Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Presuppositionalism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 142 (789870)
08-21-2016 1:35 PM


For those who haven't encountered them, presupositionalists are the creationists of philosophy. What seems obvious when reading the productions of both groups is that they are largely uninterested in the questions they are ostensibly addressing. What they are interested in is their predetemined answer: they want to get to goddidit as quickly as possible, riding roughshod over facts and reason to get there --- because a solution involving God implies that he exists, and proving his existence is all that really interests them.
Here's an example chosen more or less at random, culled from the musings of one James N. Anderson on the topic of "The Theistic Preconditions of Knowledge". The essence of Mr. Anderson's argument is to perform what I think of as the Mjolnir Maneuver, which goes something like this:
(1) Define lightning to be that phenomenon caused by Thor wielding his magic hammer Mjolnir.
(2) Point out that we all know that lightning exists.
(3) Conclude that you have proved the existence of Thor.
The problem with this, of course, is that we do not all know that lightning exists in the sense in which it has been redefined in step (1). On the contrary, this is very much in doubt. (For an example of the maneuver used in creationism, see Werner Gitt's nonsense about "information".)
Anderson, similarly, manages to concoct a definition of "knowledge" in which we know something if (a) we believe it and (b) we arrive at this belief by a method which is approved of as morally virtuous by a supernatural personal being. This, combined with the fact that knowledge does exist, is meant to make theists of us all. But we are only convinced that knowledge exists in the ordinary sense; we have no reason to believe that "knowledge" exists in Anderson's sense. And we should note that Anderson's sense is not at all like the ordinary sense: for if we were to take Anderson seriously, it would seem that a man can look at an elephant, walk round it, touch it, and thereby become thoroughly convinced of its existence, and yet he does not "know" that it exists unless there is a supernatural being somewhere who approves of him drawing this conclusion from his observations. (Whereas in the ordinary sense we would say that the man knows that the elephant exists because he has seen the elephant; and we would add that it is the job of the philosopher of knowledge to make this concept of knowledge formal and rigorous, and not to gratuitously dick about with it.)
If anyone thinks this is an unfair sample of presuppositionalism, please show me a better one; or if anyone thinks that this particular example is defensible, please defend it, and I shall elaborate on Mr. Anderson's mistakes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 08-21-2016 9:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 134 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2018 10:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 142 (789896)
08-22-2016 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
08-21-2016 9:13 PM


Re: If The Shoe Fits...
I'm afraid that now you have to produce transparently bad apologetics while being complacently unaware of their defects.
But seriously, I don't think that checklist does make you a presuppositionalist, it depends what you do with those beliefs once you have them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 08-21-2016 9:13 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 6 of 142 (789931)
08-22-2016 12:41 PM


Morality
Mr. Anderson refers to the question of "objective norms". This is a recurrent theme in presuppositionalist apologetics, usually in a more obviously ethical context, and it's worth taking a look at it.
The problem (and it is a genuine problem, unlike this stuff about knowledge, which is a mere wrangle about definitions) is this: you cannot derive a proposition about how things ought to be from how they are. If someone tries to justify their morality by producing a statement about how things ought to be, then you can ask them for evidence that that is how things ought to be, and if they then supply a statement about how things are, you can say "so what?"
For example, consider this fabricated but typical example of a conversation between a theist (T) and an atheist (A).
T: So, you agree that it would be wrong to torture Fred?
A: Of course.
T: Why?
A: Well, because it would hurt Fred.
T: So what?
A: Well, you ought not to torture people.
T: Why not?
A: Because it hurts.
T: So what?
A: Well, you ought not to hurt people.
T: Why not?
A: Because they don't like it. Fred doesn't want me to torture him.
T: So what?
A: Well, I wouldn't like it.
T: So what?
A: You ought to treat people as you want to be treated.
T: Why?
A: Uh ... because they are people like you.
T: So what?
A: Uh ... if you don't see that, I confess I have run out of arguments.
T: You see, atheism cannot supply us with secure moral foundations!
Haha, he has the atheist right on the back foot, and can now happily go about his day confident that atheist accounts of morality are intellectually unfounded.
Unless, of course, the atheist starts asking questions ...
A: So, your turn.
T: Huh?
A: Why shouldn't you torture Fred?
T: Because he is made in God's image.
A: So what?
T: Uh ... God doesn't want you to torture him.
A: So what? (You will note that you brushed it off when I pointed out that Fred doesn't want me to torture Fred, which seems, if anything, more relevant.)
T: You ought to do what God wants.
A: Why?
T: Because he's God.
A: So what?
T: He created you.
A: So what?
T: You ought to obey the dictates of your creator.
A: Why?
T: Apart from anything else, he'll send you to Hell if you don't.
A: So what? I mean, I concede that it is prudent to avoid going to hell, but we were discussing what we are morally obliged to do. I didn't try to justify ethics by pointing out that if you tortured Fred you'd risk gong to jail.
T: But he's God.
A: So what?
... and so on.
There's an interesting phrase in Anderson's essay: "Why would one configuration of atoms be more virtuous than another configuration merely on account of its physical properties and relations?" But one might just as well ask "Why would one configuration of invisible intangible soul-stuff be more virtuous than another configuration merely on account of its metaphysical properties and relations?" If I have a soul, and if there is a God, the properties of my soul and my relationship with God would be just one more fact about the universe, and we would still be in need of a reason why I ought (in a moral and not merely a prudential sense) to have one relationship with him rather than another.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 1:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 142 (789953)
08-22-2016 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
08-22-2016 1:43 PM


Re: Morality
It was prudent of them to disable the comments, so as to prevent comments from actual atheists whose words they can't script, but on the other hand hanging out the huge lie that they "won the James Randi $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge" is kind of shooting themselves in the foot, it only draws attention to their shameless dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 08-22-2016 1:43 PM Phat has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 142 (790079)
08-25-2016 12:58 AM


One persistent odd thing about Presuppositionalists is that they don't seem to grasp what it even means to solve a philosophical problem.
To give a concrete analogy, suppose we are faced with the problem of crossing a ravine. A man steps forward and says "If there was a bridge, that would solve the problem". We nod in agreement. "And," he says, "I firmly believe that there is a bridge."
"Well," we say, "while we cannot share your sunny optimism, good for you, I guess."
"And so," he concludes, "I have solved the problem of crossing the ravine, unlike you poor saps who don't believe in the bridge."
Well, solving the problem would require, not just belief in the bridge, but that he should locate and cross it. In the same way, the Presuppositionalist will take an old philosophical chestnut (say the is/ought problem or the problem of induction) argue (often erroneously) that postulating God makes it solvable, and then concludes that theists can solve the problem! But theists only believe in God; unless they can prove his existence (which Presuppositionalists sedulously avoid doing) then they have not solved the problem.
And they assume that these problems have solutions, which they need not. If someone asks me to find a rational square root of seven, and I reply that I can solve it if I can find two perfect squares differing by a factor of 7, and that I believe in the squares --- then I have not, in fact, solved the problem, or found the squares, or proved that such squares exist, or proved that there is a solution. There is, in fact, no solution. Why should there be? And similarly there's no particular reason why for example, the Problem of Induction should have a solution. Some problems don't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 08-25-2016 9:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 142 (790097)
08-25-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
08-25-2016 9:08 AM


Re: Evidently Not
Unless of course belief in and of itself does in fact solve the problem.
Well, it doesn't. As in my analogies. Once you've found a hypothetical that would solve the problem, in order to solve the problem you need to prove the hypothetical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 08-25-2016 9:08 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 39 of 142 (790194)
08-27-2016 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by marc9000
08-26-2016 8:31 PM


Re: Evidently Not
This implication of a neutrality in atheism is common in the atheist scientific world, but the fact is that every WORLDVIEW has opinions on how the world works - how a society should govern itself etc, and those opinions are on equal footing with religion concerning the threat they pose to the people at large which make up a society.
You mean like how you hardly ever hear of atheists burning witches?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2016 8:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 142 (790222)
08-28-2016 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by marc9000
08-27-2016 9:41 PM


Re: Evidently Not
The o/p implied that presuppositionalism is an issue only with religion. It's equally an issue with atheism.
No, presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics. Not only do atheists do nothing like it, but to the best of my knowledge nor does any other religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by marc9000, posted 08-27-2016 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 142 (790223)
08-28-2016 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
08-27-2016 9:32 PM


Re: If The Shoe Fits...
Are you saying that atheists DON'T HAVE a naturalistic perspective from which they see and interpret the world? That they don't have a collection of beliefs about life and the universe?
Each particular atheist obviously has a worldview, just as each particular disbeliever in the tooth fairy does. But this doesn't mean that all atheists or all disbelievers in the tooth fairy have the same worldview. You would not say, would you, that Ayn Rand had the same worldview as Karl Marx? But they were both atheists, and come to that, atoothfairyists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 08-27-2016 9:32 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 142 (790281)
08-29-2016 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
08-28-2016 4:34 PM


Re: Common Sense, Non-Sense, and lack of evidence
And what if there is insufficient evidence? Are you saying belief should then be discouraged? See the problem is that you have taken logic, reason and reality and made human understanding higher than belief. I believe this is a fatal error in human thinking.
Do you have evidence for this belief?
The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God". It never says that with out evidence it is impossible to prove God nor should that even be mixed with faith/belief. And before the rest of you go trotting out odin, spaghetti monster, and the ridiculous imagined ilk...know that that is entirely different. Quit trying to convince people that they made religion up.
Surely even you must think that most religions are made up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 08-28-2016 4:34 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024