THE PRAYING MANTISS SAID:
But one’s understanding of God may be mistaken.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.html#7802648112697861736
Of course, we can turn that around. For I may mistakenly believe I’m mistaken. Therefore, the hypothetical risk of being mistaken must be counterbalanced by the corollary risk of mistaking a mistake. I can erroneously think I’m right, or I can erroneously think I’m wrong. The abstract possibility of error is a two-edged sword.
"Doubting falsehood is commendable, but a fixed attitude of doubt ends up doubting truth and falsehood equally.
ReplyDeleteFor I may mistakenly believe I’m mistaken."
Nice post Steve.
I invariably say something like:
"Why don't you doubt your doubt? If you doubt certainty, they why are you so certain that you should doubt... aren't you really contradicting yourself about your diatribe against certainty? What's your definition of certainty anyways?" And so on until the person feels and realizes how untenable his smug faux humility is.
Steve said: "The abstract possibility of error is a two-edged sword."
ReplyDeleteIt is, but because it is, this is where humility and reason comes in; and 'reason' never travels apart from his twin brother 'discourse'.
It says a lot that you chose that single, opening sentence and just respond to that, instead of responding to the entire point I was making by opening with that sentence.
ReplyDeleteTo repeat my point: affirming that God is the ground of truth does not imply that the statements you make about God couldn't possibly be mistaken. As I said, 'God is the ground of truth' is a formal statement and does not secure much specific content.
Since your claim is irrelevant to the general point about atheism, big deal.
ReplyDeleteMy claim is very relevant, because you responded to Dr. Rauser's critique of the sinful rebellion model of atheism by asserting that your interpretation of atheism is identical to God's interpretation, so by going up against you Dr. Rauser is going against God's own interpretation of atheism. And you seemed to secure this identification at least partly by arguing that since God is the ground of truth, to relinquish God's perspective is to 'flounder' in the dark. In other words, if someone doesn't accept your take on atheism, they don't have a cognitive leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteThat's where my point about the possibility of error came in. Even if you accept that God is the ground of truth, that affirmation does not secure more detailed content about God and his perspective.
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteThat 'doubt your doubt' rebuttal of the call for carefully examining one's beliefs is juvenile and does nothing to bolster your own beliefs. It's simplistic and attacks a straw man. Acknowledging the possibility of error does not mean all beliefs are guilty until proven innocent, and it does not imply that one is certain one should doubt everything. Epistemological humility can go hand in hand with confidence in well-grounded beliefs. But there are cases where we have good reason to subject certain beliefs to critical scrutiny, particularly beliefs that are crucial to one's sense of identity (such as religion and politics), and to be more tentative in affirming them. I used to be a passionate liberal who thought conservatives were all miserly Scrooges who didn't care about the environment or the third world poor. Now I'm a libertarian, and very glad that I subjected my liberal beliefs, important though they were to my sense of identity, to close scrutiny.
This 'doubt your doubts' response, just like the response to the problem of evil which asks where the atheist's moral outrage comes from if God doesn't exist, serves only to deflect scrutiny and avoid serious engagement with the issues.
THE PRAYING MANTISS SAID:
ReplyDelete"In other words, if someone doesn't accept your take on atheism, they don't have a cognitive leg to stand on. That's where my point about the possibility of error came in. Even if you accept that God is the ground of truth, that affirmation does not secure more detailed content about God and his perspective."
It's not a question of knowing everything, but being able to justify anything. If they reject God, then they can't justify noetic claims at all.
I didn't say it's a matter of knowing everything. Let me rephrase: how much information about God is secured by affirming Him as the ground of truth, and does that include (what you perceive to be) God's take on atheism as sinful rebellion, as well as your own particular interpretation of the Bible?
ReplyDeleteThe Praying Mantiss,
ReplyDeleteYou fall into the same trap that all doubters fall into, which has already been pointed out to you.
You say, "You could be mistaken about your interpretation."
But you could be mistaken about us being mistaken.
However, you insist that we submit to your view. You never consider that you could be mistaken and therefore should listen to us. It's a one-way street with you, because for all your preaching about doubt, you are *certain* you are right and we are wrong.
All your arguments reflect back against you, though. So how good are your arguments after all?
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteHow is it that you continue with this empty rhetoric, even after it has been revealed for what it really is?
"You never consider that you could be mistaken and therefore should listen to us."
How wrong you are. I have considered and do continue to consider the possibility that you are right. But I am unimpressed by the mere possibility that you are right, and if that is the only argument you can produce in favor of your position, that's not saying much. Of course I could be mistaken. The Reformed position has able scholarly defenders, who I might add do not resort to juvenile, empty rhetoric.
"It's a one-way street with you, because for all your preaching about doubt, you are *certain* you are right and we are wrong."
Again, not at all. You judge based on what you expect your critics to be like, even when you know little about them. Take your Master's advice, and do not judge. But if you must judge, judge with righteous judgment.
TPM,
ReplyDeleteI don't have any basis to believe you when you say I should doubt anything. Until you prove why I should accept that, everything you say is empty rhetoric.
You have still advanced exactly *zero* arguments for your position. You just toss out assertions and hope the weight of repetition will somehow culminate into a syllogism. News flash: it never will.
THE PRAYING MANTISS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Take your Master's advice, and do not judge. But if you must judge, judge with righteous judgment."
That assumes you already have" God's comprehensive, absolute interpretation" of Mt 7:1-5, and therefore that your interpretation of Jesus' statement is "undoubtedly correct."