Biff the unclean

You said ALL and that means all so certainly you are not basing your all on the entirety of what things they say but rather what you would like to focus on.

I used the word ALL as part of a sentence which was part of a paragraph which made abundantly clear what the ALL was referring to. I even repeated them.

That "mist" you are referring to is more supernatural BS.
Not really even up to the time of the Vikings it was still much heavier than it is today but I am going to let what I already said about it stand and accept your disagreeance.
It would seem that the vikings aren't the only ones who had their heads in the fog. I must too. You are obviously having me on and I fell for it. More fool I.

Refering to that there is no scientific explanation for how the physical universe emerged and from what.
You don't subscribe to Scientific American do you?

I really must go now so if I don't respond to further posting it's because I may not have been able to read it. All the best Biff.
It must be very hard to work a mouse with your sleeves strapped behind your back.

Christian

Chris & Walruss,

I really had not done any formal analysis on how I know that what I know corresponds to reality. Or for that matter how I know that I know that I know. Answering such questions falls under the heading of “Epistemology” in philosophy. Epistemology is pretty interesting now that I look at it!

I found two approaches to epistemology that describe a lot of the things I do, although they conflict on several points.
This article by Morimer Adler and this article by David Snoke.


Adler claims that there are a small number of self evident truths. His definition: “A self-evident truth is one that states something the opposite of which it is impossible to think. It can also be called a necessary truth because its opposite is impossible.” An example would be that a triangle (whatever term you call it by) has only adjacent angles. It is impossible to think of a triangle with nonadjacent angels.

There are three levels of truth:
1 - We can be absolutely certain of “self evident truths.”
2 - Something we are not certain about, but which we theorize based on evidence and reasons Adler calls “knowledge.” We must be open to the possibility of modifying our “knowledge” based on conflicting future evidence or reasons.
3 - Something we have no evidence or reason to support it is a “mere opinion.”

Within various academic disciplines (science, philosophy, history, law, etc.) are a tiny number of self evident truths, sometimes called “first principles.” The first principles are the axioms on which all “knowledge” within each discipline is extrapolated.

Snoke differs from Adler on these basic points as follows:
– What Adler calls “self evident truths” are called “unifying theories” by Stoke.
– We cannot be absolutely certain of unifying theories. We can be 99.999999999999999999% certain of them.
– Unifying theories are arrived at inductively, while self evident truths are the starting point for deductive reasoning. This is apparently a big deal in epistemology. Doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me since a unifying theory, once you arrive at it, can be used as a starting point for deductive reasoning. But then I’m not a philosopher.

Snoke draws a useful distinction in the knowledge category between “data” and “theory.” Data is raw information which doesn’t change, such as results of experiments, instances of sensory input, case studies, even instances of personal feelings. These things are raw data. Theory is a way of organizing data so that it makes sense. The fact that I have two legs is “data.” The assertion that all humans have two legs is “theory.” Data does not change. Theories get updated all the time.

Biblical theologians recognize this distinction all the time. The statements of the Bible itself are “data.” “Theology” is the organizing theories that attempt to make sense of the data.

I can see merit in Snoke’s approach, although I put myself in Adler’s camp for the moment. Snoke’s objections to self evident truths seem stretched to me … things that would only bother someone obsessed with philosophy. For example, claiming that the Law of NonContradiction (a first principle of logic) is not self evident seems self defeating. You have to utilize this law in order to argue that it doesn’t really exist. You affirm it’s existence by denying it! Who cares how you arrived at the language that enabled you to express that concept?

Adler (and I’m pretty sure Snoke) also believes in the principle of the unity of truth, or coherence. Whatever is actually true about science is consistent with what is true about logic which is consistent with what is true about history. Truth is one coherent whole. This is not to say that science and theology (for example) cannot make conflicting assertions. It just means that when that happens one of them is wrong about the particular theory at hand. Once the error is uncovered, it will be seen that what was true about the theological assertion and what was true about the scientific assertion are consistent with each other.

I hold the Bible itself to be the first principles of theology.

Of course by now you are probably saying “what’s your point, Christian? Answer the question!”

I suggest formally evaluating a “supernatural” (by my definition) truth claim as follows:

1 – Compare what has happened to the standard of the Bible. Does the Bible rule such a thing out? Does the Bible describe such things? If so, how do they work and is the case at hand consistent with that? Are any accepted theological ideas violated? If so what first principles are behind that theological theory? Are they actually violated? Are any of the tiny number of textually disputed passages involved?

2 – Compare what has happened to the standard of logic. Is it coherent within itself? Are there any logical inconsistencies in the supernatural event being claimed? By definition this is without begging the question. Any assumptions about whether the supernatural exists or whether God exists or what His attributes might be are out of bounds for step 2. I’m talking about comparing the event itself to the accepted principles of logic. I should point out that this is a negative test, a test for falsehood. What is true is necessarily logical, but what is logical is not necessarily true.

3 – Bring in the evaluations of whatever academic discipline touches on the claimed event. For example, history, Biology, physics, philosophy, etc. How would mainstream (the actual mainstream, not what the atheist worldview considers as mainstream) scholars evaluate this claim? What about the claim is consistent with the theories of this discipline, and what about the claim is not consistent with the theories of this discipline. How would the opinions of scholars to the right and left of mainstream differ, if at all? Are any first principles actually violated? If the claim is something experimentally testable it should be tested and the results evaluated.

4 – Lastly I would consider relevant information from any similar personal experiences that I may have had in the past.

And then I would make my assessment, based on the results. The four steps are listed in descending order of authority. I would weigh the evidence from all four steps, and make a conclusion. If not enough information is available to make a call, that would be my stated conclusion.

So there is my criteria for formally evaluating any truth claim, including claims of things which transcend the physical universe. Thanks for the interesting question.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

I'm kicking myself, because I spent almost two hours today looking up your historical assertions. I cannot find in the library or the internet even one single description of Roman crucifixion there a rope across the chest was what caused suffocation. Not even on the Internet. I went to medical sites, popular media sites, history sites, forum discussions of Roman crucifixion on history buff sites. I check every atheist apologetic site I could find, including this one. Not one single solitary description of Roman crucifixion where a rope across the chest contributed to suffocation in Roman crucifixion. Checked 5 different encyclopedias and various Roman history books. Nada. Where did you ever get such an idea of what crucifixion was or how it kills you??? I would have thought that any idea, no matter how unfounded, would have at least one Internet site asserting it’s true.

Your arguments are specious and you haven’t backed up anything you've said. Your claims are not worth investigating. No meaningful discourse has occurred between us.

Maybe we can get off on a better foot in another thread, but for now I chose not to respond to you further on this thread.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

I responded on your new thread.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

It does not matter for the point Lewis was making whether you make your unprovable assumption for good reasons or poor reasons or indifferent. If you start with the specific unprovable assumption you made at all you are committing the logical fallacy “begging the question.” Start with the premise that angels don’t exist and you will always find the mice as the more probable of the two claims. Conversely, if you start with the premise that mice don’t exist you will always find the angels the more probable.

The task at hand is to determine which of those two premises is the more probable. If you approach that task by starting with a premise that assumes your conclusion, then you are begging the question. The only way to be objective here is to avoid making any premise that assumes your conclusion.

Granted. I’ll work on understanding and speaking in the terms of your worldview. But:

Always? Earlier you posted the following comment:

“I would just like to say one little bitty thing more.
That is factually, demonstrably, overwhelmingly impossible.”

That’s an absolute term backed up by some pretty strong adjectives. Did you really mean that you merely assume it’s “impossible” in the absence of additional evidence?

Sure sounded like you were trying to make a truth claim there.

That is a valid premise for some purposes. I’m not saying that it is always a fallacy to assume a premise in the absence of additional evidence. The problem is that in this case it’s circular – begging the question.

The task at hand is to make a determination. An event has occurred and history offers two explanations. The question I ask (and the question Lewis asked) is “which of these two claims made is more probable?”

(SIDE NOTE – this is not a false dichotomy … Lewis is not claiming that these are the only two possible explanations. His point is merely to demonstrate which of these two particular claims is the more probable if you don’t commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.)

Look at your starting premise: “I personally believe that mice doing anything is more probable than angels doing anything.” That statement works as an answer to the question without being modified at all.

The question was “is A or B more probable?”
You started with the assertion that “B is more probable than A.”
And then arrive at the conclusion “B is more probable than A.”

That’s not a logical way of addressing this particular question.

Can I assume from the 3 exclamation points that you are making a truth claim? If so, please provide the number of instances which have occurred to prove that you have knowledge of all of them. If not, then why add so much emphasis to your statement of fact that is merely a working assumption?

”Ever” is an absolute term even without the all caps. Are you certain that you never assert anything as more than a mere working assumption?

Your rationale for making the sweeping unprovable assumption that angels don’t exist is beside the point here. If you are assuming your conclusion it is the fallacy of begging the question, no matter how you came about your initial assertion.

If you have a strong and valid basis for your initial assertion, it is still begging the question to make it in this case.
If you have a weak and illogical basis for your initial assertion, it is still begging the question to make it in this case.
If you have a so so basis for your initial assertion, it is still begging the question to make it in this case.
If you have no basis at all for your initial assertion, it is still begging the question to make it in this case.

Just a few lines ago you said that every statement you make about what is probable is ALWAYS ALWAYS just a guess.

Besides, unless you are familiar with every allegation of angels in history and the results of every one of them that anyone has ever looked into …. you are very much using guesses to make guesses here.

Not me … the laws of logic.
Not limiting evidence … denying a specific premise which was the first thing out of your mouth. Logic limits what premises you can validly start off with. To make the premise you do at all is circular, because the case in question is one of the reasons you make your premise.

1. Angels don’t exist because they are never the most probable explanation in cases like this.
2. Angels are not the most probable explanation in this case because they don’t exist.
3. See #1.
4. See #2.
5. See #1.

See the circularity? The issue is not whether your assertion is a good one. Your assertion is based on exactly this type of thing, so it is unacceptably biases the results here. This is the one type of case where making the sweeping assertion you started with (logically and in your response) is circular.

Not all guessing is disallowed. BUT …
you are making guesses here unless you are omniscient. Despite the all caps and the many exclamation points in your assertion you really don’t know the results of all such cases in history. You’re guessing.

Only if they are based on cases such as the one under consideration. Only then does it become circular.

If they are SOLVED cases of the exact type you are currently considering, and such cases are the basis of your assertion, then it is still begging the question.

If there is some intrinsic reason to doubt the existence of angels, then you could make that the basis of a premise about the existence of angels here.

It’s the reason you arrived at your premise that makes it circular in this case.

If you are basing that unprovable assertion on cases like this one, then you are engaging in circular reasoning here.

Lewis is not saying there are only two options here. He is saying that if you address the question in a logically sound way this particular supernatural explanation is more probable than this particular natural explanation.

And if I am in error on some logical point here, I hope that someone will point it out to me. I don’t claim to be an expert in logic. But the more I read about the fallacy “begging the question” the more convinced I am that your argument is an example.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Volker,

Didn’t mean to “put you in a box” with a label there.
Take care.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mageth,

Thanks for the link! Only skimmed it briefly so far, but looks like an interesting article.



Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mike,

That is certainly not the case when it comes to military intelligence. HUMIT (Human Intelligence) is anecdotal by nature, but it is extremely valuable and decisions or made at the operational and strategic levels because of it.

Josef Stalin, for example, ignored repeated reports from a Soviet spy that Germany was about to attack the USSR in 1941; he found the reports incredible given the non-aggression pact he had signed with Hitler. He should have listened.

On the other hand, Israel routinely makes military decisions on the basis of individual reports from spies embedded in the Palestinian community. To great effect and accuracy.

If your assertion is true … that anecdotal evidence on its own is worthless in determining whether or not a claim is true … then why is it used so frequently (and accurately) by the militaries of the world for just such a purpose?

That is not what Lewis is arguing. He is trying to prove that the angel solution is more probable than the mice solution in this case, supporting his larger point. Allow me to post more context so that you can see his larger argument:

“The experience of a miracle in fact requires two conditions. First we must believe in a normal stability of Nature, which means we must recognize that the data offered by our senses recur in regular patterns. Secondly, we must believe in some reality beyond Nature. When both beliefs are held, and not till then, we can approach with an open mind the various reports which claim that this super- or extra-natural reality has sometimes invaded and disturbed the sensuous content of space and time which makes our ‘natural’ world. The belief in such a supernatural reality itself can be neither proved nor disproved by experience. The arguments for its existence are metaphysical, and to me conclusive. They turn on the fact that even to think and act in the natural world we have to assume something beyond it and even assume that we partly belong to something. In order to think we must claim for our own reasoning a validity which is not credible if our own thought is merely a function of our brains, and our brains a by-product of irrational physical processes. In order to act, above the level of mere impulse, we must claim a similar validity for our judgments of good and evil. In both cases we get the same disquieting result. The concept of nature itself is one we have reached only tacitly by claiming a sort of super-natural status for ourselves.

If we accept this position and then turn to the evidence, we find, of course, that accounts of the supernatural meet us on every side. History is full of them – often in the same documents that we accept wherever they do not report miracles. Respectable missionaries report them not infrequently. The whole Church of Rome claims their continued occurrence. Intimate conversation elicits from almost every acquaintance at least one episode in his life which is what he would call ‘queer’ or ‘rum.’ No doubt most stories of miracles are unreliable; but then, as anyone can see by reading the papers, so are most stories of all events. Each story must be taken on it’s merits: what one must not do is to rule out the supernatural as the one impossible explanation. Thus you may disbelieve in the Mons Angels* because you cannot find a sufficient number of sensible people who say they saw them. But if you found a sufficient number, it would, in my view, be unreasonable to explain this by collective hallucination. For we know enough of psychology to know that spontaneous unanimity in hallucination is very improbable, and we do not know enough of the supernatural to know that a manifestation of angels is equally improbable. The supernatural theory is the less improbable of the two. When the Old Testament say that Sennacherib’s invasion was stopped by angels**, and Herodotus says it was stopped by a lot of mice who came and ate up all the bowstrings of his army***, an open-minded man will be on the side of the angels. Unless you start by begging the question, there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the existence of angels or in the action ascribed to them. But mice just don’t do these things.

* Lewis is referring to the story that angels appeared, protecting British troops in their retreat from Mons, Fronce, on the 26th August 1914. A recent summary of the event by Jill Kitson ‘Did Angels Appear to British Troops at Mons?’ is found in History Makers, No. 3 (1969), pp. 132-33.
** 2 Kings 19:35
*** Herodotus, Bk II, Sect. 141"

But unless you beg the question by assuming angels do not exist, the most honest answer is that the angel claim is more probable than the mice claim. There is enough information to venture a judgment.

Exactly. You have to examine whatever evidence you can find and then render a judgment. You can’t test it over and over again. Often you only have a handful of facts or references. Conclusions can be drawn from incomplete evidence.

Virtually all of what you probably accept as history fails to meet that standard.

No account? Do you doubt that Alexander the Great existed? What about Julius Ceasar?

You are free to think whatever you want, of course. But if you start by begging the question, then your arrival at the “I DON”T KNOW” conclusion is logically flawed.

I prefer a more logically sound approach.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Hi Hail,

I agree with you on those points, except that the breaching of the separation between the realms occurred in 33 AD, give or take a couple of years.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mike,

Noone I know rules out all natural explanations a priori. I think I answered in my post on epistimology. I'll look forward to your comments.

Respectfully,

Christian