A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Some thoughts here on art and naturalism. In his essay "The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immannence," William Dembski argues that creativity is a gift from a transcendent source, and gives plenty of examples to show the imprecise nature of neurophysiology's and neuropsychology's understanding of creativity:
The idea that creative activity is a transcendental gift has largely been lost these days. To ask a cognitive scientist, for instance, what made Mozart a creative genius is unlikely to issue in an appeal to the Divine.
If the cognitive scientist embraces neurppsychology, he may suggest Mozart was blessed with a particularly fortunate collocation of neurons. If he prefers an information processing model of mentality, he may attribute Mozart's genius to some particularly effective computational modules. If he is taken with Skinner's behaviorism, he may attribute Mozart's genius to some particularly effective reinforcement schedules (perhaps imposed early in his life by father Leopold).
And no doubt, in all of these explanations the cognitive scientist will invoke Mozart's natural genetic endowment. In place of an intemporal afflatus, the modern cognitive scientist explains human creativity purely in terms of natural processes.
Who's right, the ancients or the moderns? My own view is that the ancients got it right. An act of creation is always a gift that cannot be reduced to purely naturalistic categories.
When scientists begins to give hypotheses without any hope of either verification or falsification, they have left the realm of evidence based, empirical processing and are indulging in philosophy, not in science. And the philosophy is Naturalist/Scientistic, rather than rationally based.
OK. Go to page 62. Halfway down the page you'll see Appeal to Authority.
You and I had discussed that about a year ago. The non-fallacious form of that is exactly what I had defended: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/01/argument-from-authority.html
OK, I'll do that when I get back home tomorrow (I'm out of state at the moment). As I recall your point was that there are times when authorities' statements must be accepted because they have information that we cannot have. Or something along those lines?
It's not on pg.62 of my copy of Gensler. My copy is a 2006 reprint of a 2002 book; paperback: Introduction to Logic; Routledge; ISBN 0-415-22675-9 (pbk).
However, on pg 333 there is this:
Appeal to Authority - correct form:
X holds that A is true. X is an authority on the subject. The consensus of authorities agree with X. Therefore, There's a presumption that A is true.
Incorrect form omits 2 and 3, or concludes that A "must" be true.
I agree with this only if 2 states that "X is an untainted authority on the subject, with demonstrable high intellectual and professional integrity."
And the same caveats for 3.
This is because there are entire categories of "authorities" that are corrupted by attachment to causes or industries or other external biasing influences.
And I do agree with the subsequent discussion of "must" vs. probability that issues from this definition.
13 comments:
Some thoughts here on art and naturalism. In his essay "The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immannence," William Dembski argues that creativity is a gift from a transcendent source, and gives plenty of examples to show the imprecise nature of neurophysiology's and neuropsychology's understanding of creativity:
The idea that creative activity is a transcendental gift has largely been lost these days. To ask a cognitive scientist, for instance, what made Mozart a creative genius is unlikely to issue in an appeal to the Divine.
If the cognitive scientist embraces neurppsychology, he may suggest Mozart was blessed with a particularly fortunate collocation of neurons. If he prefers an information processing model of mentality, he may attribute Mozart's genius to some particularly effective computational modules. If he is taken with Skinner's behaviorism, he may attribute Mozart's genius to some particularly effective reinforcement schedules (perhaps imposed early in his life by father Leopold).
And no doubt, in all of these explanations the cognitive scientist will invoke Mozart's natural genetic endowment. In place of an intemporal afflatus, the modern cognitive scientist explains human creativity purely in terms of natural processes.
Who's right, the ancients or the moderns? My own view is that the ancients got it right. An act of creation is always a gift that cannot be reduced to purely naturalistic categories.
When scientists begins to give hypotheses without any hope of either verification or falsification, they have left the realm of evidence based, empirical processing and are indulging in philosophy, not in science. And the philosophy is Naturalist/Scientistic, rather than rationally based.
Stan, did you get your Gensler logic book yet?
Yes. I haven't had time to study it much yet, though.
OK. Go to page 62. Halfway down the page you'll see Appeal to Authority.
You and I had discussed that about a year ago. The non-fallacious form of that is exactly what I had defended: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/01/argument-from-authority.html
OK, I'll do that when I get back home tomorrow (I'm out of state at the moment). As I recall your point was that there are times when authorities' statements must be accepted because they have information that we cannot have. Or something along those lines?
Wait. Is this an appeal to authority in order to justify an Appeal to Authority?
There is no "must." You'll see when you read it.
And yes, I am appealing to authority to justify appeal to authority, which is circular.
Shut up.
Shut up, he explained.
MmmmOK then.
It's not on pg.62 of my copy of Gensler. My copy is a 2006 reprint of a 2002 book; paperback: Introduction to Logic; Routledge; ISBN 0-415-22675-9 (pbk).
However, on pg 333 there is this:
Appeal to Authority - correct form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agree with X.
Therefore, There's a presumption that A is true.
Incorrect form omits 2 and 3, or concludes that A "must" be true.
I agree with this only if 2 states that "X is an untainted authority on the subject, with demonstrable high intellectual and professional integrity."
And the same caveats for 3.
This is because there are entire categories of "authorities" that are corrupted by attachment to causes or industries or other external biasing influences.
And I do agree with the subsequent discussion of "must" vs. probability that issues from this definition.
Is this what your book is saying?
That's it. That's all I was trying to convey in that other thread.
"Don't Believe in Cthulu"
Check this out.
onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2007/05/dont_believe_in.html
Martin,
OK.
Post a Comment