Friday, September 30, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Some comments on the brain in the vat
Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this? I'd like to understand how this is the case. It seems to me that everyone must start with "I exist" and move forward from there. (Source)
And:
You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it. All I'm claiming is the way things seem to me to be, and you are in no position to doubt that- or are you a mind reader?
Er, again, you're using a word in a "special" sense. Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"- or would you say that cockroaches also have religion? And I'm only asking for you to provide proof (or let's say any evidence whatsoever) for your beliefs, because you have been saying over and over that you have a hotline to absolute truth which I do not have. (Source)
Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this?
That is merely one of the problems I've been citing. But it's a good one!
The point is not that "Christianity solves it". Rather, it's that the "I believe what I see evidence for" epistemology has no way around the problem. There can be no evidence that we're not brains in vats.
If that is one's fundamental axiom, there are all sorts of problems and questions one can't answer.
However, if one's fundamental axiom is that the God of the Bible is and speaks, then none of that is true. My fundamental axiom DOES give me a reason not to believe in the brain in a vat. zilch's does not; he has to sneak in other axioms and pretty soon we realise that all he has is just a messy mesh of subjective preferences that he happens to be saying now. Though they could change tomorrow, because after all, all his thoughts are determined by the chemicals that compose his brain.
zilch said:
we're not getting anywhere.
Au contraire, I disagree strongly. We've seen quite clearly that all you have is your blind faith, and that faith doesn't match what you're getting out of it.
You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it.
Evidence?
How do you know evidence is a good way to discover truth? What evidence of that assertion have you seen? How do you know you properly saw it? How do you know you properly processed what you saw? How do you know you're communicating relevant information to that experience you had?
How would you know if you did NOT see evidence, since experiencing evidence is a sensation? What does NOT experiencing evidence feel like? Is it also a sensation? How did you learn it?
See, one can just go on and on with these questions. It always comes back to "well, I think so", as if zilch has some sort of ability to pronounce on absolute truth from where he stands.
Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"
Oh? It's a metaphysical claim.
It's centered on one charismatic personality, namely you.
You have a single authority - what you think your brain is doing.
You can't adduce any evidence for this belief.
Sounds a lot like what you accuse religion of being to me.
would you say that cockroaches also have religion?
As if you have any idea whether cockroaches actually exist, for one thing.
Or what sensations they have.
Yes, I have a "hotline" that is available to anyone who is willing to repent of one's sinful self-deceptive self-sufficiency. Hardly a hotline, really. It's just listening to the One Who is in a position to know what I can't know, and believing Him.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
zilch's faith
zilch demonstrates that he has not yet grasped the problem with which I've been presenting him.
No, I'm not certain, and I don't know for sure, as I've said many times.
Are you certain that you're uncertain? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
Based on my experiences and cogitation
Are you certain of your experiences and cogitation? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
The same, of course, is true of you and everyone else.
Are you certain that the same is true of me and everyone else? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
I just said that I don't know anything with certainty.
Are you certain that you just said that? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
Your question here is incoherent
Are you certain it is incoherent? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
there's no infinite regress
Are you certain there's no infinite regress? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
because everything is uncertain
Are you certain that everything is uncertain? How do you know?
Why, if EVERYTHING is uncertain, did you say that everything is uncertain? Is the statement "everything is uncertain" part of the "everything" that is uncertain?
I live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay my taxes
Are you certain that you live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay your taxes? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
I don't see much difference here
Are you certain you don't see much difference here? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
you've (as I've also said) simply papered over the fact that you have no more certainty than I do
Are you certain I've papered over that fact? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
But you're mistaken if you believe that I'm somehow encumbered by my admission that I have no ultimate certainty
Are you certain that I'm mistaken? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
I can live with not believing I've got a hotline to absolute truth
Are you certain you can live without it? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
this impasse is a good example of what happens when one regards the Word as more important than the World
Are you certain that this is an impasse? How do you know?
Are you certain that it's what happens? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
they are indispensable
Are you certain words are indispensable? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
No, I'm not certain, and I don't know for sure, as I've said many times.
Are you certain that you're uncertain? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
Based on my experiences and cogitation
Are you certain of your experiences and cogitation? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
The same, of course, is true of you and everyone else.
Are you certain that the same is true of me and everyone else? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
I just said that I don't know anything with certainty.
Are you certain that you just said that? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
Your question here is incoherent
Are you certain it is incoherent? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
there's no infinite regress
Are you certain there's no infinite regress? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
because everything is uncertain
Are you certain that everything is uncertain? How do you know?
Why, if EVERYTHING is uncertain, did you say that everything is uncertain? Is the statement "everything is uncertain" part of the "everything" that is uncertain?
I live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay my taxes
Are you certain that you live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay your taxes? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
I don't see much difference here
Are you certain you don't see much difference here? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
you've (as I've also said) simply papered over the fact that you have no more certainty than I do
Are you certain I've papered over that fact? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
But you're mistaken if you believe that I'm somehow encumbered by my admission that I have no ultimate certainty
Are you certain that I'm mistaken? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
I can live with not believing I've got a hotline to absolute truth
Are you certain you can live without it? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
this impasse is a good example of what happens when one regards the Word as more important than the World
Are you certain that this is an impasse? How do you know?
Are you certain that it's what happens? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
they are indispensable
Are you certain words are indispensable? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Why Dawkins won't debate William Lane Craig?
Justin Brierley:
William Lane Craig:
Personally, I'm quite glad that Dick Dawk has been evading Dr. Craig with all his might - a debate between them would be approximately as competitive as was the Craig-Hitchens debate, or the Craig-Atkins debate, each of which were massacres in Craig's favor.
I'm also glad that Polly Toynbee canceled out. Not because of her; I don't know much about her. I will say that generally speaking, what I've heard from female British atheists has not impressed me. However, the fact that Stephen Law is stepping in to the debate pleases me greatly. Though ultimately reduced to incoherency by SyeTenB in their recent conversation (which began around this post and following), at this time I have more respect for Stephen Law among the ranks of popular (and popularising) atheists than anyone else.
(Please leave any comments at the Triablogue cross-post.)
Tell me, what do you think ultimately is stopping Dawkins from coming forward?...The premiere atheist in the world. Here you are, coming to his hometown. Why won't he step up and debate you, Bill?
William Lane Craig:
I have been told by a person who is in a position to know, that the reason Dawkins won't debate me really has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the fact that he was really smarting after John Lennox took him to the woodshed in their debates, and he was frankly embarrassed by his performance. He didn't like the way it went with Lennox and basically determined at that time that he's not going to do these sorts of debates anymore because it's simply too humiliating.(Source - begins at the 8:00 mark)
Personally, I'm quite glad that Dick Dawk has been evading Dr. Craig with all his might - a debate between them would be approximately as competitive as was the Craig-Hitchens debate, or the Craig-Atkins debate, each of which were massacres in Craig's favor.
I'm also glad that Polly Toynbee canceled out. Not because of her; I don't know much about her. I will say that generally speaking, what I've heard from female British atheists has not impressed me. However, the fact that Stephen Law is stepping in to the debate pleases me greatly. Though ultimately reduced to incoherency by SyeTenB in their recent conversation (which began around this post and following), at this time I have more respect for Stephen Law among the ranks of popular (and popularising) atheists than anyone else.
(Please leave any comments at the Triablogue cross-post.)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Justin Schieber and the problem of induction - 2
Continuing from last time, Justin apparently was able to carve out a bit more time and sent me a lengthy reply.
He asked me about:
-my statement about how my epistemology is not rooted in human reason; what kind of reason is it?
-where the Bible says our cognitive faculties are generally reliable
-where the Bible says that God generally holds the universe together and provides for cycles of seasons, etc
-how God does seem to flinch in His promises; for example, see Exodus 32:9-14
-why if only the Bible justifies induction and science relies on induction, science's findings do not match the biblical timeline.
He went on to let me know that absolute certainty is not important to him; he can have practical certainty.
That he holds most of his beliefs tentatively.
That we can overcome the tiny amount of experiences we've actually had via corroboration with others.
That we should not expect certainty, and if one expects it, one is asking too much of reality.
Finally, that we must assume induction b/c we have no choice.
My reply:
Hi Justin,
I'm happy to clarify. Thank you for your reply.
1. That is a really good question w.r.t. whether God's reason is quantitatively higher or qualitatively higher than human reason. Never asked myself that particular question before.
So let me say this: Based on what we do know, God's reason is at minimum quantitatively higher, to the point that He knows all that there is to know, and with all possible certainty. Contrast that with any given human, who knows an infinitesimally small % of all that there is to know, and knows virtually nothing with all possible certainty. Perhaps the only things he can know with all possible certainty are that he exists and that God exists, and that might be it.
God has made man in His image, and part of that image is volition and rational thinking, so we think like God in the way that a shadow is like the object casting the shadow.
Whether God's reasoning is a different kind of reasoning is perhaps impossible to know at this point, for He has not really revealed it. So it may be, but it may simply be that His reasoning is as I mentioned - fully certain and all-knowing.
2. That one's cognitive faculties are generally reliable is presupposed by the biblical text. If they were not reliable, God would not communicate in the way that He does - through a book, textual revelation, spoken revelation, etc.
I invite you to consider the many times the Bible uses the word "know" - http://bible.cc/search.php?q=know
Further, this is again a part of being made in the image of God. We are not mere bags of protoplasm, atoms banging around. We are volitional, intelligent beings created in the image of a higher volitional, intelligent being, who decided to create and then communicate with His creation.
A discrepancy appears in Scripture, especially 1 Cor 2, for example:
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
And Romans 8:
5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
This refers to the noetic effect of sin - the deleterious effect of sin on the mind. It's in this vein that Psalm 53:1 says: The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God".
Rejection of God and His salvation from sin, which is the same as willful acceptance of sin, renders one a fool, a moron. It is not separate from the mind, but guarantees foolishness, which is one reason we see atheists cling stubbornly to their dogma (of Darwinism, for example) while refusing to call it dogma, refuse to deal with crippling worldview problems such as the One and the Many, the naturalistic fallacy, and the problem of induction, all the while accusing Christians of intellectual lack, and make confident assertions about things about which they in fact know nothing, such as the deep past.
And then the turnabout - when someone is transformed and regenerated by Christ, "we have the mind of Christ" - it changes. Now the greatest and most certain source of truth - God's revelation - is unveiled and we can know much more about reality than previously.
3. Colossians 1: 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Genesis 8:18So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. 19Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.
20Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
22“While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”
9: 8Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9“Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11“I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14“It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16“When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
For Gen 8-9, the context is helpful - God has just finished covering Earth with a flood. God lets the animals and humans out of the ark and makes a covenant with "you, and your descendants after you, and...every living creature that is with you" - that covers all living things from that point on.
Note the daily-seasonal cyclical language of God in 8:22. That's the basis for believing what I said.
We have no control over any of this, but God does and He has made certain promises. Thus we acknowledge and understand what He promised, and we hold to it, while we have no particular expectation for things He has not promised, such as full healing of all amputees and sick people during this life.
I know that God is being truthful with me at this moment b/c God can not lie.
If He could lie, then everything is literally absurd and believing that God lies (or doesn't lie) is meaningless. In short, I'd be in the same position as the atheist. I'm willing, however, to be consistent on that point, more than any atheist I've ever met, none of whom are willing to embrace the nihilism to which their position logically reduces. More briefly, I know it through the impossibility of the contrary. Knowing truth in a nihilistic universe is itself self-defeating and incoherent.
You said:
--"Because there are almost an infinite number of ways nature could proceed and still be 'uniform' given how a particular language has grown to refer to these particulars"
Yes, I should think you're right. What you forget, however, is that language can express lots of things that are in fact impossible in reality, such as "square circle". It's not as if God couldn't have made the world differently, but we live in the world we live in, and God has communicated with us in the world we live in. Gotta deal with what we have.
4. Stop for a moment and pretend that you believe in the Christian God. Now ask yourself: Which is more likely? A puny man reminding God of a promise that he himself had never heard, and God saying "Oh yeah, duh!"? Or God foreshadowing the intercession and mediation of Christ through Moses, for the benefit of millions reading later, having known about the conversation from eternity ago and indeed having decreed that it come to pass?
I don't know what you'll say, but the latter is consistent biblically, whereas the other reflects a more pagan approach. I have plenty of reason to believe, however, that God revealed the whole Bible and not just 6 verses in Ex 32.
Let me stop here and get to the rest of your stuff later.
Peace,
Rhology
Then, later:
Hello Justin,
Thank you for your reply. I will happily respond to it, but I haven't finished with your last email so I'd like to finish it before moving on, so that I make sure to get to everything.
--"science bases much of its framework upon inductive inferences"
Yes, that is a serious problem.
You don't know that your specific observations, of which you can make a few hundred on a given topic per year out of quintillions of actual events, reliably lead you to understand the universal, the way the world is. You ASSUME it. Similarly, you ASSUME that your senses accurately observe the outside world, then you ASSUME that the senses properly report that data to your brain, then you ASSUME that the data arrives correctly, then you ASSUME that your brain properly interprets the data, then you ASSUME that you then act properly on that data. But why assume it? B/c the alternative is distasteful - solipsism - but not b/c you have an argument or evidence that your assumptions are true. You HOPE they are, and hey, you ASSUME they are, but you can give no reason for me to think they actually are true.
Further, you have no reason to think that the natural processes you think you observe around you are in operation everywhere. You have no reason to think they have always, or at least since a very long time ago, been in operation. You ASSUME these things are true, but you can't even start to prove it.
This is the massive problem with any naturalistic worldview.
I don't have that problem, since 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. You have nothing, since you have chosen to distrust Him. But you can always turn back.
Notice that to overturn my argument, you're going to need to give me some argument that your senses and cognitive faculties are in fact reliable AND how you can know that with certainty. Don't assume it, prove it. You're then going to need to solve the problem of induction and let me know how you can know that your 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.
Notice, finally, that even if you were able to give some reason to think you're right, besides your bare assumptions, you still haven't gotten anywhere with respect to the actual question of your overlaying your story over the geological "record". Even if the strata came with labels, that doesn't tell you anything about the labellor, and it doesn't tell you anything about the environment at the time, but merely what was deposited, but you don't know the rate of deposit, what was there before the depositing began, the circumstances surrounding the depositing, whether it was a more or less closed system at the time, what the weather was like, what animals pooped there, nothing.
--"the best methodology we have that brings about countless accurate predictions"
I am very sorry, but this is extremely inaccurate and displays a level of acolyte-like faith on your part. Science is constantly getting things WRONG. Behind the much-ballyhooed "self-correcting process" of science lies the uncomfortable fact that self-correction means it was wrong in the first place. More self-correction has historically yielded yet more self-correction. Since the failure rate is quite high, one would have to be a bit of a naïf to base so much on such a thing. Fortunately, atheists generally tend toward that side of things.
Also, I agree with Bertrand Russell when he said: "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."
And:
"The great scandals in the philosophy of science ever since the time of Hume have been causality and induction....Hume made it appear that our belief is a blind faith for which no rational ground can be assigned....This state of affairs is profoundly unsatisfactory...We must hope that an answer will be found; but I am quite unable to believe that it has been found."
Piling fallacy upon fallacy, as science does, inspires no confidence in me, and it is because of sin that it inspires confidence in you, because you hate Jesus and do not want to serve Him, so instead of going with what is rational, you have chosen to serve what is irrational.
Inductive inferences are always fallacious. "But we compare and contrast", you may say. Wonderful - are 1000 fallacies better than one?
--"I tentatively assume induction because I don't really have a choice."
Yes, you do. Repent and trust the Savior. He'll save your soul from sin and your mind from foolish fallacious thinking.
Peace,
Rhology
That's the meat of it. A few other small emails transpired between us, and he sent me a longish reply but I don't feel like paraphrasing that whole thing as well, and most of it is based on poor biblical exegesis (which is a consistent hallmark of atheists).
He asked me about:
-my statement about how my epistemology is not rooted in human reason; what kind of reason is it?
-where the Bible says our cognitive faculties are generally reliable
-where the Bible says that God generally holds the universe together and provides for cycles of seasons, etc
-how God does seem to flinch in His promises; for example, see Exodus 32:9-14
-why if only the Bible justifies induction and science relies on induction, science's findings do not match the biblical timeline.
He went on to let me know that absolute certainty is not important to him; he can have practical certainty.
That he holds most of his beliefs tentatively.
That we can overcome the tiny amount of experiences we've actually had via corroboration with others.
That we should not expect certainty, and if one expects it, one is asking too much of reality.
Finally, that we must assume induction b/c we have no choice.
My reply:
Hi Justin,
I'm happy to clarify. Thank you for your reply.
1. That is a really good question w.r.t. whether God's reason is quantitatively higher or qualitatively higher than human reason. Never asked myself that particular question before.
So let me say this: Based on what we do know, God's reason is at minimum quantitatively higher, to the point that He knows all that there is to know, and with all possible certainty. Contrast that with any given human, who knows an infinitesimally small % of all that there is to know, and knows virtually nothing with all possible certainty. Perhaps the only things he can know with all possible certainty are that he exists and that God exists, and that might be it.
God has made man in His image, and part of that image is volition and rational thinking, so we think like God in the way that a shadow is like the object casting the shadow.
Whether God's reasoning is a different kind of reasoning is perhaps impossible to know at this point, for He has not really revealed it. So it may be, but it may simply be that His reasoning is as I mentioned - fully certain and all-knowing.
2. That one's cognitive faculties are generally reliable is presupposed by the biblical text. If they were not reliable, God would not communicate in the way that He does - through a book, textual revelation, spoken revelation, etc.
I invite you to consider the many times the Bible uses the word "know" - http://bible.cc/search.php?q=know
Further, this is again a part of being made in the image of God. We are not mere bags of protoplasm, atoms banging around. We are volitional, intelligent beings created in the image of a higher volitional, intelligent being, who decided to create and then communicate with His creation.
A discrepancy appears in Scripture, especially 1 Cor 2, for example:
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
And Romans 8:
5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
This refers to the noetic effect of sin - the deleterious effect of sin on the mind. It's in this vein that Psalm 53:1 says: The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God".
Rejection of God and His salvation from sin, which is the same as willful acceptance of sin, renders one a fool, a moron. It is not separate from the mind, but guarantees foolishness, which is one reason we see atheists cling stubbornly to their dogma (of Darwinism, for example) while refusing to call it dogma, refuse to deal with crippling worldview problems such as the One and the Many, the naturalistic fallacy, and the problem of induction, all the while accusing Christians of intellectual lack, and make confident assertions about things about which they in fact know nothing, such as the deep past.
And then the turnabout - when someone is transformed and regenerated by Christ, "we have the mind of Christ" - it changes. Now the greatest and most certain source of truth - God's revelation - is unveiled and we can know much more about reality than previously.
3. Colossians 1: 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Genesis 8:18So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. 19Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.
20Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
22“While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”
9: 8Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9“Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11“I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14“It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16“When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
For Gen 8-9, the context is helpful - God has just finished covering Earth with a flood. God lets the animals and humans out of the ark and makes a covenant with "you, and your descendants after you, and...every living creature that is with you" - that covers all living things from that point on.
Note the daily-seasonal cyclical language of God in 8:22. That's the basis for believing what I said.
We have no control over any of this, but God does and He has made certain promises. Thus we acknowledge and understand what He promised, and we hold to it, while we have no particular expectation for things He has not promised, such as full healing of all amputees and sick people during this life.
I know that God is being truthful with me at this moment b/c God can not lie.
If He could lie, then everything is literally absurd and believing that God lies (or doesn't lie) is meaningless. In short, I'd be in the same position as the atheist. I'm willing, however, to be consistent on that point, more than any atheist I've ever met, none of whom are willing to embrace the nihilism to which their position logically reduces. More briefly, I know it through the impossibility of the contrary. Knowing truth in a nihilistic universe is itself self-defeating and incoherent.
You said:
--"Because there are almost an infinite number of ways nature could proceed and still be 'uniform' given how a particular language has grown to refer to these particulars"
Yes, I should think you're right. What you forget, however, is that language can express lots of things that are in fact impossible in reality, such as "square circle". It's not as if God couldn't have made the world differently, but we live in the world we live in, and God has communicated with us in the world we live in. Gotta deal with what we have.
4. Stop for a moment and pretend that you believe in the Christian God. Now ask yourself: Which is more likely? A puny man reminding God of a promise that he himself had never heard, and God saying "Oh yeah, duh!"? Or God foreshadowing the intercession and mediation of Christ through Moses, for the benefit of millions reading later, having known about the conversation from eternity ago and indeed having decreed that it come to pass?
I don't know what you'll say, but the latter is consistent biblically, whereas the other reflects a more pagan approach. I have plenty of reason to believe, however, that God revealed the whole Bible and not just 6 verses in Ex 32.
Let me stop here and get to the rest of your stuff later.
Peace,
Rhology
Then, later:
Hello Justin,
Thank you for your reply. I will happily respond to it, but I haven't finished with your last email so I'd like to finish it before moving on, so that I make sure to get to everything.
--"science bases much of its framework upon inductive inferences"
Yes, that is a serious problem.
You don't know that your specific observations, of which you can make a few hundred on a given topic per year out of quintillions of actual events, reliably lead you to understand the universal, the way the world is. You ASSUME it. Similarly, you ASSUME that your senses accurately observe the outside world, then you ASSUME that the senses properly report that data to your brain, then you ASSUME that the data arrives correctly, then you ASSUME that your brain properly interprets the data, then you ASSUME that you then act properly on that data. But why assume it? B/c the alternative is distasteful - solipsism - but not b/c you have an argument or evidence that your assumptions are true. You HOPE they are, and hey, you ASSUME they are, but you can give no reason for me to think they actually are true.
Further, you have no reason to think that the natural processes you think you observe around you are in operation everywhere. You have no reason to think they have always, or at least since a very long time ago, been in operation. You ASSUME these things are true, but you can't even start to prove it.
This is the massive problem with any naturalistic worldview.
I don't have that problem, since 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. You have nothing, since you have chosen to distrust Him. But you can always turn back.
Notice that to overturn my argument, you're going to need to give me some argument that your senses and cognitive faculties are in fact reliable AND how you can know that with certainty. Don't assume it, prove it. You're then going to need to solve the problem of induction and let me know how you can know that your 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.
Notice, finally, that even if you were able to give some reason to think you're right, besides your bare assumptions, you still haven't gotten anywhere with respect to the actual question of your overlaying your story over the geological "record". Even if the strata came with labels, that doesn't tell you anything about the labellor, and it doesn't tell you anything about the environment at the time, but merely what was deposited, but you don't know the rate of deposit, what was there before the depositing began, the circumstances surrounding the depositing, whether it was a more or less closed system at the time, what the weather was like, what animals pooped there, nothing.
--"the best methodology we have that brings about countless accurate predictions"
I am very sorry, but this is extremely inaccurate and displays a level of acolyte-like faith on your part. Science is constantly getting things WRONG. Behind the much-ballyhooed "self-correcting process" of science lies the uncomfortable fact that self-correction means it was wrong in the first place. More self-correction has historically yielded yet more self-correction. Since the failure rate is quite high, one would have to be a bit of a naïf to base so much on such a thing. Fortunately, atheists generally tend toward that side of things.
Also, I agree with Bertrand Russell when he said: "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."
And:
"The great scandals in the philosophy of science ever since the time of Hume have been causality and induction....Hume made it appear that our belief is a blind faith for which no rational ground can be assigned....This state of affairs is profoundly unsatisfactory...We must hope that an answer will be found; but I am quite unable to believe that it has been found."
Piling fallacy upon fallacy, as science does, inspires no confidence in me, and it is because of sin that it inspires confidence in you, because you hate Jesus and do not want to serve Him, so instead of going with what is rational, you have chosen to serve what is irrational.
Inductive inferences are always fallacious. "But we compare and contrast", you may say. Wonderful - are 1000 fallacies better than one?
--"I tentatively assume induction because I don't really have a choice."
Yes, you do. Repent and trust the Savior. He'll save your soul from sin and your mind from foolish fallacious thinking.
Peace,
Rhology
That's the meat of it. A few other small emails transpired between us, and he sent me a longish reply but I don't feel like paraphrasing that whole thing as well, and most of it is based on poor biblical exegesis (which is a consistent hallmark of atheists).
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Justin Schieber and the problem of induction - 1
Presuppositional Christian apologist SyeTenB recently podcasted a discussion with Justin Schieber of the Yahweh or Myweh podcast as well as the Reasonable Doubtcast, which is on my iPod's rotation.
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:
Justin kindly replied to my email.
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:
In his reply, Justin asked me to give a rational account of induction on Christianity.
Justin replied, asking me how I got the information I'd said.
I replied:
(More to come in part 2)
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)
Monday, September 12, 2011
Some discussions about Roman tradition
Had a conversation with a guy who frequents the Called to Communion comboxes, Devin Rose, over at Justin Taylor's blog, and also a few others snuck into the convo.
Due to some comment moderation snafus, the conversation was sort of disemboweled right when it was getting good and Devin pulled out but the comments are worth repeating.
----------------------
Jason then said:
Due to some comment moderation snafus, the conversation was sort of disemboweled right when it was getting good and Devin pulled out but the comments are worth repeating.
Devin Rose said:
If God did not protect the “historical selection process” of the Church from error in discerning which books are inspired
If God did not protect the “historical selection process” of the Church from error in discerning which books are inspired
But He did, so your “then” is groundless.
What is your argument that since God protected the Canon-finding in the Church, therefore the modern Roman Catholic Church is infallible?
A few gaps to fill there.
What is your argument that since God protected the Canon-finding in the Church, therefore the modern Roman Catholic Church is infallible?
A few gaps to fill there.
Protestants don’t (or if they do, their basis for that decision is ad hoc).
I need to see an argument.
(And yes we do.)
(And yes we do.)
If God’s people “have always identified His Word,” why then did the Church accept the deuterocanonical books in the early centuries, settling on them in the 4th century
1) “The Church” didn’t accept them. Some accepted some of the DC books, but not all accepted all books.
2) That said, I don’t think I’d agree with the statement “God’s people have always identified His Word”. More like God brought His people to an understanding of it over time, but not all at the same pace. But quite a lot. There’s a reason why people from far-spread, remote locations all eventually came to the virtually same conclusions over the Canon despite access to email or Twitter.
2) That said, I don’t think I’d agree with the statement “God’s people have always identified His Word”. More like God brought His people to an understanding of it over time, but not all at the same pace. But quite a lot. There’s a reason why people from far-spread, remote locations all eventually came to the virtually same conclusions over the Canon despite access to email or Twitter.
And why do all the Orthodox Churches also accept the seven deuterocanonical books in Catholic Bibles?
1) I’d go ahead and ask them, not Sola Scripturists. I am not responsible for others’ bad decisions.
2) They accept more than the 7, and they’re not sure about a couple of them.
3) For that matter, RCC’s Canon of the OT isn’t definitively closed either. You’re not really in a good position to chuck rocks.
2) They accept more than the 7, and they’re not sure about a couple of them.
3) For that matter, RCC’s Canon of the OT isn’t definitively closed either. You’re not really in a good position to chuck rocks.
Are all the Orthodox Churches not part of “God’s people?”
Correct. By and large, by their rejection of the Gospel, modern EOdox are not part of God’s people, just like most of RCC.
Unless you’re referring to earlier ones, like from the first few centuries, who wouldn’t be like modern EOdox. And then in that case, you wouldn’t find solid and all-agreed acceptance of a given list of books, specific to the letter.
Unless you’re referring to earlier ones, like from the first few centuries, who wouldn’t be like modern EOdox. And then in that case, you wouldn’t find solid and all-agreed acceptance of a given list of books, specific to the letter.
2. The Church is the agent who discerned the canon.
But God is the one Who reveals it. We don’t need certainty in the Church. We need it in God.
3. You cannot have more trust in the canon than you have in the Church.
1) “The Canon” does not communicate a whole lot. The Scripture does. Saying “trust in the Canon” is really weird, unwieldy, unhelpful.
2) You’re equivocating between the early church and modern Rome, but you need an argument in between.
2) You’re equivocating between the early church and modern Rome, but you need an argument in between.
4. Protestants do not trust the Church with even moderate certainty.
Again, which church?
And I should think our trust in Jesus can make up for a lack of trust in sinful people.
And I should think our trust in Jesus can make up for a lack of trust in sinful people.
----------------------
-----------------------------
Oh man! I just checked and it’s still “awaiting moderation” from 31 August!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrr…
I repost it here in the hopes that it will actually get approved. Sheesh, not cool.
you also stated that God “eventually” led His people to “virtually” the same canon. This took centuries.
And it took a lot more centuries (15 total, in fact) for Rome to carve out an official, almost-closed Canon.
So, again, Sola Scriptura comes out smelling rosier than Rome.
So, again, Sola Scriptura comes out smelling rosier than Rome.
some of that messy, centuries-long process, during which the canon was not settled
I don’t remember denying that it was messy. I just don’t see how inserting an infallible interpreter into the mix helps matters at all. It seems to me it makes matters worse, since the infallible interpreter didn’t keep things from “descending” into “messiness”.
If God gave the Scripture as the sole way for the Church to know true doctrine, it seems implausible that He let His people not know the correct books of the canon for centuries.
1) He did let them know the correct books of the Canon. People’s reticence or incomprehension does not reflect upon God.
2) There wasn’t really a whole lot of competition. Nobody was proposing Homer or Julius Caesar as inspired. There was some indecision and confusion and disagreement about some books, but certainly not all. Don’t overstate the case.
3) Again, this reflects poorly on the infall interper for not stepping in to clear it all up.
4) Also, I don’t accept the presumption of “it seems implausible”. Why precisely does it “seem implausible”, and what are your prior probability judgments you used to come to that idea?
2) There wasn’t really a whole lot of competition. Nobody was proposing Homer or Julius Caesar as inspired. There was some indecision and confusion and disagreement about some books, but certainly not all. Don’t overstate the case.
3) Again, this reflects poorly on the infall interper for not stepping in to clear it all up.
4) Also, I don’t accept the presumption of “it seems implausible”. Why precisely does it “seem implausible”, and what are your prior probability judgments you used to come to that idea?
If you don’t know the right canon, even getting off by one book, your doctrines will not be guaranteed to be correct
So how did ANYone function for the 1st 15 centuries of the church? (Obviously, they did function. This assertion is groundless and poorly aimed, since nobody said anything about “guaranteeing” that doctrine be correct.)
And how do you function since Trent couldn’t decide about 3 Esdras? I suppose your doctrines will not be guaranteed to be correct, no?
And how do you function since Trent couldn’t decide about 3 Esdras? I suppose your doctrines will not be guaranteed to be correct, no?
I realized that White puts forth his opinion as truth on what is really an ambiguous matte
If you listen to White’s debate with Michuta, Michuta asserts the same as he does in his book.
Reply to Michuta, not White, please. Michuta is the one who found it out and is honest enough to state it openly.
Reply to Michuta, not White, please. Michuta is the one who found it out and is honest enough to state it openly.
The truth is that the Catholic canon is closed.
Naked assertion.
I reply: Nuh uh. The truth is that the Catholic canon is NOT closed.
I reply: Nuh uh. The truth is that the Catholic canon is NOT closed.
It was generally settled long ago, and reaffirmed over the centuries, but like many doctrinal issues, did not have to be dogmatically closed until Trent when the Protestants rejected the deuterocanonicals and Luther challenged the four NT books
Oh, OK. So by that same token, I can just say the same about the Protestant Canon.
It was generally settled long ago, and reaffirmed over the centuries, but like many doctrinal issues, did not have to be dogmatically closed until, say, the Westminster Confession when the Roman Catholics persisted in their ahistorical acceptance of the deuterocanonicals and the Protestants got tired of it.
It was generally settled long ago, and reaffirmed over the centuries, but like many doctrinal issues, did not have to be dogmatically closed until, say, the Westminster Confession when the Roman Catholics persisted in their ahistorical acceptance of the deuterocanonicals and the Protestants got tired of it.
You can either take the Catholic Church’s word for what she says is dogma, or you can take Rhology’s word for what the Church says is dogma.
Or you could look at the historical facts and realise that Devin is setting a smokescreen and I’m taking history for what it is – messy – and realising that it causes us to have no idea what infallibility even means if Rome is infallible.
Here is one article that includes the landslide of historical evidence that baptismal regeneration was believed by the early Church:
I don’t accept citations of “Church Fathers” without a better historical case than “everyone I could find said so”. For reasons explained in the linked article.
So Scripture does teach it, according to the early Christians. You obviously interpret it differently. Whose interpetation is right?
That is an outstanding reason to think there’s more to this issue than just “go with what’s earlier”. You only do that when it suits you, so far be it from me to disagree.
Even Protestant apologist William Webster concedes without qualification that the Church “went off the rails” from the beginning by believing baptismal regeneration.
I don’t know what he meant. Even if (ad arguendo) all extant writingsputatively from the early church explicitly held to bap reg, which they don’t, you still have the massive unanswered (and probably unanswerable) questions I’ve asked in my article linked above. So that doesn’t impress me any, and shouldn’t impress anyone who stops to think about the issue in the way I’ve framed it.
If I am making mistakes, I am open to correction
That’s rich, coming from someone who is under book contract with Catholic Answers. You’ll hopefully pardon me for rejecting that claim at face value.
-------------------------
One quick clean-up point.
I’d said, disagreeing with James Swan:
I’d said, disagreeing with James Swan:
That said, I don’t think I’d agree with the statement “God’s people have always identified His Word”
Let me clarify and put a finer point on it, after a little more reflection.
Jesus specifically promised in more than one place but most explicitly in John 10 that God’s people DO in fact listen to His Word and reject the words of others that conflict.
Jesus specifically promised in more than one place but most explicitly in John 10 that God’s people DO in fact listen to His Word and reject the words of others that conflict.
1“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. 2“But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. 3“To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4“When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5“A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”
…
26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”
Devin may object with what amounts to: “But you don’t know how He does that.”
And that’s OK; it doesn’t affect the point in the slightest. Just b/c I don’t know how, and even if (ad arguendo) I couldn’t identify even one single person throughout history whose writings are extant who believed the Gospel as described in the NT, that also would not affect the point in the slightest. God’s promise is sufficient. I dare any RC or EOx to give us a reason to think it’s insufficient.
Not that I expect any to. They usually try to be much more subtle in their deceptions.
And that’s OK; it doesn’t affect the point in the slightest. Just b/c I don’t know how, and even if (ad arguendo) I couldn’t identify even one single person throughout history whose writings are extant who believed the Gospel as described in the NT, that also would not affect the point in the slightest. God’s promise is sufficient. I dare any RC or EOx to give us a reason to think it’s insufficient.
Not that I expect any to. They usually try to be much more subtle in their deceptions.
---------------------------
so where do we go from there?
We are trying to figure out how we can accurately know the content of divine revelation.
Yes, I was forestalling the argument I hear all the time from RCs/EOx, that of “but you don’t know how”. Looks like it worked too – you didn’t use that argument. Glad to see it.
--------------------------
Jason said:
Rhology, we all believe that God is the one Who protected the Church in discerning the canon. The problem Devin raises is definitely worth considering. Why the distrust in these great men who were, by God’s grace, selected to lead the Church, a Church which was then unified, if not by a fully canonized-Scripture, certainly by the Holy Spirit in guarding both the teachings and traditions handed on to the Apostles’ successors, as mentioned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 : “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter…”?Conscience-binding certainty in the canon is inextricable with God’s historical selection process. Otherwise, regular joes like me, in our day, would have to either rely on some subjective feeling (like Calvin’s methods, which Devin refers to below) or else trust in and submit to the judgments of Luther, Calvin, et al, assuming they were the ones to whom the true canon was revealed.
Jason,
You went awry when you took the COMMAND of 2 Thess 2:15 and assumed that modern Rome holds apostolic succession in the way modern Rome claims it. You need to argue for that, please.
Conscience-binding certainty in the canon is inextricable with God’s historical selection process
That’s never presented to us in the teaching of the NT. I can only conclude that you’re speaking for yourself here.
However, modern Rome can’t fill this certainty either, since they’re not sure they have the right Canon.
However, modern Rome can’t fill this certainty either, since they’re not sure they have the right Canon.
submit to the judgments of Luther, Calvin, et al, assuming they were the ones to whom the true canon was revealed.
A foolish stramwan like this demonstrates that you really haven’t done a whole lot of profound reflection on this issue.
----------------------
Jason then said:
Rhology,
Thank you for your response. One problem I’d point out is in your assumption that I “went awry” in “assum[ing] that modern Rome holds apostolic succession…” For starters, I’m not a Roman Catholic; I’m a protestant who’s just looking into these issues. In any case, trusting that God kept the church unified and intact in the absence of a clearly defined canon, by protecting and guiding the teachings and traditions of the Apostles in the meantime, is not assuming the position of “Modern Rome.” Do you believe that God kept the Church unified in the absence of a clearly defined canon by guarding and protecting the Church at this period in history?
You wrote: “[Conscience-binding certainty] is never presented to us in the teaching of the NT” Are you saying that no one can be certain of the canon?
--
I’m not a Roman Catholic; I’m a protestant who’s just looking into these issues.
OK, well, I’m glad to hear that. :-)
Just make sure to look sufficiently deeply. Romanists like to obscure the issue and never ask the same questions of their own positions that they ask of Sola Scriptura.
Just make sure to look sufficiently deeply. Romanists like to obscure the issue and never ask the same questions of their own positions that they ask of Sola Scriptura.
Do you believe that God kept the Church unified in the absence of a clearly defined canon by guarding and protecting the Church at this period in history?
Yes.
Are you saying that no one can be certain of the canon?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I was responding to the way you framed the issue with your challenge.
The way that you’d said:
Conscience-binding certainty in the canon is inextricable with God’s historical selection process
The way that you’d said:
Conscience-binding certainty in the canon is inextricable with God’s historical selection process
The Gospel is inextricable with it.
The Canon is not a necessary article of faith that delineates saved from not-saved. It CAN be known, and it is an important doctrine, but it’s not inextricably linked with God’s selection process. In the NT, God selects people for His kingdom, His church.
However, He didn’t “select” what books He revealed. He simply revealed what He wanted to reveal, and that’s what we identify.
The Canon is not a necessary article of faith that delineates saved from not-saved. It CAN be known, and it is an important doctrine, but it’s not inextricably linked with God’s selection process. In the NT, God selects people for His kingdom, His church.
However, He didn’t “select” what books He revealed. He simply revealed what He wanted to reveal, and that’s what we identify.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
2) The reason would be that God gave the Scripture for the explicit purpose of teaching and identifying doctrine and belief for the church. Having done that with the Scripture, He didn’t need to do it some other way, and indeed…
3) the Scripture does not lead us to accept such.
2) There’s more than just the OT to the Canon of Scripture and we came to the same conclusion on the NT.
2) Contrast that with the 1500 years that passed before RCC came up with its official Canon.
3) And the fact that neither RCC nor EOC have a definitively closed Canon.
4) And the fact that the RCC is demonstrably NOT infallible. Only by glossing over tons and tons of actual facts is this plausible.
2) In fact, it’s clearly not true since the Scripture doesn’t teach it. Later Christians can be mistaken, but let every man be a liar, and God be truthful.
You’re a master at equivocation.