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.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Moderation is Off
Moderation of comments is a lot of trouble on the one hand and it bogs down commenting on the other. Sometimes it is necessary. But now it is off.
I was on Austin Kline's site this morning which lead me to this:
"In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However, as several of our authors argue, methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it in fact has been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true." - Keith Augustine
It is a Category Error to declare that the existence and/or success of Category J means that Category N is empty - when Category N is disjunctive with Category J.
In this case, Category [material existence] is disjunctive from Category [non-material existence].
"Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Supnaturalism is just the opposite- the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation. Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause.
Unfortunately, even for theists naturalism is prior to supernaturalism. In any debate or discussion, there are a few basic presuppositions which all must share: the validity of logic, the existence of a common world, and the stability of that common world.
All of these premises are naturalistic, not supernaturalistic- and hence naturalism is prior to supernaturalism with the latter being an extra addition to a person's assumptions. Without assuming naturalism and the continuity of the observable world- and that you both share much the same experience of that world- how can you possibly succeed in having any discussion with someone?
The anser is that you can't. The answer is that you do have to assume naturalism rather than supernaturalism first- but the argument from consciousness attempts to deny this and, hence, deny the basis for having a rational argument in the first place."
Is this explanation of naturalism sound and valid?
"Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Supnaturalism is just the opposite- the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation.”
The negation is incorrect. A correct negation or opposition is: NOT the belief that all objects, event, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world.
”Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause.”
It is not the case that a non-physical cause is required; the case is that they do eventually devolve to a point where non-physical cause is all that is possible.
”Unfortunately, even for theists naturalism is prior to supernaturalism. In any debate or discussion, there are a few basic presuppositions which all must share: the validity of logic, the existence of a common world, and the stability of that common world.”
There is one more obvious foundational issue: the cause for the First Principles which underlie logic, rationality, and an orderly universe. This is the point at which meta-physical existence becomes dominant over naturalism and is a priori to it.
”All of these premises are naturalistic, not supernaturalistic- and hence naturalism is prior to supernaturalism with the latter being an extra addition to a person's assumptions. Without assuming naturalism and the continuity of the observable world- and that you both share much the same experience of that world- how can you possibly succeed in having any discussion with someone?”
Indeed if you stop too soon you cannot see the foundation which allows the natural world to make sense, which it need not have done, being generated via a chaotic birth. The causes for all the things which naturalists want to discuss stop at a naturalistic way station, rather than being pursued to the original cause and causing agent. (Continued)
”The anser is that you can't. The answer is that you do have to assume naturalism rather than supernaturalism first- but the argument from consciousness attempts to deny this and, hence, deny the basis for having a rational argument in the first place.”
This conclusion is based on the improper assumptions and analysis seen above. This appears to be an attempt to defeat an argument he calls, “The Argument From Consciousness”, by means of declaring naturalism to be valid thereby defeating any and every argument of metaphysics. But naturalism cannot be proved valid either by means of empirical experimentation, nor by deductive association.
Empirically, naturalism cannot be shown under experimental, laboratory conditions, those conditions that are devised to eliminate error and non-natural presuppositions from the pursuit of natural knowledge.
If it is to be Logically deduced that naturalism is valid, then there must be a superior premise to naturalism that is undeniably valid and True, and which encompasses naturalism in order to validate it. That is how deduction works. But there is no superior premise to naturalism which is itself natural, so any deductive declaration of naturalism to be true, is False. In fact the only proper deductive conclusion would be that a metaphysical premise which encompasses naturalism, and which is presumed valid and True, such a metaphysical premise must exist in order to deductively validate naturalism. Also such a metaphysical validating premise would be a priori to naturalism.
Moreover, considering that Godel’s theorems show conclusively that no system can validate itself, then a higher system is actually required for validating Naturalism, and that system would necessarily be metaphysical and therefore a priori to Naturalism, and outside and beyond the purview of Naturalist investigation.
The Naturalist might complain that the use of Godel’s theorems leads to an infinite regress of hierarchical systems, but that is not so. It is only necessary to go as far as a system that is foundationally solid and true. The Naturalist might then complain that such a foundational system is impossible, yet he would be unable to definitively show that to be the case in dimensions and existences outside our own. The case for naturalism devolves to speculation at this point, and speculation that is declared True is a fallacy in itself, and doubly so when it is used in rationalizing a desired conclusion.
”Is this explanation of naturalism sound and valid?”
How about this for a simple proof of the supernatural?
1. Everything contingent has an external cause 2. The universe is contingent 3. Therefore, the universe has an external cause
1 is true by definition. And 2 seems more likely true than false. The universe could have been any number of other ways, a key indicator of contingency.
I would say the Laws of Logic would be a proof of the supernatural. They aren't dependent upon space, time, or matter and exist apart from nature and aren't derived from it (like Martin says, the universe isn't necessary and can be different while these Laws cant). Of course if someone holds to fictionalism or nominalism they can argue against that.
Chris seeing how you like presuppositionalism, have you by any chance heard Paul Manata debate Dan Barker or Derek Sansone? He uses the Transcendental argument as well. I do thank Matt Slick for laying this out in a simplistic form as it was sorta easy to learn, but Paul Manata is far more versed in philosophy and Logic.
Thanks. I'm familiar with these folks, but I haven't checked out the above debate(s). The Bahnsen-Stein debate from some years back is the one I was most familiar with.
I can't say that I'm much of the logician myself, but like you said, Slick layed out his Transcendental argument in a nice simple format. TAG and related discussions revolving around the relationship between mind and matter I find exceedingly interesting.
The Dan Barker one is pretty good, better than the Sansone one. I only know of one site that deals with Van Til presuppositionalism strongly at http://www.choosinghats.com/
12 comments:
Stan,
I was on Austin Kline's site this morning which lead me to this:
"In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However, as several of our authors argue, methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it in fact has been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true."
- Keith Augustine
Thoughts?
It is a Category Error to declare that the existence and/or success of Category J means that Category N is empty - when Category N is disjunctive with Category J.
In this case, Category [material existence] is disjunctive from Category [non-material existence].
Stan,
Excellent.
OK, on the same Austin Cline About.com site also
"Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Supnaturalism is just the opposite- the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation. Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause.
Unfortunately, even for theists naturalism is prior to supernaturalism. In any debate or discussion, there are a few basic presuppositions which all must share: the validity of logic, the existence of a common world, and the stability of that common world.
All of these premises are naturalistic, not supernaturalistic- and hence naturalism is prior to supernaturalism with the latter being an extra addition to a person's assumptions. Without assuming naturalism and the continuity of the observable world- and that you both share much the same experience of that world- how can you possibly succeed in having any discussion with someone?
The anser is that you can't. The answer is that you do have to assume naturalism rather than supernaturalism first- but the argument from consciousness attempts to deny this and, hence, deny the basis for having a rational argument in the first place."
Is this explanation of naturalism sound and valid?
Chris asks about naturalism, per Austin Cline:
"Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Supnaturalism is just the opposite- the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation.”
The negation is incorrect. A correct negation or opposition is: NOT the belief that all objects, event, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world.
”Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause.”
It is not the case that a non-physical cause is required; the case is that they do eventually devolve to a point where non-physical cause is all that is possible.
”Unfortunately, even for theists naturalism is prior to supernaturalism. In any debate or discussion, there are a few basic presuppositions which all must share: the validity of logic, the existence of a common world, and the stability of that common world.”
There is one more obvious foundational issue: the cause for the First Principles which underlie logic, rationality, and an orderly universe. This is the point at which meta-physical existence becomes dominant over naturalism and is a priori to it.
”All of these premises are naturalistic, not supernaturalistic- and hence naturalism is prior to supernaturalism with the latter being an extra addition to a person's assumptions. Without assuming naturalism and the continuity of the observable world- and that you both share much the same experience of that world- how can you possibly succeed in having any discussion with someone?”
Indeed if you stop too soon you cannot see the foundation which allows the natural world to make sense, which it need not have done, being generated via a chaotic birth. The causes for all the things which naturalists want to discuss stop at a naturalistic way station, rather than being pursued to the original cause and causing agent.
(Continued)
(Continued from above)
”The anser is that you can't. The answer is that you do have to assume naturalism rather than supernaturalism first- but the argument from consciousness attempts to deny this and, hence, deny the basis for having a rational argument in the first place.”
This conclusion is based on the improper assumptions and analysis seen above. This appears to be an attempt to defeat an argument he calls, “The Argument From Consciousness”, by means of declaring naturalism to be valid thereby defeating any and every argument of metaphysics. But naturalism cannot be proved valid either by means of empirical experimentation, nor by deductive association.
Empirically, naturalism cannot be shown under experimental, laboratory conditions, those conditions that are devised to eliminate error and non-natural presuppositions from the pursuit of natural knowledge.
If it is to be Logically deduced that naturalism is valid, then there must be a superior premise to naturalism that is undeniably valid and True, and which encompasses naturalism in order to validate it. That is how deduction works. But there is no superior premise to naturalism which is itself natural, so any deductive declaration of naturalism to be true, is False. In fact the only proper deductive conclusion would be that a metaphysical premise which encompasses naturalism, and which is presumed valid and True, such a metaphysical premise must exist in order to deductively validate naturalism. Also such a metaphysical validating premise would be a priori to naturalism.
Moreover, considering that Godel’s theorems show conclusively that no system can validate itself, then a higher system is actually required for validating Naturalism, and that system would necessarily be metaphysical and therefore a priori to Naturalism, and outside and beyond the purview of Naturalist investigation.
The Naturalist might complain that the use of Godel’s theorems leads to an infinite regress of hierarchical systems, but that is not so. It is only necessary to go as far as a system that is foundationally solid and true. The Naturalist might then complain that such a foundational system is impossible, yet he would be unable to definitively show that to be the case in dimensions and existences outside our own. The case for naturalism devolves to speculation at this point, and speculation that is declared True is a fallacy in itself, and doubly so when it is used in rationalizing a desired conclusion.
”Is this explanation of naturalism sound and valid?”
It is not.
How about this for a simple proof of the supernatural?
1. Everything contingent has an external cause
2. The universe is contingent
3. Therefore, the universe has an external cause
1 is true by definition. And 2 seems more likely true than false. The universe could have been any number of other ways, a key indicator of contingency.
I would say the Laws of Logic would be a proof of the supernatural. They aren't dependent upon space, time, or matter and exist apart from nature and aren't derived from it (like Martin says, the universe isn't necessary and can be different while these Laws cant). Of course if someone holds to fictionalism or nominalism they can argue against that.
Check out the recently contentious Transendental Argument - TAG.
Cornelius Van Til
Greg Bahnsen
Matt Stick
The Matt/Matt debate
Correction:
Matt Slick
Refutation of TAG
by "Theoretical Bullshit"
Chris seeing how you like presuppositionalism, have you by any chance heard Paul Manata debate Dan Barker or Derek Sansone? He uses the Transcendental argument as well. I do thank Matt Slick for laying this out in a simplistic form as it was sorta easy to learn, but Paul Manata is far more versed in philosophy and Logic.
Preview,
Thanks. I'm familiar with these folks, but I haven't checked out the above debate(s). The Bahnsen-Stein debate from some years back is the one I was most familiar with.
I can't say that I'm much of the logician myself, but like you said, Slick layed out his Transcendental argument in a nice simple format. TAG and related discussions revolving around the relationship between mind and matter I find exceedingly interesting.
Chris, out.
The Dan Barker one is pretty good, better than the Sansone one. I only know of one site that deals with Van Til presuppositionalism strongly at http://www.choosinghats.com/
Post a Comment