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"?
Showing posts with label Evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evidence. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
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?
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!!!!
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.
Is "Evidence" the Test of Truth?
So how fun has this been up to this point. Thanks again for doing this. I am thoroughly enjoying our interactions.
To continue on our creation-evolution talk…
You said, “I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?...If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?”
It seems that you believe that evidential inquiry is a valid standard of verification for the truth or falsity of a claim. Yet how do we know that it is? To me it appears as if it is not, because evolutionists and creationists both use evidential inquiry and yet come to totally different conclusions.
For example, you say “If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth.” There is evidence, and I know that you have read much of it. It's just that you reject it. The same for the old earth model and for evolution. They all have “evidence” supporting their theories. Each of these positions not only has data, but they have the SAME data, each interpreted in different ways. Each has a full body of evidences, but what you and I must realize is that the evidence is a subjective interpretation of the objective data. You accept one interpretation and reject the others, based upon your belief.
So in one sense we can both say we have evidence that proves our theories, and both of us would be correct in saying this, from our point of view. It’s just that the interpretation of that evidence is subjective, it has been subjected to our predisposition and therefore could easily be the wrong interpretation. In other words, our rose-colored glasses are coloring the data. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe the one interpretation and not the others? Why do I accept one’s presentation of the data and their interpretations of it and not the others?”
All of this is to say that you and I have a pre-evidential, pre-scientific belief system (metaphysic) that determines the nature of evidence and how we look at data. It is not based upon any data or observation but is essential to looking at all data and doing observation. In this we must both realize that if our interpretive framework is wrong then our understanding of the data must be wrong. In other words, ones interpretation of the data is only as valid as the metaphysical framework he is interpreting from. This is self-evident.
You asked, “What are you saying?” What I am saying is this:
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.
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.
3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false.
4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong.
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.
You ask “how then do we proceed?” I suggest we proceed by 1) First discussing the five points above and coming to a consensus on them and then 2) examining the validity of our pre-scientific metaphysics in light of logic and rationality.
I hope this was not too long. I look forward to hearing from you and will be soon to respond to our morality discussion.
Later Buddy.
To continue on our creation-evolution talk…
You said, “I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?...If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?”
It seems that you believe that evidential inquiry is a valid standard of verification for the truth or falsity of a claim. Yet how do we know that it is? To me it appears as if it is not, because evolutionists and creationists both use evidential inquiry and yet come to totally different conclusions.
For example, you say “If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth.” There is evidence, and I know that you have read much of it. It's just that you reject it. The same for the old earth model and for evolution. They all have “evidence” supporting their theories. Each of these positions not only has data, but they have the SAME data, each interpreted in different ways. Each has a full body of evidences, but what you and I must realize is that the evidence is a subjective interpretation of the objective data. You accept one interpretation and reject the others, based upon your belief.
So in one sense we can both say we have evidence that proves our theories, and both of us would be correct in saying this, from our point of view. It’s just that the interpretation of that evidence is subjective, it has been subjected to our predisposition and therefore could easily be the wrong interpretation. In other words, our rose-colored glasses are coloring the data. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe the one interpretation and not the others? Why do I accept one’s presentation of the data and their interpretations of it and not the others?”
All of this is to say that you and I have a pre-evidential, pre-scientific belief system (metaphysic) that determines the nature of evidence and how we look at data. It is not based upon any data or observation but is essential to looking at all data and doing observation. In this we must both realize that if our interpretive framework is wrong then our understanding of the data must be wrong. In other words, ones interpretation of the data is only as valid as the metaphysical framework he is interpreting from. This is self-evident.
You asked, “What are you saying?” What I am saying is this:
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.
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.
3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false.
4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong.
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.
You ask “how then do we proceed?” I suggest we proceed by 1) First discussing the five points above and coming to a consensus on them and then 2) examining the validity of our pre-scientific metaphysics in light of logic and rationality.
I hope this was not too long. I look forward to hearing from you and will be soon to respond to our morality discussion.
Later Buddy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
