Daniel Henson, ex-youth pastor, has a paper he calls "Dossier of Reason". In it he develops his personal case against Theism.
Let’s take up the ill-named ”Dossier of Reason” at Deism, part II, which he claims as an analysis of knowledge and belief.
In Deism, part I A, Henson claims that,
”Science therefore follows the evidence and attempts to disprove it’s [sic] own theories as a way of supporting them. So a scientific theory is not just a guess or belief, it is a testable model that best explains the nature of phenomenon [sic].”
This is simplistically correct, but incomplete. Scientific theory is also contingent and subject to falsification at any time. It never produces incorrigible truth. It addresses only material subjects. It does not address non-material subjects. Henson fails to acknowledge these limitations of science. These limitations are even more important than the fine qualities of science which Henson does mention.
The claim of “knowledge system” vs “belief system” is in the process of being corrupted here. It is necessary to “believe” that falsification will not occur, if a scientific theory is to be taken as incorrigible truth.
What Henson does here is to convolute the meaning of “knowledge” to correspond only to the output of science; this is false, as will be shown.
In Deism part I B, Henson goes awry almost immediately.
”Religion is a non-falsifiable theory that puts forth no useful predictions about how the nature of things should be if the theory is true, and so it cannot be tested or falsified. It is a belief system, not a knowledge system..
Both science and Theism arrive at their conclusion in the same manner: concept; deductive hypothesis, analysis, conclusion. Science uses physical analysis techniques which match physical objects and pursues understanding of the physical realm; Theism uses rational techniques which match rational objects and pursues understanding of the non-physical and pre-physical realms.
The question, “why”, is illegitimate according to Dawkins; the only legitimate questions are what and how. Who gave the Materialists the anti-rational authority and ability to declare the illegitimacy of questions? It is only the unfounded belief system of Scientism which allows such presumption of rational dictatorship. Such a dictatorship of the intellect is supremely anti-rational.
” Religions looks at areas where we do not have answers and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing[sic]. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge.”
This assertion is based on a complete lack of understanding of rational processes, and is based on the belief system of Scientism and the belief system of Materialism, both of which have been demonstrated to be internally contradictory and non-coherent (despite their claims to be the sole source of knowledge, neither can demonstrate that it is the only source of knowledge, using its own evidentiary rules).
Again, empiricism and logic are both based on the same axioms and have the same rational force which those axioms provide. Rational analysis uses Reductio Ad Absurdum along with empirical observation in order to come to rational conclusions. These conclusions have as much force as knowledge as do empirical, scientific conclusions. In fact they have more consistency as conclusions because they are not subject to the Inductive Fallacy and contingency in the sense that scientific conclusions are. This actually means that scientific conclusions are more accurately called “contingent beliefs” than are the conclusions of rational analysis.
Henson’s Deism premise I A is fatally incomplete and his premise I B is completely false.
But this is Henson's conclusion:
"Religions looks [sic] at areas where we do not have answers and believes [sic] things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge."
This completely false conclusion will be used to prop up the Scientistic, Materialistic propositions coming up. The delusion is actually that Scientism is a valid, coherent belief.
His next part is this:
” There is no compelling reason to believe in any god.”
Atheists use “compelling” as a weasel word; in fact you cannot “compel” a dogmatist with any amount of logic for your case, or demonstration of fallacy in their case. Dogmatists are just not compelled by such things as those which go against their worldview. So this statement has no actual meaning.
From here Henson takes the usual dodge to avoid the actual analysis of Atheism qua Atheism. He denies that Atheists have any burden to give reasons for rejecting any and all theories. It is enough that they just reject them without giving any reason, rational or otherwise for having done so. In fact his first point after denying any intellectual responsibility for himself is this:
”B. 1. There is no argument, evidence or experiment that can positively demonstrate the existence of a god, or positive evidence.”
This is asserted as a truth claim with no evidence presented to support it. It is sheer rejectionism. And his use of “positive” is dependent upon his belief in Scientism (yes, belief):
”Instead, all of the arguments for god are negative evidences, or gaps in scientific understanding where god might possibly exist despite not having any evidence or demonstration that he actually does.”
First off this is a statement of universal Truth, which he cannot possibly know.
Second, it is false: there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the faith of Scientism, and it is only under the presupposition of the faith of Scientism that the concept of “god of the gaps” has any meaning.
Third, evidence is constantly ignored or ridiculed rather than refuted: another reason that this assertion is false.
Fourth, where is the scientific data to back up this claim?
Fifth, this is the assertion of the belief in Scientism which was promised to follow the failed “knowledge theory” above. He asserts that non-scientific propositions are god-did-it, or “god of the gaps” failures. This is a basic premise of the belief in Scientism, which claims that science will ultimately answer every and all questions, leaving none for non-physical questioning. The belief in Scientism is based on the lack of understanding of the limitations which inhere in the material investigations available to science, and on the Philosophical Materialist premise that nothing exists which is not material, a premise which has no proof or support under its own belief system: and it is a belief system, not a scientific system. The fact that Henson is invoking a belief system here invalidates his entire dependency upon science as the sole source of knowledge. It is a demonstration of the internal non-coherence of his beliefs.
This means that no logical argument will even be considered except under Scientistic belief.
This entire section, therefore, is a rational, logical failure.
His final statement here is this:
” As our understanding of the universe increases, the gaps in which god can exist become smaller. God was born out of ignorance of the natural world, and the more we understand the natural world and just how natural it really is, the less room there is for god to fill those gaps in knowledge.”
He has embedded his conclusion in his premises, a conclusion which is totally without scientific proof, which he demands as the sole source of knowledge: he does not know that god was born out of ignorance of the natural world; he has no evidence of that: none. He has embedded a prejudice into the premises.
The second presumption is that a creating deity must fit into the creation: blatant Philosophical Materialist failure. There is no reason that a creator of anything must fit into the gaps in his creation. This is primary logic and Henson fails it completely.
Total failure.
The next premise Henson claims is even more outrageous:
”C. 1. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.”
Here Henson completely abandons science altogether and goes completely off the reservation. No scientist would claim that absence of evidence for Dark Matter, or the Higgs Boson, or a unifying theory of existence is evidence confirming its non-existence. The entire basis for science is to develop evidence where none exists! To prejudice a conclusion in advance like Henson tries to do here is completely outside science and even under his own Scientistic belief system rules this cannot be accepted. It is another internal contradiction and non-coherence.
Even his example is well outside of logic: An invisible dragon breathing heatless fire. The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence?
Here is his argument c:
”c. The thing being proven to not exist, is the type of thing that if it existed evidence would show.”
Repeat: The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence? Non-coherent.
Then finally,
” If the definition of god in question involves a god that actively interacts with the physical universe, absence of evidence would be evidence that this type of god does not exist.”
Henson is invited to debunk the claims regarding the miracle at Lourdes. There is no “absence of evidence”; there is an absence of investigation and an absence of intellectual rigor in making claims for Atheism.
Blatant failure.
When false premises stack up and multiply, the arguments become massively irrational. That has happened here.
Henson’s final entry in this section is even more slipshod:
” b. Even though I cannot “Know” there is no god with absolute certainty, I can say that I know god does not exist in the same way that I can say that I know Santa Clause [sic] does not exist or that I know the earth revolves around the sun.”
Santa Claus is an obvious adult fabrication for children: no science involved there. Planetary orbits are indeed scientific knowledge of material objects. Neither of these is even closely analogous to the deductive case for a non-physical creating agent. The argument is completely beside the point, trivial and without force in refutation.
The remainder of the Deism argument is an amazing twist: after having dedicated the first part of the Deism article to claiming Scientism as the only source of knowledge, Henson attacks the apologetic arguments, not with science, but with attempts at non-scientific argumentation - which he has denied as having any knowledge-value(!) So no matter what he says in denial of the apologetics, it is in violation of his own principles and is therefore non-coherent and unacceptable as having any value in his own argument.
Failure. Utter failure.
The basis for all arguments seen so far includes (a) the belief system: Philosophical Materialism; (b) the belief system: Scientism; (c) false theories of knowledge; and (d) unsupported universal Truth statements which are prejudicial only and without logical or empirical force.
Making a lengthy, multi-premise logic argument requires that each and every assertion be demonstrably and incontrovertibly the case, logically sound, and axiomatically grounded. A single failure invalidates the entire chain. But in rationalized argumentation, it can be shown that most if not all of the premises fail, because they are induced falsely to support a presupposed conclusion, not deduced rigorously to reveal that which “is the case”. That is what has been done here: rationalization.
Accepting an argument purely because it reaches your desired conclusions is irrational. Yet for Atheists, Critical Thought is for the other guy, not for application to friendly, compatible arguments, it appears. To have accepted this argument without critically analyzing it is anti-rational; worse would be to read it and accept it as truth.
Addendum: link added 5.31.12
Stan. This is exactly why I want to go through the argument point for point.
ReplyDeleteYou immediately go off the rails in your critique. Right off the rails, full speed ahead.
What Henson does here is to convolute the meaning of “knowledge” to correspond only to the output of science; this is false, as will be shown.
No, what he is doing is contrasting religion and science. He explains how science provides tangible answers to how the world operates, and how religion does not.
He is NOT saying that science is the only way to know something.
He never claims science produces incorrigible truths. In fact he outlines exactly what he means when he says "knowledge".
You're refutation smacks of either intentional misunderstandings, twisting of positions and ignorance of the actual claims being made.
Your initial objection is so blatantly wrong, and I "know" it will take some time before you run out of ways to dodge the premise, there is no reason to immediately address the rest of your "points".
I would prefer to return to the common ground we have already reached and proceed from there.
We'll stop right here:
ReplyDelete"No, what he is doing is contrasting religion and science. He explains how science provides tangible answers to how the world operates, and how religion does not.
He is NOT saying that science is the only way to know something."
How then do you interpret this:
"Religion is a non-falsifiable theory that puts forth no useful predictions about how the nature of things should be if the theory is true, and so it cannot be tested or falsified. It is a belief system, not a knowledge system. Religions looks at areas where we do not have answers and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge.
How can you possibly say that he has not restricted knowledge to science, when that is specifically what he says. Let's even repeat the part about religion propositions not being knowledge:
"delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge."
Religion is belief; Science is knowledge: that is his explicit position:
"It is a belief system, not a knowledge system".
godless,
ReplyDelete"You're refutation smacks of either intentional misunderstandings, twisting of positions and ignorance of the actual claims being made.
Your initial objection is so blatantly wrong, and I "know" it will take some time before you run out of ways to dodge the premise, there is no reason to immediately address the rest of your "points".
I would prefer to return to the common ground we have already reached and proceed from there"
Since you do not wish to accept Henson at his very words, uninterpreted and unvarnished, I should think that your accusations of "intentional misunderstandings, twisting of positions and ignorance of the actual claims being made", must certainly pertain more to yourself, since I merely took him at his word.
Are there only two ways of knowing something? Religion or science?
ReplyDeleteThis is your proof, I'll let you tell me that. If we go by Henson, there is only one way.
ReplyDeleteThis is your proof, I'll let you tell me that.
ReplyDeleteScience is the BEST way to know something. It works. It is testable, repeatable, etc. It provides tangible, practical results.
This model works so well that we can use it reliably and consistently to produce useful results such as modern medicine and household cleaners. If we saw results in nature other than what our model predicts, then we would know something is wrong with our theory. ~DoR
How can you possibly say that he has not restricted knowledge to science, when that is specifically what he says.
Because he doesn't specifically say that?
C'mon Stan. Quote where he says "knowledge is restricted to science".
He doesn't... you are skewing the argument.
So knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive?
ReplyDeleteBecause he doesn't specifically say that?
ReplyDeleteC'mon Stan. Quote where he says "knowledge is restricted to science".
He lectures us on "Knowledge". He gives two possible sources, A and B. He restricts it to one: A.
There is only one source of knowledge given under his heading of knowledge. If you choose to say that is not what he means, then you are adding something not in his analysis of knowledge. In other words, to quote you: that is not what he specifically says. Let's try to be consistent, OK?
You insist that every premise must be accepted as if not to accept them is an act against humanity. If you cannot accept criticism and rejection then there is no point in discussions.
There is no connection between the fact that some people have incorrect opinions, and the provability of the non-existence as has been requested of you.
If you cant't prove the non-existence without pointing out that some people have incorrect opinions, then you have no proof of anything. It is just as possible that your very minority opinion is incorrect, as it is that the enitre opinion set of the world other than you is incorrect.
That is not an acceptable premise.
"Science is the BEST way to know something. It works. It is testable, repeatable, etc. It provides tangible, practical results."
Science is completely impotent regarding questions outside its limited, physical purview. Impotent. We have been through this over and over. Even within its purivew it provides only contingent results, subject to change.
Only under the religously held belief of Materialism is science the only knowledge; but of course Materialism cannot validate itself, and cannot know if it is true itself: invoking Materialism is not acceptable, nor is the Materialist restriction to empiricism. Neither can be rationally defended.
Henson declares without evidence that,
" The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge. "
This clearly states that knowledge is restricted to A: Science. If you are to use Henson's argument, then use it as it stands, and don't try to argue different definitions or meanings into it.
If you can't do that, then use your own argument.
If you can't do that, admit it.
godless,
ReplyDeleteScience is the BEST way to know something.
How do you know that?
Science is the BEST way to know something.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that?
Some scientist told him so.
He lectures us on "Knowledge". He gives two possible sources, A and B. He restricts it to one: A.
ReplyDeleteThe very definition of a comparison. Despite claiming he "Specifically restricts knowledge to science" you fail to quote where he "Specifically" says that.
You insist that every premise must be accepted as if not to accept them is an act against humanity.
Being hyperbolic does not make your case more rational. The premises are basic observations. They're fucking obvious and I can't believe you've manage to squeeze so much white noise out of them.
This clearly states that knowledge is restricted to A: Science.
Sure it does. How about you give me an alternative means of knowing besides religion and science. Let's say .. astrology. Does Henson say astrology is an invalid means of knowing something? Does he say science is the ONLY way to know something?
He does none of these things. Your objections avoid the issues raised to argue against irrelevancies.
You are attacking materialism/scientism because you can't rationally reject the argument presented.
Science is the BEST way to know something.
How do you know that?
Scientifically. Y'know, observation, experimentation, etc. I think I said as much.
It works. It is testable, repeatable, etc. It provides tangible, practical results.
Give me an alternative that provides ANY consistent tangible practical results. Or at least accept that religion does not.
Or y'know, just address the argument instead of making more white noise.
The very definition of a comparison. Despite claiming he "Specifically restricts knowledge to science" you fail to quote where he "Specifically" says that.”
ReplyDeleteThis type of argument is absurd. He gives two and only two: no more than two: just two: 2; then he eliminates one. That leaves science. He specifically left only science as the sole acceptable source of knowledge. If you want him to have indicated more, that is outside of what he did actually indicate. He did not indicate any more sources of knowledge. You cannot add things which he did not place into his argument.
You are denying the actual facts available to you?
” Being hyperbolic does not make your case more rational. The premises are basic observations. They're fucking obvious and I can't believe you've manage to squeeze so much white noise out of them.”
If you want to accept them with no analysis, then go ahead; but declaring them to be fucking obvious is false; they are not axioms, they must be analyzed under logical discipline just like anything else. Apparently you want them accepted as dogma: your tone is dogmatic.
” Sure it does. How about you give me an alternative means of knowing besides religion and science. Let's say .. astrology. Does Henson say astrology is an invalid means of knowing something? Does he say science is the ONLY way to know something?”
You are beating a dead horse. Henson has killed his own arguments with his incomplete comprehension of knowledge, of analysis, of Philosophical Materialism, of disciplined logic, and you follow right along unquestioningly and uncritically. His specific discussion of knowledge specifically allowed religion and science and nothing else. Nothing else. It is actually up to you to prove that he did not eliminate other methods and what those methods specifically are, specifically specified in his specific paper.
If you want him to be saying something which he doesn’t even understand exists, that is an irrational biasing of his actual words. Either use his actual words, or find a better argument.
” Sure it does. How about you give me an alternative means of knowing besides religion and science. Let's say .. astrology. Does Henson say astrology is an invalid means of knowing something? Does he say science is the ONLY way to know something?
He does none of these things. Your objections avoid the issues raised to argue against irrelevancies.
You are attacking materialism/scientism because you can't rationally reject the argument presented.”
That is exactly the argument he presented: Scientism and Philosophical Materialism. Exactly. Precisely. He explicitly presents his theories of: “Belief and Knowledge. (Theories, Evidence, and falsifiability)”. The only knowledge which he specifically accepted in his paper is Science. So you must show where he specifically defines, defends and accepts any other type of knowledge; if he does not (and he does not), then they may not be used.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDelete” Science is the BEST way to know something.
How do you know that?
Scientifically. Y'know, observation, experimentation, etc. I think I said as much.”
We keep going over this and you keep ignoring it:
1. Science cannot validate itself (Godel’s theorems, I & II). In other words, science cannot prove or know its own validity.
2. Science cannot address non-physical questions. It is impotent in areas which are not physically, experimentally non-falsifiable (Popper’s Demarcation).
3. There is absolutely no pathway to any knowledge of non-physical issues via science. In other words, science cannot accept or refute or even describe non-physical issues.
4. Science cannot be the BEST way to knowledge which it cannot even address. Science is IMPOTENT to discuss the issues regarding non-physical existence.
Your position is rejected: your statement applies to physical existence ONLY, and has no relevance to the issues being discussed, which are non-physical issues.
If you object that science still is the best or only way to know something, even subjects which are non-physical, then you are asserting something which conflicts with the definition of science, and is rather a belief system: Philosophical Materialism / Scientism, both of which are internally non-coherent and are rejected.
If you are persistent in this, then there is no discussion possible, because you are refusing the actual definition of science, and are adhering to non-coherent belief systems.
” It works. It is testable, repeatable, etc. It provides tangible, practical results.
Give me an alternative that provides ANY consistent tangible practical results. Or at least accept that religion does not.
Or y'know, just address the argument instead of making more white noise.”
You have devolved clear back into the irrelevant Materialist/Scientistic Category Error of demanding that non-physical issues be served up to you as “tangible” physical lumps for your scientific investigation. That has long ago been refuted. Requiring a non-physical entity to present itself physically is a demand which is an error so fundamental that it destroys any other arguments which depend upon it. And that is catastrophic to Henson’s arguments. It is an error which you should let go and move on.
He gives two and only two: no more than two: just two
ReplyDeleteThat's why it is a COMPARISON. Seriously...
declaring them to be fucking obvious is false
Except you've agreed with all of them (subject to very minor revisions) so far and have stonewalled at the last.
You've listed several very interesting criticisms of the scientific method. Unfortunately your criticisms neither invalidate the utility of the scientific method nor lend any credence to the religious method. So dismissed as irrelevant.
No, what he is doing is contrasting religion and science. He explains how science provides tangible answers to how the world operates, and how religion does not.
Your objection of a category error is again rejected. I am only interested in a method that will provide tangible, practical, demonstrable answers.
Science provides this. Religion does not.
If your claim to knowledge is not tangible, practical, demonstrable, or otherwise subject to being proved wrong .. then it is not knowledge. It is a belief.
Again, this is explicitly laid out in the DoR.
”Except you've agreed with all of them (subject to very minor revisions) so far and have stonewalled at the last.
ReplyDeleteYou've listed several very interesting criticisms of the scientific method. Unfortunately your criticisms neither invalidate the utility of the scientific method nor lend any credence to the religious method. So dismissed as irrelevant.”
Therefore you adhere to the Category Error and its consequence of irrational argumentation.
Then we are done.
"Your objection of a category error is again rejected. I am only interested in a method that will provide tangible, practical, demonstrable answers.
Your irrationality is verified.
"Science provides this. Religion does not.
If your claim to knowledge is not tangible, practical, demonstrable, or otherwise subject to being proved wrong .. then it is not knowledge. It is a belief."
Good. Good. you have come clean on your actual belief, which is Scientism. Your denial of knowledge outside of "tangible, practical, demonstrable, or otherwise subject to being proved wrong" is a denial with residual wiggle space though. The mushy concept of "being proved wrong" has to be assumed to mean empirically proven, since you do not elaborate.
However, given that to be the case, then your assertion is for an unfounded and irrational belief system, Scientism, which eliminates questions which it cannot understand, under the dogmatic and unprovable physical-only requirement for knowledge.
Ok we certainly are done. It's not clear why you fought admitting to your adherence this belief system for so long.
But it is good that you have, and all this is over. We can move on.
I should add here that all of Henson's arguments which assert either non-scientific, non-empirical propositions, or which assert moral precepts, these fail the stated requisite for knowledge and are not accepted.
ReplyDeleteSo Henson's entire argument fails and is rejected.
Even if Henson actually did have an empirical study showing the non-existence of a non-physical agent, that knowledge would be contingent, and without truth value under the actual definition of science, its capabilities, and its limitations.
But Henson has no Scientific proof of any type; it is actually impossible under the non-falsification criterion. So his argument is empty under his own rules of knowledge, and certainly under the rules of godless.
What? You make zero sense sir. Zero.
ReplyDeleteReligion and science are competing methods of understanding the world. NOMA is utter bullshit. If there was tangible, physical, repeatable, falsifiable evidence of a god, the religious would be all over it. And rightly so.
If you agree that religion is NOT a method of understanding the physical, natural world, then tremendous. We have established a common ground.
Frankly, I think Henson's argument is rock solid. I am further convinced of it's legitimacy when the response is one of repeated stonewalling rather than addressing the argument itself.
What you have done is stalled until I have said something you can label as "Scientism". Which is firstly, an unjustified false claim, and second, completely irrelevant to the points being made.
Even if Henson actually did have an empirical study showing the non-existence of a non-physical agent, that knowledge would be contingent, and without truth value under the actual definition of science, its capabilities, and its limitations.
Even if he did prove there was no god, you would reject it. The religious mind at work is a fascinating monster.
Ok we certainly are done. It's not clear why you fought admitting to your adherence this belief system for so long. You should have just said you were a religious fanatic uninterested in evidence or reason.