Monday, December 01, 2008

The Jello Fellow

Before I begin this post in earnest, I must put forth a preliminary rule. Unfortunately, since the person this rule is directed toward does not listen very well at all, I will have to state this rule several times throughout. For normal readers, I apologize for the redundancies. It will be clear, however, why they are needed.

Thus far, just counting the post Steve did called “An offer he can’t refuse” there are 184 comments. Of those 184, by my count 92 are from Jason Streitfeld. As I pointed out in one of my comments on that post:

Well, Jason S. has proven he's nothing more than steamroller: make a bunch of wild assertions and the sheer number of errors will be too much for anyone to respond to. This gives the added bonus that when the steamroller runs away with tail between his legs, he can still say, "They didn't get me on these points!" and think he's actually won something.
Since Jason (and all references to Jason will be to Jason S., and not to our esteemed Jason Engwer) is a steamroller, and since this post is about him, it is necessary for me to implement a restriction on comments to this post. The restriction is for Jason only. That restriction is this: while he is free to respond in the comments, he is restricted from posting more than two (2) comments in a row.

If you wonder if there will be any grace from me at all, the answer is: the second post IS the grace post.

The intention is thus: Jason needs to be able to respond in a coherent manner rather than his typical drive-by “cherry pick a few sentences and make up whatever you want to make up about the meaning” approach. The only way to encourage this is for me to delete anything after his second comment in a row. (To be clear, he can comment again IF someone else responds after his first two (2) comments, at which point he will have an addition two (2) comments he can post; he just cannot exceed two (2) comments in a row ever in the comments on this post.)

If Jason posts more than two (2) comments in a row, every comment after the second one will be deleted unread by me. In short, Jason, this means if you want to have a dialogue you have to be able to focus. Write your response in one lump form, addressing what you consider the most important issues. Put them up front. And if you forgot something in your haste, too bad. Learn to think before you post. Organize and then write.

And note that this restriction is for my post only. Triabloggers have the right to enforce rules on our own posts. Any other poster can enforce whichever rules they see fit on their own posts too.

So with that in mind, let us move on to the meat of the discussion. In reality, I need not say anything more this first response to Jason (in its entirety):

Jason S. said:
---
I never said every mathematical object corresponds to some physical property of the universe. I said mathematical truths are about the formal properties of patterns in the universe.
---

I think it would help, Jason, if you paused for a second and asked yourself a simple question. Why? Why are there "formal properties of patterns in the universe"?

In other words, let's play your game for a bit. Let's say that there are these patterns. Why do the patterns exist as they do?

Note carefully the chain you have to build here. You are justifying logic by pointing to these patterns. Thus, you have patterns -> logic.

But why is it that these patterns behave "logically"? Is there a meta-pattern that keeps patterns in line? If not, why do they behave as they do? If so, is there a meta-meta-pattern? Etc.

Now you haven't convinced me that you're able to follow where arguments lead, so I'll show why it's important that you ponder this. At some point, everyone must stop. That is, it's not "turtles all the way down" because at some point you have to escape the redux. (This is because logic itself does not allow for infinite redux, and logic cannot very well be substantiated by that which is its negation.)

At whatever point you stop your redux, you have to deal with the nature of reality at that point. So we can skip through all that and simply ask:

What must be fundamentally true in order for logic to be justified?

As Steve's pointed out several times, you cannot have contingent logic that transcends that it is contingent upon. Thus, you cannot have logic that is contingent upon human minds before human minds existed.

You try to escape that by pointed to patterns of the universe, but does this mean that there is no logic before those patterns were formed (even if there was no mind to grasp the patterns)? If that is so, why did the patterns form in a way that would be grasped in the form of logic? Was it ad hoc, a mistake, a fluke? Or was there something more fundamental at work?

You can try to keep it surface level and pretend your materialism can account for all this, but at best all you can do with materialism is cut your own throat. At best, all you can say is, "The patterns are the way they are because they just happened to be the way they are." In which case, there is no impulse or imperative to follow the logic derrived from those patterns, in which case it is no great loss to be irrational. Why would it be problematic to violate THOSE rules of logic? And if our arguments violate them, as you claim, so what? It's not like they're meaningful rules of logic.

If you don't hold to objective logic, why do you care whether we are reasonable or rational people? It's not like that's a real standard or anything.

(For the record, I do hold to objective logic, which is why I do care that you're being irrational in your argument. But this is an internal critique of your position.)

The reason I need not say anything more is that for all his blustering, Jason has left the above unchallenged.

But for more clarity, I also pointed out:
Jason S. said:
---
The patterns--the regularities within the universe--are as they are for whatever reasons. Yes, they just happened to be that way, for all I know. But that does not mean there is no impulse or imperative to use logic (the rules of inference), to use reason and evidence.

On the contrary, the fact that the universe exhibits regularities is exactly why we need to use logic, reason and evidence. If we abandoned all logic, we would abandon our ability to understand the world.
---

In other words, what you are saying is:

1) The universe just happened to be the way it is for no reason whatsoever.

2) That's why we can understand the world.

Is anyone else puzzled by this?

You claim there are regularities in the universe. But absent something requiring them to be the way they are, you have no assurance they will continue to be the way they are now. For all the atheists talk about how if God can change reality on a whim, you're left in the same boat. You don't know why the universe behaves the way it does, yet you assert it will always continue to do so. And then you criticize theists as being naive and irrational. At best you're a pot mocking a kettle. At worst, you're flat out wrong.
And:
BTW,

Jason also needs to account for the fact that the human mind is very adept at finding patterns that aren't actually there.

You know, like seeing faces in clouds, the Virgin Mary in wallpaper stains, and logic in atheistic worldviews.

In which case, you have pattern-recognition that leads to logic based on false patterns that do not actually exist in the universe.

And finally:
Jason said:
---
The point is, the universe does exhibit regularities, and this is why we are able to make accurate predictions and develop scientific theories.
---

No, the point is that the universe exhibits regularities FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. You're on the horns of a dilemma. If the universe has a reason to behave the way it does, then that reason is the ultimate establishment of logic. But you cannot allow for anything more than the universe, so you have to assert that the universe just does this. Why? Because it does. That's all you've got. The universe acts this way for no reason at all. It just does it.

And if something just happens with no reason whatsoever, then you'd have to be a complete idiot to trust in that to form your concepts of logic. The universe isn't logical; it just happens to at this point behave in a way that approximates logic. But there's no logical reason why it should continue to be that way, because it's not that way due to a logical reason.
Jason has since moved away from the “patterns” to calling them “rules.” But my original argument still stands untouched. The reason I’m quoting the original response above is because I am going to reference it from now on to show that Jason has said much but gone nowhere.

Before we get there, some more groundwork must be done. When he switched to using “rules” instead of “patterns” as his basis, Jason used an analogy of a computer. I found this odd, given that Jason is a materialist, and a computer is most definitely designed (which would imply that his correlation to the rules governing the universe would mean he believes the universe is designed too). I pointed this out to Jason at the time too, and ended with:

BTW, you still need to account for why rules exist the way they do. Is there a reason they do? If so, then what is it? If not, then we're left with an ad hoc rule once more.

As you can see, I’ve been consistent throughout here (note: I’m also focusing only on the portion that deals with how rules are established; you can read the original exchange for more background on the computer analogy if you wish). Jason responded with:

You say, "BTW, you still need to account for why rules exist the way they do. Is there a reason they do?"

Let's look at this broadly, okay?

First of all, the only accounting for the rules of mathematics I've seen around here is, "God did it."

That is not an accounting. It's merely an assertion. It does not explain the rules, or how they came about, or anything at all.

If your position does not further our understanding of the nature and functionality of mathematics, then it is not an explanation.

So, "God did it" does not explain anything.

Now, you ask me to account for the rules of mathematics. What if I can't? Does that mean God did it?

By what reason?

The way I see it is, mathematics is one kind of thing. It can involve different axioms, and so it is not limited to one set of rules. However, the rules we associate with mathematics are well-defined, based on what they are meant to accomplish.

Why are they defined as they are? Because of what they are meant to accomplish. The rules required by a system are dependent upon what that system needs to do.

For example, asking "why are the rules of arithmentic the way they are" is like asking, "why are the rules of tying our shoes the way they are?"

If you want to tie your shoes, you have to follow the rules defined by the task at hand--namely, loop one lace this way, another that way, and so on. If you want to do arithmetic, you have to follow the rules of arithmetic. It's that simple.

I responded:

You said:
---
First of all, the only accounting for the rules of mathematics I've seen around here is, "God did it."
---

That's funny. I've not seen anyone say "God did it" until you just did.

Be that as it may, if Christians do fundamentally presuppose that "God did it" is actually true, what is your counter argument? Thus far, all you've said is that "patterns did it."

I've asked twice now for your justification for them. You haven't brought any forth.

You said:
---
That is not an accounting. It's merely an assertion. It does not explain the rules, or how they came about, or anything at all.
---

Except for the fact that it does, everything else you say is right.

And for all your talk about looking at the issue "broadly" and all, you're missing the important step.

Forget what the explanation for the rules are for a moment and focus on this instead: what is it that the rules themselves require in order for the rules to be real.

I maintain that God, as defined by the Christian theist, maintains all the attributes needed to sustain those rules. This is not merely an "assertion"; this is a requirement of those rules themselves. In other words, if we assume that your rules exist, then your rules themselves presuppose the existence of God (specifically, the God as defined by Christian theism).

These rules cannot exist unless there exists something with the proper attributes to create those rules. If the rules are to have any relevance at all, they have to be transcendent; which means that which produces the rules must be transcendent. If they are to have any meaning at all, they must be timeless and unchanging; they must be true for all times and in all possible realities; they must be universal. In short, they must be eternal, omnipresent, and immutable...all attributes of the Christian God, mind you. And that's just for starts.

By the way, you also slip into ID again when you said:
---
Why are they defined as they are? Because of what they are meant to accomplish. The rules required by a system are dependent upon what that system needs to do.
---

Since you're maintaining that these rules are the basis for such things as logic, and that these rules are actually in force in the universe we experience, you are actually stating that the universe as a whole is a system that has a specific GOAL that the universe is INTENDED to achieve.

Why don't you just admit you're a theist? Your argumentation gives you away already.
As you can see, my argument has been the same throughout. But I posted this for another reason. I am going to respond to Jason’s response to me by doing little more than quoting back to him exactly what I’ve already written. In other words, this will demonstrate that Jason has not been responding to my posts at all. I doubt he’s even been reading them (he skims them looking for sentences he can “latch on to” to steamroll, but that’s not reading).

Jason said:
Peter asks,

"what is it that the rules themselves require in order for the rules to be real?"

As I've argued, rules are functional properties of physical systems. So, for a rule to be real, it must functionally occur in a physical system.
However, I already pointed out:
These rules cannot exist unless there exists something with the proper attributes to create those rules.
He has not provided those attributes. Indeed, he yet again slips into teleological language (this time using the idea of “functionally” working rules; which requires a purpose and a goal).

More importantly, Jason said:
Peter syas, "I maintain that God, as defined by the Christian theist, maintains all the attributes needed to sustain those rules."

What attributes would those be? And why should we believe that "God" (as defined by the Christian theist? what definition? which theist?) maintains those attributes?
Let’s play a quick game. Count the attributes I listed in the following paragraph (to make it easy, I’ll put them in bold):

These rules cannot exist unless there exists something with the proper attributes to create those rules. If the rules are to have any relevance at all, they have to be transcendent; which means that which produces the rules must be transcendent. If they are to have any meaning at all, they must be timeless and unchanging; they must be true for all times and in all possible realities; they must be universal. In short, they must be eternal, omnipresent, and immutable...all attributes of the Christian God, mind you. And that's just for starts.
Note that I specifically listed these as “all attributes of the Christian God, mind you.” Jason has chosen to ignore that completely, as if it was never offered.

Is it a definition? What is a definition if not a list of attributes of a thing? You ask, “What is an apple?” I give you a list of attributes. Jason asks, “What definition [of God]?” and I’ve already provided a (partial) list of attributes.

Jason said:
I interpret this as follows: for a physical system to exhibit the functional characteristics we call a rule, that rule must be able to be implemented at any time and at any place in the universe, and that the rule must exist at every place and time in all possible universes. Is that right?

And, can you explain why that is the case for us?
In my original response, I already explained this:
You can try to keep it surface level and pretend your materialism can account for all this, but at best all you can do with materialism is cut your own throat. At best, all you can say is, "The patterns are the way they are because they just happened to be the way they are." In which case, there is no impulse or imperative to follow the logic derrived from those patterns, in which case it is no great loss to be irrational. Why would it be problematic to violate THOSE rules of logic? And if our arguments violate them, as you claim, so what? It's not like they're meaningful rules of logic.

If you don't hold to objective logic, why do you care whether we are reasonable or rational people? It's not like that's a real standard or anything.
And:
You claim there are regularities in the universe. But absent something requiring them to be the way they are, you have no assurance they will continue to be the way they are now. For all the atheists talk about how if God can change reality on a whim, you're left in the same boat. You don't know why the universe behaves the way it does, yet you assert it will always continue to do so. And then you criticize theists as being naive and irrational. At best you're a pot mocking a kettle. At worst, you're flat out wrong.
Jason said:
Peter says I am slipping ID into the discussion when I wrote, "Why are they defined as they are? Because of what they are meant to accomplish. The rules required by a system are dependent upon what that system needs to do."

That's silly. I did not say that the rules were defined by some supernatural creator. Rather, the rules are defined by systems capable of defining the rules. In our case, that means human beings, though other organisms are theoretically capable of defining the same rules.
In other words, as I originally stated:
As Steve's pointed out several times, you cannot have contingent logic that transcends that it is contingent upon. Thus, you cannot have logic that is contingent upon human minds before human minds existed.
And:

You try to escape that by pointed to patterns of the universe, but does this mean that there is no logic before those patterns were formed (even if there was no mind to grasp the patterns)? If that is so, why did the patterns form in a way that would be grasped in the form of logic? Was it ad hoc, a mistake, a fluke? Or was there something more fundamental at work?
Clearly, Jason believes that logic is an ad hoc fluke created by human minds, in which case I yet again ask: “Why would it be problematic to violate THOSE rules of logic?” More importantly:

…[I]f something just happens with no reason whatsoever, then you'd have to be a complete idiot to trust in that to form your concepts of logic. The universe isn't logical; it just happens to at this point behave in a way that approximates logic. But there's no logical reason why it should continue to be that way, because it's not that way due to a logical reason.
Jason wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants us to take his rules of logic seriously, but he cuts off all grounds for logic to be meaningful.

Jason also said:
Peter asks, "if Christians do fundamentally presuppose that 'God did it' is actually true, what is your counter argument?"

My counter argument is that the term "God" is not well-defined, and that the arguments in favor of "God did it" do not make sense, and do not further our understanding of life, the universe, or anything.
Which, aside from being absurd, falls prey to the fact that I DID define the term “God” with a partial list of attributes (already referenced above) and it DOES further our understanding of quite a lot.

Jason said:
Peter has asked me to justify the patterns that exist in nature. Why does anybody have to justify nature? Nature is what is. That's life.
Which is exactly what I’ve maintained Jason's position boils down to:
But you cannot allow for anything more than the universe, so you have to assert that the universe just does this. Why? Because it does. That's all you've got. The universe acts this way for no reason at all. It just does it.
Now, as I said, Jason is free to comment to this post as long as he does not do more than two (2) comments in a row. What he also needs to do is actually provide a justification for why anyone should care about his rules of logic, since they are based on ad hoc random patterns and/or rules of the universe. Furthermore, he must establish why we should care about his rules of logic given that they are just formed by human minds which A) we know err often and B) are capable of seeing patterns that do not exist (e.g. faces in clouds).

As it is, so far all we've seen is that Jason knows how to avoid the thrust of an argument by pretending it never happened.

32 comments:

  1. My counter argument is that the term "God" is not well-defined,

    God is a Triune Spirit; infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, justice, holiness, goodness,and truth.

    That's a modified version of the Westminster Cathechism. Jason needs to tell us what is ill-defined about this. These concepts have been defined and refined for centuries. As Steve has pointed out already, the objection that "God" is "not well defined" applies and best to those traditions that speak in negations, not those that speak in this manner. Has Stretfield ever picked up Francis Turretin? Warfield? Vos? An easier theologian like Grudem?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Additionally, it should be pointed out that negations sometimes are the definition too. (I don't think this applies in the case of God, of course; but logically it's still possible.)

    Simple example: Define "nothing." (Personally, I like Jonathan Edwards' response best, which (paraphrased) is: "Nothing is that of which sleeping rocks dream.")

    But other examples also come about. What is the scientific definition of "cold"? Answer: "The absense of heat." Scientifically, there is no "cold" at all, but rather various levels of heat. However, "cold" is still a term used by people, and as such it derrives its definition by being indexed to heat. FWIW, they could just as easily said that "heat is the absense of cold" and index heat to coldness in that manner, should they have wished to do so.

    Similarly, "darkness" is the "absense of light" and yet it is a meaningful concept. "Darkness" is not itself a thing at all.

    So even if God could only be defined negatively (again, a concept I reject) that wouldn't make the concept of "God" meaningless or ill-defined in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In a post that was originally addressed to me, and in which most of the posts not written by me were directed towards me, it isn't surprising that I would have contributed about half the number of total posts. That is, unless I was really slacking and not keeping up with my end of the discussion.

    As it is, I haven't had the time to respond to every point addressed to me. I thought it was best to respond to what I could when I could. Thus, I chose to post smaller, often times offering several short posts in a row. This seemed sensible, because I think it makes my points easier to follow. This is especially true considering the wide range of issues (and diversions) I've been addressing.

    Apparently, however, this approach isn't suitable to Peter's needs. Peter finds it annoying, and since this is his thread, that's the way it'll have to be. At least, in this thread.

    No sweat, Peter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What he also needs to do is actually provide a justification for why anyone should care about his rules of logic, since they are based on ad hoc random patterns and/or rules of the universe.

    You should only "care" about them (and who knows what you really mean by "care" in this context) if they match the patterns that you observe in the universe. Do they?

    Furthermore, he must establish why we should care about his rules of logic given that they are just formed by human minds which A) we know err often and B) are capable of seeing patterns that do not exist (e.g. faces in clouds).

    Again with the "caring"! Apply the same criteria as previously, it should work. That's the point about the tool of reason, you see - you have to continually sharpen it against the hard edges of the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. God is a Triune Spirit; infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, justice, holiness, goodness,and truth.

    Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, but from the outside, it just looks like gibberish. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, merely to try and communicate where I think Jason is coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason said:
    ---
    In a post that was originally addressed to me, and in which most of the posts not written by me were directed towards me, it isn't surprising that I would have contributed about half the number of total posts. That is, unless I was really slacking and not keeping up with my end of the discussion.
    ---

    Except that's not what's going on. First, when you have six people responding to you and you still have half of the responses, that says something. Secondly, it's not simply the sheer number, but the obfuscation you employed in the process.

    Be that as it may, yes; this is my blog post and I enforce the rules whether you like it or not :-P

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul C. said:
    ---
    You should only "care" about them (and who knows what you really mean by "care" in this context) if they match the patterns that you observe in the universe. Do they?
    ---

    In other words, subjectivity. (And you'd know full well what I mean by "care" in the context if you actually read the context. No one else seems to have a problem grasping it.)

    If Jason's subjective opinion lines up with my subjective opinion, then that's all that matters? Great.

    But then there's the fact that his subjective opinion does NOT line up with my subjective opinion. Uh-oh. Why should I care what his subjective opinion is then? I have my own already. He disagrees. WHY IS HIS DISAGREEMENT RELEVANT?

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    That's the point about the tool of reason, you see - you have to continually sharpen it against the hard edges of the real world.
    ---

    I didn't realize you were a comic.

    Here's the real world. Jason asserts his version of logic; I assert my version of logic. Under my version of logic, I have a self-consistent REASON to say that Jason ought to submit to my view. Jason, however, doesn't have this self-consistent reason at all. Instead, he has to appeal to a vague notion of subjectivity which is irrelevant to me.

    That's the real world, Paul C. You're not dealing with it.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, but from the outside, it just looks like gibberish.
    ---

    Self-blinding is no excuse for ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, but from the outside, it just looks like gibberish. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, merely to try and communicate where I think Jason is coming from.

    As I *also* pointed out, there are any number of theological works that flesh out this definition.

    Jason's original complaint was that "God" is ill-defined. Is this an external or internal critique?

    If it's an internal critique, then where's the supporting argument?

    If it's an external critique then simply saying things like "nature is what it is," doesn't get him where he wants to go. Simply complaining that something is "gibberish" from the outside, won't cut it either. How so? There is an extensive body of literature on the Trinity alone. What about the concept of a triune spirit is ill defined? What about that is "gibberish." Simply saying that "God" fits something conjured up from the imagination doesn't work either - for that doesn't explain the definition. It simply begs the question. Steve has already been over this terrain with Jason.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "What about the concept of a triune spirit is ill defined?"

    Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the concept of a Trinity is (seemingly) paradoxical and beyond human cognition? Don't members of your own faith community disagree on the meaning of the term "Trinity"? Haven't smart people agreed to disagree on its meaning for ages?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jen,

    Even if that were the case (I think you vastly overstate it), the same could be said of Quantum theory. Would you consider Qunatum theory to be "ill defined"? After all:

    A) It is seemingly paradoxical and beyond human understanding.

    B) Members of the physics community disagree on such things as the Copenhagen interpretation.

    C) Smart people have agreed to disagree on those certain aspects of it for quite some time now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jen said:
    Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the concept of a Trinity is (seemingly) paradoxical and beyond human cognition? Don't members of your own faith community disagree on the meaning of the term "Trinity"? Haven't smart people agreed to disagree on its meaning for ages?

    Not understanding how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in Trinity is not the same as disagreeing on the meaning of the term "Trinity." The meaning of the word "Trinity" is accepted across Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox creed-confessing churches as One God existing in three Persons.

    In a culture such as ours that has lost much of its common historical knowledge about what comprises theism (let alone Christianity), I am not surprised that Paul C. has remarked that Gene's definition of God seems like gibberish (whether or not Paul himself thinks it's gibberish). Funny, no one seems to misunderstand the way Eckhart Tolle defines God, which is nothing more than attitudes and feelings. What gibberish?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the concept of a Trinity is (seemingly) paradoxical and beyond human cognition?

    Insofar as God is, in His Being, completely unlike us, that's true. Insofar as God has communicated the truth of this to us, no that's not true. The Trinity isn't illogical or irrational, it makes perfect sense if you don't import meanings of terms like "person" into the concept that the concept was never intended by the Sub-Apostolic creeds to convey.

    Don't members of your own faith community disagree on the meaning of the term "Trinity"?

    Our faith community? You mean the Reformed community or the Christian community?

    If (a) we disagree among ourselves about whether or not we agree with certain concepts like Nicene Subortionationism, but we don't disagree with respect to the idea that God is 3 Persons, a single Being.

    Haven't smart people agreed to disagree on its meaning for ages? There has been much said with respect to the development of the doctrine. Nobody denies this, but the 3 orthodox families of the Christian tradition in regard to this doctrine (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, (Evangelical) Protestant) remarkably agree, to the point that West and East came EXTREMELY close to reproachment in the Middle Ages. The East and West differ over ideas like the procession of the Persons - is it single or double, but we do NOT disagree over the fundamental concept itself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In a culture such as ours that has lost much of its common historical knowledge about what comprises theism (let alone Christianity), I am not surprised that Paul C. has remarked that Gene's definition of God seems like gibberish (whether or not Paul himself thinks it's gibberish). Funny, no one seems to misunderstand the way Eckhart Tolle defines God, which is nothing more than attitudes and feelings. What gibberish?

    I'll second that! Excellent observation. Our culture has dumbed itself down so much with respect to the categories that even a quote from the WSC - and very simple one at that - isn't understood, while Tolle's is. That reflects the priorities of our society and minds of men. Why bother with the WSC when we can talk about our feelings. If only I had a rolleyes smile to place here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If Jason's subjective opinion lines up with my subjective opinion, then that's all that matters?

    For the purposes of having a discussion, yes - that's all that matters, that you have common agreement on basic terms.

    But then there's the fact that his subjective opinion does NOT line up with my subjective opinion.

    Concerning the substance of the laws of logic, in what way does his opinion not line up with yours? I would guess that your "opinions" line up almost exactly, regardless of what you think the origin of the laws of logic are.

    If your subjective opinion on issues such as the substance of God does not line up with Jason's, then the obvious answer to the dilemma is that the substance of God is not on a par with the substance of the laws of logic - at least in terms of being tested against reality.

    Self-blinding is no excuse for ignorance.

    Do you have any actual evidence that I'm "self-blinding", or even a definition of what "self-blinding" means in this context?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gene:

    As I *also* pointed out, there are any number of theological works that flesh out this definition.

    My point is that from the outside these works are gibberish. A theological work is only meaningful if you already subscribe to the foundations of the theology it describes. Do you take your definition of God from Hindu theological works, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paul C. said:
    ---
    For the purposes of having a discussion, yes - that's all that matters, that you have common agreement on basic terms.
    ---

    Except we don't. We have a faux-agreement. If I believe in the law of non-contradiction because of God's injunction against lying (just as an example) and Jason believes in the law of non-contradiction because he feels like it, we do NOT believe in the same law. Even though we can gain some milage out of it, the foundation for our beliefs are too radically different.

    So you only have surface-level agreement that quickly crumbles when you face reality.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    Concerning the substance of the laws of logic, in what way does his opinion not line up with yours?
    ---

    Given that he doesn't believe in objective, universal logic, then we have a foundational disagreement. If I say: "Proposition A is logical" then that does NOT mean the same thing as it would if Jason said "Proposition A is logical." My statement means that it is objectively the case for all people in all times that A is logical while Jason means merely that his own subjective opinion is that Proposition A is logical, but which could be overturned if enough people decided to believe it wasn't logical and we altered the rules of logic. Catestrophic difference.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    If your subjective opinion on issues such as the substance of God does not line up with Jason's, then the obvious answer to the dilemma is that the substance of God is not on a par with the substance of the laws of logic - at least in terms of being tested against reality.
    ---

    Nice begging the question there. From bare logic alone all you could say is that there is a disagreement between Jason and I. You could not give a PREFERENCE without assuming one over the other.

    Be that as it may, suppose that Jason's logic does say that Jason's view is right. WHY SHOULD I CARE?

    You still haven't provided an answer to this.

    After all, my logic says that Jason's view is wrong, and my logic is also established objectively which provides a reason for me to say that Jason OUGHT to agree. Jason has no "ought" on his view.

    Hey, isn't that what I pointed out originally? That Jason needs to demonstrate why I ought to care about his view of logic? WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF YOU ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE INSTEAD OF DANCING AROUND IT AND FORCING US TO RUN IN CIRCLES?

    I have better things to do with my time, at least. So get with the program already.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    Do you have any actual evidence that I'm "self-blinding", or even a definition of what "self-blinding" means in this context?
    ---

    Do you have any definition for what "you", "evidence", "definition" and "context" means?

    Hey, I can play the pompus ass game too! And I bet I can be better at it than you if I really put my mind to it!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter,

    "First, when you have six people responding to you and you still have half of the responses, that says something."

    It says I'm trying to keep up.

    Look.

    1) Six people write to Jason. (Post count = 6)

    2) Jason responds to six posts, giving each post its own post in response. (Post count = 12)

    Jason = 6, others = 6.

    Half.


    But, you say, "Secondly, it's not simply the sheer number, but the obfuscation you employed in the process."

    No, Peter. I don't think that's fair or accurate. No obfuscation.

    Anyway, I'm happy to play by your rules. This is your playground, after all. I just don't like the cheap shots.

    In any case, what I really want to say is that I'm not sure when I'll be able to post anything substantive. Maybe a few days, maybe a week. Hopefully before the end of the year. But December's upon us, and I don't have so much time to play at the moment.

    When I do have time, here's what you can expect: a lengthy, thorough, single entry in which I will try to answer all of the substantive arguments levelled against me, present my views on the issues that need to be dealt with, provide arguments for those of my views which have been questioned, and present a clearer view of my understanding in general.

    Again, hopefully before the new year. But I can't promise that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's fine, Jason. I'm looking forward to it so we have something substantial to work with :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. My point is that from the outside these works are gibberish.

    Yes, that's what you said.
    A theological work is only meaningful if you already subscribe to the foundations of the theology it describes.

    Wrong. All one has to do is make an elementary effort to interact with the literature. You're conflating the idea of what is meaningful to you, (1) subjectively as an individual, with just a cursory look at the material, with what is (2) meaningful with respect to a critical distance, a fair look at the material. I can understand Hindu theological works "from the outside" and ascertain the meaning of the terms and the categories in which they subsist.

    Jason has set himself up not as a person who has looked at the definition of "God" off the street, at a cursory glance (1) above. No, rather he has set himself up as person who has allegedly studied the material, (2) above.

    Do you take your definition of God from Hindu theological works, for example

    No, but that doesn't mean that I judge them to be "gibberish." Rather, I judge them:

    1. With respect to internal coherence or incoherence. Does Hindu "theology" have, for example, the metaphysical machinery to support itself internally?

    2. With respect to an external critique, I measure them against the terms of theism, specifically Christian theism. Does Christian theism, for example, have the metaphysical machinery to do what Hinduism cannnot?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "But December's upon us, and I don't have so much time to play at the moment."

    We wouldn't want Jason's atheistic activities to interfere with his Christmas devotions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If I believe in the law of non-contradiction because of God's injunction against lying (just as an example) and Jason believes in the law of non-contradiction because he feels like it, we do NOT believe in the same law.

    You believe in the law of non-contradiction because it fits with your observations of reality, not because somebody told you to. Jason believes in it for exactly the same reason. Anything that you add on top of that is just icing on the cake, rather than the reason you believe.

    If I say: "Proposition A is logical" then that does NOT mean the same thing as it would if Jason said "Proposition A is logical." My statement means that it is objectively the case for all people in all times that A is logical while Jason means merely that his own subjective opinion is that Proposition A is logical, but which could be overturned if enough people decided to believe it wasn't logical and we altered the rules of logic.

    That's not what Jason means at all, and I believe that you know that. However I'll let him address that question if he wishes, and simply note that I do not necessarily agree with his reasoning myself.

    Nice begging the question there. From bare logic alone all you could say is that there is a disagreement between Jason and I. You could not give a PREFERENCE without assuming one over the other.

    It doesn't beg the question at all. What I'm saying is that there are two states in play:

    1. On the substance of the laws of logic (i.e. what they consist of) you are in broad agreement. This is because of what you are both able to observe, regardless of your beliefs about where the laws of logic come from and what their nature is. You both observe evidence and can agree on what they are.

    2. On the substance of the existence of God (i.e. what God consists of) you are not in agreement. This is because you claim to be able to observe facts about God and Jason claims not to be able to observe those facts. One of you is misguided about their observations, and therefore you cannot agree.

    This suggests that the existence of God operates on a different level to the laws of logic. More specifically, it suggests that the observable facts about the existence of God are not easily tested against reality. How else would you account for the discrepancy?

    Be that as it may, suppose that Jason's logic does say that Jason's view is right. WHY SHOULD I CARE?

    I don't think there's a reason why you should care, and I still struggle to understand what you mean by "care".

    Hey, I can play the pompus ass game too! And I bet I can be better at it than you if I really put my mind to it!

    I'd recommend that if you plan to use the word pompous in future, you spell it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wrong. All one has to do is make an elementary effort to interact with the literature. You're conflating the idea of what is meaningful to you, (1) subjectively as an individual, with just a cursory look at the material, with what is (2) meaningful with respect to a critical distance, a fair look at the material. I can understand Hindu theological works "from the outside" and ascertain the meaning of the terms and the categories in which they subsist.

    I find it interesting that you equate "interacting with the literature" with understanding a religion - personally I don't think for a moment that the first has much to do with the second. It seems to be a peculiarly academic approach to take to what is, first and foremost, a lived experience.

    In any case, I didn't say that you couldn't understand them, I said that they're only meaningful from the inside. I imagine that you would agree that your experience of reading the Bible is much more meaningful than mine precisely because of that difference. Many of my friends have told me that they only really understood the Bible after they became Christian - some going so far as to say that understanding the Bible was one of the ways in which they recognised that they were Christian. I agree with them.

    1. With respect to internal coherence or incoherence. Does Hindu "theology" have, for example, the metaphysical machinery to support itself internally?

    To be brutally honest, the quotation marks around the word "theology" speaks more loudly than the words that you've written. Might I ask what Hindu theological works you've read, by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul C. said:
    ---
    You believe in the law of non-contradiction because it fits with your observations of reality, not because somebody told you to.
    ---

    Perhaps you can read my mind for the rest of my response to you too.

    And for the record, it does NOT fit with my observations of reality. It fits with most of my observations, but not all of them.

    Example: I'm walking alone at night and hear someone call my name. I turn and look, but the streets are empty. My sight is telling me something in direct contradiction to what my ears have told me. My senses, in other words, are telling me A is non-A.

    Example: I watch a 3D movie at the theater and see a monster jump out at me. I jump in my seat even though I have experienced 3D movies in the past and know that they cannot hurt me. My senses simultaneously tell me A (it's safe) and non-A (it's not safe).

    I do not learn logic from my senses at all. Instead, I use logic to determine which of my senses to believe. This presents your theory with a bit of a problem.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    This suggests that the existence of God operates on a different level to the laws of logic. More specifically, it suggests that the observable facts about the existence of God are not easily tested against reality. How else would you account for the discrepancy?
    ---

    By pointing out that observable facts about the existence of God are less desired by the carnal mind, and therefore supressed. Again, we have to use our reason to interpret our senses, not vice versa, and if our reason is based on faulty presuppositions, we will come to faulty conclusions regardless of how accurate our system of logic is.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    I don't think there's a reason why you should care
    ---

    Exactly my point.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    and I still struggle to understand what you mean by "care".
    ---

    Then you have my pity.

    Paul C. said:
    ---
    I'd recommend that if you plan to use the word pompous in future, you spell it correctly.
    ---

    What is "correct" spelling anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  24. By the way, I think this example might even better explain why going from observations -> logic is a fallacy.

    Imagine a perfectly working video camera that is taking a picture of a red ball on a black screen. We look at this image and see "Red ball." We, as humans, "see" the Law of Identity as well as the Law of Non-Contradiction.

    What does the camera "see"?

    The camera has all the hardware needed to differentiate between a red pixel and a black pixel. But the camera DOESN'T make that distinction.

    How do we get the camera to be able to differentiate between the red ball and the black background? We have to supply the logic ourselves in the form of a program. We supply the logic that enables the camera to "make sense" of the fact that a red pixel is different from a black pixel.

    The logic precedes the ability to make a differentiation, even if all the hardware is intact and in perfect working order. To relate it to a human, you can have a perfectly functioning eye, but if the eye lacks a brain preloaded with logic, the human can make no sense of the image, not even to differentiate between black and red.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find it interesting that you equate "interacting with the literature" with understanding a religion - personally I don't think for a moment that the first has much to do with the second.

    Given the profound irrationality of your mind, this isn't at all surprising. I'm merely addressing Stretfield on his own terms.

    And let the record show that your original complaint regarded a simple modified quotation from the WSC being "gibberish," now to it being "meaningful" - in a subjective sense. Was this the original nature of Stretfield's complaint? - No. Was this the original nature of your own complaint? - No.

    In any case, I didn't say that you couldn't understand them, I said that they're only meaningful from the inside.

    No, you said: Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, but from the outside, it just looks like gibberish.

    You tried to speak for Stretfield. How did Stretfield frame his objection? By way of knowledge by experience or knowledge by description? Answer: the latter, not the former.

    In any case, I didn't say that you couldn't understand them, I said that they're only meaningful from the inside. I imagine that you would agree that your experience of reading the Bible is much more meaningful than mine precisely because of that difference. Many of my friends have told me that they only really understood the Bible after they became Christian - some going so far as to say that understanding the Bible was one of the ways in which they recognised that they were Christian. I agree with them.

    A good example of knowledge by experience. So, why can't you grasp the distinction I made beforehand? I don't regard "atheism" as "gibberish." I regard atheism as "untrue." Unlike you, it seems, I can put some critical distance between myself and the material under the microscope. I don't have to be a paramecium in order to understand the inner workings of paramecia. I don't have to be a dollar bill or print counterfeit media in order to know what a true dollar bill looks and feels like.

    To be brutally honest, the quotation marks around the word "theology" speaks more loudly than the words that you've written.

    Thank you for the psychobabble. I'll be brutally honest in return. I don't regard any work that claims to be "theology" to be theology unless it is reflective of the Christian tradition. All others are reflections of idolatry. The Bible doesn't recognize the legitimacy of other sorts of theology, and neither to I. I take my usage of the terms in that regard. With respect to Hinduism, I regard it as generally more of a philosophy than a "theology."

    Regarding Hinduism, 3 come to mind:

    Selections from Surendranath Dasgupta's Essays.

    and

    Hinduism: A Religion to Live By, by Chaudhuri.

    as well as Flood's intro text.

    In addition, I have Hindu neighbors 3 houses down from me with whom my family has been friends for a number of years. We've interacted quite a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You believe in the law of non-contradiction because it fits with your observations of reality, not because somebody told you to.

    Actually, if I trusted my senses and observations, I would believe in the law of contradiction. Pike has already pointed to sense experience - well how about human communication? There's an old saying, put two Baptists in a room, and you get three opinions. Indeed, all three may be mutually contradictory.

    Our senses don't get us to the law of non-contradiction. Indeed, we don't see something coming into being and not coming into being at the same time. Where in the physical world ("nature" as Stretfield put it) can we find the abstract property of non-contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter: I didn't say that you derived the laws of logic from your observations, but that you believe the laws of logic because they fit with your observations.

    Example: I'm walking alone at night and hear someone call my name. I turn and look, but the streets are empty. My sight is telling me something in direct contradiction to what my ears have told me. My senses, in other words, are telling me A is non-A. Example: I watch a 3D movie at the theater and see a monster jump out at me. I jump in my seat even though I have experienced 3D movies in the past and know that they cannot hurt me. My senses simultaneously tell me A (it's safe) and non-A (it's not safe).

    In both of these instances, I'm not convinced that you then think "Aha! The law of non-contradiction says that things cannot be both A and not-A simultaneously! Therefore I must choose whether A or not-A is valid." Instead you make further observations to clarify the situation - and sure enough, you find that your observations match the law of non-contradiction.

    I do not learn logic from my senses at all. Instead, I use logic to determine which of my senses to believe.

    The corollary of that argument is that people who don't know logic don't know which of their senses to believe, which doesn't seem to be how most people in the world operate. And I didn't argue that you learn logic from your senses. I said that you believe the laws of logic because they fit with your observations.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gene:

    So, why can't you grasp the distinction I made beforehand? I don't regard "atheism" as "gibberish." I regard atheism as "untrue."

    I gather that you also believe that atheism is profoundly irrational. Is something that is profoundly irrational not gibberish?

    I don't have to be a paramecium in order to understand the inner workings of paramecia. I don't have to be a dollar bill or print counterfeit media in order to know what a true dollar bill looks and feels like.

    Those are substantially different experiences to the mental experiences we're talking about. I also think that we are using the words "understanding" in different ways - you equate reading about something with understanding it. Do you believe that you understand what it is really like to have schizophrenia if you don't suffer from it yourself? (Note that I'm not comparing theism or atheism to mental illness, merely using a mental experience as a parallel.) I don't believe that it's possible, and that's the sense in which I am using the word "understanding".

    I don't regard any work that claims to be "theology" to be theology unless it is reflective of the Christian tradition. All others are reflections of idolatry. The Bible doesn't recognize the legitimacy of other sorts of theology, and neither to I. I take my usage of the terms in that regard. With respect to Hinduism, I regard it as generally more of a philosophy than a "theology."

    That was the point I was originally trying to make, of course: that "a theological work is only meaningful if you already subscribe to the foundations of the theology it describes." Perhaps we are also using the word "meaningful" in different ways?

    Regarding Hinduism, 3 come to mind:

    If a Hindu from India said that their exposure to Christianity consisted of 3 books and a family who lived down the road, would you accept that their understanding of Christianity was particularly deep?

    Our senses don't get us to the law of non-contradiction.

    I didn't say that they did. I said that you believe that law of non-contradiction because it agrees with your observations. If you did see something that was both A and not-A, I assume that you would revise your faith in the law of non-contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you did see something that was both A and not-A, I assume that you would revise your faith in the law of non-contradiction?

    That's a question *you* need to answer, Paul C. Not the Triabloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey there everybody,

    I've been working on a more thorough presentation of my arguments against presuppositional apologetics in particular, and theism in general, and a more elaborate presentation of my own views. However, I'm going on vacation now, so I won't be able to finish it before the end of the year. January will be a busy month for me, but I hope to have all of my arguments up on my blog by the end of January.

    For the time being, here is a little argument I devised which stands alone.

    Proof That Presuppositional Apologetics Cannot Produce Valid Arguments

    ReplyDelete