Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 03-09-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron
Oxymoron is puzzled by the inconsistency, nay hyprocrisy of theophilus -

O: "What are your axioms of belief, T, because God is a far from atomic concept?"
T: "My belief in God is assumed as axiomatic. It is therefore beyond questioning"
O: "My belief in science as the most objective tool we have to investigate the world is axiomatic*. It is therefore beyond questioning, too".
T: "Ah, but my axiom is better than your axiom"
O: How? Why?
T: "My axiom says so"
O: "What-everrrrrr..."

*I don't actually see this as axiomatic, but for the sake of brevity, I shall deem it so. Anyway, it doesn't actually matter. If you state your conclusion as axiomatic, atomic and unquestionable and then criticse anyone else for doing the same then I think the term 'hyprocite" fits aptly.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear (I certainly don't want to be the cause of any puzzlement on your part).

The comparison is not between my presupposition of God and his word (both) as the necessary prerequisite for all knowlege and your belief in science because science is not your presupposition.

Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through science, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience.

That my presupposition validates human experience and makes knowledge possible is self-evident - the creator God speaks authoritatively through his word concerning his creation. Your presupposition makes knowlege impossible because it cannot move beyond the finitude and failures of your own cognition.

You must, in fact, assume the worldview generated God and his word in order to function at all. If you truely followed the worldview derived from your presupposition, you would acknowledge the impossibility of making any meaningful statements about existence. Both empericism and rationalism inevitably lead to skepticism.

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 06:25 PM

Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through science, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience.

Would this not also apply to you, as in "Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through god, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience"?

theophilus · 03-09-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through science, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience.

Would this not also apply to you, as in "Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through god, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience"?

I understand that there is some confusion on this point.

I do not "evaluate" God and his word and then accept it because it passes my test. That would indeed make my autonomous intellect ultimate, i.e., my presupposition.

A presupposition cannot be evaluated by anything or that thing becomes ultimate.

Because of what the bible declares about God and his ordering and government of his creation and my own existence (created in his image), I can have confidence in my senses and in my intellect as honest (though not infallible) reporters and evaluators of reality.

That is why unbelievers must, in reality, borrow my worldview in order to function, because their worldview, based on and limited to their own cognition can never give knowledge. But they do have knowledge. So how do they explain that?

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 06:40 PM

I'll expand on the above:

Your presupposition makes knowlege impossible because it cannot move beyond the finitude and failures of your own cognition.

How do you reach your presupposition? I would assume through cognition, no? Well, theo, if cognition is useless for the atheist in determining knowledge, then it's useless for the theist in determining (and defending) a presupposition and the "knowledge" gained therefrom.

If cognition cannot be used by the atheist to garner knowledge, it cannot be used by the theist to garner knowledge.

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 06:43 PM

Because of what the bible declares about God and his ordering and government of his creation and my own existence (created in his image), I can have confidence in my senses and in my intellect as honest (though not infallible) reporters and evaluators of reality.

Well, you can't read, understand and interpret the bible without cognition and ration. You're back to square one.

That is why unbelievers must, in reality, borrow my worldview in order to function, because their worldview, based on and limited to their own cognition can never give knowledge. But they do have knowledge. So how do they explain that?

Explain first how one can accept (or acquire, or whatever) a presupposition witout cognition of any sort.

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 06:49 PM

A presupposition cannot be evaluated by anything or that thing becomes ultimate.

Well, I guess so. IMO, all presuppositions (mine, yours, everyone's) are evaluated/accepted by our respective intellects, so our intellects are "ultimate" in a sense, in regards to presuppositions.

Sur-reality · 03-09-2003, 06:51 PM

Just want to ask how we can know anything is true. How can you suppose that god is bound by logic/that everything can be defined by logic? What if you are wrong in these facts and logic is wrong completely and in fact there is a simpler answer out there but because we try to use logic to find it we can't. Now i realize this probably smacks of begging the question or something, but consider it. Any how i'm going to start a new thread. So don't bother answering if you don't want to.

theophilus · 03-09-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Hmmm. Theophilus, where does Russell say that? I think that you, and Russell also if the context of that quote is correct, are leaving out the fact that science contains self-correcting mechanisms; mainly, the fact that the ultimate arbiter of truth is reality itself

But you're really not helped by this because you don't know what "reality" is to begin with. At least you cannot explain having such knowledge from a naturalistic/materialistic worldview. The fact that you have some sense of what is "real" gives evidence that you presume the world to be the way God's word declares it to be. If you don't realize this, consider that not all religions have the same concept of reality, e.g., hinduism.

, by experiment and observation. Science never claims absolute truth; instead of "the streets are wet, therefore it must have rained", science formulates such conclusions as "the streets are wet, therefore it probably has rained". Big difference there! Even when that probability is thought to approach 100%, there is always some room left for error, and if any repeating observation contradicts some scientific law- if the streets are wet, but careful observation indicates it has not rained- then there are searches for further explanatory theories.

If the scientific "method" is inherently flawed, i.e., based on a logical fallacy, no amount of "self-correction" changes that. Without knowing the fundamental nature of reality from the outset, science can never arrive at knowledge at all, let alone coming close to "truth."

In order to make any authoritative statement, science would have to have a comprehensive knowledge of all reality and all possiibility. I hope you will acknowledge that it doesn't. And yet, unbelieving scientists operate as if they have such knowledge. They do so because they know, although they refuse to acknowledge, the God who created them and their world and who governs it by his command.

The best that science can achieve is "operational" systems. If we observe that certain events "appear" to follow other events and we undertake actions based on that observation, we can never claim that we have "discovered" a law, even though we achieve the desired result. Hume has shown that there is no logical connection between what we preceive to be a causal connection between one event and a subsequent event.

This sort of thing is exactly what happened when Einstein refined Newtonian physics with special relativity.

This all means that though the scientific method is *not* flawless, it allows us to *approach* flawlessness- AKA truth. Humans have no other way to do this.

I think I have shown that humans in fact do have "another way" and actually operate on this theistic system and that atheistic science is no "way" at all.

And I must strenuously object to this statement-
science is littered with the remains of discarded "laws" which were subsequently found to be false

Name one! Not theories and hypotheses, mind you- those are put forth with the intent of having them hammered away at, and are only given the status of law when extensive testing by many observers show it to be a complete and accurate description of the things the law purports to describe. A law may be *refined*, as Einstein refined Newton- but to call Newton's laws "false" is just wrong. We send probes to the reaches of the solar system using Newton's laws, without the need for Einstein's refinements!

Sorry, it was nothing personal. Imprecise use of terms is always a problems. By "laws" I simply meant things which are assumed to be settled issues in science. I had in mind such things as the ether theory, the geocentric order of the universe, pre-quantum physics. All these ideas were thought to be "true" at some time. I understand that we now "know better," but there is no reason to believe that we won't "know better" in the future about things that are now held to be certain.
Besides, science can never arrive at "laws." All science can do is make statements about observed phenomenon but there is no reason to believe that they will continue to behave in the same manner.
Science is, and can never be more than, speculative.

Shadowy Man · 03-09-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

More to the point, the scientific method is based on a logical fallacy: If A then B; B therefore A. It is called "asserting the consequent." It goes like this: "if it rains, the streets will be wet; the streets are wet, therefore it must have rained." This is a rather crude example, but all scientific hypoithesis come down to the same thing.

Uh... This isn't how science is done at all.

Have you ever actually spent any time talking to scientists??

It goes like this:

"if it rains, the streets will be wet; the streets are wet. It might have rained. Or, maybe a hydrant was opened and spilled water on the street, or a water main broke.

Hmm... well, let us look for other evidence that it might have rained. We go check the barometer readings and doppler radar reports. Hmm.. no rain. Well, let's look around for any open hydrants... Ok... no open hydrants. Wait, we found reports of calls to the department of water and power that everyone in a two block radius lost water pressure yesterday at 6pm. Perhaps the water main breaking is the best explanation. Let's follow that up."

etc. etc...

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 07:15 PM

All these ideas were thought to be "true" at some time. I understand that we now "know better," but there is no reason to believe that we won't "know better" in the future about things that are now held to be certain.

Science doesn't claim to determine "truth" or "certainty". No law, theory, or other construct of science is considered "certain" or absolute. So you seem to be constructing somewhat of a strawman here.

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

03-09-2003, 06:25 PM	#122
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through science, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience. Would this not also apply to you, as in "Your presupposition is your own rationality by which you are able, through god, to arrive at true knowledge of human experience"?

03-09-2003, 06:40 PM	#124
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I'll expand on the above: Your presupposition makes knowlege impossible because it cannot move beyond the finitude and failures of your own cognition. How do you reach your presupposition? I would assume through cognition, no? Well, theo, if cognition is useless for the atheist in determining knowledge, then it's useless for the theist in determining (and defending) a presupposition and the "knowledge" gained therefrom. If cognition cannot be used by the atheist to garner knowledge, it cannot be used by the theist to garner knowledge.

03-09-2003, 06:43 PM	#125
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Because of what the bible declares about God and his ordering and government of his creation and my own existence (created in his image), I can have confidence in my senses and in my intellect as honest (though not infallible) reporters and evaluators of reality. Well, you can't read, understand and interpret the bible without cognition and ration. You're back to square one. That is why unbelievers must, in reality, borrow my worldview in order to function, because their worldview, based on and limited to their own cognition can never give knowledge. But they do have knowledge. So how do they explain that? Explain first how one can accept (or acquire, or whatever) a presupposition witout cognition of any sort.

03-09-2003, 06:49 PM	#126
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	A presupposition cannot be evaluated by anything or that thing becomes ultimate. Well, I guess so. IMO, all presuppositions (mine, yours, everyone's) are evaluated/accepted by our respective intellects, so our intellects are "ultimate" in a sense, in regards to presuppositions.

03-09-2003, 06:51 PM	#127
Sur-reality Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: knowhere Posts: 20	Just want to ask how we can know anything is true. How can you suppose that god is bound by logic/that everything can be defined by logic? What if you are wrong in these facts and logic is wrong completely and in fact there is a simpler answer out there but because we try to use logic to find it we can't. Now i realize this probably smacks of begging the question or something, but consider it. Any how i'm going to start a new thread. So don't bother answering if you don't want to.

03-09-2003, 07:15 PM	#130
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	All these ideas were thought to be "true" at some time. I understand that we now "know better," but there is no reason to believe that we won't "know better" in the future about things that are now held to be certain. Science doesn't claim to determine "truth" or "certainty". No law, theory, or other construct of science is considered "certain" or absolute. So you seem to be constructing somewhat of a strawman here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.