Dr. Retard

Short version:

1. If neutral science were possible, then neutral epistemology would be possible.
2. Necessarily, epistemology is a normative enterprise.
3. Any normative enterprise is ipso facto non-neutral.
4. Therefore, necessarily, epistemology is non-neutral.
5. Therefore, no neutral science is possible.

Inasmuch as 2 is true, I doubt 3. Inasmuch as 3 is true, I doubt 2. It's awful presumptious to presuppose that there can be no objective system of value. It's also awful presumptious to suppose that epistemology's normative committments cannot be paraphrased away or reduced to hypothetical imperatives.

Wyrdsmyth

I agree that it is impossible for anyone to be completely neutral, when evaluating claims about reality. We all bring some bias to the table. What I disagree with is your overly simplistic approach, that seems to divide the world up into two sides, with "atheistic naturalistic scientists" on one side and "Good Christian apologists" on the other. Another poster by the name of Andrew_theist is taking a similar tact on other threads. I don't really see how this practice of using a lot of rhetoric and painting your imagined opponents with such a broad brush can do any good... It only serves to frustrate and annoy people. Maybe that is your main intent, I don't know.

As far as people being "committed to" this or that "worldview," I find this sort of talk to be getting rather old. Yes, we all have worldviews. But that isn't saying much, it is only saying we each have our own ways of looking at the world, our own ideas about how things "really are." You think the way the world "really is" lines up with the worldview you have... So do I, and so does everyone else! Guess what? We all think we're right!

But, really, your method of proselytizing is starting to look pretty dated. "Either accept the Christian God or reject him -- you have to do one or the other!" This kind of adversarial approach needs more than emphatic pushiness behind it. No longer can you just thump a holy book and wave your arms around and say the evidence of God is all around us, and we're in denial if we can't see it. That just looks desperate, like the last refuge of theologians...

I do think it's fairly neutral to ask for evidence, to allow people to make their case and listen to them. I try to listen to people with an open mind. If someone tells me Toyotas are the best cars, I'll listen to their reasons for thinking this, but in fact I am predisposed to Volkswagens. But if someone brings up some compelling facts to make me reconsider my opinion, I'll listen. If someone thinks black holes exist and have such and such properties, I'll consider the claim. But I'll want to know how much is just theory, and what facts there actually are to base it all on. And likewise, if someone claims there is a supernatural being who interacts with the natural world, and affects our lives in some way, I invite them to provide the evidence for why they think so. In none of these cases do I start out with the presupposition that any of these people are wrong. But if they don't shore up their belief or opinion with some facts, some actual evidence that I can look into and verify for myself, then I'm probably not going to buy into what they're saying.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Hello, all,

Thanks for the many posts. I will respond to them as I am able, but do not expect to be able to deal with every one in detail.

Hello, Barry,

Thanks for the message. Well, I think you were right about the wolves descending!

I think that you are asking how I can apply Biblical teaching to the agnostic since he affirms the supremacy science, an issue on which the Bible does not teach. I may be misunderstanding you, but in this argument I am not trying to use the Bible to convince you of anything. I am trying to show how, according to both of our worldviews, a person cannot be epistemologically neutral. Am I completely off base as to your question?

I think that this discussion has already brought up enough issues to keep me busy, but I would argue that the Bible is authoritative on all issues, but that it does not directly give the answers on all issues, but rather provides the Christian with other means of discovering them. Again, thought, I think that this is a side issue, but it would make for an interesting discussion.

I would choose to follow the Bible where it clearly teaches something of scientific importance (for instance, though, I do not think that it teaches flat-earthism – did I just make up a word? – or geocentricism). However, as scientists are quick to admit that their theories often change quickly and drastically, even for those issues where it seems that science has proved something contrary to the Bible, I would be quick to doubt science.

Actually, I am saying that I, as a Christian, cannot make an impartial evaluation of the agnostic worldview and that you, as an agnostic, likewise, cannot make an impartial evaluation the Christian worldview (without first assuming the other worldview for argument’s sake). I actually am not saying anything against metaphysical naturalism, atheism, or agnosticism. A person in any of those camps could agree with this argument, but still affirm his beliefs. I just want to point this out because this issue often arises.

I made two huge loaves of cornbread yesterday…they were pretty good for being from a mix.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Synaesthesia

Seakayaker

People with radically divergent, even totally contradictory moral systems and personal values can totally agree upon epistemic methods. The scientific method works, for better or for worse, as well for a Nazi as it does for a leukemia researcher.

In some respects, I agree that human beings have a moral obligation to try to determine the truth and to impart it, to the best of their ability, to other people. That being said, I would emphasize that the methodology by which we determine what is true or not has no necessary relation to what we think is morally right. Yes, the fundamentalist may think that it is a sin to reject God’s preposterous yarn about having created the earth in seven days and so believe in a young earth, but the vast, vast majority of our knowledge is held without any specific moral impetuous.

Use of knowledge very often has moral implications, development of knowledge seldom does. My knowledge that the sky is blue, however pretty it may be, has few moral ramifications.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

HRG

When you read what scientists admit, I think you heard what you wanted to hear. Scientific theories may change quickly, but very seldom drastically. The old theory remains as an approximation of the new one, like Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity.

Many results - like the existence of protons, or absence of a flood as described in the Bible - are here to stay.

Regards,
HRG.

jpbrooks

A "neutral" position on world-views, that is (itself) outside of all world-views, is what is impossible.
It is possible for a view to be "neutral" on a particular claim such as the question of God's existence, for example. But that view would also have a way of interpreting or assessing data about the world that is consistent with its "neutral" position. (Otherwise, it would be an inconsistent view.) In other words, the "neutral" stance among (competing) world-views could not (itself) be "world-view independent".

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

bd-from-kg

SeaKayaker:

The real problem with your worldview is that it involves rejection of the One True Worldview, which is Innerianism. You see, the Earth is really (topologically speaking) a torus, with a “hole” that goes right through it. The ends of the “hole” are around the North and South poles, but it’s so large inside that the Earth is pretty much a hollow shell. Inside lives a race of aliens, the Interians, who are able to conceal themselves by using their advanced technology. The Interians created us for their own purposes, so it’s our duty to further these purposes insofar as we know what they are. Of course, only True Believers like myself are entrusted with this knowledge. So when in the fullness of time I lay waste to large portions of the Earth, killing a billion or two humans in the process, in furtherance of the aims of our creators the Interians, I’ll be acting in a supremely moral way.

Also, the Interians have an authoritative reference, the Yinner, which explains everything that one would ever want or need to know about anything. Unfortunately it’s maddeningly vague and confusing, so it’s really hard to figure out what it has to say about anything, but I’m confident that I can figure it out. Since the Yinner is guaranteed to be accurate and comprehensive, obviously the way to learn the truth about anything whatever is to study it. You can be sure that if any observations of the “real world” conflict with what the Yinner says (once we come to understand it correctly), it’s because of the workings of the advanced technology the Interians are using to conceal their existence, or perhaps to accomplish some purpose that we can’t even guess at.

Now of course you’ll probably want to see some actual evidence of the existence of the Interians before agreeing to cooperate with me in destroying a large part of the Earth on their behalf. And I’ll be happy to oblige. Of course, given my beliefs about the morality behind knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, etc. this evidence will naturally come from the Yinner. Since you don’t regard the Yinner as authoritative, you probably won’t regard this as “evidence”. That just shows that the dichotomy between Innerianism and Christianity makes an impartial evaluation of the two worldviews impossible. Because of the antithetical nature of Christianity and Innerianism, the person who claims neutrality has actually already committed himself to a position.

In the meantime, your refusal to admit the existence of the Interians, or to accept that they are the foundation of all true morality, is an affront to their dignity, and thus is certainly deserving of punishment.

_______________________

Is there anything wrong with all this? Does Innerianism have just as good a claim to belief as Christianity? If not, why not? If any self-consistent worldview that explains the lack of evidence for itself is just as good as any other, isn’t Innerianism just as good as billions of other worldviews with these properties? Or is there something about Innerianism that would justify its rejection by any rational person?

Kachana

I asked this same question of Jim Mitchell, and he answered that my particular deity 'Toh' was not evident in nature and had not revealed himself to human experience, and so was false.

However I found this a totally inedequate distinction between the Christian God and the God I was arguing for as:

1. On what authority does Jim Mitchell claim that the true God must make himself known to humans? He is setting his own 'autonomous human reason' up as the authoratative standard, something he goes to great pains to admonish in other people's arguments.

2. In any case, the God 'Toh' has been revealed to humans, to be exact, he has revealed himself to me, and is using me as a tool to spread his word via this message board.

3. Conversely, perhaps Toh does not actually want to reveal himself to human consciousness. just as the Christian God is more concerned with human consciouness than other animals (beasts), Toh does not care one jot about humans, extending His infinite love and knowledge of His perfect nature to clams and barnacles instead.

Perhaps SeaKayaker can shed some light on the distinction that makes Tohists and Innerianists irrational but Christian presuppositionalists rational.

case

I have slowly over the years changed my views from atheism to agnosticism. With this change, I have recieved quite a bit of flak from atheists and theists alike. Agnosticism has over the years earned itself a reputation as a sort of "fence-sitting" position. I can't speak for other agnositics, but I don't see that way. For me, agnosticism is nothing more than suspending judgement until all the evidence is in, if indeed it ever can be. In other words, my agnosticism stems from a view of reality based on what is known and what can be known, or, in some cases, what can't be known.

However, I feel that restricting the arguement to having to admitt that god does or does not exist is rather silly. Indeed, I can't say for sure that there aren't invisible pink unicorns (to use a trite example) flying around in the sky, but I don't feel that I have to decide on their existance to have a worldview, or to formulate a scientific hypothisis. After all, like Gould said, apples might start to rise off the ground tommorow, but I don't have to spend time thinking about this in order to understand physics.

Waning Moon Conrad

Does this mean that you actually believe that the Earth was made before the sun, the moon and the stars?