John Loftus stopped by the comments section of my recent post on my debate with Dan Barker. Let's look at his defense of Barker by proxy:
*****
"Paul, I think you fail to see that we're asking how you know the Bible is true and that God doesn't lie, as you so often repeat. You make this statement whenever you're asked about anything in the Bible we question. At some point your belief must touch down to earth where you can defend why you believe the Bible.
*****
1. I think you failed to see that I pointed this out in the debate. I told Barker that he had to prove the story wrong rather than *assume* that it was wrong.
2. If Barker had wanted to know how I know the story was true he should have asked me directly, no? I mean, can I say I won because he failed to tell me his Grandma's recipe for banana muffins? No, I never even asked him that. So, this may be what *you're* asking, but why use the word "we're?" Barker never asked this. His fault, not mine.
3. There's many evidences I have for why I believe the Bible is true. If you are talking about evidence that you'd accept then that would depend on your presuppositions.
4. You fail to see that Barker was trying to make an inductive argument against me. I pointed out the rules for good inductive generalizations and showed that Barker didn't follow them. These are rules even you accept, so why the complaining?
4. Apropos God's own say-so. Now, assume that the Bible is true for arguments sake. Assume that there is no higher weight that can be given to any evidence than God's own word on the matter. Indeed, since He cannot lie, knows everything, etc., then is there any higher authority that I could go to on this matter? If the above is true then why can't I invoke His word? And if I can invoke his word, well that's pretty good evidence for the talking snake.
5. To say therefore that I must give some evidence *other than* God's own say-so is to assume that His word is not the ultimate authority. But this is what's in dispute. Thus we both beg the question. The problem is that my circular argument saves philosophy, yours destroys it.
6. Anyway, listen to the debate and see why I think the Bible's true.
*****
"When we see a snake talking in the Bible and all of our experience says that snakes don't talk, that's what we're asking. To continually respond to every one of our questions about miracles in the Bible with your above response is quite simply begging the question, unless or until you can defend why you believe the Bible is God's word that is grounded in evidence. Evidence. That's what we're asking for, just as you want evidence that a cat spoke in Spanish to Dan Barker."
*****
1. You fail to see that your experience does not count here. You don't have the proper sampling. To assume that the serpent in Genesis was the same as your pet Gartner snake begs the question.
2. I don't respond to every one of your question about miracles this way. Indeed, in the debate I pointed out that Barker could not justify his use of induction, my argument was two-pronged.
3. I've further argued by pointing out the rules of inductive generalizations, showing how you violated them.
4. God's word as God's word is "grounded" in no other evidence than God's own say-so.
WCF
Ch.1
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
5. To say that God's word must be "grounded" in evidence assumes that His word is not ultimate, the point in dispute. So we both beg questions here, I'm just epistemologically self-conscious about my question begging.
6. But I don't just dogmatically assert this. I offer arguments for my worldview, as I did in the debate. We both have an ultimate authority John, it just happens that mine does not destroy the possibility of proving things, yours does. Don't be jealous.
7. I gave you evidence that the snake spoke, i.e., God told us it happened. Don't you even see how you are discounting that as evidence. Now, I would like evidence from Barker. To appeal to *his say-so* and act surprised when I don't accept it while I accepted God's is a bit disanalagous I'd say!
8. I guess you failed to see that part where I pointed out that to have evidence for every belief ends you in an infinite regress. How do you stop the regress John?
Paul, couldn't one just build their own worldview? Take all the philosophical points you like, write them in a book, also write in it that "this book is the ultimate authority on everything", presuppose the book and then noone could challenge you. Anyone that disagreed you could just claim they are BTQ against you.
ReplyDeleteI'm not very familiar with presup arguments, but what prevents people from building whatever worldview they like and including an ultimate truth clause in it?
K,
ReplyDeleteGood questions.
One, I don't think someone could "build up" their worldview without already presupposing a worldview in terms of which they could build their up.
Second, "all the philosophical points I like" is, well, my worldview! So, you're asking: "Could someone have your worldview and solve the problems?" To which the answer is yes.
Also, this option is not open to the atheist, so it doesn't help Loftus (or Barker).
Third, you're correct that if someone came to me with an ultimate authority I should not ask him to prove it by some higher evidence. So, as I said in my debate, at this juncture we must engage in internal critiques. This is how you defeat opposing ultimate authorities.
Fourth, you'd have to present your worldview in detail for me to critique it. I can't critique some abstract worldview I don't know anything about. So, this option is open to people as long as they're willing to play.
Fifth, as long as people don't mind saying that they're going to just make up a worldview to beat me then I can live with that. I mean, at this point I feel pretty good apologetically. What's happened is the enemy has had to resort to making things up just to defeat me.
Sixth, give it a try. "Building up" a cogent worldview is not as easy as people think
p.s. in case you're familiar with what an "internal critique" is, it's basically assuming the entire truth of the worldview for arguments sake and then showing how there are, given the truth of the worldview, internal problems which undermine the worldview."
ReplyDeleteHere's an easy illustration:
Someone says his ultimate authority is that all knowledge is derived by sense experience.
Basically, he could not know his ultimate authority since, *according to his worldview* it's not something derived by sense experience.
Thjat was brief and crude but hopefully made the point.
Thanks for the quick reply Paul.
ReplyDelete1 - That's another thing I'm not so sure about. Everyone has a view of the world, else you're probably dead ;) , but no two are exactly the same, I would think there are ~6.5 billion worldviews, though many have large chuncks that overlap (ex. christian beliefs). I'm sure you Gene and Dustin don't agree on many things, even though you share a large portion of your beliefs.
2 - Don't think what I meant came accross. You can't just choose what you like, or at least it doesn't seem like it. I can't choose to believe I'm on Mars right now, or there isn't a computer infront of me at the moment. I meant more along the lines that you like certain positions, even if the arguments for them are terrible, but could make them truth by presupposing them and authority. Or in another case where you have a position that has argument for it, but you still need to defend against challenges and can only get a moderate amount of confidence in the position. Presuppose it and you can have it as "the case". Not sure if that makes sense. Why couldn't an atheist do this, it's just one of many conclusions the person has come to? Have a book and presuppose it's truth which says that naturalism, scietific realism, atheism, etc. are all the case. I'm guessing you'll say authority is the problem, but in this hypothetical worldview, the book would give the authority. Presuppose the book is true, the book says it's the ultimate authority, you have just made a land grab for any propositions you may wish.
3 - I understand, but it is quite frustrating. With all the apologetic work people have done on christianity, it seems no internal critique could harm it. Too many outs, and having magic/mystery/lack of human understanding build in does seem to make admission of difficulties in the view nigh impossible.
4 - Right, but not being a philosopher or caring too much about it I'm sure I hold many conflicting views. However, they seem to work, I'm alive aren't I?. Not having a solution to say the problem of universals or exploring the nature of numbers doesn't matter much for working and living.
5 - I think that may be the charge they want you to face. They think they your christianity is simply a made up view that over the years has been refined and apologized for to close gaps and find a way to defend internal consistency.
6 - Probably isn't, and I don't think any solid worldview would due anyway. I'm always learning new things so if I tried to make a worldview it would change as I do, and that is part of the reason worldview talk leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Kind of rammbled in there, any thoughts on this?
I didn't see your reply about internal critique before. That makes sense, but how much of someone's worldview do you have to adopt to critique? Part of their worldview could be responses to your critique or a certain interpretation of that principle. Do you have to take on all the person's views including their explaining away of certain things?
ReplyDeleteIf you have a reference on proper internal critique and such that would be helpful.
Thanks,
K
K said:
ReplyDelete2 - Don't think what I meant came accross. You can't just choose what you like, or at least it doesn't seem like it. I can't choose to believe I'm on Mars right now, or there isn't a computer infront of me at the moment. I meant more along the lines that you like certain positions, even if the arguments for them are terrible, but could make them truth by presupposing them and authority. Or in another case where you have a position that has argument for it, but you still need to defend against challenges and can only get a moderate amount of confidence in the position. Presuppose it and you can have it as "the case". Not sure if that makes sense. Why couldn't an atheist do this, it's just one of many conclusions the person has come to? Have a book and presuppose it's truth which says that naturalism, scietific realism, atheism, etc. are all the case. I'm guessing you'll say authority is the problem, but in this hypothetical worldview, the book would give the authority. Presuppose the book is true, the book says it's the ultimate authority, you have just made a land grab for any propositions you may wish.
*******************************
Hi K,
Presuppositionalism isn't the same thing as positing that one's worldview is true.
Some worldviews are incoherent. They lack inner consistency.
Likewise, some worldviews have less explanatory power than others.
So that's part of what's involved in evaluating rival worldviews.
Are they consistent? And how much of human experience can they account for? How much do they leave out?
Hi Steve, thanks for taking time to respond to my questions. My thoughts are in italics.
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
Hi K,
Presuppositionalism isn't the same thing as positing that one's worldview is true.
Then I guess I've misunderstood some people's presentations of it. Using it along the lines of "I presuppose the bible is true"
Some worldviews are incoherent. They lack inner consistency.
This seems to say there is a standard of incoherence/consistency apart from worldviews from which we can judge them, or must the worldview also include such a standard.
Likewise, some worldviews have less explanatory power than others.
As above, is the a standard of explanatory power apart from worldview talk?
Are they consistent? And how much of human experience can they account for? How much do they leave out?
And this is where presuppositionalism bothers me, similarly with Platonism. I think it's too mystic and easy to say that, "God created us and everything, that accounts for it", then throw all philosophical problems at your opponent. Just doesn't strike me as a real explaination of anything. For example asking how David Copperfield made the Eiffel Tower disappear, and getting the response of "it's magic", doesn't tell you anything. One mystery for another.