Pages

Monday, September 24, 2007

Sesame Street Atheism

A few characters (or one type of character posting as many tokens) asked me how I knew that God existed, that the Bible was his word, and that he had certain attributes.

I didn't think that they jumbled and confused proofs and arguments with knowledge, so I didn't try to answer in that way. (Of course the above confusion had problems since it invokes an infinite regress.) Anyway, out of the many possible ways I could have answered (rather than the immediate knowledge all men have, cf. Romans 1, or some experiential knowledge, cf. Alston's Perceiving God), I told them that I knew it based on God's - another person - testimony. I assumed that knowledge by testimony was a relatively unproblematic notion. Thus I take it that an acceptable way one could know:

[1] My wife had eggs for breakfast

is by:

[2] My wife told me so.

I also assume that most of what we non-specialists know about science, philosophy, architecture, cars, ects., is based on the testimony of another. I highly doubt that our atheistic friends seek to personally verify all the thousands of experiments, calibrate the hundreds of tools, and interview the hundreds of scientists whose findings were used by other scientists to tell us about a new theory (or, even, an old one, like evolution). Thus I take it as an unproblematic assumption that people don't have a problem with knowledge by testimony.

So, when asked how I knew that the biblical God existed, that the Bible was his word, or had certain attributes, I answered with:

[3] My God told me so, I take it on his own testimony (another way this can be expressed is, "I take it on faith." But, this type of answer shows that faith is not contrary to positive epistemic status).

Now, I was not asked how the atheists, say, Bert and Ernie (since they post anonymously I'll assume they don't mind), could know that God exists, the Bible was his word, or had certain attributes. That would, at least in cases where they wanted to be persuaded, require a different answer (and this would depend on what their presuppositions were). But, as I said, I wasn't asked to answer how they could know (not savingly, of course; this is only brought about by God's instigation and regenerating work in the heart of the sinner) that God existed, or that the Bible was his word.

Okay, so apparently they didn't appreciate [3], for some reason! They came back with something like these rejoinders:

[4] Allah told the Muslim that he existed.

[5] Kali (or one of the billion of so other Hindu gods) told the Hindu that she existed.

[6] My god (some nebulous formal principle without material, I guess) told me that your God was a liar.

And so [4] - [6] was supposed to be taken as defeaters for my belief in [3], I guess.

But, I don't appreciate the force of [4] - [6] at all persuasive, for some reason!

I find it an odd argument that essentially can be expressed thusly:

[*] People cannot know any proposition P based on the testimony of testifier(1) if another testifiee has another testifier(2) who have testified some other proposition P1 inconsistent with P.

[*] seems prima facie ridiculous. Here's a couple reasons why. Take what I told my son when he was two. I told him:

[7] Santa Clause does not exist.

As a two year old he couldn't fly to the North Pole and empirically verify my statement (and, even if he could, perhaps Santa was buried far below the icy surface. I don't suppose he could have received funding for a major dig into the Polar ice caps). So, either he knew, or did not know, [7]. Say he believed me. Say his belief was true. Was his belief warranted? Well, not by propositional evidence in favor of [7], after all, he was two! Many would say he knew [7] based on:

[8] His father told him so.

Now, if knowledge by testimony is a valid way to obtain knowledge, and above we agreed that it was, then my son knew that Santa was not real. If philosophers of testimony are correct, they assigning knowledge to testifiees whose testifiers know what they have testified. I knew that Santa Clause was not real, and this knowledge was transferred to my son. Knowledge is transitive in these cases.

This could be multiplied. It seems like our two year olds know many claims that they do not have empirical evidence for, well-thought-out arguments for, self-consciously aware of the reasons for and against, etc. They know claims like this:

[9] Our pet Rusty is a dog.

[10] Drinking bleach under the sink will cause a boo-boo.

[11] That ugly man (in my case) and that pretty woman (in my wife's case) are mommy and daddy.

It would appear that they know claims like those expressed in [9] - [11] based on the testimony of another; in many cases, the parents. I suppose it's relatively unproblematic to assume that the attitude our 2 year olds should take to the above testimonials is not one of skepticism. What reason should skepticism and disbelief be the automatic select? "I believed by instinct whatever my parents and tutors told me, long before I had the idea of a lie, or a thought of the possibility of their deceiving me. Afterwards, upon reflection, I found that they had acted like fair and honest people, who wished me well. I found that, if I had not believed what they told me, before I could give a reason for my belief, I had to this day been little better than a changeling," says Thomas Reid.


But look at how [*] affects something we would all count as knowledge in the case of [7] based on [8] in this situation: My 2 year old plays in the McDonald Play Palace one December day with Jessica, another two year old. Jessica's father has told her that Santa Clause is not real. As they're in the Hamburgler's jail house, they begin to discuss the fast approaching Christmas morning. After some discussion, Jessica then says, "My daddy told me that Santa was going to bring me a bunny rabbit." My son, disobeying his father's instruction to keep quiet about what I've told him, blurts out, "There is no such thing as Santa Clause!" After some hostile words about cookies and milk disappearing, presents not being under the tree on Christmas Eve, and then "magically" appearing on Christmas morning, and even hearing Santa's "Ho ho ho," Christmas Eve night, Jessica asks my son, "Oh yeah, how do you know that Santa Clause is not real?" My son replies with [8]. Then, Nicole, a notorious pushy preschooler chimes in with:

[12] "Well, then you can't know that Santa isn't real because Jessica's dad has told here that he is, in fact, real."

Now, from what we've learned, we know that Jessica does not know [12]. She has been mislead. She is, in fact, justified in her belief (but not warranted since her epistemic environment was not conducive to supporting true-belief formation), though; but that's another matter. What concerns us for our purposes is if, based on [*], [12] takes away my son's knowledge that [7] based on [8]? It is hard to see how. Thus [*] seems to imply that my son could not know that [7], which seems absurd. This could be extrapolated into far more weighty areas as well. Surely there are scientific beliefs that we hold based on the testimony of some scientists. Say that someone learns some theory:

[13] Certain combinations of chemicals of this and that sort, according to this or that physical principle, based on such and such biological principles, can bring about speciation.

Surely there is much in [13] that most people who hold to evolution take on the testimony of so and so scientists. There are measurements, rules, formulae, laws, calculations, etc., that most of those who hold [13] have not personally verified for themselves. They have not read all the journals, verified all the tests that stand as givens for other tests, etc. Some of what goes into [13] is taken on the testimony of, so they say, the brilliant scientists whose profession it is to know these things.

Now, let's look at another claim about science. Let's pick that fundy creationist every evolutionist loves to hate, Ken Ham, as saying:

[14] Certain combinations of chemicals of this and that sort, according to this or that physical principle, based on such and such biological principles, cannot bring about speciation.

Now, I suspect the evolutionist wouldn't bat any eye lash at the claim that he cannot know some things assumed by [13] merely because Ken Ham as testified to the contrary. The evolutionist would hardly say that the fundy creationist knows [14] just because a "scientist" (so as not to beg any questions) has told them otherwise.

Examples like the above could be multiplied greatly.

I thus take it that (*) fails as a defeater for [3].

Now, certainly [3] isn’t going to be very persuasive of a reason for the atheist to know that God exists, that the Bible is his word, or that he has certain attributes; but the question was how could I, a Christian, know that he exists, etc. And, certainly if God doesn’t exist then I couldn’t know that he did based on [3]. But, from my perspective, I don’t need to prove his existence to myself, and so that rejoinder wouldn’t count as a defeater for [3]. This objection also shows that the de jure question cannot be easily separated from the de facto question. Now, perhaps the atheist has a defeater for my belief in God? If so, he needs to present it. But as it stands, with the information contained in the question, I take it that I have answered it. The response given to my answer has, I believe, been shown to be unsuccessful.

48 comments:

  1. Suppose God told you that He existed but you were in an unsafe or insensitive environment, that still does not mean that you know that He exists. You may be justified but not warranted.

    The question of, "how do you know?" however, is vague. It may be asking, "How did you acquire knowledge of the existence of God?" Well, one might say that one way was God telling you (although you do not have access to this reason). Okay, that may grant you animal knowledge. Again, it may not depending on the status of of your environment. So saying that "God told me" does not necessarily give a better indiication that you know rather than you don't. But the question might also be asking about a higher sort of knowledge, that which asks you about your epistemic perspective on your belief. That is, can you give me a reason that God actually talked to you? Or, it could be a question that asks you to show whether you are really in a safe or sensitive environment. Implicit in the question of "how?" may be, "It is possible that it is not God talking to you. How do you know it is God?"

    Of course this is just a blogpost so it may not be as rigorous as you would present it in other cases or that you purposely ommitted some things, but it seems clear that there are many gaps in it

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apolonio,

    Of course you're free to offer the arguments about my environment not being epistemically favorable. Short of that, there's no much to say by way of response.

    Second, I know the question is vague. If you read the combox I link to you'll note that the atheist who originally asked the question is a feller who stops by periodically. S/he always fails to define what s/he means by "know." I ask for clarification repeatedly. I get nothing in return. So, being the charitable fellow that I am, I try to "give it the old college try."

    Lastly, I don't see the gaps you're speaking about, but the immediate context of the post is correct, I believe.

    If someone had challenegs to my initial answer, they could post them, but as it is, I only received the one rejoinder which was the topic of this post. I don't find it necessary to address and deal with every conceivable response that could be given.

    And, I never said, or implied, that saying "God told me" *necessarily* gives me a better indication that I know rather than I don't." But, as I said in the other thread, if it is construed as a kind of knowledge by testimony, and I have no reason to doubt the testifier, and I have no undefeated defeaters for my belief, and, given a Christian epistemology and metaphysic, - which could all be spelled out and argued for - I don't see the major problem. Now, your use of "possible" is vague. Might you find some *logical* possibility that I'm off? Sure. But one could do this with all forms of knowledge by testimony (which, as a Catholic, I would think you embrace!). It it an *epistemic* possibility that you have in mind? The former means that there are no logical contradictions in asserting that my claim is in error. The latter means that there are good reasons for thinking the claim mistaken. The former is trivial, the latter has not been advanced.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if Steve Hays agrees with everything Paul Manata says in this blog. Steve, if you're out there, what is your reaction to what Paul has presented? Full agreement, or do you detract at some point?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where did an "atheist" ask you how you konw that God exists?

    ReplyDelete
  5. carl,

    I just read through the thread that Paul is referencing, and I don't see any "atheist" asking him that. He seems to have made it up, but this wouldn't be the first time he was sloppy in his thinking or writing.

    cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  6. [*] People cannot know any proposition P based on the testimony of testifier(1) if another testifiee has another testifier(2) who have testified some other proposition P1 inconsistent with P.

    I have a feeling that's not what the other comments meant at all. You're taking the original question as being about knowledge. If you wanted to take the follow-up comments seriously, they're saying that your testimony - in light of irreconcilable differences with equally legitimate testimonies - cannot be used as proof. Which is a wholly different question than the one you answered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. B H said:
    ---
    You're taking the original question as being about knowledge.
    ---

    That's because the original question was about knowledge.

    B H said:
    ---
    If you wanted to take the follow-up comments seriously, they're saying that your testimony - in light of irreconcilable differences with equally legitimate testimonies - cannot be used as proof.
    ---

    But Paul wasn't dealing with proof. This has been stated many times in both posts. He answered the question as it was asked. The atheists then ask a different question and pretend that Paul never responded to the first question.

    Rather disingenuous, but if that's all you've got....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Carl and Sir Ian,

    They were atheists, and I don't care if they didn't say that they were.


    BH,

    As Peter said, the question *was* about "knowledge." Your statement that,

    " If you wanted to take the follow-up comments seriously, they're saying that your testimony - in light of irreconcilable differences with equally legitimate testimonies - cannot be used as proof. Which is a wholly different question than the one you answered."

    I didnt see the words "irreconcialble differences." I didn't see the words "equally legitimate testimonies." And, further, how does what you just said not fall prey to the Santa argument. Lastly, as Peter said, I never said I was offering a *proof.* So, "get your head out of the clouds, McFly! You're a slacker." :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is a big difference between your wife telling you IN PERSON that she had eggs for breakfast and God telling you VIA a "prophet" that he exists. For all we know the "prophet" could be a deranged person or simply a charlatan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Miss Piggy,

    There are a few areas that Steve and I don't see eye to eye on. What does that matter? Christians can think for themselves, didn't you know? We T-bloggers, despite claims to the contrary, are not the borg collective.

    Now, I don't know if Steve agrees with me here. Given my qualifications and statement of what I'm doing, I don't see why he'd have major differences. I'm not saying that he's a lock-step WCF guy, but I find suppot in the confession:

    Ch.1:4

    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.

    And LBC too:

    1:4 The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.

    And I find support for the idea in 1 Jn. 5:9 We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.

    Now, since much could be said about what I've written, and I only posted something brief and the context was in response to a specific question, I don't doubt that Steve could find "details" where he disagrees.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike:

    For all we know your wife was deranged or lying.

    I guessI don't see your problem, care to spell it out?

    And, how is "could be" being used?

    Now, your use of "could be" is vague. Might you find some *logical* possibility that the prophets were lying or deranged? Sure. But one could do this with all forms of knowledge by testimony (as I just did with the wife!). It it an *epistemic* possibility that you have in mind? The former means that there are no logical contradictions in asserting that my claim is in error. The latter means that there are good reasons for thinking the claim mistaken. The former is trivial, the latter has not been advanced.

    Lastly, your qualification of "IN PERSON" (a) begs the question assuming that persons are necessarily embodied and (b) destroys almost everything we know from history! Think of how many historical figures we claim knowledge of - or take the testimony of historians about - and ask yourself how many of what we know about the subjects have been told to us "IN PERSON?" I'd say you're the deranged one if you think Plato has told us about his thoughtrs, "IN PERSON."

    And, what about today? How many scientists, historians, philosophers, mathematicians, mechanics, etc., have you had tell you "IN PERSON" about their findings?

    It's time to his that drawing board again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. btw, if the prophet knew that God spoke to him (because he had the testimony immediately), and he told me that God spoke to him, then the argument still works because knowledge by testimony is transitive in that way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Carl & Sir Ian,

    Classic use of the ad ignorantium fallacy, guys. Good one!

    ReplyDelete
  14. MISS PIGGY SAID:

    “I wonder if Steve Hays agrees with everything Paul Manata says in this blog. Steve, if you're out there, what is your reaction to what Paul has presented? Full agreement, or do you detract at some point?”

    Well, Miss Piggy, I really don’t have much choice in the matter. You see, I’m just a Muppet. My stage name is Steve Hays, but my legal name is Kermit the Frog. Paul Manata is really Jim Hensen.

    That’s why I’m a Calvinist. Paul Manata is the Muppeteer. I’m just a dummy. Paul is pulling my strings and putting words in my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks, Paul. I thought this post was most helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paul, could you please point out where an "atheist" asked you how you know that God exists? I didn't see that in the thread.

    All of your writing in this recent post seems to be based on something nobody even brought up?

    How do you "know" that the anonymous folks leaving comments are "atheists?"

    Thanks buddy! I'm trying to understand, but you're not always easy to follow!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Beaker,

    Don't be so obtuse.

    Call it a good hunch. An inductively based conclusion based on years of reading and hearing atheists comments. From dealing with "Goodkind" before. etc. That there's really no motive for a Christian theist to bring up that problem. That most Christian theists that visit here are reformed, and hold to either the WCF and LBC section 1:4, which agrees with my stance. That myriad atheists have asked me the *exact* same question, responded *exactly* in the same way, and put out the same dorky and pompous attitude as you see in that combox.

    Then, add to that the fact that you're so concerned with trying to "defend" the atheists. On top of that, does it really matter? The substance of my post is not affected either way. So, quit trying to drag the discussion into some area where we can quibble.

    Furthermore, that they didn't *say* that they were atheists doesn't mean that they weren't. Most people don't typically come here and preface their comments thusly: "Hi Paul, I'm your friendly neighborhood atheist. I have a question from an atheistic perspective. Blah, blah, blah." In fact, most theists who comment here, if they disagree, have usually prefaced their comments by saying that they are Christians, that they agree with much of what we write here, etc.

    Lastly, you're not going to change my mind unless you bring some good evidence to the contrary. I'll stick with my intuitions. If you want to think that they were theists, if it is really that important to you, then think that. You have my permission. Keep majoring on those minors. Strain that gnat.

    ReplyDelete
  18. beaker: How do you "know" that the anonymous folks leaving comments are "atheists”?

    Technically, Paul never said that he “knew” that they were atheist, but that is a different matter. Fact is, there is a very good probability that they are atheists. From past experience, only atheists I have corresponded with (the unsophisticated type of atheist mind you) have used such an argument.

    beaker: Paul, could you please point out where an "atheist" asked you how you know that God exists? I didn't see that in the thread.

    The question was implied. Take a step further in your thinking there beaker. The other part up this question is answered above.

    beaker: All of your writing in this recent post seems to be based on something nobody even brought up?

    Thanks buddy! I'm trying to understand, but you're not always easy to follow!

    I don’t think the problem is with Paul’s writing, but with your reading comprehension.

    Now of course I suspect beaker will ask me how I “know” this. Why? How? Blah blah blah.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Looks like Paul beat me to the punch.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, basically, Paul doesn't know the anonymous commenters are atheists, but its what he believes. Just like with his belief in God. He doesn't know, but he believes it, gosh darn it.

    Compelling.

    And other people that have gods tell them things, whether in books or 'internal spiritual utterings' have the same "knowing" that Paul does.

    Neato.

    Paul also seems to imply that someone that isn't a Christian theist is an atheist by default? That is quirky. There is a whole range of possibilities besides "atheist" that a non-Christian-Theist could be.

    Nice try Manata. Just admit it, you don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jared,

    So basically you're just ignoring everything that went on in this thread, everything in my post, and are, per usual, asserting your beliefs in the face of the counter evidence. Kind of like your atheism, huh? You can't answer our arguments, but you just know that theism is false, golly gee willakers!

    Compelling.

    Amyway Jared, I took your argument, subjected it to analysis, embarrassed it, and now all you can do is post under another name and complain like the rest of the sore loser atheists.

    Cry me a river JT.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Paul gets posterized again.

    Boo yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, and Jared, I gave an inductive anological argument.

    I have the stronger probability on my side, you don't. You're still just *asserting* and *whinning* and *complaining* away.

    So, the probability is, they were atheists. Now, I gues you're going to do away with probabilistic arguments. Fine. There goes 99% of your "scientific" arguments against theism. :-)

    Come back when you've learned to defend yourself a bit better. There's a reason they don't let Steve Urkel in the ring with Rampage Jackson. You're the Steve Urkel of atheology. Nice one!

    (Btw, that wasn't just an argument from analogy, it was using analogy to make the picture clearer :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve makes statements that don't correspond to reality again. Three chers for Steve. Hip, hip, hooray. Hip, hip, hooray. Hip, hip, hooray.

    ReplyDelete
  25. PM: "Furthermore, that they didn't *say* that they were atheists doesn't mean that they weren't."

    I thought there was no such thing as an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't you get it?

    All men know of God, the 'non-special' ones that aren't 'elect' just suppress the truth in their sinfulness.

    But....

    Anyone who isn't a Christian Theist is an atheist.

    Makes sense, right?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Methinks they can't get their own schtick right...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Presuppose Him Said...

    "I thought there was no such thing as an atheist."

    I've been on record making the appropriate qualifications. There's two senses of that word:

    a) One who *professes* non/dis belief in God.

    b) One who has no God belief in any sense, mainly the Romans 1 sense.

    So, sticking with my context, I was discoursing in sense (a).


    Pastor Bob Beeman said...

    Don't you get it?

    All men know of God, the 'non-special' ones that aren't 'elect' just suppress the truth in their sinfulness.


    Par for the course. Another ignorant atheist. There are even "elect" people that "supress the truth" in their sinfulness. Try reading some reformed literature before you publicly embarrass yourself. oh, that's right, who cares about intellectual integruty when you post anonymously. There's nothing to lose.

    "But....

    Anyone who isn't a Christian Theist is an atheist.

    Makes sense, right?


    No, that's not right. But those posters were atheists, most probably.

    Ha ha said...

    "Methinks they can't get their own schtick right..."

    Me thinks you guys are to lazy to make the appropriate distinctions and qualifications. Ignore all the argumentation. Go on blindly through life. makes it easier to be an atheist. Ignorance is bliss...

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'M A ROBOT.

    I AM ACTING OUT GOD'S PLAN.

    I CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT IT BEING DICTATED BY GOD.

    HIS HAND CONTROLS ALL THINGS.

    GOD MADE ME TYPE THAT.

    CALVINISM RULES!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Where do all of the unsophisticated atheists come from? Its like they're all hiding under rocks or something and then BAM, out of nowhere! They come in Hordes. Either that or its the same poster under different monikers, or a combination of both, which is likely the case.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Caleb, haven't you figured it out?

    Paul Manata posts under multiple names/monikers/avatars to drum up interest in his boring posts.

    He's done it before, and he'd be lying if he denied it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jeepers is obviously Paul Manata, for the best way to deny the conspiracy is to establish it.

    Time for me to put on my Templar hat.

    ReplyDelete
  33. too bad Caleb knows me and knows that you're full of it, Jeepers.

    The atheists don't want to admit that I know how to get under their skin. They're easy targets. The see how ridiculous tgheir position is and their sheep herd mentality forces them to respond, otherwise they feel like they've let down the cause of atheism.

    Watch them cry about this post too... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. And, Jeepers, I deny it.

    What's funny is this: Check out how you've (and you know you have, to deny it is to lie ;-) been arguing that I can't know that those posters I responded to were atheists. But then he makes comments that I post in my own posts to drum up interest in them, and he apparently knows that!

    See how easy these guys are, Caleb? Jello brains.

    ReplyDelete
  35. lol, classic.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Paul's funny.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I like how Paul continues to post over and over again...responding to nonsensical jibberish.

    what a show!

    ReplyDelete
  38. The entire point of my previous comment was to point out that the original question and answer were on knowledge and the followup questions were about proof - if you took them to be humorous phrasings of serious complaints at all and not just smart-ass comments not worth a response.

    In other words, the second half of the exchange was a set of non-sequiturs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. BH,

    They may not be used to prove something *to you,* but that's not what I was trying to do. I never assumed that what I said could be used as a "proof" for someone who professes atheism. Nevertheless, it *should be* proof. But, you don't accept our presuppositions. So, I don't pretend that it is a "proof" in the sense of demonstrating a conclusion using premises that are indubitable. So, your comments were meaningless. Be that as it may, I did answer the original question, and then the comments were in *response* to what *I* said. So, all you're saying is that your fellow atheists couldn't pay attention to the context of the discussion. Nice one, BH.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jesus is an ass-clown.

    God caused me to type that!

    boo yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Actually, the comment above should read:

    "If he existed, Jesus was an ass clown."

    God caused me to type that too...how ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Paul,

    I don't see why I have to give arguments that you are in an unsafe environment. Someone asks you how you know God exists and you said, "God told me so." The point is, even if God told you, that is not *sufficient* for knowledge. Fine, that may be necessary but not sufficient. And even if you have an undefeated belief, that says nothing about you having knowledge but rather justification. In fact, you can grow in warrant as much as you can but that still does not make it more likely that you have knowledge. Remember, it is you who is giving a reason or providing an argument that you have knowledge for your belief. To simply say, "Well, God told me. Now, if theism is true, then I am probably warranted. So you have to give me a reason why you think God doesn't exist" is wrong for a couple of reasons, 1) Plantinga's has a false inference, 2) even if theism is true it does not probably mean that someone is warranted. It's better off if you just stick to justification rather than knowledge. Not that we cannot gain knowledge through testimony but it is much more complicated than simply saying, "X told me so." I would recommend writing to John Greco on this who gave a talk at the Episteme conference on testimony. That will make your argument more rigorous

    ReplyDelete
  43. actually, sandy goldberg's paper on this is good:

    http://www.philosophy.stir.ac.uk/postgraduate/documents/SEGoldbergPaper.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  44. So, all you're saying is that your fellow atheists couldn't pay attention to the context of the discussion.

    Yes, that's exactly what I said.

    Do you always respond with such hostility to people who offer explanations in your favor?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Apolonio,

    Since my view is so basic (or presuppositional), then I take it that you need to offer the arguments about my environment. I don't have those philosophical problems you do. So your *suggestion* isn't enough to rebut my belief. Kind of like the purloined letter. My memorial belief would hardly by rebutted by the *mere suggestion* that "my episetmic environment might be suspect."! I find that an odd suggestion you're making.

    "Someone asks you how you know God exists and you said, "God told me so." The point is, even if God told you, that is not *sufficient* for knowledge."

    Then you deny knowledge by testimony. I'd say the burden is on you, then.

    I'm not "proving and argument" or "offering rpoof." I've explained this ad nauseum.

    I think God telling me something, if he indeed did, provides excellent warrant. In fact, if God knew what he told me, then I know it (unless I have reason to doubt the source), that's how knowledge by testimony works.

    I wasn't trying to "present a rigerous argument." And, I don't need you acting pompous. Anyone could nit-pick a blog entry. My argument worked against *the level of challenge I received.* That was the context. To hold me accountable for not writting *to you,* or to *Greco,* is cheap. Lastly, it appears that we may hold different views on testimony. But don't act like you have the market cornered. You're not philosophizing now, you're dogmatically and arrogantly imposing a disputed and non-agreed upon understanding of knowledge by testimony. If this was all settled, why is there any debate on the matter?

    So, I view your contribution here like a man who critiques how Fedor Emelianenko fights a street punk vs. how he fights a, say, Randy Couture. Sure, a move against the punk may not be *sufficient* to beat Randy in the Octagon, but the context was different. His move worked against the punk. if he were fighting Randy he'd add some other moves, or have a more developed game plan, etc. If the street fight was video taped, and then some kid ESPN analyst subjected it to a rigerous analysis as if it were an Octagon fight, and then said that Fedor "should consult Matt Hughes so as to be able to put together a "more rigerous" fight plan, we would rightly call his antics arrogant and out of bounds.

    Anyway, that's how I see your contribution. It would help to pay attention to the broader context of the posts you comment on.

    ReplyDelete
  46. BH,

    I disagree with your analysis. I give the commenters more credit than you do. they knoew the original question, they knew my answer, and just calling them "stupid," though it may be appealing, doesn't work. Now, if they'd all like to come here and admit that they acted stupidly, then maybe I'd take your suggestion more seriously. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  47. "So your *suggestion* isn't enough to rebut my belief. Kind of like the purloined letter. My memorial belief would hardly by rebutted by the *mere suggestion* that "my episetmic environment might be suspect."! I find that an odd suggestion you're making."

    Response:
    It's not enough to rebut your belief in the sense that it takes away your justification, but it's enough to show that "God told me so" is not necessarily sufficient.

    Now, after I said that God telling X is not sufficient, you said:

    "Then you deny knowledge by testimony. I'd say the burden is on you, then."

    Response:
    Of course even you can see the false inference on this.

    "I think God telling me something, if he indeed did, provides excellent warrant. In fact, if God knew what he told me, then I know it (unless I have reason to doubt the source), that's how knowledge by testimony works."

    Response:
    First, you haven't even provided a theory of knowledge through testimony so I don't see how you can simply say "that's how knowledge by testimony works." Second, leaving the first objection aside, God telling you something provides excellent justification but not necessarily warrant. Suppose that person X heard a voice A. Voice A comes from God. Now, voice B, C, D, etc., sounds exactly alike as voice A. But B,C,D, etc., are all demons. Now, if God told X that He existed, that would fulfill the justification requirement, but it won't fulfill warrant because of the environment he is in.

    But an argument that might work for you is that the attribution of knowledge is contextual (de Rose, et al). However, there are some good arguments against that view (cf. Stanley, Hawthorne).

    "I wasn't trying to "present a rigerous argument." And, I don't need you acting pompous. Anyone could nit-pick a blog entry. My argument worked against *the level of challenge I received.* That was the context. To hold me accountable for not writting *to you,* or to *Greco,* is cheap. Lastly, it appears that we may hold different views on testimony. But don't act like you have the market cornered. You're not philosophizing now, you're dogmatically and arrogantly imposing a disputed and non-agreed upon understanding of knowledge by testimony. If this was all settled, why is there any debate on the matter?"

    Response:
    If you read my first post, you'll see that I understood that in different contexts you might have presented it differently. Recommending to write to others is not dogmatic nor pompous, but that's how the philosophy world works. I recommended Greco because he has his own "program" on testimony that you might have thought to be interesting. When Michael Bergmann recommended me to write to John Hawthorne and Dean Zimmerman on my paper on disagreement, was he being pompous? No. It was because they wanted my arguments to be more rigorous. When Peter van Inwagen interacted with my arguments and sent me a couple of papers, was he being arrogant as if he's the last word on the issue? No. It's so that I can understand the issue better and make my argument better. Again, that's how the philosophical world works. I don't see anything wrong with recommending works or making objections so that you can make your argument better. Anyway, I guess I'll stop there and let you fight your streetfights. Hope to see you in the octagon some day.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "It's not enough to rebut your belief in the sense that it takes away your justification, but it's enough to show that "God told me so" is not necessarily sufficient. "

    I never said it was "necessarily sufficient." Indeed, I made statements to the contrary. You're barking up the wrong tree.

    "Of course even you can see the false inference on this. "

    "Even me?"

    Anyway, are you saying that a 2 yr. old child doesn't know that Rusty is a dog based on his parents testimony? Can he not say, "because my dad told me so?" Common sense should help you out here, Apolonio.

    "First, you haven't even provided a theory of knowledge through testimony so I don't see how you can simply say "that's how knowledge by testimony works."

    You haven't provided a theory of knowledge so I don't see how you can say "that's not how knowledge by testimony doesn't work."

    "Second, leaving the first objection aside, God telling you something provides excellent justification but not necessarily warrant. Suppose that person X heard a voice A. Voice A comes from God. Now, voice B, C, D, etc., sounds exactly alike as voice A. But B,C,D, etc., are all demons. Now, if God told X that He existed, that would fulfill the justification requirement, but it won't fulfill warrant because of the environment he is in. "

    That's not the objection I was responding to, Apolonio.

    Your response above is a *hypothetical.* You've demonstrated nothing. I could just as easily make the same hypothetical claims against warrant based on memory in the case of the purloined letter.

    If I wasn't in the above epistemic environment, then your objection fails. I wasn't, therefore...

    Now, if you think you ahve a case, present it.

    Again, your objections are based on misinterpretations of my argument. Misunderstandings of what I stated I was doing.

    "If you read my first post, you'll see that I understood that in different contexts you might have presented it differently. Recommending to write to others is not dogmatic nor pompous, but that's how the philosophy world works."

    I think my anological explanation made my point. In some instances, what you do is pompous. Not in all. Given the context, this was one of those cases.

    "When Michael Bergmann recommended me to write to John Hawthorne and Dean Zimmerman on my paper on disagreement, was he being pompous? No. It was because they wanted my arguments to be more rigorous."

    Pompous. You're no Bergmann!

    I'm not writing a "paper for a philosophy course" that is going to be graded, Apolonio.

    My argument was as rigerous as it needed to be for the purpose I was blogging on. I wasn't trying to turn in this entry to Coady and have him grade my thoughts on testimony.

    Btw, knock off the name dropping. You do it frequently and it makes you look very insecure. Bringing all of that up was also extrememly disanalogous. I would have assumed better command of arguments from analogy from a "seasoned philosopher" such as yourself.

    Hopefully this exchange has helped you avoid future gun-jumping incidents. That's part of philosophy too, ya know...

    ReplyDelete