SeaKayaker

Bd-from-kg and Kachana

I am sorry for the delay and my time is still limited, so I will not be able to provide as detailed a response as I would like, but I do have some comments on what you wrote. In your post you say that:
This sounds similar to what the Christian presuppositionalist says (which, I presume, you intend). Therefore, I would ask that you continue along the same lines that I do, which would be to demonstrate the consistency of your worldview and inconsistency of competing worldviews. I think that, in doing this, I ask you to test your worldview the same way that I test mine, which, I expect, you will find fair. As I do not think that you will find Innerianism internally consistent, although you would have to make up a lot of things as you went, so if you were careful it may come close to working, I think that we can say that Innerianism is not the true worldview.

Does this seem like a fair way to evaluate the worldview you provide and its claims? I am trying to be consistent in the standards I apply to all worldviews (including my own), so do you think that this method works?

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

Case,

Thanks for your response. You say that, at least for you, However, if my argument that neutrality is impossible is sound, your agnosticism is not a suspending of judgment. Your agnosticism is judgment, judgment that God does not exist. If the Christian God, the transcendent Creator of the universe Who is immanently involved in His creation, exists, such a position is denying His authority. Such an action to One having with total authority and control merits punishment. Hence, if the Christian God exists, the agnostic is really an enemy of Him. If not, the agnostic is just fine. My point is again that neutrality is impossible. You say that you are an agnostic because you are suspending judgment, but I tell you that you are doing nothing of the sort; if God exists, you are sinning against Him, but if He does not exist, you are being sensible.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

David Gould

SeaKayaker,

I am interested in your means of evaluating world views.

Why do you choose internal consistency?

Is that a neutral position or is it something that becasue you already have a position on this issue (God exists) you are forced to choose.

Point out to me the inconsistency in this world view:

Everything that happens has as its ultimate cause my subconscious mind. It is not possible for any other being to recognise this fact as true, no matter what they may pretend. In fact, even I cannot recognise this fact as true. However, it is true.

Where is the internal inconsistency?

bd-from-kg

SeaKayaker :

It seems strange to see you referring to “what the Christian presuppositionalist says” as if you were talking about someone else. Your position is Christian presuppositionalism pure and simple. It’s what I call “weak” presuppositionalism since it claims only that, since there is no objective, neutral basis for evaluating competing worldviews, presupposing Christianity to be true is just as rational as presupposing some other worldview to be true. Unlike “strong” presuppositionalism it does not make the far stronger claim that all other world views are inconsistent, so that in the final analysis presupposing the truth of Christianity is the only rational choice.

You’re saying that, since my position in some ways resembles weak Christian presuppositionalism, you expect me to modify it so that it resembles strong Christian presuppositionalism. Why do you think this is a reasonable expectation? In general, why should that fact that position A resembles position B in some ways make it reasonable to expect it to resemble position B in other ways as well?

Your position is that there is no position of neutrality from which competing worldviews can be objectively evaluated. Now you’re asking me to test my world view in the same way that you test yours. But this would necessarily mean evaluating it from the standpoint of your worldview. I certainly don’t find this “fair”. I would ask you instead to evaluate your worldview from the standpoint of mine. That’s my idea of “fair”. And I assure you that the Yinner states unequivocally that your worldview is wrong and mine is right. Case closed.

In what way is it internally inconsistent?

Supposing that this were true, what of it? Are you under the delusion that the early members of the Jesus cult did not have to make up a lot of stuff as they went along in order to create a theology that “came close” to working (i.e., to being internally consistent)? Even physicists have found it necessary to make stuff up as they went along to make their theories internally consistent. (Case in point: renormalization in QED.) So what?

Amazingly, you offer this non-argument without even offering a shred of evidence that Innerianism is, or ever was, internally inconsistent in the first place.

A textbook example of a non sequitur. Not only have you offered no arguments whatever as to why it might be unreasonable to believe that Innerianism is the true worldview, but you have explained eloquently why there can be no such reasons. (To wit: “the concept of knowing something presupposes a worldview”, and for this and other reasons “an impartial evaluation of ... two worldviews [is] impossible”.) Now, having proclaimed that there is no objective, “neutral” way to arrive at such a conclusion, you declare that it can be objectively concluded that Innerianism is not the true worldview.

There would seem to be an internal inconsistency in your worldview.

What "way" are you talking about? So far I've seen nothing by way of a methodology for evaluating competing worldviews other than the criterion of internal consistency. And according to your theory even this criterion derives from your own worldview. If another worldview rejects consistency as a criterion, how do you justify applying it to that worldview?

It's you who have declared that this method doesn't "work". Whatever standards you apply will necessarily derive from your own worldview, so even if you apply them "consistently" (another criterion that derives from your own worldview and need not be accepted by those with other worldviews) the most that you could show in principle is that your worldview is superior according to its own standards of evaluation.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Seakayaker:

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You now claim to have "tested" your own worldview, but you have also claimed that any attempt to test Christianity is sacriligious because it places human reasoning above God. A key (and hypocritical) feature of Christian presuppositionalism is that testing it is forbidden.

So did you test it, or not? If so, how do you justify the use of fallible human reasoning to test God? Is such a test permissible only if you have decided that the result must be "God is real"? How is this a test?

HRG

Please explain to us how one can deny the authority of a being without believing that said being exists.

Regards,
HRG.

case

To be honest, I'm not so sure that complete neutrality can ever be attained. But in the case that you present, you seem to bifutricate the issue: either the Christian God exists, and I sin, or he does not exist, and it doesn't matter.
Yet I haven't said that I don't believe in God; only that I can't be certain that he does, or does not, exist. I think neutrality in this instance is relative to who is defining it. I would call myself neutral on the issue, but to a Christian I am denying God, and therefore am passing judgement.

SeaKayaker

HRG,

If you believe that something does not exist, you will not believe that you are under its authority. For instance, if you deny that invisible pink unicorns exist, then you would not believe that you are under their authority.

Case

Well, I would not consider p v ~p an either-or fallacy. If the Christian God exists, it follows ab forte that you are sinning against Him by not confessing this. If He does not exist, you are fine (except for maybe looking a bit foolish for considering that He could exist).

You see three options when looking at this question: belief that God exists, undecided, and belief that God does not exist. If God does not exist, these are all valid (although the first is false) beliefs. However, if God does exist, anything short of confessing Him as Lord is rebellion against Him. Remaining within the Christian worldview, since fallen man is an enemy of God, this reflects in all of man’s faculties, including his reasoning, for which reason human reasoning will not conclude (in a sound manner) that God exists. A person can only be neutral between two issues if both sides of the issue can consider him neutral. For instance, if I might be liable to consider neutral a judge who is biased in my favor. However, my opponent would be quick to say that the judge is not neutral. Since both sides do not consider the judge neutral, he is not neutral. In the same way, since both sides in this issue (Christianity and agnosticism) cannot agree that the agnostic is neutral, we cannot say that he is neutral.

All,

To clear up any confusion, this is only an argument for the impossibility of neutrality. I am not trying to get into a full-blown discussion on the presuppositional method. Thus, what I say is just an appeal to all people (Christians and non-Christians) to see that a person cannot directly test Christianity from a stance of agnosticism claiming to be neutral. This can feed into a presuppositional argument, but that is not my current goal.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Panta Pei

SeaKayaker claimed:

"To clear up any confusion, this is only an argument for the impossibility of neutrality. I am not trying to get into a full-blown discussion on the presuppositional method. Thus, what I say is just an appeal to all people (Christians and non-Christians) to see that a person cannot directly test Christianity from a stance of agnosticism claiming to be neutral. This can feed into a presuppositional argument, but that is not my current goal."

They call this 'crawfishin' where I come from


Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!

~ Steve

Jack the Bodiless

But the same can be said about any proposition. Has there ever been anyone who is truly neutral about round-Earthism versus flat-Earthism? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, we usually accept that it's possible to set aside prejudice and weigh up the evidence for the shape of the Earth in a dispassionate manner to form a conclusion. The pre-existence of a bias on this issue does not automatically invalidate any possible conclusion. AFAIK, ony Christian presuppositionalists attempt to claim that a pre-existing bias is of overwhelming importance, and absolutely determines whether "correct" reasoning is even possible at all.