I listened to it and found it quite entertaining. I commend it to you as well.
I emailed Justin to let him know what I thought of the exchange:
|
Jul 25, 2011
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justin,
Thanks for hosting SyeTenB. I am a regular podcaster of the Reasonable Doubtcast, and just learned about your show, and am impressed at the caliber of men you've had on so far. Keep it up!
Thanks for hosting SyeTenB. I am a regular podcaster of the Reasonable Doubtcast, and just learned about your show, and am impressed at the caliber of men you've had on so far. Keep it up!
Also, SyeTenB demolished your attempts to substantiate your worldview. I'll pray for you; as a former atheist, I have firsthand experience of how atheism clouds one's reasoning, making us into fools. You clearly demonstrated such during the podcast.
Seriously, take a listen back, ask yourself how you can live with all those internally inconsistent assumptions, particularly the problem of induction. David Hume thought it was deadly; I pray that you will see it too.
Peace to you,
Rhology
Now, normally I consider emails sent to me as publicly bloggable, but he asked me nicely not to post his emails, so I will honor his request, paraphrase the relevant parts of his emails, and post my own replies to him.
Justin told me that the Christian worldview does not solve the problem of induction, even though his own view doesn't either.
I of course beg to differ:
|
Jul 27, 2011
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justin,
Thanks for your reply.
I have to disagree, though - it's not that you did a poor job of expressing your view. Rather, it's that Sye pointed out the massive errors on which your view rests and with which your view is fraught. The problem of induction is merely one of many insuperable problems for the naturalistic worldview.
I'd be interested in knowing on what grounds you think the Christian worldview suffers from the same problem. Have you ever done a podcast or written something on the topic, or could you point me to an article on it? It would be a remarkable surprise to this pretty-well-educated Christian.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology
In his reply, Justin asked me to give a rational account of induction on Christianity.
|
Jul 28, 2011
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi Justin,
Sure, I'd be happy to.
My fundamental basis of knowing things is not observation at all. Nor is it human reason or thought. I can know anything b/c God has spoken and He has assured me that my cognitive faculties are generally reliable though certainly not infallible, since I am made in the image of God. He has promised that in general He holds the universe together, and cycles of seedtime and harvest will remain, the Earth will remain in orbit around the sun, life on Earth will continue and my responsibility is to live for Jesus and proclaim the Good News of repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus' name to everyone, until the Eschaton. I have the unflinching and unchanging promise of the omnipotent Creator God.
When it is argued that Christianity undermines the Uniformity of Nature, etc. it is almost always done on the idea that one cannot both believe in miracles and the UoN.
Is a curious thing to pit them against each other. After all, the idea of miracles presupposes the UoN. Or, at least, the identification of events as miraculous does. How is it that one knows a miracle has occurred? Specified criteria aside, the first indication that an event may be a miracle is that it perceptively doesn't fit with what normally occurs in the natural world. This means that there is an expected regularity, a uniformity perceived to be interrupted.
On Christianity - we're made in the image of an omniscient and timeless God, Who created the universe and told us with a great deal of detail how it went down, and there's no standard of knowledge higher than Him. B/c of Him, we can know things with certainty, and God Himself is the answer to the problem of induction, and His revelation the answer to the questions I ask about uniformitarianism.
On the other hand, on your naturalistic worldview - I'm asking you how we can be sure of ANYTHING, to say nothing of the ancient world and the way natural processes worked then. You can't give me anything beyond more assumptions. So apparently we can be sure of pretty much nothing, pending you answer the problem of induction.
So, you'd need to let me know how you can know that the pitifully small numerator of things you think you've observed and experienced add up to some meaningful amount given the vastly huge denominator of total events in the universe, and how that ratio informs you with any degree of certainty as to the truth of the universal law you think your observations inform you of. It's a big job.
You have nothing, since you have chosen to distrust Him. But you can always turn to Jesus and ask Him to solve not only your crippling epistemology problem, but also your deadly sin problem.
I welcome any feedback.
Peace,
Rhology
Justin replied, asking me how I got the information I'd said.
I replied:
Certainly, it's in the Bible.
(More to come in part 2)
5 comments:
Justin has it right: you Christians, and theists of other flavors as well, have the "problem of induction" too- you've just papered it over with your not-demonstrably-existent God. But actually, since I'm here living and breathing and cyberchatting with you, I don't regard the "problem" of induction as really being a "problem" I have to solve before I get on with life: my life works as it is, and the "problem of induction" is rather a call to humility than a cause for existential despair.
my life works as it is
Assumption. In reality, with no purpose or telos to which to compare it, you have no idea whether your life works or whether it is in fact the worst thing that has ever happened to the universe.
And you didn't explain why Christians have the same problem; you just asserted it.
My knowing that my life works as it is an "assumption"? How do you define "assumption"? Do I "assume" that I enjoy ice cream too? Or that I'm sitting here in Vienna as I type? You might as well throw out the word "assumption", then, because you've rendered it meaningless.
And where is this telos? Show me one, and then I might bewail my life without a telos. Until then, it seems that you're just making up standards that don't exist, putting them in the mouth of a being who doesn't exist, and claiming that they thus have authority to make me really unhappy after I die. You seek to deprive me even of my evanescent earthly pleasures by telling me that my worldview must logically (and you know everyone wants to be "logical") lead to nihilism, which sounds really nasty. But so far, I'm still wallowing in my sins. It's only a question of whether it's my sins against Jesus, Shiva, Allah, or John Frum that will get me in the most trouble.
And yes, I merely asserted that Christians also have the problem of induction (insofar as it's even a problem). Here's the explanation: the problem of induction is the question how can we ever be sure of anything? My answer (and that of many) is: we can't. So what? Your answer (and that of many also) is: because God told us we could be sure. Trouble is, your answer only works if you can demonstrate that God exists, and that He gives you surety. In the lack of such proof, I say that your answer is papering over the question, and thus you still have the same "problem" of induction that I do.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Hi zilch,
Yes, you don't know if your life works. How do you know what "works" means, other than your own self-referential definition? Maybe you're aberrant.
You might as well throw out the word "assumption", then, because you've rendered it meaningless.
Or maybe I'm using accurately and you've never thought about this before.
And where is this telos?
No no no, I'm asking YOU where it is. That's precisely my point - on atheism, there is no telos. That's what I said, and you're agreeing with me here.
So this invalidates your "my life works". You don't know that.
You seek to deprive me even of my evanescent earthly pleasures by telling me that my worldview must logically (and you know everyone wants to be "logical") lead to nihilism, which sounds really nasty.
So you're not interested in logical conclusions, or discovering truth?
Besides, I've portrayed Jesus crucified for sin numerous times before you, and you're always too good for that. But it's not as if you have no hope. Your earthly pleasures will lead to eternal death.
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"
the problem of induction is the question how can we ever be sure of anything?
Only by a bit of extension. More precisely, it's "how do we know the future will be like the past?" and "how do we know that what we think we observe holds everywhere else?", and when I'm feeling saucy, I remind people that they know precious little about the past as well.
And you're missing the whole point about "this only works if you can demonstrate that God exists". This is part of my proof that God exists - that if He doesn't, we can't know anything. You're just begging the question.
IF ATHEISM IS TRUE, answer the prob of induction. Apparently you can't. Why should I believe anything you have to say has truth value?
IF CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE, Jesus grounds reality, holds the universe together, and is the precondition for reason and intelligibility.
One side has the answer to this difficult question, the other does not.
Rho says: Hi zilch,
Yes, you don't know if your life works. How do you know what "works" means, other than your own self-referential definition? Maybe you're aberrant.
Maybe. And maybe you're aberrant. Ultimately, all any of us have is "self-referential definitions", because our understanding of the world, including any gods or bibles, is within ourselves. So what?
I say: You might as well throw out the word "assumption", then, because you've rendered it meaningless.
Rho says: Or maybe I'm using accurately and you've never thought about this before.
Er, no, you're not using "assumption" in the way it's normally used, because under your definition, everything I think is an "assumption", and thus "assumption" is meaningless.
Rho: IF ATHEISM IS TRUE, answer the prob of induction. Apparently you can't. Why should I believe anything you have to say has truth value?
IF CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE, Jesus grounds reality, holds the universe together, and is the precondition for reason and intelligibility.
One side has the answer to this difficult question, the other does not.
I can't tell you whether or not you should believe that anything I say has truth value or not- you have to decide for yourself. Likewise, I must decide whether anything you say has truth value or not. So what?
If Christianity is true, and true in the way you construe it, then it would indeed be the case that Jesus grounds reality. But that's just your claim, which you have not substantiated.
And I would say, that one side claims to have answered this difficult question, and the other side has not claimed to answer it, and moreover, points out that life goes on even without an answer. Or do you have some evidence that life does not go on, the way it seems to? All you have is cotton candy here.
Post a Comment