|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4719 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Underlying Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I admitted no such thing. And even if I did it would in no way exempt your incoherent mess of a worldview from criticism.
quote: No, it is not what I said that you should do. In fact I said that it is something that cannot be done. What you wish to do is not to place reality before epistemology, it is to place your beliefs before truth.
quote: No, I did not.
quote: Is that necessarily an assumption, though ? It seems to me that that would be a conclusion based on past experience.
quote: Of course this is just one more example of the false dogma of presuppositionalism. All it shows is that presuppositionalists recognise the fact that belief in God is irrational. That is why they claim that it must be assumed in advance.
quote: I find it amazing that you think that beleiving in the existence of God has an ethical component at all. However if the existence of God truly is an important question we do it no justice by making up silly excuses to avoid rational examination.
quote: You forget that I identified you as a presuppositionalist early on in the discussion, so of course I know that you were going to parrot the usual falsehoods of that movement. And, of course, I have already demonstrated it's falsity with regard to logic. And I will remind you that simply attacking other peoples views is inadequate. First you must demonstrate that your worldview - which is not THE Christian worldview and seems to me to not even be A Christian worldview - can adequately address the problems you claim other worldviews have. Then you have to demonstrate that no other worldview could do so. Which, of course, you can't do. You've got no argument, just assertions that you can't back up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You do not observe abstractions, nor do abstractions have effects.
quote: In other words you have a very bad epistemology, which relies a huge number of unnecessary assumptions. Even worse, your "account" not only fails to deal with the formalised laws of logic (so I guess we have to credit the pagan Greeks with those) it also doesn't explain the important thing - which is why logicworks. So your "account" would be worthless even if it was true - and there are good reasons to think that it is not. You aren't exactly making a good case for your worldview here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Editing a post AFTER the replies have been made is somewhat impolite.
quote: As I have said the laws of logic are semantic rules and formalisations of features of natural language. Of course natural language existed before the Greek philosophers ! This is a particularly obvious rule, but do take into account the existence of ambiguities of language. Outlawing the use of such ambiguities is one of the spects of the formalisation.
quote: I guess that you don't really understand the concept of "formalisation". Of course the basic concept was here in the language all along, in the meaning of "if..then". To formalise it simply means to add the rules of use that give logic it's precision and reliability and to avoid the oddities of natural language. There's no need to invoke observation or to apply the rules in the way you are suggesting ! But I'm glad that you chose this example because it allows me to illustrate a way that standard logic is different from natural language. In standard logic "If p then [/q]" is true whenever p is false, no matter what q might be. "If I am the King of England than 2 + 2 = 5" is a true statement, so long as you realise that I am not a monarch ! However, if by some bizarre chain of events I did become the King it would not make 2 + 2 = 5 ! (If you understand logic it is easy to see why.).
quote: Since your argument rests on misunderstanding the whole concept of formalisation there is no need to go back beyond the Greeks. True, the Greeks were developing pre-existing concepts, but you don't really have logic in the full sense without the formalisation. Natural language is too imprecise and human thought too prone to fallacies (some of which are valid ways of thinking, but not strictly logical, while others are just plain wrong). Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: God as the ultimate ad hoc explanation...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I think that you will find that it does. What you need to understand is that logic applies only to language. Truth and falsity are properties of statements, not of reality. What would it mean to say that a rock was "false" in the strict logical sense of falsity ?
quote: Again it is all about language - you can't escape it. Science attempts to DESCRIBE reality - and thus it must use language. And logic applies to statements made about the past in the same way as it does to statements made about the present. It is the situation at the time the statement is spoken or written that matters.
quote: More accurately it still applies to statements made ABOUT such a time. Let me note that "if". "then" and "else" are [i]wordsquote: The underlying concepts come from natural language as I have stated before. That is all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: To put it simply if you say something and I say the same thing you would naturally assume that we agree. That is the basis. Unfortunately natural language can be ambiguous so your assumption might be wrong - what I meant might be different from what you meant. To be more precise this law means "A proposition has the same truth-value as itself". And to use it properly we have to avoid ambiguity - formalise our use of language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You have managed to miss the fact that the statement you quote starts with the word "if". Therefore it does NOT "admit" that assumptions are necessary.
quote: But you are NOT placing reality before epistemology. You are placing imagination before truth. You need epistemology - and a reliable epistemology - to find the truth. And if your metaphysics is not true then it is NOT reality. So no, the rational and honest person must put epistemology before everything else. Anything decided prior to epistemology presents a risk of falling prey to falsehood and error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: As I explained in formal logic the Law of Identity means that a proposition has the same truth value as itself. Until you understand that you have no comprehension of logic whatsoever.
quote: What precisely needs to be accounted for ? Are you asking for a reason why an object is not different from itself ? Why would there need to be a reason for that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I don't believe that that is a fair statement. Certainly there are good reasons for placing epistemology before metaphysics and you need to address those (something you have sadly failed to do). And if you believe that you have any better method of learning about external reality than the scientific method - with it's obviosu successes - it is up to you to present it.
quote: Yet, science IS largely neutral. The vast majority of people who have problems with science are those who follow religious dogmas which the findings of science contradict. You have no method that is either as neutral or as reliable.
quote: Of course, this is over-simplified. You must start with your own thinking to find out about God - or choose to trust the thinking of other humans (as you choose to do). But even then, some matters will come down to your own thinking.
[quote]
iSecond[/i], metaphysics is necessary to epistemology. To quote Van Til, "Our theory of knowledge is what it is because our theory of being is what it is....We cannot ask how we know without at the same time asking what we know".
[/quote] And thus he admits to having chosen a poor way to build an epistemology. Assumptions are a poor foundation for knowledge.
[quote]
iThird[/i] Metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to reasoning. Every system of thought absolutely must have a foundation, or it would easily be carried away with a whirlwind.
[/quote] Presuppositions are simply assumptions, they are not a sound foundation.
quote: The foundation would surely be in epistemology. Both empiricism and rationalism have roles to play. Experience and reason are the foundation, making only those assumptions which have sufficient pragmatic value to offset the risk of error - and those always open to refutation, if it should be possible.
quote: Or we can deny that there is an ultimate standard. We may have a number of standards, none of which is ultimate. Deductive logic is perfectly reliable but limited in applicability. Science has wider applicability but less reliability. Other standards are less reliable but can go into areas where science cannot go. A more reliable standard should always take precedence over a less reliable standard. Thus the less reliable method cannot be considered "ultimate". It follows then that if your argument is correct, there cannot be a truly ultimate standard. Your 4th option as written is not truly an option. You cannot point to an absolute standard - only what you have chosen to set up as an absolute standard. And it is not God, but the teachings of men.
[quote]
iMoral absolutes[/i].... A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes. I assume all of you would say that there are no moral absolutes, because this would imply the existence of an absolute standard beyond this world.
[/quote] Your assumption is wrong. I reject the idea of moral absolutes because there is no adequate foundation for them, no viable idea of what makes a moral absolute - and also because we have no way of reliably identifying a moral absolute. Thus, either there are no moral absolutes or there might as well be none.
quote: If I said that, then I would not mean it in a moral sense, thus your argument does not touch my position.
quote: If there are moral absolutes and we do not know them - as is the case - then the same problem arises. It is not moral relativism that is the real issue, it is a lack of knowledge. In my view the only way to deal with these issues is to acknowledge what morality really is, an intersubjective code for living together, founded on the evolution of a social species and developed over many millennia as cultures developed and changed.
quote: Of course this simply runs into the problem that you have DEFINED "good" as God's nature (whatever that should be - even Christians disagree amongst themselves). Personally I would rate it as highly ambiguous and with plenty of potential for rationalising "wicked desires".
quote: Of course it cannot be absolutely proven, however the mere fact that science works is strong evidence that it is true. This is not a dogma held without evidence, let alone in spite of the evidence.
quote: In fact there is a bigger problem for a Christian. A Christian believes that there is an unpredictable entity with the capability to change how this universe operates. They may even believe that such changes have already occurred (e.g. the creation of the rainbow). The atheist does not have that problem and can simply appeal to the nature of the universe itself.
quote: In fact astronomers have done so. Indeed, astronomy is probably one of the disciplines best suited for finding basic changes to the laws of physics, since so much of it deals with basic physics. Astronomical observations span a huge stretch of space and time. Some years ago there was an argument that the speed of light was different in the very early universe - my understanding is that the evidence came down against it, in the end - but nevertheless it serves to illustrate my point.
quote: You are simply in error here, and thus this is another non-problem.
quote: God doesn't. God just makes it worse, as I have pointed out. Pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could but simply making more assumptions is not the way. You are just proposing to "solve" the problem by making more assumptions - which contributes nothing (other than an increased chance of being wrong). Worse, the Christian doctrine of the ineffability of God tells us that we cannot predict God's actions. So unless you reject that doctrine God cannot provide a certain guarantee of uniformity of nature - which relies on predicting that God will not miraculously change the laws of nature. Thus, if we needed to assume a firm foundation (and we do not), then atheism plus the assumption that the genuine regularities are part of the nature of the universe is far superior. It is more parsimonious and offers a genuine guarantee. Thus this is a clear win for the atheist. I have already dealt with the issues around logic earlier in this thread. and I do not propose to add to a long post by repeating points already made. Again, this is an issue where presuppositionalism fails badly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: So in fact you agree that the scientific method is the best way that we have for learning about external reality ?
quote: I would disagree with the idea that they are numerous. The existence of some sort of external reality is one. That our senses give us access to external reality (mediated by our sensory apparatus) is another. I doubt that there are many more.
quote: Which only shows that you fail to understand the point. Every assumption made is a weakness, a possible flaw that can contaminate and ruin the whole enterprise. Without an epistemology of some sort, all you can do is make assumptions. That is why epistemology must take precedence over metaphysics.
quote: And those assumptions are part of the epistemology, that is the only point of making them.
quote: Simply saying that your religion demands that we subject ourselves to the dogma propounded by your human leaders hardly indicates a lack of neutrality in MY methods.
quote: This simply ignores my point that no method is truly "ultimate". If we are forced to resort to less reliable methods in some cases that does not make those methods superior, just applicable to areas where more reliable methods cannot venture. And all methods terminate with assumptions so there is no infinite regress either.
quote:If you had actually read on a little further you would have found the answer - with reasons why I believe that. [quote]
qsIn fact astronomers have done so [investigated the entire universe].[/qs] It is difficult to have an argument when the limits of the universe can not even be agreed upon. I don't think any astronomer would say we have reached the end of the universe. We certainly have not found the end of the universe.
[/quote] I did not say that astronomers have investigated the WHOLE universe, but they have observed a very large fraction of it.
quote: I am sorry that you regard standard Christian doctrine and the Bible as "deluded". So does your God lack the capacity to perform miracles or is He simply unable to think of doing so ? Your (silly) argument) which tries to transform evasiveness into some sort of proof of the law of identity doesn't deal with that issue.
quote: All I see is that you are completely unable to answer my point. Reciting nonsense while falsely implying that it is a parallel to my position is not a valid response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I suppose I should have remembered Instrumentalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It seems to me that is precisely where Instrumentalism DOES come in. It does away with the tacit assumptions that there actually is a physical substance that we call zinc and another that we call sulphuric acid, for instance.
Now I will grant that these assumptions are obvious and intuitive and only philosophers are at all likely to argue against them. I will grant that it is normal and natural to ignore them and just get on with the job. But they are still there. And that is why Instrumentalism is an important point - because it allows us to do science with even fewer assumptions than presuppositionalists think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
To say that you can show me assumes that our senses give us information about external reality. The value of Instrumentalism in this debate is that it doesn't have to make assumptions like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: How else would you "show" me zinc and sulphuric acid ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which, essentially, is Instrumentalism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024