What type of faith ? Dogmatic faith in things not in evidence.
Then, later, he said:
From your link, it seems that you're saying there's no way to prove that evidence is the best way to discover truth, as trying to do so degenerates into a circular proof. Sounds right to me.
Fair enough.
This leads him, however, to one of the problems I've stated:
Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?
10 comments:
1. Pragmatism. We can see clear indications that evidence works. You seem to agree, except in cases where it contradicts your bible. I don't see any reason to abandon it in favour of some religion.
2. What's the alternative to evidence ? Believing any old stuff. We see clear indications that doesn't work.
I have deleted my original comment; this is a slightly revised repost of it. In the second paragraph, I corrected one punctuation error and made one word-choice modification. In the fourth paragraph, I added an instance of italicization for emphasis. The text has not been modified in any other respects. --JN
You have raised this point on at least three occasions, so, rather than letting the question fester, I shall address it presently.
You are correct in saying I take evidence’s usefulness in human approximation of truth as a supposition or a postulate. (You use the loaded word “faith” in order to try to rouse discomfort in me; nevertheless, at least in this instance, I shall grant your biased word choice.) You attempt to equate my “faith” with the superstitions of Christians, seeming to say, “See? We are bound equally by blind faith!” In actuality, however, this similarity is much overstated.
Eventually, the following analogy breaks down (at least with respect to the practical realities of construction), but, nevertheless, it remains instructive. For me, faith is most accurately analogized as scaffolding, defined as “a temporary framework used to support people and material in the construction or repair of buildings and other large structures.”
In order to confront, analyze and interrogate the world in which one finds oneself (the world of experience, whether such is “really real” or a Cartesian Demon’s construct), one must begin somewhere. I call this analytical starting point the Philosophical First Principle (hereafter “PFP”). Because a PFP is foundational—a human’s first step toward interrogating the world in which he finds himself (that being, the world of experience)—it cannot be discovered or independently proved from other propositions. It is taken as a supposition or a postulate…as a point of faith.
I employ faith as scaffolding. Only with this scaffolding in place can I lay my building’s foundation, which is “Evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth.” With this foundation laid, dried and completely solid, I have no further need for my scaffolding (which, again, in this analogy, is faith). Instead of faith appeals, I continue erecting my building upon the dry, solid foundation (in my case, evidentialism).
I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.
You repeatedly ask, “Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with ‘faith is the best way to discover truth?’ Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that?”
You might as well ask a Fortune 500 executive, whose company soon shall reside in a new Chicago office tower, why he does not simply arrange all the desks on the scaffolding.
The scaffolding is temporary, existing only to allow the building to be built. And for me, faith is mere scaffolding, permitting me to erect Evidentialist Tower.
Chris from Oz,
You THINK that evidence works. What is your evidence that evidence works?
Now you're back in an infinite regress again. You need to find another way. I recommend Jesus.
I'm not proposing an 'alternative' to evidence. Evidence IS a good way to discover SOME truth. It is a good way BECAUSE God has made the world and made the world in such a way that evidence is a good way to discover SOME truth. But it is NOT a good first principle, for the reasons I've laid out. You have to base this idea of evidence, intelligibility, logic, etc, on something else, on the ultimate principle. God is that very ultimate. He grounds the very existence of evidence. W/o Him (as you clearly are), you have no way to argue that evidence is a good way to discover truth, and we're seeing that clearly here as well.
JN,
I am not equating our faith positions, actually. My faith position has actually quite a lot of justification for it, while yours does not. Your faith is blind, while mine is informed. So no, I wouldn't call them equal really.
Yes, one must begin somewhere. You begin with faith. Then you later have the gall to criticise me for having faith. It's very cheeky of you.
Because a PFP is foundational—a human’s first step toward interrogating the world in which he finds himself (that being, the world of experience)—it cannot be discovered or independently proved from other propositions.
I hate to keep doing this, but you have said many times in the past that, for example: "If you believe those bare facts of reality require external grounding, I suggest you attempt to demonstrate such." and "evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting."
I honestly don't know which of these you actually believe.
I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.
Why not use it more than once? If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere? And you appeal to faith to form your very first principle. Thus all your life is based on faith - I'd call that "rife", actually, yes.
why he does not simply arrange all the desks on the scaffolding.
On the one hand, I see what you're saying.
However, the switching in and out of "faith is good and useful" to "faith is bad and useless" seems completely arbitrary. On what do you base your decision to switch building materials? What guides it?
Rhology, it seems that your reasoning goes:
You can't prove evidence is good without using evidence, that's circular, so I'll invent a god, and say he invented evidence. Now, I know where evidence comes from. Hurrah!
What's wrong with the alternatives:
1. There are some things you can't prove, but evidence is pretty good. No god needed.
2. The big bang created along with all the matter and stuff, also logic and the fact that evidence is good.
I don't see why God is the only answer to your problem, or even why you think it's a good answer.
Since you don't think evidence is all that great anyway, why do you need to invent a god to explain it ?
You can't prove evidence is good without using evidence, that's circular, so I'll invent a god, and say he invented evidence.
1) I didn't invent Him. He's been around a lot longer than any of your ideas, for one thing.
2) I never said He invented evidence. His existence accounts for the existence of evidence. He makes it possible for evidence to exist.
3) You admit your position is circular and you have other problems, as I've laid out in my Evidentialism post. You have no answers, but you're just sure that God doesn't exist, though He answers what you can't. Your bias is showing.
Then you just cruise on as if nothing had happened. Nothing to see here, folks...
1. There are some things you can't prove, but evidence is pretty good.
What is your evidence for this statement?
2. The big bang created along with all the matter and stuff, also logic and the fact that evidence is good.
1) The Big Bang created something? So now we're creating matter and energy and breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics?
2) So, before the Big Bang, it was possible for 2+2=5? Square circles? There both would and would not be a Big Bang about to happen? There was both something and nothing at the same time? Help me out here.
Since you don't think evidence is all that great anyway
Strawman. Read what I said again.
You have no answers, but you're just sure that God doesn't exist, though He answers what you can't. Your bias is showing.
It would be neat if we could prove evidence is the best way to know truth. I don't think the fact this is circular is a reason enough to give up evidence though. Until I'm shown something better. (By the way, you haven't shown it).
You ask for evidence of one of the alternatives I gave. It's just an alternative. I'm not worried about proving evidence is great, so I'm not worried about proving that particular alternative either. We could weight the statement against your God belief though.
I didn't much like the second alternative either, but it still makes more sense than your hypothesis.
I said "Since you don't think evidence is all that great anyway", which you thought was a strawman. OK, I read what you said again, and it still says the same thing, which is "Evidence IS a good way to discover SOME truth.".
Since you repeated that twice, capitalising "SOME" both times, please indicate how my characterisation of what you said is in error.
Yes, one must begin somewhere. You begin with faith. Then you later have the gall to criticise me for having faith. It's very cheeky of you.
I suppose the factuality of your statement depends upon what you mean when you say, “begin with.” Faith is not my First Principle; faith is not the foundation upon which my worldview is erected. Instead, faith was merely the scaffolding that permitted me to lay down my foundation, which is evidentialism.
Also, I do not necessarily criticize you for having faith. You are a devout Christian and I am content to let you live a devoutly Christian life. I criticize those Christians who attempt to impose their values and moral viewpoints on others, who ought to be permitted to confect their own worldviews and live in accordance with them. After all, Rhology’s Metaphysical Foundation is precisely that; it does not overarch the world.
I hate to keep doing this, but you have said many times in the past that, for example: "If you believe those bare facts of reality require external grounding, I suggest you attempt to demonstrate such." and "evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting."
I honestly don't know which of these you actually believe.
I shall respond to those quotes in reverse order.
When I say I can appeal to evidence to demonstrate evidence’s utility in the approximation of truth, I am not defending evidence with “other propositions.” Rather, I am defending evidence with evidence—defending one proposition with the very same proposition. This is why you often accuse me of question begging. However, my purpose in “begging the question” is different from what you might expect. I do not mean to confirm evidence’s utility via circular proof, but rather to show that evidence is a self-subsistent First Principle. The “question begging” exercise is a simple demonstration of self-subsistence. Faith (to yield, once again, to your biased word choice) is still required to lay my initial foundation.
When I reference “the bare facts of reality,” I am talking about the world of experience…the world in which one finds oneself. That world—the world of experience—simply is. It might be genuinely real or, indeed, it might be the fabrication of a Cartesian Demon. I cannot rule either possibility out. However, the world in which I find myself, irrespective of its veridical nature, is manifest, and I seek to interrogate it, using my chosen evidentialist First Principle. In short, with respect to the line you quoted, I have little patience for those who refuse to recognize the world of experience as simply existent.
Why not use it more than once? If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere? And you appeal to faith to form your very first principle. Thus all your life is based on faith - I'd call that "rife", actually, yes.
You are conflating two ideas here, I think. When you say, “If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere?” you seem to be referencing faith, even though faith is not my foundation—evidentialism is. Faith is merely temporary scaffolding, permitting the building to be built. It is transitory…not part of the finished structure.
Why do I not appeal to faith except to pave the way for my First Principle? Because, once I have selected a First Principle, it makes little sense to overthrow it for some other one, such as appeal to faith. If I laid a foundation for a skyscraper, why would I start building things elsewhere, rather than on the foundation I just established? Once I have a First Principle, that is to what I appeal. Faith is of utility only before the principle has been established…when I need a place to start
And, my life (and, implicitly, my understanding of the world) is not based on faith. Scaffolding is needed to lay my foundation, but, once that foundation is laid, my analytical processes are a natural extension of it. I appeal to faith once, to lay my groundwork; I appeal to my principle thereafter.
On the one hand, I see what you're saying.
However, the switching in and out of "faith is good and useful" to "faith is bad and useless" seems completely arbitrary. On what do you base your decision to switch building materials? What guides it?
There is no switch of building materials in my analogy. The scaffolding used to enable a building to be built, by definition, is temporary. It was always meant to be used and then removed. In order to lay down my evidentialist foundation, faith was required. So, for that period, faith was “good and useful.” Once the scaffolding was no longer required—because a solid foundation had been laid—it was taken away. This does not mean faith is “bad and useless” but only that its purpose had been served and it was no longer required. Faith was needed when there was no foundation of which to speak; now, I have evidentialism as a solid foundation upon which to build. Why revert back the temporary framework?
Again, I recognize my scaffolding analogy is flawed, but I am trying to explain a point that practically invites misapprehension, even by those of sincere intent.
Chris (from Oz) said...
I don't think the fact this is circular is a reason enough to give up evidence though. Until I'm shown something better.
I'm not advocating you "give up evidence". Are you even reading what I'm saying?
I'm telling you that evidence is not the end-all. You need sthg else to base, to account for evidence's utility and existence. The JN has chosen arbitrary faith. My position is that a theistic God is the best (perhaps the only) explanation for evidence.
We could weight the statement against your God belief though.
If we haven't established evidence's utility or existence yet, how would we do that?
The JN said:
You are a devout Christian and I am content to let you live a devoutly Christian life.
Your blogposts wouldn't necessarily lead an objective observer to the same conclusion, I shouldn't think.
I criticize those Christians who attempt to impose their values and moral viewpoints on others
Which is itself an imposition of your own values and moral viewpoints on others. Pretty hypocritical, really.
Rhology’s Metaphysical Foundation is precisely that; it does not overarch the world.
If it is true, it does.
I am defending evidence with evidence—defending one proposition with the very same proposition. This is why you often accuse me of question begging.
Rightly accuse you, I might add.
Faith (to yield, once again, to your biased word choice) is still required to lay my initial foundation.
What word would you prefer? I'm curious.
The rest of my response is probably best left to my latest post.
I'm telling you that evidence is not the end-all. You need sthg else to base, to account for evidence's utility and existence. The JN has chosen arbitrary faith. My position is that a theistic God is the best (perhaps the only) explanation for evidence.
Why do we need to account for evidence's utility and existance ? There are possibly some things in this universe which can't be accounted for. There are many mysteries. Why can't this be one ?
Prove that evidence's utility and existance must be accounted for.
A theistic God is certainly not the only explanation for evidence. And doubtful it's the best.
If we haven't established evidence's utility or existence yet, how would we do that?
The same way we always do it. Using logic and reason, which we both agree is useful. We just disagree why it's useful.
Post a Comment