Russel Glasser (from AxP) vs Pastor Stephen Feinstein

[fimbulvinter]

One of the presenters of The Atheist Experience is having a debate with a scholarly pastor who called into their show a few weeks ago. The debate so far is linked to from Glasser's blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012...ein-round-two/

Feinstein is trying to get Glasser to lay out his assumptions, but he is being a little long-winded and the two are getting frustrated with each other. This is a shame because I rather wanted to see an interesting debate about epistemology. Perhaps sensibly the two sides have disabled commenting on their respective websites, so maybe we can comment on the debate here.

For the record, the assumptions I make about epistemology are
1) I think therefore I am,
2) My senses correctly describe a reality greater than my conscious mind at least some of the time, and
3) If multiple conclusions provided by the same hypothesis converge when they are drawn from different sets of evidence, that hypothesis is more likely to be true than one that produces contradictory conclusions. It is certainly possible for two different hypotheses to give the same prediction when one method is actually wrong, just as it is possible for our senses to be deceived, but without these three I feel it is not possible to understand reality.

The problems with Glasser's philosophy according to Feinstein are:
- The problem of inductive inference
- The problem of deductive inference
- The problem of the mind/brain
- The problem of moral absolutes

The last two I think I have satisfactory answers to, but I have not heard of the first two. Feinstein said he'd get to explaining them in due time - which he had better do rapidly, otherwise Glasser will walk out of the debate. I'd like to hear your take on them though.

[Doug Shaver]

The problems with Glasser's philosophy according to Feinstein are:

- The problem of inductive inference
- The problem of deductive inference
- The problem of the mind/brain
- The problem of moral absolutes

The last two I think I have satisfactory answers to, but I have not heard of the first two.

I've done only a fast skim of the arguments up to this point, so I could have missed something important, but it is not clear to me what Feinstein means by either the problem of induction of the problem of deduction. What philosophers in general mean, though, in the case of induction is finding some way to justify any inductive inference. This has been considered a serious philosophical problem ever since Hume raised it. Many solutions have been proposed, but none has gained anything close to universal acceptance, at least among professional philosophers.

But of course, inductive reasoning has always been standard procedure within the scientific community, and most scientists, I suspect, could hardly care less about Hume's or anyone else's philosophical qualms.

As for the problem of deduction, that too has been endlessly debated, though not nearly to the same extent as the problem of induction, partly because there is less of a consensus that it really needs a solution. If you try to prove the validity of logic by using a logical argument, then obviously you're just arguing in a circle. But if you don't use a logical argument, then what other kind of argument can you use? Thus, most philosophers, I suspect, would agree that if we cannot simply presuppose the validity of deductive reasoning, then we just cannot even get started with any philosophical discourse. And that would include any discourse about presuppositions.

[shunyadragon]

I've done only a fast skim of the arguments up to this point, so I could have missed something important, but it is not clear to me what Feinstein means by either the problem of induction of the problem of deduction. What philosophers in general mean, though, in the case of induction is finding some way to justify any inductive inference. This has been considered a serious philosophical problem ever since Hume raised it. Many solutions have been proposed, but none has gained anything close to universal acceptance, at least among professional philosophers.

But of course, inductive reasoning has always been standard procedure within the scientific community, and most scientists, I suspect, could hardly care less about Hume's or anyone else's philosophical qualms.

Like many scientists I shrug my shoulders and say let the philosophers play and try to justify to themselves that there is a serious problem. I prefer to cut the Gordian Knot with one slice of a very sharp sword. Inductive inference works, it is simple as that.

As for the problem of deduction, that too has been endlessly debated, though not nearly to the same extent as the problem of induction, partly because there is less of a consensus that it really needs a solution. If you try to prove the validity of logic by using a logical argument, then obviously you're just arguing in a circle. But if you don't use a logical argument, then what other kind of argument can you use? Thus, most philosophers, I suspect, would agree that if we cannot simply presuppose the validity of deductive reasoning, then we just cannot even get started with any philosophical discourse. And that would include any discourse about presuppositions.

Here is where the real problem is for theists. It is played as a self indulgent game to justify what they believe. I like logic, but functional practical value of formal logic is greatly over rated. I prefer informal logic and make an effort to teach people simply to think for themselves without chasing their own tail.

[shunyadragon]

I consider the following the problems for traditional theists and of course Feinstein.

- The problem of the mind/brain

No significant problem with atheists, agnostics, nor scientist of many strips. It is a problem for traditional theists thinking in ancient world views.

- The problem of moral absolutes.

Yep!!!! A distinct problem for traditional theists.

[Pitchforkpat]

Feinstein is trying to get Glasser to lay out his assumptions, but he is being a little long-winded and the two are getting frustrated with each other.

To say that the good pastor is long winded is an understatement: way too much bluff and bluster and not enough substance. Glasser is right to call him on it. I mean, he’s not willing to simply agree that the natural world exists and start making substantive arguments for his positions?

He said he’s not going use the method of arguing for theism first and then advance to the Christian deity. Instead he said he'll go straight to the Christian deity. But so far he seems to be doing what he sid he wouldn’t do, at least to the extent that he’s made any argument at all.

I have a feeling he hasn’t debated anyone with Glasser’s intellectual capacity yet.

Christianity must be true because without it we lose all intelligibility.

That’s some burden to bear. Time to get to it Pastor Steve

Amendment: There's a third post by Feinstein. To be continued...