RE: Strong and Weak Arguments
December 30, 2016 at 1:02 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2016 at 2:13 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(My apologies in advance for the word wall)
Generally, I do not participate in threads started by believers about evolution, especially YEC. In part I don't care. I can accept pretty much any scientific finding confident that it does not undermine those doctrines which I feel are essential to the Christian faith. As the Declaration of Independence says, "...the laws of Nature and Nature's God...". I agree; the two are inseparable. I have never considered science to be at odds with faith. As such I do not see any point debating with either 1) a believer who thinks modern science (e.g. evolution) conflicts with the "clear teaching" of the Word or 2) the unbeliever who thinks science is the only means by which to attain knowledge.
I do however often take issue with the approach and/or arguments of fellow believers. I often find myself chiding them for repeating bad arguments. I can understand a certain sense of camaraderie among people with similar stances but I do wish members (believers and unbelievers alike) would call-out their compatriots more.
---
As someone with personal experience with the uncanny, I don't see personal testimony as inherently problematic. It depends on the person, how they interpret what they have experienced, and what they expect you to take away from their story. At the same time these kinds of stories are ubiquitous, part of overall human experience, so I don't think they should be thoughtlessly dismissed. It also has bearing on the so-called "weak atheist" stance, as in the following story.
My friend’s uncle was in the hospital and in critical condition. Meanwhile the uncle's truck was in my friend's driveway and the car alarm went off. Now according to my friend, the alarm sounded at the exact moment of his uncle's death. That alarm had never been known to sound before nor has it went off since then. He interpreted that as a sign. The uncle was telling the family that he had passed and that everything was alright. As for me, I caulked it up to coincidence.
My point about the story is that I didn't simply "lack belief" in his story. I was incredulous. Basically he presented me with a truth claim, specifically that his uncle's spirit had communicated with the family from beyond the grave. My "lack of belief" was in fact a judgment that his interpretation of events was not true.
The proposition that god(s) exist isn’t just a philosophical claim. It is an interpretation of the uncanny stories that have been part of human culture for as long as there have been humans. They are ubiquitous. You either believe these stories are true or not true. There is no other option. If someone believes such a story there is always a reason such as the person is honest, similar experience, cultural conformity, etc. Likewise if someone says such a story is not true he also has a reason, such as coincidence, gullibility, conflict with prior beliefs, etc.
Every mature and thoughtful person has been exposed to the proposition that god(s) exist and following that exposure no one can return to a state of innocence about the question. The minute someone says, “I don’t believe because…” they have forsaken any claim to weak atheism.
---
Now returning to my own assessment of philosophical vulnerabilities, everyone should know by now that I am a strong proponent of Thomism and the 5 Ways. Given premises , their logic is impeccable and the conclusions inevitable. So when someone says they are illogical (circularity, fallacy of composition, etc.), I know that they do not fully understand them. That does not mean they are invulnerable. These demonstrations rely on two premises: 1) the efficacy of reason and 2) the intelligibility of the world.
I am not unsympathetic to objections based on notions that could undermine either of these two premises. I take them seriously.
Looking first at the efficacy of reason, the serious objection is that human reason is simply not up to the task of discovering fundamental truths or absolutes. Since ancient times philosophers have invented many thought problems and paradoxes to demonstrate apparent shortcomings of human reason. I call this the Irrational Man stance. By its very nature this position is immune to any rational objection, just as one cannot rationally prove that reason works.
As for the intelligibility of the world, the attack has three prongs: 1) Hume’s denial of a causal principle, 2) Kant’s concept of an inaccessible noumenon, and 3) Sartre’s distinction between being-for-itself and being-in-itself. Similar to the above I think these attacks are immune to rational objection.
With respect to (1), there is no way to address the claim that some aspects of reality are simply ‘brute facts’ other than to prompt reflection on whether doing so is simply stopping short for pragmatic reasons. I think there is a legitimate debate about whether there are actually brute facts but that debate is rare on AF.
I do not think it is easy to assert that knowledge of how things actually are apart from how things appear to be is possible. That is what both (2) and (3) assert – that only what appears to be can be known. Since the 5 Ways are cosmological arguments they are extremely vulnerable to these notions even though they are mutually exclusive. The 5 Ways simply do not work if we cannot trust the evidence of the senses, i.e. that what there is an external world from which people can draw knowledge. The Thomist must refer to some ontological commitment that cannot be rationally defended. At the same time, I do not think either Kant’s or Sartre’s stance can be rationally defended either. So there is an impasse.
I do not accept the pretense that atheism is any more rational or logical that theism, given that refutation of the 5 Ways requires denying either rationality or intelligent access to a rationally ordered external reality. That doesn’t prove the reverse. It doesn’t make theism the rational option. Personally I believe that whatever philosophical stance someone takes those stances logically entail other ideas. So at root I am always left with a tacit appeal to consequences as in “if you believe X then you must accept Y as the logical conclusion of X.”
Generally, I do not participate in threads started by believers about evolution, especially YEC. In part I don't care. I can accept pretty much any scientific finding confident that it does not undermine those doctrines which I feel are essential to the Christian faith. As the Declaration of Independence says, "...the laws of Nature and Nature's God...". I agree; the two are inseparable. I have never considered science to be at odds with faith. As such I do not see any point debating with either 1) a believer who thinks modern science (e.g. evolution) conflicts with the "clear teaching" of the Word or 2) the unbeliever who thinks science is the only means by which to attain knowledge.
I do however often take issue with the approach and/or arguments of fellow believers. I often find myself chiding them for repeating bad arguments. I can understand a certain sense of camaraderie among people with similar stances but I do wish members (believers and unbelievers alike) would call-out their compatriots more.
---
As someone with personal experience with the uncanny, I don't see personal testimony as inherently problematic. It depends on the person, how they interpret what they have experienced, and what they expect you to take away from their story. At the same time these kinds of stories are ubiquitous, part of overall human experience, so I don't think they should be thoughtlessly dismissed. It also has bearing on the so-called "weak atheist" stance, as in the following story.
My friend’s uncle was in the hospital and in critical condition. Meanwhile the uncle's truck was in my friend's driveway and the car alarm went off. Now according to my friend, the alarm sounded at the exact moment of his uncle's death. That alarm had never been known to sound before nor has it went off since then. He interpreted that as a sign. The uncle was telling the family that he had passed and that everything was alright. As for me, I caulked it up to coincidence.
My point about the story is that I didn't simply "lack belief" in his story. I was incredulous. Basically he presented me with a truth claim, specifically that his uncle's spirit had communicated with the family from beyond the grave. My "lack of belief" was in fact a judgment that his interpretation of events was not true.
The proposition that god(s) exist isn’t just a philosophical claim. It is an interpretation of the uncanny stories that have been part of human culture for as long as there have been humans. They are ubiquitous. You either believe these stories are true or not true. There is no other option. If someone believes such a story there is always a reason such as the person is honest, similar experience, cultural conformity, etc. Likewise if someone says such a story is not true he also has a reason, such as coincidence, gullibility, conflict with prior beliefs, etc.
Every mature and thoughtful person has been exposed to the proposition that god(s) exist and following that exposure no one can return to a state of innocence about the question. The minute someone says, “I don’t believe because…” they have forsaken any claim to weak atheism.
---
Now returning to my own assessment of philosophical vulnerabilities, everyone should know by now that I am a strong proponent of Thomism and the 5 Ways. Given premises , their logic is impeccable and the conclusions inevitable. So when someone says they are illogical (circularity, fallacy of composition, etc.), I know that they do not fully understand them. That does not mean they are invulnerable. These demonstrations rely on two premises: 1) the efficacy of reason and 2) the intelligibility of the world.
I am not unsympathetic to objections based on notions that could undermine either of these two premises. I take them seriously.
Looking first at the efficacy of reason, the serious objection is that human reason is simply not up to the task of discovering fundamental truths or absolutes. Since ancient times philosophers have invented many thought problems and paradoxes to demonstrate apparent shortcomings of human reason. I call this the Irrational Man stance. By its very nature this position is immune to any rational objection, just as one cannot rationally prove that reason works.
As for the intelligibility of the world, the attack has three prongs: 1) Hume’s denial of a causal principle, 2) Kant’s concept of an inaccessible noumenon, and 3) Sartre’s distinction between being-for-itself and being-in-itself. Similar to the above I think these attacks are immune to rational objection.
With respect to (1), there is no way to address the claim that some aspects of reality are simply ‘brute facts’ other than to prompt reflection on whether doing so is simply stopping short for pragmatic reasons. I think there is a legitimate debate about whether there are actually brute facts but that debate is rare on AF.
I do not think it is easy to assert that knowledge of how things actually are apart from how things appear to be is possible. That is what both (2) and (3) assert – that only what appears to be can be known. Since the 5 Ways are cosmological arguments they are extremely vulnerable to these notions even though they are mutually exclusive. The 5 Ways simply do not work if we cannot trust the evidence of the senses, i.e. that what there is an external world from which people can draw knowledge. The Thomist must refer to some ontological commitment that cannot be rationally defended. At the same time, I do not think either Kant’s or Sartre’s stance can be rationally defended either. So there is an impasse.
I do not accept the pretense that atheism is any more rational or logical that theism, given that refutation of the 5 Ways requires denying either rationality or intelligent access to a rationally ordered external reality. That doesn’t prove the reverse. It doesn’t make theism the rational option. Personally I believe that whatever philosophical stance someone takes those stances logically entail other ideas. So at root I am always left with a tacit appeal to consequences as in “if you believe X then you must accept Y as the logical conclusion of X.”
