil. You didn't get your morality from Bible.

Furthermore, German National Socialism, Soviet Gulags and the Inquisition are not "good" according to my worldview, and you know it. However, the Nazi concentration camps were good according to Hitler's worldview. In his mind, he was doing good, just like the Christian crusaders and inquisitors thought they were doing good. The horrors of history you cite occur because people are too willing to give up critical thinking. Religion just makes these terrors that much easier because it is the central tenet of organized religion that followers obey religious teachings with little or no question.

Finally, mice do not inspire fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict. Still, if you want to narrow the definition of evil to behavior among humans, my definition still stands. Evil is behavior that inspires fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict.

DL,
How silly. Go back and reread my post. Since you don't have personal evidence of my Christian worldview then under your rules you cannot make sense of it so it doesn't exist. Therefore you can't speculate on my reasons to believe. For someone who doesn't want me to use the Bible as authority...you sure use it a lot. It is just your opinion and that is worth nothing to me.
Back to a more logical discussion.

Let's make this simple.

What I said is I can account for the meaning of the existence of evil because of my Christian Worldview. You cannot. In your worldview, evil is totally subjective. The Nazi's where just fine with what they did. How funny you mention Hitler and the crusaders in the same sentence.
Quick history lesson DL...the crusaders and inquisitors were not Christians. They were Roman Catholics. So you have now placed yourself in the ignorant conjecture group as well.

"The horrors of history you cite occur because people are too willing to give up critical thinking. Religion just makes these terrors that much easier because it is the central tenet of organized religion that followers obey religious teachings with little or no question."

How do you know? Have you interviewed all these people? Have you read everything ever written by or about these people. Have you read every thing there is on all Religion to know all the tenets? Have you interviewed every follower of every Religion? Remember...according to you, one can only make sense of that which you have empirical evidence. Arguing against the man and not the concept here DL?

"Finally, mice do not inspire fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict. Still, if you want to narrow the definition of evil to behavior among humans, my definition still stands. Evil is behavior that inspires fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict."

How do you know? Have you spoken with everyone in history or presently about mice....remember the Plague? Mice inspired a lot of fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict. Go back and read your history book.

PS...a personal note...I did not choose Christianity to believe in. A Sovereign and Merciful God choose me to be one of his.

Once again you're missing the point. Buffy has a justification for claiming to others that something is evil because the reference point is beyond her opinion. She has a worldview because it is not defined exclusively by her experience but based on the authority of the Agent that provide the Revelation which she uses in her explaination.

You do not. Your explaination has "sense" because of its reduction to elements of your direct experience. This cannot - necessarily - be applicable to others because it is only true of the very limited range of inductions that you have done in your life. Because the proprosition is bound - at least within your system - to your own grounding, and your system does not supply a justifiable reason that transcends your limited experience, you cannot make a justifiable assertion that has any bearing or authority to her. Indeed, you hold your views arbitrarily (i.e. without justification) or based on faith (fideistically). If the former, I do not understand the purpose of debate. If the latter, then I must confess not to have as much faith in my limited experience to make global prognostications about the nature of Good and Evil.

How silly. Go back and reread my post. Since you don't have personal evidence of my Christian worldview then under your rules you cannot make sense of it so it doesn't exist. Therefore you can't speculate on my reasons to believe. For someone who doesn't want me to use the Bible as authority...you sure use it a lot. It is just your opinion and that is worth nothing to me.

As far as I knew, we were debating the Christian worldview, not Christianity: Buffy Personal Edition.

I am aware of Christian doctrine in general. I was raised in a country where Christianity is the state religion. I was taught creationism in school, and endured mandatory indoctrination.

And, news flash, Buffy. Catholics are Christians. As close to the original as one can get, you might say. Next you'll tell me that Shias aren't Muslims.

You say

What I said is I can account for the meaning of the existence of evil because of my Christian Worldview.

Be my guest. Please tell me what is the meaning of the existence of evil. For that matter, please define for me what is the meaning of the existence of anything. What is the meaning of the existence of Titanium atoms? I don't see how you can possibly answer this.

It is a tenet of the Church that worshippers must have faith or risk eternal damnation. Members who explore alternative doctrines, or who deviate from official interpretations are sanctioned, excommunicated (excommunication void where prohibited), isolated and chastised. This is historical fact.

Just read the newspapers. You see objections to Harry Potter or Catcher in the Rye. You see churches advocating abstinence-only advice where it's proven to be ineffective. You see creationism posing as science. These are all anti-intellectual trends that are echoed in many other religions, especially Islam. I don't say all sects subscribe to these views. Good example: there are liberal Christian sects like the Unitarian Universalists.

In case you hadn't noticed, priests tell churchgoers what to believe, and what is right and wrong. Shouldn't people figure this out for themselves?

How do you know? Have you spoken with everyone in history or presently about mice....remember the Plague? Mice inspired a lot of fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict. Go back and read your history book.

My local pet store sells mice as pets, and Disney's Mickey is popular with kids. Statistically, mice do not inspire a lot of fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict.

remember the Plague? Mice inspired a lot of fear, horror, hatred and violent conflict.

Is it evil to stand out in an empty field and shout "FIRE!"? Is it evil to do so in a crowded theater? Context is important. I empathize with your desire for absolute rules about things, free of context, but things aren't that simple.

Let me re-emphasize, meaning is in the method of verification, not the act of verification!

You can give me a pancake recipe and it is meaningful to me if I would know how to make it if I wanted to. It remains meaningful, even if I never make the pancakes. However, if you give me a recipe and tell me that it is impossible to define the ingredients (or that it's impossible to cook the ingredients)... well, that's not really a recipe at all, even if it does sound delicious.

So I don't have to physically experience your god for your proposition to be meaningful. You just have to tell me what experiment I could do if I wanted to (and if I had the resources to) that would have different results depending on whether or not your god exists.

tim,

A priori, our own subjective experiences would appear to impose some limits on the universality of certain concepts. A priori, our subjectives needn't overlap. However, a posteriori, science has shown us that most of our definitions are broadly compatible. We each have empirical evidence that science works, and that we share biology and common cognitive foundations based on neural networks. In practice, we can define shared concepts with arbitrarily high precision by defining how they are measured in corresponding precision.

In contrast, your argument is ineffective. How is the Bible a shared authority? Wouldn't each reader have a unique interpretation of what the Bible represents, or of what the god of the Bible was trying to communicate? Silly question because, indeed, people do have radically different views about what the meaning of the book is. Just take Buffy's comment about Catholics not being Christians.

And why is Buffy's authority any more authoritative than, say, Cthulhu? Or Michtlantichutli? Or a hundred other gods I could name if I happened to have a copy of Dungeons and Dragons Deities and Demigods handy?

This is where religious wars come from. People create god (or imagine his character from the book) in their own image. They then declare their god to be the universal reference point, off-limits to scientific scrutiny. Finally, peoples with different gods declare irreconcilable differences on the authority of equally valid (invalid, actually) reference points.

DL,
Newflash...Roman Catholics are not Christians. If you don't know the difference then let it lay if you know what I mean.

You are arguing against the results of man actions not whether God exists. If that is all you have then you have lost the debate.

"Be my guest. Please tell me what is the meaning of the existence of evil. For that matter, please define for me what is the meaning of the existence of anything. What is the meaning of the existence of Titanium atoms? I don't see how you can possibly answer this."

What I said was that I can account for the meaning of evil. Is English your second language? We seem to keep going over the same territory here.

"It is a tenet of the Church that worshippers must have faith or risk eternal damnation. Members who explore alternative doctrines, or who deviate from official interpretations are sanctioned, excommunicated (excommunication void where prohibited), isolated and chastised. This is historical fact."

What Church? Not mine. Now if you want to argue Roman Catholic dogma better go get a Jesuit. That's not the debate here. The debate is the existence of the Christian God of the Bible. You have stated that God can not exist and exist. You have not proved that God does not exist. All you've done (with great glee) presented the sinfulness of man. Well I could do that all day long. You're problem is with the creation and so you argue against the Creator...bad form here.

"Just read the newspapers. You see objections to Harry Potter or Catcher in the Rye. You see churches advocating abstinence-only advice where it's proven to be ineffective. You see creationism posing as science. These are all anti-intellectual trends that are echoed in many other religions, especially Islam. I don't say all sects subscribe to these views. Good example: there are liberal Christian sects like the Unitarian Universalists."

I really didn't want to get into creationism in this debate. I just wanted a simple illustration, some cogent thought process from you concerning the existence of God. Do you really want to stray into another area that can be so easily refuted?

"In case you hadn't noticed, priests tell churchgoers what to believe, and what is right and wrong. Shouldn't people figure this out for themselves?"

I don't have any priest in my church, so I can't assume that they are telling me what to believe. The answer to that is that without a Sovereign God, they could not make sense of of what the priest are saying. Could we get back on the subject?

"So I don't have to physically experience your god for your proposition to be meaningful. You just have to tell me what experiment I could do if I wanted to (and if I had the resources to) that would have different results depending on whether or not your god exists."

What I am submitting to you is that without a Sovreign and Holy God you would not even understand the experiment. God is the pre-condition for intelligibility.

DL,

I read your response to tim. If you really want to get into a debate about Roman Catholicism then I suggest you get ready to pull out the Textus Receptus, and know first century common Greek along with the habits and customs in corelation with the language. Otherwise you don't want to go there with me.

So you don't embarrass youself further stay the current subject of the existence of God.

Scanning the rest of the response...you are still arguing the creation not the Creator.

Haven't you got anything better in your arsenal?

DL,
If you want me to explain why you can't admit the obvious, let me know. I will be glad to do so. But warning... it will contain Biblical Scripture ( Something you abhor).

Buffy,

You start tangential arguments and when I answer them, you hypocritically accuse me of deviating from the debate.

What I said was that I can account for the meaning of evil.

No, aparently you cannot.

Let me summarise your argument so far:

God is the pre-condition for intelligibility.

Why? You have stated it without proof or evidence. Most disappointing.

Intelligibility is a fact of the universe. Empirical facts do not require proof, models do. You propose a model to explain why the universe is intelligible, but it doesn't predict anything we should never observe. Therefore, your god model is precisely equivalent to empirical fact, and says nothing more.

If you want to understand my position, consider this analogy. What if I were to propose a new god called Z who was the creator of your god, and who bestowed on your god the ability to create the universe etc. Wouldn't that strike you as redundant or superfluous? Well, that's the way I see your god. Your god explains nothing.

DL,

I think this is going to deal with some of your concerns by putting this whole discussion into more philosophical language. I'll construct it in response to your statements. If this doesn't work, I suppose there is always the analytic form...

"If you want to understand my position, consider this analogy. What if I were to propose a new god called Z who was the creator of your god, and who bestowed on your god the ability to create the universe etc. Wouldn't that strike you as redundant or superfluous? Well, that's the way I see your god. Your god explains nothing."

You can do better than to regurgitate Kant. The answer was always that an Infinite God could not, by definition, be created by anything. So... the argument is a straw man and brought on by the fact that you use the 'g' god vs. the 'G' God.

Your premise:
"Empirical facts do not require proof, models do."

is rather young and very 19th to early 20th century. So our models do not influence our interpretation and even our perception of our experience? Even Biology would refute you here (so it isn't even a good statement within the context of modern Cognitive Science and Biophysics). An empirical fact is an observable. All observables are actually an interference of the waveform observed and the waveform of the observer. There is not "empirical fact" as you are describing it.. at least not in physics (which I believe is what you got your degree in) or philosophy in the latter part of the 20th Century.

Oh, and my personal favorite:

"Intelligibility is a fact of the universe."

First, it can't be a fact because how do you perceive intelligibility? It is not a "fact" like taking a measurement through a mass spectrometer would be. Instead, your statement is a way of saying that intelligibility - i.e. the epistemic justification for man's perception of the world being coherent, ordered, and regular - is axiomatic. Now... how is it that axioms can be verified or empirically tested? Hmm...

They cannot. They can only be judged on their consistency with other axioms and the consistency of the theorems that are derived therefrom.

Intelligibility, therefore, cannot be a 'fact' because it is epistemically prior to experience. Intelligibility is not a percept but a starting MODEL. As you said yourself, MODELS require proof. The proof, in this case, is their coherence - since something like intelligibility cannot be disproved without leading to incoherence. But because it cannot be disproven, does not mean it is justified. Instead it means that it MUST be justified. It is a necessity that any system or other set of propositions - particularly any being "prior" in this network of belief - must not imply that intelligibility is anything less than necessary.

Now, we arrive at the conclusion and the point of Buffy's argument. Intelligibility is epistemically justified by an Infinite Being. It is not epistemically justified by finite observations by finite beings. Those observations cannot create logical necessity since there is not an infinite chain of induction. That is the point.

We can haggle over Theology and Revelation, but we cannot, in an intellectually honest way, haggle over God's existence. That leads to incoherence.

DL,
So good to have you back. I have answered the question. You have not.
I can account for the meaning of evil because there is a Holy God. He has revealed through Scripture of why He has brought evil into the world. You just don't want to accept the answer. Well your argument is no argument at all. It is just arbitrariness.
Time and again I have tried to get you to engage in reasonable debate without success thus far. I am still waiting.

"Intelligibility is a fact of the universe. Empirical facts do not require proof, models do. You propose a model to explain why the universe is intelligible, but it doesn't predict anything we should never observe. Therefore, your god model is precisely equivalent to empirical fact, and says nothing more."

Talk about nonsense.

Here's one for you. If intelligibility is a fact of the universe, then how do you know?
Or this one..If empirical facts do not require proof, models do then how do you know? Have you witnessed every model?
You see you contradict yourself at every turn. Your unargued bias causes you to be inconsistent.

"If you want to understand my position, consider this analogy. What if I were to propose a new god called Z who was the creator of your god, and who bestowed on your god the ability to create the universe etc. Wouldn't that strike you as redundant or superfluous? Well, that's the way I see your god. Your god explains nothing."

Another opinion. I thought we were here to debate the existence of the God of the Bible...the Christian Worldview vs. that of the Atheist Worldview. I undertand your position. You have lost the debate because you cannot defend your position. I have given you every opportunity. You have borrowed from my Christian Worldview to argue yours. In my first post, I stated that atheists were actually agnostics. They know in their hearts there is the Holy God of the Bible but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Atheists live in fear of judgement.

Cornelius Van Til put it very well when he said that arguing against the existence of God was like a young boy sitting in his father's lap and reaching up to slap his father on the face because the boy didn't like something the father said. The point being that slapping the father's face did not negate the fact that the boy was still in the father's lap.

The fact that you personally believe that God (and I'm talking about the Holy God of the Bible) does not exist means nothing in this debate. It is mere opinion.

PS

Once again...excellent tim. Especially the part about Kant. Great wordsmything.

Very interesting debate between Tim and dr(logic). Unfortunately, I do not understand it well enough to contribute very meaningfully or to make a conclusion for myself. But it seems to me that, in Tim's reasoning, though perhaps some infinite thing (that we are calling God) may have to exist, that this knowledge isn't necessarily useful for any purpose other than satisfying our possibly flawed philosophical/logical systems.

dr(logic) had many points, which I agree with, against the specific validity of the Christian god; and for subjective morality. I think good is good because it is <em>better</em> than evil in the long run. That is where the nebulous neural network thing comes into play; what do we feel or reason is better in the long run? But if good were not actually better for us than evil, then good would simply be an arbitrary thing; whether decided by us or by some god.

This inclines me towards deism.

I always accidentally use HTML here. Ah well. Sorry, Keith, heh.

tim,

Thanks for writing your arguments in this way. It really got me thinking. If I still don't get it, feel free to put things in analytic form.

You can do better than to regurgitate Kant. The answer was always that an Infinite God could not, by definition, be created by anything. So... the argument is a straw man and brought on by the fact that you use the 'g' god vs. the 'G' God.

I did say it was an analogy. At the risk of forking the debate further, I note that 1) there are different kinds of mathematical infinities, and 2) just because you can formulate a mathematical definition of a structure does not imply that there is a corresponding structure in the physical world that correlates to it.

An empirical fact is an observable. All observables are actually an interference of the waveform observed and the waveform of the observer. There is not "empirical fact" as you are describing it.. at least not in physics (which I believe is what you got your degree in) or philosophy in the latter part of the 20th Century.

Your first sentence is correct. The rest strikes me as a sort of vague suggestion that quantum measurement renders observations less than scientific. If that were the case, Fermilab would not work and none of the physicists who work there would be able to communicate their ideas. Empirical facts, whether quantum or in the classical limit, are recordable and communicable.

First, it can't be a fact because how do you perceive intelligibility? It is not a "fact" like taking a measurement through a mass spectrometer would be. Instead, your statement is a way of saying that intelligibility - i.e. the epistemic justification for man's perception of the world being coherent, ordered, and regular - is axiomatic. Now... how is it that axioms can be verified or empirically tested? Hmm...

Humans intuitively form predictive representations of the world, e.g., we can predict that an apple that breaks free of a tree branch will fall to the ground. This natural ability is a prerequisite for mathematics, science and philosophy. Having this ability, we can formulate the idea of unintelligibility, i.e., a situation in which we cannot create a predictive representation. Intelligibility is meaningful because we know what observations would result if the universe suddenly became unintelligible, namely, not the observations we expect. It would not be possible to formulate a definition of intelligibility without empirical intelligibility.

But because it cannot be disproven, does not mean it is justified. Instead it means that it MUST be justified. It is a necessity that any system or other set of propositions - particularly any being "prior" in this network of belief - must not imply that intelligibility is anything less than necessary.

I agree that we cannot prove total unintelligibility because we would lose sense. I agree that the inability to disprove a thing does not make it logically true. However, I dispute your final step. I do not see why intelligibility must be "justified" in a logical sense. It seems reasonable to me to assume future intelligibility. We may be wrong to assume this, but we don't have any good alternatives.

Intelligibility is epistemically justified by an Infinite Being. It is not epistemically justified by finite observations by finite beings. Those observations cannot create logical necessity since there is not an infinite chain of induction.

Even if I perceived a requirement for justification (which I don't), I still fail to see what this state of affairs has to do with a god. Please explain a) what an Infinite Being is, and b) how it justifies intelligibility.

You suggest that you can substitute god for all possible observations, past and future. Is this your definition of god? If so, how can you claim god's existence without actually making all the observations?

Ok,

Let's see where we are at.
You accept the points about the importance of intelligibility.

You don't really follow the importance of the "observable" analogy - that regularity of predicted phenomenon is far more novel a concept than it was before Quantum Theory. This leads contemporary physicists like Hawking to disagree with moderns like Eistein in their skepticism about deterministic order (i.e. the "God does or doesn't play dice debate"). Your view of science seems to be that human induction over time is deterministic of the truth - at least the best approximation. My notion is not so much that the Quantum model renders the observations less reliable or "less than scientific," just that the definiton of science - as merely a human methodology without other ontological and epistemological assumptions - has always been epistemologically insufficient. The Quantum model should be a source of added skepticism for that naive view of efficacy of naked induction.

Like your professed commitment to Positivism, it is a view held in stasis from the realities of a world that has left it behind - and for good reason.

In fairness, you have confronted this honestly on occassion and confessed to views that are far more aptly discribed as pragmatic than positivistic. It is not so much that you have a reason for it - in fact you disclaim the need for any reason or justification.

I think that is the major disjunct. In your worldview, the world came together accidentally. The current normal patterns of phenomenon with their remarkable consistency and regularity is just a fluke. Yet, you still invoke methods that rely on consistency (Logic) and necessity.

Is it logical that this great accident should give you epistemological justification for anything at all? Your retort seems to be that the contrary would be absurd, so you have to beleive in logic and rational action. I suppose the great inconsistency is that it dodges the question of the ontological grounding of this consistency. You believe (i.e. it is prior to any evidence) that no ontological grounding is necessary. I see that is arbitrary, ludicrous, and not worthy of serious consideration. The Web of Belief doesn't reach its central point because we say that we don't want to go any further. It reaches its terminus when the justification is sufficient to support all other inferences of the system.

That brings us to your question to me - which I will now answer (or at least attemp to). God is not some word that occupies the space of all possible observations. God is an infinite being - meaning that He is not constraint by any resource limitations of time, space, or energy. This is a limited descriptive definition - and should not be taken as an infinite.

It is actually closely tied to the second great father of Empiricism (Thomas Aquinas) behind Aristotle. We know God not by His positive properties - which we could never sufficiently describe - but by His negative properties. Still, this does not mean knowledge of God is impossible. Just, that is inherently a limited representation based on our own finite capacities.

I don't need to make all of the observations - I just need to have faith that God can be trusted. So, if He claims that X obtains of this world Y, I can operate rationally by assuming that all claims inferred from what He states obtains are true. So, I trust His authority because His nature is uniquely able to justify a rational trust and I am more epistemically justified to work from those inferences than to perform my own observations.

So, there it is. Intelligibility is justified by God because of the authority of God to reveal aspects of His nature and His creation based on the unique nature of His being to make a class of observations (infinite - or more aptly - "unconstrained by time and space") that support the entire coherent model of the world.

Because I feel compelled by consistency to account for my assumptions about how I can know what I know (or rather... have rationally justified belief), I find that leads to wrestling with claims that God exists and claims about His nature. Now, dealing with if that God is the Christian God of the Bible or some other God is another question - though highly related. It turns out that upon even cursory investigation, there are few claims to God that hold up consistently in a form that would make this system consistent.

So... this is why your counter argument in other places doesn't hold water. You can't arbitrarily introduce a formal God to complete this gap - you have to deal with the claims of Godhead and align those to being: (a) infinite, (b) logically consistent, (c) historically supported, and (d) having a character Able to be trusted.

Indeed, Descartes covered this centuries ago with his proof ot the existence of the World. Even though it is often misread - like Wittgenstein - he insisted that even the Cogito was insufficient to justify knowledge of the world. Instead, we had to believe that God assured our rationality and that God was benevolent. In the end, there was no other way to escape the evil Demon.

Presuppositional philosophy is little different in reasoning, just more concerned with the explication of what defines the God you can trust.

In any case, the major disjunct is that your philosophical pragmatism - which is what you really are because you have proved too honest on a couple of occassions to hold to positivism - fails to require consistency once you get a system working that can accomodate a useful, yet limited subset of the properties of the world. You are comfortable there, so you stop. And you try to fault those that try to be more consistent.

I think that is the major disjunct. In your worldview, the world came together accidentally. The current normal patterns of phenomenon with their remarkable consistency and regularity is just a fluke. Yet, you still invoke methods that rely on consistency (Logic) and necessity.

It would be more accurate to say that, in my worldview, the world just is. It doesn't "come together" accidentally or otherwise. In four dimensions, the universe has no moving parts.

It is true that induction does not deliver certainty, but certainty is a luxury, not a necessity. If the universe lost all consistency tomorrow, all knowledge and intelligibility would be impossible (propositions and their negations would both be true or both be false), and the universe would be some sort of paradoxical void. Yes, induction cannot tell you with certainty that the world will not end tomorrow. I just don't see this as a strategic limitation.

Is it logical that this great accident should give you epistemological justification for anything at all? Your retort seems to be that the contrary would be absurd, so you have to beleive in logic and rational action. I suppose the great inconsistency is that it dodges the question of the ontological grounding of this consistency. You believe (i.e. it is prior to any evidence) that no ontological grounding is necessary. I see that is arbitrary, ludicrous, and not worthy of serious consideration. The Web of Belief doesn't reach its central point because we say that we don't want to go any further. It reaches its terminus when the justification is sufficient to support all other inferences of the system.

I don't understand what you mean here by ontological grounding. I fail to see the operational problem you are solving, i.e., I can't perceive problems that will arise in mental or physical operations that would not occur otherwise. What I do see is an effort to exceed the limitations imposed by logic, semantic meaning and language.

You appear to be looking for a reason why the universe should be consistent. Yet, no such explanation is possible because it defies the definition of explanation. Here's why.

By definition, an explanation is a theory about two or more empirical (physical or computational) observations. A valid explanation always predicts another set of obervations, even if those opservations are not explicitly made.

Suppose you have two propositions about the world P1 and P2, and both propositions are stipulated to be true. By definition, an explanation is a third proposition, P3, that is consistent with both P1 and P2, but which is not equivalent to them.

For example, if I leave my car in the parking lot (proposition 1), and return later and find a similarly-shaped, burned-out hulk of a car in its place (proposition 2), I might explain the two propositions by proposing a new proposition (proposition 3) that my car underwent combustion. Proposition 3 would be an explanation (not a unique one, but a possible explanation nevertheless).

We believe the universe is consistent from the causality we see in the empirical evidence. You appear to be claiming that there is some cause from which the grand chain of cause-and-effect is itself an effect. Yet, for this thing to be an explanation, it has to a) be inequivalent to the observed cause-and-effect relationships, and b) cause something other than the chain of observed cause-and-effect. It's hard to think of anything much more nonsensical than this.

By definition, explanations cannot exist outside of logical systems.

So, there it is. Intelligibility is justified by God because of the authority of God to reveal aspects of His nature and His creation based on the unique nature of His being to make a class of observations (infinite - or more aptly - "unconstrained by time and space") that support the entire coherent model of the world.

You are using a lot of colorful words whose applicability to this debate is hard for me to understand, "authority" being one of them.

But let's see if I understand what you are doing here.

1) You recognize the logical fact that induction cannot provide certainty.

2) You also recognize the logical fact that consistency is required for knowledge and intelligibility. This flows from the definition of consistent as not leading to contradiction.

3) To achieve some set of goals, G, you demand certainty of knowledge, and perfect consistency.

4) Axiomatically claiming (i.e., assuming) certainty of knowledge and consistency is inadequate for G.

5) Axiomatically claiming (i.e., assuming) that there is an agent which is defined as being able to guarantee certainty of knowledge and consistency, and who can be trusted to do so, does meet the requirements of G.

I see several flaws in such a line of reasoning.

The first is that I cannot imagine what G would reasonably fulfill 3, 4 and 5. In fact, I can't even think what enterprise would demand the certainty of 3, let alone 4 and 5.

The second problem I have is with understanding what you would gain from this procedure, even if you could identify G.

Presumably, trust is a multiplicative factor that tells you the probability that information from a given source is correct. A perfectly trustworthy entity has a trust factor of 100%, i.e., we can be certain that any revelation from that source is true.

You then ask what are the requirements for a being who is totally trustworthy. Let's suppose that this question get's answered (not that I grant that you have answered this question, or that the question is sensible).

Finally, you propose to trust (have faith) that this being exists. Yet, this latter trust factor (faith) is less than 100%. Let's say our best trust factor for faith is 99%. So you have 99% confidence that there is a being who is 100% trustworthy and who grants us certainty and consistency. Meanwhile, if you simply had 99% confidence that the universe was consistent and certain, you would still have the same 99% confidence in any enterprise which relied on the prerequisites, but without the need for God. I don't see where you're getting any mileage out of this approach.

Finally, though you cannot define or comprehend God, you're still perfectly willing to claim to know what he wants. Scarier still, for your enterprise to be effective, you have to grant these notions about God maximal confidence.

So... this is why your counter argument in other places doesn't hold water. You can't arbitrarily introduce a formal God to complete this gap - you have to deal with the claims of Godhead and align those to being: (a) infinite, (b) logically consistent, (c) historically supported, and (d) having a character Able to be trusted.

I'm still not getting what infinity has do do with this discussion. Can you elaborate on this?

I also don't see how you can possible claim (c) or (d). The Bible is riddled with contradictions (e.g., http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/), and certainly appears to be cobbled together from disparate groups with fuzzy belief systems over a period of several centuries. There's certainly no evidence of God having "good character" in the Bible.

tim,
He's back. Have fun. Then he's mine.

I also don't see how you can possible claim (c) or (d). The Bible is riddled with contradictions (e.g., http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/), and certainly appears to be cobbled together from disparate groups with fuzzy belief systems over a period of several centuries. There's certainly no evidence of God having "good character" in the Bible.

Just can't help himself...yawn.

DL,

By definition, an explanation is a theory about two or more empirical (physical or computational) observations. A valid explanation always predicts another set of obervations, even if those opservations are not explicitly made.

You have defined the terms of debate in a way that is not self-consistent. This is the same thing positivists used to do until they were shown to be incoherent and laughed out of every credible philosophy program in this country. Its like stating that because you can't formulate a proposition P inside the model Y, it doesn't exist. You have yet to give substantial evidence that we should be bound by Y. You just state, arbitrarily, that nothing buy Y would be of use to you.

We believe the universe is consistent from the causality we see in the empirical evidence.

This is circular. There are interpretations of the evidence that are just as logically consistent and yet do not imply this. What grounds the bias, for instance, of utilizing Occam's Razor? I can answer that. Can you - without being arbitrary?

Finally, you propose to trust (have faith) that this being exists. Yet, this latter trust factor (faith) is less than 100%. Let's say our best trust factor for faith is 99%. So you have 99% confidence that there is a being who is 100% trustworthy and who grants us certainty and consistency. Meanwhile, if you simply had 99% confidence that the universe was consistent and certain, you would still have the same 99% confidence in any enterprise which relied on the prerequisites, but without the need for God. I don't see where you're getting any mileage out of this approach

This is just odd. Since when are ontological concerns mathematically cumulative? I was talking onlogically vs. epistemologically and you seemed to have utterly missed the difference. Something doesn't 99% exist- it either exists or doesn't. Also, you get hung up on a version of certainty that is not of concern to me. The only important thing about certainty is what the scale of certainty is and where things fall on it. The idea of "absolute certainty" is a weird concept if we take it too literally. It would be better to consider it something like Wittgenstein would - Bedrock to a stream. My point is that all you have is stream and you get confused we someone states there needs to be a bedrock.

I also don't see how you can possible claim (c) or (d). The Bible is riddled with contradictions (e.g., http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/), and certainly appears to be cobbled together from disparate groups with fuzzy belief systems over a period of several centuries. There's certainly no evidence of God having "good character" in the Bible.

Did you even bother to read this before linking it? It reads like a 12 year old having a tantrum. Most of the inconsistencies and absurdities that he mentions are vacuous with any accounting for the context of their use. The remainder are trivial issues that could very likely be traced to the quality of translation. Seeing the reference greatly reduces my respect for your quality of argument - which has been rather informative up till this point.

Its like stating that because you can't formulate a proposition P inside the model Y, it doesn't exist. You have yet to give substantial evidence that we should be bound by Y. You just state, arbitrarily, that nothing buy Y would be of use to you.

It's not arbitrary. The statement is based on an analysis of what could possibly be of use.

You appear to claim that every grammatically correct statement is a meaningful one. That's simply untrue. Suppose I say that "Santa lives in a house north of the North Pole." Grammatically correct, right? Meaningful? Absolutely not. There can be nothing north of the North Pole by the definition of latitudinal coordinates.

Our logical systems and our language constrain what we can speak and reason about. Specifically, the meaning of propositions is always empirical.

This is circular. There are interpretations of the evidence that are just as logically consistent and yet do not imply this.

In our experience, all physical phenomena appear to map to self-consistent mathematical systems. The outcome of every measurement we make is one value, not two contradictory values. Historical events don't both happen and not happen. No cosmic inconsistency has ever been confirmed in any laboratory. Though we may see chaotic systems, we never see conflicting results. How else can you interpret the evidence?

What grounds the bias, for instance, of utilizing Occam's Razor? I can answer that. Can you - without being arbitrary?

Occam's Razor is a statistical principle. I don't understand what you mean by grounding bias. Maybe you should go ahead and answer it so I know what you are talking about.

Something doesn't 99% exist- it either exists or doesn't.

I don't think this is true at all. Things don't exist in the absence of their empirical properties, e.g., my teddy bear does not exist independent of his locale (Earth, North American continent), time period (late 20th, early 21st century), mass, specific heat, low-radioactivity, furriness, approximate morphology, stoicism, and so on. One cannot speak of "ghost of teddy" which has not even one of his empirical properties. Since I only know these things empirically and with some level of uncertainty, I can say only that teddy exists with some degree of uncertainty (albeit small).

Existence has error bars.

My point is that all you have is stream and you get confused we someone states there needs to be a bedrock.

Apparently so. It was my understanding that Wittgenstein's bedrock was language itself, and that "to try to go beyond that is to speak philosophical nonsense, to demand an 'absolute', necessary, ahistorical perspective in language which we can't have and really don't need." to quote this page.

I agree with Wittgenstein on at least this point. I do not understand the function of this sub-bedrock of which you speak, nor do I see any necessity for it.

This is rather disappointing.

I'll move in reverse order of your post.

Apparently so. It was my understanding that Wittgenstein's bedrock was language itself, and that "to try to go beyond that is to speak philosophical nonsense, to demand an 'absolute', necessary, ahistorical perspective in language which we can't have and really don't need." to quote this page.

Its a trite reading of him. I was quoting from his latter work, "On Certainty." If you want to use someone as a source, use Wittgenstein himself or someone he entrusted his Naclass too. Don't settle for a hack regurgitating the conventional reading that Wittgenstein himself shot down (cf. the evisceration of your use of Ayer as an interpreter in the other thread).

Existence has error bars.

As feared, you have no grasp of the difference between the constraints on a ontological state and an epistemic state.

You appear to claim that every grammatically correct statement is a meaningful one. That's simply untrue. Suppose I say that "Santa lives in a house north of the North Pole." Grammatically correct, right? Meaningful? Absolutely not. There can be nothing north of the North Pole by the definition of latitudinal coordinates.

Good lord - I don't know what could make you state this. Its a straw man that isn't remotely what I said. The meaning of propositions is not always emprical unless you want to make that proposition a vacuous tautology. If it were true, then everything stated would have to have a direct correspondence in the physical world. That proposition is actually the line of thinking that showed verificationists and positivists to be incoherent. I'm glad you consistently hold to it.

No cosmic inconsistency has ever been confirmed in any laboratory.

Wow. Do you realize that the proposition you suggest being hypothetically confirmed in a lab to make your point is itself tautological? There is not set of assignments to the terms that could make any sense.

So, we are still back at you holding to an arbitrary level of justification that is sufficeint for your pragmatic concerns and claiming, with no inter-subjective ground, that those that find it insufficient are wrong. Ironically, under your own standard I could state that being wrong doesn't affect my experiments in an adverse way, so why should I be right? There isn't any substantive difference between right and wrong in this case. Its a personal value judgment.

In truth, if you were honest, you would let me hold my Worldview and not claim anything negative about it because you have no justification for doing so. It would be a stalemate. Of course, then you would have to be silent to be honest... So what will it be?

The meaning of propositions is not always emprical unless you want to make that proposition a vacuous tautology.

Not true. I'm not saying that a proposition is exactly equivalent to an empirical result. That would indeed be a restatement of an empirical fact. I mean that a meaningful proposition is one that can be verified or falsified empirically.

Suppose you state some proposition like "cats lay eggs". How do you know what this proposition means? The only way you can know is to correlate each word with empirical observations that you have had in the past. The same is true of computational propositions, e.g., the Pythagorean theorem. The meaning of the theorem is that a sequence of well-defined mathematical symbol manipulations will result in a final string of symbols. You learned these manipulations in school by associating words with mathematical symbols and operations.

If you have a proposition that specifically has no empirical test (and therefore no symbolic test), then how can you claim to know the meaning of the proposition? Every aspect of experience would be disconnected from the proposition in question.

So, we are still back at you holding to an arbitrary level of justification that is sufficeint for your pragmatic concerns and claiming, with no inter-subjective ground, that those that find it insufficient are wrong.

As I have pointed out, the limitations of language are not arbitrary. You find the limitations of language unacceptable, and demand more than language or logic can deliver.

Ironically, under your own standard I could state that being wrong doesn't affect my experiments in an adverse way, so why should I be right? There isn't any substantive difference between right and wrong in this case. Its a personal value judgment.

Being wrong (as in inconsistent) in one's science, one's computation, or one's logic will have measurable consequences. Whether those consequences are "right" or "wrong" is a personal value judgement. If a man insisted that 2 + 2 = 5, he would be in arithmetic error, but there is no absolute "wrong" other than the inconsistency itself. There is only our personal distaste for the consequences of the man's deliberate error.

This is only worth a couple of sentences more.

Not true. I'm not saying that a proposition is exactly equivalent to an empirical result. That would indeed be a restatement of an empirical fact. I mean that a meaningful proposition is one that can be verified or falsified empirically.

The proposition of the last sentence cannot be verified or falsified empirically. Once again, this is why positivism was laughed out of Philosophy Departments across the globe because its arrogance in saying what could or could not be verified was itself show to be unverifiable.

To date, you have never addressed this accept to fall back into a pragmatic view that makes your final comments above rather laughable.