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?
18 comments:
I got it the first time, rho, you're going to wear out your control and c keys.
And you're right- I haven't grasped the problem, because, as I've said gazillions of times (a rough estimate), it's only a problem for you: I don't see why I need your kind of "certainty", and you've failed to show me any advantage I'd have with it, much less show that it obtains. I don't know if I can make myself any clearer, but I'll give it a try. You ask:
Are you certain that you're uncertain? How do you know?
No, I'm not "certain" of anything. I don't "know" anything for sure. But why do I need to? I get along just fine with the aching void in my being that this lack of certainty engenders in me.
In fact, right now, even though I'm uncertain of anything, as far as I can tell, I'm sitting here at my computer, in my workshop in Vienna, typing a reply to you. Do you believe this not to be the case? If so, tell me your explanation of how these words appear in your comment section. If you don't have a better story for the appearance of these words than that, why should I believe my apprehension is faulty?
We're all trying to make sense of the world as much as we can, and it makes the most sense to me that the world is pretty much the way it seems- that I'm sitting here typing, for instance, rather than being held prisoner on Planet X and dreaming. The nagging uncertainty that I might be wrong can be a mildly entertaining source of counterfactual narratives, but it doesn't really nag me the way you seem to think it should. Sorry, but you have yet to show why this should be a problem for me- it hasn't been so far. If my belief that I'm typing is a fantasy, it's a fantasy that fits very well with the rest of the fantasy that has been my life, and I don't see any reason to believe that there's anything outside that fantasy: thus the word "fantasy", in your sense, is rendered meaningless. That is, unless you can show me otherwise.
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.
Again, where is the infinite regress? I accept that my perceptions and cogitations are not perfect. Why do I have to be "certain" that I'm "uncertain"? Would you accept "it seems to me that I'm uncertain"? If not, why not?
The regress you have going here is not infinite- it merely culminates in a question something like "how can you be sure you exist?" But that's like asking the wind "how do you know if you're blowing?" The wind doesn't answer; it just keeps blowing.
cheers from twilighty Vienna, zilch
You sound like you're pretty certain that you're not certain, Zilch.
I'm pretty certain about a lot of things, boss, and it works well enough. I don't mind admitting I'm not absolutely certain about anything, and I don't see any problem with it. I think people get hung up on "absolute truth" (and lots of other thing, such as "objective morality") because words have the power to define worlds that are perfect, but don't necessarily exist in any form other than ideas or ideals, and are not necessarily congruent with the real world.
We need to keep in mind that "truth" is not a "thing" or an "entity", but is more like a map or story: it's an attempt to make a model of the world which represents it faithfully enough to be useful to us thinkers (including cockroaches, in their own humble way).
Truth, like love and fear, is a state of mind, and as soon as you start applying words like "certainty" to it, you are ascribing the absolute qualities of words and their relationships inappropriately to our mind, which is not so clear-cut. True, there are realms which I'm as certain about as I can be- for instance mathematics. But the real world is a great deal fuzzier, or at least so complex as to seem fuzzy to us mortals, so we must simply live with not being certain. Luckily, that's no big deal.
Thus, rho's constant demand for certainty about my uncertainty is a kind of category error. This very kind of error underpins a great deal of philosophy, and especially theology.
cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
So, given zilch's latest round of replies, it's clear he can do nothing but beg the question, so I'd like now to force him into a fresh round of question-begging on a slightly different topic.
I'm pretty certain about a lot of things, boss, and it works well enough.
Please spell out how you know that these things you claim to know are justified and warranted.
We need to keep in mind that "truth" is not a "thing" or an "entity"...Truth, like love and fear, is a state of mind,
Please spell out how you know that these things you claim to know are justified and warranted.
But the real world is a great deal fuzzier,
Please spell out how you know that these things you claim to know are justified and warranted.
In other words, you're basically pulling these things straight out of your rear end. I need a little more argument than "zilch sayeth thus".
Please spell out how you know that these things you claim to know are justified and warranted.
Please spell out what exactly you mean by "justified" and "warranted". This seems to me just another ploy to get your demand for "absolute certainty" in the backdoor, and as I've said, I don't claim to have a hotline to absolute certainty. I don't claim to "know" these things; this is just the way it seems to me. If you ask me if I'm sure it seems this way to me, then I'll just have to give you the answer the wind will give you, because we've come to the end of your reductum ad inanitum. Do you need God to tell you that you exist? I don't. If you don't believe I exist, that's your loss. If you claim I can't know whether I exist or not, well, that's the end of the discussion, isn't it?
In other words, you're basically pulling these things straight out of your rear end. I need a little more argument than "zilch sayeth thus".
What more do you want- your arguments are all of the form "rho sayeth thus", or "rho sayeth that the Bible sayeth thus", which is no more credible, unless you can independently substantiate the truth of the Bible. And give me a little slack- I'm not pulling my arguments straight out of my hind end- I'm at least trying to shape them and deposit them in the right places as well. As they say, those who think with their gut have shit for brains.
Please spell out what exactly you mean by "justified" and "warranted".
Why do you believe those things and not other things?
Do you believe that those things are true? If so, why?
Do you need God to tell you that you exist? I don't. If you don't believe I exist, that's your loss.
How do you know that?
What more do you want- your arguments are all of the form "rho sayeth thus", or "rho sayeth that the Bible sayeth thus", which is no more credible,
1) A repetition of what God says is true by definition, b/c God said it.
2) Now, on your own worldview I'd like to know how you know that such a statement is "no more credible". Please justify this statement.
. As they say, those who think with their gut have shit for brains.
How do you know "they" said that?
How do you know it is true?
"Please spell out how you know that these things you claim to know are justified and warranted."
You have continued to confused or conflated two things, knowledge and absolute certainty.
I have knowledge of this thing called gravity. If you believe that this is incorrect or unjustified or unwarrented, I invite you to take the elevator to the top floor of the Empire State Building. Then step off the ledge. Perhaps you will float off into the sky. Perhaps not.
Based on my "unjustified" knowledge, I'm betting it's the latter case that will hold.
How do you know you're actually observing an outside-world event? How do you know your brain isn't deceived?
How do you know you're actually observing an outside-world event? How do you know your brain isn't deceived?
I don't know with absolute certainty, but I'm also not stepping off the ledge.
Again, you wish for absolute certainty. I'll settle for knowledge.
rho: How do you know you're actually observing an outside-world event? How do you know your brain isn't deceived?
David: I don't know with absolute certainty, but I'm also not stepping off the ledge.
Again, you wish for absolute certainty. I'll settle for knowledge.
Me too, David. Rho- this is getting nowhere. You claim to have absolute certainty, but cannot prove it; and you claim that we are handicapped by not having absolute certainty, but cannot prove that either. Repeatedly demanding "how do you know for certain that you don't know for certain?" doesn't constitute an argument. The question is incoherent, and your claim that you can dismiss any argument of ours if we can't produce absolute certainty is simply petulant.
It reminds me of the day in seventh grade when I accidentally put on unmatched socks, and Allen Brown (name has not been changed to protect the guilty), a class bully, made fun of me unmercifully. At first, I was embarrassed and wanted to conceal my unmatched socks somehow, but finally I just said to him, "so what?" He just kept making fun of me, but he started sounding sillier and sillier even to himself. Maybe that will happen here too- it's my fervent desire.
You claim to have absolute certainty, but cannot prove it
Hold on a second, we haven't established that "proof" exists yet, nor that your brain is capable of accessing proof should it be proffered. Let's see some reason to think that is true before we start jumping 12 steps ahead.
So far, what I see is your religion. Your blind faith is in your cognitive faculties, and you have the gall to demand that I provide proof for my beliefs.
Repeatedly demanding "how do you know for certain that you don't know for certain?" doesn't constitute an argument
How do you know that is true? What is your justification for that statement, and what is your access to universal truths like what you're claiming to be producing here?
This has become redundant.
I'm not as philosophically literate as others so speak to me slowly.
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.
You got it, Rob- rho is basically hammering at the brain-in-a-vat problem. If you're a glutton for punishment, we've been at it for quite some time now, but we're not getting anywhere. And don't worry about not being philosophically literate- that's likely to be an advantage here rather than a disadvantage.
David- "redundant" is putting it mildly.
Rho- I said:
You claim to have absolute certainty, but cannot prove it
You replied:
Hold on a second, we haven't established that "proof" exists yet, nor that your brain is capable of accessing proof should it be proffered. Let's see some reason to think that is true before we start jumping 12 steps ahead.
So now it's up to me to explain to you the groundrules of discussion? No dice. 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?
So far, what I see is your religion. Your blind faith is in your cognitive faculties, and you have the gall to demand that I provide proof for my beliefs.
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.
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
Rob,
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.
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.
Although this thread is tedious, I enjoyed it because it does a great job of highlighting Rhology's core dysfunction.
The key problem is not Rho's epistemology, but his philosophy of language. He believes that when people are communicating, as I am now, that a sentence is to be interpreted as a proposition and a declaration of its truth.
However, people don't tend to use language for that purpose. Instead, we communicate to inform others of our beliefs and sometimes to persuade them to our beliefs. Absolute truth is required for persuasion only if the person to be persuaded has set that as their bar.
These clever word games that Rho plays in an attempt to point out problems with atheistic epistemology actually only to serve to demonstrate the absurdity of his requirement for absolute truth.
Rho's epistemology has a problem in that it requires the axiom of God's existence. To bring everyone else down to his level, he tries to make them either commit to an axiom themselves or admit that they know nothing with absolute truth. Of course, people are fine without absolute truth, but Rhology's philosophy of language entails that without absolute truth a person's sentences cannot even be understood. They are just babbling nonsense and so he feels entitled to disregard everything they say.
Rho, may I submit that you have two big problems:
1) With God's existence as an axiom instead of a supported claim, you leave yourself with no means of persuading anyone else to believe it.
2) By requiring absolute truth from people who don't claim to know absolute truth, you are being a petulant child and cutting yourself off from the world.
Rho, you have a built a wall around yourself through which no real communication can occur. That's a strange thing for a blogger and an evangelical to do.
people are fine without absolute truth
Are you saying that we can't know whether anything you've said here is actually true? Whether it actually corresponds with reality?
Is that not a dysfunction of YOUR epistemology?
You've asserted that requiring the axiom of God's existence is a problem, but you didn't demonstrate it.
you leave yourself with no means of persuading anyone else to believe it.
Prove to me that you are familiar with the Bible. So what?
2) By requiring absolute truth from people who don't claim to know absolute truth, you are being a petulant child and cutting yourself off from the world.
Are you sure about that, since there's no absolute truth?
Post a Comment