Jack the Bodiless

Yes, all real knowledge is gained either directly by perception or by processing perceived data through reason.

Perception is our window on reality. It is the name given to the process of inputting data from the outside world (and even from within ourselves: I perceive that I am thinking, for instance). We use reasoning skills developed from experience to extrapolate from what we perceive (and decipher optical illusions, recognize dreams as unreal, and evaluate TV and cinema images), but all is ultimately anchored in perception. The general reliability of perception and reason is the Prime Axiom: the assumption that MUST be made.

It is the presupposition that even Christians make to allow them to perceive and read the Bible. In rational beings, it should take priority over any other presupposition. If I perceive a tree, then no logical argument against the existence of trees will be effective.

The Biblical worldview (assuming a literal interpretation of Genesis) can be shown to be false by PERCEIVING contrary evidence. This problem will not go away even if we could somehow gain knowledge by non-empirical means. If we perceive that the sky is blue, but the Bible says it's red, and a Christian reading the Bible gets a "non-empirical sense" that the sky is indeed red: he will still perceive that it is blue. He can resolve this only by never looking up: by deliberately failing to perceive.
Not just original sin, though that is certainly part of the problem (I am undoubtedly completely innocent of the sin of Adam and Eve, as I was not present or involved in any way: if the problem is "corruption" rather than punishment, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should erase the corruption). It is a common theme throughout the Bible (see <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html" target="_blank">Are we punished for the sins of others?</a> - there are many more examples that can be cited, such as God's killing of the child of David and Bathsheba), culminating in the unnecessary death of the innocent Jesus "for our sins". If God sets the standard for morality, we should have a duty to punish the children of criminals, for instance: most Christians will balk at this, precisely because this is not where our morals actually come from.

Another example: there are several examples of <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html" target="_blank">human sacrifice</a> in the Bible. There are also verses condemning the practise, but apparently they refer only to the sacrifice of children to the god Molech (already ruled out by the 1st Commandment). Many Christians object to this and try to come up with alternative explanations: however, because blood sacrifice was a major part of religious worship in the Old Testament, and the genocidal slaughter of captives was also required, there is no basis for such an objection. If the Hebrews wanted to execute captives and perform blood sacrifices, why should they NOT use those captives for this purpose? Apparently they did just that. Again, if God is the basis for morality, then human sacrifice is (or was) morally good. There is no basis for arguing otherwise.
Yes, we all "know" that persons have value. We feel this because, as social animals, we have evolved this tendency. I have already explained why these "bags of chemicals" value their own kind. I have established how these bags of chemicals get value from a meaningless, impersonal, chance universe. Morality and values matter TO US: that is sufficient.
Actions which cause damage or distress to human beings, with no corresponding benefit, are evil. This is what the bags of chemicals have decided.
Yes. Just as you assume many things about your God, including orderliness. But at least I have a large body of scientific data indicating that the Universe we observe appears to obey uniform laws.
We do: no "Law of the Excluded Middle" in quantum physics.
Not so. Our laws of logic, despite being contingent on humans, are NOT ARBITRARY. This is because of our shared humanity. Our "sense of logic" evolved to help us survive in a world governed by immutable laws. I can make up my own logic, but I cannot make it conform to reality, just as I cannot fly unaided simply by willing it.
I do not assume that the Universe is random. Randomness apparently exists in quantum physics, but does not significantly affect the orderly and deterministic "real world" we experience. Whenever I use the word "random" in this context, it means nothing more than "subject to many factors too complex for me to evaluate", like those which determine the flip of a coin even in YOUR worldview. It is no more irrational to assume a complex but orderly Universe than to assume an orderly God.
Because it is untrue. Metaphysical naturalism "provides a basis for the universal and invariant laws of logic" (insofar as they exist: a basis for our ability to use logic). Therefore it is false to claim that ONLY the Christian God does. Also, there are an infinite number of potential non-Christian gods that could do this.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]</p>

Keith Russell

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Greetings:
Kent, I'm done.

You are not rational.

Keith.

Marz Blak states:
I have come to the conclusion that Kent's purpose is not to make or win an argument, as he *has* no argument, only unbuttressed assertion backed by cirularity. I think his intention the whole time was simply to see if he could *drive* one of us to irrationality (such as incivility in the face of his continued politeness) with his postings, thereby perhaps justifying his belief that atheists are irrational in yet another exercise in circular "reasoning."

Marz, I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of Kent's intent and method. I agree completely.

Keith.

babelfish

Hi Kent:

Boy, compared to some of the heavier, more philosophical discussions you've been having with some of the other posters on this thread, answering my babyish questions must seem positively like child's play to you!

"Irrational" and "contradictory" are terms I and many other people would feel extremely comfortable in applying to your own religion. In fact, I've heard of many people who have become agnostics shortly after they sat down and actually read the Bible.

You are so fortunate, don't you think? When you were ready to give up your rebellious ways, you were in a place where the likelihood was that you would meet a person who was preaching the gospel, rather than the Koran, or Shinto Buddhism! Whew, just think, you could have converted to the wrong religion!

Thanks again for answering my questions!

Kent Symanzik

Hi Jack,

Did you perceive this universal knowledge?

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi Jack,

As a Christian I do not deny gaining knowledge thru perception or other empirical means. But claiming that empiricism is the only source of knowledge is self-defeating because that proposition itself cannot be known empirically.

I know my senses are reliable because God made the world uniform and made me with the ability to perceive it. But how does an atheist know this? You have claimed this as an axiom that must be made. Why must it be made? Why should any atheist believe his senses? I'm not saying that he must not trust them but rather there is no way to know. The atheist who does not accept your axiom is just as rational.

Perception is not denied by Christians.

Christians do not hold that the bible contradicts empirical means. But at the same time science is not infallible. So, when the bible disagrees with science on the matter of creation for instance, it is not being irrational.

Kent

Thomas Metcalf

Attention, Kent Symanzik.

My post on this page -- <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000567&p=14" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000567&p=14</A> -- has been visible for quite a while now. RSVP.

Kent Symanzik

Hi K,

I don't see how this follows. How is it that if logic cannot be used to justify itself that it is not universal. For instance, if the Christian God exists, he proves or justifies the laws of logic. God is the foundation of the laws of logic which makes them universal. In other words, you have to assume atheism first for your argument to hold. And that is the very issue that we are discussing.

If athiesm is true then I believe you are right, the laws of logic cannot be universal. But, not because they cannot prove themselves. Rather because they have no universal foundation. The laws of logic are universal abstract laws. I have not seen how universal abstract laws could exist in an atheist world.

Right, but I think this is misleading. It is a change in the laws of geometry that was interesting. Not a change in the laws of logic.

I do not think the object is red example holds. The laws of non-contradiction states that A cannot be Non-A in the same sense. In your example you do not have a contradiction. The object is partly red and partly blue. The object is red and the object is blue are both false.

Now concerning logic in quantum physics. Can you refer me to articles or anything that discusses the issue of logic? I would really appreciate it so I can discuss that intelligently and understand your point.

Thanks for your points.

Kent

Vorkosigan

I don't see how this follows. How is it that if logic cannot be used to justify itself that it is not universal.

Kent, we've said it over and over again. Logic is a tool. Tools are justified by their success, which is a value, not by some a priori intellectual foundation. The only justification for the various types of logic is that they work, if applied properly.

For instance, if the Christian God exists, he proves or justifies the laws of logic.

You keep asserting this, but you have yet to provide any evidence or argument for this. In fact the Christian god is well-known to be changeable and contradictory, as the texts attributed to its inspiration show. Further, nowhere in the Bible can I recall this specific claim being made. On what grounds can you say this?

God is the foundation of the laws of logic which makes them universal. In other words, you have to assume atheism first for your argument to hold. And that is the very issue that we are discussing.

No, it could well be that god exists and is foundational for logic, but logic is not universal. You are making a threefold claim:

1) god exists
2) god is foundational for logic
3) logic is universal

(1) and (2) could easily hold without (3) being true.

What you are actually doing is asserting that logic is universal and then back-projecting that onto your god. Believers tend to find things they like in their gods. What we need is for you to make a credible argument that links all these ideas, instead of simply asserting it over and over.

The laws of logic are universal abstract laws. I have not seen how universal abstract laws could exist in an atheist world.

I and others have shown you already countless times. Various forms of simple logic are available to animals as uncomplex as spiders. <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/articles/98articles/jackson.html" target="_blank">Jumping spiders of the genus Portia are able to formulate sophisticated plans</a> and use mimicry, experimentation and mapping to catch other spiders in their webs. They also learn and remember. There are several journals that focus on insect cognition alone, Kent. Meanwhile, as the <a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html" target="_blank">Primer on Evolutionary Psychology</a> shows, complex logic is capable of emerging in socially complex animals such as humans. I see you have not read it yet. The fact is that you have indeed been shown that logic is possible through evolution. Please stop claiming "No one has shown....." as it is not true. The field of evolutionary psychology has shown it, and in spades.

Logic is not a universal law but a way of thinking about relationships. It exists only in the minds of humans, and not in the world. Many types of logic are possible, as any philosopher can tell you. For the umpteenth time, the actual existence, in the real world, of different types of logic COMPLETELY REFUTES any claim that "logic" is universal. Note further that there is NO SUCH THING AS "LOGIC" there are only different types of logics.

A good book on quantum mechanics is Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, which, though published back in '76, is still useful. Although HRG probably knows a much more thorough and up-to-date volume.

It's long past time for real arguments, instead of assertions, Kent.

Vorkosigan

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Kent:
The Prime Axiom is the assumption that perception and reason are reliable. Forget about God or evolution for the moment. Each of us must FIRST deal with the Ultimate Question: can my perception and reasoning be relied upon, YES or NO?

We cannot know the answer. We must ASSUME the answer. None of us can know for certain that we are not a brain in a jar, being fed false sensory data by a mad scientist. Christian presuppositionalism provides no magical protection against this possibility, everything you THINK you know about God could be coming from those electrodes in your brain.

Once we HAVE made this assumption, we can then begin to use our perception and reason to find an explanation of WHY our perception and reason are reliable. You read the Bible and chose God: I studied science and chose evolution. You think you have an explanation: so do I.
There is a contradiction here. What you call "science" is simply the application of perception and reason. Where perception and reason contradict the Bible, many Christians DO deny perception.

For instance, scientists (including Christians) have perceived that fossils appear in a sequence corresponding to the evolutionary "tree of life" of common descent from simple shared ancestors over millions of years. Neither the Genesis creation account nor the Flood can explain this. Creationists deny this perception: somehow, all the world's paleontologists have misperceived the fossil record. If they could come up with a hypothetical Genesis-compatible mechanism that would explain what is being perceived, they could accept the validity of the perception: this is why some of them mutter "Flood sorting" before closing their minds again. But "Flood sorting" doesn't work: there are no elephants among the dinosaurs. Instead, they simply lie: the fossil record is compatible with creation, there are no transitional fossils, various (misquoted) famous scientists agree, and so on.
The orderliness of the Universe IS the universal foundation. The Universe of metaphysical naturalism IS absolutely governed by "universal abstract laws". This is the environment that has shaped our evolution. This is why humanity has developed logic, and why we agree on the rules of logic.

Kent Symanzik

Hi Thomas,

Either I am misunderstanding you or you are contradicting yourself. In the first paragraph you said that we formulate a system of logic, choose all its rules, and this logic exists as concepts in our minds. This makes the laws of logic particular and contigent on each person. Then in the second paragraph you fault Christianity because you say the laws of logic are contigent on one person.

Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean here.

You need to elaborate. It sounds like the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Christian theology. When you elaborate please be sure to state what doctrine of Christian theology you are using.

Sure, you can if you want but it will only have meaning in your own subjective world.

Kent