sodium

I'm not sure that's the whole story. If I were to give an explanation for why you believe as you do from a materialistic stand-point, I doubt you would find it convincing evidence by itself. Lots of Christians believe that the atheistic paradigm exists because people are deceived by Satan. But few atheists are convinced, despite the demonstration that the Christian paradigm has an explanation for their own.

I think a rational change in view comes about from critical thinking. That is, not only questioning your beliefs, but questioning the arguments behind them. Critical thinking involves developing consistent standards for deciding what is a good argument, and what is not. I think that almost everyone thinks critical thinking is good in principle (although some Fundamentalists might bristle at the name), but it is sometimes not practiced.

I don't want to focus on specific arguments, but I occasionally read apologetic works, and often I'll come across an argument like, Islam must face the burden of proof against Christianity, as Christianity has historical precedence. When I read something like that, I find it hard to believe that the author intends the argument to be applied any more generally than to the one case he wants to prove. Sometimes authors, particularly authors of apologetics, create a large number of disposable rules of evidence that are advanced because they sound half-way plausible, but are never intended to be used in any other circumstance.

So, I think that someone who is concerned about believing what is true, should carefully review their own thinking for consistency, and that this is how minds can be rationally changed. Of course, it's possible to get other people's help in testing your beliefs, but no one has the time to actually convince anyone of anything. It's up to the individual to convince him or her self.

Philosoft

brent1,

Thank you for your input. I will certainly take your comments into account if topic placement becomes an issue in the future.

~Philosoft, Philosophy moderator

brent1

JP2-
not to respond point-by-point to your reply I would like to make some clarifications on my position. First of all I do affirm an objective reality that both you and I can assume is out there. And from this objective reality both you and I can make observations and extract "evidence" and the like. In fact my belief in the christian scriptures requires this assertion. I believe that God has set the framework in which we live. This framework sets the meta-narrative that both you and I live within,(whether we admit it or not) I would call this history. But within this framework (single story), there exists particular stories, your life and my life and ..... The framework, set by God, explains the unity in life, whereas the particulars would be explained by who God is as triune. I will stop there for now with the note that this is a broad sweep of things. . . .

Now what I was promoting by the "epistemological crises" approach to reasoning was not the denial of reality; but a denial of the false notion that we can appeal to "evidence" as if we are on neutral ground. Perhaps you might agree? I could "pull out of my ass" 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (this is a slight exaggeration) arguments for why God exist or why God does not exist but that only gets us to possibilities and I think that the claims of scripture are much more "scandalous" then that. (plus they would make us switch to another forum to deal with that issue). Neutral ground does not exist, as some would like us to believe, for all life is hermeneutical.(At this point I would argue that we as creatures are second interpreters whereas God is the first interpreter. Therefore all of our interpretation has already been interpreted by God; facts are not neutral but are pre-interpreted by God) We all come to the table with our assumptions and our evidence. But our evidence is grounded, if you will, on our assumptions. I may interpret the "evidence" of the fossil record, based on my assumptions, as pointing to God, while someone else, with their assumptions, may interpret the "evidence" entirely contradictory. Someone, with a naturalistic paradigm will see the same tree as me but will interpret its existence as a long random chaotic accident; I on the other hand, with the assumption that the Christian Scriptures are ultimate, will intrepret the tree that we both know is there as part of God's intended plan. One tree two interpretations.

The argument between two people then must be on the level of assumptions or paradigms. I don't think all paradigms are equal in value. In fact some do a really bad job of accounting for things. I would even say that I see my christian assumptions as ultimate until someone can explain how my paradigm is part of their own and explained by their own. X must explain not just the facts under question but the very history of my paradigm and its dealings with various anomalies. This requires trying to understand anothers view of things before attacking it; it seems to me to promote conversation; and certainly doesn't exclude thinking through the issues. It protects against labeling individuals as "______________", and using cliche arguments. It seems to promote philosophical discussion, as we are all doing here. And who knows (I would say God does, but you might not), perhaps some sets of assumptions will be redifined and clarified in the process.

So how do you account for objectivity in light of chaos? how do you get past the problem of the "one and the many"? how can you avoid subjectivity while at the same time not fall into the trap of full blown objectivity? brent

cobrashock

Brent1- I'm not going to bore you with a debate and try to lead you towards the athesim I support. Most of the rational/emperical arguments and proofs have been beat to death on this board and in classic philosophy in the classroom. This is documented all to well. What I can give you though is my own "paradigm".
I grew up wanting to be a minister and approched my college days with that in mind. Along the way in my search for the truth of the matter I bumped into a philosophy course. Now everyone walks away from such a thing with different stuff, in my case it was using a form of reverse logic to determine truths. When looking at christian apologists this way, all arguments made no sense, as does yours so far. Then I looked at scripture this way, same results. The arguments against the existance of god started to make some sense but in any case I had my doubts still. When I realized the physiological impact that religion has on the mind through studys, I made my break with theology. The overwhelming body of evidence against theology was just to massive to ignore any more.
Today I find my current thought to have relieved me of the burden of religous thought. It's quite enlightening really. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a after life and a few other christian thoughts. Unfortuately I grew up along the way and now know it's just to good to be true. The christian parallel is to communism when Ronald Reagan said that "communism is the longest, hardest road that one could take towards the establisment of a democracy."
I just Gave my 14 year old daughter, soon to be 15, her own copy of "Sophies World" by Jostein Gaarder.
Cobrashock , Ron Shockley

Clutch

I don't much see the point, here. It looks like: Suppose I was to adopt a way of thinking that rejected anything you offered as evidence; what would you do then, huh?

Answer: Talk to someone more principled, instead.

luvluv

I don't think that was accurate or called for Clutch.

You don't know this guy from Adam, whence cometh the hostitlity?

Clutch

Feel free to disagree, of course. Getting straight to the heart of things is definitely called for.

cobrashock

Clutch- I agree with you, but you must understand that in his mind he is openly seeking the truth. The issue for him is the difinition of what his truth is. So, athesim is like riding a bike for the first time. It's a leap of anti faith.
cobrashock

Clutch

I have no view on this. My aim was simply to condense the bafflegab about "paradigms" into what struck me (upon repeated readings) as its basic point.

brent1

Interesting summary of what I was doing, however I am not going to appropriate it as what I was intending to say.

The point is not what I alone am doing but it's much more radical then that. . . . it's about what we all are doing. None of us here are debating in "neutral territory", but quite the opposite. All of us come to the table with our own assumptions about the way things really are, you included. The issue then is recognizing that we do indeed have certain assumptions and then move from that starting point.

Science is not neutral observation of "facts". A good scientist is not simply a fact gatherer. Good science is more of an art, and actually is more closely linked to philosophy then some would like to admit. The naturalist scienctist approaches her field with the assumption that God does not exist (or some variation on that theme), and then proceeds to interpret all the evidence in light of that assumption. The "christian" approaches her field of science with the assumption that God does exist, and then proceeds to interpret the facts through that lense. Two perspectives, two interpretations, two acts of faith.

The issue I am bringing up is much more profound then simply what I am doing. . . . we all stand on the basis of "faith". The difference is what we have "faith" in. That's the rub. . . .

The question then is how faithful are you to interpret within your set of assumptions? If there are inconsistencies then you have got a problem. What A. MacIntyre referred to as an "epistemological crises". I am not rejecting evidence per se, I am only taking the debate to a level where perhaps progress can be made. That is to the level of assumptions. If your system is better at handling the inconsistencies and can minimize them more than mine, then I have a choice to make. But remember the inconsistencies come from within the particular system. And so the assesment takes place within the others paradigm.

Once the inconsistencies are revealed, then one can explain their own system and why it is more consistent based upon its assumptions. I just happen to believe that my faith in God (an assumption) explains reality and all other assumptions more consistent then someone else's assumption that God does not exist.

You are of faith and so am I. . . . that's my point! A good discusion then must proceed within the framework of epistemological crises and not evidential based argumentation. Evidence plays a supporting role but not the primary role; Assumptions are primary. brent