Good stuff! You have very clearly explained your position. Well done! Here are my thoughts…
You said:
“I think it (Pascals Wager) more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?”
Absolutely. I would tend to agree with you.
You said…
"I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am."
Here are a few thoughts in response:
I guess my first response is that Christianity is not pragmatic. I think I would do a disservice to the truth of God by trying to make it so, and so would anyone else. If someone were to do so then they would probably strip Christianity of its truth in order to do so. So my first hope is that no one ever tries to convince you that from a pragmatic standpoint Christianity is a “more accurate conception of reality”.
Secondly, my hope is that you never accept Christianity as true for pragmatic reasons. Now I know that this might at first sound bizarre to you, but it is true. To me this appears to be a simple choice between two authorities in the thought world. There are only two. One is rationalism, the other is revelation. Rationalism is trusting in unaided human reason for the standard of knowledge. As I read your words I thought them to be an almost perfect functional definition for rationalism. Herein lays the rub. I would not want you to accept or believe in Christ because your rationalistic mindset has told you that it is true. This is simply because you would still have the same authority, which is your unaided human reason, and at any time when something else appears more true then you might change. So, though I believe Christianity to be the only accurate conception of reality, I would hope you never believe it because it is. No, I believe in the end that this is truly a question of authority, and as much as I like to debate with you, it comes down to whether we trust in our own reason or in revelation. What is my ultimate authority and what is yours. Does any of this make sense?
You said…
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way.
I guess the problem here is that it sounds like you believe that God cannot use His creation to answer prayer. I believe that God uses creation and human will and “scientific means” in order to answer prayer. In other words, he uses what he created to do what he wants to do. I really don’t see a problem with that and can’t find fault in Him using what is His to bring about His will. It sounds as if this is unacceptable to you, but that God must answer prayer or move in a way that you cannot explain in another manner. That doesn’t bother me at all, but I do think our two ideas show forth our pre-scientific worldviews that color our views of reality.
You said...
If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe
I would think that you would be able to point to the historical events of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as consistent evidence that God loves you, but that is obviously because I do. I guess it all goes back to that authority in the realm of thought thing again huh?
Anyway, I am off for another week of fun in Edwards! Have a great week!
Jason
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
My answers and other general philosophical meanderings
Your words:
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
My response:
I don't really think most believers think Pascal's wager is a good proof of the existence of their god, or that they treat it as good evidence of their belief. I think it more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?
Some more of your words:
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
My Response:
I've figured out that there is a whole lot out there that I don't really comprehend all that well at all. To put it in more precise terms, My modes of perception and integrating data place hard limits on my ability to accept input and integrate that input in a way that accurately models reality. I like certain models and dislike others. A few things that I've figured out, about myself at least:
1) I don't like changing my model of reality.
2) I don't like it when my model of reality proves to be inconsistent with how I perceive reality. To put that in more concrete terms, if I've decided in my head that "X is true", and things happen that make it pretty dang obvious that "X really isn't all that true at all", I find it extremely upsetting.
I may be weird or crazy, but I can't live with that inconsistency when I see it. It weighs on me. Part of who and what I am is that I work at that point to figure out a way to either revise my mental model, or what pieces need throwing away, or if I need to throw it away entirely.
I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am.
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way. If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe.
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
My response:
I don't really think most believers think Pascal's wager is a good proof of the existence of their god, or that they treat it as good evidence of their belief. I think it more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?
Some more of your words:
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
My Response:
I've figured out that there is a whole lot out there that I don't really comprehend all that well at all. To put it in more precise terms, My modes of perception and integrating data place hard limits on my ability to accept input and integrate that input in a way that accurately models reality. I like certain models and dislike others. A few things that I've figured out, about myself at least:
1) I don't like changing my model of reality.
2) I don't like it when my model of reality proves to be inconsistent with how I perceive reality. To put that in more concrete terms, if I've decided in my head that "X is true", and things happen that make it pretty dang obvious that "X really isn't all that true at all", I find it extremely upsetting.
I may be weird or crazy, but I can't live with that inconsistency when I see it. It weighs on me. Part of who and what I am is that I work at that point to figure out a way to either revise my mental model, or what pieces need throwing away, or if I need to throw it away entirely.
I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am.
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way. If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Pascals Wager
Yes! Once again you and I agree! I too think Pascals Wager is flawed because it is a purely pragmatic argument. Now, I don't suppose we agree on why it is flawed, but at least we both think it is flawed. All of what you said about reasons for it being flawed I do agree with. I would put it a little differently from a Christian point of view but I think it is almost the same.
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Better Response
You said
I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.
Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?
You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.
The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?
Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.
This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.
Do well, Jason.
Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.
Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?
You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.
The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?
Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.
This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.
Do well, Jason.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
About Hell
Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
SDG, Jason
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
SDG, Jason
What the Hell?
You said
Don't be shy, Jason. If you're going to threaten me with Hell, use the real word. Threatening me with hell only works if I actually believe in it. I don't. If you believe that christianity is true, and that non-believers like me are just denying the reality of what they really truly know is real, then arguments such as pascals wager must seem extremely good, and very persuasive. I imagine that if that were my position, it might see like a good argument to me, too. But pascals wager could be applied from the perspective of most of the worlds religions and seem persuasive from that internal perspective. After all "Should a man err in supposing Islam to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, buy how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false." is just as valid, or substitute any religion that threatens some form of suffering. If an argument is just as valid from multiple opposing viewpoints, the argument fails to convince.
Thanks for your thought. Here is my thought in response. If the God of the Bible is real then anyones unbelief or lack of trust in Him culminates in... well, you know. So though a Buddhist might "live longer" because he made healthy decisions, yet still he will regret it for all of eternity. So how is it beneficial for him or how does this increase his survival? I think it has the opposite effect.
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
Don't be shy, Jason. If you're going to threaten me with Hell, use the real word. Threatening me with hell only works if I actually believe in it. I don't. If you believe that christianity is true, and that non-believers like me are just denying the reality of what they really truly know is real, then arguments such as pascals wager must seem extremely good, and very persuasive. I imagine that if that were my position, it might see like a good argument to me, too. But pascals wager could be applied from the perspective of most of the worlds religions and seem persuasive from that internal perspective. After all "Should a man err in supposing Islam to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, buy how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false." is just as valid, or substitute any religion that threatens some form of suffering. If an argument is just as valid from multiple opposing viewpoints, the argument fails to convince.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
What if...
Thanks for your thought. Here is my thought in response. If the God of the Bible is real then anyones unbelief or lack of trust in Him culminates in... well, you know. So though a Buddhist might "live longer" because he made healthy decisions, yet still he will regret it for all of eternity. So how is it beneficial for him or how does this increase his survival? I think it has the opposite effect.
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
How do people believe what they believe?
This is intended to be kinds sorta an independant post. It will, to some extent, maybe address some of the things that you have been saying from my perspective.
People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.
The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.
I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.
That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.
People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.
The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.
I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.
That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
New Thoughts
So I have recently been doing more work on an article on Christian Mathematics. The other day a co-worker approached me (at break time) and asked what I was working on. When I told him he responded first with a puzzled look, and then had a thought come to him. "Oh, I see!" he said, "You are trying to prove that God exists by math and science!" I responded, "Actually, no. Its 180 degrees the other way. I am justifying the existence of math and science by God." I then proceeded to explain to him why mathematics and science are reliable guides to truth.
This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.
My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).
Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.
This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.
My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).
Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Evidence part tres
“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?
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?
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!!!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Good Point
Thanks for explaining. Phrases like "we need to realize" are just the way I think and write, but I now see how they can be offensive and so I will certainly write in a different manner. Thanks for pointing it out. I think we can continue without a problem.
Blessings friend.
Blessings friend.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Maybe an explanation will help...
Do you understand what bothered me? I'll try to explain. It's something that kinda matters to me.
"We both need to realize...."
Was that just some idiomatic expression? Because it sure didn't come across that way to me. We don't both need to realize anything. You have certain opinions, but just because you draw a particular conclusion as a result of our discussions doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree or even understand it. It doesn't necessarily even mean that it is logical or self-evident or correct! Not only is this not an apt way of saying things, but statements like that impose your frame of reference on me, and it simply can't fit.
To reverse it as an example, I'm happy for you to realize or understand something, but it's not true that we both need to agree, just because I think it's correct. I simply refuse to impose my viewpoint on you. If you comprehend it, wonderful. But I will not under any circumstance impose it on you or try to define you by my viewpoint. That type of imposition is what bothers me.
It doesn't bother me that you see me as a man of faith. It seems crucial to your mindset. I wouldn't try to deny you that. But it bothers me for you to try to in some manner impose that on me or back me into a box or logical corner where you feel like I have to admit it. There is nothing to admit. It is simply not the case.
Does this make sense at all? Is it something that we can work with? I'm not about making stupid rules, like "we can't say this" or "we can only say that". I'm mostly just asking you to help me figure out ways that we can communicate that don't try to trap or box the other person in, that actually allow for the other persons perspective to potentially be true. I'm working at doing that, and am asking for it to run both ways. If you don't feel that it is feasible, no problem at all, but I will probably want to end the conversation on this blog, at least for the time being. Otherwise, I'm willing to take a stab at continuing.
And just so you know, our friendship isn't even remotely at risk here, at least from my perspective; I think it's safe to assume from your response here that the same is true of you.
I wish you well, Jason.
"We both need to realize...."
Was that just some idiomatic expression? Because it sure didn't come across that way to me. We don't both need to realize anything. You have certain opinions, but just because you draw a particular conclusion as a result of our discussions doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree or even understand it. It doesn't necessarily even mean that it is logical or self-evident or correct! Not only is this not an apt way of saying things, but statements like that impose your frame of reference on me, and it simply can't fit.
To reverse it as an example, I'm happy for you to realize or understand something, but it's not true that we both need to agree, just because I think it's correct. I simply refuse to impose my viewpoint on you. If you comprehend it, wonderful. But I will not under any circumstance impose it on you or try to define you by my viewpoint. That type of imposition is what bothers me.
It doesn't bother me that you see me as a man of faith. It seems crucial to your mindset. I wouldn't try to deny you that. But it bothers me for you to try to in some manner impose that on me or back me into a box or logical corner where you feel like I have to admit it. There is nothing to admit. It is simply not the case.
Does this make sense at all? Is it something that we can work with? I'm not about making stupid rules, like "we can't say this" or "we can only say that". I'm mostly just asking you to help me figure out ways that we can communicate that don't try to trap or box the other person in, that actually allow for the other persons perspective to potentially be true. I'm working at doing that, and am asking for it to run both ways. If you don't feel that it is feasible, no problem at all, but I will probably want to end the conversation on this blog, at least for the time being. Otherwise, I'm willing to take a stab at continuing.
And just so you know, our friendship isn't even remotely at risk here, at least from my perspective; I think it's safe to assume from your response here that the same is true of you.
I wish you well, Jason.
An Apology
First let me say that I apologize. I should not have attempted to label you as a man of "faith". My intent was not to offend you, yet I fear that is what I have done. I am deeply sorry.
I am unsure as to whether to continue in this vein of conversation for fear of further offense. Though I would like to continue to converse on the first four points of discussion about the validity of evidence, the fact that we disagree about it, and as you said we cannot seperate ourselves from our beliefs, I do not want to step on your toes again. Our friendship is more valuable to me than this blog.
I will leave the ball in your court. Let me know, and until then I will work on responses to both of our discussions but not post until I hear back from you.
Again, I apologize for the offense.
I am unsure as to whether to continue in this vein of conversation for fear of further offense. Though I would like to continue to converse on the first four points of discussion about the validity of evidence, the fact that we disagree about it, and as you said we cannot seperate ourselves from our beliefs, I do not want to step on your toes again. Our friendship is more valuable to me than this blog.
I will leave the ball in your court. Let me know, and until then I will work on responses to both of our discussions but not post until I hear back from you.
Again, I apologize for the offense.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Response on Evidence
You said "1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs."
No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.
You said "2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.".
Do you believe the earth is flat, or do you believe the earth is round? Please substantiate your answer without using evidence.
You said "3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false." Only partially true. Sometimes evidence is sufficient to falsify a belief. It is rarely sufficient to, by itself establish the truth of something. As evidence increases over time concerning a specific belief or viewpoint, it tends to validate, but never absolutely, utterly establishes something as unfalsifiable.
You said "4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong." Maybe, maybe not. It often happens that people reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. My interpretation of data may be correct even when as you put it my "metaphysic" is wrong. same can apply to both of us.
You said "5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct."
No. I reject this. You like saying this, and have tried to impose it upon me repeatedly. Does that somehow make it right? It wasn't right the first time you said it, and it hasn't been right any of the subsequent times you've said it.
I believe(for lack of a better word, even though i suspect you use the word "believe" differently than I do) that using faith as a basis for a worldview is a failure at a very basic level.
If something is obviously false, faith says "believe it anyway". Faith is the province of christians and psychics and ufo-ologists and new-agers. Why do many scientists spurn faith as a source of knowledge or inspiration? Because it doesn't work. I'm a big fan of what works. Faith doesn't.
It seems to me that it is the "Christian" thing to tell others what they have to believe. For me, when people try to impose their will on me like that, it ends the conversation. Was that your intent? I don't think so, so I'll give this another chance.
Peace Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
