I'm going to beat this thing to death for sure.
It occurs to me now that Goobers transcendental argument for God (TAG) assumes that the nature of Truth follows the belief that it is a Correspondence with reality - which of course is a philosophy I dismiss. Now I often talk about correspondence, however not with reality, but within a paradigm of thought, a language game, a community.
If one makes the statement, then, that the laws of logic are absolute (as absolutism in this sense implies correspondence), it would have to then pre-suppose that the system we're using to mirror that reality is adequate to do so. In other words, prior to certainty, one must have a sense of 'a priori' certainty regarding the nature of the language and rules for logic that one’s using to reach that reality.
Goober (The Creationist and TAG’ist) was asked:
How do you know your senses or your extrasensory perception were[was] reliable prior to and at the time of your revelation?
(NOTE: Goober believes that without God, one cannot have certainty, however with God, one has certainty)
So I’d like to rephrase just what this question is getting at in by restating the above thoughts:
Again, If we say that we have reached [T]ruth, and for that matter certainty, when our perceptions (and how we reflect them in language using logic and reason) , have successfully mirrored those perceptions with reality; then the question above is trying to flesh out the following from Goober – How can one be certain that the pre-existing language game (system of logic and reason) was adequate to the task of mirroring reality? Part of Goober’s premise on the “proof that God exists” is the axiom that logic and reason are absolute, with no basis for this other then the statement, “Does absolute Truth exist?” Not only is this not a proof of anything (as has been already pointed put in previous posts), but it’s a mere pre-supposition in itself. In other words the first premise helps itself to assuming its own existence and begs the question – yet again, this is given as part of the premise; which is merely to call out something supposedly given.
Goober’s response was as follows (and is quite laughable):
"It’s a package deal :-D God reveals some things to us, such that we can know them for certain...”
It’s a package deal?!? Is he serious? Not only does one have to pre-suppose God in this argument (which is fine, don’t we all) but it pre-supposes the vary thing it uses as proof, BUT WAIT, it’s a PACKAGE DEAL.
Let me quote Rorty again: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Pg. 318, 319:
“…The notion of knowledge as accurate representation lends itself naturally to the notion that certain sorts of representations, certain expressions, certain processes are “basic, “privileged”, and “foundational”. The criticisms of this notion which I have canvassed in the previous chapters are backed up with holistic arguments of the form: We will not be able to isolate basic elements except on the basis of a prior knowledge of the whole fabric within which these elements occur. Thus we will not be able to substitute the notion of “accurate representation” (element-by-element) for that of successful accomplishment of a practice. Our choice of elements will be dictated by our understanding of the practice, rather then the practice’s being “legitimated” by a “rational reconstruction” out of elements. This holist line of argument says that we shall never be able to avoid the “hermeneutic circle”…”
BUT WAIT:
Here Goober will respond, “A prior knowledge of the whole fabric within which these elements occur is a certainty granted by God; we don’t need this prior knowledge, God allows us to be certain of them.” (It’s a package deal, remember)
However this simply won’t do as the TAG argument goes from having premises which lead to a conclusion (God), to now beginning with and pre-supposing the conclusion as a means of validating the premise – and of course this horribly begs the question, it’s nonsense...
So the argument according to TAG becomes:
1.) God exists
(so what)
SIDE NOTE:
There’s another contradiction in the TAG line of reasoning which seems to arise out of the mixing and mingling of [T]ruth as correspondence with certainty as the result of a transcendental pre-supposition. In other words, by invoking a transcendental being as a means of certainty in one’s representations, it begs the further question as to how the transcendental being corresponds to reality beyond a mere subjective claim. This has the effect of blowing any evidence that we have adequate truths which correspond to reality completely out of the water along with the whole notion that we have certainty.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Monday, December 22, 2008
God as a means of Certainty
Consider the following from Malcolm (found in Richard Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Pg. 230):
If we say that the way in which a person knows that something in front of him is a dog is by seeing that the creature “fits” his idea of a dog, then we need to ask “How does he know that this is an example of fitting?” What guides his judgment here? Does he not need a second-order Idea which shows him what it is like for something to fit an Idea? That is, will he not need a model of “fitting”… An infinite regress has been generated and nothing has been explained.
I bring this up because not only am I skeptical on the idea of the need for certainty (I generally slough it off entirely), but I’ve had this debate going on with Mr. Goober who would make the rash suggestion that, “If you’re not certain that what you say is true, then why should I listen to you?”
Of course if you’re Goober and you hold true to the TAG argument then you merely play God of the Gaps by inserting God as the cause of the Idea and the cause of one’s certainty. Obviously though, this argument doesn’t hold water as anyone can call into being they’re own transcendental entity and claim that it’s the source of they’re certainty; then, of course, we get into the argument over doctrines and soon enough, we go to war…
My argument is simply, what need is there of certainty? I gave the anecdote, suppose Goober and I were standing next to a stove, suddenly the Goober begins to put his hand down over the burner and I say, “STOP, the burner is HOT!” If Goober was holding true to his beliefs, then why listen to me, how can I be certain that the stove is actually hot, how can I account for that knowledge? If I can’t account for that knowledge, then surely there’s no reason to take my word for it?
Now this is where Goober the TAG believer proclaims, “I’m not suggesting that the atheist cannot know anything, I’m suggesting that he cannot account for that knowledge.” But who cares whether one can account for knowledge or not, we understand each other quite well and get along in the world well enough, right.
The real issue at hand here (or so it seems) is that Goober suffers from an old form of Cartesian dualism that says epistemological certainty and justification of ones beliefs is somehow the end of inquiry; but this notion is outdated, not useful, and if Goober really believed it there would be no reason for him to listen to anything anyone said who couldn’t proclaim to have justifications for their beliefs.
The fact remains, however, that Goober does in fact listen to me, justification or not. There is no need for me to justify my claim as we (people) naturally attribute to others mostly correct beliefs about the world, again, justified or not. Goober himself is the test to the accuracy of the claims I make, Goober himself can set them up, along with anyone else I may be speaking to.
In the same way, there’s no need for me or anyone to justify their use of logic; you, me, and everyone else stands as introspective observers and are the test of accuracy and cohesiveness of a given claim completely outside of individual certainty.
Ultimately Goobers actions relative to his speech make him seem hypocritical – as such, if he followed what he believed he wouldn’t participate in a conversation full of individuals who have no certainty; his continued conversation and dialogue pre-supposes in one manner or another that he attributes to them (the uncertain) a certain degree of certainty without them even needing to proclaim it.
Goober’s own proclamation of internal certainty (on the other hand) is itself suspect as a result of the same Cartesian philosophy alluded to in the beginning. The only proof in the matter of his own certainty lies in privileged access, and since I don’t know what’s in his mind and he don’t know what’s in my mind, then his statement of certainty is meaningless by itself and is furthermore lost on his audience – that is, we simply don’t care, it doesn’t pertain. How then, can Goober’s empty proclamation contain any evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God?
(Let's recall Rorty's post HERE)
If we say that the way in which a person knows that something in front of him is a dog is by seeing that the creature “fits” his idea of a dog, then we need to ask “How does he know that this is an example of fitting?” What guides his judgment here? Does he not need a second-order Idea which shows him what it is like for something to fit an Idea? That is, will he not need a model of “fitting”… An infinite regress has been generated and nothing has been explained.
I bring this up because not only am I skeptical on the idea of the need for certainty (I generally slough it off entirely), but I’ve had this debate going on with Mr. Goober who would make the rash suggestion that, “If you’re not certain that what you say is true, then why should I listen to you?”
Of course if you’re Goober and you hold true to the TAG argument then you merely play God of the Gaps by inserting God as the cause of the Idea and the cause of one’s certainty. Obviously though, this argument doesn’t hold water as anyone can call into being they’re own transcendental entity and claim that it’s the source of they’re certainty; then, of course, we get into the argument over doctrines and soon enough, we go to war…
My argument is simply, what need is there of certainty? I gave the anecdote, suppose Goober and I were standing next to a stove, suddenly the Goober begins to put his hand down over the burner and I say, “STOP, the burner is HOT!” If Goober was holding true to his beliefs, then why listen to me, how can I be certain that the stove is actually hot, how can I account for that knowledge? If I can’t account for that knowledge, then surely there’s no reason to take my word for it?
Now this is where Goober the TAG believer proclaims, “I’m not suggesting that the atheist cannot know anything, I’m suggesting that he cannot account for that knowledge.” But who cares whether one can account for knowledge or not, we understand each other quite well and get along in the world well enough, right.
The real issue at hand here (or so it seems) is that Goober suffers from an old form of Cartesian dualism that says epistemological certainty and justification of ones beliefs is somehow the end of inquiry; but this notion is outdated, not useful, and if Goober really believed it there would be no reason for him to listen to anything anyone said who couldn’t proclaim to have justifications for their beliefs.
The fact remains, however, that Goober does in fact listen to me, justification or not. There is no need for me to justify my claim as we (people) naturally attribute to others mostly correct beliefs about the world, again, justified or not. Goober himself is the test to the accuracy of the claims I make, Goober himself can set them up, along with anyone else I may be speaking to.
In the same way, there’s no need for me or anyone to justify their use of logic; you, me, and everyone else stands as introspective observers and are the test of accuracy and cohesiveness of a given claim completely outside of individual certainty.
Ultimately Goobers actions relative to his speech make him seem hypocritical – as such, if he followed what he believed he wouldn’t participate in a conversation full of individuals who have no certainty; his continued conversation and dialogue pre-supposes in one manner or another that he attributes to them (the uncertain) a certain degree of certainty without them even needing to proclaim it.
Goober’s own proclamation of internal certainty (on the other hand) is itself suspect as a result of the same Cartesian philosophy alluded to in the beginning. The only proof in the matter of his own certainty lies in privileged access, and since I don’t know what’s in his mind and he don’t know what’s in my mind, then his statement of certainty is meaningless by itself and is furthermore lost on his audience – that is, we simply don’t care, it doesn’t pertain. How then, can Goober’s empty proclamation contain any evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God?
(Let's recall Rorty's post HERE)
God as Placebo
This is going to be short and sweet as this was simply an idea that fell on my plate over the weekend, I chewed on it, and now I want to spit it out.
Really what’s being talked about here is a definition for God, and the problem with that is, once one defines God he gives himself the burden of accounting for that definition. So if I say that God is some transcendental all powerful being (whereas there’s a certain sense in that), so what, one can’t prove that. All one is saying by appealing to transcendentalism is appealing to a definition that is beyond our ability to know and comprehend, which is fine enough I suppose, but again, who cares? It’s a meaningless definition. We all know well enough what transcendental means, we know how to use it as a piece of rhetoric just as we do the word “absolute”, however our simple rhetorical use of a word doesn’t grant it’s existence, it simply grants that we don’t know something; and if we don’t know something, why not just leave it at that?
So then, God as placebo; at first that has a certain ring to it, but then on the other hand it seems a bit reductionist and/or something an atheist would say as in, “You just believe in fairies.” Not only that, but if the theist takes this stance then he’s forfeited the purpose of his belief. In other words, suppose you’re sick with something requiring antibiotics so you head off to the doctors. When you arrive the doctor diagnosis you and he writes you up a prescription, however as your leaving he states, “Oh and by the way, this really isn’t medicine, it’s a placebo, a sugar pill.” Now, we all know that in many cases placebo’s work, but they only work if the person taking them doesn’t know it’s a placebo; as a result, for a Christian to make the argument that God is mere placebo is to make a self refuting statement that essentially renders his belief not just meaningless, but useless.
If God is a placebo, you may as well become an atheist
Again, I find no real sense in defining God, it’s the principles which are described under that name which are important in so far as they’re application in life.
Really what’s being talked about here is a definition for God, and the problem with that is, once one defines God he gives himself the burden of accounting for that definition. So if I say that God is some transcendental all powerful being (whereas there’s a certain sense in that), so what, one can’t prove that. All one is saying by appealing to transcendentalism is appealing to a definition that is beyond our ability to know and comprehend, which is fine enough I suppose, but again, who cares? It’s a meaningless definition. We all know well enough what transcendental means, we know how to use it as a piece of rhetoric just as we do the word “absolute”, however our simple rhetorical use of a word doesn’t grant it’s existence, it simply grants that we don’t know something; and if we don’t know something, why not just leave it at that?
So then, God as placebo; at first that has a certain ring to it, but then on the other hand it seems a bit reductionist and/or something an atheist would say as in, “You just believe in fairies.” Not only that, but if the theist takes this stance then he’s forfeited the purpose of his belief. In other words, suppose you’re sick with something requiring antibiotics so you head off to the doctors. When you arrive the doctor diagnosis you and he writes you up a prescription, however as your leaving he states, “Oh and by the way, this really isn’t medicine, it’s a placebo, a sugar pill.” Now, we all know that in many cases placebo’s work, but they only work if the person taking them doesn’t know it’s a placebo; as a result, for a Christian to make the argument that God is mere placebo is to make a self refuting statement that essentially renders his belief not just meaningless, but useless.
If God is a placebo, you may as well become an atheist
Again, I find no real sense in defining God, it’s the principles which are described under that name which are important in so far as they’re application in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)