Atheist Epistemology (for Adam).

[AtheistArchon]

- Hi Adam, here's a thread we can use for our specific topics. Since they deal exclusively in philosophical questions and comments, I think this is an appropriate place.

- I'll let you repost your argument, and then I'll respond. The conclusion, I believe is that atheists do not have a justified epistemology, and therefore cannot justify knowledge. Correct me please if I'm wrong.

[PlumpDJ]

Hehe.

I take it Archon he laid the good ol' transcendental argument on yah?? :)

Personaly I think the argument seems to gain most of it's strength from the skepticism of "Atheist" (or non-theistic) philosophers like Hume and Co. :bow: :fight:

[AtheistArchon]

I take it Archon he laid the good ol' transcendental argument on yah?? :)

- Yes. Well, I think so at least. It's hard to actually find "the" concise TAG argument in logical form, and Adam has not provided it yet, but he's assured me that TAG renders me a Christian whether I want to be one or not. :smile:

[PlumpDJ]

Hey Archon, :thumb:

The form of the argument from my readings goes something like this:

1) If Atheism is true we cannot justify any knowledge claim and therefore we can know nothing.
2) It is the case that we do have knowledge
3) Therefore Atheism is false.

I'm still trying to figure out how it gets us specificaly to a Christian
Trinitarian Cosmology and not some general theistic cosmology that has the neccesary elements needed to get us out of the box and into knowledge. I wonder If Adam can enlighten me in that regard?? :)

If you are interested (and it's not often that one is prepared to plough through web site links offered by those from other worldviews..) there is a sort of 'story rendition' of TAG done by Russell Manion below.

It's called "A Brief History Of Knowledge"

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm

....... "It is the thesis of this presentation, that the history of epistemology demonstrates that man, unaided, has not and cannot attain a foundation on which to base a theory of knowledge. Lacking a foundation, any theory of knowledge man attains too can be characterized as arbitrary, ambiguous and incoherent. Lacking a coherent theory of knowledge, man cannot justify his beliefs, and can make no claim to be in possession of truth and knowledge

Therefore, man must choose. Either, he must accept the lesson of history and resign himself to skepticism and ignorance, or, he must accept the fact that if he is to give a rational unambiguous account of knowledge he will need help. But, he needs help not from someone who shares his limitations. Not from someone who also finds himself trying to figure out who he is, what the world is, and how the two are related. Not from someone who is also trying to solve the impossible task of providing a justification criterion for his justification criterion. But, from someone who is in back of all reality, from someone who is in a position to know. The person who wants to be rational, who wants knowledge must look for aid. He must look to see if God has spoken. "



BTW How's things at the Wasteland? Do you still visit?

[Butters]

It seems to me that TAG works so,

assert- "TAG proves God exists, and you can't even argue against it!"

Then, run away.

No one has successfully argued againt this!

[jsolis]

04-12-2003 @ 03:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64039#post64039)
Butters:

It seems to me that TAG works so,

assert- "TAG proves God exists, and you can't even argue against it!"

Then, run away.

No one has successfully argued againt this!

And you seem to believe that the way to refute TAG--even a poorly positioned attempt at it--is to caricature it, laugh, and then run away. I have to confess that I doubt, from perusing your posts here that you are sufficiently knowledgeable of transcendental argumentation to offer a critique of its utility in philosophy, especially in arguments about the existence of God. (I could be wrong, of course; but it's nothing that I need to be right about.)

I would be interested in discussing TAG with you myself, though there is already a thread on the topic. But before I would discuss it with you, will you please give me your account of your understanding of Kant's view of transcendental argumentation, as he uses it in the CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. Bear in mind that Kant was--among other things--responding to Hume's critique of the idea of a "necessary connexion" in the ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. Kant's response to Hume is in fact a transcendental argument for the existence of a necessary connexion. The utility and validity of transcendental arguments is something that philosophers continue to debate, so I doubt that you have resoved the matter. (Of course, if you have I would eagerly engage the journal article you will surely publish on the matter!) You could, if you like, read the brief critique of transcendental argument in Bradley and Swartz, POSSIBLE WORLDS; AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC AND ITS PHILOSOPHY, 1979, Hackett Publishing, pp. 158-167.

Considering your apparent skepticism about transcendental arguments I wonder if it would be your position that Kant, along with Plato and Aristotle (among others) is wrong to consider the necessarry pre-conditions for any experience? And if it is legitimage to do so, can you explain how it would be possible to do 'non-transcendentally'?

Oh. Since you have not seen or heard TAG, try http://www.reformed.org. Go to the apologetics page, scroll down to the link to the 'Bahsen-Stein Debate' and have a listen. I have heard that it took Dr. Stein six months to figure out what happened to him during that debate.

Peace

[TheFiveSolas]

jsolis,
Welcome to TWeb!
:thumb:

[psychopath]

Jsolis, if no atheists/skeptics choose to discuss TAG with you, I (a Christian) think I might want to play devil's advocate against TAG. I have a cursory knowledge of the argument, and it doesn't convince me. But I think if I voice my concerns as if I was someone arguing against TAG, I might gain a better understanding of the argument, and possibly realize its apologetic utility.

Would you have a problem with that?

EDIT: I just listened to the debate you recommended, so I do have general knowledge of TAG, if we decide to discuss it. I will say that Bahnsen surely got the best of the debate, though I must admit that I have heard and read atheists much better at defending their position than his opponent (forget his name).

[jsolis]

Today @ 01:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86707#post86707)
psychopath:

Jsolis, if no atheists/skeptics choose to discuss TAG with you, I (a Christian) think I might want to play devil's advocate against TAG. I have a cursory knowledge of the argument, and it doesn't convince me. But I think if I voice my concerns as if I was someone arguing against TAG, I might gain a better understanding of the argument, and possibly realize its apologetic utility.

Would you have a problem with that?

EDIT: I just listened to the debate you recommended, so I do have general knowledge of TAG, if we decide to discuss it. I will say that Bahnsen surely got the best of the debate, though I must admit that I have heard and read atheists much better at defending their position than his opponent (forget his name).

I don't have a problem discussing anything with anyone. I will say just two things, though. First, there is already a thread on TAG somewhere in here (Phil. Dept., I mean); that might interest you more, or at least as much. Second, if you would like to understand TAG I really think you should try to understand transcendental arguments in general. So I really recommend that you read "Of the idea of necessary connexion" in Hume's ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING and then start plodding through Kant's CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON.

Additionally, you might pick up and read John Frame's APOLOGETICS TO THE GLORY OF GOD. Frame is sort of in the middle of the road between Classical Apologists, like R.C. Sproul, and Presuppositionalists such as Bahnsen.

Finally, to keep things organized perhaps, if we have this discussion we should institute a separate thread, or perhaps arrange for a debate between the two of us in the gym. Whatever you prefer, you may commence the discussion with your next post.

P.S. Bahnsen's opponent was Gordon Stein, Ph.D.

[AtheistArchon]

- Well, as the originator of the thread, I'd also be happy to debate TAG... should it ever be presented in logical form (as opposed to "storytelling" form). At the moment, I'm suffering from the same problem that Martin did in that he could not find one concrete version of TAG. "General knowledge" is insufficient.

- It's true that there's another thread dealing with TAG, but honestly I thought it would be much cleaner to get it out into the open here.

[Xtokalon]

a quick stab: a problem with the theistic position here is that theists are, as metaphysicians, engaged in a kind of argument of the gaps. the proposition can be reduced to this: truth claims cannot be justified or made coherent for the reason that nothing exists to ground them. in other words, in the absence of a valid philosophical foundational system that grounds and makes sense of not only the contents of truth claims but the very act of making truth claims, god is the only existentially viable "system" of thought. i'm saying, it's an argument that depends on the failure to provide a legible philosophical system that doesn't arbitrarily jump to a creator god as a guarantor of the legitimacy of proposition-making. it simply asserts "because you atheists can't, THEREFORE GOD!" which i think surpasses the ridiculous into dishonesty.

i think obviously there are two strands of contention here: the first i've already mentioned, ie, the failure to provide secular foundation for rationality (and the issue of whether it's possible); and second, the question of whether Christian theism is itself a legitimate answer; "god" may be a satisfactory answer for some, but is it a "real" answer? or is it merely contrived and just as logically corrupt and philosophically abortive as its secular counterparts?

as for the first half of the issue. well, it's neccesary to provide a foundation for rationality, something which i think it not only possible but also inevitable; in the interim of this, it should be sufficeint to argue for the possibility of these foundations. i don't atheism in pricincipal fails just because historically it has. moreover, i'm not sure if it would be neccesary to provide such foundations. it seems adequate to do just as theists do, to argue from the gaps. we may assert: well we haven't given summa deductive proof for proof, but then neither have you. which brings up the second half of the issue. i don't think it's tentative to assert that christianity itself doesn't provide a non-bogus resolution to the problem of foundations. it seems inadequate these days to patch up philosophical problemata by pointing to the skies and belching "god!". it isn't accectable as an answer in hard science, it shouldn't be in epistemology either. why is this so? why is it not so?

[Jeremy Oxford]

PlumpDJ You wrote:

The form of the argument from my readings goes something like this:

1) If Atheism is true we cannot justify any knowledge claim and therefore we can know nothing.
2) It is the case that we do have knowledge
3) Therefore Atheism is false.

Jeremy writes:

Plump, your syllogism was close but not right. To put it in correct form would be to say

1.) God exsist
2.) Because God exist we have knowldge
3.) We can give account to this knowledge because God exist
4.) The atheist has knowledge yet he cannot rationally give an account for his knowledge.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 01:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93152#post93152)
Jeremy Oxford:

PlumpDJ You wrote:

The form of the argument from my readings goes something like this:

1) If Atheism is true we cannot justify any knowledge claim and therefore we can know nothing.
2) It is the case that we do have knowledge
3) Therefore Atheism is false.

Jeremy writes:

Plump, your syllogism was close but not right. To put it in correct form would be to say

1.) God exsist
2.) Because God exist we have knowldge
3.) We can give account to this knowledge because God exist
4.) The atheist has knowledge yet he cannot rationally give an account for his knowledge.

Jeremy your argument did not have any form. You just made a bunch of statements. It should be something like this
P=>Q
P
:. Q
You must set it up in a Syllogistic form.

God Bless,
Blake:cheers:

[Jeremy Oxford]

Today @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93165#post93165)
Blake Reas:



Jeremy your argument did not have any form. You just made a bunch of statements. It should be something like this
P=>Q
P
:. Q
You must set it up in a Syllogistic form.

God Bless,
Blake:cheers:


Thank you for you correction.

Hey, why dod you stand Adam up this morning?

[Jeremy Oxford]

Yesterday @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93165#post93165)
Blake Reas:



Jeremy your argument did not have any form. You just made a bunch of statements. It should be something like this
P=>Q
P
:. Q
You must set it up in a Syllogistic form.

God Bless,
Blake:cheers:


Blake,

I answered back to you to quickly last time.
You say that my Syllogism was not a syllogism, but not all syllogism have to have Q and A form. Therefore the statements I made were in a sylllogistic form.

Blessings

Jeremy
:shrug: :shrug:

[jsolis]

05-09-2003 @ 04:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91840#post91840)
Xtokalon:

I
a problem with the theistic position here is that theists are, as metaphysicians, engaged in a kind of argument of the gaps.

It is interesting to compare this statement with the following, also stated by you:

it seems adequate to do just as theists do, to argue from the gaps.

One just has to wonder: if it is adequate, then why point it up as a difficulty which, apparently, theists must overcome?


II

...[the transcendental argument for the existence of God] is an argument that depends on the failure to provide a legible philosophical system that doesn't arbitrarily jump to a creator god as a guarantor of the legitimacy of proposition-making. it simply asserts "because you atheists can't, THEREFORE GOD!" which i think surpasses the ridiculous into dishonesty.

Actually the argument is much bolder than the mere assertion of non-theism's failure "to provide a legible philosophical system". You clearly believe that non-theism has failed to do so; there is no need for a theist to assert the failure. Neither does TAG attempt somehow to deduce theism from the mere failure of non-theism. The claim of TAG is precisely that it is not possible for non-theism to provide the system that you speak of. Specifically, non-theism cannot provide the necessary pre-conditions for thought. TAG, then, is hardly an argument of gaps. It is, among other things, the assertion that the very debate between theists and non-theists is not possible on a non-theistic worldview precisely because non-theism does not provide the necessary pre-conditions for the laws of logic that are used in such a debate. Neither does non-theism provide the basis for its tacit claim that the theist (or anyone) has an obligation to proportion his beliefs to evidence.

...[theism] may be a satisfactory answer for some, but is it a "real" answer?

Theism is a 'real' answer in that it provides the necessary pre-conditions for knowledge of the 'real'. Non-theism canot do this, as indicated by Steven Hawking:

"If you believe that the universe is not arbitrary, but is governed by definite laws, you ultimately have to combine the partial theories into a complete unified theory that will describe everything in the universe. But there is a fundamental paradox in the search for such a complete unified theory. The ideas about scientific theories assume we are rational beings who are free to observe the universe as we want and to draw logical deductions from what we see. In such a scheme it is reasonable to suppose that we might progress closer toward the laws that govern our universe. Yet if there really is a complete unified theory, it would also presumably determine our actions. And so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it! And why should it determine that we come to the right conclusions from the evidence? Might it not equally well determine that we draw the wrong conclusion? Or no conclusion at all?" (A Brief History of Time, p.12).

Our knowledge claims and the justifications for them are determined by the laws of nature.

as for the first half of the issue. well, it's neccesary to provide a foundation for rationality, something which i think it not only possible but also inevitable

1. Rationality does not yet have a foundation, but you believe in it nevertheless. Ostensibly you see nothing irrational about this. Theism does not have a foundation (as evidenced by the fact that people who accept it do so merely because they have looked up to the sky and belched, "God") and theists are irrational in accepting theism without a foundation for doing so.

2. This foundation apparently does not yet exist, but you are convinced that it shall one day come. Your belief in the existence of something that you do not yet see is touching.

in the interim of this [provision of a foundation for rationality], it should be sufficeint to argue for the possibility of these foundations.

Yes. And all you really have to do is tell us what the universe must be like in order for rationality to exist and have a foundation, and whether the universe as conceived by non-theists is such as makes rationality possible.

i don't [think?] atheism in pricincipal fails just because historically it has.

Quite. And the TAG, again (to make certain that we are clear on this), does not rely on non-theism's past failure. To assert that non-theism fails only because it historically has would be just like arguing that I will live forever because I have not died yet.

moreover, i'm not sure if it would be neccesary to provide such foundations.

Perhaps I missed something but this seems contrary to your earlier assertion above that "it's neccesary to provide a foundation for rationality". And if it isn't necessary for you to provide a foundation for your ultimate epistemological commitment, would you assert that it is necessary that the theist do so?

it seems adequate to do just as theists do, to argue from the gaps.

You may argue from gaps if you wish, but not because theists do so. I have already argued that TAG is not interested in gaps, or in atheism's mere historical failure to provide a foundation for rationality.

we may assert: well we haven't given summa deductive proof for proof, but then neither have you. which brings up the second half of the issue. i don't think it's tentative to assert that christianity itself doesn't provide a non-bogus resolution to the problem of foundations.

Something is 'bogus' only within a philosophical system. You look at the answer given by the Christian system, which, by the way involves a wee bit more than looking up and belching 'God', from the perspective of your own system and call the Christian answer bogus. Well, that's fair enough. But given that this ciriticism is based in large part, or in toto on your own admittedly foundationless philosophical system, don't you think you're a bit premature? When that foundation, the arrival of which you have placed your faith in, comes, then perhaps you will be able to claim to know what is bogus.

[patching up philosophical problems by pointing to the skies and belching "god!&quot] isn't accectable as an answer in hard science, it shouldn't be in epistemology either.

This is the case only if you would assert that philosophy is relevantly similar to hard sciences, subject to experimentation, which it isn't. Philosophy begins with assumptions, not with empirically verifable propositions. Plato claimed that there are two epistemological options: either we (a) make our way with the best human theory we can develope or (b) rely upon a word from God. See Phaedo, 84d-86b. These two ways are somewhat mutually exclusive: one can validate a putative word from God by recourse to scientific theory; neither can one validate an empirical theory by recourse to a putative word from God.

So one can have as part of one's basic epistemological committment that God exists or one can have as part of one's basic epistemological committment that God does not exist. Both are equally arbitrary presuppositions.