"Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is oneIt's safe to say sin- and self-loving mankind would not have "come up" with Calvinism. And, its reality is not something I would have guessed at. It doesn’t offer us a universe we would have expected. But, it does have that queer twist about it that real things have. So let's leave behind all these boys' theologies--these over simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either.
of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have
guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I
should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing
anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real
things have. So let us leave behind all these boys' philosophies--these over
simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be
simple either." — C.S. Lewis
Pages
▼
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Talking 'bout my Intuitions
Victor Reppert has repeatedly appealed to his "intuitions" as a source for disbelieving Calvinism. Let's see what his favorite Christian apologist and philosopher(?) has to say about this:
It (Calvinism) doesn't appeal to my intuitions and doesn't appeal to my reason, so I guess there is no justification for believing it.
ReplyDeleteOr it just means that your "reason" is faulty.
ReplyDeleteSo you're appealing to the intuitions of a non-Calvinist about it being wrong to appeal to intuitions in order to support Calvinism! That's a twister.
ReplyDeleteIt could be faulty (does that mean wrong?) but I would need some kind of reason to think it was.
ReplyDeletePhilosophickle said:
ReplyDelete---
It could be faulty (does that mean wrong?) but I would need some kind of reason to think it was.
---
To answer the parenthetical question first....
I suppose if you installed faulty wiring in your house then when your house burns to the ground, the insurance company would have no problem with your retort: "It was just faulty wiring, not wrong wiring." And if, God forbid, one of the fire fighters died while putting out the fire, I'm quite certain that no one in the state would charge you with negligent homicide for installing faulty wiring since it wasn't *wrong*....
In any case, since you said Calvinism doesn't appeal to your reason then if Calvinism is actually true that would be reason enough to demonstrate that your reason is faulty (*w00t* Ambiguity in the term "reason" is much fun!). Of course to determine that, we'd need to know if Calvinism is true or not in the first place, but that would mean we'd have to have access to knowledge beyond our reasons in order to verify whether our reason was valid or not.
I'm pretty sure there's a presuppositional argument to be made here. If only I could connect the dots on that one....
But continuing: Calvinism does appeal to my reason. You've said it does not appeal to your reason, but you've offered no reasons why that would be the case. Since Calvinism does appeal to my reason, and since I've seen no argument presented by you to doubt my own reason, your assertion that it doesn't appeal to your reason only tells me that your reason is faulty.
Finally, you are the one who made the claim that if something doesn't appeal to your intuitions or your reason then "there is no justification for believing it." Perhaps you might consider rewording it to: "there is no justification for me to believe it." Then you might have a point, albeit one that can still be met by a presuppositional argument.
"It (Calvinism) doesn't appeal to my intuitions and doesn't appeal to my reason, so I guess there is no justification for believing it."
ReplyDeleteMy reason says that your reason is false, your reasoning isn't evident to this self, and I intuit that your wrong. [If anybody detects the utter subjectivity of such an epistemology, you're not alone.]
"It could be faulty (does that mean wrong?) but I would need some kind of reason to think it was."
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Scripture said so.
Let's not forget that the apostle Paul doesn't have too many good things to say about this sort of humanistic rationalism (1 Corinthians 1-2).
Then again, for those who believe that man is the measure of all things, man's intuition is just as good as the Bible.
This guy is like the rationalists in England who refused to believe in the duck-billed platypus on the basis that such an animal was "clearly" contrary to "Reason" (even though several explorers had brought one back).
ReplyDeletephilosophickle said...
ReplyDeleteIt (Calvinism) doesn't appeal to my intuitions and doesn't appeal to my reason, so I guess there is no justification for believing it.
4/13/2008 9:47 PM
*******
You're abstracting my post out of the historical context it was offered in. So, despite what others have said, your comment has the added problem of being irrelevant to my post.
Peter:
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with Calvinist lingo, but there is a difference, epistemologically speaking, between faulty and wrong (I think). In any case, it was a question, not an assertion on my part, so I have no idea what sparked that weird story of the electrician.
Anyway...
"In any case, since you said Calvinism doesn't appeal to your reason then if Calvinism is actually true that would be reason enough to demonstrate that your reason is faulty (*w00t* Ambiguity in the term "reason" is much fun!). Of course to determine that, we'd need to know if Calvinism is true or not in the first place, but that would mean we'd have to have access to knowledge beyond our reasons in order to verify whether our reason was valid or not."
Ok, then leave questions about my reasonableness out of it. Do you have some kind of support for your intuitions/reasons for the truth of Calvinism?
"You've said it does not appeal to your reason, but you've offered no reasons why that would be the case. Since Calvinism does appeal to my reason, and since I've seen no argument presented by you to doubt my own reason, your assertion that it doesn't appeal to your reason only tells me that your reason is faulty."
Right. It is not up to me to prove that Calvinism doesn't appeal to my reason. It doesn't until I have some reason to believe it. I lack those reasons, so until you provide them...you get the idea. I ain't willing to prove a negative and all that.
"Finally, you are the one who made the claim that if something doesn't appeal to your intuitions or your reason then "there is no justification for believing it." Perhaps you might consider rewording it to: "there is no justification for me to believe it." Then you might have a point, albeit one that can still be met by a presuppositional argument."
You are welcome to use a presuppositional argument, but I don't think you'll be successful. And of course I meant "there is no justification for me to believe it"- I can only speak for myself, so it goes without saying that the "I" is understood.
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Scripture said so."
So? Why should I believe it?
"This guy is like the rationalists in England who refused to believe in the duck-billed platypus on the basis that such an animal was "clearly" contrary to "Reason" (even though several explorers had brought one back)."
Ok....
"You're abstracting my post out of the historical context it was offered in. So, despite what others have said, your comment has the added problem of being irrelevant to my post."
Your non-answer is noted.
"So? Why should I believe it?"
ReplyDeleteDoes "it" refer to Scripture, or does "it" refer to Calvinism?
Are you a Christian?
If you're not a Christian, then there's no reason to believe in Calvinism. Then again, if you're not a Christian, then there's no reason to believe in anything:
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/03/knowledge-of-god-tag-part-the-knowledge.html
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/03/knowledge-of-god-tag-part-b-dualistic.html
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/03/knowledge-of-god-tag-part-c-platonism-1.html
If "it" refers to Calvinism, and you are asking us to make a case for Calvinism from Scripture, then we've made that case several times before.
It (libertarian free-will) doesn't appeal to my intuitions and doesn't appeal to my reason, so I guess there is no justification for believing in it.
ReplyDeleteRight. It is not up to me to prove that LFW doesn't appeal to my reason. It doesn't until I have some reason to believe it. I lack those reasons, so until you provide them...you get the idea. I ain't willing to prove a negative and all that.
Since I can be as obstinant as Philosophickle....
ReplyDeletePhilosophickle said:
---
Do you have some kind of support for your intuitions/reasons for the truth of Calvinism?
---
Yes.
Philosophickle said:
---
Right. It is not up to me to prove that Calvinism doesn't appeal to my reason.
---
Then you have no reason to say that it doesn't appeal to your reason.
Philosophickle said:
---
It doesn't until I have some reason to believe it. I lack those reasons, so until you provide them...you get the idea. I ain't willing to prove a negative and all that.
---
Why should I have to prove anything to you? We're talking about whether or not you have a legitimate reason to say that Calvinism doesn't appeal to your reason. What I believe doesn't enter into it here.
By the way, when dealing with absolutes, there is no "negative" that you don't have to prove. Every positive claim has a simultaneous negative claim, and vice versa. Therefore, if you make a postive claim you're likewise making a negative claim; and if you make a negative claim you're likewise making a positive claim.
At root, we are dealing with identity here. Whatever you define A as automatically defines the non-A as whatever is excluded. Therefore, retreating to "I don't have to prove a negative" does nothing for you at the presuppositional level. Your negative position establishes a positive position that you must argue for, assuming you wish to remain consistent.
Philosophickle said:
---
You are welcome to use a presuppositional argument, but I don't think you'll be successful.
---
Given that your reason is "faulty" and doesn't accept Calvinism, I'm not concerned with whether I'm successful with you or not.
Philosophickle said:
---
And of course I meant "there is no justification for me to believe it"- I can only speak for myself, so it goes without saying that the "I" is understood.
---
But it doesn't go without saying, because it's a fundamentally different sentence. There is a difference between saying there is no justification for believing Calvinism at all and saying that you do not have any justification for believing Calvinism. One of these claims a logical impossibility for Calvinism to be true; the other just says that you are unaware of the reasons why it is true.
"If you're not a Christian, then there's no reason to believe in Calvinism. Then again, if you're not a Christian, then there's no reason to believe in anything."
ReplyDeleteWe don't choose our beliefs, they happen to us. To say that there is no reason to believe in anything if you are not a Christian sounds ridiculous. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
"Right. It is not up to me to prove that LFW doesn't appeal to my reason. It doesn't until I have some reason to believe it. I lack those reasons, so until you provide them...you get the idea. I ain't willing to prove a negative and all that."
I am not a libertarian. Straight up determinist.
"Why should I have to prove anything to you? We're talking about whether or not you have a legitimate reason to say that Calvinism doesn't appeal to your reason. What I believe doesn't enter into it here."
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have reasons to be a Calvinist, and I don't have reasons to be a Calvinist, then that makes me pretty sure of my position. You claim you have some reasons, but for some reason you won't share them. What are they?
"By the way, when dealing with absolutes, there is no "negative" that you don't have to prove. Every positive claim has a simultaneous negative claim, and vice versa. Therefore, if you make a positive claim you're likewise making a negative claim; and if you make a negative claim you're likewise making a positive claim."
Pray tell, what is the positive claim that I am making when I say that "I don't have any good reason to be a Calvinist"?
"At root, we are dealing with identity here. Whatever you define A as automatically defines the non-A as whatever is excluded. Therefore, retreating to "I don't have to prove a negative" does nothing for you at the presuppositional level. Your negative position establishes a positive position that you must argue for, assuming you wish to remain consistent."
I am an agnostic, and I have no idea what positive things there are at the metaphysical level. Does God exist? I hope so, but probably not. Is the Bible true? Probably not. I do know that I've never seen a great argument for God's existence, and can't imagine what one would look like for the Calvinist position. I could be persuaded into God-belief. Perhaps even Calvinism. That's my position, positive or negative. If you have any arguments that could assist me to make up my mind concerning those two, I'd be happy to consider them.
"Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?"
ReplyDeleteI gave you several links to my posts arguing that very thing.
It (hard determinism) doesn't appeal to my intuitions and doesn't appeal to my reason, so I guess there is no justification for believing in it.
ReplyDeleteRight. It is not up to me to prove that hard determinism doesn't appeal to my reason. It doesn't until I have some reason to believe it. I lack those reasons, so until you provide them...you get the idea. I ain't willing to prove a negative and all that.
If you're a hard-determinist, then your "reason" is non-rational. It is simply the chemical reactions going on in your brain.
ReplyDeleteSo, why are the chemical reactions in your brain more syllogistically valid than the chemical reactions in my brain?
I'm having trouble with my google account, so bear with me...
ReplyDelete"If you're a hard-determinist, then your "reason" is non-rational. It is simply the chemical reactions going on in your brain."
I'm sorry, but compatibilism is stupid (hard determinism with excuses). I am a determinist, not a libertarian.
"So, why are the chemical reactions in your brain more syllogistically valid than the chemical reactions in my brain?"
I'll bite the bullet. What I say and believe is only adaptive from an evolutionary stance, not necessarily true. I act as if my brain functioned to give me true beliefs, but no one has any idea if it actually does or not.
"I'll bite the bullet. What I say and believe is only adaptive from an evolutionary stance, not necessarily true. I act as if my brain functioned to give me true beliefs, but no one has any idea if it actually does or not."
ReplyDeleteThen you have no reason to believe that compatibilism is stupid.
Philosophickle said:
ReplyDelete---
If you don't have reasons to be a Calvinist
---
But I already said that I did.
Philosophickle said:
---
If you don't have reasons to be a Calvinist, and I don't have reasons to be a Calvinist, then that makes me pretty sure of my position.
---
Am I right in assuming you're Cosmo? If so, your surity is undercut by your own admission: "What I say and believe is only adaptive from an evolutionary stance, not necessarily true. I act as if my brain functioned to give me true beliefs, but no one has any idea if it actually does or not."
Philosophickle said:
---
You claim you have some reasons, but for some reason you won't share them.
---
You didn't ask for them. You only asked me if I had them, which I responded in the affirmative.
Philosophickle said:
---
What are they?
---
Let's start with the fact that Calvinism is Biblical. That's a sufficient reason for me. I know it's not a sufficient reason for you, but then I merely reply with my original comment: "Or it just means that your 'reason' is faulty."
And if you are Cosmo, then you admit it too. Even granting you everything, you have no reason to believe anything your senses tell you.
Philosophickle said:
---
Pray tell, what is the positive claim that I am making when I say that "I don't have any good reason to be a Calvinist"?
---
Well, first now you're changing the claim. You originally said Calvinism didn't appeal to your reason at all; now you are claiming thaty ou don't have any good reason. Which one is it? Do you have bad reason for believing Calvinism, or none at all?
Anyway, the positive claim you are making is, among others, that you have sufficient reason to trust in your reason apart from the truth of Calvinism. That is, you are saying that reality works perfectly fine without the theological underpinings of Calvinism. Apparently, you're a naturalist and/or materialist (I use the terms synonymously, but know that others may not). That is a positive position for you to argue for.
In any case, all this is ultimately moot for you said:
---
I am an agnostic, and I have no idea what positive things there are at the metaphysical level.
---
Which simply means that you already admit that you cannot know anything and that you have no reason to think you'll ever have a reason for anything.
Philosophickle said:
---
I do know that I've never seen a great argument for God's existence, and can't imagine what one would look like for the Calvinist position.
---
There are lots of arguments on this blog for the existence of God. None of them are going to convince you in and of themselves; that takes the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. This is why I've said that your reasoning is what's problematic in the first place.
And of course I know full well you could make the same charge against me. You could say that I'm deluded by my religious belief or whatever. The difference between us is, again, that when I live consistent with my beliefs, I have a reason to assert rationality, logic, morality, and true knowledge. If you live consistently with your beliefs, you can only assert "I don't know", "could be", and "whatever happens happens." So even if I'm wrong, at least I have a valid stance by which to make dogmatic claims. Even if you're right, you do not have that position.
Philosophickle said:
---
If you have any arguments that could assist me to make up my mind concerning those two, I'd be happy to consider them.
---
Since I don't know exactly what part you find Calvinism insufficient to answer the problem, it's difficult to begin here. But give me a starting point. Where do you find Calvinism problematic? Or have you never studied it before and need a complete Calvinism 101?
Knowing the answer to that will enable me to try to write you a pursuasive argument (although as I said, ultimately whether you accept the truth or not depends on the Holy Spirit regenerating you).