Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 04-19-2003, 03:21 PM

In a recent post, slamanamp writes:

Quote:

I purpose that you cannot argue against the existence of God unless you first assume his existence. For even in voicing that you disagree you are depending on the transcendental truth that language has objective meaning. But if there is nothing higher than man out there then there is nothing to say that anything must be objective. But you say mans has refined this system over time and it has always worked. A simple refutation of that is the past is by no means a reliable guide for the future, just because it always has worked doesn�t mean it will tomorrow.

There seem to be two arguments at work here. The first is that for language (or anything) to have objective meaning requires the existence of God. The second is that we can't trust our putatively objective system merely because it has worked in the past. I think this post would be a good place to provide a more general answer to presuppositionalist arguments. They're quite unpopular these days for reasons that will become obvious.

I think the first one is pretty meritless. I'm not sure any atheist assumes that language has objective meaning, and not all of them need to assume that anything at all has objective meaning. If I were to accept a theory of meaning in which semantic content is just a function of the phenomenal states of the token-consumers, there would be no need for an objective, transcendent meaning-bestower.

Moreoever, even if I were to believe that something has objective meaning, I need not believe in a god. To borrow a metaphor from another philosopher, I might just believe in a person named "Objectiva." Her very existence creates transcendent objective foundations for meaning. But she's not a god. She's finite, limited, morally neutral, had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, or anything like that. She's a regular human being (besides creating objective meaning in virtue of her existence). We thus have the means to Razor out God as a foundation for objective meaning.

In fact, we can Razor out any sort of conscious being as objective foundations, because there's no reason to think some entity has to be conscious to provide such foundations. I'm entitled to believe that these objective foundations simpy exist as a brute fact, woven into the fabric of the universe, if you like. The same goes for other presuppositionalist arguments -- I can believe in objective epistemic and logical foundations without having to believe their existence is contingent upon the activity of any conscious organism.

Wyrdsmyth · 04-19-2003, 11:06 PM

You're right, there are two parts to this argument, and I think you've dissected them quite well. One can be an atheist and also either an objectivist or subjectivist. Many atheists think that there are some things that are "objectively true," regardless of what we think about them, and this is in no way contingent on a belief in a supernatural being or god. I think the stumbling block, for those who argue this sort of presuppositionalism, is that they have trouble accepting or understanding this. I think it also hinges on ideas about an epistemology of "certainties" and "truths," and such things as fundamental axioms.

I think there is very little we can know with absolute certainty. For example, I cannot be absolutely certain god doesn't exist, or that the earth does. Yet, that doesn't stop me from saying no god exists, and earth does exist. There is much I infer or induce, rather than deduce. An example would be me saying I know the sun will rise tomorrow and traffic will be heavy on Monday. I don't know those things with "absolute certainty" -- but, so what. For the lion's share of propositions we all make, we are dealing with rough-hewn probabilities, even if our language does not always account for it.

So, my reply to most of these sorts of arguments:

"Yeah, induction isn't perfect. So what?"

Tyler Durden · 04-20-2003, 12:44 AM

"...we will not be rid of God unless we have gotten rid of faith in grammar first.."

wise man, that old Fritz.

"...what one cannot speak thereof, one must remain silent."

wise man, that old Ludwig.

Tyler Durden · 04-20-2003, 12:59 AM

And a jolt of Richard Fenyman's philosophy: "A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality should be like. "

Steven Carr · 04-20-2003, 03:55 AM

slamanamp 'I purpose that you cannot argue against the existence of God unless you first assume his existence. '

'I purpose that....'? This from somebody who says language has objective meaning?

And the admission that belief in God is just an assumption is very telling.

Bees behave as though the future is pretty much like the past. The hive will still be there, flapping their wings will still work etc.

I wonder how they manage that, while not having any belief in God.

I always think presupp. is pretty kooky.

04-19-2003, 11:06 PM	#2
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	Re: slamanamp's pressupositionalist argument You're right, there are two parts to this argument, and I think you've dissected them quite well. One can be an atheist and also either an objectivist or subjectivist. Many atheists think that there are some things that are "objectively true," regardless of what we think about them, and this is in no way contingent on a belief in a supernatural being or god. I think the stumbling block, for those who argue this sort of presuppositionalism, is that they have trouble accepting or understanding this. I think it also hinges on ideas about an epistemology of "certainties" and "truths," and such things as fundamental axioms. I think there is very little we can know with absolute certainty. For example, I cannot be absolutely certain god doesn't exist, or that the earth does. Yet, that doesn't stop me from saying no god exists, and earth does exist. There is much I infer or induce, rather than deduce. An example would be me saying I know the sun will rise tomorrow and traffic will be heavy on Monday. I don't know those things with "absolute certainty" -- but, so what. For the lion's share of propositions we all make, we are dealing with rough-hewn probabilities, even if our language does not always account for it. So, my reply to most of these sorts of arguments: "Yeah, induction isn't perfect. So what?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2003, 12:44 AM	#3
Tyler Durden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I am Jack's ID Posts: 592	"...we will not be rid of God unless we have gotten rid of faith in grammar first.." wise man, that old Fritz. "...what one cannot speak thereof, one must remain silent." wise man, that old Ludwig.

04-20-2003, 12:59 AM	#4
Tyler Durden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I am Jack's ID Posts: 592	And a jolt of Richard Fenyman's philosophy: "A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality should be like. "

04-20-2003, 03:55 AM	#5
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	slamanamp 'I purpose that you cannot argue against the existence of God unless you first assume his existence. ' 'I purpose that....'? This from somebody who says language has objective meaning? And the admission that belief in God is just an assumption is very telling. Bees behave as though the future is pretty much like the past. The hive will still be there, flapping their wings will still work etc. I wonder how they manage that, while not having any belief in God. I always think presupp. is pretty kooky.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.