brent1

Due to the interpretive nature of evidence (scientific included), arguments based on evidence alone fail to be convincing. Atheist and theist must recognize that they inhabit a paradigm (a story) and then attempt to show others why their particualr paradigm can explain all other paradigms. Moving others from what seems to be valid to what really is valid. When one does this they bring the other person to what Alasdair MacIntyre calls an epistemological crises. It is then at this point the person in crises must decide to either be irrational and keep their paradigm or move to what "is" valid by embracing the paradigm that explains their own. I invite your response to this method. . . . but please be so kind to leave your pre-interpreted evidence at home. And why not raise the bid . . . . I'm a christian theist and I invite you to show me how your story is able to explain my own. I am even willing to give up my own. . . .

SimplyAtheistic

Well, this is quite simple really. Chrstian stories attempt to explain their universe, and through hindsight we can see they were poorly constructed stabs in the dark. They make assumptions and outright impossible claims. For example, they say man was created by god in his image, back then man was such a complex creature that this explanation was the only rational one. These days science can explain evolution and the way man has become what it is. This explains man without the extreme theories (found in the bible) that have little or no proof to substantiate them. Christians claim "Well, our theory is still possible", but the point they miss is that it is highly unlikely. It is also possible that gay monkeys created the earth as a sexual playground, but again that is highly unprobable. We must look to our evidence and draw a rational conclusion, christians would rather stick to their dream.
Jake

brent1

yes, you can certainly look to your evidence and draw your conclusions but they will only be throwaway arguments, helpful to you and those who share a similar story; but not to me or others who differ from your story. Tell me your story of things, and why your story can explain mine; then I can, so to speak, enter into your paradigm and think along with you. brent

SimplyAtheistic

Your story may differ, but it has obvious fallacies. It has little to no evidence. The big bang theory can explain the creation of our universe and world without god, and evolution can explain the creation of humans. There, does that explain your "story" ? There could be a million creation stories, the difference is that some have proof and others a total lack thereof. My theory has a substantial amount of proof.
Jake

John Page

Nice Question.

From my relativistic stance I have no trouble in acknowledging that there are other points of view (POV). The issue is then why do things seem valid from one POV and not another. The touchstone for any empistemological crisis would seem to be reality - the stuff we are able to communicate to each other about.

Pulling back from that perspective we have the issue of the human condition and how our organs of perception limit our POV. Again, as a relativist I acknowledge that all POVs exist and suggest that the "best" (or epitemologically richest) POV is that which takes into account all available facts/information and reconciles it.

I think the question then becomes "Why god?" and not "Why not god?". Here are 5 suggested pragmatic reasons Why god , followed by some disadvantages. This is how I reconcile with the concept of god, not by arguing whether the intangible beast exists or not, for such arguments as I have heard are epistemologically poor. But that's just my POV.

Finally, one must ask the question "How does our knowledge come to be?" If knowledge and understanding are the contents of our minds, then we must understand our minds before judging which knowledge is an accurate reflection of reality and which is grossly distorted through our evolved (or created!!) organs of thinking.

Cheers, John

Philosoft

FYI, the epistemological nature of this topic will keep it here in Philosophy for now, but any sort of testimony will get it punted somehwere else. brent1, if you intend to solicit personal information, you'd probably do better in General Religious Discussions.

~Philosoft, Philosophy moderator

brent1

I respect your willingness to dialogue....and yet these are some big claims that are rellying heavily on evidential lines of thinking. it sounds like you are almost making claims that have a meta-narrative ring to them. Does a "proof" hold equal weight in the eyes of everybody or simply the eye-of-the-beholder?

do you believe that your system can account for everything? good and evil? beauty and ugliness? beginning and possibly an end? particulars and universals? love and hate? knowledge and lack of?(only to mention a few) until ones system accounts for all of these (and the ones not mentioned, i.e. everything) then one cannot claim their system has superiority over mine.

what do you think?
brent

brent1

I recogize what you are saying but I wouldn't classify asking someone to tell their story as "soliciting personal information". Socrates had a pretty good carrer asking others to tell their stories....(now I am in no way comparing myself to Socrates, only his method!).

If I need to go somewhere else I will respect that, but I think it is dangerous to start seperating out "philosophy" from everyday issues. For doesn't philosophy grow out of everyday life?

I believe that our systems of belief are, as W.V.O. Quine termed, a "web". You can't seperate out one belief without affecting all your other beliefs in some way. We must think in paradigms and not one-to-one relationships. Part of the "epistemological crises" method is knowing what the other person believes and why.

When two systems of belief go head-to-head, there will be a clash, lets say in "values". We could stop there, but all we would then have is entertaining yelling matches. We must go beyond somehow....I think the way to do it is not via evidence, but through one system explaining not only all that we experience but also how all the other systems came into being. The system that can do that, is the ultimate paradigm.

By nature of the process then, I believe that knowing anothers story is important. At least then we know what we're clashing with and we avoid gross stereotyping. I hope it is clear that my intention is not to solicit, but simply to converse. brent

JP2

The issue here is whether our subjectivism precludes any possibility of reaching an objective consensus concerning the nature of what you call "evidence" or what I'd much prefer to call "nature".

Take this line for instance:

Ultimately, yes, the nature of every experience we have is going to be subjective and purely relative on the basis that we cannot transcend our own perspective, but at the same time that is not to say that "arguments based on evidence alone" cannot be convincing.

You appear to be taking a pseudo-Kantian line, arguing that experience cannot be reduced to disconnected, passive observations of phenomena and rather that our picture of the world around us if formed through "conceptualization" - that is, the active, unconscious interpretation and organisation of "phenomena" as we experience it (such as the a priori conprehension of spatiality and temporality, for instance). As such, from this line of reasoning, it would appear that our world-view is shaped not by our immediate experience of phenomena, but rather by our interpretation of it (the way we mentally organise and make sense of it) and that appears to be the line you're taking here.

Nonetheless, to dismiss what you describe as "evidence" on such grounds is to deny that - regardless of what a posteri interpretation occurs - objective phenomena do exist (unless you want to take the solopsist stance?) . For instance, the way you and I interpret the same tree - or even the way I interpret the same tree on different occasions - may well differ, but that is not to deny the tree its objective sanctity as an event or object. The tree - in-itself - merely exists, and possesses, as such, an interpretable facticity. Now our interpretation of this facticity may well differ - that is, there will be differences in the way we conceptualise it in its capacity as a given set of phenomena - but it is quite a big step to then suggest that, given our mutual subjectivity, we can therefore deny the objective value of these phenomena or not reach any common consensus about what form these essential phenomena may take.

So, given all this:

You now assert that for my particular paradigm - world-view? - to be valid, I must account for every other existent paradigm within its scope. For starters, I would argue that to do so is, for all practical purposes, impossible. My paradigm, as it stands right now, was arrived at via 20 years of unique experiences, peculiar only to me. Every single experience has, in some way, shaped it, and it would therefore be impossible to ennunciate it in its entirity or with an accuracy which renders it suitable for pragmatic exploration. Therefore, given it is nigh on impossible to put into words my own particular paradigm, how can it be expected that I can account for your own paradigm when, of your wealth of worldly experience, I know you only by 2 paragraphs of text? How can you possibly demand that be able to fit your paradigm - and that of all others - into my own, when to describe my own paradigm is a feat impossible in itself?

Having said that though, what I can do is to take certain ontological claims you make - specifically the existence/non-existence of God - and scrutinise these claims by contrasting them as part of your paradigm against my own particular paradigm.

Now, go back to what I said about phenomena before. There appears to be an implicit suggestion in your posts that each all paradigms are inherently equal, and therefore each must be addressed in the formation of one's own paradigm - and, if this is indeed what you are suggesting, then I must take issue with it. While our perspectives must ultimately be unique, let it be presumed that objective phenomena must exist, independantly of our attempts to interpret them, as I have attempted to justify earlier (if you reject this stance, then I expect a complete justification of your solopsist stance on my desk by Monday). Now, given this, it can be said that our differing paradigms differ only in our interpretation of the same set of phenomena as they exist in and of themselves - are we in agreement here? If so, in this particular instance, if we identify just one specifc, differing aspect in our particular paradigms (namely the ontological existence/capacity of "God") does boil down - I'm sure against your wishes - to an issue of "evidence", namely: which objective phenomena - which we share the commonality of having experienced (regardless of how you may argue we have "interpreted" it) - support the existence of God? Or, if you reject this stance, how else shall it be made possible to verify ontological claims without pointing to "evidence" (identification of the existence of pertinent phenomena) that support the existence of a particular event, object or being?

I'm mindful of turning this into a theological debate at this point, so I'll leave it there, except to say that in addressing specific ontological claims, it is often not necessary to take into account the paradigms of others. Certainly a comprehension of the paradigms of others may be useful in understanding why they believe certain things, but insofar as our aim is to "move to what "is"" I find it a little disturbing that you are ready to dismiss any claims concerning the existence of objective "evidence" in favour of a the world-view which posits that all world-views are equally meritorious in their validity, by virtue only of their inherent subjectivity.

Can I just ask how you believe it possible to "Mov[e] others from what seems to be valid to what really is valid" without acknowledging the inherent, objective value of phenomena in the capacity of "evidence"?

SimplyAtheistic

My system can account for these things, though it cannot fully explain everything. Again the difference between my theory and yours is the fact that my theory has evidence to support it, and is the most plausible one. My theory was developed around evidence, your theory was developed upon faith and is scrambling for evidence to support it, of which it has found little.
Jake