“What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence.” – The assumption is pre-evidential, it is a belief that, by definition, the evidence relies upon. I think we can again go to what I was saying before that evidence is itself not sufficient. Evidence is subject to the interpreter, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser. Let us leave some extreme examples and come to more relevant ones. Either there is a supernatural God that sustains nature or there is not.
Let me put this into another frame of reference for the sake of our conversation. I, Jason, firmly hold that every single fact of this universe declares the glory of God. Whether it be the mountains we look upon when we walk out the door, the peanuts that I am eating as I type this blog, or a baby being born (and everything in between), it all points directly to the Creator. You would say (correct me if I am wrong) that we can only look at it from a purely physical perspective and not draw any conclusions or ideas that extend beyond the physical data. You are more than entitled to do so, but can you see how such a belief, such a worldview, determines once again how you look at the evidence? If the glory of God is in all of it, then you are refusing to see it no matter how clear it is. And vice versa. These are our interpretive frameworks which we cannot escape, and they color everything that we see.
“The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.” – I think your words are profound here, for even these scientists are taking ‘a metaphysical approach’. Their approach is as deeply entrenched in a metaphysical belief as the Christian, Buddhist or Naturalist. You see, they still have a metaphysical belief in ideas like “existence” and the limits and boundaries of what lies within existence. These are all their framework, their metaphysic. So I think the way you put it is great, for it demonstrates that no matter what approach anyone has, it is still a metaphysical approach, a philosophy of science, a metaphysical belief that they cannot escape from.
Let me finish with a statement…
If I am correct in asserting that God exists and all of nature was created by Him and for Him, then all of nature finds its true meaning and understanding only in light of this basic fundamental fact. Therefore, anyone who does not begin with this assumption will automatically misunderstand all of the facts of nature. They might have a basic understanding of the way in which things operate and yet they will still not fully or rightly understand the data because the data finds its meaning in the One Who created it for a purpose. So if they do not look at nature under this presupposition (they nature exists by God and for God) then they cannot rightly understand it.
Then a question…
Was the previous statement logically consistent, and if so then does this further establish the idea that data is subject to the interpreter and never, in and of itself, sufficient for true knowledge?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Absolute and Invariant?
Sorry this has been so long in responding. I have been transferred to Vail where I have no computer. (Do you know of any good cheap laptops you might be able to get your hands on???) This plus a flooded basement last week. To top it all off our internet stopped working. I finally got that figured out yesterday. So we are back up and running.
There is much to respond to. I will begin with our discussion on morality…
“You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is… So you are subjectively following some things and not other things. You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish…You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.”
You are right in saying that I do choose to follow it or not, and that is my choice. You are also correct in saying that if I accept some ideas and reject others that those choices are subjective. But I am not saying that what I have chosen is the absolute standard. I am saying that there is an absolute invariant moral standard by which we will both be judged, not based on whether I accept it or not. My acceptance of it has nothing to do with whether or not it exists and is real. Neither does my choice to follow it or my knowledge of it. It is simply because it is. I do not change it or alter it. It is not subject to me or to you. I have no influence on it. I do not determine any aspect of it. It is already determined and is beyond any influence. It is absolute and invariant because it comes from the absolute invariant nature of the eternal God.
You said, “It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.”
I do agree that this will be a much shorter discussion because we are looking for logical consistency in my view, and it is logically consistent to say that if there is an absolute eternal unchanging God that there is an absolute unchanging moral code that flows from His nature. This is really all I am saying. It might even be self-evident.
Hopefully this clarifies things a little. Let me know.
There is much to respond to. I will begin with our discussion on morality…
“You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is… So you are subjectively following some things and not other things. You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish…You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.”
You are right in saying that I do choose to follow it or not, and that is my choice. You are also correct in saying that if I accept some ideas and reject others that those choices are subjective. But I am not saying that what I have chosen is the absolute standard. I am saying that there is an absolute invariant moral standard by which we will both be judged, not based on whether I accept it or not. My acceptance of it has nothing to do with whether or not it exists and is real. Neither does my choice to follow it or my knowledge of it. It is simply because it is. I do not change it or alter it. It is not subject to me or to you. I have no influence on it. I do not determine any aspect of it. It is already determined and is beyond any influence. It is absolute and invariant because it comes from the absolute invariant nature of the eternal God.
You said, “It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.”
I do agree that this will be a much shorter discussion because we are looking for logical consistency in my view, and it is logically consistent to say that if there is an absolute eternal unchanging God that there is an absolute unchanging moral code that flows from His nature. This is really all I am saying. It might even be self-evident.
Hopefully this clarifies things a little. Let me know.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Jason's Morality 2
You said,
Anyway, I"m enjoying this discussion. I'm sorry that it has so much been in fits and spurts from my perspective.
I wish you well, friend.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???Ok. But it seems to me that we will then shortly be at an impasse. It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.
Anyway, I"m enjoying this discussion. I'm sorry that it has so much been in fits and spurts from my perspective.
I wish you well, friend.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Jason's Morality
You said:
That'd be fine.
But I don't see how it's a defensible position. You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is. All of this is decisions based on your judgements of right and wrong. In fact, you're determining which pieces and parts of the bible you follow. There are pieces you obey and pieces you don't. In being selective, you are making a judgement or decision on how you will abide by what you read in the bible. So you are subjectively following some things and not other things.
You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish; again, all personal choice. You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.
I see nothing wrong with that, mind you. I'm not criticizing you in having what seems to me to be a subjective application of what you call an objective standard. I'm just not seeing the 'objective' part of it.
So this would probably be a good place to continue discussions.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???
That'd be fine.
But I don't see how it's a defensible position. You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is. All of this is decisions based on your judgements of right and wrong. In fact, you're determining which pieces and parts of the bible you follow. There are pieces you obey and pieces you don't. In being selective, you are making a judgement or decision on how you will abide by what you read in the bible. So you are subjectively following some things and not other things.
You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish; again, all personal choice. You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.
I see nothing wrong with that, mind you. I'm not criticizing you in having what seems to me to be a subjective application of what you call an objective standard. I'm just not seeing the 'objective' part of it.
So this would probably be a good place to continue discussions.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Response to "Evidence and Truth, Part Deux
What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence. Lets say that we have a pre-evidential assumption that the god Atlas holds the world up on his shoulders, and the earth that he is holding up is a flat round table.
Lots of things can happen here we can see things that seem to confirm to us that this is so. We see pieces of evidence that seem to us to support this perspective or viewpoint, that seem to validate our pre-evidential assumptions. It typically doesn't seem to occur to people that it seems to validate our beliefs(which is what pre-evidential assumptions really are) because we naturally assume those beliefs are correct, that in fact the seeming correlation may be purely, utterly incidental. This tendency can be referred to as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to interpret new information in the terms of prior existing beliefs, whether or not they fit.
Sometimes, though, we run into events or evidence that is contradictory to our prior existing beliefs. What do we do when that happens? Religion and faith demands that we force it into the mold, that we come up with a way to interpret the evidence to make it fit the prior existing beliefs regardless. Since those beliefs are unchallengeable, it must be the evidence that needs re-interpreting, right??
But it gets even more complicated than that, of course. Sometimes, different people have different dogmatic belief structures that contradict each other, so you can't just say we need to interpret things in light of Christianity, or Buddhism, or Naturalism for example. The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.
To say this differently, I don't want to interpret things in the light of naturalism because that's what I believe or know so much as I want to do that if and only if naturalism is the stance that best matches the evidence. In other words, figuring out ways to change the worldview in light of the evidence rather than interpreting the evidence in context of worldview.
Ever wonder why it's important to scientists for multiple researchers to come up with the same results in independant labs and with independant configurations? It's because of this type of thing. We tend to make the evidence conform to our preconceived notions rather than adjust our notions to match the evidence. If I see what the evidence says and 5 others see it and come to the same conclusions, I have a stronger reason to believe it. But what if #6 comes along and interprets everything differently, because he has different basic beliefs? And what if he can explain what the first 5 said and did in light of his new theory? Then it becomes the responsibility of the first 5 to amend their understand, and even to adjust their preconceptions, if you will, to match the evidence. That is the way science ought to work and it is the way it often does.
I have more to say and no time right now, hehe. And I've gone on long enough for this post, for now. I don't have to say it all at once. I'll answer your other post later.
Lots of things can happen here we can see things that seem to confirm to us that this is so. We see pieces of evidence that seem to us to support this perspective or viewpoint, that seem to validate our pre-evidential assumptions. It typically doesn't seem to occur to people that it seems to validate our beliefs(which is what pre-evidential assumptions really are) because we naturally assume those beliefs are correct, that in fact the seeming correlation may be purely, utterly incidental. This tendency can be referred to as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to interpret new information in the terms of prior existing beliefs, whether or not they fit.
Sometimes, though, we run into events or evidence that is contradictory to our prior existing beliefs. What do we do when that happens? Religion and faith demands that we force it into the mold, that we come up with a way to interpret the evidence to make it fit the prior existing beliefs regardless. Since those beliefs are unchallengeable, it must be the evidence that needs re-interpreting, right??
But it gets even more complicated than that, of course. Sometimes, different people have different dogmatic belief structures that contradict each other, so you can't just say we need to interpret things in light of Christianity, or Buddhism, or Naturalism for example. The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.
To say this differently, I don't want to interpret things in the light of naturalism because that's what I believe or know so much as I want to do that if and only if naturalism is the stance that best matches the evidence. In other words, figuring out ways to change the worldview in light of the evidence rather than interpreting the evidence in context of worldview.
Ever wonder why it's important to scientists for multiple researchers to come up with the same results in independant labs and with independant configurations? It's because of this type of thing. We tend to make the evidence conform to our preconceived notions rather than adjust our notions to match the evidence. If I see what the evidence says and 5 others see it and come to the same conclusions, I have a stronger reason to believe it. But what if #6 comes along and interprets everything differently, because he has different basic beliefs? And what if he can explain what the first 5 said and did in light of his new theory? Then it becomes the responsibility of the first 5 to amend their understand, and even to adjust their preconceptions, if you will, to match the evidence. That is the way science ought to work and it is the way it often does.
I have more to say and no time right now, hehe. And I've gone on long enough for this post, for now. I don't have to say it all at once. I'll answer your other post later.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Back to Morality
Okay, so it’s been a while since we hit on morality. Partly because of the problem we had over my poor use of words in the Evidence discussion. I certainly didn’t want to let our morality discussion go without a few last comments by both of us.
Though you and I sound very different in what we have been saying, I think we are really saying the same thing in the end. Here is what I am saying about non-theistic morality. I am saying that I believe that non-theistic morality is relative to the individual, and that there is no basis for any absolute right and wrong in a non-theistic system. In other words “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” This can, of course, extend to a societal level, when enough people with the same preferences make those preferences into moral laws, but those laws change as the society changes, and so are just as subjective and preferential as individual mores.
That is what I have been trying to establish in our discussions. I believe this is what you appear to be saying also, as your words describe, “Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decisions based on what they are taught in their society… But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on separate life experiences… So I see no justification other than proof texting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. (emphasis mine)”
So it appears as if you and I are saying the same thing in reference to non-theistic ideas of morality. At least this is my take. It just sounds as if we are saying the same things using different arguments.
A few other comments:
I understand why you think god is immoral. So, no, it doesn’t offend me. I realize that you are making a judgment from your own personal standards and are not going beyond your personal preferences or thinking in making such an assertion. I would venture to say that you are not making a statement of propositional truth when you say that god is immoral. I think you are simply saying that you don’t care for those morals and so personally deem them to be immoral.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???
Anyway, I am glad that we agree, at least somewhat, on the non-theistic idea of morality.
Blessings Friend!
Though you and I sound very different in what we have been saying, I think we are really saying the same thing in the end. Here is what I am saying about non-theistic morality. I am saying that I believe that non-theistic morality is relative to the individual, and that there is no basis for any absolute right and wrong in a non-theistic system. In other words “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” This can, of course, extend to a societal level, when enough people with the same preferences make those preferences into moral laws, but those laws change as the society changes, and so are just as subjective and preferential as individual mores.
That is what I have been trying to establish in our discussions. I believe this is what you appear to be saying also, as your words describe, “Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decisions based on what they are taught in their society… But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on separate life experiences… So I see no justification other than proof texting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. (emphasis mine)”
So it appears as if you and I are saying the same thing in reference to non-theistic ideas of morality. At least this is my take. It just sounds as if we are saying the same things using different arguments.
A few other comments:
I understand why you think god is immoral. So, no, it doesn’t offend me. I realize that you are making a judgment from your own personal standards and are not going beyond your personal preferences or thinking in making such an assertion. I would venture to say that you are not making a statement of propositional truth when you say that god is immoral. I think you are simply saying that you don’t care for those morals and so personally deem them to be immoral.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???
Anyway, I am glad that we agree, at least somewhat, on the non-theistic idea of morality.
Blessings Friend!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Evidence and Truth part Deux
Okay, so this one is going to be really long. So I apologize ahead of time for the length of what I am about to write.
What I hope to do is cover all of your responses in this blog, though not necessarily in order. I hope do to it through the expansion and clarification of the idea that “Evidential Inquiry is not sufficient in ascertaining truth.” So here goes.
I said, “...our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs." To which you responded, “No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.”
Let me expand a little on this point, for I agree with what you said here but do not think it is in conflict with my original point.
Let me begin by saying that I could have said the first sentence much better. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs are based upon our interpretations of the evidence, which cannot be separated from the evidence itself. Even you said, “I’ve changed my beliefs based on the evidence I’ve seen.” You saw the evidence; it was taken in through your senses and then processed by your mind. This is what I would call interpretation: the processing of your sensory data intake into a systematized idea. I would further say that it is our metaphysical framework that is responsible for how the sensory input is processed and understood. It is how we think.
Here is an illustration I thought of that was appropriate to what we are talking about:
When we build a building there is the basic structure of the building with the foundation and the outer walls and support beams. Now within the walls and foundation of the building they build different rooms of different sizes for different purposes, and all of those little rooms can be torn out or changed. We often see this, when a contractor comes in and alters the floor plan. This I liken to what we are talking about. The structure is our metaphysical framework. Within the structure there is much room for change, and the change can occur for any number of reasons, evidence being one of the primary reasons. Yet all of the changes occur within the structure. The structure itself is rarely, if ever, altered. So just as the structure determines the parameters of the changes within the building so the metaphysical framework determines the parameters of the change of beliefs.
So let’s say that I have believed that the speed of light is consistent throughout the universe, and yet scientists come back and say, “We now have evidence that the speed of light is affected by gravity and is different at different parts of the universe.” Well, that data is taken in by my metaphysical framework. I automatically see it in a certain way, I automatically interpret it according to my metaphysic, and I don’t do it consciously. Its not like I am saying, “Now how does this relate to my metaphysic?” No, my metaphysic is how I look at everything, it is how I understand and organize this new data. In other words, it is how I think. So I begin to think about this data and then change my belief about the constancy of the speed of light given the new evidence. Well, the way I think and process things has not changed. Just a small bit of what I think about something within the framework has changed. So, yes, you are correct in saying that we change ideas based upon evidence. And I believe what I am saying is also true. That being: my framework has not changed but my framework has interpreted the data I was given and decided the parameters of what I change and what I don’t.
Now there is a lot more to be said here, so let’s look at it in correlation to your illustration. Is the earth flat or round? In writing this I decided to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society. Now, here are people who have seen, and even address, all of the evidence that you and I have seen. And yet they still don’t believe as you and I do. They think the earth is flat. Now I imagine you and I would say, “and they do so contrary to the evidence.” But they wouldn’t say that. In fact, they would say that you and I believe the earth to be round “contrary to the evidence.” So what gives? Again, we all have the same evidence. My contention would be that these flat-earthers are distorting the evidence by their pre-evidential beliefs. In other words, their beliefs that they hold going into the evidential inquiry has tainted the outcome of their inquiry. Would you agree? Well, this is exactly the point I am trying to make. I believe evidential inquiry to be subject to the pre-evidential beliefs that we hold while doing that inquiry.
Now the good news is that you and I, and most of humanity, hold many pre-evidential ideas in common. Hence why we can agree that the earth is round, that copper expands when heated and that 2+2=4. Its not that we do not have an interpretive framework, it’s that our interpretive frameworks are in unison or on common ground at this point. The data is still being interpreted by the data intaker (is that a word???), it is still being placed in his or her mental framework, yet the Christian and naturalist can agree upon their conclusions because this section of their frameworks are designed in a similar fashion and work on common assumptions.
But this is only around the ideas that we have in common, for what this has to do with the overall meaning of the universe, the reason why the earth is spherical, and all of the metaphysical ideas that accompany the sphericality (is that a word?) of the earth we diverge upon, yet they are all a part or a different dimension of the truth of the sphericality (if its not a word, I get credit for the new word!!!) of the earth.
This is where I believe that we can vividly see how evidential inquiry begins to fail. It is here, when our pre-evidential beliefs begin to diverge that more than evidential inquiry is needed. The further our beliefs separate the more divergent our interpretations of evidence become. This becomes more obvious the more interpretation that is required. Since evolution and creationism are historical theories, our interpretive structure becomes far more subjective. We still have in common when looking at a fossil that it is a fossil. Yep, we are both looking at something dead, something that was fossilized, something that (for arguments sake) is a bone. This we can agree upon because this is where our beliefs are still on common ground. Yet further interpretation of the fossil begins to bring in our assumptions. This is where our glasses change things. This is where our interpretations become divergent. The evolutionist says its millions of years old, the creationist thousands. The evolutionist says, “half-man, half-ape”, the creationist says, “fully ape”. And so now we have at least two interpretations of the same fossil. We accept one and reject the other based upon what? It’s still a fossil, yet we find one of the interpretations more consistent than the others because of the way we think. In other words, because of our metaphysical framework (our beliefs).
I guess to sum all of this up I would simply ask this question (because you know I love asking questions!!!):
If evidential inquiry is sufficient in acquiring truth then why are there multiple and often antithetical interpretations and conclusions based upon the same evidence?
P.S. - I think I get credit for at least two new words in the English vocabulary! I don’t know if either of them is as cool as BLARG though!!!!
What I hope to do is cover all of your responses in this blog, though not necessarily in order. I hope do to it through the expansion and clarification of the idea that “Evidential Inquiry is not sufficient in ascertaining truth.” So here goes.
I said, “...our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs." To which you responded, “No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.”
Let me expand a little on this point, for I agree with what you said here but do not think it is in conflict with my original point.
Let me begin by saying that I could have said the first sentence much better. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs are based upon our interpretations of the evidence, which cannot be separated from the evidence itself. Even you said, “I’ve changed my beliefs based on the evidence I’ve seen.” You saw the evidence; it was taken in through your senses and then processed by your mind. This is what I would call interpretation: the processing of your sensory data intake into a systematized idea. I would further say that it is our metaphysical framework that is responsible for how the sensory input is processed and understood. It is how we think.
Here is an illustration I thought of that was appropriate to what we are talking about:
When we build a building there is the basic structure of the building with the foundation and the outer walls and support beams. Now within the walls and foundation of the building they build different rooms of different sizes for different purposes, and all of those little rooms can be torn out or changed. We often see this, when a contractor comes in and alters the floor plan. This I liken to what we are talking about. The structure is our metaphysical framework. Within the structure there is much room for change, and the change can occur for any number of reasons, evidence being one of the primary reasons. Yet all of the changes occur within the structure. The structure itself is rarely, if ever, altered. So just as the structure determines the parameters of the changes within the building so the metaphysical framework determines the parameters of the change of beliefs.
So let’s say that I have believed that the speed of light is consistent throughout the universe, and yet scientists come back and say, “We now have evidence that the speed of light is affected by gravity and is different at different parts of the universe.” Well, that data is taken in by my metaphysical framework. I automatically see it in a certain way, I automatically interpret it according to my metaphysic, and I don’t do it consciously. Its not like I am saying, “Now how does this relate to my metaphysic?” No, my metaphysic is how I look at everything, it is how I understand and organize this new data. In other words, it is how I think. So I begin to think about this data and then change my belief about the constancy of the speed of light given the new evidence. Well, the way I think and process things has not changed. Just a small bit of what I think about something within the framework has changed. So, yes, you are correct in saying that we change ideas based upon evidence. And I believe what I am saying is also true. That being: my framework has not changed but my framework has interpreted the data I was given and decided the parameters of what I change and what I don’t.
Now there is a lot more to be said here, so let’s look at it in correlation to your illustration. Is the earth flat or round? In writing this I decided to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society. Now, here are people who have seen, and even address, all of the evidence that you and I have seen. And yet they still don’t believe as you and I do. They think the earth is flat. Now I imagine you and I would say, “and they do so contrary to the evidence.” But they wouldn’t say that. In fact, they would say that you and I believe the earth to be round “contrary to the evidence.” So what gives? Again, we all have the same evidence. My contention would be that these flat-earthers are distorting the evidence by their pre-evidential beliefs. In other words, their beliefs that they hold going into the evidential inquiry has tainted the outcome of their inquiry. Would you agree? Well, this is exactly the point I am trying to make. I believe evidential inquiry to be subject to the pre-evidential beliefs that we hold while doing that inquiry.
Now the good news is that you and I, and most of humanity, hold many pre-evidential ideas in common. Hence why we can agree that the earth is round, that copper expands when heated and that 2+2=4. Its not that we do not have an interpretive framework, it’s that our interpretive frameworks are in unison or on common ground at this point. The data is still being interpreted by the data intaker (is that a word???), it is still being placed in his or her mental framework, yet the Christian and naturalist can agree upon their conclusions because this section of their frameworks are designed in a similar fashion and work on common assumptions.
But this is only around the ideas that we have in common, for what this has to do with the overall meaning of the universe, the reason why the earth is spherical, and all of the metaphysical ideas that accompany the sphericality (is that a word?) of the earth we diverge upon, yet they are all a part or a different dimension of the truth of the sphericality (if its not a word, I get credit for the new word!!!) of the earth.
This is where I believe that we can vividly see how evidential inquiry begins to fail. It is here, when our pre-evidential beliefs begin to diverge that more than evidential inquiry is needed. The further our beliefs separate the more divergent our interpretations of evidence become. This becomes more obvious the more interpretation that is required. Since evolution and creationism are historical theories, our interpretive structure becomes far more subjective. We still have in common when looking at a fossil that it is a fossil. Yep, we are both looking at something dead, something that was fossilized, something that (for arguments sake) is a bone. This we can agree upon because this is where our beliefs are still on common ground. Yet further interpretation of the fossil begins to bring in our assumptions. This is where our glasses change things. This is where our interpretations become divergent. The evolutionist says its millions of years old, the creationist thousands. The evolutionist says, “half-man, half-ape”, the creationist says, “fully ape”. And so now we have at least two interpretations of the same fossil. We accept one and reject the other based upon what? It’s still a fossil, yet we find one of the interpretations more consistent than the others because of the way we think. In other words, because of our metaphysical framework (our beliefs).
I guess to sum all of this up I would simply ask this question (because you know I love asking questions!!!):
If evidential inquiry is sufficient in acquiring truth then why are there multiple and often antithetical interpretations and conclusions based upon the same evidence?
P.S. - I think I get credit for at least two new words in the English vocabulary! I don’t know if either of them is as cool as BLARG though!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
