Lesson in Argument: Critique of Dialogue with Atheist souper genyus

 


 this is a dialogue I had with an atheist on CARM the message board

Originally Posted  by souper genyus


the context of this post was an argument I made that is basically my old cosmological necessity argument. It says that some from of being is eternal and therefore, not contingent (necessary). Since this primordial being is the basis of all that is, it must be considered the ground of being.That means three of the major attributes of God actually exist and all there is is based upon them. Then we need only consider they are bound together by mind to believe in God. This is a pretty good warrant for belief. No it's not proof, it doesn't have to be proof. It warrants belief. Hey don't look know bu this is far from "no reason to believe" it's far from  the "nothing" upon which atheists think faith is based.

The indented segments attributed to me (Meta) are what I said on the board. The regular segments are what I'm saying in commentary for this post.


SG:

And, everything we observe is "contingent upon prior conditions." Whether or not this applies to the universe as a whole is a matter of contention, which means the answer is not within the scope of human knowledge. To say that there is a condition prior to all other conditions, and that condition is God, is unknowable. 

 Meta:

It's not unknowable. It's unknowable by your means. I know it. Your means are not the only means of knowing. Al thought hey may be the only means that you will accept as proof. Be that as it may I don't argue for proof but for warrant, and I think what you say about prior conditions is enough to warrant the belief.

These means of knowing to which I refer include Logic, intuitive sense such as the feeling of utter dependence, as well as experiential means such as mystical experience. They also include scientific knowledge from disciplines other than cosmology. I support a concept of global knowledge. Knowledge is reducible to just scinece. We have to make use of all the forms of knowledge we have. We discount one's that don't pan like reading tea leaves.

SG:

But you end the contingency of events to prior conditions at God, which is special pleading. Your idea is that one needs "grounding" to make claims about reality, and that "grounding" is God, or Being Itself, or Ideal and Ultimate Being. 

 Meta:

 that is not special pleading. It's still subject to the rules of logic that your assertions are subject to. It's not true that I assume that is the only possible grounding, I just don't see any other that works. to be more precise it so fits the nature of the case that I hold for God I don't see that find of fit elsewhere. I see no reason to deny it when it works.

 The atheists are trying to argue special pleading a lot these days and they don't seem to know what it means. Special pleading means my argument conforms of a special case that doesn't have to fit under the same rules as everything else. I'm saying that. Nowhere did I say "all grounding is God.k" That's BS. I don't say that. I use the same rules of logic for my arguments that I used to refute their objections. They think atheism is entitle to presumption in any argument. So if you don't give presumption they assume you are special pleading.

Of cousre I link being itself with God as does Tillich and the major Christian tradition. I have reasons for doing so. I've spelled out those reasons many times.


 SG:
This is not consistent with the view that you are proposing, a view that I propose as well—that all conditions observed are dependent upon prior conditions. Knowledge is wrought from the intelligent control of concrete conditions.

 Meta:

Sure that is consistent. I've deduced the warrant for belief from that premise, I don't base the premise upon the warrant. By "intelligent control of concrete conclusions" he means reductionism. So what he's really saying is that his ideological basis is the given for all facts and it's permissible to just lose the phenomena anytime it doesn't coordinate with his facts. That is also the Atheist fortress of facts.

what we are about to see here is the atheist question begging in action. He's going to use arguments from taxonomy ("this is metaphysics") and the genetic fallacy (that comes from idealistic assumptions).


SG:

The pursuit of knowledge assumes change, assumes prior conditions, and in fact relies upon it. These principles are "true" without a grounding in metaphysics,

 Meta:
see.


I said:

no they are not! the assume metpahiscs. your views are No  less dependent upon metaphysics that mine. weather you say "the dialectic is made of green cheese" Or "metaphysics is BS" you are making metaphysical assumptions. if you say "Metaphysics is carp" you are making a metaphsyical statement.

your ideology has staked out certain metaphysical assumptions that are cool and others that are not cool.

SG:

without appeal to self-sufficing Ultimate Being, in that they are predictive and applicable to the concrete, measurable conditions that they aim to explain. These principles explain how current conditions came to be, through change, from other conditions, and predict how they will change into other conditions in the future. Why conditions change according to these principles, in an ultimate or metaphysical sense, is not within the scope of human understanding.

 Meta:

no they don't. they don't explain it we don't know it. they certainly don't. we have no idea what brought it all about and don't try to pretend we do becasue we know we don't. you dont' know what it's made of. we don't know lots of things, none of your ideological metaphsyical assumptions can explain mystical experience or give life transformation or meet any of the epistemic criteria required to suffice as warrant for belief.

See the moves he's made? He's first secondment my whole position as "metaphysics." that in itself says "nothing you have to say matters." then tried to establish reasonable sounding rules that steak out his position as the only permissible one: reductionism. From it's a down hill coast just to use taxonomy (which is part of the genetic fallacy) so show my position comes from the forbidden realm of stuff that he doesn't deem as knowledge.


SG:

This is where we disagree and this is where I keep trying to direct the discussion, but you always redirect. Our disagreement is in the usefulness or validity of metaphysics.

 Meta:

no it's in the hidden assumptions you don't know you have which are metaphsyical. you have an implied metaphysics you don't know you have. you are forbidding the positions that ideology counters for no reason except ideological reasons.

I try to redirect it he says, in other words, if I don't agree with him I'm getting us off track! Are the assumptions me makes Metaphysical? Atheists want us to think metaphysics is just about God and unseen realms and miracles. No Heidegger says metaphysics is grouping of sense data under a single organizing principle that defines reality. That's just what these guys are doing, the scientism does it. Reductionism does it. They only allow as "knowledge" and "reality" that which they can control, that which supports their view. Anything that counts against their view they just dismiss as "beyond the pale, this is "metaphysics" it's not knowledge. That move is totalitarian.

SG:

I hold that understanding the fundamental nature of being is not within the scope of human understanding. The scope of human knowledge only contains propositions concerning concrete conditions that are contingent upon prior concrete conditions, and predictions about future conditions based upon these propositions.

 Meta:

that is no different form saying "I refuse to accept any implications but the one's that legitimate my truth regime. unless you accept my conclusions and the whole ideology that it implies then you can't have truth. I say I can. i dont' have to accept your means of knowing truth. I have a broader base for knowing than you do. you are doing the reductionist thing of cutting off the bits you can't control losing the phenomena.

see what he said? first of all if understanding the fundamental nature of being is not in the scope of human understanding what is science working toward? Why can't it be? What he really means is it's not in the scope of the aspects of knowledge that my ideology. Certainly there are such aspects that pepople feel they have come to undersatnd by various means that aer not acceptable to his view but nonetheless have demonstartion that they do impart some form of knowlege.

Mystical experience for example has a quality called "noetic" which means it imparts knowledge about reality. The proof that it has is the universality of the experience and the effects of having it such that one is transformed into a better life. That would be proof of a better understanding of the fundamental basis of being if the fundamental basis of being is about being transformed. Part and parcel of the mystical experience itself is a deep abiding sense that one has come to understand reality and the fundamental nature of being in a deep intuitive way.

Why can't this be so? All it would mean is that the scientism guys don't have the only from of knowledge. What is so unthinkable about that? Then they say "but it doesn't conform to our rules, it doesn't demonstrate it they way we want it to, which means it simply doesn't doesn't conform to their controls, that position is not all of the truth. They are totalitarian they have to feel that have all truth.

SG:

You keep assuming that I am trying to hold up a different metaphysics than yours, when in fact I am affirming strong agnosticism in reference metaphysical claims in general. Please discuss this.

 Meta:

yes of cousre you are. just don't realize what metaphysics is. you think it's just belief in God. It's not. Science is metaphysics too. you are cutting reality becuase it doesn't' your truth regime. that's metaphysics.

 In many ways he's illustrated classic symptoms of them ideologue. He has the only form of knowledge, just identifying the other guy's position as outside the turf of proper bounderies of knowledge is enough to destroy it.