Answering Bradley Bowen on Priestly child abuse
No vacation for the neurotic, (me). On SOP Bowen makes a simplicity formulation God let;s something bad happen so there is no God,I think my theory of FWD would help shed light.
Soteriologcal Darma
The Free Will Defense is offered by Christian apologists as an answer to any sort of atheist argument such as the problem of pain or the problem of evil. The argument runs something like: God values free will because "he" ("she"?) doesn't want robots. The problem with this approach is that it often stops short in analysis as to why free will would be a higher value than anything else. This leaves the atheist in a position of arguing any number of pains and evil deeds and then crying that God had to know these things would happen, thus God must be cruel for creating anything at all knowing the total absolute pain (which usually includes hell in most atheist arguments) would result from creation.
The apologists answers usually fail to satisfy the atheist, because in their minds noting can outweigh the actual inflicting of pain. Something atheists evoke omnipotence and play it off against the value of free will, making the assumption that an "all powerful God" could do anything, thus God should be able to cancel any sort of moral debt, make sin beyond our natures, create a pain free universe, and surely if God were all loving, God would have done so.
The better twist on the free will defense would be to start from a different position. We should start with the basis for creation, in so far as we can understand it, and then to show how the logical and non self contradictory requirements of the logic of creation require free will. What is usually missing or not pointed out is the necessity of free will in the making of moral choices. This is the step that atheists and Christian apologists alike sometimes overlook; that it is absolutely essential in a non-self contradictory way, that humanity have free will. Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God's omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!
Before moving to the argument I want to make it clear that I deal with two separate issues: the problem of pain (not a moral issue--tornadoes and diseases and the like) becasue it doesn't involve human choice. Pain, inflicted by accident and nature is not a moral issue, because it involves no choices. Thus I will not deal with that here. I am only concerned in this argument with the the problem of evil that is, the problem of moral choice. The free will defense cannot apply to makes where the will does not apply.
Basic assumptions
There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.
(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.
The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.
(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.
That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.
(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.
The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.
The argument would look like this:
(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.
(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).
(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices
(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.
This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.
This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:
(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.
(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us
(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.
(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.
In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.
This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.
Objection:
One might object that this couldn't outweigh babies dying or the horrors of war or the all the countless injustices and outrages that must be allowed and that permeate human history. It may seem at first glance that free will is petty compared to human suffering. But I am advocating free will for the sake any sort of pleasure or imagined moral victory that accrues from having free will, it's a totally pragmatic issue; that internalizing the value of the good requires that one choose to do so, and free will is essential if choice is required. Thus it is not a capricious or selfish defense of free will, not a matter of choosing our advantage or our pleasure over that of dying babies, but of choosing the key to saving the babies in the long run,and to understanding why we want to save them, and to care about saving them, and to actually choosing their saving over our own good.
In deciding what values outweigh other values we have to be clear about our decision making paradigm. From a utilitarian standpoint the determinate of lexically ordered values would be utility, what is the greatest good for the greatest number? This would be determined by means of outcome, what is the final tally sheet in terms of pleasure over pain to the greatest aggregate? But why that be the value system we decide by? It's just one value system and much has been written about the bankruptcy of consequentialist ethics. If one uses a deontological standard it might be a different thing to consider the lexically ordered values. Free will predominates because it allows internalization of the good. The good is the key to any moral value system. This could be justified on both deontolgoical and teleological premises.
My own moral decision making paradigm is deontological, because I believe that teleological ethics reduces morality to the decision making of a ledger sheet and forces the individual to do immoral things in the name of "the greatest good for the greatest number." I find most atheists are utilitarians so this will make no sense to them. They can't help but think of the greatest good/greatest number as the ultaimte adage, and deontology as empty duty with no logic to it. But that is not the case. Deontology is not just rule keeping, it is also duty oriented ethics. The duty that we must internalize is that ultimate duty that love demands of any action. Robots don't love. One must freely choose to give up self and make a selfless act in order to act from Love. Thus we cannot have a loved oriented ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.
The choice of free will at the expense of countless lives and untold suffering cannot be an easy thing, but it is essential and can be justified from either deontolgoical or teleological perspective. Although I think the deontologcial makes more sense. From the teleological stand point, free will ultimately leads to the greatest good for the greatest number because in the long run it assumes us that one is willing to die for the other, or sacrifice for the other, or live for the other. That is essential to promoting a good beyond ourselves. The individual sacrifices for the good of the whole, very utilitarian. It is also deontolgocially justifiable since duty would tell us that we must give of ourselves for the good of the other.
Thus anyway you slice it free will outweighs all other concerns because it makes available the values of the good and of love. Free will is the key to ultimately saving the babies, and saving them because we care about them, a triumph of the heart, not just action from wrote. It's internalization of a value system without which other and greater injustices could be foisted upon an unsuspecting humanity that has not been tought to choose to lay down one's own life for the other.
Objection 2: questions
(from "UCOA" On CARM boards (atheism)
Quote:
In addition, there is no explanation of why god randomly decided to make a "moral universe".
Why do you describe the decision as random? Of course all of this is second guessing God, so the real answer is "I don't know, duh" But far be it form me to give-up without an opinion. My opinion as to why God would create moral universe:
to understand this you must understand my view of God, and that will take some doing. I'll try to just put it in a nut shell. In my view love is the background of the moral universe. The essence of "the good" or of what is moral is that which conforms to "lug." But love in the apogee sense, the will to the good of the other. I do not believe that that this is just derived arbitrarily, but is the outpouring of the wellspring of God's character. God is love, thus love is the background of the moral universe because God is the background of the moral universe.
Now I also describe God as "being itself." Meaning God is the foundation of all that is. I see a connection between love and being. Both are positive and giving and turning on in the face of nothingness, which is negativity. To say that another way, if we think of nothingness as a big drain pipe, it is threatening to **** all that exits into it. Being is the power to resist nothingness, being the stopper in the great cosmic drain pipe of non existence.
The act of bestowing being upon the beings is the nature of God because God is being. Those the two things God does because that's what he is, he "BES" (um, exists) and he gives out being bestowing it upon other beings. This is connected to love which also gives out and bestows. So being and love are connected, thus the moral universe is an outgrowth of the nature of God as giving and bestowing and being and loving.
Quote:
Thus the question isn't really answered. Why does god allow/create evil? To create a "moral universe". Why? The only answer that is given is, because he wants to. Putting it together, Why does god allow/create evil? Because he wants to?
In a nut shell, God allows evil as an inherent risk in allowing moral agency. (the reason for which is given above).
There is a big difference in doing something and allowing it to be done. God does not create evil, he allows the risk of evil to be run by the beings, because that risk is required to have free moral agency. The answer is not "because he wants to" the answer is because he wants free moral agency so that free moral agents will internatize the values of love. To have free moral agency he must allow them to:
(1)run the risk of evil choices
(2) live in a real world where hurt is part of the dice throw.
objection 3:
Originally Posted by Darth Pringle
Yes it obviously is. This is anther one of my "caaaAAAAAAaaasy" Idea tha NOOOOOOO body would eVVER consider!'
(1) If God is real, then God created the world (why he's called "God")
(2) If God is real and created the world we can assume that God is good an axiom of belief and as an empirical conclusion drawn postorori from the sense of the numinous.
(3) If God created the universe we assume he's smart.
(3) if God created the world (and he's smart) and if God is good, then he must have created the world with a calculation of good vs. evil in mind.
(4) Given what's been said above if we assume God is real we just assume he knows best based upon the calculation and had tabulated the results and found that creation is worth it.
see my answers to atheist attacks on this idea in my essay: "Twelve Angry Stereotypes"
page 2 (Pain and Short Lives)
44 comments:
I read Bowen's argument as basically a Bayesian one along the following lines:
The Catholic Church holds not only that a God fitting a particular general description exists, but also that this being works through the Church - that God is more present or active in the Catholic Church than he is otherwise. Given this claim, the scope and scale of the abuses that have come to light are surprising - they're not what one would expect. So the abuse scandal is an extra concentrated variant of the argument from evil. We can summarize it as follows:
1. If there is a God fitting the Catholic description (that uses the Church as a special vehicle to work its will), then there should be fewer instances of moral evil among core members of the Church (especially priests) than in the general population.
2. There are not fewer instances of such moral evil among core members of the Church.
3. Therefore, there is no God fitting the Catholic description.
So I don't think Bowen's argument should be charitably taken to argue against the existence of God, as such, but more particularly against the existence of a God who works specially through the Catholic Church. It undercuts any claims of Catholic exceptionalism.
Also, I think the 1st premise should be taken as a kind of Bayesian claim: abuse is more surprising on the hypothesis that the Church is God's chosen institution than on the hypothesis that it is a purely human creation. To respond to it, therefore, the Catholic needs to defuse the surprisingness of abuse given the Church's special status. The problem, as I see it, is that it will be difficult to maintain both: (a) Priests are no better, morally, than anyone else, and (b) the Church has favored status among human institutions as far as transmitting God's will goes. Many Christians continue to maintain that belief in God makes one more likely to behave morally than nonbelief does. They widely accept that clergy can reasonably be expected to behave morally at a statistically higher rate than non-clergy. The abuse scandal threatens this viewpoint. It paves the way for the further question: "If priests are no more moral than anyone else, why should we think they are any wiser than anyone else in other matters?"
Interestingly enough, I think the Catholic priests I know would agree that priests are no better than anyone else, but many of the lay Catholics I know would take offense at the suggestion. But I think the core problem remains: Are there any good reasons at all to think that God's influence or guidance is to be seen within Catholicism (or any religious denomination, for that matter)?
I think that people with certain sexual problems may be more likely to be drawn to certain professions, such as the priesthood or sports coaching. The priesthood is particularly attractive because it offers this cover, this institutional protection, and also the inviolability of being regarded as God's representative. So I'm not defending the Church, obviously, but on the contrary saying that there's institutional corruption, and this is a big part of why it offers such a big attraction to people with certain sexual deviancies (maybe). But as far as individual proclivities to sin, it's complicated by these factors. Even if God did work through through the individual to mitigate sin, it might be offset by these other factors.
1. If there is a God fitting the Catholic description (that uses the Church as a special vehicle to work its will), then there should be fewer instances of moral evil among core members of the Church (especially priests) than in the general population.
2. There are not fewer instances of such moral evil among core members of the Church.
3. Therefore, there is no God fitting the Catholic description.
Eric premise 2 is absurd. There only about 7% at most of all Preexists accused to such abuse, that's priests not all members/
Unproved assumptions that must be met for the argent to work
1. define core member
2.prove priest's evil so much more devastating than ordinary lay members evil.
3. at most it disproves the speical nature of RCC that must be disroved
Jim has good point,I've heard it said that many of them become priests thinking that priesthood will cure their problem.
How are we Prots supposed to take the argument? what are we chopped liver?
(chopped liver, mmmmmmmmm)
"Eric premise 2 is absurd."
Is it? Is there evidence that priests are statistically more likely to behave morally than people in the general population?
but the argument here is that the child abuse actions of the priests indicate no God,but there's no real reason why it should indicate that specifically given the small number of priests who are guilty.
Come on this is the kind of argument that when I was young man in college would have been laughed at. Why should God act on this as opposed to to other things? who says he isn;t? How do you know the investigation wasn't brought about by divine action?
why don;t protestants figure into this?
Joe, the argument is tackling Catholicism specifically. A protestant might very well like the argument since they'd agree that the Catholic Church is not a vehicle used by God to work its will, or at least is not THE vehicle used by God to work its will. You almost recognize this by stating that the argument at best affects Catholics, but the "at best" shows that you don't actually understand Eric's interpretation of Bradley's argument.
It's worth noting that the argument never says evil done by priests is more devastating than evil done by ordinary Church members. Rather, it says the number of instances of evil among the core Church members is not fewer than the number of instances of evil among the general population. i.e., if the number of instances of evil among the general population = 10, then premise 2 says that the number of instances of evil among core Church members is equal to or greater than 10 (current statistics suggest that priest instances of molestation in particular are at least equal to the number of instances of molestation among the general population, so premise 2 seems plausible).
Blogger Ryan M said...
Joe, the argument is tackling Catholicism specifically. A protestant might very well like the argument since they'd agree that the Catholic Church is not a vehicle used by God to work its will, or at least is not THE vehicle used by God to work its will. You almost recognize this by stating that the argument at best affects Catholics, but the "at best" shows that you don't actually understand Eric's interpretation of Bradley's argument.
I understand that Bayes can't be applied to God. It's a mistake to think it can, which apparently is something you guys don't understand..
It's worth noting that the argument never says evil done by priests is more devastating than evil done by ordinary Church members. Rather, it says the number of instances of evil among the core Church members is not fewer than the number of instances of evil among the general population. i.e.,
why should it be? I'm not sure that's not just another way of saying what I said
if the number of instances of evil among the general population = 10, then premise 2 says that the number of instances of evil among core Church members is equal to or greater than 10 (current statistics suggest that priest instances of molestation in particular are at least equal to the number of instances of molestation among the general population, so premise 2 seems plausible).
why should we think saints are any less sinful or that they do evil less than other people? That is a theological question nd a debatable one.
Joe Hinman wrote:
"why should we think saints are any less sinful or that they do evil less than other people?"
Here you seem to grant premise 2 of my reconstruction, implying that it is premise 1 where defensive energies should be focused. This is actually exactly what I suggested. As I said, the Catholic priests I know would be happy enough to accept that priests are no better (morally or intellectually) than anyone else. This is why I think the best Catholic defense against my reconstruction of Bowen's argument will involve insisting that the Church is perfect, while the human beings who occupy the different roles of the Church are not. This, of course, requires considerable defense and explanation from the Catholics as to just what "perfect" turns out to mean.
p 2 There are not fewer instances of such moral evil among core members of the Church.
Here you seem to grant premise 2 of my reconstruction, implying that it is premise 1 where defensive energies should be focused. This is actually exactly what I suggested.
It's a complicated issue. The reasom I said it was absurd is not because Christians obvious sin less than non-Christians, they don't. But because what is absurd is thinking that there is some tell tail key in behavior that is indicative of no God.Or that makes God less probable. If anything sin makes God more probable even if it is Christian sin.
As I said, the Catholic priests I know would be happy enough to accept that priests are no better (morally or intellectually) than anyone else. This is why I think the best Catholic defense against my reconstruction of Bowen's argument will involve insisting that the Church is perfect, while the human beings who occupy the different roles of the Church are not. This, of course, requires considerable defense and explanation from the Catholics as to just what "perfect" turns out to mean.
I don't think that would be incomparable with what I argue. The measure of perfection in the church is not just the behavior of members,
About the whole concept of makimng God's existence less probable based upon anomalies or what one finds anomalous to Go;s existence,we can just do the Kuhn thin. As long as the anomalies are absorbed into The paradigm it's ok. But I can go one better. The whole idea of using what one finds anomalous as a evidence agaisnt God is like saying we know there are no spies in the state department because no state department employee that we observe upon exhibit any behavior we expect to find spies exhibiting.
Of course the job of a spy is to not exhibit such behavior,
The whole idea of using what one finds anomalous as a evidence agaisnt God is like saying we know there are no spies in the state department because no state department employee that we observe upon exhibit any behavior we expect to find spies exhibiting.
- Hmmm. I think one of the difficulties a skeptic faces when presenting an argument in this forum is your tendency to interpret his arguments as being much more simplistic than they really are. As we all understand, a good spy doesn't go around in a trench coat, wearing a secret decoder ring on his finger. And so, that's not the behavior we should be looking for. Rather, it would be more fruitful to use more sophisticated means to determine, for example, whether our adversaries are able to obtain our secrets, and then try to narrow down the means by which they might do that. And this is analogous to the arguments about God's existence. If there is no evidence of it by looking for telltale signs that really would be expected (the so-called "trace" that you so often refer to), then there might be good reason to think that there is no spy in our midst.
Hmmm. I think one of the difficulties a skeptic faces when presenting an argument in this forum is your tendency to interpret his arguments as being much more simplistic than they really are. As we all understand, a good spy doesn't go around in a trench coat, wearing a secret decoder ring on his finger. And so, that's not the behavior we should be looking for.
you can't reason from the world to God so you can't reason from the world to no God.
Rather, it would be more fruitful to use more sophisticated means to determine, for example, whether our adversaries are able to obtain our secrets, and then try to narrow down the means by which they might do that. And this is analogous to the arguments about God's existence. If there is no evidence of it by looking for telltale signs that really would be expected (the so-called "trace" that you so often refer to), then there might be good reason to think that there is no spy in our midst.
that is to analogous to the argent, that is the same as admitting you can;t reason from the appearance of the world to God.
Doesn't matter how complex, such arguments can be,they all depend upon the one lych pin of reasoning from the world to God/not God
Doesn't matter how complex, such arguments can be,they all depend upon the one lych pin of reasoning from the world to God/not God
- That's what Aquinas did.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Doesn't matter how complex, such arguments can be,they all depend upon the one lych pin of reasoning from the world to God/not God
- That's what Aquinas did.
That was not his biggest mistake,as we all know all that he wrote was as straw. he said so himself. I don't take his argument as direct demonstration of God but only as warrant for belief,
If you can't reason from the worlds to concept X, it's probably because concept X is unreasonable.
then you admit there must be God
The world provides the basis for our reasoning. Logic itself is a formalization of the "rules" we learn from observing how things work in our world. You can't reason (by using valid logic) from what is observed in the world to a particular concept or conclusion unless that concept follows logically. But if you choose to abandon valid logic, then you can conclude anything at all.
Sure we apply rules of logic to specific qualia otherwise logic is just without traction. It has to have specific data to deduce from. That does not mean,however, that we can reason from the world to any conclusion we wish.Some things are beyond our ability to understand.But as I say if we can reason from the appear of the world to the existence of God then there must be a God because the world really looks designed.
When you say "You can't reason (by using valid logic) from what is observed in the world to a particular concept or conclusion unless that concept follows logically. But if you choose to abandon valid logic, then you can conclude anything at all," are you thinking that there is some a priori logical reason why God can't be logically construed from the nature of the world? That would be absurd since there are many different ways in which we can reason from the world to God,there is no inherent logical problem with kibble in God. There are a priori reasons to believe in God.There is no logical reason why there can't be a God.
Even though we can't reason from the appearance of the world to the existence or lack there of there are good resins why the nature of the world dose warrant belief.
are you thinking that there is some a priori logical reason why God can't be logically construed from the nature of the world?
- Not in the least. On the contrary, what I'm saying is that ANY logical conclusion is the inevitable consequence of the premises that lead to it - and the truth of premises must be based on what we observe in the world. And there is no truly a priori premise. Those things that we regard as intuitive truths are really learned from our experience in the world.
There is no empirical basis for belief in God. As you said, "you can't reason from the world to God." I agree. It's because the observable information we have does not include God. If people want to make an argument based on design, for example, their argument must include a premise (usually unstated) that only God could create the world as we see it, and that premise is based on an a priori belief that has no empirical justification. We know from scientific investigation that unintelligent nature is quite capable of producing the world as we see it. We even have a pretty good understanding of how that happens.
Any a priori beliefs we have should be examined carefully to see where they come from, and whether they are really justified. It could be the case that they are based on observation, even if we aren't aware of it. Such is the case with the rules of logic, for example. But other beliefs that we regard as a priori may really be just something we have been told, and that we have believed since before we had any ability to reason - something that we can't actually justify.
Meta
are you thinking that there is some a priori logical reason why God can't be logically construed from the nature of the world?
Blogger im-skeptical said...
- Not in the least. On the contrary, what I'm saying is that ANY logical conclusion is the inevitable consequence of the premises that lead to it - and the truth of premises must be based on what we observe in the world. And there is no truly a priori premise. Those things that we regard as intuitive truths are really learned from our experience in the world.
Meta
So you think a is non a is purely a matter of observation? If you observe it a thousand times how do you know without observation that it wont be different on the 1001 time?
Ut's absurd to say there is no a prori truth it; demonstrable priori. Moreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.
There is no empirical basis for belief in God. As you said, "you can't reason from the world to God."
That would not be a priori that would be be a postoriori. There are a priori truths and God is one of them but there's no traction to make people accept it other than logic,that's too arguable. For thsoe who refuse to accept God at any cost they are able to allow themselves to deny logic.
I agree. It's because the observable information we have does not include God. If people want to make an argument based on design, for example, their argument must include a premise (usually unstated) that only God could create the world as we see it, and that premise is based on an a priori belief that has no empirical justification. We know from scientific investigation that unintelligent nature is quite capable of producing the world as we see it. We even have a pretty good understanding of how that happens.
That is bull shit we don't know that that; just begging the question.Fine tuning shows us it's extremely improbable, what I agree to is that there is no absolute proof One can always rationalize rejection of the facts.
Any a priori beliefs we have should be examined carefully to see where they come from, and whether they are really justified.
I am sorry I don't mean to insult you but that implies that you think a priori reasoning is based upon observing the world.(?)
It could be the case that they are based on observation, even if we aren't aware of it. Such is the case with the rules of logic, for example. But other beliefs that we regard as a priori may really be just something we have been told, and that we have believed since before we had any ability to reason - something that we can't actually justify.
I think I see why you be the question so much, with that approach to logic it's hard to see how you accept any rules of logic
If you observe it a thousand times how do you know without observation that it wont be different on the 1001 time?
- Now you want absolute proof? Sorry, I don't have it. And neither do you. But induction is what human knowledge is based on. It's the best we can do. That's how we arrive at the "laws" of nature. Can we be absolutely certain that f = ma? No. But it holds true every time we try to verify it. You can't hang your hat on a mere possibility if what you think is possible disagrees with all that we have ever observed.
Ut's absurd to say there is no a prori truth it; demonstrable priori.
- Demonstrable? Then please demonstrate.
Moreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.
- No. It is based entirely on observation, as I tried to explain to you. Logic is just the way we observe things to work in our world. Without observation, we would have no concept of logical rules.
That would not be a priori that would be be a postoriori.
- That's what I've been telling you.
There are a priori truths and God is one of them but there's no traction to make people accept it other than logic,that's too arguable. For thsoe who refuse to accept God at any cost they are able to allow themselves to deny logic.
- That's your belief. Your a priori assumptions are not justified unless you can show that it's true. And they form the basis of your arguments. It's not logic that I reject - it's your unjustified a priori assumptions.
That is bull shit we don't know that that; just begging the question.Fine tuning shows us it's extremely improbable, what I agree to is that there is no absolute proof One can always rationalize rejection of the facts.
- I rationalize my beliefs based on what is observed in the world. You rationalize yours based on nothing that has ever been observed. And scientists have refuted that fine-tuning argument again and again. I myself have refuted it strictly on the basis of the mathematics of probability. It's a bogus argument.
that implies that you think a priori reasoning is based upon observing the world.(?)
- It implies that what you think is a priori knowledge is actually learned, whether from observation of the world, or from being taught (by indoctrination, for example).
I think I see why you be the question so much, with that approach to logic it's hard to see how you accept any rules of logic
- I accept that which agrees with observation. I reject that which is inconsistent with what I observe.
If you observe it a thousand times how do you know without observation that it wont be different on the 1001 time?
- Now you want absolute proof? Sorry, I don't have it. And neither do you. But induction is what human knowledge is based on. It's the best we can do. That's how we arrive at the "laws" of nature. Can we be absolutely certain that f = ma? No. But it holds true every time we try to verify it. You can't hang your hat on a mere possibility if what you think is possible disagrees with all that we have ever observed.
sure (except that doesn't rule out some a priori truth) that's what I'm saying, We we resolve the problem of epistemology with assumptions based upon probability. But then when our sense of the regular order is violated we act like it's violatimg an iron clad truth,
Ut's absurd to say there is no a prori truth it; demonstrable priori
- Demonstrable? Then please demonstrate.
If P then Q. P :. Q.
another: a //= not a
MetaLMoreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.
- No. It is based entirely on observation, as I tried to explain to you. Logic is just the way we observe things to work in our world. Without observation, we would have no concept of logical rules.
No can't you observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.. you are observing people obeying an a priori rule. that does not mean you are observing premises mandating conclusions. Logic is based upon self referential rules not upon the workings of the physical wold. Where do you observe the law of excluded middle?
That would not be a priori that would be be a postoriori.
- That's what I've been telling you.
No it's not. you are coating two different things, the statement we just made--what I'm saying is a postoriori--is the phrase "you can't reason from the world to God." That refers to the design argument,I never thought design arguments are a prori. But just because they are not does not; mean there are't a prori truths. It's just taht design argument is not one of them,
There are a priori truths and God is one of them but there's no traction to make people accept it other than logic,that's too arguable. For those who refuse to accept God at any cost they are able to allow themselves to deny logic.
- That's your belief. Your a priori assumptions are not justified unless you can show that it's true. And they form the basis of your arguments. It's not logic that I reject
I can show it's true but a good logician will find a loop hole and argue with it. It is true if you accept my logic 101 stuff. But you don't have to be much of a logician to find loop holes in my version of formal logical argument.
- it's your unjustified a priori assumptions.
They are only unjustified because you don't want to accept the truth of the conclusions they mandate. On the other hand I agree that logic has to have empirical referents to work on, not because there are no purely a priori truths but because at the end of the day all logic can do is help us get our sentences in order.
That is bull shit we don't know that that; just begging the question.Fine tuning shows us it's extremely improbable, what I agree to is that there is no absolute proof One can always rationalize rejection of the facts.
- I rationalize my beliefs based on what is observed in the world. You rationalize yours based on nothing that has ever been observed.
No you don't. You deny observations that go against your ideology. moreover that little tag "You rationalize yours based on nothing that has ever been observed" that is your ideological brain washing that tells you to say that because it's how you ratiocination ignoring facts that go against your ideology.
Why would I believe something without facts backing it up observational(assuming what I observe is fact)? You can't accept my observations because you don't want the conclusion they mandate.
And scientists have refuted that fine-tuning argument again and again. I myself have refuted it strictly on the basis of the mathematics of probability. It's a bogus argument.
No they haven;t you are asserting that based upon the need to deny the conclusion. There is no universal consensus in science on that point. Many have tried to refute it many have defended it. Nothing is established as fact.
Meta:that implies that you think a priori reasoning is based upon observing the world.(?)
- It implies that what you think is a priori knowledge is actually learned, whether from observation of the world, or from being taught (by indoctrination, for example)
Obviously I don't think that I don't see where you get it. You have to learn what a priori means and some other basic ideas of logic but that's all.If I don't think i;'s observed why would I think it must be learned? You have to know what is before you understand when you are dealing with it. I thought we are toolkit about observations of things in nature. Of course we have to observe logic to see it.
I think I see why you be the question so much, with that approach to logic it's hard to see how you accept any rules of logic
- I accept that which agrees with observation. I reject that which is inconsistent with what I observe.
Since God is not given in sense data then it's not a fair test to make empirical observation the litmus test for God.
11:27 AM
I am making a post on this on Sunday so we can discuss it more since it is not exactly on topic for this one.
If P then Q. P :. Q.
- You miss my point. How do you know that this is true? The only basis you have is the fact that it agrees with the reality that you have observed all your life. It isn't a priori at all.
No can't you observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.
- Yes, that's exactly what we do. It's just observation of the reality of our world.
not does not; mean there are't a prori truths. It's just taht design argument is not one of them,
- There is reality and then there is our understanding of reality. Our understanding of reality is not a priori. It comes from observing the world. This is a matter of epistemology, which deals with the question of what we know and how we know it. There is no a priori knowledge. You believe in God because that's what you were told before you could even think. You don't remember that now - you think it's a priori knowledge. But you're wrong. If you hadn't been raised in a society that drills that into your head, you wouldn't believe it now.
They are only unjustified because you don't want to accept the truth of the conclusions they mandate.
- I accept any truth that is mandated by justified premises and valid logic.
that is your ideological brain washing that tells you to say that because it's how you ratiocination ignoring facts that go against your ideology.
- I'm not the one who's brainwashed.
There is no universal consensus in science on that point. Many have tried to refute it many have defended it. Nothing is established as fact.
- It is a religious argument - not a scientific one. And real scientists (not driven by religious ideology) have completely debunked the logic of the fine-tuning argument.
Since God is not given in sense data then it's not a fair test to make empirical observation the litmus test for God.
- It's not fair to carve out an epistemological exception for something that you believe despite the fact that it has no basis in observation. In logical argumentation, that's what we call special pleading.
m-skeptical said...
If P then Q. P :. Q.
- You miss my point. How do you know that this is true? The only basis you have is the fact that it agrees with the reality that you have observed all your life. It isn't a priori at all.
no you can observe the content, but can't observe an abstract rule of logic
No can't you observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.
- Yes, that's exactly what we do. It's just observation of the reality of our world.
there are no premises in nature,read the quote from IEP on the next thread you see you are wrong. You look it up in Flew and in Stanford they all say you are wrong. a priori tuth is truth that is true by definition not by observation, you only have to know the language to know it's true,all husbands are married men, you don't have to observe all married men,
not does not; mean there are't a prori truths. It's just taht design argument is not one of them,
- There is reality and then there is our understanding of reality. Our understanding of reality is not a priori. It comes from observing the world.
you can know all husbands are married men without ever seeing a husband,
This is a matter of epistemology, which deals with the question of what we know and how we know it. There is no a priori knowledge.
you asre wrong, read the aritlce,"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience." Stanford
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/
You believe in God because that's what you were told before you could even think. You don't remember that now - you think it's a priori knowledge. But you're wrong. If you hadn't been raised in a society that drills that into your head, you wouldn't believe it now.
how do you explain the fact that I chucked what my parents told me and became an atheist, I would be one still but I had an experience where I called out to God in desperation and he answered me. Now I admit I called to the God of my parents but he did Nasser,in a clear and undeniable,way. Your skepticism is the result of brainwashing due to an ideology you swallowed hook,line, and sinker
They are only unjustified because you don't want to accept the truth of the conclusions they mandate.
- I accept any truth that is mandated by justified premises and valid logic.
how so? you don;t even know what logic is, you have it confused with science. when when you are confronted with evidence that contradicts your brainwashing you jsut refuse to believe it even without any sort of evince,like theway you areso suremny studies are bad when you have;t any of them,
that is your ideological brain washing that tells you to say that because it's how you ratiocination ignoring facts that go against your ideology.
- I'm not the one who's brainwashed.
Naturally you don't think you are that's the first thing brianwashers tell you to think
There is no universal consensus in science on that point. Many have tried to refute it many have defended it. Nothing is established as fact.
- It is a religious argument - not a scientific one. And real scientists (not driven by religious ideology) have completely debunked the logic of the fine-tuning argument.
No that is utter bunk. Martain Reese says it is. He took FT every effusively. Andre Lind took it very serology. Scientists who started inflationary theory have reniged on that because they had to use FT to make inflation work,
Since God is not given in sense data then it's not a fair test to make empirical observation the litmus test for God.
- It's not fair to carve out an epistemological exception for something that you believe despite the fact that it has no basis in observation. In logical argumentation, that's what we call special pleading.
where do you get that idea? God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation,
Tons of scientific ideas are accepted without given in sense data,strimg theory has no empirical backing
no you can observe the content, but can't observe an abstract rule of logic
- Abstracta are creations of the mind. They don't exist in nature.
there are no premises in nature,read the quote from IEP on the next thread you see you are wrong. You look it up in Flew and in Stanford they all say you are wrong. a priori tuth is truth that is true by definition not by observation
- That's true, but you are not following my argument. I still disagree with the idea that we know anything a priori. What's true by definition is not an observed fact of nature. It's true just we agree on it by convention.
you only have to know the language to know it's true,all husbands are married men, you don't have to observe all married men
- No you don't have to observe them all. But you have to know the definition of the word, which is something you learn. More to the point, this is just a specific instance of the law of the excluded middle. A proposition and its negation can't both be true. So someone can't be both married and unmarried. How do we know this without observing all married men? That's a ridiculous question. How do we know that gravity applies to all massive bodies in space? We have observed enough of reality to know that the rule holds.
"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience."
- And in another sense, completely dependent on what we have observed, which gives us the basis to say that logical rules apply.
how do you explain the fact that I chucked what my parents told me and became an atheist
- It's not how you were indoctrinated. That's why you have returned to what you had drilled into your head as a child.
Naturally you don't think you are that's the first thing brianwashers tell you to think
- How and when do you suppose this atheist brainwashing took place? I was raised as a Christian. And nobody taught me to be an atheist.
Martain Reese says it is. He took FT every effusively. Andre Lind took it very serology.
- It's a religious argument. It argues that there's some intelligence (aka GOD) tuning things. (And inflation theory specifically rejects that, as does evolution theory and any other scientific theory - because that ain't science.)
where do you get that idea? God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation
- I know the definition of special pleading. You use different rules to say that God is "observed".
Blogger im-skeptical said...
no you can observe the content, but can't observe an abstract rule of logic
- Abstracta are creations of the mind. They don't exist in nature.
Right, that's why you don't have to observe nature to derive them that supports my point.
Metacrockthere are no premises in nature,read the quote from IEP on the next thread you see you are wrong. You look it up in Flew and in Stanford they all say you are wrong. a priori tuth is truth that is true by definition not by observation
- That's true, but you are not following my argument. I still disagree with the idea that we know anything a priori. What's true by definition is not an observed fact of nature. It's true just we agree on it by convention.
that's why it's a priroi truth, that's what a proiori means.
you only have to know the language to know it's true,all husbands are married men, you don't have to observe all married men
- No you don't have to observe them all. But you have to know the definition of the word, which is something you learn.
I already covered that Skep so did the article, that does not count as observing the world. Knowing what the words mean is not observing the world.
More to the point, this is just a specific instance of the law of the excluded middle.
no that is not excluded middle it has nothing to do with it,
A proposition and its negation can't both be true. So someone can't be both married and unmarried. How do we know this without observing all married men? That's a ridiculous question. How do we know that gravity applies to all massive bodies in space? We have observed enough of reality to know that the rule holds.
you can stretch it to include LEM but you have to use that to explain what's going on.But Ok that fits,I wont quibble,
"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience."
- And in another sense, completely dependent on what we have observed, which gives us the basis to say that logical rules apply.
No Explicitly not the Clarice says not,they don;t count knowing the language as observation of the world.
how do you explain the fact that I chucked what my parents told me and became an atheist
- It's not how you were indoctrinated. That's why you have returned to what you had drilled into your head as a child.
Actually I didn't return to it, I was not raised with either charismatic theology or liberal theology of people like Tillich. That is totally foreign to the experiences of my childhood.In fact both are anathema to my childhood faith. The reasom I turned to God is because the experiences I had warranted it
Naturally you don't think you are that's the first thing brianwashers tell you to think
- How and when do you suppose this atheist brainwashing took place? I was raised as a Christian. And nobody taught me to be an atheist.
you can see it happening in front of your face on any message board where atheists are actively involved in argument as a group. I have castellated and analyzed it all on Atheist watch.
Martain Reese says it is. He took FT every effusively. Andre Lind took it very serology.
- It's a religious argument. It argues that there's some intelligence (aka GOD) tuning things. (And inflation theory specifically rejects that, as does evolution theory and any other scientific theory - because that ain't science.)
No it doesn't, There's no official Bible of evolution that says "now class there is no mind doing things." Scientists could say that if they wanted to and they stupidly rule out teleology because ironically the Christian Boyle wrote it into the works of his rules for experimentation to pander to the notion of objectivity. He really wanted to use science as Christian apologetic but he was so sure Newton had secured a place for design argument that he could afford to Rukeyser out things like mind in experimentation,
where do you get that idea? God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation
- I know the definition of special pleading. You use different rules to say that God is "observed".
that is not special pleading. No one says God is observed. The very same rules that rule out making a direct claim to observation of God supports the idea that that we can conjecture God as reasonableness hypothesis.
so far you have demonstrated a very tenuous understanding of logical rules,
2:43 PM Delete
Right, that's why you don't have to observe nature to derive them that supports my point.
- Yes, you do. Abstracta are generalizations of what we observe.
that's why it's a priroi truth, that's what a proiori means
- Some (but not all) philosophers say that a definition constitutes a priori knowledge. My point is more basic than that. I'm saying that everything we know is ultimately derived from observation.
I already covered that Skep so did the article, that does not count as observing the world. Knowing what the words mean is not observing the world.
- I disagree. We wouldn't know any definitions without observing the world. You should learn something about cognitive development and language acquisition. All words we know are only understood in the context of other words and concepts that are grounded in our experience of the world.
That is totally foreign to the experiences of my childhood.In fact both are anathema to my childhood faith.
- I don't believe it. We live in a society that practically forces belief in God on all of us.
you can see it happening in front of your face on any message board where atheists are actively involved in argument as a group
- That makes no difference. I was already an atheist before I ever looked at any of these web sites and before I ever read any atheist books. I was not indoctrinated with it. I was raised as a Christian.
There's no official Bible of evolution that says "now class there is no mind doing things."
- This isn't a schoolroom. But I understand the scientific theory, and apparently you don't. It specifically says that evolution is unguided, or undirected.
No one says God is observed.
- You just got done telling me that: "God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation" You are apparently saying that God is observed in a way that is different from the way we observe everything else. And that IS special pleading.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Right, that's why you don't have to observe nature to derive them that supports my point.
- Yes, you do. Abstracta are generalizations of what we observe.
No. you don't count knowing the terminus as observation of nature.So knowing husbands are married men does not mean you are observing the world; Here is the clue,I don't have to ever observe a s husband to know he's married.
You observe people co-habiting but that doesn't make them married. The concept of marriage is a construct,all in the mind.
that's why it's a priroi truth, that's what a proiori means
- Some (but not all) philosophers say that a definition constitutes a priori knowledge. My point is more basic than that. I'm saying that everything we know is ultimately derived from observation.
that doesn't change the fact that there are a priori truths.
I already covered that Skep so did the article, that does not count as observing the world. Knowing what the words mean is not observing the world.
- I disagree. We wouldn't know any definitions without observing the world.
That's oblivious bullshit,I just showed a sentence in which the referents don;t even exist because but the statements are still true.
SkepieYou should learn something about cognitive development and language acquisition. All words we know are only understood in the context of other words and concepts that are grounded in our experience of the world.
i read Jean Piaget 19. That does not not change the fact that the truth part of a priori reasoning is not acquired from observing nature.
That is totally foreign to the experiences of my childhood.In fact both are anathema to my childhood faith.
- I don't believe it. We live in a society that practically forces belief in God on all of us.
I did say God was anathema I was referring to miracles and philosophy,
you can see it happening in front of your face on any message board where atheists are actively involved in argument as a group
- That makes no difference. I was already an atheist before I ever looked at any of these web sites and before I ever read any atheist books. I was not indoctrinated with it. I was raised as a Christian.
You are indoctrinated now
There's no official Bible of evolution that says "now class there is no mind doing things."
- This isn't a schoolroom. But I understand the scientific theory, and apparently you don't. It specifically says that evolution is unguided, or undirected.
why do I have to agree with it to understand it? You really think if one merely understands it they must agree? i just said what it is I disagree with so obviously I do understand it,
No one says God is observed.
- You just got done telling me that: "God is not given in sense data but sense data is not the only kind of observation" You are apparently saying that God is observed in a way that is different from the way we observe everything else. And that IS special pleading.
speaking of observed in sense data obviously attention,
btw let's drop the a priori from this discussion that's why i gave it it's own thread.
why do I have to agree with it to understand it? You really think if one merely understands it they must agree? i just said what it is I disagree with so obviously I do understand it
- Many people who claim to accept evolution theory don't understand it. There are plenty of Christians who say that their position is fully compatible with science and that evolution is actually guided by God. Those two statements are contradictory. The scientific theory describes how nature (without any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world - not how an intelligent God might do it. If you agree with that, fine.
speaking of observed in sense data obviously attention
- I was talking about how everything we know is ultimately derived from the senses, which is the empiricist position. You were disagreeing with me, claiming that you have some other kind of knowledge that lets you claim you know about the existence of God. That is something empiricists disagree with. We believe that all knowledge (including things that you call intuitive or a priori) is actually derived from the senses.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
why do I have to agree with it to understand it?[evolution? teleology in evolution] You really think if one merely understands it they must agree? i just said what it is I disagree with so obviously I do understand it
- Many people who claim to accept evolution theory don't understand it. There are plenty of Christians who say that their position is fully compatible with science and that evolution is actually guided by God. Those two statements are contradictory. The scientific theory describes how nature (without any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world - not how an intelligent God might do it. If you agree with that, fine.
No it doesn't. As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory says there is no God or God plays no role in this. Since that beyond the domain of science.
there's a place or methodological naturalism, but we are not talking about being a scientist we are talking about what I what I believe about the world. There is no contradiction in believing that God took a hand in evolutionary development it's only a question of what kind if a hand.
speaking of observed in sense data obviously attention
- I was talking about how everything we know is ultimately derived from the senses, which is the empiricist position.
Knowing that husband means married man is not derived from the sense. An analogy to what you are saying is like claiming to be an expert on mining because you use iron.
You were disagreeing with me, claiming that you have some other kind of knowledge that lets you claim you know about the existence of God. That is something empiricists disagree with. We believe that all knowledge (including things that you call intuitive or a priori) is actually derived from the senses.
I'm not an empiricist. Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.
As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory says there is no God or God plays no role in this. Since that beyond the domain of science.
- Then you don't understand the theory. The theory does not preclude the existence of a God, but as I said before, it describes how nature (without guidance or assistance from any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world. If you don't get that, you don't understand it.
Knowing that husband means married man is not derived from the sense. An analogy to what you are saying is like claiming to be an expert on mining because you use iron.
- I tried again and again to explain my position. You just don't get it. Knowing the definition of words and the application of logical rules is indeed derived from the senses.
Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.
- That's right, dude. And it is the only approach to epistemology that is 100% fully consistent with what we know of reality.
Empoiroicism is not science it's philospphy.
- That's right, dude. And it is the only approach to epistemology that is 100% fully consistent with what we know of reality.
No it;snot, that ridiculous. tons of people have fucked up perceptions of the world all the time,
Blogger im-skeptical said...
As I said before nothing in evolutionary theory says there is no God or God plays no role in this. Since that beyond the domain of science.
- Then you don't understand the theory. The theory does not preclude the existence of a God, but as I said before, it describes how nature (without guidance or assistance from any intelligence) produces the creatures in our world. If you don't get that, you don't understand it.
It doesn't go back to the very beginning either.
Knowing that husband means married man is not derived from the sense. An analogy to what you are saying is like claiming to be an expert on mining because you use iron.
- I tried again and again to explain my position. You just don't get it. Knowing the definition of words and the application of logical rules is indeed derived from the senses.
Skep no philosopher credits what you are saying,it;s diametrically contradicted by the sources I;'quoted. you have no source to back it up,show me one philospher who agrees with you. you can/t.
This isn't a matter of philosophy. It a matter of science. These things are observable. They have been studies extensively by science. That's something no philosopher can argue against (unless he wants to stick to some unrealistic fantasy).
"This isn't a matter of philosophy. It a matter of science. These things are observable. They have been studies extensively by science. That's something no philosopher can argue against (unless he wants to stick to some unrealistic fantasy)."
No again with the science worship. this is just ideology talking you have reason no logic you are just mouthing arbitrary rule you;ve been brain washed to obey, 'bow before the god science now!
Obviously you can't observe the meaning of word.where do you go out in nature to see the definition of married in the wild?
Do you see I;m using logic on it? so it's not just observing natuer because I'm reasoing about it,
Obviously you can't observe the meaning of word.where do you go out in nature to see the definition of married in the wild?
- Of course you can't observe a meaning in the wild. Why is that? Because meaning is a construct of the mind. Meaning is something we develop by making associations (which are actual physical connections) in the brain. Associations between what, you might ask? It's between the mental impressions (or concepts) of things we have observed. Without these mental associations, there would be no understanding of how things relate, fit together, interact with one another, etc. As young children, we hear words. Those words become part of our collection of mental impressions. When words are associated with other impressions (or concepts) in our brain, and that's how they gain meaning to us.
You hear the word "mama". You see the face, hear the voice, feel the warmth and comfort of the mother. These things become associated in the brain. Only then does the word "mama" have any real meaning to the child. And so it goes with every single word in our vocabulary. All of it derives from information we gained through our senses.
im-skeptical said...
Obviously you can't observe the meaning of word.where do you go out in nature to see the definition of married in the wild?
- Of course you can't observe a meaning in the wild. Why is that? Because meaning is a construct of the mind.
I already said that, you disagreed when I said it, that just proves my point about a prori knowledge,
Meaning is something we develop by making associations (which are actual physical connections) in the brain. Associations between what, you might ask? It's between the mental impressions (or concepts) of things we have observed. Without these mental associations, there would be no understanding of how things relate, fit together, interact with one another, etc. As young children, we hear words. Those words become part of our collection of mental impressions. When words are associated with other impressions (or concepts) in our brain, and that's how they gain meaning to us.
you just contradicted your self
You hear the word "mama". You see the face, hear the voice, feel the warmth and comfort of the mother. These things become associated in the brain. Only then does the word "mama" have any real meaning to the child. And so it goes with every single word in our vocabulary. All of it derives from information we gained through our senses.
Even if you never saw your mother or any woman you could be told what the word means. So you have no basis for your gibberish you are contradicting yourself. You just said a construct doesn't require observation of the world and now you say it does.
"Of course you can't observe a meaning in the wild. Why is that? Because meaning is a construct of the mind..."
we don't have to observe the world to from associations meaning
you have been refuted,case closed,this topic closed.
10:04 AM
we don't have to observe the world to from associations meaning
- Sorry, Joe, but science refutes YOU.
Post a Comment