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.
First off, let's get one thing straight. You claim that this is an internal critique of my position. That is, you say that on my atheistic worldview, since I cannot be absolutely sure of anything, then my life is a "fantasy" lived in "blind faith", and that my ability to, say, teach children that 2+2=4 is "nullified", and that all I can have is a "messy set of subjective preferences", and that I have no reason to believe that I'm not a "brain in a vat"- the list goes on and on.
ReplyDeleteNow, if this were all an external critique, where you were claiming that "since God exists and is the only source of truth, anyone who rejects Him is denied access to truth (along with ending up in Hell, etc)", it would be different. I would say "I see where you're coming from- yes, if God exists and if He is the way you say He is, then that would indeed be the case." But no, you are claiming that even on my own worldview, I am faced with an inexorable infinite regress of questions- how do I know for certain that I don't know for certain? How do I know that for certain? Etc. Is that more or less your position here, rho?
The problem here is that you are not really performing an internal critique at all- you're assuming the truth of your position, and trying to foist off your values as mine. In other words, you're doing an external critique and claiming that it's internal. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you that I'm not compelled to play your infinite regress, and that I'm happy not to have absolute certainty. It doesn't matter how many times I ask you to show me how my life is impinged upon by not having a "solution" to the "problem" of induction- you merely keep asserting that I "must" have all these crippling problems.
All I can say is: if you want to do an external critique, go ahead. Show me your evidence for your God, and we can go from there. Otherwise, be honest and stop telling me the way things must seem to me.
Speaking of evidence- in regards to the brain in a vat problem, you say:
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.
I guess that's one way of looking at the world- to be at the mercy of any two-bit fantasy that you can't disprove. I can see the attraction of getting some Higher Authority to sort things out for you, if that's what you need to keep the brain vats at bay. But if that's where epistemology gets you, so much the worse for epistemology. Fact is, there are a practically infinite number of scenarios that can't be disproved: for instance, that when I turn a light switch on, the light turns on because aliens detect the switching and turn the light on by alien telepathy. These aliens are of course invisible. How can I disprove this?
The answer, of course, is that I don't need to. Things that cannot be falsified can be ignored: if there's no way I can test to see if aliens are turning on my light, or if I'm a brain in a vat, then there's no point in wasting time on it, except as an entertaining diversion. By the way, this example of the alien light switch is from this thread that rho links to on his sidebar. I must commend rho for posting this, because he gets trounced, politely, clearly, and thoroughly.
zilch said:
ReplyDeletewe're not getting anywhere.
rho said:
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.
No, I'm afraid we aren't getting anywhere. Your external critique is showing again here: you're using the term "blind faith" in your sense, where it means not having faith in God. I don't use "blind faith" that way, so unless you can show me that I'm about to step into an abyss, this is simply another bald assertion.
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.
Yes, one can go on and on with these questions, if one has a particular epistemology. I don't, so I don't need to. And I'm not "pronouncing" on absolute truth- I'm saying that I don't see any evidence that it exists. Can you show me some?
I say:
Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"
rho says:
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.
Okay- under your definition here, everyone has religion. Kinda waters down the meaning a bit, doesn't it? Why bother having the word at all?
I ask:
would you say that cockroaches also have religion?
rho replies:
As if you have any idea whether cockroaches actually exist, for one thing.
Gee, I can't even know if cockroaches exist or not, without Jesus? Can I know whether I'm breathing or not? Can I breathe? Can my heart beat? Is anything out there?
David said (from the previous thread):
So Rho claims to have a hotline to an entity capable of creating universes out of nothing, and Zilch has the "blind faith" because he doesn't claim absolute certainty with respect to what he knows?!
I dunno, but I think that there is something wrong here.
Yep.
cheers from autumny Vienna, zilch
All this has been fun, but I'm on vacation all this week and won't be blogging most probably.
ReplyDeleteI'll perhaps get back to these threads.
Cheers!
Have a good one, rho.
ReplyDeletecheers from autumny Vienna, zilch
zilch,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the link to the conversation between Rho and Learningisfun. Very enlightening and clear.
Rob- you're welcome, although as I said, rho put up the link himself. How rho can believe that he looked good here is beyond me. Learningisfun does the best job I've seen yet of explaining what falsifiability is, and why science, or indeed any reality-based worldview, won't work without it.
ReplyDeletecheers from twilit Vienna, zilch
The brain-in-a-vat thing is an interesting thought experiment -- basically a dressed-up Cartesian demon with a science-fiction twist -- but, whether the scenario is falsifiable or not, I actually find the whole issue completely beside the point.
ReplyDeleteI live in the world of experience; I call it the world of experience precisely because it, and not any other, is the world that I experience. Even if this world is illusory and, in actuality, I am a brain in a vat or, in truth, an evil demon is confecting my world for me, to the extent that my consciousness exists in this confected, fake world, this confected, fake world is real to me.
A true, objective, actual reality from which my consciousness is permanently isolated is inconsequential to me. Even if it does exist, it might just as well not for all the effect it has on me in my conscious life.
JN- word. Rho- let's see some evidence for any sort of world outside of our shared world of "fantasy"- our experiences and what science tells us about the world- before we use the word "fantasy" at all.
ReplyDeleteRho: I'm probably flaying a dead ass here, but I'll just add this one thing. I said:
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is: if you want to do an external critique, go ahead. Show me your evidence for your God, and we can go from there.
I should have also said: or show me any reason I should embrace a worldview which says that if one does not have absolute certainty, then one has no basis, and therefore no right, to make any decisions, judgments, or descriptions of the world at all.
As far as I can tell, this seems to be what you might style being an "internal critique" of atheism: my admission that I can't be absolutely certain of anything. While this might be considered an internal critique of, say, Bertrand Russell's position, he was led to believe some silly stuff because of his philosophy- not because of his atheism. I don't share Russell's agony over the problem of induction, and you've yet to come up with any disadvantage that accrues to me because of it- other than the fact that you think I have no right to be taken seriously, and that's a burden I can live with.
cheers from Indiansummery Vienna, zilch