Bill Gnade's Argument in Support of Faith
Since Bill Gnade has visited and commented here at DC so often, I thought I would return the favor and comment on a Blog post of his….
In 2006 Bill made a particular religious argument on his Blog. Recently he said this about it: “I have asked dozens, perhaps hundreds of atheists to reply to my ‘Letter to Christopher Hitchens.’ Not one has done so.”
Okay, I will. Here is Bill’s argument.
Now there is a great deal I could say about it, but the whole point of his argument is what he said in the comments section where he wrote: I would first point out that I have not argued for or against the existence of God. You see, I am not interested in showing whether God exists; what interests me here is showing that religious belief and non-religious belief are both based in faith: therefore, one is not more or less reasonable than another. My argument, really, is that faith is the only viable epistemological foundation. Mr. Hitchens is in the same boat as any atheist or any theist: he cannot begin to know anything without beginning with a first axiom, premise or step reached by faith. I believe that since faith infuses both the believer's and the sceptic's position, then I can safely conclude that the question is something of a wash.
I really don’t need to engage the specific examples in his argument to show why it is a wrongheaded non-sequitur, although I could do so. The bottom line is that he’s correct to say we all begin with some sort of faith, since nothing can be proven with apodictic certainty, irrespective of his examples. I must trust my five senses in order to act in this world. I believe I exist as a human being and that the arm in front of me is mine, for the same reason. But I cannot apodictically prove these things. I believe these things. I believe I’m really typing these words in the year 2007, too. Conversely, I do not believe I’m merely dreaming in 2010 about typing these words in the year 2007.
I believe I have shown that the rational bases for religious and secular beliefs are identical, born in uncertainty. Epistemologically speaking, I…hold to the idea that religion and secularism are "religious" in essence, i.e., based in faith.
Okay so far? Faith is an essential aspect to knowledge claims. I agree. Without some faith we cannot claim to know anything…anything. Even the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum can only lead us to believe that “doubts exist,” not that there is an “I” who is doing the doubting. And even that meager claim gets us nothing much at all, nor does it lead to any other truth claim, contrary to Descartes’ argument.
One way to phrase Bill’s argument (using some of his very words) goes something like this:1) Knowledge claims that are based upon faith have no empirical evidence for them.
2) All knowledge claims that are based upon faith with no empirical evidence for them are in the same epistemological boat, in that one of them is not more or less reasonable than another.
3) All religious and non-religious knowledge claims are based on faith without empirical evidence for them.
.: Therefore, religious and non-religious knowledge claims are in the same epistemological boat, in that one of them is not more or less reasonable than another.
After I learn from Bill that I’ve construed his argument properly, I will proceed. If I've misconstrued it, then it would be a waste of time to deal with something that isn't his argument, and I humbly request he specify exactly what his argument is that I've missed.
30 comments:
I tried to read Bill's original article but I couldn't get past the worn out old argument about the atheist Soviet Union. Did he follow it up with atheist Hitler as well? Sorry, but if that is the quality of his writing and reasoning, then he ain't worth it.
Dear John W. Loftus,
In great haste: Greetings, and thank you!
You've done merely a fair job, I think, in constructing my argument, and I think you've presented one part very weakly. Perhaps you will permit me to summarize my position here:
In my "Letter to Christopher Hitchens," I claim that no person can prove his or her own existence -- to him or her self! Bold claim, I know. But I will stick with it. I hardly present that we all must begin with "some sort of faith" and that we can "trust our senses." In fact, I explore in my related post Kant's claim that there are limits to reason that are insurmountable -- that we cannot "trust" our senses at all. If we do, we do so on faith.
Moreover, I am not merely talking about knowledge claims vis-á-vis empiricism. I am talking about knowledge claims done in "pure reason," done without appealing to the senses: I cannot make my "self" a cognitive object of my own cognition. Hence, since all other claims do claim to possess a subject/object distinction, I am declaring that the very first epistemological distinction we try to make, namely, that 'I have a self that does not NOT exist and is unique,' is impossible to make without faith. The knowledge of the self is knowledge unlike any other: it is inferred, assumed; it is treated as axiomatic. It is so strange that most people have never even thought of it.
Again, my assertion is that none of us can "prove" our own existence -- to ourselves. In this sense I am probably a true idealist, perhaps a pure phenomenologist; nay, I am probably a Christian existentialist. (I am repeatedly asked to provide evidence for Christianity's claim that Christ exists as a divine being. When I counter that I would just like evidence for my own self's existence, I am greeted with silence most of the time.)
So, ultimately, what I am arguing for is this sense of epistemological humility: we don't KNOW what we claim to know. We claim to taste lemons as tart, and we cite that as evidence lemons exist. But all we can say is that our experience of tartness exists -- if that. We can't prove the lemon; we can only talk about the sensation of taste. The tartness may be something our senses do; and you know the epistemological dangers of inferring from effects to cause.
But there is more to this to discuss later.
I think I reject all three of your propositions.
Counter 1: Knowledge claims based on faith MAY have empirical evidence for them: we just need to know the limits of all forms of certitude, empirical or otherwise. Kant, I believe, would agree with me. This is about intellectual humility, and little else.
Counter 2: Most if not all knowledge claims are reasonable, meaning, we can indeed reason through them. We can discern whether a claim is valid or invalid, fallacious or not. But we must remember that what is reasonable and what is true are not even necessarily identical. Plus, I have asserted at DC that the Resurrection is utterly and entirely reasonable, even empirical: Christ is either alive or he isn't; his body exists or it doesn't. If Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was utterly empirical for the disciples. They did not rely on magic or a talisman or transcendent reason to divine his resurrection. But that does not remove the fact that faith was nevertheless required -- faith which is always an act of will. But if the resurrection occurred, it is clearly not contra-rational or non-empirical.
Counter 3. Following my 1 and 2, your 3 does not fit in with my argument.
Regardless of what I've written here, my interest is not someone commenting about MY COMMENTS, here or elsewhere. I want someone to explain how my argument proper as presented to Mr. Hitchens regarding the transcendental ego is, as you say, a "non sequitur." I challenge you to focus on that argument: I have asked you and others to reply strictly to the problems raised by Immanuel Kant. So, before we get too far afield here, I would hope that you would just stick to the essence of the matter: Am I right that we cannot prove ourselves to ourselves?
(As for my reference to faith as an act of will, I have posted an essay regarding my thoughts on that problem earlier today at my website.)
Again, as I've said many times this week, my gratitude for your generosity is inflated beyond measure. You are a generous soul. Thanks for discussing this difficult issue with me.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
Dear Bruce,
I am sorry to have offended you. As you will no doubt recall from what I wrote to Mr. Hitchens:
Now it would not necessarily win me a single polemical point if I mentioned that the secular state of the Soviet Union, a state committed solely to reason and the mechanization of society according to reason's laws, was itself prone to wielding something like a sword.
So, as you can tell, I placed no stock in my own observation. My intent was to show that atheists are not immune from being "clouded by unreason."
Moreover, you utterly missed the point, not merely of my essay, but of John's essay here. This is not "famous atheists" night at the DC Pub & Podium; this is about epistemology, about how we know what we know.
Of course, you have every right to opt out of what I expect will be an utterly winning, reasonable and capital discussion.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
(PS. If you do want to get to the nub of my argument that is on the table here, then return to my Hitchens letter and scroll down until you get to "The Transcendental Ego" subhead in bold type. In fact, you only missed it by one paragraph break. Good luck!)
Bill, didn't you say...I would first point out that I have not argued for or against the existence of God. You see, I am not interested in showing whether God exists; what interests me here is showing that religious belief and non-religious belief are both based in faith: therefore, one is not more or less reasonable than another.
I'm now confused as to your argument. I granted you with Kant that we don't experience the thing in itself (Ding an Sich). I granted you that all knowledge claims are based on faith. So I want to deal with what you think follows from Kant, which was what you said was your main point. [The argument about the self is used by you to make this argument, correct? While there is much to say about your example, the main point you make is after all, the main point, correct?]
Now you clarify by saying...So, ultimately, what I am arguing for is this sense of epistemological humility: we don't KNOW what we claim to know...This is about intellectual humility, and little else. And then you go on the claim the resurrection of Jesus took place. How can you doubt that you can observe your "self" and then go on to make any other reasonable knowledge claim?
Then you close with...So, before we get too far afield here, I would hope that you would just stick to the essence of the matter: Am I right that we cannot prove ourselves to ourselves?
In answer to this last question I already granted it. Apodictic certainty (or proof) is an impossible standard to base a knowledge claim.
Now, please tell me what you think follows from this argument of example of ours. It's this part that I think is a non-sequitur, by-passing the political nature of your post.
I'm just trying to understand you here, before I jump on your argument. Again, what follows from what you've argued? Do you now back down from your comment, when you said...what interests me here is showing that religious belief and non-religious belief are both based in faith: therefore, one is not more or less reasonable than another?
Cheers.
Dear John W. Loftus,
I make no claim to being clear. I try to be clear. I am sorry I've confused you.
Let me try this again, perhaps in the simplest possible form. I am saying this first of all:
A. I cannot prove my own existence to myself.
B. I am often asked to prove the existence of God.
C. If I can't even prove the existence of myself to myself, how can I prove the existence of God?
Also, I am simply saying that I accept myself -- I posit its existence -- so to speak, in and by faith. Hence, from that axiom, I then infer that I can begin to reason and that my senses correspond with reality. But I can't KNOW this in the sense other people claim to know things: some claim to be "rationalists," people of reason, in contrast to "fideists," people of faith. But we are all -- equally -- people of faith. When Will Hawthorne last week said to you that the existence of the universe is not a necessary truth, and I shared with you my agreement with him, I was trying to confirm that he was essentially saying the same thing I am saying here: the existence of the universe is a faith-based claim.
As for my claim that Jesus rose from the dead, I am merely stating this: Faith is the mid-wife, the source even, of reason and empiricism. No one's worldview begins in either reason or empiricism; everyone's worldview begins by a faith move and reason and empiricism are faith's derivatives, faith's children. But what is posited on faith is HUGE, namely such important things as the self, the existence of the universe, the correspondence of the senses to reality, the correspondence of mind to matter, the correspondence of logic to ideas, the effective of language in conveying truth, and the existence of natural laws and how we know them. None of these are goals achieved by reason; they are things rooted in and born of faith. Hence, in one sense the resurrection of Christ is pre-rational, i.e., based in faith; in another, it is perfectly rational, i.e., it is able to be discussed and analyzed rationally as a consequence of faith.
Accepting this over-arching pre-rational fact of faith is not only epistemologically expedient, it humbles us. Humility is the most important component to learning, or so I believe. Without it, learning is nearly impossible. And so is true experience.
Does anyone here quibble with my assertion that the self cannot prove its own existence? If I am wrong about this, how then do we KNOW the self exists? But if we can't answer this, then how are we Christians to answer the very demanding -- and not at all humble -- questions that I, for instance, present "extraordinary evidence" for the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus Christ? If we can't prove the existence of ourselves to ourselves; and if I can't even prove my existence to you, then where do we get off making such demands of one another?
(Please note that I have not asked a single person here for evidence or proof. If I have, well, I am confident I did so but one or two times. I've certainly not asked you to prove anything; I don't expect you to prove God's non-existence or on what basis you place your morality, just to name two examples.)
What else is required to posit the existence of self? Not just faith: it is an act of will, of desire: we WANT to believe we exist, AND we want to actually exist, AND we want to believe we can know.
And thus I believe Nietzsche and others, like Schopenhauer, to be mostly right: this life is about WILLING, and not just about being "convinced" or "persuaded." What do you WANT to believe? That is perhaps the only question. If you do not want Christ, Christ you shall not have; if you do not want existentialism, you shall not be an existentialist. But once the desire is known, we can then see if the object of that desire makes sense, or corresponds with some "objective" reality: we let desire and faith give birth to our reason, and we follow our reason as far as we can (and sometimes we have to turn around).
That is why there is, ultimately, no "winning" here. The only way either of us can be on the same page in all things spiritual or intellectual is not through our intellects, or the irresistibility of our arguments; it is for one of us to desire to believe something else.
Seriously, John, you don't have to explore my argument. I have said to you several times that my beliefs are simply that, my beliefs, and they are probably a lot of hooey. I am sure that someone can ably shred my claim -- and it is not my claim, by the way, but Kant's, et al -- that the self cannot know itself as object. Well, perhaps not. But that's OK, too.
Lastly, if the subjectivists' claims that I read in so many places are indeed true -- that the universe possesses no metaphysic by which my personal pursuit of meaning can be judged right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse; if the universe leaves me free to create whatever paradigm makes the most sense for me while I wait for my total annihilation, then I cannot be wrong: I am merely following what I create for myself. I am free.
By faith.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
PS. If you choose to explore this further, I will let you and others hash this out. I will return in a couple of days; maybe I will chime in. I am interested in what others have to say. As I said in my own blog post today, I am quite tired of myself. Blessings!
After reading this and the comments on your blog I think you dismantled your own case by saying that when it comes to your faith you "will it."
The only thing I can say in response is this, "what if you will the wrong faith?" The point is that willing something does not make it so. And you've given me no reason not to will my particular beliefs, either, and I admit they are indeed beliefs of mine.
From my perspective you "will" meaning in your life that isn't to be found objectively because of a psychological need to find that meaning. A meaningless existence is a difficult belief to embrace. We recoil against it. It isn't what we'd like to find. So instead of dealing with the harsh realities of existence you simply will it otherwise.
It's a sad thing for me to see you do this. Why not follow the evidence instead, "come hell or high water?" Face reality like a man. Meet it head on. Admit what you must believe. Stop playing pretend. Children do that. Grow up.
If you decide to do this, I'll help you see the beauty of life. I'll show you how that knowing this life is all there is makes every day special. Roses smell sweeter. Laughter is richer. You no longer have to live in a fairy tale land with superstitious beliefs. You can celebrate life. You no longer have to defend your God's ways or why he doesn't do what normal civilized people do when ther is human suffering. You no longer have to defend the beliefs in the Bible, which cannot be done. You can get on with life, find happiness, joy, and excitement.
Ahhhh, but I'm wasting my time...
Cheers.
Bill,
"Does anyone here quibble with my assertion that the self cannot prove its own existence?"
Sure. The proposition I do not exist cannot even be coherently asserted when the indexical 'I' refers to the person uttering the proposition. Necessarily, if you doubt that you exist, then you exist.
John,
You say in response to Bill, "After reading this and the comments on your blog I think you dismantled your own case by saying that when it comes to your faith you 'will it.'"
In all fairness, I think you're mischaracterizing Bill's position. As I read him, he's not claiming that we are left with willpower alone. Rather, he's saying that our epistemic commitments are first motivated by our doxastic will (or desire), and thereafter they can be maintained by reason.
Here's some textual evidence:
"And thus I believe Nietzsche and others, like Schopenhauer, to be mostly right: this life is about WILLING, and not just about being "convinced" or "persuaded." What do you WANT to believe? ... [O]nce the desire is known, we can then see if the object of that desire makes sense, or corresponds with some "objective" reality: we let desire and faith give birth to our reason, and we follow our reason as far as we can (and sometimes we have to turn around)." (Bold mine.)
Morever, you respond to Bill by saying:
So instead of dealing with the harsh realities of existence you simply will it otherwise.
It's a sad thing for me to see you do this. Why not follow the evidence instead, "come hell or high water?" Face reality like a man. Meet it head on. Admit what you must believe. Stop playing pretend. Children do that. Grow up.
To the contrary, Bill strikes me as somebody who has evaluated his own worldview with a great deal of intellectual maturity and insight. I think you should read his posts a bit more carefully before you accuse him of being childish.
bill said:
"No one's worldview begins in either reason or empiricism; "
But we use reason and empiricism before we are even capable of a worldview.
Dear John W. Loftus (and Will Hawthorne, in passing),
Late night greetings to you!
John, had you spent more than a relatively short time at my blog, or perusing my many comments throughout DC, you would note that I am unafraid to look into the hardest of life's problems. I do indeed face reality very much like a man. That is why I am not afraid to explore the problems of human estrangement. After all, estrangement is what I am talking about: estrangement from the self (the self can't justify itself and knows it is contingent), estrangement from the senses (we can only know phemonena and not things-in-themselves), estrangement from nature (animals flee at our sight; parasites line our intestines), estrangement from language (there is not a poet or lover who does not feel this), estrangement from the means of production or society, and so much more.
I am not willing ANYTHING that does not look squarely at the abyss and the estrangement problem. I am not given to simple solutions; you have not seen me posit one here. I am given to an honesty that does not flinch from the fact that the self cannot make itself an object of itself. (Descartes tried and failed; his cogito, rephrased in this thread by Will H., does not work either.) I heartily admit to humanity's estrangement from BEING. But I do not suddenly leap to willing some grand naïveté, some escapist, pie-in-the-sky distraction. I am merely willing by faith the existence of self, a self that wants to believe it is real; a self that wants to know it is OBJECTIVELY and ABSOLUTELY real. I am talking about the desire NOT to be estranged from BEING, from language, nature and even other folks. And as in all my arguments, I stare right into the face of mortality. I start with the hardest stuff possible.
How is that unmanly?
But we seem to be stuck in my comments again. What about the argument proper? Am I wrong that the self cannot prove itself? Will Hawthorne thinks so, but I think his statement truly begs the question. My question is not a tautology as, I think, he implies.
Will, however, is the logician here, I am not. His statement strikes me as a form of petitio principii, but I am not skilled enough to know whether he has committed such a simple error.
So, John, I am sorry you feel cheated. I don't. As I said in reply to you at my website, I have not put forward my full argument. There is no reason to put it forward yet if this part is junk. Is what I wrote to Christopher Hitchens junk? How? And how is that original essay a paean to cowardice?
Again, you need not ever reply to this. If you want, I permit you to end here. I am not looking to win; I am not looking for anything. You asked me what my basis for Christian belief was, and this is the beginning of my answer.
And I am sorry, truly sorry, if you think you've wasted time. As I said back at my place, my interaction with you -- and everyone here -- is the sort of relationship I consider "life changing."
Thank you, again, for not only taking me seriously, but for treating me with critical kindness.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
PS. Will, I appreciate that you've taken the time to interact with what I am doing; your kind defense is noted. As I've said to you before (in an email I hope you received), you are gifted. Pace.
Dear Paul01,
I have no problem with what you've written. Should I? Maybe I should, but I don't see why I should. Do you care to elaborate?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill
Your arguements are very interesting and i could happily spend an hour or two talking about them with you and coming up with all kind of odd results, but at the end of the day, while you haven't written anything wrong you also haven't written anything remotely useful.
Under the system of doubt of all things and lack of proof of existence of even the self, anything and everything becomes possible and undisprovable. Hence i can tell you that a giant talking banana has just handed me a landmine and told me to use it as an ear plug and your arguement is forced to accept my statment just as seriously as any other.
Reason and empiricism are based on certain faith based statements, true. to whit
1) i exist
2) what i percieve is probably true you probably exist too
3) I perceive you so you probably exist too
4) i should verify that 2 and 3 are correct by asking if you percieve what i percieve
From here we build up a world by testing what we percieve against what we want to believe. When the two add up, hurrah, its real. When the two don't add up, boohoo, the beliefs are probably wrong.
This system allows us to discover all kinds of useful things and to make sense of the world.
When i drive to a junction and see an oncoming car, i think "an oncoming car, i'll brake". Or i could think "an oncoming car, however, since i cannot even be certain of my own existence, how can i be sure of the the existence of the oncoming car". The first statement allows me to make a decision, the second doesn't.
Thus when we say "prove god exists", we simply aren't talking about the kind of proof you are talking about, and you know this. You also know that there is not a shred of evidence or proof for your god so you retreat into these mildly interesting but utter pointless philosophical discussions.
At the end of the day, you believe in a god for which you have no evidence. You may have various faith based reasons for this belief but its not something you can put forward as acceptable evidence. Trying to destroy the entire basis of conceptual reality does not make your deity real, it makes everything irrelevant.
I sorry if this comment comes across as a little heated but i've had this discussion with other christians in person and its so non-sensical that it infuriates me. Lack of proof for all existence is not proof of the existence of any particular god.
And i know that you haven't made the direct link between your arguement and the existence of god, but thats what you imply by using the arguement in the fashion you have.
Remember also that when an atheist decries faith as foolish he is not merely commenting on believe or faith as such, i for instance have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, this in no way is unreasonable. We are decrying specific issues taken solely on faith. Your believes as a christian for instance. The belief that a man rose from the dead and then ascended bodily into heaven is frankly unfounded. There is no empirical evidence for it, why therefore should it be believed. And Mr Hitchen's point (to return to your letter) was that doing anything based on the creed supposedly taught by a mythic zombie is deeply foolish.
Retreating into Kantian doubts over the existence of the self or of perceptual reality does not make belief in a mythological figure any more reasonable.
Hawthorne before you answer Bill's "self" problem shouldn't you first seek to understand it better? That's one of the reasons I passed on it and granted him the main point, irrespective of Descartes, since Cartesian argumentation doesn't cough up an "I" either.
Bill is talking about something that arises with Kant who wrote to answer Hume's conception of the self as a "bundle of sensations." Maybe Bill is trying to ask about what it is that is called the "self" and how he knows it? Since I didn't want to take the time with these sorts of questions I tried to get at the heart of his argument.
And then there's the problem of mischaracterizing Bill's views. I think I understand them. I just think in the end that if someone begins his quest with "will" then he will find the reasons to justify his beliefs, that's all. See what Jason Long and Lee Randolph has said about this.
And I do think Bill has done some deep thinking about his beliefs. I did not call him "childish," for that term has some connotative meanings I don't imput to him at all as an adult. I was merely equating the desire to wish upon a religious star with the refusal to grasp reality by the horns. Willing a delusional world in order not to do so is unbecoming of the adult thinker he really is.
Dear bill- you say:
A. I cannot prove my own existence to myself.
B. I am often asked to prove the existence of God.
C. If I can't even prove the existence of myself to myself, how can I prove the existence of God?
Now, perhaps because I'm more scientifically oriented, and a philosophical naïf, I don't see a problem here. As far as I can see, "proof" only obtains in systems of formal logic, such as mathematics. Of course we can't "prove" that anything exists outside of our perceptions, for we might be in vats à la Matrix, or dreams of the Butterfly Beings of Planet X.
But that doesn't stop us from making educated guesses. In fact, without educated guesses, we'd all long since have been eaten by saber-tooth cats. And my "faith" in the origin of the Universe consists of this: I don't know how the Universe came to be, or even if the question is meaningful. And I can't "prove" that God didn't create the Universe. But my experience has shown that complex structures and beings, especially ones that manifest intelligence, do not appear out of nothing: they evolve from simpler beginnings. And if God is the Creator of the Universe, then He must be complex and intelligent. If He is simple, then He might as well not exist, or simply be identified as the "beginning", in which case He is not distinguishable from no God.
Thus, while I cannot "prove" that God does not exist, I can say, based on my knowledge (imperfect as it is), that it is unlikely that God exists. Furthermore, I know that people have ulterior, mostly unconscious, reasons for postulating gods and demigods of all kinds. This lends plausibility to the thesis that God is just another story, like Santa or the Tooth Fairy, and no more likely than they are to exist.
So just because we cannot "prove" or "disprove" the existence of ourselves, or God, does not mean that we cannot make educated guesses about the likelihood of their existence.
Bill...I am not afraid to explore the problems of human estrangement. After all, estrangement is what I am talking about.
Yes, this is the human condition and it has been expressed by the Myth of Sisyphus, and thinkers such as Pascal, Marx, Satre, Camus, and Francis Schaeffer. I know about it. I feel it. The question to be resolved is why this human condition exists in the first place. Your answer is to be found in an absolutely good God, but that answer makes no sense to me at all.
My answer is to be found in Camus who wrote, “it was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have some meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully.” We do so, he argued, by revolting against the absurd. Doing so is fully embracing the fact of this existence without living in a pretend world of delusion, with what William James described as “a tough minded” temperament (James was himself “tender-minded.”).
Bill...I heartily admit to humanity's estrangement from BEING. But I do not suddenly leap to willing some grand naïveté, some escapist, pie-in-the-sky distraction.
I think you do...sorry...given your justification for your beliefs. At least you are honest with why you believe. Many other Christians, probably including Hawthorne, claim they believe because of the evidence.
What about the argument proper? Am I wrong that the self cannot prove itself? Will Hawthorne thinks so, but I think his statement truly begs the question. My question is not a tautology as, I think, he implies.
As I understand you, I think you are correct. But what I need to know is what follows from your argument.
And I am sorry, truly sorry, if you think you've wasted time.
Only in so far as I do with anyone who disagrees with me her at DC. Your beliefs have no basis other than “will” and I can’t seem to find the words or the arguments to help you see this.
For the illusive reality of bill gnade:
As the supreme deity sleeps, He enters the mental state of dreams where His deepest desires are expressed in the serene state of sub-mental consciousness. While there and in ultimate loneliness, and His only desire is to be needed, He dreamed into existence a world where ideas and mystery immerge with the emulation of shades of Himself called humans controlling a cosmos of non-reality. God’s dreams included a self-identification crisis only mediated though self struggle and doubt where humanity expressed it self in its’ own theological concepts. As the deity continued to dreamed, His own loneliness and doubts began to remerge with an illusive state of mental desires meeting with the awakening moment of an apocalyptic end to this state of rest. As the Deity once more awoke, His mental creation and its dreamed reality disappeared along with the cosmos and the humanity He once desired.
Now, once more eternally alone and devoid of the only part of self-identification to give Himself meaning, He doubted His own nature and its reality and now even God Himself was no more.
Thus, let us not try to understand our own existence for which we have no proof as we are indeed only part of a fleeting dream soon to emerge once again into the eternal state nothingness as our Deity or our supreme desire will soon re-emerge from His slumber.
Oh yes, I forgot estrangement. Bill, you said:
After all, estrangement is what I am talking about: estrangement from the self (the self can't justify itself and knows it is contingent), estrangement from the senses (we can only know phemonena and not things-in-themselves), estrangement from nature (animals flee at our sight; parasites line our intestines), estrangement from language (there is not a poet or lover who does not feel this), estrangement from the means of production or society, and so much more.
Speaking again from my philosophical naïveté, it seems to me that these kinds of estrangement reflect rather your emotional state than something that defines our relationships with the various things you mention. I would say to your estrangement from:
self- this only makes sense if you know that there is some better or fuller way of knowing oneself. I think what we have is what we got.
senses- I'm not sure what this can mean. Our senses feed us qualia, which are not subject to judgement: they just are. Of course, they do not reflect perfectly what is out there in the real world. But what does? I would argue that the Ding an Sich is not accessible to us: all we have are our senses and our reason. But how could it be otherwise?
nature- now this is just silly (sorry). Of course animals flee from us: we are big scary animals ourselves. And parasites are just making a living like everyone else. Where's the estrangement?
means of production- how are we estranged from means of production? Sure, we're not all farmers any more. But we don't have to be- modern society has freed many of us to produce other things: blogs, music, weapons...
In other words, I don't see how this "estrangement" of yours is anything other than an intellectual pose (if I may be blunt).
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
Cheers to Austria from humble New Hampshire! Peace!
Since you think my argument emotional, I ask you: If you concede -- and you do -- that we are indeed estranged from ourselves and our senses, then is your concession based in your emotions? And if you don't concede this, then is that position of yours not also rooted in the emotional?
As for estrangement from nature, let me state it differently (it was 2 AM when I wrote what I did, so, talk about estrangement): Nature is not something we fully understand; it is not something we fully (or even remotely) apprehend. If we did understand it fully, I doubt we would be exploring it like we do, under every rock and in every gene. What are we looking for? And surely the cancer victim knows that we hardly have mastery over our world. Besides, you have admitted that our senses cannot access nature completely; hence, we are indeed estranged from nature. But we are also estranged in another way, or so it seems: the rest of nature does not make ANY inquiries; every other living thing appears content with what is given, while humans turn over stones. You aren't content with what is "given," with what "just is," are you? I know I am not; each of us seeks answers and meaning and purpose. How is it that we are so unlike every other creature on the planet? But if we say we don't know if other creatures are comfortable in their blithe ignorance, then we admit once again that we are estranged from (the rest of) nature.
I am not saying that I necessarily believe that all humans -- certainly not even most -- are estranged from the means of production. But clearly we can look to countless sources -- from novels to philosophies (like Marx's) to rock albums (Pink Floyd's "Animals") to films, that suggest quite effectively that we are indeed estranged from our work: our work cannot really fulfill us. Can it? Can your partitioned role in the world as an economic contributor fulfill you? I'd hate to think so. Aren't you more than your socio-economic role?
In your opinion, my position is actually emotional: I am only striking a "pose" (your word) as if it was a viable intellectual position.
Well, I am not above including my emotions in my search for truth. That is why I mention the estrangement from language: there are things in the heart no language can access or express.
You seem to be suggesting that you have no such alienation of the heart; that everything you've written here is purely born of your intellect, unclouded by emotion.
Is that true?
But in the end, I can do nothing more than to praise you for conceding my main point: the self is estranged from itself. You appear to have no desire to explore why this is problematic, or whether there is an answer to the problem. You think there really is no problem: "We just is, and that be all." Am I wrong about that? It matters not, really, because I have repeatedly said that you are indeed free to do and believe whatever you wish.
Peace to you, dear Zilch.
Bill Gnade
Dear Gribble the Munchkin,
Now that is a very lovely and delightful screen name! Thanks for manufacturing it. It makes me chuckle. Levity is always good, even from an impish and surely spry creature.
I don't quite see how in one breath you can say that my arguments are interesting and then in the next breath say, essentially, that they are not one whit interesting. But I know that impish souls are full of riddles, so I tread warily. I never know when you will send me another riddle.
If you were to read all that I've posted so far at DC -- which would be know small task, I know -- you would know that I've already addressed -- or at least touched on -- many of your suspicions here. I am not saying I've answered a thing; I probably haven't. But be patient with me; I promise to share -- barring some tragedy -- what makes sense of all this for me. I have already hinted at; I've more than hinted at it.
As for there not being a shred of evidence for God's existence, well, perhaps you are right. Do you want there to be evidence? Are you saying that you will believe if there IS a shred of evidence? How can we know when enough evidence is provided?
Just wondering. You don't need to answer. I am really only interested right now in the central argument as presented in the argument proper. You seem to concede the point: we cannot prove ourselves to ourselves.
Peace to you, dear Munchkin.
Bill Gnade, of Keeblerville
Dear Harry McCall,
Hello, Harry! I hope this note finds you well.
I cannot really reply to what you've posted here. How can I? You've described my reality as "elusive." Of course, if all meaning is in the final chapter subjective, then my reality can be as fixed or as fluid as I wish. I pray this does not frustrate you or your interest in bringing my opinions into conformity with an objective, standard reality.
Puzzles everywhere, it seems!
I promise to elucidate my ideas further. For now, I am just interested in learning whether folks here agree that the self cannot prove itself to itself. Do you think I am wrong for believing this?
Peace and mirth,
Bill Gnade, the Ever-Elusive Fixater
Bill, don't frustrate me any longer. What FOLLOWS from your argument, since I've already granted no one can apodictically prove anything? That's where I will find the non-sequitur. Please, specific. Be precise.
Cheers.
Bill
"Impish and surely spry?"
Why thank you, Mr Gnade.
I don't find your ideas uninteresting, only unhelpful, pointless if you will.
As for your question on how much evidence would i require to believe in the existence of a god entity. I would need several things.
1) something that has no other possible explanation.
2) a weight of evidence that make not believing in god harder to do than believing in him.
If god flew down from the heavens with hordes of fiery angels, destroyed a nation and made a speech to the UN, you bet i'd be dropping to my knees and (after quickly assertaining which god he/she was) bursting into prayer. The lack of such behaviour outside of bronze age myths doesn't inspire confidence.
But back to my arguement, and yours. I don't find it uninteresting, simply irrelevant. If we cannot trust our senses, then we cannot determine anything. Therefore trusting our senses until we have good reason to do so is a sound idea. On this is then built the reasoned and empirical world view that we mostly live in.
John has it right, the relevant stuff is what comes after you admit and then discard Kants views.
Bill
On the question of proving the self, I have been mulling what a self might be, or what proof of it might be, and I have turned over a number of thoughts, which are probably not productive.
I will however present one question for your consideration. Does not the fact that we can lie to ourselves in some way prove there is a self?
You yourself mentioned existentialism, and I assume you are familiar with Sartre, and his analysis of mauvaise foi, especially as presented in his little essay "Existentialism is a humanism". One example: I am invited to try snowboarding, and I say "no thanks, I am no good at sports". Of course, this is no good, because I do not know till I try. I either decide to go snowboarding, or I don't. There is no fact about me that can determine whether I go snowboarding.
There is a bit of a paradox here, if you know Sartre, because the bad faith consists in treating oneself as an accomplished fact (en soi), while in fact one is as yet without essence in regard to snowboarding or anything else. So there is no essence, no self. And yet bad faith can really only be described as lying to oneself, so that one is a self in some relevant sense of the word (pour soi, not en soi).
But it is not the definition of self that I want to focus on, it is rather the inescapable fact that we sometimes lie to ourselves in this fashion, and that we are often forced to admit it. I really don't think there is any convincing way to deconstruct the phrase "lie to ourselves", and that it does ineluctably imply a self, though not a self as object. Nonetheless, it does seem that this inescapability constitutes a sort of proof that is not really an act of faith. (Of course faith is another word with various meanings).
None of this has much to do with Kant, but perhaps that is not a very good approach anyway.
*****
I haven't forgotten about my previous comment, and your request for elaboration, but I am still a little foggy on that, although I think there is something I want to say.
bill- perhaps we just have different ideas about what "estrangement" means. To my mind, estrangement is separation from something or someone that was once closer, or better known: to be estranged from one's parents, or lover, or country, for instance. The kinds of "estrangement" you describe are, for me, simply relationships that are not, never were, and perhaps never can be fully understood.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that in all the cases you mentioned- estrangement from nature, from the self, and so on- that our relationship with the estranged is not as close as once it was, or as it could conceivably be. Is this a fair interpretation of your position?
If so, I would contest this. I see no evidence that there ever was, or could be, a qualitatively different kind of relationship with nature, or with our selves, than we have now. Of course these relationships change; and one could say that we are "estranged" from nature now, because we don't sleep under the stars, or pick the food we eat, or shit in the woods, as we used to. I'll agree with that, and even agree that it is indeed a problem, one which leads us to devalue our environment.
But this is not what I would call "estrangement". We have always exploited nature, just as all living things do, for our own needs. The difference is that we now exploit nature in greater numbers and with more powerful tools than ever before.
You say:
But we are also estranged in another way, or so it seems: the rest of nature does not make ANY inquiries; every other living thing appears content with what is given, while humans turn over stones. You aren't content with what is "given," with what "just is," are you? I know I am not; each of us seeks answers and meaning and purpose. How is it that we are so unlike every other creature on the planet?
Lots of other animals turn over stones, too. Curiosity is an indispensible trait for learning useful things about the environment for many other creatures besides humans. But we are unlike every other creature on the planet, because we alone evolved the critical mass of intelligence that bootstrapped us into a new phase of curiosity: language that enables us to upload, disseminate, and download information from mind to mind, and construct models of the world that set us on a never-ending quest of questioning.
That doesn't constitute "estrangement" for me, because our knowledge of nature has increased too. What I would like to describe our relationship to nature is a word that combines the meanings of "transcend" and "transgress", but I don't know of any.
In any case, I still don't see how you have established that "estrangement" is a problem, or a question to be answered, and not just a wistful desire to know more about the world. The desire I can sympathize with, burning with it as I do myself. But that we have this desire doesn't establish anything about God, or how the world works.
Bill, congratulations - you must be doing something right to warrant a post devoted to your position- as a former atheist, I know only too well how frustrating the gospel can be to one who tries to possess and control and utlimatey erase "god" - ugh! But it is very good news, indeed, to be set free from that pardigm.
as a former atheist, I know only too well how frustrating the gospel can be to one who tries to possess and control and utlimatey erase "god"
If you were an atheist, what were you doing trying to possess and control God? You can't erase that which does not exist. As a former Christian I'm glad the God of the bible no longer possesses or controls my thoughts!
But it is very good news, indeed, to be set free from that pardigm.
Only the truth will set you free, my friend, and you won't find it in Christianity. I know, I've been there.
Ah yes, it is much better to have other people controlling and manipulating your life, Sean - yes, the truth will set you free - the best of luck to you, Sean..
Ah yes, it is much better to have other people controlling and manipulating your life, Sean
There are no "other people" controlling and manipulating my life, so I don't know what you are referring to, unless you are delusional and believe you have the power to see into the details of another person's life without having ever met them. Oh, right, you are trapped in the fantasyland of Christian belief, so anything is possible in your mind. Take care!
JWL said to ”Bill, don't frustrate me any longer. What FOLLOWS from your argument, since I've already granted no one can apodictically prove anything? That's where I will find the non-sequitur. Please, specific. Be precise.”
John, I think you have overlooked Bill’s very simple point – perhaps the complexity and intellectual gymnastics you both clearly enjoy has drawn you away from simplicity itself to where reason is not the issue, but rather the complexity of reason.
Cast back to your OP where you said ”The bottom line is that he’s correct to say we all begin with some sort of faith, since nothing can be proven with apodictic certainty, irrespective of his examples” At this point you agree with Bill and I with you. However you then proceed to contaminate the simple truth of Bill’s argument by misdirecting us away from the theology with ”I must trust my five senses in order to act in this world. I believe I exist as a human being and that the arm … … “. This is of course a red herring, and skilfully laid indeed for it succeeded in misleading the bulk of the comment that followed – Bill's included – away from Bill’s key point with which even you did not take issue, namely: ”I am not interested in showing whether God exists; what interests me here is showing that religious belief and non-religious belief are both based in faith: therefore, one is not more or less reasonable than another.”
Now I understand that the typical atheist takes the position that their atheism is based on reason – a sort of pseudo-intellectual high ground. Bill’s point is clearly that this is not the case – atheism is faith based. Nothing in the above contradicts this!
Sala kahle - peace
Post a Comment