Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?

by dunsscot 54 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  patio34

  Hi all,

  Interesting posts--but have to admit didn't read all of dunsscot's (too long and devoid of real meaning).

  Just wanted to jump in and make one point that has been made in other terms by others. That is, if you claim something contrary to human experience (thru the senses), such as fairies in the back yard, the burden of proof is on you. No one has to disprove it.

  Likewise, the atheist is not obligated to disprove the existence of God. It is not demonstrable by every criteria that humans use. That's why faith is critical for the believer.

  Pat

  P.S. In my editing: it's not fair to say Dunsscot's posts are devoid of meaning as I didn't read them, just skimmed a couple. The accurate statement is 'they SEEMED devoid of meaning.'
• 

  SixofNine

  heuristics, now there is a word with a nebulous definition. Certainly not well suited for math, I would think. I'm unclear as to how it would be very good for philosophy, for that matter. Also, why would "heuristics" and "algorithms" be incompatable in philosophy? Is philosophy really as worthless an endeavor as Duns has been making it look?
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear six,

  You quote my submission:

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  A problem for which there exist an algorithm to solve it (sic) is said to be solvable"
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The entire point of the sceptical argument is that ultimately we reach a level where we act without any reason in terms of which we can justify our action. We act unhesitatingly but blindly
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Then you ask:

  :Please reconcile those two (1 statement + 1 more statement ;-) statements.

  I hate to be thick, but what is the point?:

  The point is that math is at the very least a form of symbolic manipulation. But we would be remiss to restrict it to the manipulation of arbitrary symbols. As we know, there are decidable or sovable propositions in mathematics, and we employ algorithms to solve such propositions. But our solutions are oftentimes so "loaded" and performed with so many preunderstandings that we begin to think math symbols inherently mean "plus" or "subtract." I am arguing that this supposition is basically erroneous.

  Astrophysicist Paul Davies, in _The Mind of God_, admittedly shows that mathematics is more than symbol manipulation. Kurt Godel demonstrated this proposition in 1931. But Godel also showed that there are "undecidable propositions" in math. Davies thus writes: "In that year [1931] the Austrian mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved a sweeping theorem to the effect that mathematical statements existed for which no systematic procedure could determine whether they are either true or false."

  Godel essentially introduced the problem of self-referentiality and demonstrated the incomplete nature of mathematics.

  The overall point I am trying to make is that thinking 2 + 2 = 4 is a BELIEF. We cannot indubitably prove that 2 + 2 actually equals 4.

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  But we need not think these signs essentially "mean" anything.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  six: Well sure we do, don't we? It's important for communication. It's important for solving problems. Especially since it works.

  Duns: When I say that + does not "essentially" mean anything, I am contending that + is an arbitrary sign. It works for the same reason that the term "cat" works. A certain speech community agrees on the use and "meaning" of a particular sign. But the community could just as well have chosen another symbol to represent addition or the creature we call a "cat".

  I hope this post cleared things up for you.

  Sincerely,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 

  dunsscot

  :Six,
  I didn't notice these quotes because don't read Duns any more.:

  Then how did you see them, brother larc?

  :Duns,

  In philosophy, there are no alogrithms, only heuristics. For the ordinary mortal, this is also true of something less complicated than philosophy, like chess.:

  Since you did not read the earlier posts, I think you miss the point of my excursion into the subject of algorithms. Duns did not say that philosophy has algorithms. I am talking about mathematics. Math does have algorithms.

  I wish you well,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 

  proplog2

  Here is an arguelog dealing with Duns Evidentialism Post.

  DUNS: As a Christian I avoid arguments from natural theology. I am
  not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative
  entity devised by human adroitness. God has given me and all
  others who love him more than enough evidence of his existence.

  PROPLOG: I too would agree that looking for evidence of God in
  nature is pointless. If God is a living person then he ought to be
  able to talk to humans in a way that humans would know that he is
  God or at least some kind of superior being. So far such an
  extraordinary revelation has not occurred.

  DUNS: Everything, even what you call "scientific proof" is a
  matter of faith.

  PROPLOG: Suppose a man claimed that Aristotle is alive today and
  that Mars is inhabited by fairies? Would it be reasonable for him
  to retort when asked for evidence in support of these claims "Well,
  what evidence do you have that the sun is going to come up
  tomorrow"? Common-sense beliefs, e.g. "the sun will come up
  tomorrow" are much more rationally supported than beliefs for which
  we have no evidence. Common-sense beliefs and belief in God are
  therefore not comparable. In our everyday lives we act upon
  assumptions which we cannot prove to be true. But we still are able
  to decide what to do on the basis of what is most probably true.

  DUNS: Let me quote Chesterton: "In so far as religion is gone,
  reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and
  authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot
  themselves be proved"

  PROPLOG: Consider trying to walk off the observation deck of the
  Empire State Building. We could have "faith" that we will fall and
  be killed or we could have "faith" that we will have an enjoyable
  walk on air. Faith can decide nothing in this situation. Yet we
  do have good reasons for NOT walking off the edge of a building.
  You, Duns, are arguing that SINCE we have to rely on a degree of
  faith in our everyday lives THEREFORE faith in ANYTHING is somehow
  justified- including belief in the existence of GOD. The fact
  remains that we do not have GOOD reasons for believing in fairies,
  unicorns or God. Faith or not, proof or not - we still have to
  decide on the basis of whether there are good reasons available for
  our beliefs.

  DUNS: But "reasons" are not "proof".

  PROPLOG: Whether or not good reasons are "proofs", they will have
  to do until proofs come along.

  DUNS: It remains that at best both common-sense claims and
  theistic claims are based on assumptions.
  PROPLOG: There is one difference. Theistic claims are based
  MERELY on assumption whereas common-sense beliefs are based on
  assumption PRECEDED by OBSERVATION. That is not just a difference
  in degree. That is a difference in kind.
  Chesterton was correct up to a certain point. He is correct in
  placing reason over religion. Common-sense beliefs are more
  fundamental than theistic beliefs. Showing that religious
  assumptions are wrong does not automatically signal the end of all
  common-sense beliefs. For example you must hold the common-sense
  belief that there exist things other than yourself if you are to
  believe that there is a God. You must believe that what is true in
  the past will continue to be true if you are to believe, from one
  second to the next that God continues to exist. If common-sense
  beliefs are unjustified, then theistic beliefs are doubly
  unjustified since they rest on common-sense beliefs.

  DUNS: ?????????
• 

  larc
• 

  SixofNine
• 

  Abaddon
• 

  Simon

  Apologies larc, SixofNine & Abaddon:

  There was a problem with the thread and I'm not sure how (yet) but your posts were unfortunately lost.

  I'll try and fins out how this happened.
• 

  SixofNine

  Thank you Simon. I would apreciate it very much if you can find that last post, as would the rest of mankind. I solved pretty much everything in it.

  It felt great, but I am wiped out, and don't have the strength to do it again.