Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    As I understand it, the point of the argument is not that every one of our beliefs is irrational, nor is it that all irrational beliefs have equal survival value.

    I think the thrust of the argument is that if naturalism and evolution are both true, then there is no necessary connection between our beliefs and reality. And that means we have a potential defeater for all beliefs we hold. We can't say " This belief is true, because those who hold it have had evolutionary success" since evolution doesn't select for true beliefs, but for beliefs that lead to survival.
    The counter to which is, if true beliefs/perception/reasoning have survival value, then those brains that have a greater tendency to hold true beliefs/perception/reasoning will tend to survive, meaning the brain is generally oriented to truth. It is not a guarantee that every belief/perception/reasoning will be true, but then the Christian worldview does not provide that guarantee either.

    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    If unguided evolution is what made our belief-forming faculties, then what it made was faculties that increased the chance of survival, not faculties that formed only beliefs that were true. How do we then choose which beliefs are true and actually reflect reality; and which beliefs are false, but help us survive?
    No worldview can guarantee perfection, Max. If that is what you and others here are seeking, you will not find it in our worldview or yours. We distinguish between true and untrue beliefs on the basis of our perceptions and reasoning, and we look for mechanisms to validate/test those beliefs to verify them as much as is possible. In general, beliefs that can reliably be used to make predictions tend to be more sure to be true. Beliefs that can be tested and validated in various ways by independent evaluators, tend to be more true.

    But there is always the possibility of perceiving incorrectly, and reasoning incorrectly, and coming to a false belief. There is the possibility of inherited bias or extreme trauma coloring our judgments. We may sufffer from over-dependence on authority. Nothing guarantees that what we believe and/or think we know is error free. Indeed, I expect to go to my grave ignorant of more about the universe than I am knowledgeable about it, and carrying beleifs to my grave that I believe to be correct that are actually wrong. That's life.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      But what would be the survival value of truth if truth was not necessary for survival?
      True perceptions/reasoning have survival value, so we developed them. It is somewhat preposterous, IMO, to then suggest that when these capabilities are invokved in another context (abstract beliefs), which are also based on perception/reasoning, suddenly ceaase to be.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Beliefs are abstract, and as far as we know animals don't have them and survive just fine.
      There is a logical problem here. No one is saying abstract beliefs are necessary for survival. But abstract beliefs ARE based on perception and reasoning, the same two characteristics we USE for survival. If those two characteristics evolved to be accurate for the purposes of survival, there is no reason to believe that accuracy ends when the same two skills are employed elsewhere. Your argument is analogous to this one:
      • Claim: upper body strength is key to survival and also makes it possible to lift heavy objects we buy at WalMart into our cars.
      • Response: Animals do not lift heavy objects they buy at WalMart into their cars, and they survive just fine.


      Now, by comparison:
      • Claim: correct perception and reasoning are key to survival and also make it possible to form correct, abstract beliefs.
      • Response: Animals do not have abstract beliefs, and they survive just fine.




      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Carp, just about every study, I referenced a number of them, says that there is no feedback loop, it just does not happen. That is where science is going.
      So you are reading studies where the atomic structure of the nervous system results in thought/instinct/choices, and thought/instinct/choices have no impact on the what the body does? Or are you suggesting that the thought/instinct/choices of the brain drive the body and what the body does has no impact on the subsequent thought/instinct/choices of the mind? I would dearly love to see those studies. Can you link to a few?

      Because, on the face of it, either of those claims appears to me to be preposterous. Here's a little article you might enjoy. With a simple search, I found dozens (hundreds?) of scientific papers and article about the brain/body feedback loop.

      I am actually somewhat amazed by this line of argumentation. It makes very little sense to me.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-10-2018, 09:52 AM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        The counter to which is, if true beliefs/perception/reasoning have survival value, then those brains that have a greater tendency to hold true beliefs/perception/reasoning will tend to survive, meaning the brain is generally oriented to truth. It is not a guarantee that every belief/perception/reasoning will be true, but then the Christian worldview does not provide that guarantee either.
        Here is the deal with Christian world view: On the premise that the Christian world view is true, it has an immutable guarantee (Titus 1:2). The Christian world view does not provide a guarantee if it is just superstition [false resurrection claim] and wishful thinking [eternal life claim].
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Here is the deal with Christian world view: On the premise that the Christian world view is true, it has an immutable guarantee (Titus 1:2). The Christian world view does not provide a guarantee if it is just superstition [false resurrection claim] and wishful thinking [eternal life claim].
          I cannot speak to the former; I do not use Christian scriptures in arguments because they are far too subject to individual and collectiv interpretation. If you say you believe it has an immutable guarantee, then I accept that as your belief. I agree that a belief/worldview that is not true/accurate cannot really "guarantee" anything.

          I assume you believe it is true, so your further belief is you have an immutable guarantee. I believe it is not, so I believe that guarantee does not exist.

          I would not call Christian beliefs "superstition;" that is far too demeaning a term. It means, "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief." I do not know too many Christians who have no justification for their beliefs, or who engage in the classic "superstitious" activity (e.g., not stepping on cracks, not walking unmder ladders). They engage in worship activities. That is not the same, at least not to me. I may believe that the Christian worldview is incorrect, but I do not believe it is mere "superstition."
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I cannot speak to the former; I do not use Christian scriptures in arguments because they are far too subject to individual and collectiv interpretation. If you say you believe it has an immutable guarantee, then I accept that as your belief. I agree that a belief/worldview that is not true/accurate cannot really "guarantee" anything.

            I assume you believe it is true, so your further belief is you have an immutable guarantee. I believe it is not, so I believe that guarantee does not exist.

            I would not call Christian beliefs "superstition;" that is far too demeaning a term. It means, "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief." I do not know too many Christians who have no justification for their beliefs, or who engage in the classic "superstitious" activity (e.g., not stepping on cracks, not walking unmder ladders). They engage in worship activities. That is not the same, at least not to me. I may believe that the Christian worldview is incorrect, but I do not believe it is mere "superstition."
            Christianity stands and falls on the truth or falsehood of its resurrection claim (1 Corinthians 15:16-17). In spite of arguments making claims of extra biblical claims regarding the resurrection of Christ. The Christian New Testament documents are the only genuinely valid source for the claim. So said documents (New Testament writings) are the basis of the Christian claim. If there was a christianity without said documents or similar documents - it would be just another oral tradition of men, if at all. And the other extra biblical allege evidence might not even exist, if at all. So the only value of citing the NT or the Bible is to provide a source for Christian belief claim. The mere citing of the Bible does not establish that the Christian claim is true, but that said claim has its basis from the Bible. The point being there is a basis, even it said basis is not true beyond its historically true elements.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Christianity stands and falls on the truth or falsehood of its resurrection claim (1 Corinthians 15:16-17). In spite of arguments making claims of extra biblical claims regarding the resurrection of Christ. The Christian New Testament documents are the only genuinely valid source for the claim. So said documents (New Testament writings) are the basis of the Christian claim. If there was a christianity without said documents or similar documents - it would be just another oral tradition of men, if at all. And the other extra biblical allege evidence might not even exist, if at all. So the only value of citing the NT or the Bible is to provide a source for Christian belief claim. The mere citing of the Bible does not establish that the Christian claim is true, but that said claim has its basis from the Bible. The point being there is a basis, even it said basis is not true beyond its historically true elements.
              I think we read the bible differently (not that I have read it a great deal recently). I see the bible as a collection of several books representing several different kinds of literature. The old testament includes mythology, poetry, history, legend, parables (teaching stories), escatology, theology, and documentation of the stories of faith of the early Judaic community. The NT is a combination of the documented oral history that followed the death of Jesus of Nazareth (the gospels and acts), correspondence (the various letters from some of the early Christian preachers to various communities), and eschatology (revelation). While it is not devoid of history, the primary history it provides us with is the nature of the beliefs held by the early Christian community/churches, and the theology that was developing (and had already developed) around the person of Jesus. I do not read the gospels and Acts as actual history stories of the life of Jesus, though they do contain some historical elements).
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I think we read the bible differently (not that I have read it a great deal recently). I see the bible as a collection of several books representing several different kinds of literature. The old testament includes mythology, poetry, history, legend, parables (teaching stories), escatology, theology, and documentation of the stories of faith of the early Judaic community. The NT is a combination of the documented oral history that followed the death of Jesus of Nazareth (the gospels and acts), correspondence (the various letters from some of the early Christian preachers to various communities), and eschatology (revelation). While it is not devoid of history, the primary history it provides us with is the nature of the beliefs held by the early Christian community/churches, and the theology that was developing (and had already developed) around the person of Jesus. I do not read the gospels and Acts as actual history stories of the life of Jesus, though they do contain some historical elements).
                Within the community which claims to be Christian there are various groups. Ancient (Catholic Church claim and the Orthodox churches claim) and modern (numerous sects founded, claiming in some way the NT documents). Without Judaism there would be no Christianity. Without Christianity there would be, for example, no Islam. It is my understanding also that the oral traditions Zoroastrianism, and that of Buddhism became written because of the influence of there being writings for Christianity (NT).

                The Christian world view has its source, the Jewish writings (OT) and the Christian writings (NT).

                The common ground are our presuppositions founded in the evidences found in our material world and immaterial, being reasoning founded in our use of language and logic. And they have their basis in that they exist. Existence or being is the fundamental presupposition from our personal experience of being. Existence (what ever we think it to be) is the basis of all that is self evident.
                Last edited by 37818; 02-10-2018, 11:15 AM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                  I have several things on my list:
                  1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
                  2. The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
                  3. I have the ability to use my five senses to (imperfectly) collect information about the reality of the universe.
                  4. I have the (imperfect) capacity to reason and process that information to arrive at conclusions.
                  5. Because my sensing and reasoning is imperfect, I should check my reasoning against that of others as much and as often as possible. That will help me to find flaws in my reasoning.
                  6. Because of 3) and 4), it is never possible to be 100% certain about any conclusion.
                  7. I should never add something to an explanation that is not strictly necessary to arrive at the conclusion (Occam's Razor)


                  Sitting here, writing quickly, that's my initial list. Does yours add or exclude anything? I would like to see if the various worldviews can find a common starting point we all agree on that makes it possible to communicate more easily.
                  1. As far as our nervous system can understand what is local to us. Do the laws of logic and mathematics hold if the Universe is in a state of Singularity? Or does logic and math emerge from the following Bang? Do the rules change as the Universe changes?
                  2. As much as our minds, aided by technology, can understand as to make a symbolic map of the environment.
                  3. Yes, but we may have more senses. Also, we experience reality via symbolic analogs, further distorting the information.
                  4.Yes.
                  5.Sure.
                  6. Yes, and also because to model and completely understand anything, we likely need a 1:1 scale replica/simulation of the thing in question. This obviously leads to time/energy constraints.
                  7. Reasonable premise but reserve the right to play in the margins.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Right, like I said you get your a priori truths, but I don't get mine. Nice... But my assumption answers some very fundamental questions: Why there is something rather than nothing, why do we live in an intelligible universe where the laws of logic are immutable and universal, why is there life rather than no life, why is there consciousness, why a universal moral sense, why precise laws of physics, why we can generally trust our senses, etc... Your presuppositions do not answer any of the why questions.
                    Interesting to know that you have got the answer to the why questions. However you seem to only claim you have them. You don't give the answers. So in order to show that you really have the answers please answer the following questions all relating to answers you claim you can give:

                    Why is there something rather than nothing?
                    If you refer to God, you need to give an explanation why he exists. Saying he is his own cause does not explain much, so please, seer, why does God exist, or why is there something rather than nothing?

                    Why do we live in an intelligible universe where the laws of logic are immutable and universal?

                    Are you meaning to claim your religious view provides some foundation for logic universality? Do you believe God could have created other kinds of logics? Could God both exist and not exist at one and the same time before he created logic universalism? Could he both decide to create it and not create it at one and the same point in time before he created logic? Would contradictions be true, if God wanted them to be true?

                    Why is there life rather than no life?
                    Remember you cannot just refer to God without explaining why he exists.

                    Why is there consciousness?
                    Looking forward to hearing your answer.

                    Why a universal moral sense?
                    Yes that is certainly going to be hard to answer if there were no universal moral values but some god would have to enforce his opinion upon everyone.

                    Why precise laws of physics?

                    In what way would they depend on God?

                    Why we can generally trust our senses?
                    Interestingly you seem to have changed your view on this one since you constantly point to the contrary in other discussions.

                    Looking forward to the answers.
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      Interesting to know that you have got the answer to the why questions. However you seem to only claim you have them. You don't give the answers. So in order to show that you really have the answers please answer the following questions all relating to answers you claim you can give:

                      Why is there something rather than nothing?
                      If you refer to God, you need to give an explanation why he exists. Saying he is his own cause does not explain much, so please, seer, why does God exist, or why is there something rather than nothing?
                      [I][B]
                      Nonesense! At some level there is something that does not have a cause. You either choose the universe or a creator. Why does the universe exist? The rest of your post dies with this.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        Nonesense! At some level there is something that does not have a cause. You either choose the universe or a creator. Why does the universe exist? The rest of your post dies with this.
                        How do you explain something existing without a cause? I did not claim I had the answers. Seer did. Let us see if we will get them. It seems you did not have them.
                        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Within the community which claims to be Christian there are various groups. Ancient (Catholic Church claim and the Orthodox churches claim) and modern (numerous sects founded, claiming in some way the NT documents). Without Judaism there would be no Christianity. Without Christianity there would be, for example, no Islam. It is my understanding also that the oral traditions Zoroastrianism, and that of Buddhism became written because of the influence of there being writings for Christianity (NT).
                          I know of no Islamic foundations based on Christianity. I do know Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet, but I do not believe it is the basis for Islam. I know of no Christian basis for Buddhism. I know little about Zoroastrianism.

                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          The Christian world view has its source, the Jewish writings (OT) and the Christian writings (NT).

                          The common ground are our presuppositions founded in the evidences found in our material world and immaterial, being reasoning founded in our use of language and logic. And they have their basis in that they exist. Existence or being is the fundamental presupposition from our personal experience of being. Existence (what ever we think it to be) is the basis of all that is self evident.
                          I know "existence" seems to be fairly foundational for you - it keeps arrising as a theme. I guess "existence" is foundational for all of us. Without it, we wouldn't....umm....exist!
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                            How do you explain something existing without a cause? I did not claim I had the answers. Seer did. Let us see if we will get them. It seems you did not have them.
                            Why do you think it has to be explained? Either the universe (or all that exists) is self existent or there is a source outside that brought it into existence. The choice is yours and is entirely personal preference, since there can be no evidence.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              Why do you think it has to be explained? Either the universe (or all that exists) is self existent or there is a source outside that brought it into existence. The choice is yours and is entirely personal preference, since there can be no evidence.
                              Or eternal...? Hawkings once suggested the universe may be within it's own closed temporal/spatial "bubble," outside of which time and space have no meaning. But the fact is, we really don't know. So why not just say, "we don't know?"
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                And your answer is either ignorance or "nature did it."
                                This has been playing in my head since you posted it, mostly the word "ignorance." The word means, "lack of knowledge or information." Many (most?) people rebel at this word. Who wants to be "ignorant?" The denotation is innocent enough, but the connotation is "uneducated," or "unsophisticated."

                                If we set that connotation aside and simply focus on the denotation, then I think we all have to admit we are more ignorant than not. This is a vast universe. I am a finite being on a small planet in one solar system within a galaxy that is part of a galaxy cluster that part of one of many galaxy superclusters. In other words, I am pretty small. Why on earth would I think that I know more than I don't know? I am, at the end of the day, mostly ignorant. So are we all.

                                So why pretend to know more than I actually do? Why not simply say, when I do not know, "I do not know." It is not a matter for shame. It is merely the reality. Compared to most of humanity, I know a good deal. Compared the smartest people on earth, I know comparatively little. Compared to all that COULD be known, we are all ignoramuses (ignorami?).

                                Humility is the ability to accept ourselves for what we are.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                34 responses
                                118 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                421 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X