|  New Posts
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Choose Your Own Topic > What evidence do you require?
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
rsmartin
Posted 03/07/12 at 01:34 AMReply with quote #61 
Troyjs, your Post 58 was not addressed to anyone in particular. In case it was meant for me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
You have no idea...what our motives are.


For Post 57, I draw my conclusions from what Caleb's mentor says starting about Minute 3:00 in this video

Quote:
I hope that I may never assume that one would either try to dissuade one from the truth by means of dishonesty, or to selfishly 'sharpen one's debating skills'.


As you will note, "selfishly" is your word. I did not use it.
skeptic88
Posted 03/07/12 at 01:41 AMReply with quote #62 
Only if both agree that logical justification is a necesary requirement for belief. If theChristian believes  Christianity prior to logical justification, he is not affected by hearing that his belief is not logically justified. If the skeptic requires logical justification for all beliefs, the Christian can provide a reductio argument to show that the skeptic's position is self-referentially incoherent.



Logical justification isn't necessary for belief; it is only necessary if you wish to have a justified belief. 

The skeptic doesn't require logical justification for logic itself; a self-referentially incoherent position is unavoidable, and isn't any sort of failure. Mathematics is self-referentially incoherent. Indeed belief in Christianity is self-referentially incoherent; how can Christianity justify belief in the truth of Christianity? 

:brain explodes:

idunno
Posted 03/07/12 at 02:30 AMReply with quote #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin


For Post 57, I draw my conclusions from what Caleb's mentor says starting about Minute 3:00 in this video

Rs, why would you conclude the motives of those two are representative of the motives of the individual Christians on this forum? Granted some may very well be here for ''practice", some will dismiss what you or another atheist have to say out of hand, but some actually are interested in what you have to say. I cant help but notice that you have a habit of generalizing Christians and I have to say that this is something that may cause people to not take you seriously. Not that I have put you on my ignore list, but if you really want individuals to consider what you have to say it's best to deal with Christians on a case by case basis.
SueDoeNimm
Posted 03/07/12 at 03:25 AMReply with quote #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
Quote:
AKA "Going Nuclear".  It prevents the opponent from winning by destroying everybody.  It's a logical suicide bomb. 


Only if both agree that logical justification is a necesary requirement for belief.



So belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not require logical justification?

Quote:


If the Christian believes Christianity prior to logical justification, he is not affected by hearing that his belief is not logically justified.



Yes, I've noticed that.

Quote:


If the skeptic requires logical justification for all beliefs, the Christian can provide a reductio argument to show that the skeptic's position is self-referentially incoherent.

Skeptic88 understands that there are certain axioms which are the grounds of justification -- not the result of it.

kind regards


Which axioms are grounds of justification?  How do we determine which axioms are such grounds?


rsmartin
Posted 03/07/12 at 04:21 AMReply with quote #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by idunno
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin


For Post 57, I draw my conclusions from what Caleb's mentor says starting about Minute 3:00 in this video

Rs, why would you conclude the motives of those two are representative of the motives of the individual Christians on this forum? 


It's very complicated. But it's the only thing that makes sense for the general attitude I encounter with the general Christian on these forums over the long term. I grant that there probably are exceptions.

However, it is taught not only by this one person on this one video but by that entire school. Also, as stated in my other post, the practice to manipulate and deceive is taught in the foundational philosophy text.

Those are some of the reasons I would conclude what I do, in addition to the behaviour I see on these forums, not least of which lucid pointed out in the post to which I was responding. If people don't like being seen in this light it is their privilege to change their behaviour.

Quote:
some will dismiss what you or another atheist have to say out of hand, but some actually are interested in what you have to say.


I take it on a case by case basis.

Quote:
I cant help but notice that you have a habit of generalizing Christians and I have to say that this is something that may cause people to not take you seriously. Not that I have put you on my ignore list, but if you really want individuals to consider what you have to say it's best to deal with Christians on a case by case basis.


Whether or not people read my posts is their choice and not my worry. However, you demonstrate that you have not observed me very closely. As stated, I take things on a case by case basis but people choose to take offense when they are not being spoken or referred to. So you think I generalize when I say "the Christians on these forums."

I specify the "Christians on these forums" or "evangelical Christians" because not all kinds of Christians are as a group so strongly inclined to deception and manipulation as are people here in general--with the possible exception.

To be fair to all the honest folk out there who also self-identify as Christian I am obliged to make that distinction once in a while to remind the atheists, if no one else.

Readers know if they are an exception. If they are, they have no reason to take offense.

The stated reason for this thread is for atheists to tell what evidence they require--not for cross-examination and judgment of that evidence.
idunno
Posted 03/07/12 at 11:35 AMReply with quote #66 
I can say one thing, you're always thorough. 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin


However, it is taught not only by this one person on this one video but by that entire school. Also, as stated in my other post, the practice to manipulate and deceive is taught in the foundational philosophy text.
not sure what text you're refereeing to.  

Whether or not people read my posts is their choice and not my worry. However, you demonstrate that you have not observed me very closely. As stated, I take things on a case by case basis but people choose to take offense when they are not being spoken or referred to. So you think I generalize when I say "the Christians on these forums."
yes I do take that last bit as a generalization. 

I specify the "Christians on these forums" or "evangelical Christians" because not all kinds of Christians are as a group so strongly inclined to deception and manipulation as are people here in general--with the possible exception. 
I may be misunderstanding you here but are you saying that you're only generalizing about the Christians on this forum so it's ok? 

To be fair to all the honest folk out there who also self-identify as Christian I am obliged to make that distinction once in a while to remind the atheists, if no one else.

Readers know if they are an exception. If they are, they have no reason to take offense.

The stated reason for this thread is for atheists to tell what evidence they require--not for cross-examination and judgment of that evidence.
that's right, but threads will drift sometimes it's just the nature of dialogue. 
rsmartin
Posted 03/07/12 at 11:52 AMReply with quote #67 
Quote:
Originally Posted by idunno
I can say one thing, you're always thorough.


Thank you.


idunno
Posted 03/07/12 at 12:10 PMReply with quote #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin
Quote:
Originally Posted by idunno
I can say one thing, you're always thorough.


Thank you.




You're welcome. Please don't takes this as some kind of attack, just a tip. I'd hope someone else would do the same for me.
fredonly
Posted 03/07/12 at 12:52 PMReply with quote #69 

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredonly

My point was that it is a justified belief, and the converse cannot be justified. I never suggested this was a proof.
 


Do you mean logically justified, or non-logically justified?

If logically, you beg the question, If non-logically, then you allow for justified non-logical reasoning.

The root justification is necessarily non-logical and rooted in things we consider self-evident.

It is in the nature of all animal life to receive visual, auditory, and olfactory input and then process it and act upon it.  Since animals with little or no cognitive ability clearly trust their senses, it is apparent to me that such trust is inherent in all animals including humans – which justifies believing this to be self evident (i.e it can't be the product of reflection, since it does not appear that lizards and ants are capable of reflection). I'll add that the various types of sensory input confirm each other.  We not only see the prey, we hear it, and may even smell it. 

This self-evident trust entails a primitive inference: even a lower animal has an implicit inference that what he sees matches what is actually there.  Strategizing how to hunt a prey involves more complex inferences, and from this type of thinking we have abstracted out the process.  We have posteriori validated the process by decomposing it into the primitive components of truth tables, which again relies  largely on the self-evidence of the way these are constructed.  Yes, we're using the logical processes along the way to do the validation, but the consistency that we perceive nevertheless adds a great deal of confidence.  I still acknowledge that we could be wrong, however I think the justification is stronger than for most basic beliefs. 

                     

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredonly
Points 1 and 2 are inductive.  Your correctly showing that my inductive argument may be false. No argument. Of course it may be false. #3 is not inductive, it's a simple assertion of pragmatics.  If we're fooling ourselves and logic is invalid,  we're wasting our time.  Perhaps we are, but I'm still having fun with this (possibly) invalid game. Finally,  #4 shows that your argument fails. If logic is invalid, then your argument against logic is invalid.  

If logic is invalid, then my argument is invalid -- I agree. But if both logic and my argument are invalid, why should I seek to be logical and reject my argument? If both logic and my argument are invalid, why is it better to reject my argument, rather to accept it?

The fact that the most basic forms of logic are rooted in self-evidence and the entire approach has demonstrated success and the converse is unsuccessful. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredonly

Agreed – in the strictly logical sense I have proven nothing. But again, trust in logic is more justifiable than the alternative. 

Again, logically justifiable, or non-logically justifiable?

Rooted in non-logical justification. It's unavoidable.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
Quote:

Consider these 2 propositions:

A)    Logic is useful for determining truths from other truths

B)    Logic is useless at determining truths from other truths

I provided you my justification for believing A to be true.  Do you have a better justification for believing B to be true?    

Why is something being 'useful' a justification for it?

I didn’t assert that usefulness  was a justification for it, I asked you which of the two propositions you considered it more justifiable to hold to be true. That being said, usefulness is a partial justification for accepting the truth of logic, but alone – that would be rather weak. The sum total of all my points, makes it a strong justification, so strong that I'm willing to fully commit to it.  Relying on nothing more than usefulness risks leading to wishful thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredonly

Then apparently you put implicit trust in logic after all.  

I explicitly put trust in my use of logic, although a posterior to my trust in God. Analagously, I trust that I will not float up into the ceiling, because I have the logically prior trust that the law of gravity will hold.

What's your justification for belief in God?  If logic is posterior to God, then your basis cannot be logic.  How does trust in God justify your trust in logic?  What's the connection?  It would be extremely weak to say "I trust in X because I trust in God" for any X. I expect you have more than that, but let's see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
  

Your justification for logic is pragmatic, however why should we believe that a 'useful belief', is a 'true belief'? If the belief in the existence of God was pragmatically valuable, why should it be rejected according to your schema?

Pragmatism and self-evidence together.  The pragmatism is derived from my my personal values.  I value usefulness and the pursuit of knowledge. 

I take no exception to you justifying your belief in God based on your personal values. Belief in the efficacy of medicines is proven to be useful (placebo effect).  But usefulness alone seems to me be a fairly weak justification.   Do you have more than this? Again, you have the perfect right to believe in God for any reason whatsoever, and irrespective of your ability to justify this belief to me.  However, if you wish to persuade me, you'd need to propose a justification that I would find persuasive*.  Why should I think your belief is true?  We both accept logic, even if for different reasons, so logic seems to me to be the only available means of developing a convincing argument to someone who has not convinced themselves as you have.  For the logic to be persuasive, it must depend solely on shared beliefs as premises (beliefs we hold in common). (edited, because I inadvertantly left out  shared")

*The persuasiveness aspect is very much related to my plausibility argument, as discussed in this thread.  It relates in this way: posteriori justification for a belief that you already have is very different from convincing someone to accept a new proposition.

skeptic88
Posted 03/07/12 at 02:16 PMReply with quote #70 
Good post Fred. I am awaiting his response
rsmartin
Posted 03/07/12 at 03:27 PMReply with quote #71 
What skeptic88 said.

I'm trying to get a handle on the basics of philosophy--Christian as well as secular. I like that there is a strong secular voice here that I can learn from to compare with the Christian text I'm reading. Thank you, Fred.

rsmartin
Posted 03/07/12 at 11:26 PMReply with quote #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic88
Good post Fred. I am awaiting his response


I'm not holding my breath. He believes it is possible to hold contradictory beliefs and has started a thread to prove it. Apparently, he sees that his strategy here is not working so he a abandons it and develops another one. That is unfortunate, after all the work Fred put into this post and thread.
fredonly
Posted 03/07/12 at 11:50 PMReply with quote #73 
I really appreciate the kind words, but let's give the guy a chance.  Most of us have day jobs.  I think troyjs has raised some thought provoking questions, so far.  I'm hoping he returns to continue the discussion. 
troyjs
Posted 03/07/12 at 11:58 PMReply with quote #74 

SueDoeNimm,

 

Quote:
So belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not require logical justification? 

 

Belief in the invisible pink unicorn, or that I am not dreaming, only require logical justification if those beliefs are to be logically justified beliefs. Why should all beliefs be logically justified, and if not all beliefs, which beliefs may or may not?

 

Quote:
Which axioms are grounds of justification?  How do we determine which axioms are such grounds? 

It is impossible to determine which axioms are grounds for justification, without also presupposing those axioms to be true. This is the perennial problem of epistemology.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

fredonly,

 

Thank you for the effort you put into your post. I enjoyed reading it and it was a change from some of the rather dry material I was reading last night, "If p, then q, iff...Sr, where H...".

 

I believe however you have placed yourself into a trap I did not construct, but one which I may find useful.

 

In order to clarify our particular debate, let us state the question:

 

What is the justification for logic?

 

I will propose a number of propositions which, if we agree to, I believe will undermine your venture. The propositions are:

 

     (1) Justification J, for belief B, must be logically prior to belief B.

 

     (2) If J is a valid justification for B, J does not presuppose B.

 

     (3) If J is a valid justification for B, J entails the truth of B.

 

These are the criterion I am proposing for a logical justification for a belief.

It seems however, that you are proposing a non-logical justification:

Quote:
The root justification is necessarily non-logical and rooted in things we consider self-evident.

 

Let us consider how a non-logical justification may be considered valid, and whether if we believe logical reasoning to be adhered to, we can also adhere to non-logical reasoning.

 

The phenomenon or factor of something being self-evident, was elaborated by yourself within the context of natural, physico-sensational perceptions:

Quote:
It is in the nature of all animal life to receive visual, auditory, and olfactory input and then process it and act upon it.  Since animals with little or no cognitive ability clearly trust their senses, it is apparent to me that such trust is inherent in all animals including humans – which justifies believing this to be self evident

 

You agree that such justification uses or presupposes the validity of logic however as your justification is non-logical, this need not concern us. You also clarify that your justification is a posteriori, rather than a priori (to experience):

Quote:
Yes, we're using the logical processes along the way to do the validation, but the consistency that we perceive nevertheless adds a great deal of confidence.  I still acknowledge that we could be wrong, however I think the justification is stronger than for most basic beliefs.

 

2 preliminary observations can be made:

 

Ignoring the fact that our experience presupposes logic (as we are dealing with a non-logical justification):

 

Observation 1: If logic is only justified given(posterior to) sensory experience, logic is only justified for the circumstances we have already had sensory experience.

 

Observation 2: If the justification for logic is a posteriori, then there is no justification for an instance of the law of logic holding, prior to the event.

 

We may get into further problems which these 2 observations have for your position, but suffice it to say that an a posteriori justification for something in the past, is much easier to provide than a similar justification for what has not yet occurred. If logical reasoning is only justified after it has been confirmed through experience, how do you justify the use of logical reasoning for the future? You might provide the following argument:

 

A Posteriori Justification for Future Logical Truths

 

In the past, the future turned out to be logical, such as 2 days ago, I believed that the laws of logic would hold for this morning. The laws of logic did hold this morning; therefore we can believe that logic will hold in the future.

 

What this argument ignores though is that this argument is an appeal to what happened in the past (2 days ago). The very question though, is how do we know the future will be like the past? An invocation of the past as a justification for invoking the past is to beg the very question being asked.

 

This is all entailed if we believe that your position is coherent, but I see reasons to think that your justification is self-refuting.

 

Because your justification is a justification for logical reasoning, any argument which contradicts logical reasoning must be rejected by yourself. Allow me to introduce another proposition:

 

(4) Any belief B which does not logically follow from valid premises is an invalid and unjustified belief.

 

I assume you see as clearly as I do, that if you affirm (4), you can not affirm a belief as a result of non-logical argumentation.

 

What is the demarcation between a logical argument, and a non-logical argument, besides the fact that the conclusion of the former follows inextricable from the premises, whereas in the latter, the conclusion does not logically follow? If the conclusion of a non-logical argument did logically follow from its premises, it would cease to be non-logical and would be a logical argument.

 

If (4) is to be rejected and non-logical justification allowed, then logical reasoning is not necessary as a component of justified belief. Suppose there are 2 types of non-logical argumentation – one valid, and the other invalid. How do we determine which form is valid and the other not? If we use logical reasoning, then we argue in a circle as non-logical reasoning is that given as a justification for logic. We can not then use logic to justify non-logical reasoning. If we use the same non-logical reasoning to justify non-logical reasoning, we beg the question. These points will not be given much elaboration here, as I believe this post is long enough as it is.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

 

Kind regards

 
SueDoeNimm
Posted 03/08/12 at 02:59 AMReply with quote #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs

SueDoeNimm,

 

Quote:
So belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not require logical justification? 

 

Belief in the invisible pink unicorn, or that I am not dreaming, only require logical justification if those beliefs are to be logically justified beliefs. Why should all beliefs be logically justified, and if not all beliefs, which beliefs may or may not?



Why are you asking me?  I was asking you.


It seems that the point you have been putting forth is that belief is prior to and not requiring of logical justification.  I was asking you to confirm that would also be the case with belief in the IPU, or Thor, Vishvakarma, etc.


Quote:

 

Quote:
Which axioms are grounds of justification?  How do we determine which axioms are such grounds? 

It is impossible to determine which axioms are grounds for justification, without also presupposing those axioms to be true. This is the perennial problem of epistemology.



You implied you are aware of certain axioms that are grounds of justification.  "Skeptic88 understands that there are certain axioms which are the grounds of justification.."  Which axioms are those?  Is "God exists" one of those axioms?  Is "The IPU exists" one of them?



 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.