Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?

by dunsscot 54 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dunsscot

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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.

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

  :No, not really. If the above is all you are getting at, while I understand the concept (hell, a cat could understand the concept), I can't understand why a fellow human would spend one iota of precious life stuff expressing such a self evident thing.:

  That is just the problem. What is "self-evident" to some persons is not "self-evident" to others. And evidently (pun intended), the concept of arbitrariness in mathematics or language was not so self-evident to you earlier, or you would not have insisted that 2 + 2 = 4 is self-evident or in some way certain in an absolute sense. For we can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. We can only rightly believe that such is the case.

  :DO NOT, for Gods sake (if he exist), go into teaching. I'm totally serious here. You have to know that you don't have anything to offer in the way of instruction to others. Sure, you are a veritable library of quotes, but then again, so are libraries. Impressionable students won't waste time thinking a library is anything more than a tool.:

  I think it is very difficult for you to know what I have or do not have to offer in the way of instruction from a brief discussion on an ex-JW medium of communication. In fact, I am going into teaching. I have my own ideas and I am always developing my own theories further. But my personal ideas are not what is at issue now. I am trying to make the point--not prove--that we cannot "prove" anything, and that secondly, the term "self-evident" is deceptive as even my adversary Aquinas noted.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  dunsscot

  :Keyword: obstinate:

  Do you think there are times when one SHOULD be obstinate? Even in the face of putative contrary evidence?

  Duns the Scot
• 

  SixofNine

  cautiously obstinate when backed by clear evidence, yes.

  keyword: clear
• 

  Mommie Dark

  God Six of COURSE he's going into teaching! Where else but elitist academia can an asshole get paid to blow hot air?

  Of course he won't be teaching anything USEFUL or PERTINENT, but he will be pontificating in front of a captive audience, so he'll feel fulfilled even though he will probably never actually spark a single original thought in any student's head.

  Wonder which persona he'll trot out in a classroom?
• 

  dunsscot

  :cautiously obstinate when backed by clear evidence, yes.:

  Your answer is somewhat circular. First we have to define the words "clear" and "evidence." Then we have to determine the quiddity of "clear evidence." For what is clear evidence to a Mrxist is not necessarily clear evidence to a capitalist and vice versa.

  God's existence is "clear" to me. But your idea of what constitutes evidence for his existence differs from mine.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  dunsscot

  :God Six of COURSE he's going into teaching! Where else but elitist academia can an asshole get paid to blow hot air?
  Of course he won't be teaching anything USEFUL or PERTINENT, but he will be pontificating in front of a captive audience, so he'll feel fulfilled even though he will probably never actually spark a single original thought in any student's head.:

  Dear mommy,

  Is it your job to follow me around the forum nipping at my heels? I know you never have anything to offer in a positive manner. All negative, all the time.

  Mommies are supposed to be loving. Did somebody abuse you when you were younger?

  Love,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 

  dunsscot

  PROP: Unaided reason is "imagination". There is a difference between imagining a possible God and the actual existence of a real God.
  If God can't do any better than that...

  DUNS: I think you need to familiarize yourself with theological terminology before you participate in a philosophical discussion focused on God's existence. Unaided reason is not "imagination." The technical formula, "unaided reason" refers to reason that is not "aided" by the light of special revelation. It is reason that simply involves human abstraction. In natural theology, man uses his powers of natural reason to argue for God's existence, much in the same way that some argue "naturally" for the veracity of evolution.

  PROP: "The facts of Christianity" are not evidence for the existence of an actual GOD. They only express the wishful thinking of a community of believers.

  DUNS: If the "facts of Christianity" entail a divine figure who became flesh and dwelt among us, while suffering and dying an ignominious death, if the "facts of Christianity" include the notion of a God who shares in divine speech acts (both illocutionary and perlocutionary ones), if one can perceive God and such perception can conseqiently produce perceptual belief--then "the facts of Christianity" are not simply the wishful thoughts of a "community of believers."

  PROP: Part of our experience is our scientific knowledge of inertia. Since we don't see anything in space that is likely to interfere with the momentum of the earth and sun therefore it is a very reliable belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Of course to be completely accurate the sun will be revolved into view because it doesn't actually rise. You have nothing to justify belief in GOD.

  DUNS: Our "experience" could be the result of certain a priori mental categories. Kant suggested that we necessarily think in terms of space and time. But we do not really know what the world is like in itself. Thus Kant's postulation of the Ding-an-zich or the Dinge-an-zich. If we are "locked up in our minds," then beliefs involving space and time merely deal with the way the world appears (not the way the world is in itself). We cannot really know if the world is really like we think it is.

  As far as any justification I may have for God's existence, let us just say that I have as much justificatory evidence for God's existence as I have for my wife's existence.

  PROP: You state an interesting IF... If God communicates with us... then the fairie comparison is misleading." The reason the fairie comparison ISN'T misleading is because God DOESN'T communicate with us.

  DUNS: How do you know? Maybe he has not communicated with or shown himself to you. Evidently you have never heard divine locution. But some of us have. What is more, every human seems to possess the sensus divinitatis. I know that I think I sure possess the SD.

  PROP: Your dismissal of the reliability of gravity is special pleading. The "other minds" problem is not a problem to people with common-sense. We at least know that there are other "brains". And we know what human brains do.

  DUNS: At least, you think you know what brains do. But I can almost guarantee you have not read the literature, even the scientific literature, on the connection between the brain and the mind. Descartes left a problem with his descendants that has yet to be satisfied in an adequate manner. Richard Restak's _The Mind_ especially shows the difficulties with trying to solve the mind-body problem.

  I'll answer your other points later.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  larc

  Hello Duns,

  I have some thoughts on the subject of teaching and on the subject of philosophy.

  First of all, I think teaching is the greatest job there is. You get paid for what you like to do, i.e., exploring ideas and sharing them with others. I assume that when you start teaching, you will teach an Intro. class to a mixed group, re: their majors. Having done this (Pscyh. to Engineers), I know this can be a tough audience. Some love it, but others hate it and only are there because it is a requirment. I think it is important in the first week to try to show the relevance of the subject to their lives. For philosophy, I think it could relate to the excitement of exploring new ideas, and the value in any endeavor of undertanding logic, it's use, misuse, and logical errors, both intended and unintended. I think these are important ideas for all students.

  A book I found useful was, The Art of Teaching", by William James. Although it is about a hundred years old, it is very good and of timeless value.
• 

  SixofNine

  For what is clear evidence to a Mrxist is not necessarily clear evidence to a capitalist and vice versa.

  Given that the Marxist and the capitalist are both of reasonable intelligence, why should clear evidence be unclear to either? I am only too painfully aware of our own emotional limitations, having been a faithful JW for my entire life, but I don't view them as a good excuse for making most determinations.

  Also, you said:

  Then we have to determine the quiddity of "clear evidence."

  I don't understand that statement, could you explain?
• 

  dunsscot

  PROP: As far as Berkeley goes - again like Pascal who cares. So what if Berkeley is incoherent.

  DUNS: Who said Berkeley is incoherent. In what way is his theory of knowledge incoherent? Can you tell me why you think his theory lacks coherence?

  PROP: You conclude (or continue but I think you are concluding) IF God is timeless... That is a far cry from SINCE God is timeless... Anything you have said about God is imagined. One mans "imagined" God is no better than another man's "imgained" God.

  DUNS: You are the one that assumed God lives from minute to minute. However, I simply pointed out that God--if he exists--is not necessarily within time. Anselm and Augustine both believed that God is outside of time and that he created chronos when he brought forth the universe. So your criticism would not apply to the God of Augustine or Anselm.

  Furthermore, when you insist on calling my God or anyone else's, an imagined God (based on your own personal episteme)--I think your epistemological hubris shines through quite clearly for all to see. At one time in his life, Carl Sagan wrote that one cannot disprove the existence of God. Sagan himself did not believe in God. But he (at one time anyway) was well aware of his epistemological limits. Maybe my God is imagined. But I think there is a most perfect, exalted and eternal being who created the entire cosmos and is responsible for clear and distinct ideas subsisting in the mind. This God is "with me" as I walk through the valley of deep shadows. He has communicated with me through his spirit, his Word, and the sensus divinitatis.

  PROP: I agree that imagining there is a God is no different from imagining that 2+2 = 4. So what. Some of us don't believe math has a necessary relationship with reality. We can live without mathematics, logic, and all the other imaginary stuff.

  DUNS: Who is talking about imagination? My point is that 2 + 2 = 4 is a belief. I never said that people "imagine" 2 + 2 = 4 and I have not contended it is a false proposition. I have only argued that one cannot prove the truthfulness of the proposition. What is more, I would like to see you do without math and logic for one putative day of your seeming and transient existence.

  PROP: I believe in the spirit of philosophy - "seeing". Thinking is not the same as sensing. Duns, your problem is that you are a "thinker" not a "seer". A little bit of ordinary vision would organize a lot of the data you've transplanted from other peoples imaginations.

  DUNS: It is possible that everything we see is simply a provisional illusion or a mere appearance of what is real. Our senses often deceive us in simple things like the taste of honey or the sound of a voice. The senses are not worthy of our trust. The very "theory" (seeing) you are espousing is so loaded with assumptions, it simply illustrates my point in yet another way.

  Duns the Scot