DEFENDING REASON: A response to presuppositionalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 гру 2013
- I respond to some comments and questions which arose out of my earlier video about presuppositionalism and the use of the primacy of existence as a counter-apologetic.
Here's the prior video: • Why The Primacy Of Exi...
"We're all in the same epistemological boat."
Unfortunately that boat has a number of decks and some of those decks are populated by people who think they're on a ship called "Certainty".
Presupazistionists are retards....they have no ability to reason.
Doesnt matter when it hits an iceberg however. Everybody can drown...
Ozzy, The first thing I noticed about your approach is that you strenuously deliberate and consider the proposition /argument / question. I appreciate the effort put forth that it takes to look for validation in the other's argument and then expose them to some very thoughtful angles. You have opened several dimensions I had not dwelt on before.
_"... The challenge betrays a confusion on the part of the challenger."_
Now *that's* a tremendously polite way to point out that the challenger is an idiot. So take note, fellow UA-cam commenters! Don't say that the person you are debating with is an idiot (or similar) - say something like this instead. It essentially means the same thing but without you having to stoop to kindergarten levels when you point it out.
Thank you. I find presuppositionalism so frustrating. But I think you're one of the best in dealing with it.
Hopefully, eight years later, you've found out that we're all presuppositionalists, and that presuppositions don't belong in intellectually honest, truth seeking arguments.
Oh, and I would love to see you discuss this with Sye. I hope people are working towards that happening.
Although, I'm pretty sure that discussion would show what a dishonest troll he is.
What a refreshing take on the problem c",)
One might say that the very act of asking me to present a reason based argument to account for reason grants me the right to use my reason to prove it. The question itself grants the assumption that my reasoning is valid.
New sub here and I find this is an awesome channel. Wimsweden sent me - I believe it was the debate between Dan Courtney and Jon Kaus where he made a shoutout for you in the comment section.
You got to the heart of the argument.
I agree that presups are in the same boat as everyone else, utterly dependent on, and with no meaningful way to justify, their reasoning faculties, along with the formal, invented rules of reason and logic, starting from basic axioms.
However, I would also argue that presups take this "impossible task' of justifying reason with a reasoned argument(the best *anyone* can do is to provisionally accept their senses, compared and contrasted to the consensus of all senses, and go with what works in the reality we experience. That *is* the justification: general human reason and logic are consistently observed to *work*) and adds to it a classical argument from ignorance: "I can't understand how to justify reason, so god did it.', even though they haven't even made an attempt to demonstrate this god, let alone attributes like a "logical nature'(which *all* things have, as all things yet observed are limited by what the laws of logic represent).
It seems time Archchancelor to call your least favorite wizard to the rescue...I propose we pass the problem off to Rincewind, and for those that don't know of him -
"Rincewind is the Egregious Professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography, (he also holds the Chair of Experimental Serendipity, the Reader in Slood Dynamics, the Fretwork Teacher, the Chair for the Public Misunderstanding of Magic, the Professor of Virtual Anthropology, the Lecturer in Approximate Accuracy, and the Health and Safety Officer)." - wiki
I was unable to resist, it was as if a *voice* inside my head propelled me to post this... ah, my robe trailing, I exit rapidly....
smitty2868 lmao. Perfect choice!
Thanks for help in understanding why it is fruitless to have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people. There is no common ground for discussion which either side can use to convince the other. The presuppositionalist leads with assertions which by the rules of their game cannot be discussed. The whole thing is unconvincing but plays well with the choir - that is the whole point.
Presuppositionalists do demonstrate any non-Christian worldview is contradictory *on its own terms*
That should be enough to convince any reasonable person their current non-Christian worldview is false.
Thanks so much Ozy, you explain everything fantastically, really enjoy listening and learning from your talks/videos.
You're most welcome, and thanks for taking the time to leave that nice comment.
Cheers,
- Oz
Back to watch for the 5th time.
Excellent clarification Ozy.
"we are all in the same epidemiological boat..."
exactly! Very well and clearly said.
Very clear and thought-provoking. Thank you.
I respond to comments & questions regarding my primacy of existence video and how to respond to presuppositionalists who ask you to defend your use of reason.
I sometimes feel like I owe you tuition. Another excellent class, Ozy.
@Ozymandias Ramses II - I understand and agree with all your points here. However, when you point out we are all in the same epistemological boat (with presuppers) and that they have also argued in a circle. They will respond with "my circularity is virtuous and your circularity is vicious!".
When you calmly ask them about their epistemological source, they will always respond with "God makes me know" over and over ad nauseum. They will even go as far as saying "I don't know how he does it, he just does it". I've seen Sye-clone Colin Pearson say this several times.
That's assuming if it even gets that far. In their eyes, as soon as you "admit" to any circularity, they will dismiss any of the above points you just made.
So while I agree with all your points and have used them myself, the extreme dishonesty and disingenuous tactics of the Sye-clones will not acknowledge them in conversation.
When Sye-Clones invoke this nonsense about 'virtuous' circles, it's important to remind them what's wrong with circular reasoning. All circular arguments have the logical form of:
A implies A
A, therefor A.
That form of argument works for any proposition that's put in place of the variable 'A'.
In short, it's an argument form that proves not just any proposition, but _every_ proposition, including the negation of every proposition. One can use it to prove A, then immediately use it to prove Not-A.. As such, it proves nothing. Which is why all circular arguments are junk. There are no virtuous circular arguments.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II Thank you for your response. However, I was referring to actual situation when this is pointed out to the presupper, and they want to dig there feet in and just keep repeating "god makes me know" and "My out (in regards to the circularity) is god". I know and you know it's still a circular argument, but how do you handle the immaturity when it gets to that point?
Also, what would you say when they try to pull this trick: When you point out the circularity, they will pull the "dodge" and say something like... "Are all circular arguments invalid?" If you say yes, then they will say... "why does it matter?" etc, etc. Basically trying to jump around and having to avoid the issue.
whey the start becoming petulant, just cut them off every time, by reminding them that you've asked for their defense of reason that is not circularly reliant upon their reason:
"god makes me kno-"
"STOP! you're now using reason in order to present your defense of reason. i asked for a non-circular defense. please, proceed."
"it's a virtuously circula-"
"STOP! you're now using reason in order to present your defense of reason. i asked for a non-circular defense. please, proceed."
etc, ad naseum.
bad faith from your interlocutor deserves reciprocity.
KEvron
Brilliant stuff.
This video is wonderfully appropriate to my own thinking that I was undergoing today when looking at some of the presup arguments.
I was thinking to myself that the request to justify one's reasoning is impossible, for everyone. My initial thought it was like being asked to produce a four-sided triangle, but that is not quite right as by definition a triangle cannot be four-sided triangle, whereas the task to justify one's reasoning without using your reasoning is a logical impossibility for a human being because reasoning is the ONLY tool they have to answer questions. I wonder if there is a way of justifying one's reasoning without using reasoning, perhaps by using unreason? Or perhaps could some alien life form from another universe use reason to validate my reasoning? If we could get a theist to validate my reasoning would that count as validation ? At least in regard to other theists?
Anyway, I came to the same conclusion, the task of justifying your reasoning is an impossible task for a human, and so presups might as well ask any number of other logically impossible tasks of atheists and then claim failure as victory for theists, the failure of atheists to perform this logically impossible task is no more a failure than failing at other logically impossible task, and of course as Ozzy said, we can see that theists find the task impossible as well.
Once the word is disseminated that the presups are asking atheists to perform an impossible act of logic that the presups also find impossible, then I suspect presups will endeavour to find a new logically impossible task for atheists to perform.
Great video, Ozy!
I like the ladder example.
Great video! I had just commented on another video:'The first time I'd heard Sye utter the words,'did you use your reasoning to determine if your reasoning is correct?', I thought of Turing's Halting Problem. In the 'halting problem' it results in a contradiction, in """"debating"""" with Sye, or his clones, it's like you said, 'trying to do the impossible'. Interesting to point out that presups had been told (quite some time ago) to stop using the 'reasoning' argument, since they must employ it themselves when they argue for...'
Well said, Ozy. Questioning reason pulls the rug out from everyone, theist and atheist alike.
How is this not a more circulated video?
I'm glad you found it of value. By all means, share it around.
Cheers,
- Ozy
That's awesome Ozy. Thanks!
I haven't watched many syeclone videos or debates with them, but when, in their clumsy incarnation of the presup argument, they ask "Is there anything you know for certain?" and the other person responds with "I know I exist" or "I know I like chocolate" or some such variant, what is typically the next move in their script?
How long has it taken to thoroughly parse though the presup argument--a year? I think that you can accept the bragging rights for wielding the hammer that has pounded the final nails into the presup's coffin. I've never heard the argument addressed so succinctly.
The very act of questioning the validity of reason presupposes the validity of reason, therefore the proposition is self-refuting. You can't use reason to doubt reason. So the question of "How do you prove reason?" is self-contradictory.
I think I understand where I went wrong, but I still disagree that there is no way to justify reasoning as valid. It seems to me a question of how do you get the rational from an irrational mind along with several other axioms.
I think it's fair to say that you can't argue a claim without them, but then the question becomes "Can you explain how something rational can come from something irrational in any framework?" which is somewhat circular in that you are asking what rules must be in place so that I can believe there are rules...
In the end I take it more along the lines of gaming. You turn on a game. The world has rules that you learn that aren't necessarily predicated on anything else.
To add, I am reminded of a cartoon that basically sums up the cartoonish Sye Clones. It's childish, but it sums up my opinion perfectly:
ua-cam.com/video/4uGJoNlr5ys/v-deo.html (The staring point would be about 5:19, just to skip the point)
The way I heard their argument it was a sneaky way of arguing evolution verses creation, only entirely ignoring everything in the world except for apparently intangible thought, but reason does not exist without a brain, which is what they are really arguing the existence of.
I have seen some arguments I would call "defensive presuppositional apologetics". Those arguments are not aimed to defend the idea, that reason presupposes a god, but just, that reasoning presupposes something unjustified and is therefor everyone, who attacks biblical literalism as resting on unjustified presuppositions is a hypocrite and biblical literalism is an equal alternative to rationality. How would you respond to this?
A well reasoned argument but I think most of us know by now that it make no sense arguing with a presuppositionalists at all because they are either too arrogant, too stupid or, possibly, too afraid to question their own worldview. That's why they have to presuppose a set of things they cannot prove and would not recognize a circular argument if their life depended on it.
Their argumentation technique is more of a "kindergarten style" where "I said it first so I am right" is considered a powerful refutation.
I love your videos on presuppositionalism. I hope you make more videos on it in the future. I was wondering, have you considered doing a one-on-one debate with Sye Ten?
I seriously doubt Sye would even agree to sit down and talk with Ozy. If Sye did even a minimum amount of research on what Ozy has posted, he (Sye) would see that he'd never be able to make a valid point.
BlackFloyd94 Thanks, I'm glad you find them interesting.
I don't do debates. I do conversations. I'm rather picky about who I get into conversations with though. I don't waste my time with people who aren't interested in having a conversation or who don't listen or won't weigh what one says and are just waiting to play their record or recite from their script or trot out their talking points. Sye fails on every count. There are too many sensible people with whom one can have genuine and interesting conversations for me to waste my time talking to the likes of him.
Cheers,
- Ozy
In my worldview, I presuppose that my reasoning is usually valid, and that my senses usually reflect reality. I presuppose that they are probably accurate enough to get the job done. No, I don't have certainty; But in my world view, certainty isn't important.
In order to justify my reasoning (without using reasoning) I'd have to step out of my worldview. I think we've agreed that nobody can really do that. I can give reasons (using reasoning) that confirm my presupposition is reasonable. It's circular, yes, so it doesn't prove anything about my reasoning. It does, however, help demonstrate that my worldview is internally consistent. That is what this is about, right?
I guess it is. But you don't have to apologize for anything circular here: You trying to reason is just the method, trying to be reasonable to the one you try to convince, even it that one is you self.
In general, you're not trying to reason about 'Reason' (whatever that capitalized entity is supposed to be) but you are putting forward (a series of) arguments trying to convince someone of an idea, a point of view, as being reasonable. Nothing circular about that.
I think Stephen Law tried to show to Sye that he was asking the impossible. Law similarly asked Sye the impossible. Law claimed that Sye was hit on the head by a large rock, and that Sye's thought processes, and the beliefs that they entail, were no longer reliable as a result (and this included Sye's belief that God revealed things to him in such a way that he could be certain that they were true). Law challenged Sye to prove that his faculties were reliable. Every response that Sye came up with, was met with the response "but in saying that, you are presuming that your faculties are reliable!"
EdJacobson77 : That's _exactly_ correct. A fine example of what I mean and. how to illustrate it.
My thanks,
- Ozy
nice this clears things up
How about test results? E.g. I predict that if I do A and B, C will result. I do A and B 100 times and C results everytime. I used reason to design the test, but doing the test does not use reason. Thus the test is evidence that my reasoning faculty worked. It isn't proof of reason's reliability but isn't it evidence of it and not circular?
I think when this is pointed out to the sye clones they admit there reasoning is circular but its virtuos Whereas atheists reasoning is viciously circular because we deny their god is involved.
But are vicious/virtuos circles used in philosophy? someone said its a economic term.
I agree that everyone is dependent on their own intellectual integrity/capacity when making any knowledge claim (ie, anyone can potentially be deluded and mistaken about anything, in a Matrix-type senario for example). But of course Sye et al come back with the claim that their knowledge is not subject to the same potential fallibility because the "quality" of the divine revelation they have is such that they KNOW they are getting knowledge from god. In other words, they are convinced that their subjective feelings can be relied upon because it just feels so certain. This is of course not an argument with merit, since any madman can be convinced that he hears god's "truth". Unfortunately most people who take on a presuppositionalist don't focus on this fundamental flaw, and get side-tracked into an argument about whose arguments are more justifiable. Once you explain that their minds are just as vulnerable to delusion over divine revelation, THEN you can move on to the reasons why their theism is not credible in our non-magical universe.
Ozy, I think your mic is too quiet?
I'm very late to the party unfortunately, but I do have a few questions. If one imaginary entity is sufficient to "justify" reason, then isn't any other imaginary entity just as good? How about I invoke the Spirit of Spock?
If you cannot justify reason with reason in a non-circular fashion, isn't that something you can know with certitude?
How would god justify his reason without using reason? Wouldn't he need a god for that?
"... If one imaginary entity is sufficient to "justify" reason, then isn't any other imaginary entity just as good? How about I invoke the Spirit of Spock?"
which is exactly why Occam's razor is so important in science and inquiry in general. It weeds out needless ad hoc complexities that generally don't have a corresponding non-arbitrary explanation. There are various ways one can "explain" the diversity of life and many in fact have tried to prior Darwin and Wallace, but none have the explanatory power of natural selection and the non-arbitrary corroborating evidence to support the explanation.
Ozy does in fact mention this law of parsimony and its heuristic power in his video about properly basic beliefs.
Hi Ozymandias Ramses II, I just had a question regarding the problem of using your reasoning/logic to justify your reasoning/logic. Isn't it possible that Logic/Reasoning is already self evident? Can't reasoning be demonstrated to be effective or true regardless of whether someones mind or reasoning recognizes this? Sorry I have no background in philosophy so my ideas may not have the clarity yours would. But I am just wondering why reasoning can't stand on its own 2 feet and be true regardless of whether there are people to acknowledge its validity. I just don't see why its necessary for humans to justify something which seems to be true regardless of what humans think about it.
Adam Heise That's a very common intuition - that reason must somehow be self-evident, but so what it it were self-evident? What would that mean? That we just have an intuition that it's true? That would be no reason or justification for trusting in the reliability of reason. Alternatively, you could construe 'reason is self-evident' to mean that there's some argument that shows that it's a reliable process...but how would you evaluate that process? Wouldn't you have to use your reason in the very act of evaluating that reason is self-evident? This would of course be circular argumentation - a case of assuming that one's reason and cognitive faculties are reliable to establish their reliability. And circular reasoning is never legitimate form of justification.
I did a follow-up video to this one which sheds more light on the problem.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II Would it mean that we just have an intuition that its true? Well, thats the part I think is irrelevant. If its true, then its true regardless of what our intuitions might be.. right? We can see how reason has been demonstrated to be effective & true, and even if you can't.... it still remains effective & true. To me it seems that we are irrelevant in this matter. What we think about it doesn't seem to affect the validity of reason/logic. I'm in the process of going through all your videos... so I'm sure your follow up video will be next. I'm also wondering if it matters whether you use the words logic/reasoning together in dealing with this problem? ie can Logic stand on its own 2 feet, but reasoning can't? Is one of them dependent on a mind? Or both? Anyway, yeah... I'm still struggling to see how we humans have any affect on its validity no matter what we have to say about it. 2+2 will always equal 4 even if there are no minds to acknowledge this.... would that be a similar example? By the way... I really enjoyed the exchange between yourself and Bob Greaves the other day ;)
Ozymandias Ramses II
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment here. Couldn't the presuppositionalist, after being asked to explain how she justifies the use of reason without appealing to reason, simply respond, "There is no such justification within a world where a distinction or disparity between the reasoning process and knowledge occurs. However, by invoking God, I am invoking a world wherein that disparity is nonexistent; a world in which all dualities are dissolved and knowledge is an immediate feature of sentient beings. And while what I just explained utilizes reason, it is only from this relative-world vantage point that doing so is problematic."?
Sound was low but with headphones and a slight volume increase it was clear and intelligible.
Presupositional Apologetics is a rather dishonest use of Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem (Second one, I think) and it goes as such
"A consistent system cannot prove its own consistency".
The problem is that they mistake Circularity and Incompleteness. One can have the greatest axiomatic theory of Epistemology; however, it cannot prove its own consistency and can still be used regardless. Circularity is starting with the end [i.e: My Reasoning is valid because my reasoning is valid]. One pertains to complete application the other has to do with an end and beginning being the exact same thing.
Their answer to it is, at least in my eyes, appealing to emotion & special pleading. The best example would be the Big Bang debate. Theists will say (You can't create something from nothing) but the core belief is that something created something from nothing. One is simply being honest to say "I don't know that happened before this event" the other says "My version of magic is better than yours!". Same goes for Abiogenesis and foundation of Epistemology.
That's my two cents on the topic; one big boast of special pleading, misuse of theorems & skepticism alongside appealing to their emotions. .
Would it be correct to say that even though a presuppositionalist asserts belief based on what he perceives to be divine authority, he must use reason to judge whether or not the authority is to be accepted?
I've heard Sye Ten state that he received knowledge of God in a way that he knows to be true, but I have not heard _how_ he knows it to be true. How could he be certain that it is his God providing the knowledge and not some other supernatural entity seeking to deceive him? Or, and more likely from my perspective, how does he that know he is not simply deluded? I have seen clips of debates where he declared that a former Christian did not actually experience any revelation and was in fact deluded. The fact that such an individual may be otherwise indistinguishable from a "true believer" (yes, No True Scotsman) seemed to escape him. This also does not explain why God would choose to reveal himself to some and not to others who are, at first, just as willing to believe. It would be in line with the Augustinian theology of elect-versus-reprobate, but it still makes no more sense.
I find it amusing that Sye makes his "in such a way" claim, yet undermined it by stating(in a debate) that there hasn't been any extrabiblical revelation since the time of the old prophets. So "in such a way" can *only* mean "through the bible". imo, Sye is a dissembler who doesn't really believe half of what he says, he just wants to score rhetorical points in debate/apologetics.
munstrumridcully Yeah, I don't remember any specifics, but I have seen clips in which he has flat out contradicted previous statements. To be fair, it could be that he has changed his view. However, this undermines the basic premise of knowing anything to be true. If it were true and if by revelation or scriptural authority he knew it to be so, he would have gotten it right the first time. It appears to me that he has not reasoned through his take on the apologetic quite thoroughly enough.
munstrumridcully
He has stated that the bible is the only possible source. He has even stated that if someone were to actually receive a direct message from this god today, that this would be extrabiblical and therefore not relevant.
He has also stated that the purpose of the presup argument is not to convince people but to "close mouths". It is meant to end discussion; nothing more.
puckerings It's so disingenuous, I really don't get why it has become so popular. I suspect it is because, at first, Sye's version of presup(and presup in general) was so seldom encountered that it flummoxed those atheists and skeptics he sprung it on, especially with his calculated, tactical use of equivocation of his terms and his bullying demeanor. Now that the presup argument *is* popular, though, it is getting 'thrown back in (sye's) face" just like all the evidence based apologetics he abandoned in favor of his own version of presup. I agree with Dan Courtney's take on this, presup is just Christian apologetics in full retreat from rational criticism.
dwkjo Exactly my thoughts on the matter, I think he hasn't fully reasoned the ancillary consequences of his argument, taken to its logical conclusion. I find this to be the case for many apologists, they seem to selectively apply philosophy and logic to *support* their positions, but ignore, or simply don't consider, how the same logic can contradict their positions, when applied consistently, with academic/intellectual integrity.
I've never quite understood myself but doesn't Sye and his ilk admit to circular reasoning but its virtuos. Whereas atheists reasoning is vicious.
What's the differences and isn't a virtuos circle an economic term?
When they come up the "virtual circularity" crap to try and"get out" of their circular reasoning one should just ask what authority actually gets their god out of the same predicament, if they say god doesn't need any since he or she is the authority of its own reasoning they have basically claimed that circular reasoning IS logically valid, since god according to them IS logic in nature and cannot be illogic, what god can do is logic by the very definition of god's nature.
Consciousness is the first Paradox
Sound is VERY low.
My apologies for that. I was having difficulties with my microphone and when I played it back I used headphones, which made it seem perfectly audible, but I note that when I use my laptop speakers, the sound is low. I'll try to prevent that in future.
Thanks,
- Ozy
Presuppositional apologetics for God don't attempt to justify reason as existing, but account for its value and meaning as opposed to being a flux evolutionary survival tool to rationalize anything for any reason.
I've never quite understood it myself but doesn't Sye and his ilk admit to circular reasoning but its virtuous. Whereas atheists reasoning is vicious.
What's the difference and isn't a virtuous circle an economic term?
***** Yes, Sye and his disciples maintain that the circularity of their argument is 'virtuous', which is a fatuous claim. It seems that when they get together and engage in circular reasoning, they fatuously declare it to be virtuous. I refer to this as the presupppositional circle jerk (PCJ). They seem to have lost sight of what's wrong with circular reasoning.
The problem with circular reasoning is that it's a case of smuggling in a conclusion into one's premises. All such arguments are trivially true. They are all reducible to the following logical form:
_X, therefore X.-
Such an argument is a liability and worthless in any argument because it can be used to support any proposition, even the very opposite proposition (eg: _not-X, therefore not-X_). One can prove any proposition by circular reasoning. In fact, one can prove every proposition with that form of argument. They are simply stipulating that a manifestly worthless argument, when uttered by them, is a good thing.
- Ozy
PCJ I like it
Although maybe Sye's on to something.
The next time someone points out I'm using a fallacy like "that's a strawman" I'll reply "yes,but it's a virtuous strawman" lol
Thanks for the reply
*****
Brilliant!
wish i would've heard this BEFORE i heard all the insanity in the hangouts on this very topic!! lol THE ARGUMENTS made me dizzzy!! when i finally realized myself it always went in a circle of confusion and they just use it as a stupid mind game with those of us with logical critical thinking brains ;)
So if atheist have to use reason to validate reason and you can not prove mathematics withou using math. Do you think is reasonable for you to demand of a cristian theist to prove the existance of God without refering to God. and how can it be perfectly okey for you to use your reason to confirm your doubts and be certain about your uncertainty but ridicule me for useing reason to verify my faith and claim that is not legit for me to be certain
I don't get this argument. Can't I explain the origin of the English language in English language? Can't an evolutionary biologist write a thesis on the origin of the human hand using a human hand?
If those aren't vicious circles why should making a logical inference about the origin of inferences be circular? Consider the following syllogism:
1) God is the origin of all that exists
2) Logic exists
C: God is the origin of logic.
What's circular about this? I understand that by using classical logic I may be assuming the consistency of logic. But my conclusion says nothing about logic's consistency so I am not assuming the conclusion beforehand. You may doubt the soundness of the argument, but there's nothing invalid about it.
I think Ozzy's point is that it's related to the nature of the challenge posed by presuppositional apologists to atheists: to defend the use of logic as a rational process. As soon as we do that we are assuming (logic is a rational process) the thing we have been asked to defend, which is why it's circular.
I don't think using English to talk about the origin of the English language, or using your hand to write about the origin of human hands are examples of circular reasoning.
As for you syllogism I think you're right - because you're not attempting to defend the use of logic as reliable - you're just giving a reason why you think God is the origin of logic. If it's just 'origin' we're talking about then I think an atheist is ok to say that humans are the origin of logic as something we made up. But I don't think that's actually the challenge posed by presuppositional apologists. They seem to demand a reason/rationale as to why we think logic is reliable.
I had a funny thought about your argument that it potentially can be twisted into parody arguments:
Argument for God from evil:
1) God is the origin of all that exists
2) Evil exists
C: God is the origin of evil.
Argument for God from pornography:
1) God is the origin of all that exists
2) Pornography exists
C: God is the origin of pornography.
Just me being silly.
Ozy, so as I understand it, you are claiming that NOBODY can justify the use of reason without using their reasoning, which is circular, and thus unreasonable. So both presups and non-presups must simply ASSUME reason and should not bother to justify it.
(If that is your position, I tend to agree.)
But the presups assert that they CAN justify the use of reason without using their reasoning. They use REVELATION to justify the use of reason. And conveniently, that revelation can not possibly be wrong.
It seems to me, in this context the word "revelation" is either undefined gibberish, or it is defined as "that which has the power of justifying the use of reason".
So that just kicks the can down the road a bit. Now they are assuming revelation instead of assuming reason directly. But again, they claim they are not assuming revelation... revelation reveals itself.
I enjoyed your breakdown of the topic here, Ozy. As a Christian, I am still trying to hash out the presuppositional appologetic, as it is fairly new to me. So I try to pick the brains of those either for or against it who seem to understand it, as there are many on either side of the God conversation that apparently don't (perhaps I am one). So if you'd indulge me...
Pointing out the impossibility of the task the presup apologist sets before his challenger(s), namely to justify that their reasoning is valid sans the Creator, you say, "You don't climb a ladder to reach the ladder you're already standing on. You don't use reason to justify reasoning."
I agree.
"I don't know how to defend my use of reasoning in a non-circular fashion. I just do, in fact, assume that all my cognitive capacities are properly functioning and generally reliable and that the inferential procedures I follow are similarly reliable. If I didn't assume those things, I wouldn't bother using them in the first place, so, no, I can't defend my use of reasoning using my reasoning without going in a circle. Then ask them to show you how they do it. They need to put up or shut up."
My question/observation is this: As obviously both the unbeliever and the believer MUST assume reason in order to even begin discussing the God question, isn't the relentless presup badgering of, "How do you know that?" and "Do you know that for certain?" more a means to an end, rather than an end in itself? Isn't the ultimate and undergirding point of the presup not how we USE reason, but how reason is ATTAINED?
Wouldn't the presup apologist answer you essentially that such a statement (that, basically, there is no reason to have to validate reasoning because reasoning must be assumed) is like coming across a bloodied man who appears to have been in a car wreck walking up the highway, and when you pull over and ask him, "How did you get here?" he just responds, "Nevermind, I'm here."?
Isn't there an undergirding onus on the ORIGINS of reason, logic, morality, consciousness and other metaphysical concepts that lies at the root of the presup apologetic--- an ontological truth that the epistemological badgering attempts to reveal?
Something to the effect of, "Just saying 'It works and well, because it works, it IS and therefore it works, and asking me to justify it in and of myself when I clearly can't doesn't matter because it works,' does nothing to explain how random chemical processes can account for reason, logic etc., therefore the reason it is impossible to answer the question in any no-God way is because in order for such things to even exist that we might utilize them, God, the Supra Intelligence which brought all things into existence, MUST exist?"
Aren't you conceding their point with the statement that reason is assumed, without accounting for its origins in the first place, and thus establishing the argument as airtight?
In Botten's PoE argument, it seemed he was equivocating in trying to answer the question. But whereas Botten was trying to hammer an ontological statement into an argument to address an epistemological question, what you say here seems like coming through the door at the back of the same house of misconception, attempting to use an epistemological question to get past the epistemological question Botten&co. left on the table, but ignoring the ontological point that the epistemology then leads to in the logical succession of the presup apologetic (a logical progression similar to how in the PoE/PoC consciousness leads one to the realization that one must exist to be conscious), and, in so doing, begging the question for atheism (as the demands inherent to the question of justifying ones reasoning are only satisfied by the statement 'reasoning IS and must be assumed' if both sides can in no way account for the origins of reason as atheism cannot).
Hopefully that was coherent enough to sort out. To sum it up, the presup (I would assume) would yes, go on to describe why ANYONE (believer or nonbeliever alike) CAN reason because of, essentially, being created by the God of reason in His image and likeness, but then he/she would flip the script and ask the God denier how chemical "fizz" codes for truth. How stardust can be offended, how rocks dream, etc., demanding they adhere strictly to a God-less, naturalist worldview to account for the metaphysical attributes of consciousness.
I just don't see how one can separate the two (usage and origins of reason) so as to answer the "means" (i.e. "How do you know your reasoning is valid?") without addressing the ends (i.e. "How did reason arise through random, physical processes?"), and sufficiently answer the presup apologetic.
It is as mystical to me as the evolutionists who try dismiss the problem of abiogenesis by separating it from their theory on how LIFE is alleged to have evolved. Well, if one follows the timeline back far enough, the single-celled amoeba still had to come to life out of the primordial soup. The cart's in front of the horse (unless one chooses to go with theistic evolution, which has its own problems). Without solving abiogenesis, the ToE is DOA, as far as it pertains to atheistic naturalism.
Q: How can life evolve if there is no demonstrable, naturalistic mechanism for life?
A: "Life must be assumed. We have it, it works, therefore it is. Gtg. Just because we don't know HOW life came from non-life YET, and have not gotten one centimeter closer in all this time exploring the question, doesn't mean we WON'T some day. We have faith. It is no different than how I know that if I play the lotto long enough, I WILL win. Except that the odds for all the factors necessary for life to come together and arise unaided from inanimate matter are ten to the infinite power (because there is something "magical" about life that transcends the physical and therefore no amount of chemical cocktails will ever bring it into existence from non-life no matter how ideal the conditions), so I could play that lotto for eternity and not have my number come up, rats." lol.
Q: How can PHYSICAL processes give rise to METAPHYSICAL concepts such as reason?
A: "Reason must be assumed. We have it, it works, therefore it is. Gtg. Just because we don't know HOW a metaphysical concept such as reason came from the physical processes of biological evolution YET, and have not gotten one centimeter closer after all this time and effort exploring the question, doesn't mean we WON'T some day. We have faith. It is no different than how I know that if I play the lotto long enough, I WILL win. Except that the odds for all the factors necessary for reason and other metaphysical concepts to arise via strictly physical, naturalist processes are ten to the infinite power (because what is METAPHYSICAL is, BY DEFINITION, NOT PHYSICAL, so how can it arise from it PHYSICALLY??), so I could play that lotto for eternity and not have my number come up, rats." lol.
Ozy, correct me if I am wrong, but your argument seems to say, "Well, the Christian has to assume his reason same as the unbeliever, therefore the playing field is level and we are all in the same boat, so if the presupper wants to get out his shotgun and blow a hole in the bottom of it, we ALL sink."
But I think the presup apologist who gives it thought would say, "Yes, I agree. That is precisely the point. We ARE in the same boat. Now, wherefore the boat?"
If a presuppositionalist is going to grant that we are all able to use reason to explain the possible origins of reason, then it is indeed down to a similar argument that one might hear in favor of abiogenesis. Namely: If we can propose naturalistic explanations that are coherent, what need is there to propose supernatural explanations?
But I'm not sure a presup would be willing to grant that. At least not the kind that Ozzy has dubbed the "Sye-clones."
As an aside: I'm no philospher and I haven't formally studied the subject, but it sounds very strange to hear reason described as "metaphysical."
Scott Bowser
Just to be clear, I use the term 'Sye-clones', but I'm not the person who dubbed them that. That clever bit of wit belongs to MK Skeptic . He came up with it a long time ago. I came across it back then in a discusson on a FB page, but forgot all about it until jon f. mcdropout mentioned it to me in a hangout we did together and I thought it was hilarious. I thought I was hearing it for the first time. I have been using it ever since then, but it's been used for quite a while now and the credit for that belongs to MK_Speptic.
Cheers,
- Ozy
***** Thanks for that long comment. I'll reply to you a little later as what you wrote is like a machine with a lot of moving parts and doesn't deserve to be answered in haste while I'm trying to get caught up on my correspondence and replying to all the shorter comments first so I can respond to as many people as possible.
Thanks,
- Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II
Ah, thanks.
MK Skeptic There's also Sye-cophants.
just ask them where god gets his reasoning. their reply is god is omniscient.
so god is using omniscience to justify his omniscience and thats goddamn circular
Proof math is reliable without using math.
Ozymandias Ramses II Hi There. I admire the calm and measured way in which you address the issues, void of sarcasm and mockery. This is rare in my experience, and helpful. Below is how I've addressed it in the past, and would love to hear your feedback. Thanks
"I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty to tell me you are burdened by this philosophical problem. I see that you are also saying that I have that problem too, but I don't and I'll explain why below. But really you need to remember that from your worldview, you've given up knowledge if you can't justify your cognitive faculties. So you can't make the claim that I'm in the same boat as you. In fact, any claim you make is without foundation.
I think the key thing to remember is what we are appealing to. The Atheist is appealing to their own cognitive faculties. I am appealing to God. You employ your cognitive faculties to appeal to your cognitive faculties. I employ them to appeal to God.
If I ask you how you know your cognitive faculties are reliable, you'll employ your cognitive faculties in your response as you appeal to your cognitive faculties.
If you ask me to justify my cognitive faculties, the answer I give will employ my cognitive faculties to describe what is going on (God divinely revealing things to me not dependent on cognitive faculties). But I'm not appealing to them, I'm merely employing them to describe what I appeal to, which is something on a totally different plane.
I anticipate you might say "But I don't appeal to my cognitive faculties, I appeal to evidence!". But see evidence requires cognitive faculties to mentally process the data that you receive from the evidence. So it circles back to your cognitive faculties.
But when I say "I don't appeal to my cognitive faculties, I appeal to divine revelation!" The Divine revelation does not require my cognitive faculties to mentally process, because it's been hardwired in creation as we are made in his image. That's what I mean by a different plane.
I'm not saying all knowledge has been revealed to me, not even close, but I at least have a foundational basis for knowledge which doesn't appeal to something on the same plane.
The exact objection you just brought up, is something that I wrestled with for years. Not to say I doubted God, but I didn't know how to articulate the very reasonable objection you raise. So all that to say, you've clearly been thinking this thru.
It's similar to Hume's problem of induction and the uniformity of nature. There's just no way around it without God.
I think that's why the charge is frequently leveled "well that's convenient!" Really it's not convenient it's just the only possible way"
Reason is entirely axiomatic. I hate talking to atheists (in particular) who think science and logic are justified and the foundations of both are unquestionable.
Not only does this violate the very principles of reason, thus creating a recursive violation of logic, BUT it makes science and logic look as ridiculous as religious claims.
GET A BETTER MIC